Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to welcome here this afternoon 40 students from the grade 10 class of Welland High and Vocational School. Mr. J. Zold is in charge of these students. I am very proud indeed to represent them here in the Ontario Legislature. These fine young people are indeed excellent examples of the younger generation, those young people who will one day take over the reins of leadership in our province, the province of opportunity.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Is this a ministerial statement?

Mr. Morningstar: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. members join me in welcoming my young friends from the Welland High and Vocational School.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try to outdo the member for Welland this afternoon with that very delightful introduction, but I would like to introduce 28 students from Northlea Public School in my riding under the very able leadership of their teacher, Mr. MacDougall. They are in the west gallery.

Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to join with me in welcoming a group of grade 7 students from Davenport Public School in Aylmer who are seated with their teachers and some of their mothers in the east gallery of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE JAYCEE CHAPTER

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Jaycee movement has now crossed our institutional threshold with the granting on Saturday evening last, of a charter to the Guelph Correctional Centre Jaycee Chapter. Before an invited audience of 225 guests, the 50 inmates who have formed the chapter, received the charter and fraternal gifts from a wide variety of Ontario chapters. The ceremony marked the result of over three years’ preparation by the Jaycee movement and particularly by Mr. Angelo Mior, a Guelph Correctional Centre correctional officer who is president of the Guelph City Jaycees and chairman of the Great Lakes region correctional programmes committee.

The Guelph Correctional Centre chapter is the first in a provincial correctional institution in Canada. It was necessary for the Ontario Jaycees to take the initiative in proposing an amendment to the federal charter at a recent Canadian Jaycee conference before they could operate within a provincial institution. There are already five chapters in federal penitentiaries: at New Westminster, at Matsqui, at Dorchester, at Springhill and at the Warkworth Institution here in Ontario.

If this first chapter should prove effective, there are 55 other provincial institutions and centres where the Jaycee movement may develop in the future. They could have a beneficial effect on the more than 70,000 adults who pass through our centres each year.

We feel that volunteers, especially those who are organized and disciplined and who, like the Jaycees, have their traditions well established, will help to provide a positive community contact with our inmates, many of whom are with us only for very brief periods.

This Jaycee programme augments the work of the 2,100 volunteers who are already active with our 18,000 probationers and parolees as well as with the men, women and children in our various institutions. The ministry has co-operated fully in the expansion of its volunteer programme to include formal organizations and sees this development as having great significance in community corrections.

Jaycee volunteers will come into Guelph Correctional Centre to teach a wide variety of life skills to their incarcerated confrères, who in turn are expected to join existing Jaycee chapters when they return to the community.

I am sure the House will share my pleasure at this significant development and will echo my hope that it marks yet another phase in the ministry’s continuing effort to encourage public understanding of, and participation in, the rehabilitative process.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Why doesn’t the minister try building a new Don Jail?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, today I wish to report on my ministry’s housing programmes for the 1974-1975 fiscal year.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): He means his non-housing programme.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I also want to relate our performance to overall Ontario production and compare it with the previous fiscal year.

Mr. Cassidy: The non-housing programmes.

Mr. Foulds: Another recycled announcement brought to you by your Minister of Housing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Last May, the Ministry of Housing set production targets for each programme. We also stressed the need for working partnerships involving all levels of government and the private sector, if these goals were to be met. Much of our debate during the past year has centred on these targets and the effectiveness of the partnerships.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it has centred on the need for housing in the province.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a summary of our targets and actual production figures for the fiscal year 1974-1975. This corresponds to page 40 in our Housing Ontario 1974 policy statement.

Mr. S. Lewis: (Scarborough West): That isn’t so.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Our target for the Ontario Housing Action Programme was to produce a combination of 12,000 housing starts and accelerated lots. I might remind members that an important function of OHAP is to bring land, which would not normally be serviced for several years, on to the market now. Our other objective, of course, is to reduce the cost of housing units constructed under OHAP.

Our actual OHAP production for the fiscal year was 4,104 housing starts and 8,773 lots brought to market. The accelerated lots include some 6,000 in Brampton, part of an agreement which will provide a total of 15,000 housing units during the next three years.

Under the family rental housing programme, we aimed for 2,000 rent-geared-to-income units. In fact, we started only 825. I must say to the members and to you, Mr. Speaker, the reluctance of many communities to accept low-income family rental housing, even on a fully integrated basis, was the biggest disappointment of the past year.

Mr. Cassidy: He is off again.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Somebody else’s fault.

Mr. Cassidy: Now face the facts.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, our senior citizen programme came very close to its target of 6,000 units, producing 5,660 units.

In our community integrated housing programme, we wanted to finance 2,000 starts, of which 500 would be for rent-geared-to-income tenants. In fact, we financed 1,060 such units, of which 264 were rent-geared-to-income.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The minister fell flat on his face again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Home Ownership Made Easy plan set a target of 6,000 starts for the fiscal year and -- I’m very pleased to say this -- we achieved almost 5,000 of those starts. This represents almost 2½ times the output of the previous year.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The new community sponsored housing programme was one of the most rewarding and productive undertaken last year. We set a target of 2,000 starts or renovations for low- and moderate-income households, with 500 units guaranteed for low-income families. The programme actually resulted in 2,393 units, with 1,258 for low-income earners.

Another successful programme was rent supplement. We wanted to obtain 1,100 units from the private sector and we actually achieved 1,437. Therefore, in total, our target of units started and accelerated lots was 31,100. Adding up the programme results I’ve just mentioned, we have actually achieved 29,156. For the benefit of all hon. members that is almost 94 per cent of our target.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express it another way. It is almost three times the output of the provincial government in the housing field in the previous fiscal year.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): The minister wasn’t doing anything before.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have also increased our percentage share of Ontario housing starts from seven per cent to 24 per cent and I would like the hon. members now just to understand that.

Mr. Cassidy: A lot is not a start -- 7,000 lots are not housing starts.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of our activity has been aimed at the low- and moderate-income earners.

Mr. Martel: They haven’t achieved one target.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Of the new units I’ve mentioned, some 14,000 were specifically targeted for this group. At the same time, we recognize that by helping moderate-income families achieve home ownership, we are increasing the supply of rental accommodation.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Oh come on, don’t do this.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Then move from somewhere.

Mr. Deans: Oh come on.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would also like to respond to recent comments that my ministry has failed to spend large amounts from its budgetary allocations.

Mr. Lewis: Ah, the minister has been stung into a reply -- stung into a reply.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I was just waiting for the proper time so that the leader of the NDP would be here to hear it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: And look at the minister’s reply. The minister should be embarrassed to read it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the initial budget presented one year ago called for $226 million. During the year, as this government responded to new problems in the housing market, we added $103 million for low-interest mortgages and other programmes. However, negotiations with North Pickering landowners who volunteered to sell to the province went more slowly than we expected, resulting in an underspending of $5.5 million.

Similarly, about $4 million is urban renewal and neighbourhood improvement programme funds were not spent because municipalities at that time had not met federal government conditions.

Three million dollars less than budget was forwarded to non-profit groups because payments are now spread over 15 years, instead of being disbursed as a single grant.

And finally, Mr. Speaker, rent supplement subsidies for community-sponsored housing were about $350,000 below budget, because the enabling agreement has not yet been settled with Central Mortgage and Housing Corp.

Mr. Speaker, may I say this to all the hon. members: I am very proud of the record of this ministry since its inception.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: The minister doesn’t believe that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I say to the hon. members, furthermore, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Foulds: Never has so much pride been taken for so little by so many.

Mr. Lewis: And so long.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): And so often.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- with the incentives provided in the recent budget, with the commitment as stated in the Throne Speech, and with the very obvious commitment this government has had in the past and has now in regard to housing, I am confident we will have 90,000 housing starts in Ontario this year, which is an excellent record as far as I am concerned.

An hon. member: All of that, eh?

Mr. Deans: Not even the remotest possibility.

Mr. Cassidy: Only 18,000, instead of 31,000.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Better than any other jurisdiction.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is in trouble because that statement conflicts.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

REAL ESTATE SALE PERSONNEL

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the House some improvements that my ministry will be making in the preregistration education programme for those wishing to become real estate sales personnel.

The qualifications of prospective real estate agents have long been the concern of both the government and the real estate industry. In 1960 we established a preregistration examination for all those wishing to become real estate salesmen. In 1972, after consultation with the real estate industry, a mandatory 90-hour preregistration course was instituted as well.

The standing committee on real estate education, which was made up of representatives of the Real Estate Association and officials of my ministry, made a careful evaluation of our experiences with the course in the last three years. It became obvious to them that some further improvements were required.

The preregistration course became immediately popular after its introduction in 1972. So popular, in fact, that overcrowding resulted. The standing committee determined that the overcrowding was caused because some of the students were taking the course for reasons of personal self-improvement. In fact, they had no intention of entering the real estate profession. Additionally, the committee found that a number of persons were enrolling who did not have the necessary ability or comprehension to successfully complete the programme or pass the examination.

After careful deliberation, the standing committee made a number of recommendations which we are acting upon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce to the House that effective July 1, 1975, the mandatory preregistration real estate education programme will be expanded to 150 hours and will be divided into three segments. These segments will include a general introduction to real estate, theoretical aspects of the industry and practical considerations of real estate sales. There will be examinations at the end of each segment, which must be successfully completed before a student can progress to the next segment.

Mr. Martel: The moral of which is that Shouldice should not have been registered.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: To permit this restructuring of the programme, an intensive instructor’s course will upgrade the qualification of those who will be teaching the preregistration programme.

My ministry is also undertaking to increase its involvement in the programme. We will actively communicate in the classrooms the government’s role in the real estate industry.

Mr. Speaker, I feel these improvements in the programme will be of major benefit to the Ontario consumer as well as the Ontario real estate profession and will keep Ontario in the forefront of real estate education in Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put a question to the Premier regarding the continuing situation at the Whitedog-Grassy Narrows Indian reservation. Since the problems with mercury poisoning there involve four of the ministries, as well as the policy secretariat, could the Premier indicate clearly whether the government policy is to direct the Indians that it is safe to eat the fish or it is not safe? Or if we can assume that it is not safe because of the mercury levels, what co-ordinated programme is there to provide them with a diet with sufficient protein so they are not forced by their economic situation to eat the contaminated fish?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I think that part of the question might be properly directed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller). I am informed by the Provincial Secretary of Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) that he, along with his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), is going to visit with the people involved, I believe early next week, to discuss this matter with them.

As I say, on the second part of the question, I believe that should be directed to the Minister of Health.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, on a matter of policy, if I may, which in my view could fairly be directed to the Premier: Is one of the alternatives available to the policy secretary and his colleagues the authority to offer the Indians of that area a food supplement, which would mean that for once they would not be pressed, or forced economically, to eat the contaminated fish? Since this is going to require co-ordination by a number of ministries, surely it’s in the Premier’s responsibility to respond.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well Mr. Speaker, of course on anything it is the Premier’s responsibility to respond. We are trying to solve the problem, not play politics.

Mr. Roy: Oh, are they?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Are you prepared to listen to a point of order or not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I say, that is one of the options that is being considered.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Is this a new policy of the government?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. A point of order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to bring to your attention that all of us in this House have a responsibility for the health and welfare of the residents and citizens of Ontario; but I would suggest to you, sir, that it should be possible to put forward a question of that type without the kind of inane put-down which seems to be the only alternative for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

An hon. member: That’s the only way he can answer a question.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me there are some political remarks from both sides at times.

Mr. Lewis: Well, let me add a further comment --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker; on the point of order --

Mr. Breithaupt: I bet the provincial secretary takes his lunch with him.

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the Premier, since the social development secretariat trundled off to northwestern Ontario some months ago making horrified noises -- particularly the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) -- about the situation up there and absolutely nothing came of it from that day to this, what makes the Premier confident now that his government policy will change one jot?

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough West): Because the member is selling his house.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development that she did not trundle to northwestern Ontario; I don’t think the Minister of Natural Resources is trundling to northwestern Ontario, and, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition we treat every problem seriously and try to do something about it, while he comes down on both sides of every issue at the same time.

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Playing politics; the Premier is playing cheap politics. That is the way he responds.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The Premier had the floor, if he is not finished with his answer. Is the Premier’s answer completed?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. Order please.

Mr. Lewis: Well, the government has let it go for four years and has played around with it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the hon. member for Scarborough West please restrain himself. The member for Downsview has a supplementary I believe.

Mr. Singer: Could the Premier explain, if this investigation is now going to take place, the logic and sense, and in fact the factual nature, of the earlier statements by the Minister of Health that letters had gone forward to the Indians and publicity had gone forward warning them not to eat the mercury-contaminated food? Is what he said completely false? Or is the story in the paper this morning completely false? Or, if neither of them is true, why is the government sending these people forward next week, in view of what the Minister of Health has said?

Mr. Breithaupt: It is just a political reaction.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I shall try once more. If the member for Downsview really wants an answer to this question, as it is related to statements made by the Minister of Health, I would say, with respect, he should direct that question to the Minister of Health, of course.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: As this problem has been brought to the attention of the government for -- what? five years now --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: -- why has the resources development field not pushed through the road for three miles to a lake which is not contaminated and in which the Indians could fish? Why has it taken that long to get a three-mile bush road through that part of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to get involved in all of these topics, but I would say that that question, once again, should properly be directed to the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is so.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: If I may, Mr. Speaker, a serious supplementary: If all of his ministerial colleagues have failed, one after the other over the last four years, to respond to the problem --

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: -- well, it still exists -- doesn’t the Premier as Premier have some sense of ultimate responsibility to provide a solution?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize my responsibilities as Premier in the ultimate sense, and I have on all issues on all occasions. I’m saying that in this particular situation those particular questions should have been directed to the appropriate minister.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t think so.

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

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We don’t think so either. The Minister of Health, however, is here. Can the minister explain to the House and perhaps to the Premier why, when his directive was not to eat the fish, there were printed directives to the Indian community and the individuals there that it was safe to do so? How can that happen?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have talked to my staff about that apparent contradiction. There is no question that we are correct in saying the letters went out to all of the people in the area -- many more than were on the reserves, as a matter of fact -- warning them that they should not eat the fish of the English River system.

The letters referred to in the paper today were signed sometimes by provincial doctors, but more often by the federal doctor, who was basically in charge of this operation and remains in charge of it. They were signed at that point because they said they really had no alternative food measures. They were telling the people that as a result of the existing blood mercury levels they should take the following actions, and they named three --

Mr. Breithaupt: Just eat them slowly.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- according to the level found in the person. No one condoned eating the fish, but it was recognized that it was going on and would likely go on until such time as other food sources were found.

Mr. Lewis: There is something terribly wrong about all this. It’s just crazy.

Mr. Singer: It is just beyond belief.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: The minister tells us here in the House that they couldn’t eat it, and then he lets his own people turn around and say it’s all right to eat it.

Hon. Mr. Miller: My people were involved in that, but I can assure the member that the federal doctor on the scene signed them as the person responsible.

Mr. Singer: The minister’s people did it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister defending them?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, I’m not. I’m defending the fact --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A question has been asked.

Mr. Singer: The minister tells the House one thing and his civil servants do the other.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Miller: My staff has said the problem will not go away until we have found alternative food sources.

Mr. Roy: The government has known that for four years.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That is our recommendation and it is still our recommendation. And that is why, I understand, the minister and the secretary of the resources development field are taking these steps.

Mr. Singer: Years after the event.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I hope very shortly to get in the freezer facilities and the alternative food sources, as recommended by my ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the Premier is not prepared to involve himself on a policy level with this, is it the Minister of Health’s opinion that perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) could come up with a programme, for example, whereby beef animals that are selling at a very low level now could be put there on, let’s say, a co-operative programme between the two levels of government, so that these people can have adequate protein in their diet without eating the contaminated fish? What is the answer? What is even a partial answer? Just to continue to delay?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe there are lakes as close as three miles from the river system --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- that contain the fish that we would like to see the Indians using.

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the government build the road?

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Put through the road.

Hon. Mr. Miller: This is what I hope will result from the visit I understand is taking place.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may. On March 13, 1975, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) made a statement on mercury levels in Ontario water and on page three, at the end of it, he said: “The Ministry of Health has been monitoring the blood levels of the residents in affected areas.”

Can the minister tell the Legislature what the results of the testing at the Freshwater Institute in Manitoba on the Indian people have been, and what the levels of danger are four years after the first request for food alternatives was made?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Not by memory, Mr. Speaker. I know that 100 parts per billion is our benchmark.

Ms. Lewis: One hundred?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, 100 parts per billion as the threshold past which the person is warned that he has, in our opinion, a dangerous level of mercury and should cease eating fish totally if possible, should go and have a doctor look at him, and have himself tested for these things. That is based upon an extrapolation of the experiences in Japan, where no one is quite sure what the levels of the first people were who died from this disease --

Mr. Lewis: One hundred -- that’s very high.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The lowest possible levels we ever extrapolated were 200. In other words, it has been suspected that people with levels as low as 200 had died; and up to this point we haven’t been able to solidify the Japanese data. And as you know, Mr. Speaker, at that time even measurement was very poor.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister know the results of the tests?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Not by memory. In other words, I was told there were about six people or eight people who had levels over 100 the last time round.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell us how, after he told this House that at his direction letters had gone out warning the people not to eat the contaminated fish, that any official from his ministry could send out contrary letters and that nothing be done to him. Secondly, when the minister knew those letters were going out from his ministry, could he explain to us how he failed to discharge the responsibility of having this government provide some alternative source of protein to those people who needed something to eat in order to live?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member is not quite correct in his allusion to my authority. The letters were sent out some long while back before I was minister.

Mr. Singer: Well, his ministry has the authority.

Hon. Mr. Miller: All right, all right, I can only talk about those things I had control over.

Mr. Singer: Well, the minister was responsible for it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am not responsible for those things that went on before I was minister.

Mr. Singer: The former minister sloughed it off to this minister so no one is responsible. If there is a new Minister of Health tomorrow, he is not responsible for a thing.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The letters did not have our signature. They didn’t even come from our ministry, they came from the federal government.

Mr. Roy: Not all of them.

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

ASBESTOS IN THUNDER BAY HARBOUR

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment pertaining to the possibility of serious asbestos fibre pollution in the water supply of Port Arthur -- not the city; what do you call it? -- Port Arthur ward.

Has the minister been in receipt of the most recent figures that indicate the asbestos fibre level is at a seriously high level and that most reasonable people attribute this to the continuing dumping from Reserve Mining Corp. of Duluth, as quoted in questions which were asked pertaining to this a week ago? Can the minister assure the House that he is aware of the level of pollution and that he is doing something about it, or that, in fact, he can assure the residents that it is not of a damaging nature?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I might say the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) did ask me about this the other day --

Mr. Lewis: He certainly did. The minister didn’t give him the right reply.

Hon. W. Newman: The last testing we did was in February of this year, when our readings read around 800,000 parts per litre. There was some testing done at the university which indicated their count at somewhere around 12 million particles --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was 10 to 20 million particles.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, 10 to 12 parts per million, I believe, was what it said.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This was in a report by McMaster.

Hon. W. Newman: Does the member want to listen, or doesn’t he?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Hon. W. Newman: All right, then listen. Our samples were sent to the Ontario Research Foundation for counting. We are reasonably sure that the way a sample was taken at Port Arthur -- or Thunder Bay, I should say -- was the proper way. We have some doubts about exactly how the testing was done, although we are quite sure their results are accurate. We will be doing some further testing in May.

I have suggested to the news media up there that if they would like to do a joint test with us, we will be glad to take a joint sample of water. Our sample will be sent down to the Ontario Research Foundation and they can test their sample to clear up any discrepancies. According to our reading, and the checking done by the Ontario Research Foundation, the asbestos levels are well below those of many water supplies in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: The position the minister is taking with the civic officials in the community is that he will test again in co-operation with them if they choose; but surely he is continuing independent testing?

Hon. W. Newman: Absolutely, we will be doing testing. We’ve suggested that it might be a good idea if we each took half of a joint sample so that we could get the sample taken in a proper manner with proper results.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Why is it that the testing which I brought to the minister’s attention by the university on Feb. 3 was not followed up by his ministry? Why is it that the university testing confirmed by McMaster University is 150 times his ministry’s testing? Doesn’t he think it’s about time he immediately put some funds into a filtration plant in Thunder Bay, as he promised for Sarnia? Why is he trying to whitewash this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, these kinds of questions make me ill, because the hon. member for Port Arthur doesn’t realize what we are doing. He has no idea of what we are doing.

Mr. Foulds: The asbestos is going to make people of Port Arthur sick.

Hon. W. Newman: We are running control experiments now in our labs at Downsview, which I have said in the House before. They are control experiments, because when samples are taken, as the member asked the other day, water conditions can be different from day to day depending on weather conditions, and we are running control experiments now to deal with it in the operation of plants.

I believe it was said before, there is a lot in the way the plants are operated in the flocculation to take out the asbestos fibres. We are concerned and we are doing control experiments on it and these experiments should be completed sometime in either April or early May.

Mr. Foulds: Meanwhile people may be dying.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that his ministry is --

Mr. Havrot: The member should quit acting.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Will the hon. member for Port Arthur take his seat. This question period is developing into too much of a hassle. I might say that the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s time was, shall we say, extended by, in my opinion, too many supplementary questions and he gets the blame for it. I say that. Now, does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

SUICIDE OF PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he has informed himself of the circumstances surrounding the suicide of Richard Connor, a patient in the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital? The incident occurred on April 1. Has he assured himself that there was sufficient supervision and care and that, in fact, the members of the family, who feel that the suicide might have been prevented, can be reassured otherwise?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that, but I’ll have the case brought to my attention.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Health to follow up questions which have been asked already. I take it these blood mercury levels that have emerged at the Freshwater Institute for half a dozen or eight people are as a result of the recent testing? How is it that that fact has not been made public and the entire community alerted to what is apparently a very real, not a vague hazard, that the continued eating of the fish induces physical illness?

Hon. Mr. Miller: This is one of those cases, Mr. Speaker, where, far from trying to keep the results secret, we’ve been doing a good deal of talking with the people and trying to make them aware of their individual test results. I don’t feel that we’ve been trying to suppress information in any sense at all. It’s just the opposite -- we’ve been deliberately trying to make people concerned.

I said earlier, and I repeat again, I don’t like having to defend the position that we wonder why somebody isn’t sick. We are wondering why somebody isn’t sick. It’s not one of those questions where we underestimate the dangers.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’m very concerned that, in fact, the potential danger is there and we have a different set of conditions.

Mr. Lewis: I guess what I am asking is, doesn’t the minister recognize that if it were made public -- which it wasn’t; it was just alluded to by the Minister of the Environment in March -- if it were made public that he found people with blood mercury levels above the danger maximum, doctors on his staff might not then write letters saying: “You can continue to eat the fish”? Surely this is a matter for public information.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have stated in this House a number of times that there were people over our maximum levels.

Mr. Lewis: Not on the recent test results.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Those are ongoing, as the hon. member knows now, on a very steady basis and they are dealt with on an individual basis. In other words, as the hon. member knows, the federal government is taking a sample. They are giving it to us and they are now reporting to the person. They have taken that role over from us. I understand they have also brought in a nutritionist and put her full-time into the Whitedog -- at least, the two reserves -- in an attempt to do some of those things which we’ve been recommending.

I wrote the federal minister not long ago and asked him whether we had permission to do the same thing, and we got that permission. It’s my understanding that staff have now been assigned to that duty from the nutrition point of view; something, hopefully, we can work with them on. It’s not just a question of putting beef up there; it is almost a question of saying, “eat beef” and part of their life has been -- it is a very difficult thing to make so many people believe there is even a problem. I agree with the member on that. We need co-operation.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Rainy River have a supplementary?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Can the minister explain, really, the statement of the Minister of the Environment in which he seemed to give the impression the levels of mercury were going down and there wasn’t really any problem, while in the same week the Minister of Natural Resources told the people who sell fishing licences to put a tag on the licence saying “eating fish from these waters might be injurious to health”? Where is the co-ordination over there?

Mr. Roy: That’s why they have got policy secretaries.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I believe that tag goes on all fishing licences in the province. It’s going on those sold in Muskoka I can assure members it’s going on them because I’ve had lots of calls from people in my area wondering what the problems are.

Mr. Foulds: But the minister can’t even give any information on it.

Mr. Breithaupt: There are lots of fish caught there.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It was assumed it was better to make people aware of the problems of mercury, I believe, if I’m not wrong -- the minister isn’t here -- there is some information given to back this up, saying what river system and what lake systems are considered to be hazardous. They wanted to bring people’s attention to a risk before they ate wild fish.

Ms. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Forgive me for pressing, I want to try to get an explicit answer. When in the year 1975 can the minister guarantee that an alternative and acceptable food supply will be available to the Islington and Grassy Narrows reserves?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the provision of that is being done by the resources development field and I have made my recommendation that it be done very quickly. That’s all I can say.

Mr. Cassidy: So limp.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister mean, after all this time, he is shunting his responsibility to another policy development field and cannot give this Legislature a time? Surely alternatives can be fashioned.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the member have a question?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): He hasn’t asked me yet.

Mr. Lewis: I wouldn’t ask that minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why? Is the member afraid I may have an answer for him?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He hasn’t been up north yet.

Mr. Lewis: Has the minister been through the Whitedog reserve? Has he been there? Does he know the conditions on the reserve?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member knows what it is. Let him ask me the question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Are there further questions?

VISITS TO INDIAN RESERVES

Mr. Lewis: I’ll ask the minister the question. Has he been up to the Whitedog-Islington reserve, since the mercury problem?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that it is necessary for me to prove it.

Mr. Lewis: That’s all I asked.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me give him the answer.

Mr. Roy: Give it, yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer the question and I will but if the opposition is really interested in getting the details of this very serious problem it wouldn’t have done any harm to have given us one day’s notice so we could bring the files up and give them the exact information.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: Excuse us.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They’ve had three years.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: The minister couldn’t have guessed that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I haven’t seen the story in the Globe and Mail.

Mr. Lewis: We’ll give him notice in writing.

Mr. Foulds: By registered mail?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The policy field meets --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The policy field meets on Thursday mornings. I’ve been there from 9 o’clock in the morning and I had a luncheon appointment with another meeting --

Mr. Breithaupt: It was in this morning’s paper. The minister should read.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a moment, I haven’t read the paper. Five weeks ago --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: It is ludicrous.

Mr. Speaker: So is the behaviour of several people in this room. Has the minister finished the answer? If not, will he continue.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we have had numerous meetings with the representatives from Grassy Narrows and Whitedog reserves. The last one -- I just looked it up in my diary -- was about five weeks ago at which we discussed many potential solutions. I can tell the members that as a result of that meeting I’ve made arrangements to visit the location next week.

Mr. Lewis: Did they?

Mr. Singer: Isn’t that nice?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, some of the suggestions thrown across the floor of this House may be solutions which the non-Indians may think are acceptable to the Indians in those locations but I could tell the hon. members that is not necessarily so.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are working with them in a very co-operative fashion. If the hon. members will give us --

Mr. Reid: Another five years?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- an opportunity to do this in this kind of fashion, we hope we will have a solution for the problem very shortly.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: No. Order please. We are spending too much time --

Mr. Singer: Could I ask just one supplementary of this minister?

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. member for Scarborough West will proceed with his further questions.

Mr. Singer: Then the minister’s ludicrous answer stands by itself.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Housing, if I may: How did he happen conveniently to miss the statement at the top of page 16 in Housing Ontario, which says:

“It is estimated that OHAP will directly influence the production of 12,000 dwelling units in 1974 which might otherwise be built in 1975 or later. This does not include dwellings made available to the Home Ownership Made Easy programme through OHAP.”

How has he suddenly amended that in order to make the figures read more flatteringly to the government?

Mr. Deans: Because he is a fraud.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t miss it at all. I am fully aware of what is in the paper, as the hon. member should be. Housing units can be defined --

Mr. Lewis: As units that will be built.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- as lots brought onto the market or as starts. That is what we have been saying time and time again in the House; it’s lots and starts.

Mr. Deans: That’s very convenient.

Mr. Lewis: Well, it’s convenient to change the definition every time.

Is it not true that the 12,000 units which otherwise would be built in 1975 or later -- it’s clear that was the intended production in 1974-1975 -- actually were only 4,000, of which the minister hasn’t told us 1,100 were HOME units, so that the target of 12,000 was really a reality of 2,900? How can the minister bring in that kind of discrepancy, a figure 25 per cent off the target, for the past year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. leader of the NDP doesn’t understand what the statement says --

Mr. Deans: Nobody does -- no one ever understands the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All he has to do is look at the figures and he’ll find out that we have exceeded our figures as far as the accelerated lots and housing starts through OHAP are concerned --

Mr. Lewis: The lots, yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As I said before, we are certainly down on the rent-geared-to-income family housing -- and we feel badly that that is the case and that communities and certain municipal leaders will not accept socially assisted housing. But we have achieved a very commendable record in the fiscal year 1974-1975.

Mr. Deans: It’s a disgusting record.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the statement in the summary on page 35 of Housing Ontario last year, that “the Ontario government will itself have a direct involvement in 31,000 of the total starts -- “

Mr. Lewis: Starts!

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. Can the minister explain why he is so proud of his record when his statement today admits that the ministry’s share of total Ontario starts is only 18,148? In other words, the ministry has barely exceeded by half the target that was set out a year ago for its involvement in total starts in the province during the past year.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t give us lots, but starts.

Mr. Cassidy: He talked about starts last year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what is the matter with the hon. member in regard to understanding the statement --

Mr. Deans: Isn’t it funny that nobody ever understands the minister?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have said we influenced 29,000 -- that’s 94 per cent of the 31,000 we had anticipated -- and that’s an actual fact. Regardless of how the member wants to twist the figures, there is absolutely no way he can.

Mr. Cassidy: You can’t live in a lot; that is the truth.

Mr. Lewis: No further questions, Mr. Speaker.

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

PAY TELEVISION

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The Canadian Radio-Television Commission will hold a public hearing on the future of pay television in Canada on June 10 in Ottawa. The deadline for filing comments with the commission is May 16. Would the minister say whether his ministry, on behalf of the government of Ontario, will make its views known to the commission on this important issue?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, we haven’t really decided whether we are going to make a formal intervention and submission at the CRTC hearings.

Mr. Roy: There should be some politics in that, eh?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have made our feelings known as they relate to the policies that are being developed by the CRTC, both to the Minister of Communications, Mr. Pelletier, and to the chairman of the CRTC, Mr. Juneau. To appear before the CRTC as nothing more than an intervener isn’t going to add anything. We have made our position quite clear to the most responsible persons in that field. I think they understand how we feel about what they are doing.

Mr. P. Taylor: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister say whether it is the government’s intention to levy the Ontario sales tax on cable TV subscribers and potential pay TV subscribers?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that I have absolutely nothing to do with the levying of sales tax.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, he isn’t aware; he is not aware of anything.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

ASBESTOS IN THUNDER BAY HARBOUR

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of the Environment, if I may: Is the minister not aware that his ministry has had, since 1973, photographs from the NASA earth resources satellite programme, which show clearly that effluent from Reserve Mining in Silver Harbour goes around the lake into Thunder Bay? Why has the ministry not been constantly monitoring the asbestos counts in Thunder Bay as a result of that information? Does the minister not think it’s time, with the obvious research that is being done independently, that he immediately put the money into a filtration plant for the Port Arthur drinking system?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of where Reserve Mining is. I have had considerable correspondence through our federal counterpart dealing with that situation and we have expressed our concern about it. As far as the levels and the testing that we have done in the Port Arthur area go, I am told by the health people that from the levels in Port Arthur that we have obtained and from the results of the testing that has been done for us at the Ontario Research Foundation, the levels in Port Arthur are not excessive. There is some doubt, as I have said before, because of the University testing and the high levels that they have received. We are going to be doing some further testing in early May.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister mean to say he is willing to wait another month before he even starts a testing programme, during which people may be exposed to the danger?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The question should be seeking information.

Mr. Foulds: -- as well as inhaling asbestos through humidifiers, vaporizers and sauna baths.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is the type of question which is spoiling the question period, I might say. It’s argumentative and more of a debate than a question and answer period. The member for York Centre.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, he is killing people in Thunder Bay. This ministry is responsible for deaths.

Hon. W. Newman: Don’t go around --

Mr. Speaker: If a question is out of order, any reply is out of order. I would ask hon. members not to ask such a multiple-type question and to ask for information rather than try to debate. The member for York Centre.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have a question of the Minister of Housing: Will his ministry admit the serious errors made in processing the expropriations in the North Pickering project, as has been illustrated by the results of the Roy Bambrough case, and stop playing games with those residents?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t admit there was any serious error whatsoever. I think the people in the area of North Pickering have been dealt with quite fairly.

Mr. Lewis: He never does.

Mr. Deans: The minister has never admitted an error in his life.

Mr. Martel: Nobody understands him.

Mr. Deans: They probably don’t understand him.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have had the best settlements that we can possibly achieve for the people in that area, regardless of the Bambrough case or whatever case the member may wish to bring forward. The Attorney General (Mr. Clement) has consistently said, as I have said, that we have done our best to make sure the people there were treated fairly.

Mr. Deans: The minister is really quite incompetent.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Deans: He doesn’t understand.

Mr. Roy: With regard to the minister’s answer that there has been no serious error, what does he think of the decision of the divisional court of the Court of Appeal of Ontario which said the ministry had made an error?

Mr. Deans: They didn’t understand him.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Not necessarily.

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t the minister feel that he is misleading the public and people like Mr. Bambrough when he sends out estimates under one signature when the individual has not prepared it? Does he not feel that he is misleading these individuals and that his officials are bordering on contempt of the Ontario Court of Appeal?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the question has been asked.

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t he feel that?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the minister have an answer?

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the member for Ottawa East just tell the minister he doesn’t understand.

Mr. Roy: He doesn’t understand.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa East is a very intelligent lawyer. I understand that part and his record proves that. Why don’t we let the courts decide whether we have been misleading anyone or not? I think that’s the proper answer to give him.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): I have a question of the Minister of Health: I have in my hands the regulations from the College of Optometry. I want to ask the minister whether he really intends to put them into action and deprive 100 to 150 optometrists of work, because they have been associated with the various companies or in the employ of the various companies?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member was present during the discussion of the health disciplines bill when the conflict-of-interest possibilities of an optometrist employed by any retailer who also merchandises eyeglasses were discussed. It was in an attempt to allow a person receiving a diagnosis or a measurement of need to be a free agent in purchasing his ophthalmic devices in a free market that this was agreed upon by the college and by the people present, and put into regulatory form.

Any other form appears to be a conflict of interest where a professional is employed to make potential diagnoses that may benefit his employer.

Mr. Dukszta: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary by the member who asked the original question.

Mr. Dukszta: Is the minister aware that; one, there was no real decision made on that; and two, the regulation actually excludes those people from work? We only discussed that there should be no conflict of interest. The regulations suggest --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is this a statement or a debate?

Mr. Dukszta: No, I want --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr. Dukszta: Yes. The minister has just misled us on that point and the question is, is he aware that the regulations have proceeded further than was intended?

An hon. member: I wouldn’t just call it a misleading statement.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The regulations are in draft form right now and are being circulated to all disciplines for discussion. They are still changeable and therefore I don’t feel at this moment that I am committed totally to them. They are being sent out for the very kinds of discussion the member is raising now.

I only tell the members that to begin with the college opposed any change of this nature. If the members recall, the ophthalmologists and other groups present felt strongly that a man couldn’t serve two masters. He couldn’t be a professional if, at the same time he was worrying about the sales of the business. I would think the member’s party at least would understand that.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): We did.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Having agreed to that principle, we asked the College of Optometry to put it into a workable form and, incidentally, to work out those exclusions for people who had served long periods of time with companies and who would find it difficult --

Mr. Roy: Will the minister send us a copy of the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have circulated them to all the disciplines. I don’t know --

Mr. Roy: Not to us. He amended the regulations.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Regulatory changes don’t necessarily go to members, as they know, but it was agreed they would go to the other people.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

ALLEGED BIAS IN RYERSON EXAMINATIONS

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Is the minister in a position to report to the House progress, if any, in regard to the meeting last week between his officials and the officials of Natural Resources, and officials from Ryerson in relation to the problems encountered at that institution with respect to bias in the examinations given to students taking the Ontario land surveyors’ course?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Unfortunately, I am not in a position to do so today, Mr. Speaker, but I may be tomorrow. I didn’t have an opportunity this week to talk with my people. I know of the meeting; I listened to it for a few moments. I will try to have something for the member, for the House, tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

NORFOLK ROAD WORKERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Is the minister aware that the township of Norfolk is threatening to sell a half-million dollars worth of road equipment, which was bought only last year, as part of its effort to break the strike of its 17 road workers and destroy their union? Is he aware the township has been accused of bad faith bargaining and its only offer is $1 less than the prevailing rate in the area? Does he agree that the ministry’s exceptionally rapid verbal consent for the township to switch to an urban subsidy from a road subsidy and to sell its equipment will facilitate the township’s efforts to break the union? Will the minister agree to withdraw ministry support backing the management side -- that is the township side -- by deferring that approval until January, 1976, or until the labour dispute is resolved?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Is the speech over?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all I am not aware of the particular request being used for the purposes suggested by the member. I do know there has been a request for this approval.

The request from the township is not necessarily going to have any effect as far as the sharing of the original purchase of the equipment is concerned. The subsidies and what have you would not be affected whether the township is in its present status or urban status. The changing of the status would have no bearing on whether it decides to contract out the work, which I understand is what it is trying to do.

I also understand the workers do not really have a union at this time; they are in the process of bargaining for their first contract.

Mr. Cassidy: They were certified in July.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I was not aware of that. I can tell the member that I understand what the situation is. It has been brought to my attention by him today and others and the approval has not gone forward. It can be delayed and I would like to look into the matter in some detail before I make a decision on the delay.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

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

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. There were four questions at least in that first one. I think it is time we went on to give other people an opportunity to ask questions.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, but before I ask that question may I ask the members of the Legislature to join with me in welcoming 70 students, with several teachers and parents, from the Hugh Beaton School in Windsor, in the great riding of Windsor-Walkerville. Mr. Speaker, they are under the guidance of Miss Sheila Parent, and they are the ones responsible for the nice weather we are enjoying here in Toronto. They brought it with them.

SURPLUS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Is the minister prepared to introduce a food stamp or a food voucher plan to assist in eliminating some of the surplus agricultural products, and at the same time to assist those who are living on limited incomes so that by that plan they could help in reducing some of the surplus; especially potatoes today?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t realize the member’s question was addressed to me.

Mr. Roy: It is against the rules to be sleeping like that in the House.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): He must be thinking about that election coming up in Huron-Middlesex. Was the minister thinking about that?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on, really; give them higher income.

Mr. Deans: Ask him if he is prepared to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

An hon. member: That woke him up.

Mr. Roy: Once he is awake it doesn’t matter what the question is, he has an answer.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister prepared to implement a food voucher plan or a food stamp plan to assist in eliminating some of the surplus food products and also to help those who are living on limited and fixed incomes?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, we discussed with the federal minister, just last week, some possibilities to remove some of the surplus food we have in this province and I hope ways and means may be found.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Singer: On a point of order.

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker, in view of our --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. A point of order?

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Singer: Yes. A few moments ago, the Minister of Health said he did not warn people not to eat the fish, it had been done by the federal people. Could I draw to the attention of the House and to the minister, page 4856 I think it is, of Hansard, Nov. 7, 1974, where in answer to a question put by me the Minister of Health said:

“Letters were sent out to all the doctors in the area, the tourist operators in the area, and individuals, signed by the Minister of Health, warning that the fish should not be eaten.”

The minister outlined in the earlier part of that answer, tests taken by his own department; if the Minister of Health did not mean himself when he gave that answer, then he was deliberately misleading this House.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t deliberately mislead this House and the hon. member should know better than that. I want the member to withdraw that statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. It’s wrong for the hon. member to accuse another member of deliberately misleading the House, and I await the hon. member for Downsview’s action in that respect.

Mr. Singer: On a point of order, I said if the minister did not mean himself in that answer, then he was deliberately misleading the House. Now if he didn’t mean himself by “the Minister of Health, who did he mean?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, has the member read the entire transcript? Has he looked for dates? Has he looked at any of that stuff?

Mr. Singer: I have just read the minister his answer, which he said he didn’t make in the House; on Nov. 7.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Miller: You know, Mr. Speaker, the member for Downsview is not a bad person.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is reaching levels of high dudgeon for the first time in his political career.

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

LIMOUSINE FOR SECURITIES DIVISION CHIEF

Mr. Shulman: In view of our rather difficult financial position this year, why has the minister decided in his ministry to vote a chauffeured limousine for the head of security division?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well Mr. Speaker, that particular perk is one of long standing. The present commissioner continues to enjoy it in accordance with the nature of his position, which is one of great stature. I can only say that it is the incumbent’s only perk.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

An hon. member: He deserves it.

LONDON PAIN CLINIC

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a very short question of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Roy: And let the minister try to give him a straight answer.

Mr. Good: Make it a short answer. Is it true that he is closing down the London Pain Clinic, which is being run in conjunction with the University Hospital; and if so why?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but I don’t think I should say this unequivocally. Is that the acupuncture treatment experiment?

Mr. Good: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It may well be that the funds we gave that particular group, which I think was $25,000, have been used up and their experiments are complete. I’ll be glad to get the member more information on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

ASSISTANCE FOR LAID-OFF WORKERS

Mr. Ferrier: I have a question for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of the policy of Manpower in the closing of a plant or an operation, such as the Reeves Mine in Timmins, where the policy is to set up a committee to look for other employment for the men so displaced, with the payment of that committee to be funded 50 per cent by the federal government, 25 per cent by the provincial government, 12.5 per cent by the company and 12.5 per cent by the local union? And does the minister think that kind of a policy is fair to the men who are put out of work by a plant closing for one reason or another?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, there are various arrangements in connection with that type of an agreement. They are generally four-party agreements, as the member has suggested, with the union, with management, with the province and with the Dominion. Now, actually, the federal government generally puts more money or has more money available for this than we ourselves do. Very often we’re just a co-operating partner, loaning our facilities but not putting very much money in. Other times the union puts money in; and sometimes they don’t, depending on the circumstances.

But yes, I think the arrangements are reasonable. Generally when you have some money in it you have a little more interest in it, Mr. Speaker, and I think the best way to work this out is by four-party agreement and co-operation. I think the schemes are reasonable, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Ewen from the standing private bills committee presented the committee’s report, which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the Borough of York.

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the Borough of North York.

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

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

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke.

Bill Pr23, An Act respecting Humber College.

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing and penalties, if any, be remitted on Bill Pr23, An Act respecting Huron College.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

FAMILY BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to remove any reference to the sex of the parent, thereby enabling either the father or the mother of the child to be eligible for benefits.

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Braithwaite moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to eliminate the practice, prevalent in supermarkets and large chain stores, of repricing upwards goods already on the shelves.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I intend to comment on the following bill so I might as well keep my comments together.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of introducing this legislation has to do with motor vehicle accidents on the highways.

In 1973 100,000 people were injured and 2,000 killed on Ontario highways. The first bill introduced, Mr. Speaker, deals with the mandatory use of seat belts; and the second bill deals with the limitation of the speed on a highway to 55 miles per hour.

Mr. Speaker, the government’s own figures and statistics indicate that it costs the --

Mr. Speaker: We don’t debate the bill here.

Mr. Roy: No, no; but I want to --

Mr. Speaker: No, you state the principle of the bill only on these statements.

Mr. Roy: The principle of the bill basically, Mr. Speaker, is this. The first bill introduced makes the use of seatbelts mandatory; the purpose of the second bill is to reduce the speed limit to 55 miles per hour. The main purpose of the two pieces of the legislation Mr. Speaker, is in the nature of preventive medicine to help reduce the health costs in this province.

I have another bill to introduce, Mr. Speaker.

BUSINESS CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Business Corporations Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to prevent corporations from forcing persons to submit to fingerprinting in exchange for their right to shop at certain stores and to limit the use of whatever can be done with fingerprints. This bill has been introduced on three different occasions now.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wonder if I could ask unanimous consent to revert to petitions?

Mr. Speaker: We have no petitions that have been approved here. Did you say petitions?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes. May I have unanimous consent to revert to petitions, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: There were no petitions. The petitions, I might remind the hon. member, must be submitted to the Clerk of the House for approval first to see that they are in the proper form. So perhaps you could look after that detail for next day?

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, through you and to the House, may I introduce the students of St. Maria Goretti Separate School, in Scarborough, who entered the Legislature later than the question period. On behalf of the teachers with them, I wish that you would welcome them.

Mr. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, through you, I would like to inform the House, although it’s not a pleasure, of the death of Miss Lillian Wingfield, who for 43 years was a dedicated civil servant of this province. For 21 years she was on the executive of the Quarter Century Club. Her sister is still working here in the Ministry of Government Services as supervisor of telephone accounts. I’m sure we offer the family our deepest sympathy and we’d like to pay tribute to the memory of a very dedicated civil servant.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The eighth order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 29, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: I believe the hon. member for Waterloo North has the floor.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions which I would like to raise on this bill and I hope the hon. minister will reply to them.

As we are aware, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us comes up each year and the amount being asked for authorization this year is $1.4 billion. The necessity for this bill is that certain borrowings are not permitted by other statutes and must be covered in this bill. As I understand it, the borrowings by the province, that is, non-public borrowings under the OMERS Act and the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, are not included in this particular bill because permission is given in those Acts for the government to borrow. Therefore, it would appear that the $575 million required in public borrowing, which is designated as “financing to be determined,” plus the $750 million of Canada Pension Plan money would be the amounts covered by this legislation. That amounts to $75 million less than $1.4 billion, so I would like to ask, first of all, whether that $75 million has to include the $33 million from the federal-provincial winter capital projects fund or if that’s included under another statute, and also the $19 million under the CMHC pollution control loans?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Both are included in the $1,377 million here.

Mr. Good: Both are included in the $1,377 million, so there is a surplus then of $33 million that is not really required. That’s fine. That clears up this question for me. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, I had the same problem with this bill last year that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) had this year, until I inquired and found that certain authorization is given under the other two statutes which is not included in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the main question I would like to ask -- and I think it’s perfectly in order when debating this bill -- is, as we borrow from the Canada Pension Plan fund and other non-public borrowing annually, where do we find the accumulation of non-public borrowing in the budget? I have checked and the latest information I can find is that the total liabilities were carried until 1973-1974 at $9,390 million offset by $6,488 million, but for last year and this year I see no accumulative figure of the non-public borrowings. Certainly, we don’t pay the Canada Pension Plan fund back in short order.

This is probably somewhere in the budget, but I couldn’t find it. So maybe the minister would be good enough to find out the accumulative non-public borrowing which would be covered year by year in this bill, but for which I can’t find an accumulative total? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there are several questions here. First of all, regarding the question raised by my friend from Lakeshore, basically this amount does not agree, and never has agreed, with the amount shown to be totally financed in the budget. There are two differences -- essentially those pointed out by my friend from Kitchener -- in that there are two items not included in this bill; the Teachers’ Superannuation Act and the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.

The four items which are covered under the authority of this Act for borrowing are the Canada Pension Plan, the winter works capital projects fund, CMHC pollution control loans and the financing to be determined, which at this moment may be up to $575 million for a total of $1,377 million. Now, Mr. Speaker, to that you add teachers’ superannuation and OMERS -- $201 million and $128 million -- and you come to $1,706 million. You have to subtract from that the retirements, which come to $37 million, for a net total financing of $1,669 million which this year happens to be very close to the amount of the net cash requirements. But we don’t attempt to coincide -- I don’t mean to say that the figure of $1.4 billion is pulled out of the air.

Actually the other thing which should be said -- and I remember explaining this to my friend from Lakeshore I think three or four years ago -- is that there is a carryover. What’s left in this bill carries over into the following year. That’s why the amount which is needed may vary substantially from the amount of the net cash requirements, even with those adjustments that are in the budget.

The reason there is the carryover is the variables. There may well be, I suppose, another winter works programme -- all the variables which can happen. Our best guess is that there would be a carryover into 1976-1977 from 1975-1976 of about 400 and some odd million dollars. We should have enough to carry forward, depending on the amount of borrowing we do, and the kind of borrowing which we ultimately do. This authorizes that amount of borrowing and it means we don’t have to come back to the House on day one, but will probably have to come before, as our guess is now, July of 1976.

Perhaps we should take a look at the Act. Perhaps it’s a bit of an anachronism in this day and age -- I suppose it’s been there since day one. Why we need authority to borrow from Canada Pension under this Act but not from the teachers’ superannuation is something I --

Mr. Good: That’s not in the OMERS Act though.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, why that provision is in the other Act escapes me. There must be some reason, I suppose, in antiquity. But those are the differences in the figures.

Mr. Good: What about the accumulation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The accumulation you won’t find -- in the budget, Mr. Speaker -- at least not for the last couple of years -- because we won’t know what it is until the end of the year. We don’t attempt to put those figures in public accounts or the financial statement of the province. We really don’t know what the debt will be until the books are all balanced off and we don’t attempt to project that in the budget. We could, I suppose, but we are talking about a great number of variables, and this is a budget as opposed to a financial statement.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, since this bill will probably not go to committee, could I ask one more question?

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): No, I am going to ask that it goes to committee.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Committee of the whole House please.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves second reading of Bill 40, An Act to provide the Payment of Unconditional Grants.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker; just give me a moment to get organized.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, is one of utmost importance to the municipalities in the Province of Ontario. This, of course, was discussed in some detail this afternoon at the PMLC meeting which went on from 1 until 2 o’clock. It’s significant that the discussion at that meeting followed very closely the notes which I made on this bill last week when it was called for debate and didn’t arrive.

The grants in this bill, Mr. Speaker, are those which were formerly in the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, the Regional Municipal Grants Act and the Property Tax Stabilization Act. Now, the Property Tax Stabilization Act included the general support grants that the municipalities got before, as well as the resources equalization grant.

It’s also significant, Mr. Speaker, that the split mill rate, which was utilized before in some areas and not in others, as I understand it, is now incorporated in the budget as a provision that all municipalities will now tax at a different rate for commercial and industrial property than is applicable for residential property. I think that perhaps one of the reasons that this will be of major importance in the future is that when market value assessment is implemented, if it ever is, it will be one way of avoiding some of the shifts which, by past experience, definitely do occur. Assessment ratios will shift more and more to residential property, with less and less on commercial. This differential can be ironed out to some extent by creating a different tax rate or different mill rate for residential property than for industrial and commercial. This was suggested some years ago by the opposition.

There is no way market value assessment can work without distorting the tax picture as we now know it. I think it should be that the burden on residential property has to be less than on industrial. Incorporating this differential of 15 per cent in legislation will at least provide a basis on which to start to see what other adjustments have to be made when market value does come across the province. There is no doubt about it, shifts do take place. Presently, the county of Bruce, the county of Grey, and, I believe, the east part of Parry Sound, are on market value assessment. I think there were close to 4,000 appeals last year in Grey county.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And in Peel and Pickering.

Mr. Good: Oh, I am sorry, I was not aware of those -- they may have been put on for 1975.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, they were in for 1974.

Mr. Good: They were in for 1974; I wasn’t aware of that.

Undoubtedly people are concerned that the shift has taken place. So, that particular part of this bill will to some extent take care of that particular problem.

Now, to deal with the other grants that are covered in this particular bill. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have to remember that this bill is dealing with those grants which are designated as unconditional payments. When we look at table C5 on page C15 in the budget, we note that while the general increase of funds to the municipality is reasonable, with the 16.3 per cent increase, the total grant of financial support to the municipality is really only 13.6 per cent. But when you get right down to the crunch of it, Mr. Speaker, for the moneys over which the municipal councillors have control, we find that the increase for next year will be only 9.8 per cent, if I recall the figure in the white budget book. Therefore, the municipalities are only going to have control over 9.8 per cent more funds. Mr. Speaker, that is not very much additional money to reduce the tremendous increases in municipal financing that are evident at this early stage.

It is unfortunate that the minister has seen fit to set out the budget in such a manner that all moneys going to the local level appear to be municipal moneys. They are described as “Ontario payments to local governments and agencies.”

At first glance, it would appear that the municipalities are going to get a lot of additional money -- somewhere in the budget I think the minister mentioned the sum of $380 million -- but when you take out the additional funds that are going for education, transportation, social assistance, housing, environment, health and things of those nature; payments to old age homes, Children’s Aid Societies, conservation authorities, library boards and so on; and then the other funds, such as payments in lieu of taxes, we find that the actual unconditional grant -- the money that the municipality has to do with as it chooses -- is very limited; it is only an additional $29 million which I have said is less than a 10 per cent increase.

There is no way that the municipalities are going to hold their tax rate at anywhere near respectable levels with such a small amount of educational money at the local level. Granted, the former Treasurer warned on two or three occasions last year that the province would not be providing additional large sums of money. The province has all it can handle to meet its other requirements, he said.

The municipalities were then warned by the present Treasurer that the funds would not be forthcoming. He did a pretty good job in the budget of making it look as if there were a lot of additional funds going to the municipalities. For instance, the additional money for educational purposes is only 13 per cent -- well, there is no way the school boards can keep their increases this year to 13 per cent. The Treasurer must know that. He knows that when the other half of the municipal tax bill is figured out and the budgeting is completed, there are going to be increases on the educational side and, in many areas, sizeable increases. That is just as important as the moneys over which the municipal council has control. Unfortunately, that is not a very great area.

The $29 million that is being given as an increase under the unconditional grants section is made up entirely of increased grants for police purposes. We had a discussion in the PMLC meeting at noon today regarding the advisability of attaching that grant or even linking it in name for police purposes.

I can see that there is some validity in the argument that we have to designate which municipalities get it. In actual fact and in actual law, the municipality can do with that money whatever it sees fit. But what happens when the police commission hears that there is going to be a $5 increase per capita in those areas where there is a regional police force? As was pointed out today, there were more police contracts and police decisions made the day after the budget by the police commission simply because they figured, “Ah ha, we have this extra money to play around with.” Really, in law they don’t, but as long as we have police commissions overridden by provincial appointees and judges, the local municipality isn’t going to have any control over expenditures on the police force, because as soon as extra money is available, it’s no problem at all for the police commission to find ways to spend it. Undoubtedly they have a good point and they do need the additional funds.

On that particular point of reasoning, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the amount of money over which the municipality has undisputed control is very limited. It amounts only to an increase of less than 10 per cent.

Even though the regional-municipal grant and the per capita grant to other municipalities have gone up infinitesimally, the general expenditures in the municipalities are going to increase considerably. We look at the per capita grant. That is a general grant to both non-regional governments and regional governments and the formula for non-regional governments is shown in the bill on page 11 under schedule 2. This varies from $6 to $8 depending on the population. For regional governments that is set at $9. Even with those small increases we find the general per capita grant is increasing only 1.6 per cent over last year, from $63 to $64 million. There is no way the municipalities are going to manage on increases of that particular size.

In fairness, Mr. Speaker, I must point out one thing. That is that last year not all of the general support grant, because of its complicated formula, ever got into the hands of the municipalities -- that is, in the fiscal year by which the municipalities operate. There is some $17 million outstanding and that is why this discrepancy appears in the white book, “Ontario Assistance to Local Governments and Taxpayers” and in the budget in table C5. The budget shows that the grant has dropped from $85 million to $66 million. In effect, the $85 million of 1974-1975 was never paid out; only $67 million of that was paid out.

That proves only one thing to me, Mr. Speaker. That is the government fell exactly into the trap many of us said it would last year because the municipalities had no alternative but to have increased spending of a considerable amount. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that those municipalities which had a considerable increase in their spending received the small amount of the grant. Consequently the government couldn’t --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t want to interrupt but if I can correct the member before he goes any further, that is not the reason. The reason there was the difference was that the government had underestimated the growth in its revenues and the proportion which was applicable to the Edmonton commitment.

Mr. Good: That may be the reason the minister thinks but it is not the reason I believe and it is not the reason the people in the municipalities believe. If we look on page 22 of last year’s budget -- Ontario Budget 1974 -- we find the grants under the general support grant got down as low as three per cent and could be as high as nine per cent. This varied inversely in proportion to the increase in the spending of that municipality.

We had warned last year that many municipalities would have to spend more than the minister had averaged -- I suppose nine per cent or 10 per cent -- even to get this six per cent which was supposed to be the norm. There were 11 per cent increases.

Some municipalities had to go over the 14 per cent limit and received only three per cent increase over the previous year, with the result that the municipalities did not even get all the money that had been budgeted for.

The minister may very well say they had increased revenue. If this formula had been set up properly in the first place the municipalities would have got --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No. I am sorry, I don’t want to interrupt but I know the member wants to be accurate.

The province estimated certain revenue growth and certain total revenues. Of that, under the Edmonton commitment, the municipalities were entitled to a share.

Mr. Good: Right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The fact was that our revenues rose more quickly than we expected and therefore they were entitled to an extra whatever the figure was -- $67 million, which we are paying out this year.

Mr. Good: But I am talking, Mr. Speaker, only of the $17 million under the general support grant which was not paid out to the municipalities in 1974. The Treasurer had budgeted for $85 million in 1974-1975 under the general support grant and we paid out only $67 million under that grant. The reason he underspent that budget by $17 million was because his formula was such that the municipalities couldn’t qualify for it. The minister can interrupt me and correct me as much as he wants, but those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. member: He agrees.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, they are getting them this year.

Mr. Good: All right, so, now they are getting it. But even with the municipalities getting that extra $17 million this year, the overall unconditional grants to the municipalities are still only going to be increased 9.8 per cent over the year before. When one isolates the unconditional grants from the other moneys, we find that it is certainly insufficient to do the job that the municipalities will have to do.

I would like to draw a little attention to a few other facts. Some particular things -- and I speak particularly of transportation -- in fairness, are getting a good healthy increase, 25 per cent. On the other hand, transportation can be the responsibility of that particular municipality and it cuts its cloth according to the money that is available though the fare box and through grants.

On the other hand, the conservation authorities have had no increase according to this budget. The 1974 amount was $31 million and in 1975 - 1976 the amount designated is $31 million. Now we know that inflation affects the operation of the conservation authorities in the same manner as that of anyone else. Where are they going to get their money that they are going to have to have and require? From the municipalities. So there is another manner in which the municipalities are going to be asked to raise their mill rate further.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a few examples here. These are some figures from my own region. All that could be ascertained up to now are the preliminary budget figures for the region of Waterloo -- these are not the final budget figures, let me make that perfectly clear.

The police budget is certainly eating up a tremendous portion of any regional government, if there is a regional police force. This has gone up from $8 million to $10 million, or from $32 per capita to $40 per capita. Now the minister mentioned today in the PMLC meeting that policing costs vary up to $55 per capita across the province. I forget what he said the low figure was.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Twenty dollars.

Mr. Good: Twenty dollars per capita up to $55 per capita.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: An average is about $34.

Mr. Good: An average of about $34 across the province. But, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that any municipality that has an area police force is going to find their costs considerably higher than others. Consequently, there is provision here for additional grants from $7 to $12. But even with the additional grant, we find that our costs have risen $8 this year per capita in Waterloo region and the grant will reimburse only $5 of that $8.

Our engineering costs have risen from $8 million to $12 million. Our health and social services, from $9 million to $11 million. The total expenditures, Mr. Speaker, in Waterloo region in 1974 were $30.6 million, and for 1975 they will be roughly $37.4 million. So we see an increase of $22 million in the proposed budget -- I am sorry, I correct that -- an increase of 22 per cent in the regional budget.

Now, when we look at the income side -- income that is expected, taking this budget into consideration -- we find that the income will be raised from $8.9 million to $22.5 million, or an increase of 19 per cent. Consequently, the remainder must come by additional levies on the area governments. And the area governments, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, must contribute to the regional government on the basis of their weighted assessment.

The increase that is expected to be required on the area levies will be from $11.7 million to $14.9 million, which is an increase of 21.5 per cent. Twenty-one point five per cent will be the increase that the area governments must contribute toward the regional levy. This is before we’ve even considered the educational cost increase.

Everyone in my particular area is predicting that there’s no way, even with the most rigid cutting of budget estimates -- and they’ve already gone though one cutting in the region -- that there can be anything but a 15 per cent to 20 per cent increase, and probably much heavier on the 20 per cent side of it than on the 15 per cent side. Some are predicting 20, some are predicting 16 or 18. This is about the increase that is expected in the area from which I come, and other areas to whom I have spoken.

What the educational budgets will be is a little too early to tell. Consequently, one can’t predict how much increase there’ll be at the municipal level in the form of taxes. But, undoubtedly, it will be in the form of 20 per cent minimum, I would think. One area municipality’s preliminary budget shows an increase of 40 per cent, and they hardly know where to start to cut it back because everything appears to be essential.

Let me relate an unfortunate instance, Mr. Speaker, that happened in Waterloo region. So desperate are they to trim back their budgets that the social service committee of council suggested that a saving of some $37,000 be registered by eliminating support for the municipally and provincially supported daycare children who were in private day care. What false economy this would have been. The whole municipality suddenly became alarmed over this particular measure, and I think the most recent news is that it will be reinstated. It would have been a tragedy for mothers who are working to have to go back onto welfare rolls simply because the municipality was not going to pay for their children while they were in daycare centres.

But the municipalities are desperate to find ways to trim their spending this year in order to bring the proposed costs on the tax bill even within reasonable limits.

The minister has given additional funds to the municipalities, but I don’t think they’re nearly enough. The regional municipalities have been created by the province; the municipalities must now live with them and try to make ends meet. I certainly have to support the bill for the money that it is giving to the regions, but as has been pointed out, the unconditional part of it is certainly far from what it should be. There should be additional money there. The support grant, while it has been simplified to six per cent across the board, does have one redeeming factor -- that no one will receive less than 95 per cent of what that municipality got the year before. But that’s little comfort for a municipality that only got a three per cent or a four per cent increase last year; they couldn’t manage on that because their spending just had to exceed the limits that were designated by the province.

I can’t wholeheartedly support this expenditure of money because I don’t think it has taken into consideration the real problem of the municipalities, and that is that the municipalities want to deal with their finances according to their own priorities. The minister must know there are those areas in the province that reject the concept of a regional health unit and will take a smaller subsidy. There are those areas in the region which reject the idea of having the regional police force in their area, and they pay their levy to the region. This happens in the Niagara region. They are satisfied with the provincial police force, even though they have to pay for the regional police force.

The autonomy of the local municipality is not enhanced by this budget. The unconditional grants, instead of getting better, are getting worse, in that they are only increased by less than 10 per cent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of comments to make about this particular bill. I guess the main one is one of disappointment that the minister has come along, taken the torch from the former Treasurer, and it is sputtering over there and not doing anything particularly as far as the municipalities are concerned; and that’s what we are talking about in this particular bill.

Moreover, his words in the budget where he, with resignation, indicates that mill rates are going to go up this year, are one of the keys to understanding this budget for the election year of 1975. The Treasurer had decided that he could not raise provincial taxes, even after he had gotten the deficit up to $1.6 billion, or thereabouts. Some things still had to give. And what had to give, he decided, would not be an agency that would come back into his lap, it would be the municipalities.

I am sorry that the Treasurer is leaving; I hadn’t even worked up to a climax yet, Mr. Speaker. But it does worry us that the municipalities are being asked to carry the can, and they will be asked to take the responsibility for provincial decisions which ought to be reflected in provincial tax changes. There is not that kind of courage around here, Mr. Speaker.

The municipal financial crisis has been with us for as long as this parliament has sat. We have had some efforts to solve it. In fact, if one wanted to be fair, one could say that in some small ways municipal taxation is a bit fairer and a bit more equitable today than it was three or four years ago. That hardly means, however, that the basic financial problems of municipalities have been solved.

Those basic problems are that municipal revenues simply have not been expanding in line with the municipal responsibilities. Senior levels of government continue to pour responsibility on to the local level, but they do not give revenues commensurate with the responsibilities. The fastest growing area of government services that the citizens are seeking is at the local level, whether it is in recreation, whether it is in social services, whether it is in services for the aged, whether it is protection or safety, minimum standards, rooming house standards, that kind of thing -- all of these things come back down to the local level.

In many cases, citizens’ groups and so on are seeking a much more active role in planning their communities. That costs money. They want to restructure the orientation of streets, they want to make their area more pleasant. That affects their municipal budget. They want to get their municipality involved in a big way in housing, as in the case of the city of Toronto. That, too, as we all know, requires very substantial sums of money. And those sums of money are not coming from the very rigid tax base to which municipalities are forced to adhere.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but various actions by the government have had the effect of making life that much more difficult for municipal governments. Chief among these is the fact that assessment reform has now dragged on in this province for a period of about seven years, I believe, and is still not complete. Some time after the election, we are told, we may have an updated assessment roll.

Now, let’s face it, there has been a growth in the municipal tax base, because of inflation, because of the increase in construction, because of renovations and that kind of thing of the property on which municipalities depend for so much of their revenues. But that has not been reflected in the tax base because the assessments have been frozen now for a period of about three or four years. And that freeze, I understand, is to continue until 1976 or 1977.

One fears that there may be a boondoggle there that will never end, and that we will never, in fact, see a reform of the assessment system so long as this government is in power.

I fear specifically -- since I have heard nothing to the contrary -- that the government hasn’t a clue about what changes it will make to the market value assessments once it has them in order to ensure a measure of social equity between various classes and types of property holders, whether they be owners or tenants. It’s a tragedy that we didn’t get into assessment reform in an evolutionary kind of way so that these adjustments could have been worked out over a period of time, rather than having a new assessment which will be launched full-blown on the province in two or three years’ time.

The province has flirted with the idea of the municipal foundation plan, as we have called it, ever since it was introduced in this Legislature by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) about 1963 or 1964, I believe, or 1965. This party has recommended since that time that, in the same way as we do for education, we should ensure the municipalities are not shortchanged because of a deficient assessment base in providing a level of services to their citizens.

The minister, who is responsible for almost everything in the government, knows full well that we have too much growth and development in areas like Toronto and too little in the east and north of the province; for that matter, in many of the small towns. One of the reasons is that those areas have been chronically starved for local revenues in order to provide the infrastructure and the services that would provide housing, attract industry, provide social services and recreation and the other things we expect from local government nowadays.

If a municipality in north Frontenac wants to add a mill to its tax rate it may come up with an extra revenue of $5 or $10 per capita of the people who live within its borders. If a municipality within 20 miles of where we are today adds a mill to its tax rate it may get twice, three, five, even 10 times that amount of money in tax revenues. Therefore, the obvious result is that the overdeveloped areas of the province are encouraged to continue overdeveloping. They continue to add amenities, industrial land, infrastructure and so on, which makes them more attractive for growth. The self-perpetuating qualities of growth are continued and, in the meantime, the poor areas of the province starve.

Surely we have come to the stage, Mr. Speaker, where we could have a foundation plan of the province which ensured that every municipality could afford to provide the same level of services for the same tax burden expressed in mills on an equalized tax rate. In other words, a tax rate of 20 mills in north Frontenac or in northern Ontario or in some other less favoured part of the province would produce the same kind of revenues per capita, the same kind of ability to provide services, that the same number of mills would produce down here.

That’s not the situation right now and the catch up entailed in the minister’s proposal, in this bill, is only 60 per cent of the deficiency and is only to a maximum of 25 per cent of the total tax levied on the part of a municipality. Obviously that doesn’t hurt. Obviously that is welcomed by those municipalities which receive it but when it is so little and has taken so long to come and has a ceiling of only 25 per cent of the overall revenues clearly, it doesn’t do anything substantial to close the very large gap that’s built up over decades between the services and facilities of the smaller towns in the poorer areas of the province and the very fast growth areas, the overdeveloped areas, particularly those around Toronto.

It’s been the policy of the government, Mr. Speaker, over the last few years that there will be a de-emphasis on property tax and for that I give it credit. That credit having been given, however, one has to read very carefully what the minister is saying now because the government has decided, in its wisdom, that because property tax has now become a smaller part of family incomes in the province, therefore there is tax room which it can proceed to exploit.

It will exploit the municipalities by making them impose the taxes. It will exploit the taxpayers by reinstituting a regressive tax which everybody agreed a few years ago ought to become less and less important and, some said, ought to be entirely eliminated.

That isn’t the policy of the government at all. In a cynical kind of fashion, it is saying that for a while thought it could reduce the burden of the property tax but now that it’s to its convenience to think otherwise, it does think otherwise and it is going to let the property taxpayer suffer. Property taxes are going to revive or be restored to the share of income that they were three or four years ago, if not more. Tax increases this year of 15, 20, 25, or even 30 per cent, in the mill rate will be tolerated by the government. If anybody asks why, the government will say that the municipal councils aren’t exercising restraint.

The other day, Mr. Speaker I saw something distributed by the province itself. It showed the increases in cost that the provincial government was experiencing in its purchasing. Those increases in cost are felt at the municipal level as well and you can’t avoid them because you are a municipality, Mr. Speaker. You can’t say: “I’m sorry, the Treasurer tells me to exercise restraint. Therefore, I can only give you a dime a gallon less for the petroleum product or $5,000 less for the truck or $10,000 less than you are asking for the bulldozer or 20 per cent less than what you are asking for concrete pipe.

Obviously those kinds of favours aren’t available. Municipalities have got to pay the costs which are entailed in the present inflation. No matter how much restraint they practise, an enormous part of their budgets is in uncontrollable areas, such as social assistance, such as day care, such as maintenance and such as the continuation of established programmes which there is no way you can turn off, Mr. Speaker. It is exceptionally difficult and rather nugatory, if I can quote the member for Lakeshore, I hope correctly --

Mr. Lawlor: It is nugatory.

Mr. Cassidy: It is nugatory to tell the municipalities they should have been exercising restraint when they are finding it very difficult to keep their mill rates down even with no increase in programmes at all. In my case, in the municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, I think the capital programme budget has been cut to the point where there are virtually no new road programmes at all to offer the minister an example.

I grant the minister there are certain cases where municipalities are not exercising restraint. I have in mind the plans of the minister’s buddies in North York, where, Paul Godfrey came from, to build an enormous, fancy, new municipal centre somewhere up at Yonge and Finch at a cost of about $30 million or $40 million. We don’t think that kind of thing should go on. We don’t believe in it. We believe the Ontario Municipal Board, or the ministry in its control over capital budgeting, should tell the municipalities that this is not the year for that kind of extravaganza.

But in the main, for most municipalities Mr. Speaker, you will find that the mill rates that are going up are going up because of essentials; or the mill rates that are going up are going up because of settlements that have been reached through the collective bargaining process, which are fair settlements; or the mill rates are going up because of arbitrations, as for example the police arbitration here in the city of Toronto, a system imposed by the province, which created difficulties for the police commission here in Metro Toronto. These are the kinds of things that are making municipal costs rise.

That’s not to speak of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that a large reason for the reduction or the flattening out of mill rates -- and it’s certainly not been a reduction in many parts of the province -- has been in the field of education.

In the field of education, which is where a large part of the provincial dollars is going to go in grants this year, there are obviously going to be substantial increases in costs. The 12 per cent increase in grants from the government will not be sufficient to accommodate those increases in costs. In fact, the 12 per cent increase in provincial grants is far below the increase in ceilings which has been allowed by the government.

You, therefore, get a situation, Mr. Speaker, where the government magnanimously says: “Look, we agree that we’ve been awfully tight on the school boards, we haven’t let them spend enough money to provide quality education. We will, therefore, dish out $50 here, $80 there and a special grant there, and so on, on the ceiling.” And it all looks as though Queen’s Park is fulfilling its responsibilities.

When you get down to the figures, however, Mr. Speaker, as I can read them here from the documents that have been tabled by the minister, the amount for education is going to go up by only 12.7 per cent over 1974-1975. As a consequence, there will be an enormous additional burden put onto local school boards just to meet increases in their costs, without making any effort to take advantage of the increased ceilings in order to provide for added quality of education, for example, at the elementary level.

That’s cynical too. Clearly the ministry and the government have now decided they will allow mill rates to go back up. They will permit property taxes on homes to go up to an average of $1,000 or $1,200 per annum, because that is where they are going to be over the next two or three years at the rate the ministry is going to go. They will permit property taxes on apartments to go up to the level of $500 or $600 or more per annum. And all of this is because they refuse to come in with fundamental tax reform but sort of cynically deal with it around the edges.

Mr. Speaker, the money that is going to the municipalities is going mainly in a conditional form. Education accounts for more than half of the total; money tied to transportation and transit -- $418 million -- is about a sixth of the total; and funds for social assistance, which is basically a programme the municipalities have no discretion over at all, total $164 million.

When you get down to it, that is a total of $2.16 billion in conditional grants, compared with only $324 million in unconditional grants. The unconditional grants are up by only 10 per cent and the conditional grants are up by 17 per cent.

Clearly a commitment to giving the municipalities more responsibility, more ability to plan their own affairs and more ability to set their own priorities, is not reflected in this budget insofar as municipal support is involved. It just isn’t there, Mr. Speaker.

When you look at the unconditional grants even more closely, you find that even there there is really a form of conditionality involved, because half of the $65-million increase in grants is half in the police grants and will be used for law and order, since that has now been made a priority by the government in the Throne Speech and during the course of this particular session.

In fact, we don’t disagree with that. The level of provincial financing for the provincial responsibilities carried out by local police forces is still inadequate. It seems rather ludicrous to us that between $8 and $12 per capita is spent on policing, while the total cost is about $30 per capita for policing in most of the major municipalities in the province; the figure may even be higher than that. Provincial support therefore is only about one third; as a consequence, and despite these proclaimed priorities, provincial support for the police is at a lower level than the provincial support for local government activity in general.

The unconditional general support grant goes up by only $17 million, and the per capita grant on a general basis is going up by the princely sum of $1 million, or 13 or 14 cents for every Ontario citizen. That’s the commitment of free money which is being given as part of this government’s so-called commitment to allow municipalities greater freedom in planning their own affairs and in running their own finances.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the government is going to do if education costs go up by a higher amount than it expects, and we suspect there has been an understatement of some of the costs in the budget and that there will be even greater sums going into education, but we regret the fact that nothing is going over in the municipal side.

The New Democratic Party, as I have said, has advocated a foundation plan for municipal financing; we have advocated that over the past decade. We were glad when the government began to move in that direction two years ago. We are saddened by the fact the government is moving in such a halting, fleeting way.

We are also committed to providing a major access for municipalities to the provincial or federal income tax as an alternative to the property tax. We believe that in the case of regional municipalities, for example, their share of the income tax ought to be equal to two per cent, or two points, of income tax. We see this as a major reform, intended to ensure that municipalities can share in the growth of revenues in the province, rather than constantly having to appear on bended knee before the minister in order to try to get any crumbs that he may deign to give to them off his table. We believe that municipalities should be dealt with as partners and not as subservient in the government picture, and we don’t think the government is doing that. We don’t believe that the government’s comments about the hard-heartedness and intransigence of the federal government are a sufficient answer. Words do not buy services and the other things that municipalities have to provide. All they have had for year after year from the government has been words about how Ottawa won’t come through and therefore how the provincial government is unwilling to act as well.

A province as strong and prosperous as this one generally is -- regardless of our economic situation in this current year -- can do far more for putting municipal financing on a sane, sound, long-term basis and giving municipalities the same kind of access to progressive tax sources as is enjoyed by the senior levels of government. We think that reforms ought to go in that way. We believe this particular bill simply fiddles around with the problem and the municipalities and their taxpayers are going to be the victims, particularly in this inflationary and recessionary year when there will be so many substantial and hard-to-bear local property tax increases, which will hit people in the most regressive fashion in the way that they can least well bear and a way which will be particularly cruel at a time when many people are suffering from stagnant income, declining income, from unemployment and all the other problems to which we’re subject this year.

That said, I haven’t quite convinced myself that we will oppose the bill. However, it is with absolutely no enthusiasm at all, and with great regret at opportunities lost, that we will reluctantly support this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Parry Sound.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): Mr. Speaker, thank you. First of all, I would like to congratulate the minister on this piece of legislation. I would not like to seem ungrateful, particularly dealing with section 17 of this Act, for 7½ per cent mentioned, of course, for conditional grants to municipalities. In my riding, the district of Parry Sound, application has been made over the years many times to the government of the province to have Parry Sound included as part of northern Ontario.

The reasons for this are many. First of all, culturally, the people in Parry Sound feel that they are northern Ontario people. Long before there was any such thing as additional grants for the northern part of the province, Parry Sound was already then talking about becoming part of the north. Of course, there has been a great incentive since the additional grants to the northern areas of the province have come into effect. The pressure has built up over these last two or three years. I would like to point out to the hon. minister that Parry Sound is the only territorial district in the province that is not a part of northern Ontario. The district municipality of Muskoka is now under regional government and has received untold thousands of dollars from this government in the transformation from a territorial district to a regional municipality.

I had the occasion to attend a meeting yesterday of the Parry Sound Municipal Association, which again passed another resolution asking the government to reconsider the decision that has been made through section 17 of this particular Act. I would like to ask the minister to tell us, when he is giving us his remarks, if this section covers Cameron and Chisholm townships in the district of Nipissing, which are not considered part of northern Ontario at the present time and are not receiving any additional grants of any kind.

I compare the district of Parry Sound with the district of Nipissing because they’re our neighbours. Nipissing is economically much better off than the district of Parry Sound and is subject to all the northern Ontario unconditional grants, whereas the district of Parry Sound has been deprived of these particular grants that are given to northern Ontario.

The matter of education, of course, comes into this. It is not just a matter of unconditional grants to the municipalities. However, that’s the only thing we can talk about in this particular bill, I guess.

I would ask the minister perhaps to think about amending this bill in some way to include Parry Sound completely in northern Ontario, rather than this piecemeal fashion. I would also remind him that many ministries in this government have already treated Parry Sound as part of northern Ontario -- as an example, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and the Ministry of Education in some parts of their grant system. I would just ask that this be given further consideration.

Thank you.

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

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the minister’s attention once again the situation in my own community and how we in the city of Windsor think we are being unfairly treated in the distribution of finances from the provincial government.

Quite often we like to compare ourselves with equal municipalities in an attempt to see if we are being treated in exactly the same fashion. The Windsor city manager, Mr. John Steel, prepared a substantial brief which was presented by Mayor Bert Weeks at the conference held in the city of London when the various members of cabinet met to listen to submission from municipalities in the southwestern Ontario area.

One of the problems in the community, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the request for a grant similar to that which would be received by the city of London, is the fact that we in the community, as a result of environmental projects find a disproportionate amount of the city’s budget has to be spent as a result of orders from the Ministry of the Environment. That leaves the community without funds necessary to provide other needed and worthwhile projects.

We think that even though we may not be a regional government or a regional municipality, because of us not only providing services to the city of Windsor but to the surrounding areas, for all intents and purposes we are performing the responsibilities of a regional government.

It is not the fault of the community that there is no regional government imposed on it. I am not saying that it would want it imposed, but we think if responsibilities are the same in one part of the province as they are in the other, then the grant to the municipality should be exactly the same.

I would assume the minister was very familiar with the brief, because his reply to the municipality at the hearing, according to the press releases, was simply a flat no. But may I, Mr. Speaker, once again bring to his attention part of the brief so that he may, in rethinking the situation in the city of Windsor, give more consideration to it. The people in Windsor deserve the same type of consideration as is given to other municipalities.

The submission was made to the minister in the city of London one day in January. I don’t intend to read the whole submission, because it is only pertinent paragraphs in the submission that I would like once again to bring to the minister’s attention. On page 15 of the brief it says:

“Large municipalities, such as the city of Windsor and the city of London, have equal if not more responsibilities than some regional governments in the province.

“The taxpayers are faced with the same increasing costs and the requirements for services are similar to those governed by two-tier government.

“The province has seen fit to give substantially more grants to the regional governments and, frankly, I do not see the justification.”

I am reading from the brief and these are the mayor’s words:

“I believe that cities such as Windsor with equal responsibilities should receive grants equal to regional governments.

“It appears that the basis of the property tax stabilization programme requires changing. There are some obvious inequities that the city of Windsor is victim of.

“According to information supplied by the hon. John White where he outlined the review of the 1973 and 1974 tax stabilization programme, the city of London was entitled to $6,936,000 in 1973 and $9,476,000 in 1974 whereas the city of Windsor was entitled to $4,985,000 and $5,811,000 respectively.

“These figures include the per capita grant and since London has approximately 32,000 people more than Windsor, they would be entitled to an additional $256,000 as a per capita grant whereas the differential in 1974 grants is estimated at over $3.5 million.

“We don’t begrudge the city of London additional moneys but we feel that Windsor should receive similar unconditional grants. There is something drastically wrong with a formula that would generate such discrepancies in grants to cities with similar size and similar service requirements. The controls that are placed upon expenditures under the property tax stabilization programme do not take into account the unusual and non-recurring expenses that such municipalities are faced with.

“For example, in 1974, Windsor was required to spend approximately $500,000 in nutrient removal costs, such as purchase of chemicals and so forth, none of these costs of a capital nature. This was an expenditure which was generated by the requirements of the Ministry of Environment and yet those costs are included in determining our expenditure increase of 1974 over 1973 and could result in our receiving a lower grant from the province.”

Mr. Speaker, I could read more but I think the minister understands exactly what I am trying to convey to him -- that the need of the community of Windsor is just as great as the community of London. Whether one happens to have a regional government or not to be under regional government, if one is providing facilities which are on a regional basis, for the sake of financial assistance, it should be exactly the same as a regional government.

I could read into the record an editorial in support of additional financial assistance to the city. It was an editorial in the Windsor paper in April. I know that coming from the Windsor paper it would be putting a Windsor point of view. I don’t intend to read it, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure the minister is aware of this Windsor situation. He is aware of the unusual expenditures in relation to the protection of the environment.

I would respectively suggest to him that he reconsider the grants for the community and increase them substantially so the citizens of Windsor would be able to enjoy exactly the same treatment as is given to the city of London or is given to regional governments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to speak to this bill?

The minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could answer the questions raised in the reverse order if I may. Sometimes it does one good to go backwards.

Speaking about Windsor and the comments of my friend from Windsor-Walkerville, I am aware of Windsor’s problems and we answered a number of the mayor’s concerns of that day -- or attempted to answer them. There are enormous differences between London and Windsor and I would be glad to provide the documentation to the member which we provided to the mayor.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister do so?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. B. Newman: Thanks.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It indicates that Windsor is relatively much better off. We really can’t have it both ways. Most of us in this House subscribe to the principle of the resource equalization grant. My friends in the New Democratic Party talk about a foundation plan; in some ways one and the same thing. It happens that Windsor is a more advantaged municipality than London in terms of financial strength, in terms of hourly wages and a whole host of other ways. Windsor doesn’t like to admit that, but those are the facts of life.

I would point out that a part of that brief concerned itself with the controls on spending which were part of the old general support grant, and that Windsor had had trouble living with them because of special circumstances -- whatever they were; environmental -- and that, of course, has been recognized in this new Act and in this new budget, and the general support grant is a flat amount.

The other point that the member makes is that Windsor claims it provides regional services. One might ask, do they not charge for it? In fact, don’t they make a profit at it? I’d be very surprised if Windsor is not selling water to St. Clair Beach, to Tecumseh and to several other municipalities in the same way that my city of Chatham sells water to people who live in the riding of Kent, to people who live in Harwich township, and I believe that they charge double rates; an enormous sum.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Therefore, I hardly think they’re entitled to a provincial regional subsidy. That’s not the purpose of it. Windsor provided those services on its own volition as opposed to being part of a region, and I would suggest that my friend from Windsor-Walkerville talk to his seatmate the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), and he will find out some of the costs -- that was part of my friend’s remarks -- the costs associated with a region. Therefore, not regretfully, I would say that it’s just a fact of life that we are not proposing to make regional grants available to cities such as Windsor or Chatham or London, which are not parts of regional governments. We’re talking apples and oranges.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Why isn’t Chatham part of a regional government?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because they are now part of a study and they may well be. Ask why Windsor isn’t or why London isn’t, and the reasons are exactly the same -- because there wasn’t the local initiation of the projects.

My friend from Parry Sound raised the question of whether Parry Sound was in northern Ontario or southern Ontario. We’ve moved to recognize its unique position in this year’s budget. I will, of course, continue to review the uniqueness of that position and the financial position of the district of Parry Sound. I will particularly look at the two townships which he mentions and which perhaps can be changed by regulation, and I would also say to him that we have begun a review of provisions of grants and programmes in other ministries which are applicable to northern Ontario as opposed to southern Ontario, and which perhaps should be reviewed in the light of the unique circumstances of the district of Parry Sound, or the municipalities in the district of Parry Sound. We have undertaken that review and will certainly undertake a more general review of its uniqueness as the days go by. For the record, the two townships which he mentioned are Cameron and Chisholm.

Finally, the remarks of my friend from Kitchener --

Mr. Good: Waterloo.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: From Waterloo, I’m sorry. What it all boils down to is that the amount of money would never seem to be enough. The municipalities, the agencies, would always like to have more.

I simply point out the table which was contained in the document which was tabled on April 8, outlining the assistance to local governments and taxpayers. He didn’t like the heading that was on table C5, I think it is, in the main budget. Surely the heading should simply he, “Provincial Assistance to Reduce Local Tax Rates.” That’s what it’s all about. Whether it goes to school boards or municipalities or to children’s aid societies, one way or another, or conservation authorities, the purpose of provincial assistance and transfers is to reduce the burden on local taxpayers, whether they pay it directly or whether, for that matter, they pay it through their rents, or through the prices of things which they buy, which reflects in the commercial mill rates.

The interesting part about that table in the April 8th document is the fact that provincial revenue has risen between 1969-1970 and 1975-1976 at a compounded rate of about 12.6 per cent per year, from $4.4 billion to nearly $9 billion. During that time, provincial assistance to local governments, to agencies and to education, has risen from $1.08 billion to this year’s estimated figure of $2.7 billion, or at a rate of 16.5 per cent.

In short -- and I think this is most important -- our assistance to local governments as a percentage of provincial revenue has risen from something like 24½ per cent in 1969-1970 to an estimated 30.1 per cent this year. I don’t want to hold out hope that this is going to continue to rise. We have made the Edmonton commitment; we will honour the Edmonton commitment. I don’t know that we will be able to do more than the Edmonton commitment, not having adequate tax room from the senior level of government -- we may talk about that -- in Ottawa. We simply have not got the growth in our revenue to go on transferring larger and larger amounts of revenue to the municipalities and to the school boards.

We have had some discussion here this afternoon about conditional grants vs unconditional grants simply by reducing the grants ment perhaps it becomes somewhat academic. We could pay more in municipal unconditional grants simply by reducing the grants that are given through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, for example; we could lower those grants from 50 per cent to 40 per cent, and put more into the unconditional grants. We could reduce the transit grants, which are conditional grants, from whatever they are -- say from 50 per cent down to 25 per cent -- and add that to the unconditional grants. But I am here to say that the total amount isn’t going to change, because we have difficulty living up to the Edmonton commitment; and barring large new sources of revenue from Ottawa.

Really, we have arrived at the point that when municipalities ask for increases in grants, as they did in asking that the children’s aid societies’ grants, which go to the municipalities, be increased from 60 per cent to 80 per cent -- I believe that works out to something like $8 million in this year’s budget -- then the money comes right out of what is left over to put in the unconditional grant. That’s part and parcel of the Edmonton commitment, and I hope I made that point to the municipal liaison committee this afternoon.

It would be fine if we lived in a world where everybody had pockets that never emptied, but our pockets are not that full. We will live up to the commitment we have made, but we cannot go on transferring larger and larger percentages of our revenue to the municipalities. In fact, we have increased our transfers this year by about 16 per cent, whereas our own expenditures have only risen about 12 per cent. How long we can go on doing that, I simply don’t know.

Finally, I might respond to one further point which was raised by the member for Waterloo; it is really part of the next bill, but perhaps I might deal with it here because he raised it here. I refer to the freezing of the split between the commercial and industrial mill rate on the one hand, and the residential and farm rate on the other hand. It is in both bills.

This is probably one of the most significant moves being made this year in terms of tax reform. It means that over the years we have frozen that split at 15 per cent, first of all in Metropolitan Toronto and in the other regions as they came into being, and were able to cushion the shock of doing so in the restructured county of Oxford. As a result, nearly 70 per cent of the population lives in a part of the province where the split mill rate is frozen. We are now extending it to the other municipalities in the province.

Mr. Lawlor: Weren’t we going to abolish the split mill rate at one time?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The very first thing we have to do is to get hold of it, and we do that in this bill. The money is there to cushion that, and it is not going to be much of an upset to get hold of it. In effect, one could abolish it or one can, with great certainty, widen it out. One could abolish it and just use the business tax but the first thing one must do is get hold of it. It wandered all over the place and varied from municipality to municipality.

In terms of tax reform or in moving to tax reform, this isn’t tax reform in itself. This is a rather significant step which my friend from Waterloo North mentioned and I put those remarks in conjunction with it on the record.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. Good: If it’s going to third reading could I ask the minister one question which I thought would be dealt with in committee?

Mr. Speaker: Will the minister allow a question?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Good: It’s on section 15.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Let it go to committee and we’ll deal with all of it if the member wants.

Mr. Speaker: All right; to committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves second reading of Bill 41, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Thank you. My remarks are brief because many of these provisions are covered in the previous bill, the first being that the provision for split mill rate now will be uniform across the province as indicated in the previous bill and will no longer need to be designated in section 302 of the Municipal Act.

I don’t know what the significance is now that the minister determines the various institutions on which municipalities may levy an amount in the nature of a tax. Formerly it was done by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the cabinet. Now each minister has the authority to designate those institutions within his jurisdiction. This includes other institutions in addition to those we’ve had for some time such as the universities. It was extended to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, certain mental health units and so forth and other educational units.

Now the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) is brought into it and agricultural research stations are included. An amount is paid to the municipality in lieu of taxes of $5 per acre for the first 100 acres of agricultural research stations and $2 per acre in excess of 100 acres. If my memory serves me correctly, perhaps the minister could answer this -- I believe this is comparable to the municipal taxation of provincial parks. I think the rate is the same in that bill as in this. There is the limit of over 10,000 acres when the rate reduces and, if I’m not mistaken, that’s the same as provincial park payments so that is kept even.

There is one thing about this bill that needs some explanation. I just don’t understand why the previous limitation of 25 per cent of municipal tax is lifted. In other words, if more than 25 per cent of the municipal tax base is raised by grants in lieu of taxes under this bill, the municipality could not collect more than 25 per cent. It just got 25 per cent. That limitation is lifted except, Mr. Speaker, for institutions designated by the Development Services Act, 1974. I presume those are institutions under the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) and would include such things as Ontario Hospital schools and mental institutions.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is not a direct exception made to counteract the argument going on in Montague township at the present time. The municipality is collecting tax on the institution. It is providing those services, granted, but it is a windfall to the township and I understand pressure is being put on it because of the money its gets because it has an Ontario Hospital school in the little township. Pressure is being put on it to help pay fire and water services to the town of Smiths Falls. Surely this exception is not being made just to put that one little municipality over a barrel. I’d like to hear the minister’s reply on that.

There is another rather amusing thing, Mr. Speaker, in view of the controversy we had when the Oxford bill was passed. It’s unfortunate the member for Oxford (Mr. Parrott) isn’t here as he will now see that, according to this bill, reconstructed Oxford county is now in the same category as a regional municipality for this purpose. Well, we told him all along they were making a regional government out of Oxford, and one piece of legislation after another seems to confirm it. Those are all the remarks I have, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, any major matters that may be under this bill we will discuss in committee. Since the minister is good enough to send them all to committee, this one may as well go there too.

I have only one or two comments, one having to do with the designation by the minister. I’m thoroughly in accord with that. The responsibilities of the executive council or the cabinet are much too great these days to have to have this matter go through the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The greater the power the better that the minister can constitute in his own department and elsewhere the delegating out or relieving of cabinet of machinery matters of this and minutia with which he is completely loaded.

The government is not streamlined in there at all. There are whole diversities of things that could be settled by far inferior tribunals or by persons than what the cabinet is obliged to do under innumerable Acts of this Legislature. This is a case in point. It’s the first instance I’ve noticed where that sub-delegation and that reference out are encompassed in legislation, and as I say it’s a good thing.

The other matter is that I was a little bit amused by subsection 7 and its requirements and as to exactly why the minister is lifting that. What is the impact of it and the meaning of this removal of the 25 per cent situation in this context? What’s it designed to do?

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, subsection 7, removing the 25 per cent, does exactly what my friend from Waterloo North says it will do, which is to straighten away a situation in Montague township and which really doesn’t affect any other municipality. That’s subsection 7. Subsection 8 was necessary to maintain the limitation for 1974 only since the designation of beds was made in January, 1975, for both years. It doesn’t carry on.

Mr. Good: Will the Treasurer read that again?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We’ll come back to it in committee. That’s the reason that subsection is there at the urging of the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) who had a problem. He didn’t have a problem, but there is a problem, as my friend from Waterloo North knows, in the township of Montague. It is rather complex -- one would not believe how complex -- but this subsection does straighten it away. My staff assure me that subsection 8 does not unstraighten it away. Perhaps by the time we get into committee of the whole we’ll have that straightened away.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this is to go to committee of the whole House also.

Agreed.

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

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

House in committee on Bill 29, An Act to authorize the raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to any section of the bill and, if so, to what section? The hon. minister.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There are amendments, Mr. Chairman, on sections 2, 5, and 7.

Mr. Chairman: I am wondering if we are on the same bill, Mr. Minister, this is Bill 29.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m sorry, I thought we were on Bill 28. It’s Bill 28 I want to go to first.

Mr. Chairman: I’m sorry. We’ll call another order.

ONTARIO HOME BUYERS GRANT ACT

House in committee on Bill 28, An Act to provide for the Payment of Grants to First Time Home Buyers.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has amendments on sections 2, 5 and 7. Are there any comments or questions on section 1?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Yes.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Clause d.

Mr. Chairman: On clause d. I assume the subsections of the clause will carry up to d?

Agreed.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, this is a section that limits the “period of eligibility” from April 8 to Dec. 31, 1975. The part to which I object particularly is the fact that this particular section limits the first-time home buyer to this calendar year. I think it has been pointed out by various economists and various people that there is no guarantee that suddenly, come fall, everything in the economy is going to turn and things are going to be on the up and up; that the house buying cycle will no longer need any stimulation; that house building will no longer need any stimulation.

Limiting the $1,000 grant for first-time home buyers to this particular year seems to be a Band-Aid measure in an industry that is suffering very badly for various reasons, and we are not going to go into those particular reasons. So I would like to move an amendment, if it is in order, Mr. Chairman, to section 1, clause d.

Mr. Good moves that subsection 1, clause d be amended by deleting therefrom the words “to and including the first day of December, 1975.”

Mr. Good: Is the minister going to support that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well Mr. Chairman, just commenting very briefly, and I think we discussed this a bit on second reading, what we are looking for, of course, is short-term stimulation. There were two or three places in the budget where short-term stimulation was prescribed, and particularly in the housing area. It’s our best estimate, confirmed by a great number of others, that by the end of this year -- the last quarter particularly -- hopefully we can move some of that recovery forward. The economy should be back, not to full potential, but certainly in a healthier condition than it is now.

Quite frankly, I don’t think the finances of the province, which are in good shape, could sustain for a long period of time such measures as the reduction in the sales tax or the home owners’ grants; nor should it be necessary. Basically the economy, for example, which was producing houses at the rate of 110,000 two years ago, dropped off to 85,000 last year. The industry and everything associated with it needs the stimulation and we would hope that by the end of the year we would see housing starts back to a more acceptable level.

What I said on budget day was that I don’t preclude the possibility that we’re going to have to take a look at things again. We will be continually monitoring the economy to see if further stimulation is needed; or for that matter if the economy becomes too stimulated and starts to inflate too much, then within the limits of our ability here in Ontario we will take the kind of action which is necessary.

It may well be that this powerful measure will need to be extended. I think that it is much too early to say that at this moment. I think that what we also have to bear in mind is to see what kind of stimulation is applied to the economy by Mr. Turner in his budget, which he has now indicated is necessary and presumably it will be stimulatory, if there is such a word; it will be a budget which will provide stimulation to the economy and, hopefully, we’ve suggested to him, the housing and construction industry in particular. Therefore, regretfully, I cannot accept my friend’s amendment.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, there is one further thing I want to say which is of most importance to me. I object to the way this is worded in that they can cut this off at the end of the year without further debate at that time. To me it would make much more sense to bring in the measure and then at such time as the government thinks the measure should be cancelled out, at least there would be a debate at that time and it would have to rescind the provisions of this bill or repeal the legislation at that time. There would be a chance for discussion before they could cancel the provisions of this bill. This is the same thing they pulled on the sales tax thing. They reduce it for a nine-month period, and come the end of the nine months there’s no debate in this legislature, no debate anywhere --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Back up to seven per cent.

Mr. Good: -- no public opinion registered, not even a word from a member who is representing people. The sales tax automatically goes up to seven per cent without any further debate.

We see the same thing here. The Treasurer is bringing in a measure which is undoubtedly a good measure, because it received the support of this caucus. Consequently, he can bring that to an end at the end of the year regardless of what the financial condition is in the province, regardless of what the housing position is in the province, and nobody in this Legislature will have one word to say.

I don’t think that’s right. That’s doing two pieces of legislation in one bill nine months apart and I don’t think that the minister’s crystal ball is that clear and that he can forecast that accurately. His own budgets have shown that.

That is the real major objection to doing this all in one step instead of in two steps. Bring it in and then cancel it, and if the opposition or the people of the province felt it was not an opportune time to cancel that particular programme, at least there would be a public debate and this forum would be the vehicle through which it could be done. That is now being denied.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on the amendment?

All those in favour of Mr. Good’s motion will please say “aye”.

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment defeated and the section carried.

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further amendments, comments or questions?

Mr. Good: Section 2, subsection 2.

Mr. Chairman: I’m wondering if we might have the minister’s amendment first and then we will continue the discussion.

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves that subsection 2 of section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“No grant shall be made to a person applying therefor where at any time prior to April 8, 1975: (a) that person or the spouse of that person owns, whether jointly with another person or otherwise, a housing unit in Ontario that was ordinarily inhabited as the principal residence by that person or his spouse; or (b) by any other person who has an interest in the housing unit in respect of which the application for the grant is made, or the spouse of that person who owned, whether jointly with another person or otherwise, a housing unit in Ontario that was ordinarily inhabited as the principal residence by that person or his spouse.”

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I may say, by way of explanation, that subsection 2 presently prevents any applicant or his spouse who has previously owned a principal residence in Ontario from applying for a grant. This amendment extends that prohibition to a co-owner or a spouse of the co-owner.

As a result, no grant will be made to an applicant where the co-owner of the property or the spouse of that co-owner has previously owned a principal residence in Ontario. Does that make it clear?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): What about outside the province?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: If I gather the implication there, the minister is saying that divorced people, whose former spouses had owned property, would now be excluded from applying for this grant. If that interpretation is correct, I will have to have a moment to think about it.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on the minister’s amendment?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I think the member’s concern is something else.

Mr. Good: Yes, my concern is something else.

Mr. Gaunt: Just on a matter of clarification, Mr. Chairman, I presume from what the minister says that this doesn’t apply to anyone outside the province. For instance, a couple could have a home in Saskatchewan, move down to the Province of Ontario and apply for this grant and do so quite legitimately?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s right I think that’s one of the things we want to encourage. If somebody moved here tomorrow from Saskatchewan or from Alberta, although the movement seems to be the other way these days, but if that did happen -- or for that matter from Newfoundland -- and this was to be his principal residence, then one of the purposes of this Act, of course, is to encourage that person to buy a home to get this market moving. If he buys a new home, of course, it impacts directly on the housing industry situation. If he buys a used home it undoubtedly has a secondary impact on the housing industry. So we wouldn’t draw this distinction between whether they’re --

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): They are all Canadians.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They are all Canadians, that’s right.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I think (a) is all right; as I see it it is simply renunciation basically of sub 2. But (b) bothers me a bit. It says:

“... any other person who has an interest [the word interest is the niggling word] in the housing unit with respect of which the application for the grant is made, or the spouse of that person, owned a housing unit that was ordinarily inhabited...”

My problem is, suppose somebody is renting the premises and then during the period involved here decides to buy them. Is the kind of interest of which the minister is speaking that kind of an interest?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am sorry, I missed the end of that.

Mr. Lawlor: Very often there are situations where people have been living in a house as tenants, with a landlord, for quite a while. That’s certainly an interest in law. It’s a personality interest and not an interest in real property, properly speaking. Suppose those individuals made a deal with the landlord to buy the house during this period of time when the $1,500 might be available to them. Is that feasible? I take it that the wording here wouldn’t rule that possibility out. The tenants would then become the owners -- the purchasers -- and would, nevertheless, qualify for the grant.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, let me say two things.

The amendment that I have moved picks up joint owners of a property other than a spouse, and I think this leads into the question which my friend from Lakeshore has asked.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s all the minister is concerned with, just other than spouse?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It refers to a joint tenant interest. It refers to a tenant in common or a joint tenant. It doesn’t include a person who rents, but a joint tenant or a tenant in common. Is that the answer?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I think that’s right. In other words, what you are saying is that there may be a husband and wife here and another husband and wife over here. These are joint tenants -- and these are joint tenants and these joint tenants joint tenantly conjoin. That’s a possibility; or as tenants in common dividing a half of a half. All those combinations are possible, and I am taking what you are saying here --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice, or whatever it was.

Mr. Lawlor: I can’t hear you. All right; I think I know what you are after and I think it probably does it.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Yes, I have no objection to supporting the amendment. I think it is going a little bit far, but I suppose in today’s society it’s necessary with the intermingling of spouses and we have to accept that.

What I would like is a little direction, Mr. Chairman. If this amendment is approved the other principle in this particular section is that the grant will be given when no house has been previously owned in Ontario. On that particular aspect of this section, I would like to ask the minister a question. Is her limiting former ownership to Ontario because of inability to enforce the matter if people come from out of Ontario; or is it a matter of government policy that he would give this grant to people coming in from out of the province, when people in the same circumstances living in Ontario would not qualify?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that the member has said it. Both are correct. How can we prove -- or at least it becomes difficult to prove -- where they had owned a principal residence; how and when and where. In the second instance, if they are coming in, they are Canadians; they want to make their principal residence here in Ontario. Let’s let them get on with it.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Can I ask a question about that particular section?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Can you explain to me what happens in a common law relationship? The common law relationship is now recognized by Ontario Housing Corp. under the HOME plan provided they sign for tenancy in common or ownership in common, whatever the actual legal term is. One of them, though, could quite easily have been in the position where they were joint purchasers of another accommodation at some previous time. Is that covered under this? Are they excluded?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As I understand it from my friend from Lakeshore --

Mr. Deans: That’s what I asked him and he --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, ask him.

Mr. Deans: Well, I did and he told me to ask you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He is not listening at the moment. He hasn’t got his aid on.

Mr. Deans: But I asked him and he told me to ask you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, we agreed. Yes, I think the problem the member is referring to is satisfied by this point.

Mr. Deans: It is?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not necessarily a problem but the point the member was making is settled by this amendment.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a question to the minister. I haven’t too much objection to people out of the province not having to have any residence requirements but I am envisaging a situation in which a foreigner -- a foreign person from another country, maybe the United States -- would come to Canada. He could take advantage of this giveaway programme as far as I read it. Usually, any time we give money away, whether it’s old age pension, drug plans, GAINS programme or anything else, we have residence requirements in the legislation for those people who apply for this sort of a giveaway programme.

I am surprised at the largess I see here. Any person, providing he is 18 years of age, from any land or any province can come into this province and with a residency of only, say one day or one week, can obtain a $1,000 grant from the Province of Ontario. This seems to fly in the face of any other programme which any government in this country has ever instituted. I wondered how you rationalize our past approach to these things with what I see in the present legislation.

Hon Mr. McKeough: No, it doesn’t differ. Remember that person has to establish that this is his principal residence and you can only have one principal residence. We don’t see that there will be much of a problem in this area. It is probably a person who has been here for some time and it is reasonable to assume that he is on his way to citizenship. If he said Ontario is going to be his principal residence, he’s probably on his way through to gaining his citizenship.

Mr. Germa: Have you laid down criteria in order to determine a principal residence?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s laid down in a number of places. That’s one of the reasons we pick up the same definition here so that we’re not changing definitions. The principal residence criteria are found in all the income tax legislation, and we’re using the same principles in this bill as is in other bills.

Mr. Germa: Should that not be cited in the bill?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I don’t think you need to because principal residence is a well known definition.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I think the matter of giving this grant to people who have owned property as a principal residence outside of Ontario, and then giving it to them when they come into Ontario needs a little more discussion. You’re either trying to help people to get into homes, and if you do that you should be doing it only for Ontario residents, or else you’re trying to get an excess supply of houses off the market.

I’m sure the only houses on the market now are overpriced and in a high price range. If that’s what you’re trying to do, to help the developers to sell their overpriced houses, I don’t think you should be giving the grant to people who come in from outside the province.

If you’re trying to get people into houses, the average person is going to be helped by the $1,000 or $1,500 because he has not owned a house previously. He hasn’t built up equity. He or she has not benefited from inflation by owning property. Those are the people this benefit should be given to. But when you say you’ll give it to anybody who hasn’t owned a house in Ontario, you could very well be giving it to people coming in who have owned property previously. They’ve built up equity and they’ve benefited from inflation, whether it be in another part of Canada or in the US. They’re coming in with their money and saying, “Gee, isn’t that great? Although I work in Detroit, I’m going to move and buy a house over in Windsor, in Ontario, because I can get $1,500 out of that government.”

I don’t think that principle is right, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, I think the minister should reconsider that. We have an amendment to this section which would delete the words “in Ontario, with any person or persons a housing unit that was ordinarily inhabited as a principal residence.” That would exclude people whose principal residence is in any other jurisdiction. It’s just maybe a difference in philosophy.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore. I would ask the member to make his remarks to the minister’s amendment, please.

Mr. Lawlor: I’d rather not. I think the remarks of my friend were far broader than the minister’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman: I think we should dispose of the amendment and then carry on with the debate.

Mr. Lawlor: Well the amendment broadens out the principle, cuts back the number of people who become eligible, meets this narrow, finessed criteria invented by the minister in order to pretend that he’s a great Pooh-Bah while doing, really, very little; namely the business of people owning other homes at previous times. They are simply ruled out of the picture and therefore, in this kind of constriction or restriction, he is able to move on a nice tightrope across the void.

However, one false step Darcy, and you’ll fall into the swamp. As far as I can see, you’re over the Niagara Gorge at the moment and it’s likely to swallow you up.

The amendment moved by the minister broadens out the basic principle. However, we find it insufferable in his legislation. I won’t take exception to that, but I would like to speak on section 2 before it’s moved through.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll put the amendment and that won’t limit the discussion on section 2.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Chairman, has the minister clarified whether a person who lives in Detroit and owns a home there can now decide to move to Windsor? He’s had a house in Detroit, he has been an owner. But it’s a first-time owner in Ontario that counts, is that it?

Mr. Gaunt: He would be eligible.

Mr. Burr: It’s the first-time ownership in Ontario, is that right?

Mr. Gaunt: Have we passed the amendment?

Mr. Chairman: We are going to vote on it now.

Mr. Good: Could we have further discussion on the section?

Mr. Chairman: On the section, yes.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Are people in northern Ontario going to be employed up there?

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the minister’s amendment will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Mr. Martel: Did anyone vote?

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Lakeshore wish to comment further on section 2?

Mr. Lawlor: Just a word on that earlier section; because of conferences held over here we did not join in the debate.

We would agree with the Liberals; we would extend that time. We find a degree of mercurialness on the part of the minister and pure visitation of the advantageous that serves his immediate purpose. To come here barefaced and to hold yourself up as having statesmen-like qualities, masked by wraiths of cynicism in this particular thing, does deserve some kind of philippic in the course of this House. What a put-down, what a pull-a-charade you make of this place. What deceptions you think you are capable of. It’s a kind of petty aristocracy. A kind of primping and dancing takes place; people think it is a pirouette when all he is doing is falling flat on his face.

However, that isn’t the main point of the thing. It is on the previous section; I thought we had better get it on the record in this regard.

As far as this one is concerned we would amend this. We think you should amend this with a view to setting up certain types of limitations and restrictions apart from the ones you have already moved and amended in the course of the House. We see no reason why homes going at $200,000 or half a million dollars ought to enjoy the same benefits. We think there should be some kind of ceilings or some kind of criteria.

We don’t think the criteria should be particularly on a means test basis, namely, the amount of money an individual is making himself. We do think you should give consideration in the course of this bill going through the House -- if not then, at least perhaps, on a subsequent occasion -- to limitation within the terms of the National Housing Act. The terms and conditions applicable in this regard are restrictive enough, Lord knows, with respect to the benefits under mortgages and what amounts may be conferred.

All we want is that the benefits to be given are not given to the wealthy; that it be restricted to those who need it and can use it and where it is beneficial and the impact is felt. You don’t even lose any votes by it because there ain’t that many guys with houses valued at a quarter of a million bucks who will pick up the $1,500, as someone said here the other day, to take a little extra trip this year, which they might not otherwise have taken, down to Nassau or Barbados where they can roll in the surf with E. P. Taylor and the rest of the boys -- even some of the girls, probably.

In any event, we would desire to see the thing restricted and limited in an area that would be beneficial if the legislation is to have any efficacy at all. I personally believe it will be the reverse of beneficial, in the sense that the whole bally value of the $1,500 is being eaten up, even as we stand here, in the escalation of prices. How can the minister, with an already severely restrictive economy, which has been in constant escalation, which fell for a while because of certain tax measures, add purchasing power or add demand into the economy?

The minister is always shaking his head or scratching it, or doing something with it -- whatever he does with his head.

With respect to governmental spending, extra money is flushed into the economy, which has an exponential value with respect to the inflation. The Treasurer does it with respect to the most critically restricted area in the whole economy, namely with respect to housing, particularly in the metropolitan areas of this province. It is supposed to be a benefice, but when you turn over the rock you find worms underneath. You are making your own petty contribution to an increase in the price of housing in the province. So be it.

If you’re going to do that, then I would ask you simply to restrict it to certain levels of houses and not to the emporiums of the rich; not to mansions; not to the high-flown. Keep it down to the $50,000-$65,000 levels where the people who are going to buy in that area need your pittance more than these other people of whom I’m speaking. You well know this. I don’t understand the failure to place such limitations, some kind of intelligent limitations, upon this wide open piece of legislation which is in the process, on many counts -- and I won’t speak much longer -- of thwarting itself. It’s a thwarting action in many ways, and there is no reason why it should be quite so thwarting as it is.

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

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the minister’s attention a situation that I think would be unfair. Many of the people who are going to qualify for this first-time home buyer grant are young folk. They could be as young as 18 years of age. Yet an individual, who owned a home 18, 20 or 25 years ago, and has been in the rental field since then, now sees the effects of inflation and would like to invest his money in some type of a home as a hedge against inflation, he is being denied the opportunity of getting that $1,500 homeowner grant.

I think, Mr. Minister, that maybe there should be something to enable that individual, who hasn’t owned a home for a considerable period of time, to be able likewise to qualify for the grant.

Then again there is the situation of the divorced individual who may have owned a home jointly with the husband and, having been divorced quite some time ago, likewise doesn’t qualify for the grant. I think both of those individuals buying homes would stimulate the home market and home construction. In my estimation, it would be a worthwhile endeavour to include that type of a couple.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I have some concern with respect to the definition of principal residence. Frankly, I don’t think that definition covers the problem with which I’m wrestling, and I think several other members are too.

I can see a situation here where a lot of people who went over to the United States during the depression of 1929-1930, lived over there, worked over there for all their working years and now as Canadians -- they were born here -- would like to come back. Many of them are coming back here. I think there’s a substantial flow of older people who have spent all their working years in the United States, and are now coming back into the province. They have built up an equity over the years by living in the United States and owning a home. They come back here, they buy a home for the first time in Ontario, even though they may be 70 or 75, and even though they have owned a home in the United States and have built up a substantial equity in that property over the years because of inflation and so on, they can come back here and qualify under the terms of this Act for that $1,500 grant.

Quite frankly, I don’t think that’s proper. Canadians, the minister says. Fine, I agree. Anybody living in this country. I can accept that. But I don’t think we should be so generous as to provide $1,500 out of the public treasury for people who have lived the greater part of their lives over in the United States, who were in the first place citizens of Canada and living in the province, were born in Ontario. We shouldn’t provide those people with a $1,500 grant, particularly when they’ve had a chance over their lifetime to build up a substantial equity in property in another country, mostly in the United States.

Frankly, I think the government is being over-generous, and as far as I’m concerned that’s very unfair. I don’t think the taxpayers in the Province of Ontario should have to subsidize those people who want to come back here and spend their latter years in the place of their birth. I think we’ve got to do something with the second section here to tighten it up.

Mr. Chairman: I’m wondering if the hon. minister would like to comment on the observations of the two previous speakers.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I’ll just deal with two or three points. The other day my friend from Windsor-Walkerville raised the point of the person who lived in a mobile home 18 years ago. I think it was. That probably wouldn’t be now, but 18 or 20 years ago -- and I’m not going to give a legal interpretation -- I doubt very much whether that would have been described at that point in time as a principle residence. We are having enough trouble getting that fact established --

Mr. B. Newman: No mobile home, really, would be considered as a principal residence, at least up until now.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They would be now. You can’t have it both ways. You are one of the people pushing very strongly to have a recognition of prefabricated homes as suitable homes for a great number of people. But it wasn’t considered that way 20 years ago.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, in my comments the other day I did not make mention of a mobile homeowner 18 years ago or so.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: All right, you’ve mentioned people who perhaps bought a home today; you’ve mentioned people who bought a home 20 years ago, sold it, rented and now are going to buy a home as an investment. That’s not the kind of person we are trying to help; a person who is out to buy a home as an investment. I regret they don’t come under the provisions of this, but we are talking -- just as the federal legislation does -- about first-time home buyers.

Mr. B. Newman: You were concerned about stirring the economy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Sure, if you want to stir it you open the doors and say that everybody who buys a home in the next nine months is going to qualify for the grant. That would really stir the pot.

Mr. B. Newman: Okay, okay.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t propose to do that. I think that we are trying to encourage first-time home ownership, and hopefully they remain as home owners. We all subscribe to that; at least most of us do.

Mr. Deans: We all do.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But we are not opening the doors wide and saying to everybody who buys a house in the next period of time, we’ll give you a grant to do it. That is not our intent. You are going to find situations where any one of us, I’m sure, for a variety of reasons might say we wished we’d written the Act in a little different way; but you are opening door after door after door.

I say to my friend who is worried about this, who are these people who are coming back? They are not really coming home. They are taking up residence in Canada again as permanent residents in Ontario or Canada. Are you really going to be that hard on them? They are not coming home. The truth of the matter is the people you are talking about probably are going the other way and establishing a permanent residence in a warmer climate, rather than coming back here.

Mr. Gaunt: Just for three months.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t really think you are opening the door to very many people in that category. My friend from Lakeshore raises the question about putting limits on, either income limits or limits on the value of the house. We are trying to stimulate an industry. You want to put all the controls on the first-time home buyer. There may be one person, before this programme is over, who is going to go out and buy a $150,000 house -- well, hallelujah. He’s going to get the $1,500 grant. By and large, the first-time home buyer is not going to be buying that kind of a house. Now, if you want to put on the red tape for which the NDP is famous, and on which it thrives --

Mr. Lawlor: We want to protect people --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): You do a pretty good job of putting on red tape too, you know.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If you want to put it on, and wrap it up in bureaucratic nonsense, it can be done -- but you won’t be doing the job we are setting out to.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s open-handed largess to the rich.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You love those controls and you love those forms --

Mr. Lawlor: Socialism for the rich, Darcy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Your party would say we would need more social workers to get out to see that the needs test forms are filled in correctly.

Mr. Lawlor: We see the statistics --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But we are not doing that in this programme. The federal government did put on limits; do you know how many houses have moved under their programme in Metro? Six hundred. Well, we want to move homes.

Mr. Lawlor: Their limits are too low. They changed them two weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We had 9,000 phone calls up until yesterday. We want to get this industry moving; and we are not going to wrap it up in bureaucracy, pink, socialistic forms and procedures. We reject that approach.

Mr. Martel: You are not getting anything moving. You live in a dream.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): You may have had 9,000 calls, but you are not moving 9,000 homes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh yes, we are. They are moving.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, you are not.

Mr. Deans: You might have had 9,000 calls, but 8,500 of them were from people who closed before April 8 and wanted to ask how they could get it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes.

Mr. Deans: I have had a lot of calls about this, but I am going to tell you that the majority of people leave the phone very unhappy because they discover that they don’t qualify.

What I want to ask you about is a little different matter that relates directly to this kind of legislation and in fact to this bill. The current practice -- it’s okay; I want you to listen because --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am listening. I am listening.

Mr. Deans: Oh, I am delighted to know that.

Mr. Good: Spare him the torture of having to look at you.

Mr. Deans: Yes, that’s okay. The current practice of the Ontario Housing Corp., under the HOME programme, is not to allow people’s overtime earnings to be considered when calculating whether they are eligible for the HOME programme when it is to be used to bring them up to the lowest level. Am I making sense? There is a lower level, which is about $10,200, and they are not permitted to use their overtime earnings for that purpose. Okay? Of course, the overtime earnings are used at the upper level; if by chance they worked overtime during the previous year, and their earnings take them over the upper level, they are disqualified. If their earnings take them above the lower level at the other end, they are also disqualified, because they don’t measure up.

I want to ask you whether it is possible for a person to use the grant as part of their income for the purposes of calculating their eligibility under the home ownership programme. Now, I realize it’s technical. I know we are being awkward. But these are the kinds of questions people ask.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I doubt it very much. If the grant is not classified as income under the Income Tax Act, then I doubt very much if we could have it that way. I think it is a question you are going to have to ask the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine), who administers the HOME programme, not me.

Mr. Deans: Well, I have to ask whoever it is that’s talking to me at the time; he is not talking to me these days.

Regarding the grant that is available, the deduction of that amount from the principal of the home could bring the eligibility level down. In other words, the right to deduct $1,000 this year from the $18,300 value that has been established for the home would allow more people to get into the HOME programme. Does that make sense to you?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t answer your question. You’ll have to ask the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Deans: But I’m not asking about income; I’m asking you whether you have coordinated your programmes to determine whether an individual who had been accepted under the HOME programme could apply the grant directly against the principal in order to reduce that principal, thereby to reduce the mortgage level and thereby again to make themselves eligible at a lower income level. Now, I don’t see anything unusual or silly about that. That makes home ownership available to another group of people earning less --

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I think the minister did indicate that this question and the problem should be directed to the Minister of Housing. I fail to see where this really applies to section 2 of this bill on a clause by clause discussion.

Mr. Deans: Let me try talking to you for a second because I can’t accept that. You may be right, maybe this is the wrong minister to ask, but this is part of the housing programme of the government. Unfortunately, the Treasurer is carrying it through the House, but the fact of the matter is this is supposed to make more houses available in the marketplace -- to increase the numbers of transactions.

One of the big difficulties is that there are very few homes available for people earning less than $10,000 a year -- I don’t want to get into that argument with the minister at the moment. What I want to suggest is that there is some considerable difference in the income level required for a person to carry a $17,000 mortgage, over and against carrying a $16,000 mortgage. A person could be earning $500 or $600 or $700 or $800 a year less and qualify for the $16,000 mortgage; they would have to earn that much more to qualify for the larger mortgage.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does he have an answer?

Mr. Deans: You know what I’m trying to find out. Are you going to permit them to apply it directly against the mortgage at the time of purchase to make themselves eligible?

Mr. Gaunt: They should be allowed to.

Mr. Deans: I think it is a perfectly legitimate question, and I’ve got to have an answer on it somewhere.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think it is a question that you will have to put to the Minister of Housing, who administers that programme.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: You have got the procedures and carriage, you should have all the answers.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is it possible, just to go on in that line, to get your feeling in connection with this? It seems to some degree a reasonable request. You would agree?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I frankly don’t know enough about the procedures under the HOME programme to --

Mr. Deans: Well, why don’t you?

Mr. Bullbrook: All right, if you don’t, fine. That is fine.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I just don’t. The person has to have taken possession before he can apply. He puts out on the down payment -- there it is.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m just going to say that’s one of the technical difficulties that’s quite obvious. Under the Act, as I read it and understand it, to qualify for the grant you most be in possession. So it’s very difficult from a legal point of view --

Mr. Deans: That is why I am asking.

Mr. Bullbrook: I realize that and I just wanted to lend what semblance of knowledge I had to that.

I want to say this in connection with it; I wasn’t able to join in the debate on second reading. I want to compliment the government in connection with this concept. It’s far, far in advance of the tragicomedy that we were involved with from the federal government. In my particular constituency I haven’t yet been able to find anybody to qualify for the federal grant and I see some merit, therefore, in the universality of this.

I see merit only because of the need that you have to move existing inventory, but this is cosmetic at best, and I think the Treasurer and the rest of us better have an understanding that it’s cosmetic at best, because don’t for a moment think with the limitations, that you’re going to get any great development scope as a result of this particular grant. You just can’t. You just don’t have the time.

You, as the former chief planner, know that if I wanted to put together some type of development based on the thrust and the impetus from this legislation, I couldn’t do it by Dec. 31 of this year. So the purpose of the statute is to move in some sections of our province an overextended inventory. I agree with that.

You’ve had 9,000 calls. I think my wife and I are up to 58 now in our own riding. I want to make some practical suggestions to you, if I might -- I recognize that I might be slightly out of order. I’ve spoken to the Minister of Revenue. I suggest that all members be given the opportunity to have the final applications available to them immediately they become available, because we’re getting the burden. I know you’re going to get them out if you can to the lawyers and trust companies, but I’ve already phoned the gentleman in charge because I want to have at least three dozen of them to distribute to constituents, so they can get out and get into this.

So having complimented you -- having tempered my compliment as I wanted to -- I want to speak to what my colleague from Huron-Bruce said. There is no validity in the concept that it should apply to people living outside of Ontario. Mr. Minister, I’d go further, than he did. I don’t believe people in Quebec should qualify in connection with this grant, and I want to say this to you, if I may. In a response to him, your answer is that we want to encourage the development of the housing industry and as a result of that sincere attempt on our part we don’t want to inhibit. Then the minister turns around in connection with the answer to the member for Lakeshore and of course uses the contrary argument entirely.

The fact is -- I’ll give you one example that goes on right now -- when you pass laws you pass laws on the basis of valid principles and not on the basis of general intent in connection with industry. The fact of the matter is that what you are doing is going to remove a certain inventory at the present time. You’re not going to spur on contemplated housing -- you’re not going to do that, except peripherally at best.

I am going to give you an example. There is a gentleman living today in Detroit, a very good friend of mine who happens to be a social worker and a professional pianist. He plays at the Golden Lion. Does the Treasurer know the Golden Lion? A lovely club. He is going to retire to the Leamington area. He has got himself a lot, he is building a house, he is going to qualify. The fact of the matter is, were he here today I would say, “Tom, you shouldn’t. You’ve never contributed one cent to the Province of Ontario, with the possible exception of paying three per cent land transfer tax on the registration of your deed,” and I don’t know how much that was.

You might resist by saying, “All right, it is one individual isolated case.” I say to you that the words “in Ontario” should be removed. I believe my client -- or my colleague; I was in that other realm this morning -- my colleague from Waterloo North --

Mr. Good: That’s right.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- is going to, I hope, shortly -- if he doesn’t, I will; maybe I will do it right now, then.

Mr. Good: In Ontario.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do we require a seconder in committee?

Mr. Chairman: No.

Mr. Bullbrook moves that section 2, subsection 2, be amended by deleting therefrom the words “in Ontario” in the fourth line thereof.

Mr. Bullbrook: Albeit that the hypothesis put forward by my colleague from Huron-Bruce might only apply to one individual, the concept of us treating people coming into Ontario with a grant paid for out of the taxes contributed by the people of Ontario is anathema to me. I just don’t think you can rationalize it on the basis of saying that this is a spur to the industry, because the lack of logic in that argument is that very few people are going to be benefiting in the context of what my colleague from Huron-Bruce says, and therefore it would be little spur to the industry.

Mr. Gaunt: No spur -- further competition to our local people.

Mr. Bullbrook: No spur at all. I think the principle must abide that we cannot use funds contributed by the people of the Province of Ontario for the benefit of people who have never made such a contribution. I think there is something fundamentally wrong in that.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sarnia has moved an amendment which I assume would apply to the minister’s amendment. The amendment would be to section 2, subsection 2, that it be amended by deleting therefrom the words “in Ontario” in the fourth line thereof.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, before I vote for my friend from Sarnia’s amendment, I should say so. He’s convinced me of the wisdom of his move. And he said such nice things at the beginning.

I don’t think it is really going to affect that many people. We could qualify it in other ways -- “that have been here for five years” or something. You are just going to complicate it, and perhaps this is the easiest to arrive at a solution and not affect very many people. But I feel sorry for your friend Tom and we’ll go there and we’ll have to buy him a drink.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the hon. member’s amendment say “aye”.

All those opposed say “nay”.

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on subsection 2?

Section 2, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further discussions at all prior to section 5 to which the minister has an amendment?

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: Would the hon. minister read his amendment?

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

“Where a person who has received a grant under section 3 dies prior to making application for a first or second supplementary grant under subsection 1, the minister may on application therefor make a grant provided for in subsection 1 to the surviving spouse or co-owner who continues to inhabit the housing unit as his principal residence.”

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that’s self-explanatory.

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t even know why it is necessary.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Do you mean they would get in anyway? Receive it anyway?

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Motion agreed to:

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussions, comments or criticisms to any other section?

On section 6:

Mr. Lawlor: I am going to move that section 6 be deleted. Surely, if the benefits to be conferred under the Act are to be felt and to be appreciated, the inability to assign -- to take the thing to the bank to raise the money -- the fact that the $1,000 could be available by bank loan at the inception or at the time of closing would reduce the size of the mortgage and do what my friend from Hamilton-Wentworth mentioned, namely, have a mortgage which has less principal value and therefore less interest over the period of year.

Once you are locked into a mortgage, you are locked in. That’s all there is to it for five years. You can’t pay it off so why shouldn’t this money be available with respect to this? That would have an appreciable effect upon reducing the price of houses, too. In other words, it would be more --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Can I answer my friend quickly? A person can assign. I am just not bound by that assignment. If you are a first-time home buyer, I want to make sure that the cheque from the Treasurer of Ontario goes out from Revenue to you. If you have assigned it to someone, fine and dandy. Funnily enough, my friend is asking -- we have had pleas from a number of developers today asking for the same amendment to the Act which he has asked for. I don’t want to put him in that embarrassing position for very long and I have cut him off quickly.

Mr. Lawlor: No, not at all. I find myself in good company for a change. It’s not just developers; I am thinking, too, of people who want to buy furniture. There are any number of cases. Can’t you restrict it in the wording, if you want to keep it in and you don’t want them simply assigning it out hither and yon, assigning it to certain designated financial institutions?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not talking of assigning. They can assign but I send the cheque to them.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, but for the institution involved -- if they raise the $1,500 from the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Nova Scotia would kind of like to see the money come to them, in case it gets by them somehow. In other words, they are lending money on this precise security without having the security in their mitt. That makes quite a bit of difference as to what you can borrow in terms of the collateral involved and you restrict it.

I thought there would be another reason which I hadn’t detected behind your refusal to assign, apart from falling into the wrong hands. Is there any other reason? Let me put it this way. It struck me that perhaps the minister was opposed to permitting assignments to any body because the deals may never close, so to speak. Because a loan is obtained from some source of the strength of this matter, and then they renege, or they pull out, or they do any other number of things, and you’re on the hook. If that’s the legal reason then there may be some virtue in your position, I don’t know.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That isn’t the principal reason, but it does serve to keep us out of that entanglement.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 carry?

Mr. Lawlor: You can hold it up while I think of the answer to that. I have put the words in the mouth of the minister. What I really do feel is that the benefit to a lot of home buyers, with respect to what we mentioned earlier, is getting some new furniture into the house with the $1,500. But it is so portentous and so really valuable, that I would like to confer it. I would like to get the blessing upon their heads, if that is possible. And the way I can do it is either by amending this in the narrow way that I’ve suggested earlier, or simply knocking it out.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think so.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m going to sit down, believe it or not. I think my own arguments overwhelm me.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 6 carry?

Section 6 agreed to.

On section 7.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Too bad, the member for Lakeshore should have finished.

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves that subsection 1 of section 7 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause: “(c) Prescribing the evidence required to establish the entitlement of an applicant to a grant under this Act.”

Hon. Mr. McKeough: By way of comment, this permits the Lieutenant Governor in Council to prescribe by regulation those documents which may be necessary to establish an entitlement of an applicant to a grant under this Act. Specifically, a spouse separated but not divorced from his or her partner may have no knowledge of where the partner resides or whether or not the spouse has purchased a housing unit in Ontario. This amendment will permit a form of affidavit to be prescribed in order to prevent hardship.

Mr. Lawlor: Perfectly all right.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this bill? Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 28, as amended, reported.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

House in committee on Bill 29, An Act to authorize the raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, criticisms or amendments to Bill 29? If so, to what section?

The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I was engaged, thinking of higher or lower things. Did you answer my friend the hon. member for Riverdale’s (Mr. Renwick) question the other day?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I did. Beautifully.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s all on the record, is it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s all on the record, and I’ll write him a letter, if he would like one.

Mr. Chairman: Any further discussion on Bill 29?

Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 29 reported.

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS ACT

House in committee on Bill 40, An Act to provide for the Payment of Unconditional Grants.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 40; any comments, criticisms or amendments to any section, and if so, to which one?

Mr. Good: Section 15.

Mr. Chairman: Anything prior to section 15?

Sections 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 15:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

We have an amendment, just for the information of the committee, on section 17.

Mr. Good: Okay. My problem with section 15 is that we knew how poorly the general support grant worked out last year, in that those municipalities that had high spending and necessarily high growth, were penalized by having their grant reduced to somewhere about three, four or five per cent. So this year the minister has seen fit to run a straight six per cent increase in the general support grant right through in all municipalities.

In his budget statement he mentioned that this grant would be modified to some extent where it created hardship in some municipalities, where the six per cent did not work out to be 95 per cent of what they received last year. So no one, as I understand it, would receive less than 95 per cent of what they received last year on the general support grant. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 15 carry?

Mr. Good: Oh, no, just a minute.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I am not sure of the answer to that question. The staff were still thinking about the argument given by the member for Lakeshore on the last bill.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): You need more staff. I think you need more staff.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have got too many and they are all talking instead of listening.

The question was, if I may repeat it, whether the five per cent limitation on reduction in grant only applies, as I recall, to the split mill rate payment. The question was whether it also applied to the maximizers going down to six per cent. The answer to your question is yes.

Mr. Good: Now I forget what the question was. Reading from page 14 it says: “The rate of the general support grant will no longer be determined by expenditure growth rates.” The grant will be a straight six per cent.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right, right.

Mr. Good: That’s fine. Now that is modified in the next section, which says those municipalities which qualified last year for a grant in excess of six per cent would be penalized. But as I read that section in the white book, no municipality would be disadvantaged by more than five per cent. My question is simply, why isn’t that in the legislation in section 15?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is in the regulations.

Mr. Good: How do we know that it is in the regulations?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is one year and will be in the regulations. We would never get away with it; it will be done. But it will be in the regulations under the Act. It is only for one year and the bill presumably may carry on for longer than one year. So that’s the reason it is in the regulations.

Mr. Good: Oh, it is just for one year.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s only for the first year.

Mr. Good: Oh, then this limitation to 95 per cent of last year’s grant will be just for this one particular year?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: For 1975.

Mr. Good: For 1975. I see. You can do that in regulations and then following that the general support grant will then just follow the terms of section 15 --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Correct.

Mr. Good: -- as it reads now, but there is a proviso in there for such other percentage as may be prescribed. What does that mean? Does that mean that the minister could say, “If this municipality has problems we can give them a larger support grant”? Why is that put in there?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, the rate is prescribed by regulation and presumably in 1976 this might change to seven per cent of eight per cent, or I suppose it could go down to three, depending on the amount of money that was available, but this gives the authority in future years, by regulation, to set the amount.

Mr. Good: Maybe I just don’t understand legislative procedure, but do you mean then you can amend what is actually appearing in the legislation by regulation? You can change that to six or seven by regulation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Good: And six to eight; you can do that by regulation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Section 15 agreed to.

On section 16:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: On section 16, is that the section which is going to bring northern Ontario to have an average of $90 less per year in taxation? Is that the section?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Per household, yes.

Mr. Martel: That’s where they accomplish that is it? When reading the white book that you handed out, I believe it indicated we were going to get an additional $5 million more --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes.

Mr. Martel: -- which is about $7 per capita across the north. I’m wondering how the minister arrived at that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That would be the previous figure. The $90 reflects the previous northern grant with this addition.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I understand about the additional money bringing about that total. I find that a little hard to believe, though -- and maybe I’ll give you an opportunity to go on one of your rare tears, like the one I heard a few minutes ago as I sat behind you.

Mr. Lawlor: Rare? He is on a constant tear.

Mr. Martel: Maybe you could provide figures that would indicate the type of taxation for a municipality the size of Sudbury, say, as opposed to another city of equal size, or with respect to a town like Valley East, which has no industrial assessment whatsoever.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think we’re in for some hard times in the Sudbury basin once the startup grants for regional government are gone -- and that’s only about two years away -- unless we start to get a decent return on the type of assessment we can make against the mining companies. Which leads me to a question.

Inco has $70 million as market value -- and really that’s what it is; their local assessment is $70 million -- and I understand Falconbridge’s total assessment is $14 million. Is that done by order in council? How is that arrived at? I can’t believe that Inco’s total holdings in the Sudbury basin can only be valued at $70 million or that Falconbridge’s total assessment is only $14 million. Really, it boggles the mind.

For example, when I spoke to the regional chairman recently, I was told that the Tradewinds Hotel near Lively has got the same rate of assessment as the new iron ore recovery plant. It’s ludicrous for the minister to stand in his place and tell me that Inco’s total assessment is $70 million when we know that the last two plants they built alone cost well over $100 million each.

We’re crippling the area and we’re in dire straights. I’ve been arguing with the regional council. In fact, they decided they’d never invite me to their inaugural meeting again, because I got up recently after an inaugural meeting and suggested to them that if they don’t demand that the government provide a fair assessment of Inco and Falconbridge, we’d be in real financial trouble once the startup grants disappeared. Don Collins, the regional chairman, was so upset by that outburst that he go on radio and said there was no way I would be invited to address the regional council the next time there was an inaugural meeting.

My question is: How does that $70 million of assessment come about?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the concern expressed by the member but I don’t have responsibility for municipal assessment. I have no idea in the world. In terms of the $90, I don’t have those figures here. That was based on a survey of households. There is a complete survey, and I’ll be glad to get the figures for the member.

Mr. Martel: Are you telling me that the assessment doesn’t come under you now?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Martel: Who is it under?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen).

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Revenue. Is it by order in council, can you tell me? The $70 million that Inco is assessed and the $14 million that Falconbridge is assessed?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, it’s done by the assessor, as far as I know.

Mr. Martel: Was he blind?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Pardon?

Mr. Martel: Was the assessor who came to do it handicapped or blind?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have no idea.

Mr. Martel: Well, he must have been.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. I wonder if the hon. member would return to the section of the bill.

Mr. Martel: I am talking about that section of the bill, the special support grant, because I don’t think that $5 million is going to do a hell of a lot for the Sudbury basin, which I think has some of the highest taxes. The minister has indicated he will send me the material on which that decision was made, but maybe he could carry that over until after the supper hour so I could have a look at it before this section is passed.

Mr. Ferrier: I wonder if I could ask a question about this section as well. You say there is going to be a $90 difference between taxes on a home in northern Ontario and what is paid by the residents of southern Ontario. Does that increase the differential? Have you any figures as to how much the average is now? Is this going to increase it or is it just going to keep us where we now are? Do you know that at all?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, after this move the differential will be 90.

Mr. Ferrier: But before this, you don’t know.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s the best we can estimate. I’ll be glad to give the members the basis of those figures.

Section 16 agreed to.

On section 17:

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves that section 17 of the bill he amended by striking out “any lower tier municipality if such municipality is situated in a territorial district, no part of which is situated within the northern part of Ontario,” in the third, fourth and fifth lines, and inserting in lieu thereof “to the township of Chisholm and the improvement district of Cameron and any lower tier municipality situated in the territorial district of Parry Sound.”

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This brings in those two townships in Nipissing.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment carry?

Agreed.

Mr. Good: Just one question. Does that have the effect of putting part of Parry Sound district in northern Ontario for benefits?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It sets the rate at 7½, but this particular amendment change brings in two townships which are in Nipissing and which were formerly not in Northern Ontario. It brings them into the same alignment and unique position as Parry Sound.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): They were formerly in Nipissing so they received grants on the basis of these in northern Ontario. In effect what you are doing is --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, they didn’t.

Mr. R. S. Smith: They didn’t receive, even though they were -- they are not in my riding, you see.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, they were in the south.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They were in the south, the deep south.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The deep south of Parry Sound? If I might ask a question, why did you not go all the way and bring Parry Sound up to the same grant structure as Caledon, Ont. Why make it a kind of a -- I could use a word there, it might be misunderstood -- bastard area between the north and the south? I mean that in the best sense. This is what you are doing. You are putting them into a special category all together. I fail to understand why you didn’t just go the route and say that it would be included for grant purposes in northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, they have been in southern Ontario for 100 years. It’s a unique position. There always is a boundary. The member has discussed this and I think I answered the question, really, on second reading. Basically I’m quite prepared, we’re always prepared, to take another look, not only at the geographical position but what the financial implications are in terms of taxes per household and so on, and we’ll do that.

We have already started to take a look at seeing what other provisions there are in other Acts and other ministries to find out and develop some consistency or find some consistency in terms of the location, the uniqueness of Parry Sound.

Mr. Martel: That’s something new.

Mr. R. S. Smith: There is really no consistency in placing them in a position all by themselves.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There never is with a borderline.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s what people want.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is always something on one side of a border and something on the other side.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This represents that Parry Sound is unique.

Mr. Martel: I thought 401 was the borderline.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 40, as amended, reported.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 41, an Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think there were any questions on Bill 41. Did we carry that?

Mr. Martel: No.

Bill 41 reported.

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