Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener), it is my pleasure to introduce eight students from Castle Frank High School here in Toronto with their teachers, Mrs. Morris and Miss Pavelich, and I ask the members to join with me in welcoming them.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, again today I take great pleasure in drawing to your attention the presence of some 90 students from Downsview Secondary School who are sitting in the gallery. This is the third large group from Downsview Secondary School that has been in attendance in the past week, and there is yet a fourth group to come. I think the members of the House by now should know that Downsview Secondary School is situated in the riding of Downsview. Many of the students come from the riding represented by the hon. member for Yorkview, so on behalf of the people of Downsview I wish to introduce these people to the members and ask for their recognition, and I’m sure my friend from Yorkview will want to say a few words as well.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, just a word in addition to add my welcome on behalf of Yorkview to the students who are here today from Downsview Secondary School. I’m sure the House will want to welcome them in the usual way.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): I thought we were going to have the Wayne and Shuster hour.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): Mr. Speaker, may I introduce to the members of the Legislature 23 grade 8 students and their teacher, Mr. Webster, from the community of Britt. They attend the Britt Public School in the great riding of Parry Sound. I would ask you to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SALARIES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the members of the House that a contract agreement has been reached between the government and the 696 teachers who teach in provincial schools for the blind and deaf, correctional institutions and hospital schools. Tentative agreement was reached in the early hours of last Saturday morning, after eight days of bargaining between negotiators of three teachers’ groups and the Ministries of Education and Correctional Services. Tuesday evening this agreement was ratified overwhelmingly by about 97 to 98 per cent.

On average, the new contracts will provide an increase of 17.8 per cent for the 1974-1975 school year, retroactive to last Sept. 1. Minimum starting salaries will be $6,300, rising to a maximum of $19,000 after 13 years’ experience.

In addition to the salary increase, Mr. Speaker, the government also agreed to increase its share of group life insurance premiums to 100 per cent and OHIP from 66% per cent to 90 per cent. Also, we have agreed to pay the total premium for extended health care and supplementary hospital insurance, two new features of the benefits plan.

In recognition of the unique nature of these schools, the teachers were granted a $300 increase in a special allowance paid to them, raising it to $900 per year from the previous $600. They also gained an extra $50 in a special allowance payable immediately.

The settlement contains provision for a complete category classification review for all 696 teachers, incorporating the recommendations of the Qualification Evaluation Council of Ontario and the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation. Acknowledging the specific nature of these schools, the category definitions have been modified to accommodate the special requirements of our teachers.

The agreement also provides additional increases in responsibility allowances for principals and vice-principals and increases for resource and liaison teachers.

Mr. Speaker, in separate negotiations, correctional teachers and the government agreed to develop a mutually acceptable grievance procedure for these teachers during the next year.

The government and the three teachers’ groups agree to form a joint committee to consider and recommend a new contract relationship which will include collective bargaining rights for the teachers. The discussions which just concluded marked the first time that negotiation procedures were used to establish the contract terms between the government and the teachers in the provincial schools.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to report the terms of this settlement today. I must say that the bargaining that went on between the teachers and the government exhibited a full degree of good faith between both parties and reflected a sincere wish on both sides to achieve settlement without confrontation or disruption of service to the citizens of Ontario.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT LEGISLATION

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, as the members are aware, several meetings have been held between the Management Board of Cabinet and officials of the Civil Service Association to discuss proposed changes in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

At the latest meeting, which was held earlier today, I reviewed with the CSAO the draft of proposed changes which will be tabled in the Legislature in the very near future. I would like to summarize the legislative changes that are now being prepared.

The members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the CSAO asked for 24 changes in the Act. Some of these were procedural in nature; others were fundamental to the negotiating process. We have advised the CSAO that the government proposes to introduce amendments to the Act in the following areas:

1. Section 1(1)(g)(v) of the Act to be changed so that persons employed on a casual or temporary basis will be considered “employees” under the Act from the date of hire as opposed to after six months of continuous employment, as at present. The exception to the new arrangement would be students employed during the regular vacation period or on a co-operative educational training programme, or a person not ordinarily required to work more than one-third of the normal work period for persons performing similar work.

2. A new section of the Act to provide for a pre-hearing vote which will accelerate the process of recognition of a bargaining agent.

3. Section 8(1) to be revised so as to give the tribunal broader authority to prescribe “such mediation procedure as the tribunal decides will be most effective to realize a collective agreement.” At present, the tribunal is confined to the mediation procedures as set out in the Act.

4. Section 16(2) to be revised to empower an arbitration board to determine the term of operation of an agreement where the parties fail to agree on the term. At present, the board can only award on the basis of a two-year term.

5. Section 42(2) to be changed to provide that an employer that contravenes any provision of the Act is guilty of an offence and on summary conviction is liable to the same fine structure as an employee organization. That is to say, a fine of not more than $5,000 for every day that the contravention exists.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): That’s helpful.

Mr. Singer: Who are they going to charge under that?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I haven’t decided that yet.

An hon. member: Not me. The member for Downsview.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No. 6. New sections to be added to the Act to allow an employee organization to apply to the tribunal for recognition of a change of name, recognition as the successor bargaining agent by reason of a merger or a transfer of jurisdiction and recognition of successor rights where two or more bargaining units are merged. In the case of a transfer of jurisdiction or claim of successor rights, the tribunal would conduct a vote to determine if the employees are in favour of the proposed change.

Turning, now to those sections of the Act which have the greatest impact on our bargaining relationship and in which the bargaining agents are most anxious to see some change, the government is prepared to recommend the following changes:

7. The grievance board and the tribunal to be reconstituted along partisan lines. In both cases, there would be a chairman, one or more vice-chairmen and members, equal in number, representative of employees and employers respectively. The chairman, vice-chairmen and members would be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council following consultation with the representatives of each bargaining agent and each employer.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): And if they disagree, who does it?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: 8. The method of appointing the chairman of an arbitration board to be changed. Each party will continue to appoint a member to the board as at present, and the two members so appointed would appoint a third person to act as chairman. If the two members fail to agree on a chairman, the appointment would be made by the tribunal.

9. Section 6 of the Act to be amended so that the following additional matters will be negotiable: Promotion, demotion, transfers, layoffs for lack of work or reappointment of employees, and the classification and job evaluation system.

10. Section 17(1) to be amended to delete those matters that have been added to section 6 and will be further amended to provide that the governing principles of merit system, training and development, appraisal and superannuation will be subject to review by the employer with the bargaining agent.

The change in the method of appointing the chairman of an arbitration board is an important area where there has been widespread criticism of the present Act. The changes proposed in sections 6 and 17 reflect a substantial reduction in the definition of management rights which are now included in the Act. The amendment to section 6 would expand considerably the number of subjects which would be negotiable and arbitrable. The amendment to section 17 would cover a further range of, subjects which, although not negotiable, would be subject to consultation between the two parties. These amendments reflect a genuine desire by the government to have the widest possible scope of bargaining on management rights without abdicating to a third party the government’s responsibility to be held accountable for the way it manages the public business.

It will be seen, Mr. Speaker, that the government has honoured the earlier commitments of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and myself to improve our bargaining procedures. It is the hope of the government, Mr. Speaker, that both employer and employee representatives will approach the proposed legislation with the will to ensure that the new procedures will work to the benefit of all concerned.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): This should have been opened up a long time ago.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY REGULATIONS

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I would like to announce to the House that a new Act will be introduced this afternoon to regulate Ontario’s travel industry.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): We read all about it this morning.

Hon. Mr. Clement: This new Act will initiate a comprehensive system designed to protect the traveller’s deposits and provide him with sound information on travel services, and upgrade industry practices.

For some time now, my ministry has been extremely concerned about the irresponsible selling and administrative procedures used by some travel agents and travel wholesalers in the normal course of business.

During the past year, there have been too many cases in which travel agents and travel wholesalers have not had sufficient cash on hand to complete airline or hotel arrangements consumers have already paid for.

Businesses have gone bankrupt leaving travellers stranded abroad or waiting in Ontario airports for charter planes that have never arrived. Travellers have been refused accommodations which should have been paid for but weren’t. Many have been tricked by cleverly deceptive advertising about the nature of accommodation, transportation, sponsorship and tantalizing extras.

In the past several months, Mr. Speaker, a thorough examination of the Ontario travel industry has been conducted by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea). The underlying problems have been identified and analyzed. In many cases, the fault does not lie with travel agents themselves but rather in the relationship between agents, wholesalers and airlines.

The conclusion of our review is that no one is acting very effectively for the consumer. This situation must be changed, and the change is bound to be the most effective at the point of sales, where the consumer gets his ticket and his information. This means a change in business methods, Mr. Speaker. Not only is this the most effective method from the consumer’s point of view, but also from the standpoint of provincial jurisdiction. We are not in a position to change the rules under which airlines provide equipment for charters but we certainly can do something about the regulation of sales practices.

The problems with the travel industry are legion. Travel agents in Ontario require an appointment from the International Air Transport Association to get the standard commissions and the right to stock tickets for international travel. Inside the United States and Canada, it is the Air Traffic Conference of America which confers agency status. Sponsorship is needed from member airlines, which tends to make agents more responsive to airlines than to consumers.

Competition among airlines for traffic is extremely fierce, Mr. Speaker. Combined with fixed commissions, this competition has created situations inviting breaches of IATA bylaws and federal regulations. The requirements by airlines that agents pay within a maximum of 20 days puts a further financial strain on the agents, which is much more helpful to airlines than to consumers.

Wholesalers such as tour operators have no qualifications to meet at all. Anyone can become a tour operator and package travel and accommodation or-create special charter deals.

The registration system administered by the air transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission has proved quite unable to furnish the consumer with any meaningful protection. Airlines are required to register aircraft rentals for charters but the purpose is to protect the financial position of airlines and not travellers. Recent bankruptcies involving substantial losses in. consumers have yielded not one penny of redress under the federal scheme.

Deceptive advertising has become a serious problem which existing provincial and federal statutes can do little to correct because they are neither detailed enough nor sufficiently comprehensive to deal directly with many of the practices in use. While the Business Practices Act will certainly address itself to marketing problems, the specialized nature of the travel industry requires individual attention.

Deposits or down payments from one customer are often used to pay for the ticket or accommodation of another who is departing on an earlier date. Some businesses even use them for rent, salaries or other overhead. Large advance payments required from agents and tour operators can escalate the cash-flow problem. If something goes amiss, the consumer is the one who loses, because there is rarely any money left to compensate him for his loss.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is currently no way of knowing the number of agents or wholesalers, how many salesmen they employ or who they are. It is known, however, that in this loose and unstructured environment there are many sideline operators with no bona fide place of business and little financing. Working on commissions and fee-splitting arrangements, these operators have contributed much to a marketplace in which cutthroat competition, half-truths and special deals abound. In a period of air travel instability, these people add a further measure of unwarranted insecurity.

The new legislation I will introduce today will propose five specific measures to strengthen the industry and increase its responsiveness to the consumer.

Firstly, the Act and its regulations will require provincial licensing of all travel agents, their employees and travel wholesalers in Ontario. Registration criteria will include financial position, a regular place of business, information on ownership and adherence to the Act’s regulations. It is our intention to include airlines, railways and other carriers as agents when they sell travel services other than their own.

Secondly, each travel agent and travel wholesaler will be, required to post a $5,000 bond which will be forfeited if the Act is contravened. We are, assured by the bonding industry that this amount is sufficient to ensure stringent investigation of applicants without disqualifying the smaller agents and wholesalers.

Thirdly regulations will be drafted to require that customers’ deposits be protected.

Fourthly, an industry-financed, compensation fund will be established for the benefit of customers whose travel funds have been abused.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, travel advertising will be required to disclose the name of the agent or operator as well as important details, such as class or level of service offered, location of accommodation and point of departure from Canada on international flights.

I am certain that these measures will contribute significantly to the professional development of the travel industry. They will protect the many honest agents and tour operators as much as they will assist the consumer. I look for an early passing of this Act by the House, Mr. Speaker. Proclamation may require some delay to permit bonding, registration and other procedures to be set up, but we intend to press forward with this legislation as quickly as possible.

This new system, Mr. Speaker, will not cost the Ontario taxpayer anything to operate. We intend to make it self-financing. Nor will the new Act add to travel costs. The system will be simple and inexpensive to run. Cost projections for the industry are very low and will certainly pose no hardship.

Some fears may be expressed as to the impact of this Act on small agents and wholesalers. I would like to state in the strongest terms that these fears are unfounded. The new Act will not put any reputable agent or wholesaler out of business, large or small. The travel industry has been fully consulted on the development of this Act and we intend to continue this consultation as we draft the regulations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, although no particular damage was done in this instance, I want to object to you, sir, to the growing tendency of ministers to reveal the contents of their legislation to the press before it is presented in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The remarks are noted. The Minister of Housing.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House today on the signing of four additional agreements under the Housing Action Programme. Recently I released information on the first seven OHAP agreements providing for 3,033 housing units to start by December of this yea; 6,933 in 1975 and an additional 1,792 for 1976. A further 2,150 acres of housing land were also included for development starting in 1976.

The four agreements I am announcing today cover the production of a further 636 housing units in Brampton, Ajax and Ottawa. Starts are expected for all these units by the end of fiscal 1974. In Ottawa, two agreements have been entered into with Marvo Construction Ltd. for a total of 167 townhouses; 128 are three-bedroom units with carrying costs of approximately $400 per month. Priced in the $39,000 range, they will be affordable by households with annual incomes of about $16,000 --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That is low-income housing?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- based upon 30 per cent of gross income for carrying costs. The remaining 39 dwellings are four-bedroom units which will be priced at $40,000. These will also carry for incomes in the $16,000 range.

Mr. Cassidy: No low-income housing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Marvo units are within a housing action area designed by the city of Ottawa last August. With the co-operation of the municipality, I expect construction to begin within several weeks.

An agreement has also been reached with Satterthwaite Developments Ltd. in Ajax. These are for 396 condominium apartments. In this project, half of them are two-bedroom and the other half three-bedroom. The two-bedroom units will carry for $390 a month in principal, interest and taxes, indicating an income of about $15,500 for the purchaser.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s crazy.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The three-bedroom units carry for about $413 --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s just nuts.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- which corresponds to an income of about $16,300.

An hon. member: That’s pretty low in middle-income housing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Construction should soon begin on these units. Ajax has passed a resolution in support of the Housing Action Programme.

Mr. Cassidy: So long as people make $16,000 or $20,000 a year, yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The fourth agreement is with Vroom Developments Ltd. covering 73 townhouses in Brampton. Of these, 66 are three-bedroom units ranging in price from $43,000 to $46,000. Carrying costs will vary from less than $430 per month to slightly more than $450 a month, corresponding to incomes in the $17,000 to $18,000 range.

Mr. Cassidy: I haven’t got people in my riding who make that kind of money.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The remaining four-bedroom units are also for household incomes in the neighbourhood of $18,000. Construction has just begun on the Vroom units and marketing will begin next month.

Mr. Speaker, all of the units covered by these four agreements are priced to meet the $14,500- to $20,000-income range. In keeping with our objectives, all 636 units are family accommodation.

Each of the units carries 10¼ per cent financing from the Ontario Mortgage Corp. for 95 per cent of the selling price. This financing has contributed to substantially lower carrying costs for these 636 units. Our efforts with the developers and the municipalities involved have also helped to accelerate these units onto the market.

It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to announce further agreements in the near future.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister really expect us to applaud an announcement whereby he is urging citizens to shoulder responsibility of an investment in housing of about $45,000 at 10¼ per cent? Surely he is providing housing for people who really don’t need that sort of assistance, if they are prepared to take on that kind of payment --

Mr. Speaker: Will the member place his question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- their incomes must be substantial.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m astounded to hear the Leader of the Opposition say that we shouldn’t provide housing for people who can afford housing in the area of $35,000 to $40,000, or approximately that, with today’s cost of materials, labour and land.

Mr. Cassidy: The government has allowed the speculation; it has created it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We understand full well that certain people with lower incomes have to have rental accommodation, but surely we have to provide housing for all of our people.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: At $445 a month.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: If the minister is really concerned about reducing the cost of housing, why doesn’t he persuade the Treasurer (Mr. White) to remove at least a part of the sales tax on building materials?

Mr. Roy: Right, yes; like the minister’s federal colleagues were suggesting.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer and I have had some conversations on this. However, I would like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that, as yet, we are not convinced the lowering of the tax by the federal government will produce the end result of lower housing costs for the people of Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not if there are people in the government encouraging construction companies to sell at these inflated rates.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: When we have that assurance, then we will be able to discuss the matter. But I do not believe the federal government has contributed whatsoever toward the lowering of housing costs.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may, on a supplementary: Does the minister realize that the yearly carrying charges which he just laid out in the House exceed the average annual income of a very large percentage of Ontario families? How the devil does he pretend that is a housing programme for low- and moderate-income earners? He has carrying charges of $5,400 a year and better.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe the leader of the NDP has his figures correct. I would like the leader of the NDP to substantiate that the average income for families in Ontario is around $4,000 or $5,000.

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What did the hon. member for Scarborough West say?

Mr. Lewis: I said that the minister’s carrying charges on those houses are between $5,000 and $6,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: That exceeds the income of many families in the province.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: What is wrong with the minister that he brings in this type of housing programme?

Mr. Speaker: Order; order please. Are there any further questions?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St George): The minister can’t answer that.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He can’t answer it.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary; the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is pertaining to the reduction of the sales tax on building materials and the answer of the minister. How does he give his answer today with the statement made consistently by his national leader, Robert Stanfield, who has been urging this on the federal government for years?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Stanfield has been urging a lot of other things.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, whatever announcements or statements are made in the federal House are of some concern to us, but have no bearing whatsoever on my decision.

Mr. Roy: This government started it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are concerned about the federal government in power right now; and I hope that the federal government will produce more mortgage money, this is where we can get housing for the people of Ontario.

Mr. MacDonald: Does the minister mean that it is perhaps his irresponsibility?

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, I said that was the final supplementary. It is developing into a debate. The Leader of the Opposition.

RENT CONTROL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I want to put another question to the Minister of Housing. What is the point of his repeated sabre-rattling about rent control, if he is not going to do anything about it? What does he mean when he says rent increases are unconscionable? If he believes they are unconscionable, why doesn’t he do something about it?

Mr. Renwick: The minister is frightened.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely he is simply telegraphing to those people who own apartment facilities now that they had better get their rents up before he does do something.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Why wait for spring; do it now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what news media the hon. Leader of the Opposition has been listening to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why the minister is on every broadcast every day?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What statement is the hon. Leader of the Opposition attributing to me, in which I said the rent increases are unconscionable? I have said no such thing.

Mr. Lewis: Perish the thought.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have said rent increases will be controlled by supply. I have said continually that the federal government has to assist ourselves and the municipal governments in making sure we have a supply. I have said also that rent controls, as we have seen them at work in other jurisdictions, are not practical.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By way of supplementary, because I think this is an important matter: Perhaps the minister has been incorrectly reported and the minister is not considering it; that is he has not and he will not. The minister is not considering any form of rent control in this province?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House, I have said on other occasions, I am not considering rent controls as the answer to our housing problem.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How about as the answer to high rents?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have also said, and I think maybe that is what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to, I have also said I think it is my duty to investigate cases where there may have been some higher than usual increases in rent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What can the minister do about them then?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member might be surprised what we have done about it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, tell us.

Mr. Cassidy: Bugger all.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): If he does anything we’ll be surprised.

Mr. Lewis: Tell us about it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we are a little different compared with the opposition, we take some action.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: That is obvious.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Where we have investigated certain cases we have found that some of the rent increases were justifiable.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In other cases the owner has combined with the tenant to have a mutually acceptable rent increase.

Mr. Deans: Where?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In other cases, we have not been able to see where the tenant has, really, been crucified, as some people have said.

Mr. Lewis: Show us these cases.

Mr. Deans: Where are these cases?

Mr. Lewis: Give us some examples.

Mr. Deans: That is a lot of hogwash.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

The member for Ottawa Centre with a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister please say, if he rejects rent control; and if the housing he is putting on the market is for families earning $16,000 a year; and since there has been no family housing built by OHC in my riding since 1971, what he is doing for the 15,000 or so families in Ottawa Centre and people in many other ridings --

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): The member has never lived in his riding, how does he know? He has been living on Toronto Island.

Mr. Cassidy: -- in similar situations, who have family incomes below the $11,000 a year mark? What is the minister doing for them?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well Mr. Speaker, I will assure members of this House and the hon. member I will do everything in my power to make sure that Ottawa and the area which this member represents is represented properly in the future, because I think --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: We are talking about housing.

Mr. Cassidy: That is what Pierre Benoit said and look what happened to him.

An hon. member: Don’t get upset over there.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think if the member has had a problem in housing since the time he has been elected -- he has been here for almost three years -- surely to goodness he could have brought the problem to the appropriate minister, to the appropriate officials?

Mr. Lewis: If he is minister much longer they’ll lose every seat in Ottawa.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Ottawa Centre should have a resident member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think Ottawa has a good track record for housing. Ottawa is one of the places where we have very good municipal acceptance of the fact we do have to have housing affordable to the low-income people.

Mr. Cassidy: Earning under $16,000? Where is it?

Mr. W. Hodgson: How would he know, he’s not there?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And we have built housing in Ottawa for those who can afford to own a home.

Mr. Cassidy: Not a single unit in my riding.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have built housing for those who cannot afford to own a home but can rent a home.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: Not a single unit has he built that is affordable.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Not one.

Mr. Lewis: It would appear to me the government has not built one.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have built a lot of them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the government call an election last night?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview with a final supplementary on this question.

Mr. Singer: I have a supplementary question for the minister: Following from his remarks of his investigations into rent levels, will he table for us the number of instances of rent that he has investigated, the comments of the landlords, the comments of the tenants; and the basis on which he has come to the conclusions he enunciated a little earlier?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will not table that. That is confidential information between myself and the people involved.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Because it doesn’t exist.

Mr. Cassidy: Because it doesn’t exist and the minister is a sham.

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

Mr. Lewis: Well on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge the minister to table those examples where landlords and tenants have mutually agreed on an acceptable rent.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Come on, the minister should substantiate his statement in the House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. MacDonald: Give one example.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister can’t make those statements and then say he won’t -- on a point Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point?

Mr. Lewis: If the minister makes a blanket statement and we ask him to document it, he then has to document it as a part of his answer.

Mr. Cassidy: Or withdraw the statement.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What rule is that?

Mr. Lewis: It is a new rule.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is a point of view.

Mr. Lewis: It is a point of view, exactly!

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The minister may answer any question as he sees fit.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We’ll have to have a rule about those things.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like a further report from the Chairman of the Management Board --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: The member sure does talk such claptrap in this House. It’s unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable!

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The Leader of the Opposition is posing a question.

An hon. member: The Minister of Housing is up.

Mr. Martel: Outdoor housing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for Sudbury East has a point there.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Now that the minister has said that he has put his total offer before the civil service and has now indicated specifically what amendments are being considered to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, will he indicate at what status the negotiations are? Are they being carried on? Will they be commenced again on Monday? What is the expectation?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in the course of negotiations this morning we put certain proposals, as outlined, before the CSAO. We hope to forward to their offices today a further draft of what we intend to do in regard to the Act. We will make an arrangement to hear their response.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Was the minister’s statement made late in the afternoon of last Tuesday I believe, to be understood as the final offer on the part of the government? There were phrases in it that would indicate that, but is he prepared to continue negotiations on, let’s say the money aspect?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I made it very clear. I said Management Board bad placed their mandate on the table with the CSAO.

Mr. Deans: What does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The total financial mandate. Within that mandate we were prepared to consider refinements, but that was where the negotiations ceased.

Mr. Lewis: That’s the total package?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt with a supplementary.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the proposed amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, is it the intention of the Chairman of the Management Board at the same time to make amendments to the Public Service Act to give civil servants the right to participate in the political process in Ontario?

Mr. Cassidy: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a different issue, that we haven’t discussed. I would like to comment further that we have a meeting scheduled for Monday night.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why not leave that to the negotiators?

Mr. MacDonald: It’s a civil right. They shouldn’t have to negotiate for it.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary from the hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he discussed with the CSAO the item concerning the right of the CSAO to strike, and if he is going to have that in the proposed amendments?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, it was discussed. It was one of the items the government does not intend changing the Act on.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions? The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Chairman of the Management Board that will probably open up supplementaries in this field. What possible reason does he have to take superannuation out of the formal bargaining process?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, Mr. Speaker, it hasn’t been in; we are just retaining our position.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t he include it?

Mr. Lewis: Why then is the minister so deliberately, in his introduction of amendments, avoiding those items which he knows to be central to the position of the CSAO? The right, for instance, to have a chairman of the arbitration board selected by the chairman of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, rather than the minister’s tribunal which he controls; and the right to bargain superannuation, for example? He knows it will founder on these things; why does he deliberately provoke them?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well we don’t believe it will, but we negotiate on those matters.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

NAPANEE INDUSTRIES

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Labour: Can the Minister of Labour explain what he will do in the case of Napanee Industries, which closed down in July of 1974? The employees have a valid claim for vacation pay and termination pay, but because the firm is insolvent they have received neither, and have no hope of receiving either, despite the fact that vacation pay supposedly is held in trust. And the minister’s representative writes: “I can be of no assistance whatsoever to you in this matter.”

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, if they have depleted the trust funds that they are supposed to hold in trust, then there is little or nothing we can do about it. That gets back to the old question of bankruptcy again. If there are assets there, I think the trust funds would have the first claim on the assets; that’s my understanding.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Take criminal proceedings.

Mr. MacDonald: What about proceedings under the Criminal Code?

Mr. Lewis: Wages for termination pay is one thing, but how many instances involving vacation pay which was to be held in trust will the minister allow to be forfeit before he defends the workers of the province against the behaviour of individual corporations which apparently violated the law?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as we’ve said on many occasions, the bankruptcy law, being federal law, takes over as soon as the company becomes insolvent.

Mr. Lewis: Not for vacation pay it doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That doesn’t permit us, at that time, to say how the trustees in bankruptcy will handle these various claims.

Mr. Cassidy: What representations does the minister make?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It’s not exactly the same, but similar to the case where somebody absconds with funds. If the funds aren’t there we have no place to get them from.

Mr. Foulds: That’s exactly what they are doing.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Has the minister ever considered reverting to a system used in years gone by where the employer purchased vacation stamps on a monthly basis for employees and they were cashable at any chartered bank?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as you know, that was in effect at one time; and I might tell the House there are a fair number of employment stamps that have never been redeemed.

Mr. Deans: That’s fine.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: They are still there and are available for redemption, if the people who hold them want to come forward. But it didn’t work that well either.

Mr. Deans: It guarantees the money.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We can give consideration to reverting to it. I am alarmed, as is the opposition, by the number of claims that are presently coming forward, mainly because of the economic situation, where the protection that we have tried to give the worker is not being effective. Certainly the opposition is pounding this home with me, as rightly they should do.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: And the minister’s predecessor and his predecessor and his predecessor.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am not so sure there have been that many cases up until quite recently.

Mr. Martel: Throw a few of them in jail and let them rot.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have suggested to the federal government they should cover the matter of holiday pay and some of these other things by way of an additional levy on the unemployment insurance fund. They have the machinery and are in the business now and bankruptcy, as I say, is by the BNA Act clearly their responsibility.

It is under review and that’s all I can say. I don’t think we want to go to the British Columbia system. I still feel that will be upset if it is challenged in the courts.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a new question or final supplementary, would the minister look carefully at a bill that I am introducing today on the protection of wages in the case of receivership or bankruptcy. It may contain an answer.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will.

HOUSING SHORTAGES IN GRIFFITH MINE AREA

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Housing: is there anything he can do to relieve the extraordinary housing shortages experienced by the small northwestern communities of Ear Falls and Red Lake as a result of the pressures for employment at the Griffith Mine and the Griffith Mine expansion?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we are determining what we can do for northern communities which have experienced increased demands for housing because of certain industrial expansions. There are other communities which are under our investigation at the present time. I haven’t got an answer on this particular date but I hope to be able to give the member what we may do for those two communities.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, could the minister also raise the matter of water and sewage systems for those communities, which is holding up development? Since we have managed to find $200 million to serve Metropolitan Toronto, perhaps we could find a few thousand to serve northwestern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’ll look into it, Mr. Speaker. I might add another community that is facing the same pressures is Matachewan, and we are acting again.

Mr. Lewis: It is really a crisis for them.

BELL DIRECTORY ASSISTANCE CHARGES

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is he aware that his director of the provincial benefits branch sent out a memo to district directors, field supervisors, supervisors and field workers dealing with directory assistance charging and the requests for information from operators at Bell Canada which might be placed by handicapped and elderly persons expressing the wish to find exemptions for those persons. In the process of the memorandum it was indicated that applications for exemption have to go to Bell Canada; that the reason for the application has to be stipulated, that is the nature of the disability; and that a physician, clergyman or other person in a reputable post has to sign it. Does the minister think it appropriate that the government of Ontario should be giving private information to a corporation like Bell Canada about those who are handicapped or elderly for the purpose of such exemptions.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware of that directive; I will certainly look into it and I will have a reply for the hon. member tomorrow morning.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Colleges and Universities has the answer to a question which we will receive now.

GEORGIAN COLLEGE

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, last week the Leader of the Opposition asked me a couple of questions. One was, would I look into the circumstances surrounding the awarding of a contract to Kemp Bay Developments Ltd. for the construction of a major building at Georgian College’s Barrie campus at a time when the president of Kemp Bay Developments, Mr. Horace Pratt, was also a member of the board of governors of Georgian College?

Mr. Speaker, I looked into this and I understand that in early 1972, Georgian had to acquire additional space. They were interested in acquiring this space on the property opposite the main campus, on the other side of the road, which was known as the Bell farm and owned by Kemp Bay Developments Ltd. While Mr. Pratt was on the board, the board discussed the rental of this property and were in touch with us; they were advised by us that in order to deal with Kemp Bay Developments Ltd., Mr. Pratt should leave the board.

Mr. Pratt resigned from the board of governors on June 10, 1972. Subsequently, on Sept. 1, a contract was signed by the board with Kemp Investments for the rental of the property and the building which was constructed --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Was it a leaseback?

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- at a rate of $2.95 a square foot, excluding municipal taxes, which works out to $3.43 a square foot, including taxes, for a 10-year period. Mr. Pratt was not a member of the board when the contract was signed or in the final months when negotiations were completed.

The Leader of the Opposition also asked me to look into the resignation of Mr. Bootle, who was the dean of health sciences at the Orillia campus of Georgian College. I indicated on Tuesday that I understood it was an internal matter, and it is. I understand that Mr. Bootle resigned because he felt the financial strictures which the board was enforcing on the whole college operation were too severe and that he couldn’t work within them. I am told he did an excellent job when he was with the board, and it was strictly a disagreement on college policy which led him to resign.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Was the minister made aware during his investigation of the feeling, at least of those who are active at the teaching level and the organizational level, that the advisory committees established across the community, particularly in the allied health services and more particularly nursing education, had been ignored by the administration of the college and that it is Mr. Bootle’s feeling there ought to be a thorough investigation into those administrative practices?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I was informed that the original advisory committee set up at the time the Orillia campus was formed was set up on the same basis as advisory committees on other satellite campuses. When the college decided to put its main effort in the allied health service training field in Orillia, the college board decided -- and I can see why they would -- to restructure the board to have it deal more with allied health sciences and less with the whole college programme.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A further supplementary, if I could just finish on this. In the minister’s investigation, was he made aware of the concerns expressed by members of the staff, and others in the community, that the architects who had the contract for the very important and expensive development of buildings there were themselves members of the board of the Kemp Bay Developments Ltd. and that there seemed to be sort of a family compact associated with the decisions for the expansion of the whole of the Georgian College leading to, let’s say, a depreciation or an eroding of the confidence in the board in the area?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am not aware of that, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the office of the Leader of the Opposition called the ministry to get details on the construction that was being done at Georgian College and the architects that have done the work, and I understand that information has been sent to him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But not the information that they were, in fact, members of the board of Kemp Construction.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I wasn’t aware of that, but I understand the way the board selects its architects -- architects apparently by their own code are not allowed to solicit business -- is that it inquires of architects in the area, and I believe in most cases it has found four or five who were competent to do the kind of work which the board wanted. It has received submissions from those firms and then decided, on the basis of preliminary submissions, which firm it would employ.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Simcoe East has a supplementary.

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, of the minister: Can the minister assure me that the programmes that are relative to the ancillary health services which were instituted by Mr. Bootle at the Orillia campus of Georgian College will continue uninterrupted?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the president of the college has confirmed that to me.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary from the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the administrative problems, such as those occurring at Georgian College, that continue to beset the colleges of applied arts and technology in the province, would the minister be willing to establish a committee of sorts, an independent committee, to review the administrative practices of the various colleges across the province? Further to that, in view of the failure of the Council of Regents to provide the proper kind of direction to the colleges, would he be willing to abolish the council?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the last part of that question?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was a question?

Mr. Laughren: Would the minister also be willing to abolish the Council of Regents?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I can answer that very simply: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East with a new question.

OHC LAND PURCHASES IN OTTAWA AREA

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: When he answered my question of Nov. 26 on Friday, Nov. 29, dealing with the purchase of property by Ontario Housing from Assaly for $273,000, why didn’t he advise the House that Ontario Housing had been offered this property back in 1970 and 1971 for the price of $35,000? Why did the minister not tell us that he had information on his file -- No. P1004, general file? Why didn’t he give us that information?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to hide about that. If we were offered the property, obviously we didn’t need it at that time.

Mr. Roy: Oh, supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister advise us, pertaining to his answer again, was he aware that at the time that Assaly put an option on the property in July 1971, that the information about the property being up for sale and that Ontario Housing was interested in the property had been given to the Ottawa Board of Education, and that Tom Assaly, the president of that corporation, was a trustee on the board of education and that he’d heard about this information Was the minister aware of that conflict of interest; and if he was, why didn’t he advise us of that?

Mr. Martel: Shame.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I advised the House of all the relevant details in regard to that transaction.

Mr. Martel: That’s his opinion.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As to what position Mr. Assaly had at that time, or what he has at the present time, I don’t think it is relevant whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park with a new question.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have one short supplementary on this.

Mr. Speaker: We are running short of time. The hon. member might pursue this later. The hon. member for High Park.

SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware of the meeting that took place last night at the SIU hall on King St.? Is he aware that at that meeting Mr. Roy Willis announced that the SIU was passing a new bylaw which would make it an offence for any member of the SIU to give information about the SIU to any outside person? And what is he going to do to protect the civil liberties of the members of the SIU?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Guns for them all.

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is no; and to the second question, no. Until such time as I’m appraised of the information, I would have no further comment.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: Does the Attorney General not have some contact within the SIU to keep track of what’s going on down there?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The answer is no.

An hon. member: How about the civil liberties?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The federal government is responsible.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has the answer to a question.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, on Nov. 19 last, the hon. member --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I announced the Minister of Housing, but I also know the Minister of Revenue has the answer to a question, if he would --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Oh I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought you had requested me.

Mr. Speaker: It doesn’t matter which one is first. The Minister of Revenue then.

LAND SPECULATION TAX

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will start again.

On Nov. 19 last, the hon. member for Ottawa East asked me a question with respect to our position on the land speculation tax rate, bearing in mind the federal government’s intransigent position on this matter.

The issue, of course, is whether our land speculation tax is deductible for federal tax purposes. Through recent federal public statements and a telephone conversation I have had with the Minister of Finance, the hon. John Turner, and now confirmed by letter, it has become clear that the federal government does not intend to allow such a deduction in computing federal taxes.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister was told that last spring.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I still believe that Ontario is on firm legal ground in its case for deductibility.

Mr. Lewis: But the minister won’t challenge him in the courts?

Hon. Mr. Meen: For very pragmatic reasons, however, it is not advisable to proceed with litigation. If we were successful, and I believe that we would be --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Remember, the minister took his shoe off and banged it on the desk and said he would challenge them in the courts -- and left for the Middle East.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The federal government could simply amend the federal tax statutes to effectively reverse the court’s decision to disallow the tax as a deductible item.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I might add, they have indicated that this is precisely what they would do. In view of these circumstances, an alternative solution had to be found. Accordingly, and in keeping with our undertaking expressed on many occasions in the past that the speculation tax, when taken together with income and capital gains taxes, would not be confiscatory, I will be introducing today appropriate amendments to the Land Speculation Tax Act to reduce the rate of tax to 20 per cent and to provide for the payment of interest on refunds at the rate of seven per cent.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the rate of 20 per cent is the rate of land speculation tax that, coupled with the federal government’s position of non-deductibility, will result in the highest rate of combined taxes paid by individuals remaining at the figure of 81 per cent shown in the example contained in the Treasurer’s budget statement of last April 9.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

SEAFARERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General.

Without downgrading the importance of the matter relating to the SIU and various politicians, is the minister not concerned, and has he ordered an investigation into how the member for High Park came into this kind of information, for example the tapes that I understand are confidential information?

Mr. Lewis: Here we go.

Mr. MacDonald: He is trying to confuse it -- he and Munro.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I do have some concern about that. I have asked the Ontario Provincial Police and the group that are investigating the SIU to see if they can ascertain that information.

Mr. Lewis: Investigate the member for High Park?

Mr. Roy: Is the member for High Park going to take a lie detector test?

Mr. Lewis: The member didn’t have the guts to say it in his presence.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

HAMILTON HARBOUR INVESTIGATION

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General.

Can the Attorney General tell the House whether the inquiries into the Hamilton harbour episode, which has resulted in the hearing at the present moment of one Kenneth Elliott, have been completed; and whether there are other charges pending as a result of the information made available at the preliminary inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member will understand if I say I am not in a position to share much information with respect to that at the moment. Sufficient to say that as he knows, some charges have been laid, or rather each charge laid has been processed and that matter has now been put over to another court. Perhaps it is sufficient to say at this stage that we are watching those particular proceedings with some interest in light of the general investigation that was part of the preliminary work prior to the laying of that one particular charge.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Are there other charges pending as a result of the information made available at the preliminary inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Not as of this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Now the Minister of Housing with an answer to his question.

FUNDING OF OHAP

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Scarborough West asked on Nov. 26:

“Am I right, in looking at Ontario finances for Oct. 31, 1974, that the allocation projected for OHAP has been reduced from $15 million to $8 million?”

OHAP funding has been reallocated, not reduced; $4.5 million has been transferred to the Ministry of the Environment for the central York-Durham servicing scheme.

In this connection, members will note that water treatment and pollution control facilities -- the first item in table 5 of Ontario finances -- has been increased by this amount. That’s the sort of project we want to assist in order to bring housing on stream. We expect 20,000 additional units in the next three years alone.

A total of $2.45 million has been shifted to transfer payments and consequently no longer appears under the heading of non-budgetary disbursements and charges. This includes $1.65 million for housing incentive grants and $800,000 for housing study grants.

These funds appear under the Ministry of Housing’s total for budgetary expenditures, Table 3 in “Ontario Finances.” So the $7 million difference reflects only a reallocation within our OHAP programme objectives and not a reduction.

Resources allocated to OHAP are now as follows: Administration $500,000, a budgetary expenditure; Housing Action fund including housing incentive grants $6 million, a budgetary expenditure; housing study grants $800,000, a budgetary expenditure; infrastructure loans $8 million, non-budgetary disbursements and charges. The total is $15.3 million.

If one adds this to the $4.5 million for funds transferred to the Ministry of the Environment, the total is $19.8 million -- the same total that appeared in our 1974-1975 estimates.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Since the ministry’s solid waste task force report is complete, when will he table that report?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Shortly.

Mr. Gaunt: In the next week?

An hon. member: Or the next?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Shortly, if not sooner.

An hon. member: Before the end of the session.

An hon. member: Along with the model noise bylaw.

Hon. W. Newman: Hopefully very soon.

Mr. Gaunt: Oh, hopefully.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. A short supplementary.

Mr. Gaunt: I hesitate after that. Anyway, is the minister considering any legislation dealing with the problem as outlined in the report having to do with disposable packaging and the problems which it creates in the environment?

Hon. W. Newman: I will be making some comments at the time I table the report.

Mr. Roy: The minister is very helpful.

Mr. Breithaupt: He is learning very well.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the recent convention of the Ontario Truckers Association calling for a public inquiry into the dump truck industry, thus backing up the request of the aggregate haulers last spring during the time of the demonstration here, is the minister seriously considering now an inquiry into the dump truck industry in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that particular subject is being considered in the ministry at the present time. We’re looking at what possibilities there are. I can’t say anything further at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

OBSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 401

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that the construction opposite the international airport on Highway 401, when it reduces the traffic to one lane as it did this morning, ties up the traffic for at least 10 miles along the 401, so that it takes about 40 minutes to get through?

An hon. member: The member darned near missed caucus.

Mr. Good: Would the minister instruct the construction company to post signs at the Highway 10 and Dixie intersections warning that there is construction ahead so that people could use alternate routes, if possible?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that problem.

Mr. Good: It happens daily.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It happened to me yesterday.

Mr. Roy: One couldn’t make it through without the blue machine.

Mr. Breithaupt: It goes under water.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If we can facilitate the movement of traffic by signs, then of course we can do that.

I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I missed that comment but it probably wasn’t very appropriate anyway.

Mr. Roy: Oh, yes, it was.

Mr. Good: Will the minister do something about that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Good: Okay.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

STARRATT-OLSEN POWER SUPPLY

Mr. Foulds: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Has his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), been in contact with him since I raised the question on Tuesday about the cutting off of power to the township of Starratt-Olsen today? Why has Ontario Hydro not assumed the responsibility for the power line to Starratt-Olsen for the past year when the Madsen Company has offered it to Ontario Hydro for $1?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, answering the last part first, some things are not worth $1.

Mr. Roy: Specify.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, he has been in touch with me on a number of occasions, and I saw a memorandum this morning such that I thought the Minister of Natural Resources had the matter very much in hand.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister saying that it is not worth $1 to this government to keep power going to the pump at Starratt-Olsen so the homes and the water supply will not freeze up over the winter?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That, Mr. Speaker, is not what I said.

Mr. Deans: Exactly what did the minister say?

Mr. Lewis: There are 25 families involved. These aren’t farmers in Kent county.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That company has certain obligations, and I don’t know whether they should be let off then hook for $1. The people over there are such friends of business that they want to let everybody off the hook for a dollar. We just don’t do business that way over here.

Mr. Lewis: We tried to find a tax exemption but we couldn’t locate one.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

TASK FORCE ON INDUSTRIAL TRAINING

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Is the minister planning to implement the recommendations of the task force on industrial training which says it should be carried out in industry and on the job rather than in our secondary schools and community colleges and that the employers be paid by the government to carry out these studies?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I trust I heard the hon. member’s question. If he was referring to the task force that reported last fall, we have indicated to the general public and to the various interests which are involved that we wanted their comments. We asked them originally to let us have them by the end of November. There were a number who asked for further time and we now hope to have all the comments in by the end of this month and to collate and study them. I will probably have some comments sometime in the new year once this has been done.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Spence: Is the minister aware there is a severe shortage of skilled personnel in the rural areas, such as carpenters, bricklayers and plumbers, and is his department doing anything to correct this situation?

Hon. Mr. Add: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware there are shortages of a number of skills in pretty well all parts of the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

CONDITIONS IN NURSING HOMES

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Recognizing that there is still some rather serious allegations being made in Hamilton about the operation of nursing homes, in spite of the letter the minister sent to me, and in spite of his communication with the chairman of the regional council, would the minister please go into Hamilton and speak to the people who are making the allegations in order that all nursing homes not be painted with the same black brush?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I won’t necessarily go personally but I would be pleased to ask my parliamentary assistant to do that since he is looking after nursing homes.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister arrange that he should meet with the medical officer of health, Dr. Cunningham, and see whether an arrangement couldn’t be made whereby they might do additional inspections over and above those being done by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I will be glad to talk to the medical officer of health. The present inspection requirements are that they be done by our ministry. We’ll be glad to get advice from him, but I am afraid the inspections would be done by us at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

EGG SUPPLY

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. What kind of games are we playing in the egg business in Ontario? Why is there a short supply of eggs at the present time when a week or so ago there was such a surplus that the farmers were taking a 16% cent a dozen loss on the eggs? And why are we trying to get permission to import eggs from the States when surely there must be eggs in the other provinces across Canada?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice. I haven’t any idea.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

BENEFITS TO AUTO ACCIDENT VICTIMS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Roy: How come the minister has egg on his face?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: Will the minister investigate why those injured in auto accidents are having such difficulty in getting weekly benefits paid to them and why it is necessary for the legal people acting on behalf of those injured to provide a great deal of unnecessary information?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member has any instances in mind I would be more than pleased, if not obligated, to look into them. As the member knows, under the plan which has been in effect, I believe, for nearly three years, one is entitled to medical payments during the period of disability arising out of the accident and that liability is a responsibility of the insurer of that particular victim. If that is the situation to which the hon. member alludes, I will be more than pleased to look into it, if he will give me the particulars.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I will do that. Would the minister look into the cases of a young man whose wife and daughter were killed in October --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member could give the information to the minister.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Just send him a note.

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

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Snow presented the auditor’s report of the public service superannuation fund for the year ended March 31, 1974, and the annual report of the Ministry of Government Services for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1974.

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

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

“Bill 136, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974.

“Your committee recommends that it be allowed to sit concurrently with the House, commencing Monday, Dec. 9, 1974, to consider Bill 55, An Act to prohibit unfair Practices in Sales to Consumers.”

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

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Motions. Introduction of bills.

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Industrial Safety Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister taking over mining?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Not yet.

Mr. Speaker, this bill repeals the Loggers’ Safety Act and makes the Industrial Safety Act, 1971, applicable to logging operations.

Mr. Martel: Why not to mining?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: On April 1, 1972, responsibility for loggers’ safety was transferred from the then Ministry of Lands and Forests to the Ministry of Labour. Responsibility for the administration of the Act was assigned to the industrial safety branch and its inspectors have been administering the Loggers’ Safety Act in conjunction with their other duties under the Industrial Safety Act.

By incorporating logging operations into the Industrial Safety Act we will ensure that there are safety standards which are compatible as between logging and other types of industrial activities. This is particularly desirable in respect of those employers of sawmills and paper mills which already are covered by the Industrial Safety Act in respect to operations other than that of logging.

The substance of the amendments contained in this bill has been fully discussed with and has the concurrence of the Labour Safety Council, representative of management and labour.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a number of minor amendments.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Age before beauty, Mr. Speaker.

TRAVEL INDUSTRY ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to regulate the Business of selling and dealing in Travel Services.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have no further comments regarding this bill at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General.

FIRE DEPARTMENTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Fire Departments Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the amendment provides the Statutory Powers Procedure Act will not apply to arbitration proceedings under the Fire Departments Act.

POLICE ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerr moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Police Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That fellow’s name is Meen; Meghen is another friend of the Solicitor General’s.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes.

An hon. member: Don’t be mean to Meen.

Mr. Roy: What’s that going to do, take the judges off police commissions? No?

An hon. member: That’s a radical step to take.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s too radical.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for assistance to immediate dependents of members of the OPP who die in the course of duty.

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act 1974, No. 2.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Martel: That is entitled the Retreat from Moscow bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: John Turner’s bill.

Mr. Roy: John Turner’s bill! The minister has to blame it on somebody.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated during the question period, this bill reduces the rate of land speculation tax pro vide for in subsection 1 of section 2 of the Act from 50 per cent to 20 per cent and makes the reduction effective April 9 last, the date on which the Act itself took effect.

Provision is also made to refund any tax paid in excess of the rate of 20 per cent and to pay interest at seven per cent on the refunds.

In addition, section 6 of the Act which deals --

Mr. Roy: Seven per cent? Do we get seven per cent?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- with artificial reductions of tax is to be altered to make that section applicable to artificial or undue reductions of the proceeds of disposition. This will prevent the avoidance of tax imposed --

Mr. Roy: Do we get seven per cent?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- by subsection 2 of section 2 of the Act.

CORPORATIONS TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: When is the minister going to listen to the opposition?

Mr. Lawlor: He’s already done that once this session.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He tells me he’s got more money than he has --

Mr. MacDonald: We must be in the last week of the session; 12 new bills in one day.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I knew somebody would say that.

Mr. Roy: Good advice and it was free advice.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, very shortly, this bill provides the tax imposed under the Land Speculation Tax Act 1974 will not be deductible in computing the income of the corporation.

Mr. MacDonald: Making a virtue of necessity.

Mr. Roy: Has the minister fired the people who gave him advice?

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, the amendments to this bill implement certain recommendations of the second report of the commission on the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

PROTECTION OF WAGES IN BANKRUPTCY OR RECEIVERSHIP

Mr. Lewis moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the Protection of Wages in Bankruptcy or Receivership.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as you can guess, this bill simply gives employees priority over all other creditors, including the Crown in right of Ontario, for all arrears of wages when an employer goes into bankruptcy or receivership. It sets up the administrative apparatus and encompasses termination pay, since termination pay is part of the definition of wages in the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

CONDOMINIUM ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): I would like on this occasion, as I have on recent occasions, to thank the minister for presenting further amendments to us before discussing this and other bills on second reading. I find that this is most helpful and most acceptable.

An hon. member: The member should talk to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen).

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): It’s a very cozy relationship those two parties have.

An hon. member: Constructive criticism is what it is.

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was introduced in the spring of this year, I believe the minister was absent and it was introduced by the Attorney General (Mr. Welch), who at that time stated very briefly that this is a major attempt to deal with existing problems in condominiums. I feel that this is, of course, a definite admission that the legislation is unsatisfactory and I think we must bear in mind that such legislation is still a new dimension to home ownership.

Originally, it was hoped to provide ownership for every income level, be it for convenience, for security, inexpensive housing, pride of ownership or the inability of the person to perform the general maintenance that is required for home ownership. Mr. Speaker, in this party we are pleased that the government has brought forward this amending legislation to the Condominium Act. However, this bill fails considerably short of what is required to relieve the serious situations that have arisen in condominium developments because of the inadequacies of the present Act.

We, in this party, as I have intimated, will support Bill 118 in principle, because in our opinion it represents another short step forward. However, we will be proposing amendments that we most seriously urge the minister to consider.

Many of the members in our caucus have been approached by numerous individuals and owner associations over the past year. They find themselves unable to cope with the problems that have arisen in their buildings because of the present legislation, and because this legislation is entirely deficient in many respects.

I am somewhat surprised and disappointed that after all this time the government has not brought forward a comprehensive bill so that the real solutions can be developed for the very real problems that today beset the residents of condominiums. I do not believe that the government is unaware of these problems, it has chosen to do very little and the result, of course, is this inept bill.

I will give as examples: What about the multi-landlord buildings where residents’ meetings are frequently postponed for lack of a quorum? Or what about the right of a mortgagee through his vote, in some instances, to control the calling of residents’ meetings? Or what about the facilities withheld from the common elements that remain within the control of the developer for which a fee is charged? Also, what about the problem that’s faced by a prospective buyer in obtaining financial information about the condominium building in which he is considering purchasing a unit?

So, as a first step toward finding workable solutions, I would propose that the post of registrar of condominiums be established. In many regions this post would be combined with that of the land registrar, but in large urban areas an additional person would be required.

It is now obvious that it is absolutely necessary that a central location be provided where all the facts and documents pertaining to condominium developments can be filed and available to the boards of directors of the condominiums; the residents, whether they are owner or tenant; and prospective owners or tenants. The present system is entirely unsatisfactory.

This is particularly true with regard to the financial statements. It’s clear that an annual financial statement is not sufficient to allow a prospective owner any clear picture of the financial status of a building. And I think more is required.

Consequently, I would propose that a quarterly statement should be filed with this registrar. This would allow a prospective buyer or tenant the opportunity to know in some detail the financial status of the building.

There would be other duties, I believe, that the registrar of condominiums would be responsible for; and I will just outline this very briefly. I would say one would be to keep a registry containing the particulars of all transactions pertaining to the condominium buildings. These would include all rifles, declarations, plans, financial statements, deeds, covenants, performance bonds, warranties and leases. It would also be his duty to administer the trust funds as referred to in section 24(c)(1), to make these available to the prospective purchaser, or any or all records on file in the registry pertaining to a particular condominium building. It would also be his responsibility to retain title documents to all lands connected in any way with condominiums, and to maintain, of course, the condominium corporations index and the condominium register.

You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I have included performance bonds as part of the records to be kept by the registrar. Why, in practice, have developers of condominiums been exempt from the need to post performance bonds? This is a situation that must be clarified. Condominium owners have been faced with serious deficiencies in their buildings where they are virtually helpless to effect remedies. Performance bonds are a logical way to relieve this situation.

Now, in respect to leases, a prospective buyer would know the proportion of rented accommodations in any building. In other words, a prospective buyer would have some chance of getting a clear idea of what he is getting himself into.

I am also concerned about situations where a number of units are owned by one landlord within a condominium project. I notice the government has attempted to control this situation by limiting the period of rental of units to four years and by requiring from the lessee an option to purchase or an agreement to purchase.

It is our position that the sale of units should be limited to one per owner, except in the rare instance where a prospective buyer wishes to purchase two units for the purpose of creating one larger single-family dwelling. I believe that instead of controlling the length of time a rental situation is allowed to extend, we should rigidly control the number of units a single owner should be allowed to own. Our position is that the principle of one owner, one unit, one vote, should be clearly established.

It is conceivable that an owner might wish to rent his unit over an attended period of time, and we can see no objection to this where the owner’s responsibility for his tenant is clearly spelled out. I would therefore ask that the minister consider an amendment to section 12 of the Act requiring that the owner be responsible for seeing that the lessee or occupant not make demands on the common elements greater than the privileges accorded each owner.

Mr. Speaker, we in this party believe that a thorough review of the legislation is long overdue. I know many members, particularly in this caucus, look forward to the examination of this bill when it goes to standing committee. I hope that the minister will see that it goes to standing committee because, looking over statistics compiled regarding the legislative process, I note that only seven of the 246 bills went to standing committee in 1973, and out of the seven bills going to committee, six were amended, which shows that members and the public have more opportunity to participate in the legislative process.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I just want to draw to your attention a recent process report where an owner of a condominium stated -- and I quote from the Star of Nov. 11, 1974. He said:

“Condominium living began as a fine social concept, but it has been botched by the provincial government. They wrote the law to protect the developers, not the purchasers.”

I hope that when this gets to standing committee, Mr. Speaker, the members of this House and members of the public will have much more opportunity to present worthwhile amendments.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, we too wish to state to the minister that we would very much prefer that the matter go out to committee from the House when the opportunity arises. The minister may have reservations about that --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): He nodded his head and said yes.

Mr. Lawlor: He says yes? Fine.

The minister will remember that when his famous bill, Bill 184, An Act to amend the Condominium Act, came before the House last spring, we took it to committee. The committee hearings were as much of an eye-opener to the minister, I am sure, as to anyone else; and, as a result we did not proceed with that bill as it came before us, but placed everything under suspension until the new creature arrived, having been given birth rather prematurely, or only five or six months after the other child was aborted.

The one before us today is an improvement, but it is very far from what is even remotely desirable in the area of condominium law. It corrects four or five major areas which were brought to our attention at that time and which I will review shortly, but in a vast diversity of contexts the legislation does not even make nodding acquaintance to the major problems facing condominium dwellers and facing municipalities in the province.

I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to peruse a very fine piece of writing indeed, proceeding from the borough of Etobicoke called, “A Special Committee on Housing Report,” on problems of existing condominiums in the borough, the south end of which I happen to represent. Proceeding up through the full borough, there are three different ridings, partially at least, included in that particular borough. A man who recently lost his seat, Stockwell, the controller there, launched into these hearings a very considerable time ago and produced two reports, the basic one statistically set up and the second one coming to conclusions.

Reading through this fairly magnificent report, I suppose that there are at least 125 various recommendations embodied herein, which that borough, and I’m sure others with condominiums in them, find equally demanding. Out of 125 recommendations, only 10 or 12 are encompassed within the terms of the legislation we have before us today, albeit some of the ones which we have before us are of importance, and it is well to move the bill forward.

At the same time, it puzzles me as to why, having done major work supposedly to prepare for that earlier bill which came before us last week, and then seeing what the weight of grievances was, how widespread they were and how deep-searching, we come after many months to this bill. The minister has special staff who know all about condominiums and who must know the full range of this problem, who must know the import of this particular report, who even now after all that period of time have not seen fit to flush this thing out, cover the abuses in a much more thoroughgoing way and to bring before us a bill which has girth and depth rather than a kind of piece-meal operation which we seem to be presently engaged in in the whole field of condominiums.

I am inclined to run over a whole host of things. For instance, just take one of their recommendations. On page 13 of their report they say:

“There are at present no checks on a developer or penalties to be paid, if a non-completed or improperly finished building is turned over to a condominium corporation. This is contrary to municipal holdbacks on the completion of public services for a development in terms of bonds required and a corresponding development agreement. Under present circumstances, therefore, it is incumbent upon a purchaser to satisfy himself with regard to such matters.”

That’s just one small area. There is the whole area of private roads, of policing and of safety. If the roads are declared public roads and happen to split a condominium, what happens to the zoning requirements? Does that constitute a division of the land contrary to the Planning Act?

One of the recommendations in this report is that property management people in this particular field ought to be licensed. The minister launched into the travel agents today with respect to licensing procedures. I assure the minister that this property management thing is something that he should really look at. It is extremely serious.

It’s true he has given greater facility and powers to the condominium owners now, to engage their own management, which was one of the more vicious aspects of the extant legislation, and to dismiss the old condominium firms which were in cahoots with and were simply an extended left arm of the condominium developer in the first instance. It was a species of rip-off. Even at that, they haven’t been able to dismiss them if these are specialized types of agencies performing a very special function which should come in under the minister’s wing in the overall purview of his department.

As I say, the minister has done four things in the course of the legislation which are commendable. Mr. Speaker, it is certainly something on which I don’t take issue with the minister -- on the contrary -- but there has been produced a proposed amendment to the legislation we have before us. In other words, before the present amendments go through, we have the next wave, so to speak. If you are a surfboard man, Mr. Speaker, as I’m not, you’re quite likely to get drowned in the flood of ongoing waves. I haven’t had a real opportunity to absorb or peruse what is contained therein, but I think there is nothing of great moment in changing the principle of the legislation, but simply a sketching out of minor areas of improvement in the proposed new amendments as they come through.

I simply want to say publicly in the House that this particular procedure that the minister has adopted is, if we were just given a little breathing space to prepare, a commendable one and one that he is uniquely establishing as a precedent in this House. He’ll get no dog barks from me, at least, about proceeding in that particular way. We recognize the merit of the thing.

The legislation itself, as I say, leaving out what may be slightly amended within the terms of the proposed new amendments, does make it mandatory within one of these sections here to hold annual meetings on a compulsory basis. It also provides for the termination of the board of directors, who are elected at the time when the developer is the owner of the majority of the units, and the election of a new board within a specified time. Three months is the date of the annual meeting after the registration of the declaration, and the subsequent meeting after that cannot occur more than 15 months later. That’s very good, because condominium developers were sitting on it. They weren’t calling the meeting; they would run the condominium ad infinitum in their own hands, selling the units on what I would think would amount to a misrepresentation as to what the whole intent of the project was. Now that particular piece of viciousness has been foreclosed within the legislation and we find that commendable.

Similarly, the minister has made provision for the termination of management agreements and the possibility of looking into the books. The provisions under this particular head are contained under section 10 -- I have already gone about renumbering my sections. In that particular area there is the business of being able to move in, once the majority of the units have been sold, to foreclose the developer in a definite way with respect to his wing so that they can hire decent people as they see fit and set up a competitive system in pricing as among condominiums. Thus the buyers will not just have to bear, and have to bear into the indefinite future, what is imposed upon them when they first entered into the condominium unit, where the condominium developer divests himself of all responsibility and authority but has an extant agreement which goes on and is binding upon, at an excessive rate on a real rip-off principle, the members of the condominium unit into the future.

The minister has, in the new amendments that are coming before us, made provision for political canvassing in condominium units which was a real thorn in the flesh of numerous individuals in the municipal election that have gone before us in the last few days. Condominiums were not permitting them in. And it is a shame that provision had not already been made for that, but it is coming before us, I suppose as we hit the committee of the House, as an amendment to the legislation.

The third major area that deserves comment and which is a considerable alteration of the law is the business of new implied covenants being imposed or deemed to apply and, I take it, which cannot be contracted out of by condominium owners. I think they should be read into the record and made clear to the House. The first one is:

“Every agreement of purchase and sale entered into by a proposed declarant for a proposed unit for residential purposes shall be deemed to contain:

“(a) A covenant by the vendor to take all reasonable steps to register a declaration and description in respect of the property in which the unit is included without delay.”

I really think that is probably the best the minister can do, but again, they weren’t registering them. They were under no obligation to register them. They simply took the money from the purchaser. He moved in and everything dangled; everything was held in suspension. And if you hold your breath long enough, Mr. Speaker, you’ll probably expire. Many people did expire and have expired, not quite on the spot but just outside the condominium door, because of the state of the law as it has existed up until now.

The second major grievance is:

“(b) A covenant by the vendor to take all reasonable steps to sell the other units included in the property without delay, other than units mentioned in a statement under clause (c) of section 24(d).”

That is not particularly pertinent to what I want to say under this head, regarding the business of condominium owners converting apartment houses into condominiums, keeping a certain portion under rental leases and the balance being sold to provide them with capital and to take the speculative gains made from the increase in values.

By the way, that particular point is not really covered in this legislation. I would commend to the minister a piece of legislation recently introduced into this House by a certain Mr. Lewis, the member for Scarborough West, called Bill 147, a private member’s bill, which moves in precisely on that area and says that if it is going to be a condominium, let it be. The bill is to ensure that no presently occupied building is converted into condominium units without the approval of the municipality in which the building is situated.

At the present time, as a way of frustrating municipalities, as a way of getting rid of children, as a way of making an inbuilt profit on it, they have been converting rapidly, and there is no provision under the Planning Act, the Municipal Act, or particularly this legislation, where it ought to be, for closing that possibility, and that too is a shame.

But in the area that I am concerned with here, the business of selling off a few units and then renting the rest mixes the condominium thing extremely badly. The interest of a renter in the property is not identical with that of an owner. They are quite diverse interests. They run contrary to one another. They are conflicting. The furthest that the minister wants to be able to go in that regard would be if a condominium owner is going to be away for a period of time, on vacation or because of job opportunities, and he wishes to rent his condominium unit. He must be -- and I believe under this legislation will be -- pinpointed with the responsibility for the common elements and for the whole condominium operation in a very decisive way.

That is as it should be. That is not wholly arrived at under this proposed legislation before us and I think he is going to have to make further investigations under this head and possibly bring back next spring further amendments to this legislation, not only under this head, but under a number of others. The third point is:

“(c) A covenant by the vendor [should be deemed in every agreement of purchase] to take all reasonable steps to deliver to the purchaser a registrable deed or transfer of the unit without delay.”

Again, anyone who has had anything to do with this, particularly in the legal profession, knows that people move in, hand over their money, and then sit -- 14 months, 15 months, two years -- the deal never closes. The beggar won’t deliver a deed. We can’t force him to. He gives all kinds of hang-ups and reasons as to why he won’t do so.

The fact of the matter is that under law, until this time, he has not been under any obligation and so he simply hangs on. Why does he hang on? Because in the meantime, and in between time, he is deriving rentals from that proposed ultimate condominium owner; and not a cent of the rentals goes towards the total purchase price of the condominium unit; it’s simply money pocketed. While he has the pretense of the irresponsibility of the condominiums, he has all the benefits with respect to the monetary flow. That has been an irking and vicious thing written into the heart of our legislation, and to the extent that that is removed, fine.

The last thing that is of major import in the legislation has to do with trust moneys; in other words, if a purchaser moves into the condominium unit, his moneys must be held in trust. The section involved is No. 14:

“Where an agreement of purchase and sale entered into by a proposed declarant for a proposed unit for residential purposes permits or requires the purchaser to take possession of or occupy the unit before a deed or transfer of the unit acceptable for registration is delivered to him, the money paid in respect of such right or obligation to the proposed declarant shall be credited as payments of the purchase price unless the agreement states that the money or any part of it will not be so credited.”

And, of course, I want the minister to strike out that last clause because under these terms every agreement will use precisely that escape clause. It will be printed in every form. It’s not as though there was any particular difficulty about it. If you want to buy a condominium at all, you are going to have to accept this on the basis of a normal contract of adhesion. In other words, a lawyer representing a purchaser is not going to have a chance with respect to removing that clause if it stands the way it is. I would like the minister to give consideration to removing the “unless” clause from the legislation and making that thoroughly binding.

Well, much can be said as to the niceties, the -- I was going to say finicky points, but they are not that; many of them have real merit. The business of taking it away from the Supreme Court and putting it into the hands of the county court judge has validity. They are much more available; they are available in a wide diversity of communities throughout Ontario where the Supreme Court judge simply is not, because only on circuit would he be readily approachable.

On the business of a lien being imposed if one of the owners of a condominium does not make his contribution to the common expenses, that is a worthwhile provision.

You know, condominiums represent a new type of consciousness in the world. We have been driven to it; we never seem to raise our consciousness unless economic necessity dictates a new form of awareness. Sometimes I almost believe old Karl was right about a lot of things; in other words, we feel the pinch and then some forms of social living come into being as a result -- because of land prices, because of prices of apartments as they presently stand, because it represents the only chance for a man earning less than $15,090 in this province to own a place he can call his own. This is the last straw, and it has come about.

But what doesn’t happen, and what must be created, is a new thing. I mean, the business of living in little isolated units with a big yard around us, and, if possible, a 10-ft-high fence to keep others away -- the good-fences-make-bad-neighbours type of thing -- that whole mentality is being washed away.

We are coming into a new kind of civilization where a profound sense of mutuality, of sharing, comes into being. This is the most concrete testimonial to that new type of civilization that we face at the present time. People aren’t used to it; they find it extremely difficult to co-operate with one another in condominiums. They find it difficult to fulfill the obligations of attending the condominium meetings, to play their role and function with respect to the planning of the condominium, with respect to the lawns, the common elements and so on. Those who do participate, I think, gain an enormous amount out of the generosities involved; the feeling about their neighbours; their co-operative concepts. It’s a co-operative in terms of human living that is involved here. And whatever this ministry can do, it should do by way of easing that particular burden by way of some kind of educational process.

People come into legal offices, only anxious to get a roof over their head. They don’t know the full implications of condominium living. They don’t know the demands that are inherently going to be made upon them if that condominium co-op is going to work. And the lawyers aren’t in a position to tell them. They are strict automatonic individualists. They are out to get all they can for themselves. They have very little concept, by and large, as a mental state in the profession, as to what is involved; the profound sense of co-operation that is involved if condominiums are going to be made to work.

That they work as well as they do is amazing. It shows the adaptability of human nature as things presently stand. But there is a long way to go.

This ministry should do whatever it can through real estate firms and through directives and so on, to educate the general public as to the unique types of responsibilities of ownership involved. Because it isn’t ownership in the sense that “It’s mine”. It’s some thing else too: “It’s ours”. That is something that most people really don’t understand very well.

But as it comes to spread in our society as a beginning unit, then the whole of the damn capitalistic structure will fall apart. And this minister’s contribution to date is immense. It may break his heart to know that, but he can’t help himself. He is caught in the webs of destiny.

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

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Perth has outlined the position of this caucus -- and has done it very ably. I have just a few comments that I would like to make.

It is sad that when we are looking at this bill, which seeks to amend the Act, that we could not have gone much farther in trying to make the Act important in its conclusions to the people who are involved -- and for the most part sadly involved -- in the condominium experience.

We have heard about the matter of the common elements. One of the things that is riot really protected in this bill is that question -- the fact that developers can build condominiums as they have in my riding and people who purchase them believe that they were purchasing an apartment or a unit together with, for example, parking -- because the city of Toronto has regulations about parking. They find that, after they have entered into all of these complex arrangements, they have no voice in the parking. They have to face the fact that the developer is just forcing, increasing rentals for the accommodation known as garage accommodation.

In my view, this should not be something which can happen within the condominium legislation. Surely, this government should not be protecting developers who are using this method to try to overcome the requirements of a local municipality. This is the situation which has been allowed to develop.

Of course, we would propose an amendment to the Act which would give greater control of this kind of operation and prevent the developer being able to -- as he has been done, I think, without any question at all -- virtually misrepresent to the purchaser what it is that he or she is purchasing in the purchase of the unit.

So we would propose that every facility located within the boundaries of the plan of survey shall be included in the common elements and that no such facility shall be withdrawn therefrom without the consent of the owners who own 80 per cent of the common elements. This would be one of the ways in which we would like to approach the problem, which runs through every condominium with which I have been familiar.

I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I am one of those lawyers who has spent some time -- some short time, I must confess, as I’ve been trying to run away from having anything to do with condominiums because I happen to have a conscience about the kind of advice I would give a client, and I have never felt that I could really give the kind of assurance that I would want to give in dealing with this complex question. So I’m not speaking from any great experience in the field, but rather as a result of the complaints which have come to me from those who have, as I say, had the misfortune to deal with the developer in the condominium process.

There is no doubt in our view, too, that we must ensure within this legislation the provision of a performance bond. The absence of this is one of the things which has caused the greatest concern to people. In one case, in a letter, a copy of which was forwarded to us, from the Forest Hills community to Peel Village Developments Co. Ltd. under date of Nov. 25, 1974, this is one of the things they say:

“We have observed the tremendous amount of initiative and effort brought to bear to bring to completion as soon as possible the second phase of townhouses, while requests for repairs to our units have, in many instances, gone unheeded for months. And now the telephone number previously available to the construction office is out of service.”

This is the sort of thing we do not feel government is entitled to protect -- that is, the developer attitude. We are of the opinion that the condominium legislation should protect the purchaser who, after all, really isn’t in a position to control the situation, and, of course, perhaps we ought to look at the doctrine of caveat emptor in connection with condominiums since, in my view, it’s almost impossible for the purchaser to truly protect himself or herself.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will be producing, hopefully, some amendments that the minister will look at very closely and will examine to see whether or not we cannot between us bring forward something which will give greater protection to the consumer of this product. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we are indeed going to process this bill through the standing committee so that there may be an opportunity for those who have suffered to bring forward their point of view and make their submissions, and that we may be in a position where we might, even at that point, be able to consider the types of amendments that we feel are so imperative at this point. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the minister has introduced amendments designed to make life easier for the condominium dwellers by protecting them from the various devices conceived by some developers for ripping them off. That, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, is the main principle of this bill, and my only fear is that the amendments are arriving too late to save many condominium dwellers hundreds and thousands of dollars. One device used by some developers was to delay registration of the condominium as long as possible, telling the owners that 80 per cent of the units must be sold before the condominium could be registered and using all kinds of delays to keep the deeds from being registered to the individual owners for as long as possible.

This, of course, was never part of the plan conceived by those who promoted condominium life in the first place. I understand that Mississauga has had the wisdom and the foresight to appoint a condominium committee whose aim is to make life go smoothly for those who choose to own a condominium unit. Perhaps it was as a result of this committee’s work or perhaps it was simply because of the honesty of the developer, that buyers in the Applewood Hamlet condominium in Mississauga began to make their payments as owners, not as tenants, on the very day on which they moved into their homes.

In Windsor we had an unfortunate experience with the launching of Elizabeth Gardens. Despite attractive advertising that even included promises of no closing costs, those who bought found that they were thwarted at every turn by the Toronto developer and his Toronto lawyers. The story of Elizabeth Gardens is a chronicle of broken promises and broken commitments over a period of about two years, during which the registering of the condominium itself and the owners’ deeds suffered delay after delay. During all this time, despite the original promises that all the monthly payments, less taxes and utilities, would be counted off the occupants’ mortgages, the developers happily continued to collect rent. It was only a few months ago that the occupants of Elizabeth Gardens finally became owners. Even then, OHC had to hold up and use for repairs the final payments, which would have been $90,000, to ensure that leaky basements, leaky roofs and other structural flaws were remedied.

At Roseville Gardens in Windsor, we had a somewhat different situation. There 555 units, divided into four condominium projects, were built on land -- I am waiting for the minister to have his undivided attention, because I have a question at the end of my remarks and I would like him to be able to give me an answer. In Roseville Gardens we had a different situation. There were similar problems but there was a different twist. The 555 condominium units, divided into four separate condominium projects, were built on land donated to the city of Windsor by the Ford Motor Co. CMHC provided a loan of over $8 million as part of the federal government’s innovative housing programme to enable persons with limited incomes to become homeowners.

Mr. Speaker, without any land costs involved, you can understand that this really put the purchasing price within the reach of most people, even of low incomes. According to CMHC, and I am quoting:

“Some 410 families, ranging in annual income from approximately $4,200 to $9,500, took advantage of this special lending programme.”

However, according to the Windsor Star of Nov. 16, 1974:

“Today, two years after the 555-unit project was completed, only about one-third of the units are occupied by the people for whom they were originally intended. Almost one-third of the units are being rented on the open market by the builder, and the other third went to persons other than those for whom the project was originally intended.”

The Star’s reference, of course, is to persons in income brackets higher than $9,500.

Two of these condominium projects consist of apartments, all but 80 of which appear to have been sold. In the other two projects, consisting entirely of townhouses, the prices ranged two years ago from about $17,500 to $21,033, the latter being the price for a three-storey, four-bedroom townhouse with a built-in garage -- all for $21,000. I have received complaints, however, that these townhouses are no longer for sale, and have not been for over a year, but are being rented for about $250 a month.

In other words, those who were able to become owners two years ago are paying less than $200, with their common expenses included, and are buying their homes, while many of their neighbours are paying considerably more and are merely tenants. As happens everywhere, some tenants take little or no pride in their household, much to the annoyance of the owners who came into the project believing that they were entering a community of homeowners as advertised.

I wrote a letter to CMHC and made some inquiries through the minister’s own offices. From the latter I received a report that the developer stated that:

“He has no intention or desire to retain the remaining units in the Roseville project and that, in fact, approximately 30 of these units are being offered for sale at the present time. Apparently, the present housing market situation is making it difficult to sell these units.”

That’s the report I obtained from officials in the minister’s offices about the beginning of September.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the 30 units for sale are the apartments, the smallest of which went on the market two years ago at $9,379, with payments of $95 a month. No townhouses are included in those for sale.

I sent a copy of some of my correspondence to the Windsor city council, inasmuch as the city of Windsor was one of the initiators of the Roseville project. I suggested that council maintain a continuing interest in seeing that the original purpose, a community of homeowners, is achieved at as early a date as possible. I added that, and I’m quoting myself --

Mr. Deans (Wentworth): No better authority.

Mr. Burr: “It seems to me inconceivable that attractive townhouses, priced in a $17,500 to $21,000 range, with insignificant down payments, should go begging for buyers in the face of today’s desperate housing need.”

Despite the fact that the mayor assured council that the units were for sale, and the matter was therefore dropped at the council meeting, the Windsor Star did some further investigating. The Star found several persons who had tried to buy units but were told that none was for sale. A Star reporter inquired himself and got the same answer. He found seven families who had been told that there were no units for sale.

The developer insists that he will sell the 175 units he owns, but that if he were to flood the market private sellers would be at a disadvantage and could not compete. One of these private sellers is a developer himself who is building a HOME project a couple of miles away. There, similar houses are being sold at about $20,000 with the buyer leasing the 40 ft by 60 ft zero lot-line lots from OHC with an option to purchase the land later for $9,100. As an interjection, Mr. Speaker, you can get 17 of these lots to an acre, and they are being sold by OHC under the HOME programme for $9,100 a lot. At 17 to an acre, that is $150,000 an acre. But the houses, apart from the lots, are selling there for about $20,000.

The developer’s fears of flooding his own market may be well founded. Anyone who wishes to buy a condominium in Roseville Gardens can do so only by buying out a private owner at a price $4,000 to $5,000 or more above the 1972 price at which he purchased it. According to the Star, the developer says he will sell his units “when market conditions are right.” The Star interprets this to mean that “he expected private sales in Roseville to dry up eventually.” The Star continues:

“However, he stressed that when he sold them it would be at the going market price and not at the low selling price at which he originally bought them. Even at that original price a profit had been calculated for the developing company, Roseville Gardens (Windsor) Ltd.”

According to the developer, CMHC insisted on observing the low-income ceilings long after the supply of those eligible to buy was exhausted. By the time the income ceilings for prospective buyers were raised or removed, as they obviously were, despite the letter I read to you from CMHC, many potential buyers had made other plans.

The developer claims that no units were rented until “all reasonable and unreasonable efforts had been made to sell them.” Nevertheless, I have an affidavit, Mr. Speaker, stating that one couple rented a townhouse in Roseville in August of 1972 with an option to buy after one year and that this option was refused when August, 1973, rolled around.

Be that is it may, what is the present situation? According to the Star reporter, a four-bedroom unit, if available for sale in December from the developer -- and one of them may be -- will be sold at $28,800 instead of at $21,033, the sale price when the project was completed. The developer has enjoyed the rental income from this house for two years, a total of at least $4,000 after taxes and utilities, and now stands to make over $7,000 more than he would have made in the summer of 1972.

What effect will the amendments being introduced today have on that situation? The whole purpose of the federal government’s innovative housing project was to make housing available to low-income families who would otherwise have no hope of ever owning a home, but the result is that the developer now holds 145 units released to him by CMHC and 29 others that he bought back from the original buyers, for a total of 174. On these 29 there is some justification for him to make a new profit and sell at the present market price, but on the 145 unsold units the original price should stand. One could even argue that part of the rent already paid should be credited off the mortgage should the present tenants wish to buy.

So, Mr. Speaker, I should like the minister to let me know what effect this amended bill will have on the 145 unsold condominiums in Roseville Gardens. That is the question that I should like the minister to answer.

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

The hon. member for Etobicoke.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on the bill. Like my predecessors, I am in support of the bill; but there are several problems and several situations that I think should be brought to the attention of this House while we debate this on second reading.

I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, because we have something like 14 condominium projects in Etobicoke, and one of the first and the largest was the Kingsview complex at the corner of Dixon Rd. and between Kipling and Islington Aves. Many thousands of people live there. I have been in receipt of many communications from those people and from many other people who reside in the northern part of Etobicoke and live in condominiums. Therefore, I would like to add a few comments to the debate.

We know that condominium housing, a form of housing new to this province, was encouraged by this government. As I said, we in Etobicoke have many examples of condominium housing and we have considered it a housing form that would enable a larger segment of the population to own their own homes.

There are serious continuing problems in condominium housing in Metro. Residents believe that there is much confusion about their status as homeowners, and they find themselves in a distinct position of disadvantage when dealing with the fire department or the police. In some instances they must provide for private garbage collection, although their high rate of property tax most obviously should cover this cost. In effect, they rare paying twice for the same service. Until recently in Etobicoke, they were paying for garbage collection. That was the general situation there, but the Etobicoke council has taken steps to provide for some garbage collection and the situation now is a little better.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major problems has been the lack of understanding and knowledge on the part of officials at the municipal level with regard to condominium living and condominium law. Let me make it abundantly clear that although condominium homes may look like apartment buildings, in fact they are a group of privately owned homes that have been built on various levels instead of side by side on fiat acreage. Condominium owners have registered titles to their homes, they pay taxes and are as much homeowners as the family living in a single-family detached or semi-detached unit.

Let me emphasize that these are not rental income apartments. Condominium owners are the same as any other homeowner who has to pay a mortgage, insurance, realty taxes, maintenance charges and all the other expenses and problems that go with the owning of one’s home. However, because condominiums appear to be like apartment buildings, owners are having great difficulty in getting across to civic authorities, to law enforcement agents, to business organizations, and to other members of the community, that the concept does exist of them being individual homeowners with the same rights and obligations as other homeowners in the community. In Etobicoke, one area which appears to be absolutely ridiculous is the absence of a fire route bylaw. There is no need to state that the lack of such a bylaw could conceivably lead to the loss of lives in the event of a major conflagration within the condominium proper.

Another area in which there are serious problems is that of police involvement as it pertains to large condominium buildings. Although the police have tried to co-operate in many instances, the condominium home owners have found that the general lack of awareness contributes to many aggravating and disturbing situations which, had they occurred on single-family, detached, flat-land properties, would have been looked after immediately.

For example, as a detached-residence owner if you came home to find a car trespassing on your property -- on your front lawn or in your garage -- you would have no difficulty in getting the police to look into this violation of your private property rights. To put it mildly, the condominium owners, particularly in large buildings, are finding that such cases are treated with apathy and, on some occasions, with downright hostility and refusal to co-operate on the part of the police. There should be no reason that private condominium homeowners should have to consider the engaging of a private security force when they are being forced to pay taxes for police protection, I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in the Kingsview condominium complex many thousands of dollars are paid every year by the board of directors for that very purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I make these comments to illustrate to the members of this House some of the difficulties which condominium homeowners are having. These problems are mainly due to the fact that the whole concept of condominiums is new, but it is incumbent on the government to take steps to amend the Condominium Act so that problems the like of which I have talked about can be looked after.

An inspection of the usual offer to purchase a condominium unit will reveal that it is obvious that purchase arrangements for these projects must be modified. The requirements of the Condominium Act with regard to the amendment of bylaws are unrealistic. It would be most helpful if a way could be found to enter into discussions with the people concerned to that realistic solutions could be worked out.

Mr. Speaker, in Etobicoke members of the various boards of directors of the condominiums there have got together and they have formed a first-of-a-kind association. I don’t think there is anything like this anywhere in Canada or anywhere in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, the 14 condominiums had a series of meetings with the borou.gh and with representatives of the various condominiums and they have decided to help themselves by approving in principle the formation of a borough-wide association. The corporations endorsed the idea of an association as the only way to promote internal communications and collectively to push for changes to the Condominium Act.

The directors who were present at the meeting, held about a week or two ago, are going back to their individual boards to get confirmation of the desire to form an association, and they are also going to persuade the 11 other registered corporations that were not present or represented at the meeting to join.

The vice-chairman of the association for the present is Dave Cranston, and he is the vice-president of York Condominium 60 at Dixon Rd. in the Kingsview complex, which I mentioned earlier. He says: “We don’t know what’s going to come out of it. The only one way we are going to solve any problems is to spend that extra one day and night to do something.” Suggested functions, Mr. Speaker, according to the thoughts expressed by this group would be the following: firstly, to act collectively to seek amendments to the Condominium Act; secondly, to pursue assessment appeal cases before the courts, which may be resolved by the Supreme Court eventually; thirdly, to advise and assist new boards of directors on legal matters, bylaw amendments and operation of condominiums, and to act as a referral bureau for determining good property management firms.

As I say, that’s a first for this province. This association of the 14 -- and it is hoped the remaining 11 Etobicoke condominiums -- will be a potent force in the future as far as this whole concept of condominiums is concerned.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, there should be more contact between the government and the various condominium owners. I would suggest that the minister or someone in his department convene a workshop involving condominium owners, management and the government so that workable solutions can be found from time to time for the difficulties of condominium owners. Our experience is that such useful discussion should be entered into immediately.

Today, I have some suggestions for the government. First, all condominium owners have a say in the management of the project through the board of directors. The board has the responsibility of administering the common funds of the condominium and can either hire a professional management team or manage the project itself. However, management by families is not as ideal as it may sound. With a multitude of families involved in decisions, agreement can often be hard to obtain. The Act could be revised to provide a Kissinger type of influence when disagreements occur.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of disagreements, I have received from a Mrs. Hulme of 340 Dixon Rd., Apt. 305, Weston -- who is a resident of the Kingsview complex that I mentioned earlier -- a letter dated Nov. 26, and basically she is enclosing a copy of a letter circulated within the complex. This letter is “a letter of an irate owner, one of the many in the complex,” and because the general idea of condominiums is new, as I mentioned, there are many problems.

This lady says she is sending this copy of the letter in the hope that we may achieve some help for the owners in this complex. She is speaking of the Kingsview condominium complex.

“Many of us feel that we are being ripped off. Our maintenance fee is going up in too substantial an amount every year. The cost of living is continually rising, but this is too much. The excess reserve fund the board of directors seems to require, we cannot understand, as we feel that we should not have to pay for the faults and deficiencies of the builder.”

I want to just divert for a moment, Mr. Speaker, to say that it has been mentioned about the deficiencies that many of the builders have left when they put up one of these condominiums, and what happens is that in time the chickens come to roost and the people who own the condominium find that they are the ones who have to shell out. I am going to comment on that further, but this is what she is referring to here. This lady states, and I am continuing my quotation:

“We need a government body looking into the boards of directors and/or management of condominiums. We are not getting the value for our money at all, and need a fair shake. The proposed budget for our condominium for 1975 seems to be phenomenal. Can we be helped in any way? Thanking you for your perusal of this letter, and hoping we can gain headway in these matters with your assistance.”

Mr. Speaker, that is her letter. She attaches to the letter a copy of the 1975 budget projection recap for York condominium No. 42, which is the one in which she lives. This gives some idea of the 1974 budget, 1974 estimated and the 1975 budget, for various items like utilities, wages, maintenance and repairs, and administrative costs, and it sets out that there will be an average cost per unit of $742.47 budgeted for 1975. Then it goes on to show the proposed income and outgo for the York Condominium Corp. No. 42.

The letter she referred to in her letter was written by Steve Oberding, a concerned owner at 340 Dixon Rd. He’s complaining, he states, because “I am angry.” And he has written this letter to all the people who live at 340 Dixon Rd. He says: “I am angry -- and you should be too.” He sets out various facts. The first one is:

“The present board of directors, through mismanagement of our money -- and, I repeat, our money -- is making a move to increase our common elements, not by just a few dollars but by many, many dollars.

“Why? Mismanagement of thousands of dollars a year. Just where the hell has it gone? We know that the cost of living keeps going up, but this is ridiculous!”

He goes on to list other problems that are besetting this particular condominium, and he sets out his ideas as to why the problems have arisen. He feels that mismanagement is at the root of many of the problems.

He’s doing his best to get the people concerned, and he states:

“In other words, clean house in the board room and stop our common elements from being the highest of any condominium corporation in Ontario. We should not be paying our treasurer $50 a week to look after his own interests.”

And he goes on and on. He says: “Protect your investment: re-elect a new board of directors.” That is the word he is trying to get across in his communication to the residents, which has been sent to me by the lady referred to earlier. He is trying to get across to them the idea that they should attend the meetings and that they should do something about the running of the condominium by trying to elect members of the board of directors who would be interested in the costs and in the problems of the owners.

The second comment I wish to make is that there are other shortcomings in the laws affecting condominiums. Some people have found themselves in the unfortunate situation of making down payments on units but being refused possession until they have paid additional money. Others may find, after making a down payment, that the developer has gone bankrupt before construction has been completed. Most people are not aware that a condominium under the present law does not become a condominium, and the purchasers are not owners, until everything in the building has been completed and the declaration registered with the government. Only then does the purchaser receive title to his unit.

It is estimated that by the end of this summer there will be more than 15,000 owners of condominiums in Metropolitan Toronto. The present laws are lacking in buyer protection and this government must accept more responsibility in the protection of the purchasers of these units.

Ralph Nader calls it the No. 1 consumer issue of this decade. In 1968 the Ontario Law Reform Commission published a report on the trade and sale of new houses. The report recommended that a new house built or sold should be (a) fit for habitation; (b) built of proper materials and in a good and workmanlike manner; and (c) free from latent defects in construction. Unfortunately, those recommendations have never been adopted by the government for houses or for condominiums.

How is a prospective buyer able to tell that the paint on the walls is cheap or that the plumbing, heating and electrical materials aren’t made of the cheapest products? If there is carpeting down, how is the buyer able to tell what is underneath that carpeting?

There is always some element of risk involved in any purchase, but the government should make mandatory a standard contract which clearly sets out the maintenance obligations of each party at the time of purchase. This contract should set down certain guarantees that the developer must stand behind concerning the installations within the complex. Perhaps in this way greater consideration will be given to whether the materials used in construction will last more than three years.

It has been suggested that condominium owners will be, some time in the future, protected by means of what is, in effect, an insurance policy which will cost the buyer about $100 extra. My feeling is that the condominium purchaser should be protected without having to pay anything extra. The so-called insurance policy should be available to those who want it in addition to the protections given to the purchaser under the law and under the contract of purchase and sale.

Another safeguard about which I feel strongly is that condominium builders should be obliged to post a performance bond to ensure that potential buyers will receive what they have paid for, and to protect them and their deposits against a possible bankruptcy or sudden price hikes on the part of the developer.

This government should look at some of the European examples of legislation dealing with condominiums, since this type of housing has existed there for centuries. There are clear controls, both to protect the purchaser from unscrupulous developers and management firms, and also to protect him from his fellow owners.

In Britain, for example, a condominium owner can take his neighbour to court if he doesn’t keep up minimum standards of cleanliness and repair. It is time our government put some type of protective controls into effect. The need for quality control in housing construction has been demonstrated and is long overdue.

Before I leave the subject of condominiums, I want to bring to the attention of the government a particular problem which condominium owners have. This concerns the questions of meetings of condominium owners at which business concerning the condominium is discussed.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that on many occasions the builder of a condominium does not sell all the units immediately, for one reason or another. And so we find that for many months after the registration of the condominium plan, there are many units which are left unsold and which are rented by the builder. Bearing in mind that the average renter or lessee would not have the same interest in the condominium as an owner, I would suggest that the Condominium Act should provide that no one who was a leasee should have a vote at a meeting of the condominium owners.

As for the builder, I would suggest that the Act should be amended so that any units held by the builder after one year following the registration of the plan could not be used by the builder for voting purposes so long as they remained unsold and in the hands of the builder.

Continuing with the subject of meetings of condominium owners, I have a letter here from a Mr. Maynard Sutherland, of 551 the West Mill, suite 216, the Grange, Etobicoke, Mr. Sutherland states as follows:

“All bylaws for condominium complexes are drafted by developers. In most cases, as in ours, they are a replica of bylaws found in rental apartment leases. Unfortunately, to amend a bylaw it is necessary, as legislated in the Condominium Act, to obtain a 66% majority, not of a quorum but of all owners. In our complex, numbering 305 suites, 203 votes in favour is required to institute or amend the bylaws. You know that in federal, provincial and municipal elections, or at a stockholders’ meeting of a large corporation, to have even a 60 per cent turnout for a vote is quite an accomplishment. From this you can see a small number can stifle what the majority would consider progress.

“Case in point: Recently a meeting was held and on the agenda was one item to amend the bylaws. Of the 305 units in the complex, 162 owners attended or submitted proxies at the meeting, plus the developer, who still held 65 units, for a total of 227 units. The voting was as follows: 144 for; 22 against; 65 abstained -- and these latter were the developers. Although the ‘fors’ outvoted the ‘against’ by about seven to one, the Condominium Act dictated in favour of the 22. As you can see, abstention or absenteeism are considered a negative vote; which I consider creates an unfair situation.”

Mr. Sutherland also states that it outlines in the Act that a quorum of 102 or 33⅓ is required before business can be transacted, and that it is unfortunate that this does not apply to bylaw changes. He goes on to suggest that it would only be fair for consideration to be given to amendments being made to the Condominium Act permitting the affirmative vote of 66 2/3 per cent of a quorum to be accepted for the amending or creating of a bylaw, or failing that abstention votes and absentees be proportioned for and against those in attendance.

As you can see, Mr. Speaker, it would certainly help if the government would take to heart the example given to us by Mr. Sutherland and bring forth amendments as suggested.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we have the massive condominium project known as Kingsview Park Village. I understand it’s one of the largest condominium developments in all of Canada. The residents of these condominiums brought to my attention many of the problems which I have brought to the attention of the House today. I know I speak for all of them when I say they would certainly appreciate speedy government action in updating the Condominium Act and providing for more and better protection for purchasers and present occupants of condominiums.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments now about one of the problems of construction that is found in one of the large condominiums in my area. Mr. Speaker, it’s inconceivable to me and to the people I represent that services, that’s roads and sewers, which are publicly financed should not meet acceptable standards of construction.

In the borough of Etobicoke we have had two or three examples of unbelievable situations of road and sewer collapse soon after construction has been completed. I most earnestly urge that this problem be given the highest priority and solutions found, and found, and found quickly.

As an example, York Condominium Corp. No. 8 was registered as a condominium in January, 1970. The building is located at the intersection of Albion Rd. and Finch Ave. W, opposite Shoppers’ World in Rexdale. It was built under the HOME plan, which should have guaranteed that all work had been carried out under the rigid standards required in the NHA and CMHC specifications. The bulk of the building was done between October, 1967, and February, 1970. The paving portion was carried out during the summer of 1970. After the winter of 1970-1971, large areas of paving on roadways and driveways had collapsed. The builder, Bramalea Consolidated Developments Ltd., was notified in writing and patching of these areas was completed under the terms of the warranty.

At this point, however, the board of directors was informed that as far as the builder was concerned, this repair discharged him from any further obligations. The builder was informed in writing that the repair job which had been done was unsatisfactory and that further work would be required, but no further correspondence or satisfaction was forthcoming and all appeals through Bramalea Consolidated and their property management divisions were ignored.

At this point, through Mr. Wilfred Barker, McAsphalt Industries was employed to ascertain the extent and condition of all roads in regard to damage and specifications. Through 1971 and 1972 this firm took core samples and made Benkelman beam tests on the road system.

In the summer of 1972 York Condominium Corp. No. 8 carried out patching of the worst areas as subsidence had taken place throughout the entire site. These repairs were at a cost of $2,500. At this time the first major sewer collapse took place. Many discussions took place between Bramalea property management and the board of directors to determine financial responsibility. In the end, the total cost of $3,500 was borne by the condominium.

In December, 1972, the condominium’s board of directors finally terminated their contract of management with Bramalea property management and hired the firm of Davidson Management Systems Ltd. to act as their property manager.

In December, 1972, the second major sewer collapse took place. Davidson Management Systems brought in the firm of Golder Associates to take soil condition and compaction tests from the trench at the site of collapse. It was at this point, after the findings of Golder Associates, that efforts concerning litigations against Bramalea Consolidated were intensified.

Davidson Management Systems, through their investigations, contacted the firm of Wylie and Ufnal Consulting Engineers to get site drawings showing specifications to which roads and services were to be installed. Management received a copy of a report to the municipal government which outlines the specifications recommended for building Albion Rd., Finch Ave., Martingrove and Kendleton Dr.; plus all residential side streets feeding into these arteries. It was learned that the engineers recommended a minimum depth of 11 in. for the residential side streets and much greater depths for the arteries. The site drawings did not indicate exact specifications, but alluded to vague wording such as “built to borough specifications.”

At a meeting in January, 1973, between the board of management’s solicitors, Golder Associates, McAsphalt Engineering, and Davidson Management Systems representing management, it was ascertained that the findings of the compaction tests indicated that the trenches had been filled with material which was not compactable due to excessive water content.

McAsphalt Industries had further determined that the site generally, as far as road surface and drives were concerned, varied in depth between 6 in. and 8 in. and was comprised of 4 in. of very light gravel, with 2 in. of asphaltic cap. In their opinion these were no better than a side drive specification, hardly adequate for roads which were called upon to withstand at least secondary road loads.

In the spring of 1973, Davidson Management Systems put out tenders for road repairs, as breakup of pavement was increasing. A price for repairs of $11,000 was agreed upon in late April. However, by early May the amount of decay had increased such that it required $16,000 be spent only to do the worst areas. Subsidence of drives, roads, doorways, and so on was very pronounced at this time and road drainage was becoming virtually impossible in many areas. At this time, two further sewer collapses took place, along with the collapse of brick work in 18 catch basins. Golder Associates and McAsphalt Industries were again called in, Golder Associates to perform further compaction tests and McAsphalt Industries to view decay and to express a professional opinion.

A meeting was again called between all interested parties, including the president of York Condominium Corp. No. 8 The results of the tests regarding compaction again indicated a non-compacted base material and, due to water in soil, the opinion that in its present state compaction could never take place. Mr. Davidson pointed out to the board of management that due to the severity of subsidence and decay, all grades originally planned were now virtually non-existent.

McAsphalt and Golder were asked to outline alternate methods of repair. The methods discussed were as follows:

1. To reconstruct and resurface existing roads, drives, doorways, curbs and sidewalks. This method can be discounted, as the amount of subsidence and loss of grade would make it impossible to regrade the site and achieve any type of fall or drainage. Also, due to non-compactable materials in sub-levels, breakup would most certainly occur again within three years.

2. To remove asphalt and site material as required to obtain proper grades and fails, and resurface with gravel and asphalt to achieve new surfaces in all areas. This method is not desirable because of non-compactable materials in sublevels.

To remove asphalt, gravel and backfill to a depth of 8 ft on roads, drives, doorways, curbs and sidewalks, to relay sewers and lateral runs as required, to refill site with compactable backfill and to rebuild the road to proper specifications.

Davidson Management Systems proceeded to get prices to carry out the above work, and again the decision to press on with regard to litigation was reaffirmed.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the question is: Does the board of directors sue the original builder, who no longer has an interest in the condominium: or does it sue the actual builder of the road, which was a subsidiary of Bramalea Consolidated Developments Ltd.; or does it sue the firm which surfaced the road, Vespi Pavers Ltd., with whom they did not have a contract? On whom does liability lie?

These are some of the problems which the condominium owners in that project are having.

Davidson Management Systems obtained a price of $875,000 to carry out the work outlined in method No. 3. If normal financing were obtained at 10 per cent interest -- and this is just about impossible now -- this would represent in 25 years an approximate cost of $8,750 per homeowner. This would mean doubling the maintenance fee from $27 to $54 a month. And that is without taking into consideration the inflation we are suffering now, Mr. Speaker.

Davidson Management Systems, in carrying out its spring site inspection, has found that subsidence in all asphalt areas has continued, with drops of up to 4 in. in doorways and between 8 to 12 in. in roadways. The rate of decay on asphalt surfaces has intensified to a point where a conservative estimate of $60,000 could be placed on road repairs for the worst areas for 1974.

This does not include repairs to driveways or doorways, and it is now found that due to no drainage or fall from most areas, the water is lying in the roadways and running back in against building foundations, softening them and intensifying the possibility of even more severe damage during the winter and spring frosts which are coming. It is mandatory, therefore, that repairs of much larger magnitude should be carried out as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, there is every indication that Bramalea Consolidated will drag out this matter through every court in the land. This might take a maximum of five years. Therefore York Condominium Corp. No. 8 is left with the problem of having to raise enough money for the repairs now.

From all the above information there appears a big question: If Ontario Housing Corp. put up the land, CMHC secured financing and the government sponsored the building under the HOME plan, how did such a badly planned and executed service system ever get installed? Having in the past known the high standards which the Canadian home builder had to meet in order to secure NHA approval and CMHC financing, I am sure that they would want to be made aware of the plight of the homeowners of York Condominium Corp. in order to push for remedial action and reparation.

Mr. Speaker, that is just one of the problems that has been brought to my attention by the homeowners in Etobicoke.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister must have a report on problems in existing condominiums which is dated Nov. 8, 1974, from the borough of Etobicoke special committee on housing.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Has the minister got that?

Mr. Braithwaite: Has he got that?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): He reads little else.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, this is the culmination of many meetings of condominium owners and a committee set up by the council of Etobicoke. It just came to my attention yesterday. I notice that many recommendations are made with reference to the problems that condominium owners are having.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he wouldn’t seriously consider setting up some sort of ongoing dialogue between the owners of condominiums, management and builders of same, with the government having some say -- through some sort of individual set-up, such as an ombudsman -- so that problems, such as those I brought to the attention of the House in discussing the trouble that York Condominium No. 8 is having could be discussed without having to go to lengthy and costly litigation. Above all, I am sure that if the recommendations in this report are earnestly studied and carried out by the minister’s staff, many of the birth pangs that condominiums are going through now would never happen.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying that I support the bill. As I’ve said, it’s my feeling it’s kind of late now. A lot of the thinking in the bill should have been put before this House long before condominiums were allowed to expand as they have.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peel South.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to speak for a moment or two on the bill, to commend the minister for bringing this bill forward. It’s some five or six years, I think, since the original one became operative, and certainly there was a shakedown period. There were some problems that surfaced as time went along and these units came into acceptance by people. They have now become quite a significant part of the total housing picture. There was quite a thrust forward with them in Mississauga.

It was through the acceptance of these, and some of the problems that came about, that I believe the changes in this new Act -- the new amendments -- have come forward. I think I had the same problems as some of the previous speakers -- the usual ones; the construction deficiencies, which aren’t solely confined to condominiums but afflict all types of accommodation, and those in the area of administration. There seemed to be some vagueness in the rules, or in the legislation that set up these condominium corporations. Other problems were with respect to the common expenses and the utilization of common elements. Delay in registration was a big problem.

I think the amendments now go a long way to dealing with those problems; I see reference to them. I’ve had correspondence and inquiries. For instance, one person asked about the difference between a rule and a regulation. Well I presume one section permits the management to make certain decisions, and if the membership at large is not satisfied with that, could the minister explain whether section 6(3) then becomes the operative one, where 25 per cent of the owners of common elements can get together and clarify any of these problems where they feel that perhaps management or directors as have been named, have overstepped their authority. Perhaps he could provide clarification on that.

I think this goes a long way -- I know it does -- toward clearing away some of these problems. I am pleased that in correspondence the minister has stated in effect that even these current changes aren’t carved in stone, and if there is demonstrated need there will be further amendments to them. I commend him for bringing it forward. I very much appreciate knowing there is possible flexibility as need may arise, and I know it will be well received by both those who are purchasers of condominium units and also the municipalities and the producers of them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, in joining this debate, let me tell the minister, or tell the minister through you, that together with my colleagues we are going to support this bill in principle I am not going to be nearly as warm as the hon. member for Peel South was, about saying what a noble job the minister has done.

Mr. Kennedy: It is noble.

Mr. Singer: Well, it isn’t a noble job; it has been too long in coming. There have been complaints in existence for a long time. The member for Peel South said there were complaints. If he wants, I’ll read my whole 1972 speech over again. I am sure the minister has done very little else since he began to consider amendments to this statute.

Mr. Ferrier: Wouldn’t the member say he was doing a noble job in that speech?

Mr. Singer: Oh I certainly did. It wasn’t this minister. The responsibility for condominiums has been bounced around from one minister to another. I was looking for an adjective to describe the character of the ministers who have bad this under their supervision for a while, but I won’t be that unkind. It just hasn’t been the most popular statute in the ministry. There have been a variety of ministers who have attempted to cope with it, and nobody has come up with anything until now.

Mr. Kennedy: The statutes brought forward acceptance of units, though.

Mr. Singer: Oh, yes.

Mr. Kennedy: Condominium units now get accepted.

Mr. Singer: Well, since the member for Peel South is so anxious to commend the government, perhaps I will have to read my 1972 speech over again and tell him about the 12 points I suggested should be looked into at that point --

Mr. Kennedy: I will take it as read, much as I’d like to hear it. I’ll take it as read.

Mr. Singer: It may be that this debate will have to go on for a lot of hours until I can get through to the member for Peel South, but perhaps if he will take it as read --

Mr. Kennedy: As read and dismissed.

Mr. Singer: -- and agree that it has taken a long time to bring forth these amendments. I will try to cut my remarks rather short.

I want to bring to the minister’s attention -- and I don’t know whether he has seen this or not -- a letter I received from a group of constituents of mine called the Forest Hills Community Townhouse Residents Association, 73 Plum Treeway Cresc., in Willowdale, Ont. These are people who have bought units in a condominium development on the west side of Bathurst St., between Sheppard and Finch Ave., if that will help the minister to locate it.

In any event, the development was built several years ago but really dragged its feet until this past year because the condominium units were not selling so well. Then, as a result of a change in market conditions, sales picked up suddenly. It was built by Peel Village Developments Co. Ltd.

I have here a copy of a letter, dated Nov. 25, that this Community Townhouse Residents Association sent to the developers, Peel Village; it’s not a long letter, and I think I will read a substantial part of it into the record.

“Dear Sirs:

“The occupants of the townhouse units of Forest Hills community of Peel Village Developments Co. Ltd. have patiently awaited the completion of the project, its registration and transfer of title of each of the units to its purchaser. We have endured considerable inconvenience since occupying our units in the early spring and summer of 1974, but as long as apparent progress was being made we were prepared to tolerate it in the expectation that total completion, including that of landscaping and communal recreational centre, would occur about the end of September in keeping with our occupancy agreements.”

It is not an unreasonable letter. It is not a demanding letter.

“We have observed the tremendous amount of initiative and effort brought to bear to bring to completion as soon as possible the second phase of the townhouses, while requests for repairs to our units have in many instances gone unheeded for months, and now the telephone number previously available to the construction office is out of service.”

If I could get the minister’s attention for a moment or two during this debate, I don’t think that’s an uncommon kind of a complaint. They wanted to ask for repairs and the telephone number of the condominium developers just wasn’t in service. It is pretty hard to complain when you can’t even telephone somebody, eh?

“Secondly, street cleaning and maintenance has been undertaken to a low standard such that debris is left to accumulate for prolonged periods of time, street name and parking signs or pavement markings are non-existent and pavement repairs, such as in front of units 3 to 13 Plum Treeway, were done so shoddily as to completely obliterate the concrete drainage channel.

“The prolonged delay and continued uncertainty of the date of achieving completion, registration and transfer of title -- ”

This comes through time and time again. My colleagues have told the minister about that, and I am sure the NDP speakers have spoken about that. Even the member for Peel South, with reluctance, said it was terrible a while back, but hurray for the minister he is now going to do something about it. But these complaints are still there and as I look through this Act, I am not sure that the minister has put enough teeth in it to enable these kinds of complaints to be dealt with properly.

“The prolonged delay and continued uncertainty of the date of achieving completion, registration and transfer of title, coupled with the completely unacceptable provisions for membership fees and regulations for the recreation centre [and that’s a very serious concern in these developments, in this one particularly] have prompted us to take concerted action to safeguard our own best interests. Accordingly, at a recently convened meeting of the occupants -- ”

Not of the association, just of the occupants, the people who were there -- I guess as tenants, in expectation of becoming owners when all the legal work catches up.

“ -- it was agreed that Forest Hills Community Townhouse Residents’ Association be formed for the purpose of acting on behalf of the occupants in matters of mutual concern. This communication represents the first action of the association on behalf of its membership. There are five matters concerning us on which we would appreciate a response without delay.

“Registration and transfer of title: [In other words: How much longer do we have to wait until the legal work is caught up?] Please advise us of the date on which the condominium declaration and description were submitted for registration in the land registry office for the land titles division of Toronto and York. Please advise us of the date on which you now expect registration to be completed and the closings for the transfer of the title to take place. [And, as I say, this goes on. It’s a common complaint through all of these developments].

“Condominium agreement: Please forward us a copy of the draft condominium agreement which we will be expected to sign on closing.”

One would think that that should automatically come forward, unless the developer is not anxious to have that condominium agreement examined for too lengthy a period, or that ability to get advice on it be provided by reason of putting copies in the hands of the people who are concerned.

“Please confirm the common area charges for each unit and advise us of the services that will be rendered for them.

“Please advise us as to the date on which the landscaping of the central open space area extending westerly from the recreation centre will be completed, and the nature of the landscaping to be undertaken.

“The members of our association have recollections of being advised by your salesmen prior to submitting their offers to purchase their units that the recreation centre: 1. Would be available for the exclusive use of the residents of Forest Hills Community project; and 2. be available for fees in the order of about $25 to $35 a year per family. From the application forms now available it is apparent that the recreation centre is to be operated as a private commercial athletic club, available to everyone willing to pay the membership fee. The membership fee structure is very complex and based on the presumption that all members will know precisely what facilities they with to utilize, nor is there any indication that the fee would be for membership involving the use of all of the facilities.

“We find the rates quoted to be completely out of line with those of any other condominium project in Toronto, and in fact in excess of the fees and charges by most public or private recreation centres. None of our membership is prepared to pay these excessive fees, nor to accept the notion that junior members be excluded from the use of the exercise room facilities. Further, we do not regard it to be unreasonable to expect that all the residents in the Forest Hills Community project have a voice in the determination of the provisions to be made for the use of the recreation centre.”

And I can recall, when they were having a tough time trying to sell these units, or even to rent them, One of the big things talked about was the community centre.

I’m glad the hon. member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) has just come in, because he probably can recall of his own knowledge when he was a member of the North York Council, some of the problems that existed in relation to the Forest Hills condominium development on north Bathurst St. I am just reading to the minister now a letter I have received from the residents complaining about the lack of protection that the Condominium Act has provided for these people.

The hon. member for Don Mills has had quite a bit of experience from the local council point of view, and a lot of condominiums were being built in North York during his time on council and a lot of complaints were coming forward to the North York council. That’s why I question the validity of the contribution made by the hon. member for Peel South, saying: “Isn’t the minister wonderful? He’s finally bringing forward some amendments to clean up -- ”

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I think he’s right though.

Mr. Singer: Yes, well --

Mr. Kennedy: Right on.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): In all modesty.

Mr. Singer: Yes, he’s got a certain astigmatism and blind lack of objectivity when he comes to address matters like that.

Mr. Kennedy: He will bring more if the member needs it.

Mr. Singer: It’s a point of view to which I don’t entirely subscribe.

“We find the rates to be completely out of line and none of the membership is prepared to pay these excessive rates.” Well there was misrepresentation. They were told there was this beautiful recreation centre and they were all going to be able to use it for nominal fees and so on, and it isn’t going to turn out that way.

“Please advise us when the decision was made to operate the recreation centre as a private commercial venture independent of any influence of the existing or newly formed condominium corporation or corporations; of the date and minute of the general meeting of the existing condominium corporation at which arrangements for construction, operation and membership for the recreation centre were discussed and ratified; the provisions you now contemplate for permitting the existing or newly-formed condominium corporation to become involved in the operation and programming of the recreation centre and the possible acquisition of it over time as an addition to the lands held in common; and fourthly, of your willingness to permit all existing Forest Hills community residents to the free use of the recreation centre facilities for the present to the date of the final closings, without prejudice to our right to continue discussions concerning membership fees, rules and regulations for a longer term.”

Then something under heading “Gestures of Goodwill” -- I don’t know if there are any such things as gestures of goodwill made in transaction of this type, but paragraph 5 of the letter:

“Gestures of Goodwill: Please advise us of any gestures of goodwill you are contemplating in recognition of the inconvenience we have endured, such as:

“1. The waiving of an occupancy fee for the period between Sept. 30, 1974, and the time of final closing; and/or the return of interest accrued on moneys held on deposit from down payments made upon initial occupancy in keeping with anticipated amendments to the Condominium Act; and/or the application of occupancy fees paid toward the increase in down payments, also in keeping with anticipated amendments to the Condominium Act.”

Well this is backed up by four or five pages of signatures. I presume that most of the occupants signed this and join in the common plea. They sent it to me because the situation exists in the riding of Downsview, and I now have the opportunity to discuss it here with the minister.

I say that the government has dragged its heels very badly on this. When the Act first came in we expressed our very grave doubts about several gaps in it. Again, certainly I know there are many other speeches, but I can point to my own remarks in 1972, in June of 1972, when I put forward a 12-point list of complaints about the functioning of the Act. Well here we are at December, 1974, and some of these things are now being looked after.

I don’t think the minister is getting to all of them; and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that he is going to allow this bill to go to standing committee, because I know there is a lot of interest and concern all over Ontario about how the Condominium Act is going to function in the future.

There are a lot of people very interested. I am sure these people from the Forest Hills development would be interested in coming down and talking, as would a number of others throughout the province. I don’t feel that this bill, now that it is here in its amended, amended form, should be unnecessarily rushed through the legislative process. Now that it is here, let it have a good public examination. I am sure the minister, in listening to the remarks that have been made this afternoon by my colleagues and the other members of the opposition here in the House -- even if he can sit through some of the remarks of the member for Peel South -- will look even more closely at what he is presently presenting to us.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members wishing to speak to this bill? If not, the minister.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have listened with interest to the comments offered by the various members in connection with this debate.

The condominium statute, of course, when originally introduced, as I understand it, was a matter of regulating and setting out the ground roles, Mr. Speaker, as to the requirements prior to and upon registration of the declaration. It soon became apparent, after condominiums became somewhat of a popular item, that areas of questions and problems were beginning to develop. Not only did they develop as to the relationship between the eventual owner and the condominium developer, problems developed insofar as house rules or bylaws of the condominium are concerned. Many people found themselves involved in condominium living while not really understanding the concept.

The problem of condominiums has really been a multi-faceted one, and this legislation, which in original form was introduced about one year ago, was the result of the various problems that came to our attention. The members will recall we introduced the bill in 1973 -- the month escapes me -- and we took it to the administration of justice committee. I think that was one of the most interesting sessions of a standing committee of this House that I have ever attended. We had an opportunity to talk to and listen to people who were living in condominiums. It is a whole new social concept.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, I made a point of asking I think every condominium owner who appeared before us if he or she would do it again if they had to, and they were unanimous that they would. I can’t say that demonstrates the feeling of everybody living in this type of housing in this province or how they feel today, but it was interesting to me that in spite of a lot of their very serious complaints they still enjoyed the concept of this type of community or condominium living.

It became apparent to all of us at those committee hearings that matters were being drawn to our attention that we could not ignore and that the bill that was before the House at that time was not going to correct many of these situations. Accordingly, briefs were submitted, a bill was reintroduced this spring and my staff met with various people prior to and following the introduction of that bill.

I have no idea right now of the number of briefs they received but they met with various groups ranging from builders to condominium owners to condominium corporation officers, clarifying the issues in order that we might come forward at this time. Even in that period of time from June 25 until today, it has become apparent to us that certain amendments, even to this bill, must be introduced; hence my bringing this type of bill before the members for their consideration.

The member for Perth raised an interesting question. I don’t wish to take up too much time of the House, but he simplified it by saying “one unit, one owner, one vote.” That would certainly simplify it from the board of directors or condominium corporation type of arrangement. But I wonder if he knows, being a married man, what he has said, because who is going to exercise the vote if the condominium is registered in the name of the husband? You create all kinds of property rights --

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It’s an interest in real estate. Maybe the member for Downsview supports this, as one of the Liberal submissions was that for a condominium there should be one vote. Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Singer: I think it is a very, very good suggestion.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think that’s worthy of the member for Downsview and I’ll make sure that I remind him of that at some future time.

Mr. Singer: I’m sure the minister will.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Then we can have a condominium voters arbitration board to decide who is going to exercise the vote. In any event, I found that was an interesting statement, and perhaps he and I can deal privately and discuss that so I might appreciate what his position is.

I would point out that there is a condominium corporation index maintained by the master of titles and the registrar of deeds. I gather from your comments that you felt there should be a central province-wide registry for some particular reason. I wanted to get that clear that I understood that.

I do intend to take the legislation before the standing committee. Mr. Speaker, I know there always seems to be a certain sense of urgency in bringing legislation before the House, but to my mind and my experience, limited though it is, it is most educational and beneficial to all concerned to take this type of legislation before a standing committee of this House, where we can have the input from the people who are living with these problems, and who are really most knowledgeable insofar as these types of problems are concerned. I will be going before a standing committee of the House.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): That’s good Liberal philosophy.

Mr. Singer: Has the minister any idea approximately when?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, Mr. Speaker, I don’t have any idea when. I would hope it would follow, perhaps, Bill 55, which as the hon. member knows is presently before the standing administration of justice committee.

Mr. Renwick: That won’t take long. That shouldn’t take long.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, we are almost through section 1 in that bill. We did five clauses yesterday, I think, under section 1, and we are moving right along to section 2, hopefully, next week.

Mr. Renwick: It only took 3½ hours to get that far.

Hon. Mr. Clement: That’s right.

Mr. Singer: This will be in the spring, then.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The member for Sandwich-Riverside detailed a problem, I believe it was at Roseville, with a condominium development in his area. He asked what effect the bill before the House today would have on this situation -- as I understand his question put to me. I would refer the hon. member to section 14 of this particular bill, which deals with the sale and leasing of units. The situation which he has described will certainly be minimized under the new legislation.

As to the withholding of the registration of the declaration, there is machinery built in here which recognizes that problem. It has resulted in people moving in and buying, and others moving in and remaining as tenants, while for some particular reason the developer has not wished to complete, or for some reason has not completed, the registration of the declaration.

This amended bill, of course, does not in any way affect the price of the units or the rent at which units can be rented. There is provision in the legislation by which units can be rented up to a certain term, but only to a bona fide purchaser -- someone who is going to buy the unit which he moves into, at some time in the future.

There were comments made about letters written about problems dealing from sewer collapses outside condominiums. I pass no comment on those. I submit that they are probably not directly relevant to our discussions here today.

I am looking forward to the matter going back to committee, Mr. Speaker. I have had discussions with parties on this as recently as yesterday and I think that we are all aware of the common problems that are involved. I think we are learning a little bit about condominiums, Mr. Speaker, and I think the legal profession of this province is learning a lot more about condominiums. I practised in an area for a number of years and must confess that to my knowledge there is only one down there, and I can only thank goodness I was never consulted on it, because I just had absolutely no knowledge of this type of social living.

I think members of the bar are like the member for St. George who said she has never really advised anybody on it. I admire her for her candour. She said that really, in essence, she didn’t want to because it’s such an involved field. She is quite modest. I haven’t heard the member for Downsview make a similar remark. I presume he is much more experienced in this area than certainly the member for St. George, and certainly much more experienced than I am --

Mr. Renwick: He is equally modest.

Mr. Singer: I am equally modest; I have done the odd one.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have enjoyed the commentary which has come across the floor during the debate and I will look forward to renewing these efforts when we get before the standing committee of this House.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is to be referred to the appropriate standing committee -- the administration of justice committee.

Agreed.

Mr. Singer: Run out of business again, eh?

Mr. Renwick: This is interesting. The government looks as though it has run out of business. Why don’t they introduce a few more bills to fill out the time between now and 6?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Let’s see what we’ve got here.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s give third reading to Bill 148; that will fill in a few minutes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might request that the bill we’ve just been debating might be considered the bill before the House; that is, the one that says, “reprinted for consideration by the committee of the whole House,” bearing the amendments. I wonder if I might make that request here now, Mr. Speaker, so there is no argument or misconception about it later.

Mr. Breithaupt: It has been the custom, Mr. Speaker, to accept the amendments when the bill has been printed; we certainly have no objection to that bill, as reprinted, being the one that is going downstairs to the standing committee.

Mr. Speaker: That can be formalized when the committee meets too.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 148, An Act to amend the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.

ONTARIO ENERGY CORP. ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves second reading of Bill 158, An Act to establish the Ontario Energy Corp.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, Bill 158 sets up an Ontario Energy Corp. to invest or participate in energy projects, including development and research. I trust you knew that, Mr. Speaker, but in the event that you are not familiar with the contents of the bill, I will briefly summarize it and then give some brief remarks afterwards.

In his introductory statement, the minister mentioned as a possible first priority the exploration for and production of natural gas, and therefore the powers of the corporation would have to extend, and would extend, beyond the borders of Ontario.

Also, he mentioned that the small amount of insurance -- probably $300 million -- that could be obtained on the Mackenzie River valley pipeline, a proposed project estimated to cost $7 billion to $8 billion, might be supplemented by a guarantee of some of the difference by the energy corporation.

The corporation will be a Crown corporation with some of the powers under the Business Corporations Act, a structure more or less like that of a normal business operation, and with a normal business operation like Ontario Hydro, not for profit primarily, of course, but to obtain energy for Ontario users. It will risk losses or gain profits in its investments. It is not to compete with private interests but to supplement or jointly venture with them in energy projects.

The capital structure is set out in such a fashion that two million common shares without par value will be issued for such consideration as the board may from time to time determine, and 20 million special shares without par value may be issued in one or more series for such consideration as the board may determine.

The government is to put in $100 million. It will all be government money at the start, but later it is hoped to attract private investors -- not more than 10 per cent can be non-resident Canadians -- and at all times the government will hold a majority interest.

The five directors, all Canadians, will be appointed by the government. The head office shall be in Metro Toronto. The setting up of the corporation at this time is prompted by the increasing seriousness of the concern over the adequacy of the supply of energy to Ontario.

The minister stated that the federal government’s actions regarding energy taxes had increased the need for the energy corporation. It is to be hoped, however, that the energy-producing provinces like Alberta will shortly weaken and reduce their royalties or comparable action as the federal government has reduced its taxation levy in its last budget over the May budget.

The powers of the corporation are very broad, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that the minister should state precisely how it will function so that the public will have a better idea of what it will do. He also stated that the public will expect the five directors to be superior, selected on their merits, not on their loyal and faithful party service.

Mr. Edighoffer: Good idea. Very important.

Mr. Riddell: Now, while we are pleased to support the idea of an Ontario Energy Corp., Mr. Speaker --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Riddell: -- we are very uncertain and displeased with the far-reaching statements made by the minister as to where the priorities of this corporation will lie. So far the minister has only given broad concepts pertaining to the corporation, whose activities could include everything from financing pipelines, to guaranteeing investments by oil and gas companies for research, to initiating resource projects of its own. While the Ontario Energy Corp. isn’t without some hope of being able to promote such policies, it would be more welcome if specific goals for the corporation could be offered.

Thus we must stress the point that while this bill would form a convenient vehicle for the investment of public funds in energy developments in the years ahead, its function must be more precisely defined by the minister. While the minister has stated in his statement on the corporation that it would invest or participate in energy projects including development and research, he has said nothing concerning the role of other energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal forces in the investment of the corporation.

I was interested in the statements made by the minister that the corporation’s first priority should be to assist in securing adequate supplies of natural gas for the province. Priority is being put on gas because the Ontario government foresees a shortfall in supply within this decade. In future years, the minister went on to say, and I quote, “It may be 10 years away -- the corporation could become involved in other forms of energy development utilizing solar, wind and geothermal forces.”

Why does the minister, Mr. Speaker, feel that alternative sources of energy should only be researched and developed after the gas supply has become depleted? Why is the minister so obsessed with the spending of taxpayers’ dollars to expand and construct nuclear power plants when electricity could be available practically free of charge, and certainly free of pollutants, with an equivalent expenditure into the research and development of alternative sources of energy? Does it not somewhat embarrass the minister, Mr. Speaker, to know that our neighbours to the south are pouring millions of dollars into the research and development of solar energy, whereas north of the border solar energy technology has not yet been given priority?

The minister, of course, is going to respond by saying that this is a federal government responsibility, and certainly I would agree that the federal government should be researching and developing alternative sources of energy, but because the Ontario government feels that it has something to sell by way of nuclear-powered sources of energy and that the supply of uranium seems to be quite ample, the federal government is seemingly prepared to lay all its eggs in one basket despite the uncertainties of the potential dangers of this source of energy.

What a pleasant change it would be, Mr. Speaker, if the Ontario government decided to become leaders in this entire field of energy, rather than simply proponents of nuclear-powered sources of energy, placing its entire reliance on the uranium source.

Mr. Speaker, in a statement to the House concerning the formation of the Ontario Energy Corp., the minister has stated that he had proposed, back in June, 1973, that a fund be established to commit provincial resources for projects which are deemed to be potentially of importance to this province and which are not being adequately dealt with at the present time. If any energy sources are being ignored today it would be energy sources that do not rely on various forms of combustion, fusion, or whatever. However, the minister stated back in September of this year in a speech to the Chatham Rotary Club that in future years, perhaps 10 years away or more, the Ontario Energy Corp. would become involved in other forms of energy development such as solar, wind or geothermal forces. It would seem to me that now is the time we should be spending more research dollars in developing these new forms of energy. After all, does the real energy problem today in Ontario and the industrialized world not lie in the need to develop indefinitely lasting, ecologically sound sources of energy such as wind or solar energy?

However, Ontario, the largest energy-consuming province in Canada, is busily constructing nuclear power plants which involve many risks with which we are not yet familiar, In fact, the most significant development in Ontario in terms of energy is the vastly increased role of nuclear power. It is estimated that in 1980, approximately 24 per cent of Ontario’s total energy supply will be nuclear, compared with one per cent in 1970.

We have been warned on numerous occasions, however, that the accidents at nuclear plants could range from relatively small internal releases of potentially lethal doses of radiation to complete failure of some of the so-called fail-safe systems. Moreover, many of these systems have not been and cannot be tested under actual situations, so they can fail in time of need.

Further, a very important problem regarding nuclear power relates to the storage and disposal of waste radioactive products, many of which have half-lives of up to 25,000 years or more and emit harmful radiation doses for up to a million years. A satisfactory solution to these questions, Mr. Speaker, must be found before there is a massive commitment to nuclear power.

Also, the minister has not said anything concrete regarding the part that energy conservation will play in the functions of the energy corporation. The functions of the corporation are to develop and research new forms of energy, but what about investments in energy conservation? While we have predictions by the Energy Ministry that energy consumption will increase four times by the turn of the century, the Ontario government has not given much of a lead in this matter so far. Unless energy is used more sparingly and sensibly in the future, major shortages will occur, and there is no hope that the discovery of limitless supplies of energy will be guaranteed with the creation of the corporation.

If a comprehensive and serious energy conservation programme was mounted, we could cut demand growth enormously by the end of the century and stabilize consumption after that. Not only would this be a saving of energy per se, but we would also be preserving the environment and saving millions of dollars of capital investment required to discover, develop, convert and transport other sources of energy. A major concentration in energy conservation would seem to be a priority of any such energy corporation.

Thus, while the minister has stated that the role of the corporation will be gradually developing one, we do not yet know where the priorities of such a corporation will be. We believe that more will have to be said by the minister on the specifics of the energy corporation before a time evaluation can be presented, and I would hope that the minister would see fit to refer this bill, after second reading, to a standing committee of the Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, we in this party, and myself in particular, are somewhat skeptical of the minister’s venture in the formation of an Ontario Energy Corp. I think inherent in what the member for Huron said a few minutes ago is that he himself has a certain scepticism of what the minister is about. He is prepared to give the government more good faith than we are in this particular venture.

It’s a strange thing that this is really the idea of the Minister of Energy at the time when he was making his comeback to a position of importance in the provincial government. It was included, as he has said, in those recommendations which he put forward when he was parliamentary assistant to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and was making his recommendations with respect to an energy policy for the government of Ontario. That was a long time ago and things have changed a great deal since that time, but of course the minister is unable to reflect in his thinking the changed circumstances which may have made some sense at that time but which do not make any sense today.

The funny thing about the way in which the minister goes about this kind of a problem is that if he would take the trouble, as unfortunately I have had to take the trouble, of reading a series of his speeches over the last several months, he would see that they are the most contradictory documents that one could possibly imagine. Each one of them purports to detail and explain the energy policy of the government of Ontario, in what is admittedly a very complex field. And each time he deals with it he uses different prepositions and propositions and different assumptions about the nature of the energy problem as we see it in the Province of Ontario.

It’s quite clear from what the minister has said, and from the plans of Ontario Hydro and from the problem that results from the control of uranium being in the hands of the federal government, unwisely and invalidly at this time so far as I am concerned, and his evident liking for the private industry exploitation of the uranium resources of the Province, that the Ontario Energy Corp. is not going to be involved in the development of the one indigenous resource that we have to produce electric power in Ontario for the future, namely the reserves of uranium.

If one would think for a moment about what the minister has been saying over these many months about the fact that we have no indigenous resources of natural gas; we have no indigenous resources of oil, we have no indigenous resources of coal -- as though we were the poor person in the Canadian energy scene. What we have, of course, is the most valuable future resource for energy in the world. If my understanding is correct, and I have to take the figures from what the ministry has said, and from what has been published in the press on numerous occasions, as I understand it, we’ve got 80 per cent of the proven reserves of uranium within the confines of the Province of Ontario. And that represents, I think --

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Eighty per cent of Canada.

Mr. Renwick: Eighty per cent of proven reserves of what is in Canada. I understand that that represents something in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent of the world reserves of uranium.

When you get into these nebulous statements about percentages in that kind of field, you can give and take a few percentage points, Mr. Speaker. But my point is very clear, that the government of Ontario’s responsibility to the people of the Province of Ontario is with respect to the orderly development of the uranium resources for the purpose of producing electric energy. If it did nothing else in the energy field but devote itself to that very complicated, difficult field in which immense resources are going to be required for technological development, immense resources are going to be required in order to preserve the environment from the impact of the nuclear power plants that are going to be built across the province. If that were the scope within which the minister was directing his attention, one could say that, yes, perhaps an Ontario Energy Corp. makes sense -- perhaps.

But I want to try to emphasize, before I move on to a number of other areas that are of concern to me, the extent of the responsibility of the government in that field about the production of electric energy. I don’t particularly know where I picked up this article, but that’s, for practical purposes, irrelevant.

“The importance of nuclear power to Ontario, which imports 80 per cent of its energy needs, has been underlined in a special Task Force Hydro report by Chief Engineer Harold Smith. Uncertainties and shortfalls in imported energy resources will almost certainly mean increasing emphasis on the use of indigenous resources.

“In Ontario, the only substantial unused energy resource we have is uranium. And the only practical technique for its use at least for many years to come appears to be through conversion to electricity. Great emphasis must be placed on increasing use of uranium, not only because it is less subject to price increases [which is a point the minister has made from time to time] but even more important in the event of a primary energy shortage, it offers Ontario maximum security.”

It goes on and makes some other comments, and then refers at the end to what the Premier says, that energy is crucial to our industries and to the employment of our people, is a vital necessity for the physical comfort and well-being and, indeed, the physical survival of the people of Canada, and then a final paragraph:

“Taking a long-term view, the federal energy study predicts that electric energy could provide 90 per cent of all energy needs in Canada by the year 2050. Electricity will undoubtedly be used extensively to provide power for rapid transit ... ”

The minister at no point, in any statement that he has made about the Ontario Energy Corp., has indicated a role for the Ontario Energy Corp. in the field of the development of the technology for the use of uranium in the generation of electricity, or for the purpose of protecting the environment against the obvious environmental hazards which are going to be a necessary ingredient of the development of nuclear power in the province. That would take all the available resources of the Province of Ontario that we can afford to use for energy purposes.

That isn’t for one single moment to discount the role which Ontario must play in a federal system in working out a national energy policy. Nor are we advocating, in any sense, some insular provincial view about the future use of the electric power which would be generated by the use of that particular indigenous resource. Indeed, as everyone knows, the hydro-electric power system already is an interconnected grid which goes to the east and west of the Province of Ontario, and it of course supplies, from time to time, substantial amounts of electric power to the United States of America. So the purpose and the policy which we are talking about and advocating can in no sense be called insular.

This I guess then requires one to move on to other sources of energy and to try to select, in the absence of any statement by the minister, what he intends to do with the funds which he is going to put into the Ontario Energy Corp. There is no very clear statement of the number of dollars he is thinking about. There is certainly a significant number of shares to be issued and allotted, but in no way is there any clear indication of the number of dollars which the minister projects or expects to use for the purpose of financing the Ontario Energy Corp.

There appears, however, throughout, in the sort of free-enterprise tradition of the last century within which the Minister of Energy continues to live, some idea that moneys -- and the Act states, out of the consolidated revenue fund of the Province of Ontario -- are to be put into the Ontario Energy Corp. for the purpose of backing up or consorting with the private industry for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is, the exploitation of the gas reserves in the top part of the Mackenzie Valley and in the Arctic areas.

If one reads the minister’s statements, which he has made over a long period of time -- and I have a pile of them here -- he has a sort of hypnotic fixation that somehow or other the government of Ontario must be involved in the risk-taking game of the development, production, transmission and distribution of gas from the Mackenzie Valley pipeline It must be so, because there is not a single statement in his bill about the purposes and objects of the corporation other than language simply consistent with an exploitive view of what the Ontario Energy Corp. should be engaged in. It is quite contradictory to the statement made by the Premier, as to the policy of the government of Ontario, when he spoke at the first ministers’ conference in January of this year. On Jan. 22, in Ottawa, the Premier of Ontario made his statement about Ontario’s conception of the fundamental objectives of an energy policy. I’m not going to read the speech, as it was circulated to everyone, but his summary is rather interesting:

“So there they are, Mr. Chairman, the four key elements in a national energy policy: [and I presume that he means the policy of the government of Ontario] the capacity for self-sufficiency; the equitable distribution of costs and benefits; maintenance of the environment; and the conservation of resources.”

Now, in the objects which the minister set out in the Ontario Energy Corp. there is not a single reference to the maintenance of the environment; there is not a single reference to the conservation of resources; there is not a single reference to the equitable distribution of costs and benefits. It would appear to be that the minister hangs his thought upon the stated and restated proposition that his objective is something called “this capacity for self-sufficiency,” which I think in the minister’s terms which he uses from time to time means an adequate and secure supply of natural gas and oil.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps this might be a convenient time for me to adjourn the debate. I could resume again whenever you see fit.

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