The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

COMMUNITY-SPONSORED HOUSING

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, last Friday the advisory committee on community-sponsored housing raised a number of issues concerning community-sponsored and non-profit housing in Ontario. Before dealing with those issues, I would like to review the status of such programmes in this province.

In 1974 the federal government allocated $58 million to Ontario for non-profit and co-operative housing under sections 15.1 and 34.18 of the National Housing Act. Ontario projects that year took up 105 per cent of those allocations.

This year the federal government has allocated $55.8 million for non-profit housing under section 15.1 and $15.9 million for co-operative housing under section 34.18.

Today, my staff checked with Central Mortgage and Housing Corp., and I am told CMHC has already committed $10.5 million under section 15.1, is processing applications for another $41 million and is negotiating a further $10 million in applications. In other words, Ontario once again will exceed its allocation. Under section 34.18, CMHC has committed $7.5 million, and we fully expect to use the balance before the end of the year. In addition to this mortgage funding by CMHC, my ministry offers rent reduction grants, which the province finances 100 per cent, and rent supplement grants, which we share with the federal government and the municipalities. These programmes have been in operation for just one year, but we have already committed the province to fund more than $5 million in rent reduction and almost $5 million in rent supplements. Both grants and supplements are paid over the next 15 years.

Mr. Speaker, what I want to point out is that the community-sponsored and non-profit housing movement is very healthy and very active in Ontario. It is receiving our full support as far as actually building housing units is concerned.

The issue raised by the advisory committee is quite separate. It is, in effect, the matter of public funding, for regional resource groups that want to help other non-profit organizations develop and manage housing.

As I said last Thursday, we are still trying to work out a system to accomplish this. We feel it must be done in co-operation with the federal government, which is also active in this area.

On April 18, I wrote to Mr. Danson with certain suggestions. He replied on May 27 and I want to quote from his letter in regard to regional resource groups:

“I suggest, rather than respond on a purely regional basis, it is more important to place limited funds on a very selective basis in support of demonstrated need for resource assistance, regardless of location.

“I suggest that our officials examine this approach with a view to determining potential recipients of CROP [Community Regional Organization Programme] and provincial funds. This review will also provide our officials with the opportunity to ensure the co-ordination of the federal and provincial programmes on a complementary basis.”

In response, my officials are arranging to meet with CMHC representatives, and I expect that meeting to take place shortly.

As I said Thursday, I will see that sector support funds are allocated just as soon as I am convinced the money is being well spent, and that of course means it must complement the federal initiatives, as Mr. Danson has suggested.

I hope the matter will be resolved very soon to everyone’s satisfaction. If there has been a delay, it has not been because of the provincial government or my ministry. Thank you.

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

COMMUNITY-SPONSORED HOUSING

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Housing based on his statement and on the statements made by his advisory committee, which led to his comments today.

How can he justify his final sentence, where he said he is not responsible for these problems, when his own advisory committee has charged him with deliberately obstructing the programme, consistently making himself unavailable to the advisory committee for four months and repeatedly acting in bad faith in regard to the specific programme?

Is he going to I fire the advisory committee or is he going to continue bringing them in here and paying their expenses, at a rate of $31,000 according to the news reports, without at least listening to their advice?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the comments made by the advisory committee are indeed regrettable as far as I am concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They were very critical. They said the minister is to blame; his own advisory committee says he is to blame.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Just a minute. Let me finish. Then the Leader of the Opposition can ask a supplementary or as many questions as he wants.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It’s a new day when Tory appointees are criticizing a Tory minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I met with the advisory committee and told them my concerns as well as telling the federal government. As I said in my statement, I wrote to the federal government outlining our concerns. The federal government in return is not sure as to what action we should take. We have said repeatedly that we are not in the business to give someone a job, regardless of whose friend he is. That’s exactly what might happen. What I want to do is to I make sure --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): What about building houses? Why not build a house or two?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The $300,000 would be much more practical in housing, as far as I am concerned, if it is needed. If we find a method, which I think we will, to provide some sector funds, fair enough, but the proposal that came to me in the first instance as much too rich for our blood and it was going to cost the province too much money and the taxpayers would not stand for it. I think there is a better way of handling this particular group. If the advisory committee are not satisfied with what has gone on to this date, there is one course open to them and they know full well what that is.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about the course open to the minister?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As far as I am concerned, there is a role for them that they can play, but I think they have to be responsive to the needs of the people.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There is a place for them.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If the Leader of the Opposition thinks it is necessary to have five or six regional groups, that view isn’t shared by my colleague in Ottawa and it isn’t shared by me. I can tell the hon. member right now that I don’t think it will meet the needs of the people.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question: I would also like the minister to comment on the statement made by a spokesman for the advisory committee that only about $9 million has been spent of Ontario’s federal allocation of $16 million for co-operative housing. Would the minister agree, although he has checked with CMHC as to the utilization of these funds, that in fact the funds the advisory committee is concerned with remain unutilized; that in fact it is the minister’s policy that is at fault, that he cannot blame either the municipality or the federal government and that in fact the advisory committee is publicly pointing out the shortcomings in the minister’s policy?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, once the hon. Leader of the Opposition has had a chance to read my statement he will recognize the fault lies with the federal government in not providing us with enough funding. We spent 105 per cent last year. We will spend more than 100 per cent this year. If my hon. friend thinks I am at fault in spending too much money on housing, then I would be happy to hear him say that. So far he has said I haven’t spent enough.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister’s advisory committee says he is at fault. They say he is deliberately obstructing --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, I am certainly not deliberately obstructing. As a matter of fact --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They say the minister repeatedly acts in bad faith.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, the member knows I can’t be responsible for irresponsible statements.

An hon. member: They are his people.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: I hear it every day over there.

Mr. MacDonald: Who appointed this committee?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I didn’t.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister going to terminate those people, or is he going to continue paying their expenses to bring them in from across the province and then refuse to even talk to them?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I never refuse to talk to anyone who has a legitimate cause. But what we want to make sure, as the Leader of the Opposition knows --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order; the advisory committee said the minister directly refused to contact them for four months.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Who has the floor, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition or myself? On the point of order -- I am sorry I didn’t hear the member. What did the member say?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am finished now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As far as the expenses are concerned, I don’t think it’s necessary to bring someone from Thunder Bay or someone from Sudbury in every month.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister has been doing it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I am saying to the members that we told them to stay at home until we had the federal agreement as to what programme was most acceptable for the Province of Ontario. That’s what I told them.

Now I have not refused to meet them deliberately. I refused until I had the word from Mr. Danson as to what we should do. Mr. Danson and his officials have not yet agreed with us as to what we should do. It’s a very minor point as far as I am concerned. There are $300,000 in our budget for sector funding. I am much more concerned about building houses. I want to build a few houses.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well why doesn’t the minister build some? I don’t know how long we can pursue this, Mr. Speaker, but with your permission and for clarification: Did the minister say that he does not want to bring them in from Thunder Bay and all these places anymore? What was the purpose of bringing them in for a full year at a reported cost of $31,000 if it wasn’t to give the minister advice on how these funds, most of them federal, are to be used? Is he going to terminate that advisory committee if, as he says, their advice is not useful to him, and that their stance is -- I think he used the word “unfortunate”?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I didn’t appoint the advisory committee.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, it is one of those boards of the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch).

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But I accept the advisory committee, and I accept it until such time as it proves not to be of any use to the Province of Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So it isn’t the federal government; it isn’t the municipalities; it is the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There is no way that I am going to spend $300,000 just to have one of the member’s friends, or some friend over there, get a job; and that’s exactly what might happen.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): What friends? The minister’s friends get lots of jobs.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are not friends of the Tories. They are friends of the Minister of Culture and Recreation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I am saying is that if it is worthwhile and if they promote a worthy programme, fair enough.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister is answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If they don’t want to participate, they have every right to resign. I hope they don’t until we have a chance to talk to them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t he fire them?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t intend to.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary? This will be the last supplementary.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I wonder if the minister would give us the name of this person who he thinks is so foolish and who did appoint the advisory committee?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it was a foolish move whatsoever. I think there was a need for the advisory committee, but I think it depends on how much money you spend on that advisory committee and how it is spent.

Mr. Shulman: Who was it? The question was, who appointed them?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It certainly was a very wise minister. I suggest that it could be my colleague, the Minister of Culture and Recreation. I would suggest that.

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

PROVINCIAL HEALTH CONFERENCE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Health about the status of his famous conference. Has he replied to the Minister of Health from Alberta who said that he did not want to attend because he felt it would “exacerbate provincial-federal relations”? It sounds like the limits of -- what is that word the Premier used the other day?

Mr. Singer: Fatuousity.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Fatuousity.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): He will never make a Premier if he can’t remember fatuousity.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): I have got news for the member for Sarnia.

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, unlike the members opposite, I am not afraid to admit when I am running into trouble; and I did.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Do it again.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): It is all over his face.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The minister is not afraid to take another run at it either.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am relatively satisfied with the way things are coming. I can’t say when a meeting will be held or where, but I am reasonably sure one will be held.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): In September.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Does the minister agree with the Conservative Minister of Health from Alberta, that in fact at least one of the supplementary aims of the conference is to exacerbate federal-provincial relationships? I presume that’s a bad thing to do.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The last time I heard that word it was with something like Excalibur.

Mr. Foulds: Back to King Arthur and the Round Table.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That’s a new car. That’s the one that the member for High Park drives, isn’t it?

Mr. Shulman: How did I get into this?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, I don’t think they could be exacerbated any more.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I may just ask the minister, what are his plans for a special conference of health ministers? Is there a date set and is he going to have the participation of at least a reasonable number of the provinces; or do the ministers of health agree with us that he is simply setting himself up for a political fall on this?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, when I made my statement in the House, if the Leader of the Opposition will refer to it, I said I would meet anytime, anywhere with the other health ministers of Canada. I then sent a wire, knowing it had to go to nine other ministers, and suggested a time and place. That wasn’t acceptable to at least three provinces in terms of time and place.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What time was it for?

Hon. Mr. Miller: It was today.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Tomorrow starts today.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Their first reaction was to say no. However, in talking to them on the telephone, all but one province seem to be agreeable to the holding of a conference and to the community of interest that the provinces have in opposing this unilateral change of agreement imposed on us by the federal government.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What was the one province?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The one province was Alberta.

Mr. Singer: What about Quebec? What do they say?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Quebec was quite happy to come as long as there was western representation. We are coming along quite nicely. I have talked to two of the ministers personally out west. I understand that my staff are talking to others and that times and places are being arranged.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Any place, any time.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of Labour if he can report on two situations that are obviously going to have a substantial impact on our economy. The one has to do with the construction workers here in Toronto and the other seems to be the worsening situation with the pulp and paper workers, both here and in BC. Is the minister aware, according to reports today, that a special mediator has been appointed in BC? Will his recommendations have some influence here, or are we going to have a parallel mediation in this province since the importance of that industry is undoubted?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dickie has been working with both the construction industry across the province and with the paper industry. Earlier this year, after considerable negotiation, we had what we feel was a reasonable settlement with the outside workers, the wood cutters in the pulp and paper area, and now we’re dealing with the paper people themselves.

It’s not going to be easy. We’ve been in consultation. I’ve met with some of the management people. I haven’t met with the labour people in regard to it, but I have met with some of the management people. It has been long and I think we’ll be a little while yet.

We have had, in the last few weeks, a great many strike situations across the province, not just in pulp and paper, but in the mining industry and the construction industry. Our list of strikes is as great at the present time as it has been in a long time, but I’m quite pleased that many of them are working their way out. Certainly in the construction field they are settling down. The carpenters are just the latest development but some of them, as I say, in the construction field, where it appeared worse than the carpenters’ situation, have already worked out an agreement. I think that left with it, the same will happen with the carpenters.

One of the bad situations, as the member for Sarnia will know, was the construction industry in Sarnia. That was straightened out just last week. I’m not going to suggest we should do anything special about pulp and paper, but leave it with the people who are working it out. Similarly, with the carpenters in the Metropolitan Toronto area, I’m satisfied that my people are doing the best job they can and that, left with it, these things will work out in time. I think this is the proper procedure for strike situations to materialize in that way.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, if I may: Is the minister prepared to at least consider the appointment of a special mediator in the pulp and paper industry, because as he says, Mr. Dickie and his staff are extremely busy with many of these strikes or at least the problems in the labour-management field? Also there is the importance of the industry to the economy of northern Ontario and to all of us?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker no, not at the present time. When the Leader of the Opposition asks if I am ready to consider it, I say not now. But if something doesn’t develop in the near future, then perhaps that will change the picture. We are on top of it at the present time. I don’t see any need for any special body other than those who are presently looking after it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia, a supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, recognizing some repetition since I have advocated this -- I believe Hansard would disclose -- four times over eight years, would the minister and his cabinet colleagues entertain with respect to this particular industry the imposition of some type of coterminous position with respect to these contracts, which wouldn’t in any way fetter the true, free, collective bargaining process, but would bring some stability for at least a certain term to that industry?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Is it the construction industry the member is referring to?

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, to the construction industry.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We were dealing with two, the pulp and paper and the construction. I assumed he meant the construction.

Mr. Bullbrook: I mean the construction industry.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is a committee appointed by myself as Minister of Labour looking into the construction industry. I hope the results of its investigation will result in possible legislation whereby we can widen the bargaining area in the construction field.

I don’t expect they will have a report for us probably until the end of the year. By that time, I hope that they will have some constructive suggestions to make so that we can widen the bargaining areas, get a little less of the see-sawing involved and probably lengthen the terms of some of the contracts. I don’t know what they will suggest but that committee is at work at the present time.

Mr. Bullbrook: One supplementary more, if I may: Recognizing that one requires, and that we on this side have advocated for years some type of select committee or royal commission to look into the collective bargaining process, surely it is not too much for the government to recognize the need at this time for the imposition of coterminous positions in the construction industry, recognizing as we do that the recent settlements made in Sarnia and elsewhere are creating an inflationary cycle from which we might never recover?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont has a supplementary.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Could I ask the minister, by way of supplementary Mr. Speaker, if he feels the series of ads placed by the pulp and paper association are having a harmful effect on a possible settlement between the papermakers and the paper industry in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, it is their privilege to do this. Generally speaking, I think that type of action on behalf of the employer often delays settlements, but sometimes the employers are not satisfied that the story is getting across to the workers involved. It is certainly their right to do it if they see fit to do so.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: This will be the last supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister aware -- in fact I know he is aware -- and what is the minister doing about the fact that one of the reasons for unrest in the construction industry among the labourers is the fact that they have been forced recently to accept a contract which they voted unanimously against but which has been stuffed down their throats because it was signed in Washington; and the minister refused to interfere?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what that reference is to.

Mr. Shulman: I sent the minister a copy of the correspondence. How could the minister not know about it?

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Leader of the Opposition any more questions?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow that further. The case the member is referring to is one where the parent union was an American union. I have forgotten what the union was and whether it was construction or not.

Mr. Shulman: Labourers.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: In any event, by their own internal arrangements, part of their own constitution provides an overriding clause for the parent organization.

Mr. Shulman: What difference does it make? The minister is the government; and it is wrong.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What is the member’s party’s view on that? They are all stricken dumb. They are not saying a word.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The minister is answering a question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They disagree with the member.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If their local union wants to be a part of that sort of union, then they have to accept, I suppose, the constitution that goes with being a member of that union. They have their own way out if they want to take it.

Mr. Shulman: The minister represents the Ministry of Labour, doesn’t he insist on votes?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have quite a bit of latitude in the Ministry of Labour, but we don’t try to tell either party under what terms it must bargain. These people have chosen to bargain on those terms; and being a part of that union, then they have to accept the constitution of the union to which they have agreed to belong.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

REMOVAL OF SALES TAX FROM AUTOMOBILES

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer table or provide for the House the legal documents supporting the position taken by the Province of Ontario that the rebating of the five per cent tax on automobiles introduced a week and a half ago by the minister, as part of his mini-budget, is not in violation of the GATT agreement, as has been claimed by Alastair Gillespie, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Commerce in Ottawa?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there are no agreements.

Mr. Deans: No, the legal documents supporting the position.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know that there are any legal documents at this moment. I think there are a number of opinions. Assuming that at some point they have been transcribed into written documents -- they may well have been by now but I have not seen them -- I will be glad to undertake to do that. I don’t believe they have at this moment. I think, as far as I’m concerned, there have been verbal opinions of varying degrees.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Was the matter of the possible violation of the GATT agreement considered by the government prior to the implementation of the five per cent rebate?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If it turns out, some weeks or some months hence, that the government has violated the GATT agreement, I wonder which course of action the minister is going to follow? Is he going to go back to all the people he has sent cheques to and ask them to send the money back?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): We won’t ask the member for High Park to pay for it.

Mr. Shulman: Alternatively, will he go to all the people who have bought foreign cars and give them a rebate? I’m just wondering which course he will follow.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think that’s a very hypothetical question.

Mr. F. W. Martel (Sudbury East): I don’t think so. According to the federal minister, it’s against the agreement.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Deans: I have a further question of the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer indicate whether the federal Minister without Portfolio in charge of Manpower has made any recommendations to him with regard to the possibility of developing further job opportunities or employment opportunities in the Province of Ontario to offset the increase in unemployment shown this month, which is some 3.2 per cent over the month of May? In particular, have there been recommendations from the minister in charge of Manpower with regard to special initiatives by this government to offset this extremely high rate of unemployment among students? It’s the highest in recent history.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister care to enlighten the House and the public as to what initiatives are being undertaken by the government to offset what is now the highest rate of unemployment in the Province of Ontario in recent history?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think the actions of the budget of April 7 and the supplementary actions of July 7 are the government’s response to the member’s question.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Can the minister explain -- or can the minister provide the figures which show -- what the unemployment rate in the Province of Ontario would have been, by projection, had the measures taken by the minister not been in force; given that unemployment now has risen by 3.5 per cent over last month, despite the fact it should now have begun to reflect the benefits which ought to have flowed from the budget?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m quite sure our figures are reflecting the benefits from the budget. What they also reflect, unfortunately, is the complete abdication of leadership by the government at Ottawa.

AID TO STUDENTS

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Can the minister indicate whether, in the month of September, there will be new provisions available to students returning to universities and colleges, or attending for the first time, who were unable to obtain summer employment due to the inactivity and inability of this government to produce employment in this sector?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Get off it.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Why don’t they work on the farms? The farmers are crying for help.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me I indicated during the course of our estimates that the prognostications at that time indicated there would be some students who would be unable to find summer employment. There are provisions for an appeal and if the student can indicate he or she was unable to obtain summer employment additional funds can be granted through the Canada Student Loan Plan. We were making provision for an improvement in the appeal process, for speeding it up, so there should not he delays this fall.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question; Wouldn’t it make more sense to put the programme in front of the students now while they are having to make a determination as to whether they can or cannot attend university, rather than have them register and go through a two-month waiting period hoping to get more money but never being quite sure?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the details of the plans we have formulated are in the hands of the student awards officers in the various colleges and universities at this time.

Mr. Deans: Can the minister guarantee there won’t be the normal two to three-month waiting period while students process their appeals and while the ministry administration takes its time determining whether or not more money can be made available? Can the minister further indicate how much more money has been budgeted to offset the high rate of unemployment and the lack of employment opportunities among students?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, my anticipation is there should be less delay this year in appeals than there has been in the past. However, looking at unforeseen circumstances such as some of the ones we ran into last fall, of which the hon. member is aware, I really can’t predict that there will not be some delay.

As far as additional funds are concerned, I indicated a moment ago that the additional funds will be from the Canada Student Loans portion of the programme. I also indicated earlier, in the estimates and subsequently, that the amount budgeted for student aid in bursaries in the provinces was being increased to $46.5 million this year from something in the order of about $40 million at the end of the last fiscal year.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary; Mr. Speaker, since there now are students across the province, many of them from low-income families, who have not been able to get jobs, and since it’s the middle of July and two months of their summer is thereby passed, will the minister open up the appeals process now so that those students can begin to have an assurance they will be able to go back to university in the fall, rather than delaying the beginning of the appeals process until Sept. 20?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, it being July 15 and there being some six weeks of the summer left, I don’t know how somebody can make a valid application by saying he or she has been unable to obtain summer employment.

Mr. Speaker: Has the member for Wentworth further questions?

OMB HEARING

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Attorney General, with reference to an OMB hearing in the city of Hamilton. Does the Attorney General think it proper that the chairman, Mr. Ebers, would (1) rephrase inaccurately questions asked in cross-examination and already answered by witnesses; (2) attempt to indicate during cross-examination the possible train of thought of the questioner to the expert witness; (3) rudely dress down the public questioners regarding their ability to contribute to the hearings; (4) accuse a senior counsel, representing his client, of misleading questioning; (5) intimidate the public and discourage the involvement of the public thereby?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: Does he think that’s a proper --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A question of this magnitude should be put on the order paper.

Mr. Deans: No, it should not.

Mr. Speaker: I say it should be; it is not an oral question.

Mr. Deans: It is of urgent importance.

Mr. Speaker: If you can cut your question down and ask a straightforward question, all right.

Mr. Deans: Okay, right. I am asking, does the minister think that kind of conduct, and there’s more, is appropriate for a chairman of an OMB hearing?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I’m not familiar with the allegations made by the member for Wentworth; but no, I would not personally approve of such conduct on the part of anybody conducting any judicial or quasi-judicial hearing, of course not.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question: Will the minister conduct an investigation, and invite the public who were present at the hearings to attest under oath to the conduct of the chairman during the hearings?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be prepared to look into the allegations made by the member for Wentworth, and after having an opportunity to look into them, perhaps I’ll be in a better position to respond.

Mr. Deans: Don’t send Ebers --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Wentworth have further questions? The member for Rainy River.

GOVERNMENT PAYROLL

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board and House leader. Is it not a fact that on the government payroll he has something like 10,000 employees in the categories of casual, temporary, part-time, seasonal and contract people? Under the provisions of the last budget, how many of these people will not be on the government payroll as a result of the budget?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if it is a fact or not, but since the answer requires that sort of statistical information, if the member is prepared to put it on the order paper I’ll certainly see that it’s answered.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minster doesn’t answer those questions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Certainly I do, and the member knows I do.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I placed a similar question on the order paper a year and two months ago and I have yet to get an answer.

May I ask, by way of a supplementary, who is responsible for this information? Are these figures kept under Management Board or under Treasury or under the individual ministries?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They come under the Minister without Portfolio, the member for London South (Mr. White).

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): They are locked in the vault with the Premier’s cheques.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact they are contained within the responsibility of the Civil Service Commission and are obtainable. I’ll get them for the member.

Mr. Reid: After a year and a half?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s not the same question and the member knows it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Apps).

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: I just want to know if the minister will take a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t allow a supplementary on that. The member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He didn’t allow a supplementary on that.

Mr. Reid: Oh, what do you mean?

Mr. Speaker: There was on supplementary from the member for Rainy River.

Mr. C. J. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, may I beg your indulgence and the indulgence of the Legislature to introduce a very prominent visitor from the federal Parliament in Ottawa, the federal member for Kingston and the Islands, Miss Flora MacDonald, in the Speaker’s gallery.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Beware of your opposition, the Premier and the Treasurer.

Mr. MacDonald: If she runs I’ll vote for her.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the one Tory I really like, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s being damned with faint praise.

Mr. Cassidy: Her campaign may have ended just now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

SALES TAX REBATES ON AUTOMOBILES

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer give a forecast of the number of additional cars he expects will be sold in Ontario in the second half of this year as a result of the rebate of sales tax?

An hon. member: The UAW wants advice.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t put that forecast on the record at the moment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the member run in Oshawa?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that Ford of Canada has forecast an increase in sales of about 14,200 units, that about 35 per cent of the cars sold in Ontario are made in Ontario, that therefore only about 5,000 additional cars will be made in Ontario as a result of the sales tax rebate, and that out of $24 million --

Mr. Speaker: What is your question?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Your supplementary question, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister aware that his rebates of $24 million will only stimulate the construction of 5,000 additional cars in Ontario and therefore cost about $4,800 per extra car produced?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Is the member for or against it, that’s the question.

Mr. Cassidy: And does he consider that an adequate incentive?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that someone over there take that little man by the hand down to the UAW and let him have a little chat with them and they’ll fill him in on some of the facts of life.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: The Treasurer is almost as American as Trudeau.

Mr. Cassidy: He sure is, you know.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister aware that when the UAW came to the cabinet --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: -- its prime demand was that the Ontario government act to reduce or eliminate the differential between Canadian and American prices in automobiles -- that that was its prime demand and it has been totally ignored by this government?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, no, the federal government, let’s get it straight.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

NIAGARA REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer. Is the minister now in a position to announce the appointment of a commissioner to review the present operations and functions of the regional government of Niagara?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not in such a position; no, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped I would have been several weeks ago and the person I had in mind declined. We are now looking for a commissioner and I would be glad to have the member’s recommendation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: She’s doing violence on TV; she can’t do that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury. A new question?

JAIL SENTENCE FOR PARKING OFFENCE

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Attorney General: Is the Attorney General aware that on July 11 last Lise Pellerin of Sudbury chose to serve five days in jail rather than pay a $9 parking ticket in protest against unilingual parking tickets and court summonses? Does the minister not think it would be wiser to spend a few bucks on making the forms bilingual rather than put more dollars into jail construction?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I was not aware that that individual opted to take five days in jail rather than pay the parking fine.

Mr. Martel: The minister got it in writing.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think the member for Sudbury has been present in the House when I have had discussions in the past -- particularly, I think, with the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) -- about bilingual offences under --

An hon. member: What are bilingual offences?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- both the Highway Traffic Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. It is not any lethargy on the part of the ministry. It’s very difficult in some instances because of technical reasons to draft bilingual summonses and that is the reason that we haven’t amplified that particular programme.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Germa: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not aware that in a city like Sudbury, which is 35 per cent French speaking, if these people choose to go that route of protest he is going to be in trouble accommodating them?

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Germa: is the minister not aware that if the 35 per cent of the people in Sudbury who are French-speaking choose this route of protest he is going to have to expand the jail facilities up there?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that some people in the Ottawa area made a similar type of protest earlier this year. I have been in communication with at least two who have taken time to swipe me on this particular matter. I was not aware of the incident referred to by the member for Sudbury, but I am aware that a number of people in the Sudbury area, as well as in eastern Ontario and in the Windsor area, are francophones.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

SPECIAL-OCCASION PERMITS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice, as the minister responsible in the policy field for the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. Does the minister think it is reasonable that the Liquor Licence Board should first, advise an applicant for a special-occasion permit that the premises for which the application was made -- the Athena Restaurant at 2057 Danforth Ave. -- were not entitled to have such a permit; later say that the privilege to get that kind of permit was discontinued, and subsequently refuse to the solicitors for that establishment any reason, any explanation, or any hearing? Is that not contrary to the new Act that was placed before the House, and shouldn’t the Provincial Secretary for Justice be in touch with the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board and so advise him?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular incident referred to by the member for Downsview. Am I correct in assuming from his question that the application for a special-occasion permit was made by someone other than the owner of the premises?

Mr. Singer: Yes, by the solicitors for the restaurant.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am not aware of it. I will undertake to get back to the member with the particulars. I will find out today and call him an advise him. I just don’t know anything about it.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary: I would be pleased to make the details available. If I snake the correspondence available to the minister, which I will, he will be able to follow the concern more easily. In other words, I will make it available to him.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park, supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: Will the minister also determine if a new policy has been arrived at by the board -- inasmuch as this is the second case in as many days, the other one taking place at Seneca College?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I do know about that one, and I think the situation here is completely different. The gentleman who wanted to have his marriage reception at Seneca College went out and purchased the liquor without a permit, rented premises in the college at the time, and then made application for the permit -- and by the way, that has been corrected in order to accommodate this young man and his bride-to-be.

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

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL STAFF RECLASSIFICATION

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Health: Has the ministry yet instituted -- and if not, what is holding up its implementation -- a reclassification of recreationists working in the psychiatric hospitals under the ministry, which has been under review, I believe, for some four years and which was promised the recreationists last January by this ministry?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I might, so that the minister can understand the question in its entirety: While he is making the investigation, can he not investigate why the ministry is paying its recreationists approximately $2,000 a year less than recreationists with similar qualifications working in the Ministry of Correctional Services and in recreation departments in local situations?

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

HOME PROGRAMME

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is of the Minister of Housing. In view of the fact that apparently the Premier has advised residents in his riding who are in the HOME programme that there is to be an announcement of a change of policy in the purchase of land in that programme, is the minister now prepared to announce what that change is to be, and say whether in fact, we are reverting to the position of the sale of such land at book value rather than at market value?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, so that there is no misunderstanding, I did not say there would be an announcement. I told the people there, who have a very genuine concern, that the corporation and the government were taking a look at the problem, and I am reasonably optimistic we will find a solution.

Mrs. Campbell: May I still have an answer from the Minister of Housing, without the preamble by the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the Premier did interject. I was just going to say that because of my daughter’s wedding I wasn’t able to be here for the past couple of days to find out what the Premier had said.

Mr. Cassidy: They said the minister was doing constituency work.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event, I expect a statement will be forthcoming in the very near future, as I believe I related last week or the week before last when I was asked the question. We are reviewing the whole HOME programme to decide whether or not there should be a different way instead of having the owner lease for five years before he can purchase at the end of the fifth year. That determination will be made very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

GOGAMA WATER SUPPLY

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): I have a question of the Premier. In view of the fact that I believe it was June 26 when the Premier was in Timmins and promised to look into the problem of the polluted water supply in the town of Gogama, I wonder if he has been advised by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) what he views as the solution, namely a village pump, although I believe he is calling it a tap, and does he really think that’s the solution for a town of 600 people who have long suffered under a polluted water supply?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can recall being in Timmins for a very important event, which I am quite sure will produce the appropriate beneficial results for that part of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Ferrier: Not for the Tories it won’t!

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the present member, I hope he is enjoying what might be his last few days here.

Mr. Cassidy: They may be the Premier’s last few days, you know, not the member’s.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t discussed directly with the minister whether this is an adequate solution or not. I undertook to one person -- not a resident of Gogama; I think he was a member of the press -- that I would look into it and I’m in the process of doing that.

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

CONDITION OF FORMER WCB BUILDING

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Government Services: Could the minister report on the condition of a building on Harbour St., formerly occupied by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, in relation to the cost of reconstruction? Is it true -- as I understand it is -- that the underpinnings and the foundation of the building are in a precarious position and could the minister give an estimate of the cost of remodelling the building, which I believe is going to be used for OPP purposes?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member’s reference to the underpinnings and the foundation is certainly something new to me.

Mr. Reid: Like the underpinnings of this government.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I certainly haven’t heard of any such problem, and I’ll certainly check, but I can almost positively assure the member that no work has been done or is anticipated to be done relating to the foundations of the building. Over the past several months we have been doing interior alterations to the building, updating certain facilities, changing partitions, replacing floors or tile, and many things like that, in order to have it ready for the Ontario Provincial Police to move into as their head office. I believe the scheduled moving date is early September, when the construction will be finished and the OPP will be taking occupancy. There has been no problem with foundations. It’s a very sound, very excellent building.

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

GASOLINE PRICES ON HIGHWAY 401

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier, regarding a question about which he undertook over a week ago to consult the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman): Why are gasoline prices at service centres on Highway 401 from seven to 14 per cent higher than at almost any other gasoline station in southern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am in the process of discussing that with the two ministers and I will have some answer for the hon. member shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

FUNDING OF LAMARSH COMMISSION

Mr. Singer: Yes, I have a question of the Premier. Could the Premier advise whether or not it is true as stated in a column written by Sid Adilman in today’s Star, that the Premier has refused to supply Judy LaMarsh and her fellow commissioners with enough money to get their inquiries under way, even though seed money has been supplied and there have been specific requests for this purpose?

Mr. Breithaupt: She’ll get violent!

Hon. Mr. Davis: I very rarely like to disagree with columnists, whether their field is politics or entertainment, and I have Mr. Adilman’s column here, which is a good entertainment column. I find the statements in it particularly entertaining, but I have to say that they represent fiction rather than fact. I would only point out to the hon. member for Downsview that if the appointment of Miss LaMarsh and this commission were the political ploy that some of his colleagues have suggested --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s a gamble.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- then I would think that the logic would be that we would like as a government to have these hearings commence probably as soon as possible.

Mr. Singer: There isn’t much argument about that statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly we would not be at all interested in any delay. The fact of the matter is that there has been no suggestion on my part that the hearings not start as soon as possible.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Start right away.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the hon. member that we will be delighted to see them commence. I see no reason why they shouldn’t commence in September.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Just one quick one because the time for the oral question period has expired.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. In fact, we are over by one minute.

Mr. Cassidy: Unfair treatment, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: That is what I like, objectivity in the chair.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this Act will authorize a number of changes that have been under consideration for some time. Notably, it provides for the adjustment of pensions now paid to retired members, or if deceased, to any surviving spouse, along the lines recommended in the first report of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature. The amendments will also transfer formal responsibility for the administration of the Act from the Minister of Government Services to you, Mr. Speaker, and escalation would be as recommended by the Board of Internal Economy.

It would be the government’s recommendation, Mr. Speaker, that the initial updating of pensions now payable be three per cent per annum for every year of retirement prior to Dec. 31, 1973, plus an eight per cent adjustment for the year 1974 similar to the one announced by my colleagues last week for teachers and civil servants. Members who retired during 1974 would have their pensions adjusted pro rata only for every month they were retired during 1974. All increases would be payable retroactive to Jan. 1, 1975.

However, as I said, Mr. Speaker, these are only recommendations and it would be up to y and the Board of Internal Economy to implement them under this Act.

Mr. Singer: That’s no good for us --

An hon. member: That’ll help the member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: -- unless we could have a retroactive retirement.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we would expect the provisions of Bill 136, the Superannuation Adjustment Benefit Act, 1975, to be made applicable to the legislative assembly retirement fund so that the authorization for escalation provided in the bill now being introduced will be used in that context in future years.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I beg to inform the House that the member for Rainy River has filed a notice understanding order 27(g) that he is not satisfied with the answer to his question put to the Chairman of Management Board concerning contract employees. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

Orders of the day.

ONTARIO HERITAGE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Leluk, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Welch, moves second reading of Bill 143, An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): No, I have a short statement.

Mr. Speaker: You have a short statement?

Mr. Leluk: The purpose of this amendment is to overcome the apparent deficiency of the existing wording of section 68(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974, as a result of the recent decision of the divisional court of the Supreme Court of Ontario in Mozambique Investments Ltd. vs. the city of Toronto. It was always our intention that section 68(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974, would apply where a building or structure has been designated by a bylaw under a public or private Act as a building or structure of historic or architectural value or interest. The effect of this amendment is to ensure that this is the case.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, first of all we welcome the parliamentary assistant’s joining that side of the House in taking over this particular matter. In fact, he fits the Premier’s chair very well.

An hon. member: No, he is not in the Premier’s chair.

Mr. Breithaupt: I am sorry, next to the Premier (Mr. Davis). No one could fit that chair better than the Premier -- in that location at least.

With respect to the Act, as the member has said, this particularly avoids a problem of some buildings which have been set aside by bylaw and encourages -- in fact requires -- that they be protected now as well by the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Of course we agree that this is a necessary amendment and we will support it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. C. Samis (Stormont): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to join with my colleague from Kitchener in complimenting the minister on introducing this legislation which obviously closes a loophole that existed.

I noticed this morning, in looking at the Hansard of the original debate when the Ontario Heritage Act was introduced, that both my colleagues from Thunder Bay and Ottawa mentioned some possible loopholes in the legislation and some possible areas of weakness. It is obvious that the minister should have discretionary powers in case a municipality may not be interested or may not have the funds or not be inclined to protect some particular structure of architectural or historical significance. They themselves may not regard it as important to their particular community or their citizens, but if it has relevance or value to the entire province obviously there is the role for the minister to play. He should have the ultimate power to halt any possible demotion in the case of lack of action or lack of interest by the municipality or the owner in that particular case.

We are glad to see that the minister is making a move in this regard and I don’t intend to delay the bill’s passage in any way.

I would be interested to hear what comments the parliamentary assistant would have to the suggestion that where it says in the legislation, “If the structured building is designated by bylaw” he might be prepared to extend that so any building listed by way of council resolution would come under the same jurisdiction and receive provincial designation to protect it from possible demolition. Apparently, there are some difficulties in getting them designated first of all at the municipal level, with the 60-day waiting period. Would he consider adding to the bill a clause covering any building listed by way of council resolution as well as by municipal bylaw, whether private or public? Would he consider adding that to the bill?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to take part in this debate?

The hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the member for Stormont are noted and we will take a look at them.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I got this just five minutes ago unfortunately so I can’t claim to be that well informed on the matter, but I understand it is a matter of some 800 buildings in the city of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: I would draw to the hon. members attention that he has already spoken on this matter. It is a little unusual and it is not according to procedure for any member to speak twice on second reading. Perhaps we might consider a question for clarification, very briefly.

Mr. Samis: I thank the Speaker for giving me that indulgence.

It has been pointed out that apparently there are 800 buildings which have been designated by the historical board in the city of Toronto as being worthy of provincial designation. If there were some changes made in this particular bill they would have a far better chance of surviving and being protected, and this would be the reason behind some modification in the amendment as proposed. I would be interested to know to what extent the ministry is prepared to move on, first of all, the minimum 40 buildings that the historical board in Toronto has said should be designated and, secondly, the whole question of the remaining 800.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as I say, I got this information very recently, so I can’t give the member much more than that. But I would be interested to know how far the ministry is prepared to go on these 40 buildings, and whether the member would consider adding that amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will have to limit the debate on second reading at this time. Does any other hon. member wish to take part? Would the hon. parliamentary assistant answer the question of clarification?

Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, if I understand what the member for Stormont was saying, I understand there are about 42 buildings which are affected by this legislation. The bill, upon receiving royal assent, will become effective. I understand that these 42 buildings will then come within the designation of section 68(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 143.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 143, An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974.

Clerk of the House: The 13th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINITRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

On vote 1001:

Mr. Chairman: Item 1. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two or three comments to make. Just before going any further, I would just like to put on record a couple of facts about the car thing, because I think that the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) may be interested in it. I offer it partly out of a spirit of partisanship and partly out of a serious concern about a measure which seems to be economically ineffective.

Mr. Chairman, the people in the industry have estimated that the Treasurer’s reduction of the sales tax will increase car sales in Ontario by about 14,200 units in the second half of this year. If you look at the sales in more detail, because of cross-border flows only about a third of the cars which are sold in Ontario are made in Ontario, and the rest of the impact will spill over into other parts of the continent. Thus we are talking about an additional 5,000 or so automobiles to be manufactured in Ontario this half year as a result of the $24 million tax incentive which was put forward by the Treasurer.

Now, I would suggest the other impacts of the tax cut are not particularly important, except maybe in political terms. A number of people who would have purchased cars anyway will feel good about it, or a bit better about it, because they happened to make a $200 or $300 saving because of the Treasurer’s rebate, but their behaviour will not be influenced. They would have bought those ears anyway.

Secondly, I have checked into figures to find out where the car industry was in trouble. The answer is, basically, not in Ontario -- and not in Canada, for that matter.

Back in 1974, when American car sales were dropping by 20 per cent, vehicle sales were a record in Canada. In the first half of this year, they’ve been off a bit but it’s nothing abnormal when you have a record year the year before. In specific terms, car sales were down about six per cent from last year when they were very high; there’s been nothing like the 20 per cent drop in car sales experienced in the United States.

The Treasurer’s measure, if you will, is directed to trying to cure a problem which is not within the province but is down in the States and not even he can resolve the problems of the American economy.

One has to ask is $5,000 a car, which is what this comes out to, really a very good way of going ahead with an economic incentive to try to stimulate the economy? Surely there are other ways in which you can use your money at the margin in order to change behaviour, increase consumer confidence, do other things in order to get more people into the market, if that’s what the minister intended to do, in order to stimulate the economy.

Next, this Treasurer and this government have never concentrated at all seriously on the problem of the differential between Canadian and American car prices. I put it to the minister that when the UAW came to cabinet a few months ago, they came bearing two briefs. The first was the brief they had taken to the federal government and the second was a supplementary brief they brought to the Ontario government. They asked the cabinet of Ontario to look at both briefs together and, as I understand it, both were discussed.

The main point of the brief to the federal government, which was produced and presented also to this cabinet, was that Use 6.5 per cent differential between Canadian and American car prices should be eliminated. The request to cut the sales tax was part of a whole package of proposed economic measures and was clearly subsidiary to the long-term measure of eliminating the differential. No step like that had been taken.

Next, we’ve already been told that in the fall there’s going to be an increase of about six per cent or so in new car prices. Since cars are running close to $5,000 a shot right now that means something like $300 additional per car that people are going to have to pay. That in itself wipes out the effect of the sales tax rebate. I think what’s more important than that particular point is the fact that the manufacturers will see some cheques going out to car purchasers and may well decide that they will load a bit of the price increase into the first half of the model year and ease off a bit after the new year, 1976, when the Ontario cheques will no longer be available. In other words, no monitoring has been proposed by the Ontario government in order to ensure that the manufacturers aren’t putting a certain amount of extra profit into the prices this fall and thereby taking to themselves some of the money which the Treasurer is ostensibly giving to the people who are purchasing.

Ontario has the power of price review and it can use it as it intends to use it now with oil prices, in order to reduce or eliminate the 6.5 per cent differential in car prices. It just doesn’t make sense that cars made in Oakville cost six or seven per cent more in Oakville than they cost when sold in Cleveland or Buffalo or Syracuse. That just doesn’t make any sense at all but Ontario has never acted in order to protect the consumers, even though we have now had a decade of the Canada-US auto pact.

I’m sure the minister is going to say this is mainly a matter for the federal government and I just wish he wouldn’t cop out on his responsibility. This is an area where the government not only has direct powers of price review, it also has indirect powers of moral suasion or whatever you want to call it. So much of the auto industry is concentrated in this province that we think the province can and should move.

Finally, the most severe problems now being felt in the automobile industry are in parts manufacturing, as the minister knows. There’s a twofold problem there. In the first place, there’s a structural imbalance in the Canadian automobile industry. Proportionately we assemble too much; we make too few parts.

Even if you stimulate assembly in this country, a large part of that assembly is assembly of parts made in the United States. The Ontario government has never been seen to move concretely in order to get a better structural balance within the industry or in order to help the parts manufacturers, who tend to be smaller in size, to get adequate research and development support so that they can compete in the big league.

As far as the stimulation to the parts industry is concerned, North American sales -- Canada and the US -- are running about eight million right now. If you increased those sales in the second half of this year by 14,000, that is something like a quarter of one per cent. Since the Ontario parts industry is mainly dependent on the health of the North American industry as a whole and not just on what is happening in Ontario, that suggests that the impact on Ontario parts manufacturers would have been a lot greater if you had taken some of that $24 million and put it into direct research and development support or in assisting in restructuring the industry.

If I can sum up, Mr. Chairman, it is an over-simplification, I know, to say that the Treasurer’s move is going to mean it will cost $5,000 for every additional car produced in Ontario, but all the same that is a convenient way of summing up the minimal limited impact of this particular programme on the Ontario economy. Whatever the political effect, and that may be something else, the economic effect is certainly not what the Treasurer intended it to be or at least tried to claim it to be when he got up in this chamber a week or so ago.

When we broke off yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I was making some comments about planning. I would like to conclude those comments and maybe then I could ask the minister to reply. I will start from the beginning again since it was so difficult beginning at 10:30 last night. The Treasurer, in a very interesting contribution last night, explained that he is much freer to be a policy minister now than he was when he held his position two or three years ago. The issues he has to deal with are very similar to that time. In fact, my notes from the estimates of 1972 could well have been used as a guide to this contribution to the estimates debate.

I want to cite, in particular, the comments of the central Ontario lakeshore urban complex study group to the Treasurer because they suggest that the aims of provincial planning are not being carried out by the government and they suggest that planning in Ontario is in very serious straits indeed. I don’t want to go into it for long. The Treasurer himself, having been around for some time, is very familiar with the numerous abortive attempts at getting an Ontario plan. In fact, he is responsible in many cases for aborting those attempts. I believe it was this minister who killed the regional development councils. It was this minister when he came to office after the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White) who once again delayed the creation of a draft, or a concept of a scheme, of a proposed plan for Ontario which the Treasurer bad kept promising was around the corner. In fact, God knows what this particular minister intends in terms of an overall development plan for the Province of Ontario.

We in this party have stressed again and again the need to discourage and deflect growth from the “golden horseshoe” and to encourage growth in the north and east of the province in particular. We have simply seen no concrete measures from the government in order to implement it. What we have had since 1966 is the whole Design for Development programme.

The Design for Development has articulated and rephrased and rearticulated, again and again, a number of broad goals for the area dominated by Metropolitan Toronto. By implication, it has also spoken out about what the government wanted for the rest of the province. It has articulated, for example, the desire to steer growth to the east of the province. It has articulated a strategy of decentralization. It has served as one of the supports for a policy or an attempt at satellite towns. What has happened, however, has not been in accordance with the plan. I would say that the most recent developments, if anything, have completely undermined any effective efforts by the government at even implementing the Toronto-centred region plan.

Growth in the core of Toronto has continued unabated. The diversion of growth to the eastern sector has proven to be nothing hot a pipe-dream. Rather than take growth far to the east, the government has created a new town in Pickering which bids fair to become simply an extension of Metropolitan Toronto and whose municipal government, in fact, has been asking to be included within Metro.

The Ontario Housing Action Programme has been given such high priority by the cabinet that any criteria of regional planning have been thrown to the winds. The Ontario Housing Action Programme’s chief area of activity has been to the west of Metro rather than to the east of Metro -- at the wrong price in many cases; on prime agricultural land in many cases -- but it’s got such priority that planning has been thrown to the winds.

The government has announced two other new towns since Design for Development was well under way, but those new towns have both been located down in Haldimand-Norfolk, again to the south and west of Toronto and in an area which will tend to create a new industrial corridor along Lake Erie rather than helping to take growth up to the depressed nine-tenths of land area of the province in the north and the east of Ontario.

The government claimed that the Toronto-centred region plan was not specific enough to guide ministerial action and that something more detailed was required. As a consequence they set up the COLUC task force, which was directed to try and refine the concept of the Toronto region plan. When they refined it, though, the people who sat on it came up with some pretty severe criticisms and with some concepts which are themselves rather contradictory.

I must say they also rather abdicated their own responsibility. There’s a very curious quote at the very beginning of this document -- I’m sorry, I can’t find the quote. They say, in effect, that these are joint opinions but that none of them are responsible individually for the opinions that are expressed in the COLUC document. All the same, senior planners from the province and the regions that are involved are responsible for this, and, some time along the way, it is anticipated that this will either be accepted or rejected as policy by the government.

The inconsistencies between this document and what the government has been doing are rife. For example, on a superficial reading they have enormous difficulties in understanding what on earth is to be done with the regional municipality of Halton, because they say very clearly that Burlington and North Burlington should relate to the Hamilton urban core and that Oakville should relate to the Mississauga urban core. They have great difficulties in coping with Mississauga because they do not know whether the centre of Mississauga should be in Oakville, in Port Credit, in Mississauga, or in Malton and they wind up saying it should be in all of those places.

They don’t know whether the northern urban centre should be in Aurora, in Markham, in Woodbridge, or in Pickering and, in fact, on two adjoining pages they say it should be in two places. They suggest that the population of North Pickering should be 200,000 and that compares with the maximum population of only 90,000 which has been laid out by the Ministry of Housing’s planners.

They talk about growth to the east and yet their forecasts indicate that Oshawa-Pickering will have only one-sixth of the population of the Lakeshore region at maturity, as compared to one-third of the population which will be in the area to the west of Metro. They also point out that whatever the province’s good intentions, housing starts in the Mississauga area have been running at eight times the rate of housing starts in the Oshawa area, whereas if anybody was trying to change growth towards the east, the balance would at least have been, surely, more equal.

Mr. Chairman, I come again to some of the very serious questions which they raised, which they suggest may be irresolvable -- and these again are ministry planners. In the first place, they raise severe questions about whether you can have a reasonable kind of urban environment if you have eight million people. What they’re saying to this ministry and to the government is that the ministry has not come to grips with the overall problems of whether or not you limit or reduce the rate of population growth in the Toronto-centred region. You simply have to come to grips with that.

There is not, and there obviously should be, a structure and population plan for the province as a whole. If that plan existed then it would be better possible to assess whether the Toronto region’s ultimate population should be five million, six million or eight million. But that isn’t possible because the minister refusing to grasp the nettle in a plan for the province as a whole, and because the ministry is still reluctant to take any tough measures in order to restrain growth in the Lakeshore region and take it out to other parts of the province.

I’ve mentioned the problems about Mississauga and their doubts as to whether it can effectively function as a second urban border centre -- to use the planner’s language -- and the rather half-baked compromise of saying that Mississauga will exist, but it won’t be all together. There won’t be a downtown providing second order services, but they will be spread somewhere between Square One and the airport at Malton -- and you’ll have to drive around in order to find them. That’s a pretty inadequate kind of solution, but it again raises real problems about the way in which this is going to work.

Third, they are very worried about the dangers of over-rapid growth to the north. They say there is a need to move firmly in order to steer growth to the east of the province, and that firm move has simply not been made yet.

Fourth, they say there is a need not only to anticipate but also to encourage growth to the east. If there was unrestrained growth to maturity between Toronto and Hamilton, they say it would frustrate the stated goal of the province to move to the east and that there is a direct conflict between the COLUC plan and the Toronto-centred region plan and the way in which OHAP, the Housing Action Programme, is working out.

Next, they raise serious questions about whether the present policies are aimed in any way at moderating as well as channelling growth to the Toronto-centred region. They also raise the question as to whether North Pickering can avoid being a suburb of Toronto.

Mr. Chairman, when you look and see what they propose in specific terms, there again one wonders just what the government is doing, because it is so at odds with what is talked about in the COLUC proposal.

For example, they say that the government should be taking action in order to diversify industry in the Hamilton sub-region. I would be interested in having from the minister some statement as to what steps have been taken in order to implement that particular recommendation.

They are enormously concerned about the loss of agricultural land in the region. They suggest that Ontario may need 60 per cent of its food requirements to be imported by the year 2000. That’s very serious, and I say this to you, Mr. Chairman, since you come from a great agricultural riding. The fact is that if we have to beg for our food from other parts of the world, Ontario is going to be in a very difficult situation 30 or 40 years from now. Every step possible should be taken by this government in order to preserve prime agricultural land.

Something like one-eighth of Ontario’s prime farmland is here in the COLUC region; in the region in and around Toronto. It’s enough, say the planners, to feed a million people if we preserve it. But anybody who had driven around the region knows what’s actually been happening. People have been buying up good farmland and letting it lie fallow as they speculate on that land. It spreads all the way up into the northern parts of the chairman’s riding.

People who want nice country retreats have been buying 25- and 50-acre parcels, but they don’t like to have cows or crops on them. So, bit after bit, piece after piece, hind is being taken out of production. The drainage is being disrupted and the care of the land is being destroyed. Fences are coming down, barns and other infrastructure are being converted to other uses or being taken down, etc. It may be incredibly difficult to restore enough common ownership of that farmland in order that it can be efficiently and economically farmed. It’s going to be difficult to restore all of the capacity, if we ever manage to do so.

The minister is aware of the problems. His problem is that he and the government will not act in order to preserve the farmland of the province. I’ll just read a quotation from the report on the question of the land, Mr. Chairman. Here we are:

“The threat to the land is real if population in the planning area is carelessly located or if population levels are allowed to rise excessively, these values [the recreational values, the agricultural values and all the rest of it] could be lost or seriously impaired. If land in the COLUC planning area is seen only as a platform for urbanization and industrialization the loss to the province in the area will be a grievous one.”

That’s what the province’s own planners have said in their recommendation to the government.

They are very concerned but there is no real urgency about land and the loss of farmland as far as the government is concerned. There are some words in the Throne Speech. There’s no action. What’s happening in the meantime?

I could point out one specific thing which comes off my head -- the extension of the Don Valley Parkway north to the east side of Lake Simcoe which thereby opens up for urban and ex-urban development a new area north of Markham and Woodbridge. It violates this plan, violates the Toronto-centred region plan and will take thousands upon thousands of valuable farm acres out of production. That’s a result of the uncoordinated policies of the government.

Mr. Chairman, in the report they ask, “Will our plan achieve advantageous results?” They say, “Yes. It’s going to be tough but it’s worth the effort.” And we agree with them.

Secondly they ask, if such a plan as theirs is achievable. Is it possible to slow down the rate of growth and so on? The report says, “It must be said candidly that some members of the task force doubt it.”

They see the strong commitment needed to realize the “go east” policy; to restrain excessive westward and northward growth in the face of heavy current pressures; to maintain balance and design in the development of the system as a whole and of its constituent communities; to make the heavy front-end investments which may be needed to create the necessary transportation system. They see also the occurrences since 1970 which have weakened the Toronto-centred region concept already. Their scepticism is understandable.

They are also worried that immediate housing needs and specific needs and aspirations of individual regions or localities will torpedo the plan.

The planners work for the government. It’s very difficult for them to say outright, “We think you are blowing it.” But as far as they can go, they have come as close as possible to saying to you, Mr. Treasurer, and to your government, you are blowing it. It just isn’t working. You are not working effectively as a planner. With all the time you have now to be a policy minister you had better start to get cracking on this or else your children and my children and our children’s children are going to pay the consequences in terms of congestion, in terms of sprawl, in terms of all the other things the whole planning exercise was intended to avoid.

They talk about a number of things such as the central York servicing scheme; the Housing Action Programme; the GO service to Georgetown; the new municipal boundaries; the Barrie commuter service -- which violated the Toronto-centred region plan -- not to mention the location of North Pickering. At the same time they say, and I quote again:

“It must be said that in four years little has been done to give substance to the “go east” policy except to the extent that North Pickering, still in the planning stage, still does so. [Finally] It must be clearly understood that if all or most of the planning issues are resolved in favour of short-term pragmatic planning or the particular needs of the moment, the prospect of implementing the TCR concept will diminish to the vanishing point.

“We stress the need for a real commitment to the concept because without it the present nominal allegiance to TCR policy [pretty tough words from a civil service task force] is a mere and increasingly flimsy pretence that in the interests of all concerned would be better to be dispensed with. The government of Ontario is in fact now faced with a major decision to reaffirm the TCR policy or to abandon it.”

Mr. Chairman, they say finally that they have identified the issues and some of them are very fundamental. They have to be resolved at the policy level. There is a clear indication, they say, that cabinet sanction will be required before the report can have any status at all.

There has been the commitment by the Treasurer that this report will have public scrutiny. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, now that we are facing an election in which regional development is going to be an important issue as far as we in this party are concerned, we need some pretty clear commitments from the government. This is the occasion on which the Treasurer can speak out and, having foregone the Toronto-centred region plan, torpedoed it consistently year after year and taken step after step -- this minister, his predecessor and his government -- to facilitate and encourage growth to the west of Metro and to continue that tremendous, overbearing concentration of growth in one small region of the province, and say whether there is now a commitment that he is going to turn his back on all of that and is going to bring economic opportunities to the east and make the Toronto-centred region plan work; make growth possible in the east and north of the province. Or will he, on the contrary, take heed of the words of the COLUC task force and admit he has blown it and simply abandon the Toronto-centred region concept. Then we can wipe the slate clean and start from scratch.

I would like to have that commitment. I would like to have some kind of evidence that the minister means it. I don’t know what he can offer, Mr. Chairman, but I have to say that we in this party are increasingly concerned at the fact that the growth trends of the province have been allowed to continue almost unabated in the hands of this government and that what it has been doing has been mainly to facilitate the growth, rather than change its direction. As a consequence, vast areas of this province are suffering from the way in which this chief planner and his predecessors have been carrying out their responsibilities.

Mr. Chairman: Is vote 1001 carried?

Mr. Cassidy: Maybe the minister can reply. I was proposing to have this debate on this particular vote, in view of the fact that we may well not get back to the vote on planning, which is maybe several hours away.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I indicated that I would deal with these matters, such as regional development, under the appropriate votes.

Mr. Chairman: Most of the matters that you are dealing with come up under vote 1004 anyway.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I just bring to the minister’s attention that the reason we are on his estimates at all is that we are waiting for reports from the committee. I suspect that the government will not give this committee of supply one second of extra time, once the reports come up from the committee and we are able to finish the legislation that is on the order paper.

In view of the impending election, which we are told may come as early as September, it seems to me that it is important that the minister seek to reply now to the points that have been made, which are substantive criticisms, rather than leaving it in limbo and never bothering even to try. That’s a very real possibility if he waits until a relevant vote.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chairman, I take it the ministry central office contains the main staff of the Treasury. What would the approximate complement be of staff in what we classify as the ministry central office? Does the minister have those figures offhand?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: About 26. That’s the minister’s office, the deputy minister’s office, and the Minister without Portfolio’s office. The minister’s office and the deputy minister’s office in Treasury have been run as one office since the ministries were brought together with a coordinator really running the whole show. So the minister’s office, the deputy minister’s office, the office of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Beckett), previously the parliamentary assistant, and the office of the women’s coordinator are all included in the ministry central office.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1001 carry?

Vote 1001 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any discussion on the Ontario Economic Council?

On vote 1002:

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a couple of questions of the Treasurer with respect to this particular item. We realize that there is much restructuring and reorganization going on as these programmes are being developed and that economic disparity continues to be a grave matter of concern for all of us in the province. I am wondering if the minister can advise of any particular studies or programmes which are now under way with respect to development in the less fortunate and slower growth areas, rather than having the continuing growing into the Toronto-centred region or the “golden horseshoe” area of the various projects and developments which we consistently see.

We’re concerned, of course, with the unemployment rate naturally, and the unfortunate increase in it, and surely studies and work by the Economic Council might be of assistance as we attempt to keep people and encourage people to remain in their own communities because of the appointment and the availability to jobs and of jobs within their own home towns. I’m wondering if the minister can give us any advice as to the current activities of the council with regard to this economic disparity matter.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could refer the member to the annual report for 1974-1975, which I tabled several weeks ago here in the House and which has a section on not only what they have done but also what they are doing and proposing to do.

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, I seem not to have received a copy of that item, so I will attend to that on my own then, Mr. Treasurer, unless you wish to make any general comments.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will, and put it on the record. They have a number of research projects under way, reflecting two basic themes -- the size, growth and effectiveness of public expenditure programmes and the distribution of personal income.

Specifically, this includes the following topics -- and I’m coming to the answer to the member’s question, but I do want to make a comment -- there is the whole question of health services; of urban affairs; of education and manpower; social services and transfers of national independence; of northern development specifically, and under northern development the topics that the council feels warrant particular priority, the targets and instruments of regional policies, the role of transportation, its availability and cost in the development of northern Ontario, the impact of government spending and taxation on the economy of northern Ontario, the study or studies of individual industries of importance to northern Ontario. The council has actually divided itself into six committees under those headings and is undertaking research in each of those areas.

With respect to northern Ontario, two weeks ago the council took a tour of part of northern Ontario, including Thunder Bay, Dryden, Kenora, Kapuskasing, Moosonee -- mainly northwestern Ontario, as I recall -- and were gone for nearly a week looking first-hand at some of the problems. Some of the members of the council just simply weren’t familiar with northern Ontario problems. I had a very interesting verbal commentary on what they saw and what they learned. I think that is an area of particular priority to them.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1002 carry?

Vote 1002 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1003, central statistical services, carried?

Vote 1003 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1004. I believe it was at this point that the hon. minister was going to answer the questions raised by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

On vote 1004:

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Specifically on the automobile industry, Mr. Chairman, I think this is the area where we might well discuss that. I think the hon. member overlooks certain facts in his questions today. The Ontario government obviously does not have it within its power to do something about the differential in car prices between Canada and the United States. Surely, if there is a subject which is germane to the activities of the government of Canada, that’s it.

The hon. member did say, of course, that we had the power of price review -- I suppose price control. We have no intention of moving into the area of price control in terms of automobile products. I state that unequivocally. We are certainly not about to get into that area. The member overlooks the fact that if the auto pact was functioning as it should be functioning, then it is a two-way street and it doesn’t matter whether cars are built in Canada or built in the United States or whether parts are built in Canada or the United States. Presumably there is an overall balance.

A very discouraging matter which is brought to our attention is that although Canadian sales are good, our export sales are not; the picture in terms of automotive parts is particularly depressing. This year we will probably have a balance of payments deficit of about $1.4 billion in terms of the automotive pact, which will be an increase from $1.2 billion, and most of it will be in parts; in fact, as I recall, the figure for parts is higher and there is a surplus for finished vehicles. I am not positive of that, but the overall result is what concerns us, the $1.4 billion.

Although the parts people make a particular case, which is a good one, that employment over the past few years has declined substantially in the parts industry, it really isn’t or shouldn’t be a matter of concern if, as I say, the pact were functioning properly, where in North America the car is actually produced.

Aside from the very devastating effects in terms of inflation, in terms of cost and in terms of jobs lost resulting from the increases in federal taxation and the increases in wellhead prices of petroleum and natural gas, we are also concerned that again the somewhat larger Canadian- and American-built cars will be at a disadvantage against imports, which are snore fuel-efficient. Undoubtedly Canadian and American manufacturers over the years will switch to smaller and more fuel-efficient cars; they have not yet done so in sufficient quantities. Certainly one of the indirect results of the moves made by the federal government on July 7 in many ways will be to stimulate imports, which many people will see as a way of avoiding or reducing the impact of the very high energy taxes placed on July 7 and effected by the government of Canada in previous actions in terms of wellhead prices of oil over the last year’s period. I don’t think I can add anything more to that at this moment.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s all very well, and we are concerned about balance of payments deficits in terms of cars and so on too, but the question I am raising is whether, as an economic stimulant, the measure taken by the Treasurer will be effective in terms of the Ontario economy and whether it is an effective use of Ontario tax resources.

The minister well knows that he can spend money, he can cut taxes -- there are a number of different ways in which he can move to try to stimulate the economy. We have a very strong feeling that if he had taken that $24 million and put it into housing, into shelter, he would have helped to contribute to meeting a very urgent need and he would have created far more jobs within the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Chairman, even the Treasurer cannot singlehandedly rescue the American automobile industry. Yet when he points out that we are all interrelated as a result of the auto pact, he is admitting that any economic stimulants by this province, which is only a part of Canada and is very small in relation to the North American automobile market, can only have a very small impact on the industry as a whole.

I am sure that the governor of Michigan and the people in other auto-producing states are delighted that a few thousand extra cars will be made in their states as a result of the tax remission which is being provided within Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: Will any extra actually be made? They’ll just clear out their inventories.

Mr. Cassidy: No, I am not worrying about that. If you take a car out of inventory, it has got to be replaced. I don’t agree with that.

Let’s get this straight, though. The minister began, not by saying that he wanted to help automobile sales generally but by saying he wanted to stimulate the Ontario economy. As a consequence, he specifically excluded automobiles that were made outside of North America -- the imports or the non-North American cars. The principle that he was not trying to help the automobile industry generally, but a specific sector of the automobile industry, has been acknowledged by the minister already in his mini-budget. It is looking at the effectiveness of that for Ontario we come down to this estimate that of the 14,000 or so extra cars which may be sold in this province in six months as a result of the minister’s remission only 5,000 or so will be made in Ontario. The cost of getting 5,000 extra cars built in this province is about $5,000 per car.

I wasn’t able to establish this morning how many man-months of work you get with the production of each automobile but it would seem to me there were a lot of other ways in which you can use some seed money from the provincial government in order to stimulate private spending or private investment which would be much more effective in creating jobs than what the minister has put forward.

Let me put a couple of other figures on the record. First, the minister himself says he doesn’t have -- or else he won’t give -- an estimate of what the impact will be. That, surely, is a bit surprising. Surely, if this was an economic move rather than a political move the government would have had some estimate of what the impact would be.

Secondly, and of rather more concern, Mr. Chairman, is that the estimates of the cost of this measure are based on second-half sales in 1975 of 143,000 automobiles. That’s at an average saving of $175 per car. It happens that car sales -- North American cars in Ontario -- 150,665, I think it was, according to the R. L. Polk figures which are used in the industry.

I don’t know how many Lincolns and non-eligible Cadillacs were in that total but the minister’s estimates still indicate that in the second half of this year there will be a decline in car sales from 1974 and that they will be running at approximately the same rate below last year as they were running in the first half of 1975. If I can pursue that a bit further that would suggest there may be no economic impact at all and no increase in car sales at all in this province in the second half of the year over what would have been achieved anyway.

I know I am extending it a bit far and we are just working with numbers here right now but that’s what the minister’s figures indicate. They indicate no economic impact at all. Whether it is that or whether the Ford figures are correct -- that it is costing us $5,000 for each additional new car made in the province -- it is a pretty lousy way to stimulate the economy. There are lots of other ways in which you could have gone.

The third thing, Mr. Chairman, is that the question of differentials is something that, for inexplicable reasons, the federal government has balked at year after year after year. It simply hasn’t come to grips with it. When you look at the cost it’s enormous.

At 6.5 per cent, which is the UAW’s estimate of the differential, after taxes and disregarding the different tax structures in Canada and the States, we are now talking of a sum of about $300 per North American automobile sold in this country. Since car sales in Canada run at about 900,000 per annum, we are talking of something over half a billion dollars cost annually to Canadian consumers because of the differential.

When you come to Ontario, which has 35 per cent of the Canadian car market, you are talking of one-third of that figure. You are talking of something between $150 million and $200 million every year which is paid out by the Ontario car purchaser because of the differential. It is a completely inexplicable differential, Mr. Chairman.

You have to ask yourself what are the extra costs of doing business in this province, for example? There is the French material, the French manuals and the French training. That’s the one which always comes along but what is the cost of bilingualism to the entire Province of Ontario? The cost of those bilingual things can’t be more than $10 or $15 per automobile sold in this province. It is certainly no more than that.

There are certain problems of distance, but the major problem of distance is the freighting of the car to the purchaser. As the minister well knows, the purchaser pays the freight when he picks up his car, so that a car bought in Moosonee costs that much more than a car bought in Oakville or on Danforth Ave.

We say that Ontario has powers of price review, that in certain areas such as energy and now oil, Ontario admits and owns up to the power of price review and is using it, that this differential is such an unconscionable rip-off on the consumers of Ontario that the government should step in and force the automobile companies to justify the differential they are charging to the Ontario consumer. If you look at the profit figures, Mr. Chairman, you will find that while Ford and GM and Chrysler have been taking a bath down in the United States, their Canadian subsidiaries have been doing very well, thank you. In fact last year, Ford of Canada profits were at a record. GM didn’t do quite so well but theirs were still pretty handsome.

There is a lot of money being taken from Canadian consumers and we ask whether this government stands behind the consumer or whether it’s willing to protect the consumer. If this minister wanted to stimulate the Ontario automobile economy on a permanent long-term basis, then surely the best thing he could have done would have been to go and sit down with the car companies, ask them what they were doing, make them justify the 6.5 per cent differential and get them to agree to a programme so that between now and, say, 18 months from now, the differential would have been either eliminated entirely or cut down to one or 1.15 per cent, whatever the real additional cost may be of doing business in Canada, if any such additional cost actually exists.

In return for that particular kind of commitment, then it might have been legitimate to turn to the car companies and say: “Okay, we will give you guys a hand here in Canada, and also some of your American manufacturing plants, by giving you a break on the sales tax.” But there is going to be no long-term impact on the consumer from the measure taken by the government, and that’s a pity. I would be interested in the minister’s reply to those points.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated already, the matter of the price differential is something which will have to be looked at by Ottawa rather than by this government.

Mr. Cassidy: You have responsibility too.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s the member’s opinion.

Mr. Cassidy: It certainly is.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member would balkanize Canada by having price reviews all over the place, and that’s not the attitude of this government.

Mr. Cassidy: Not at all. It happens in many provinces.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s not the attitude of this government at all. I am not going to comment on the numbers game which the member wants me to get into at some length. I will leave it at this -- we think that production in the second half viii be better than production in the first half, and I will leave it at that. Obviously, if we can stimulate greater Canadian demand in the second half, then we are doing something to meet the hoped-for greater demand in the second half, and particularly in 1976 as the American economy picks up. It may well be that we will take some Canadian sales from 1976 into 1975, but if at the same time American sales are picking up in the first half of 1976, then the two things will balance out. That’s what we have been attempting to do from the April 7 budget on, and this is a further refinement of it.

I would, of course, point out -- as I have on other occasions to this particular member -- that there’s a philosophical difference here. The member likes to say, with a great oversimplification of figures -- he himself even says that he is reaching -- that this is costing $5,000 a car. What the member can’t get through his head, and I say this in all sincerity and all charity, is that we on this side happen to think that there’s some merit in leaving money in the consumer’s pocket so he can decide what he wants to do with it himself, and if the consumer is saving $150 or $175 on each car, he will spend that money. I know the member would have us go out on larger and bigger and more bureaucratic spending programmes. That’s his philosophy; it isn’t mine.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, can I ask the minister about assessing the economy and so forth and bringing in the sales tax rebate on ears? Of course, being from an automotive industry centre and closely involved in it, of course we like to keep ear sales moving. I have read on a number of occasions in the last few months that the market for appliances, refrigerators, washing machines and so forth has apparently fallen off a great deal. What did you find out in assessing that? Would lower starts in housing have some bearing on the sales of appliances? I assume they would. Or, did you study that particular area of concern? I class them as essential goods pretty well -- refrigerators, washing machines, freezers and household goods. Did you find any slowing down of manufacturing in that area? Did you find anything in that when you were assessing the general economic situation?

Of course, the difference between the price of ears in Canada and the United States has been a matter of concern for some time. There is an odd situation, though, in car sales in Canada and the United States. Living so close to the American border, I have friends over there. I was talking the other day to a man who traded in a 1972 model car on a new 1975 model, and he had paid $3,800 as the difference between cars. He was visiting a neighbour across the road from me, and the neighbour had bought a 1975 model and traded his 1972 model in on it, and he had paid $3,200 as the difference. The one man had been paid less money for the trade-in in Canada than in the US.

In the United States their motto always has been that when a car is used, sell it cheap and get rid of it. They have a tendency to do that. They get a toaster, and if it breaks down in two years they throw it away and buy a new one, because toasters are cheap enough that they can do that. We’re probably tending somewhat to that way here, too.

But I was wondering about other things in the economy and the slowdown in manufacturing. The one that I’ve read about is appliances. I wonder if the minister, in assessing the economic situation, did look into that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, yes, certainly in the look at the economy that we did before the budget, and the look at the economy which we have been doing since, there’s no question that we’ve got some very serious problems in some of the industries which the member mentions. There is the television industry, the consumer durable goods industry -- refrigerators and washing machines, carpeting and curtains. A lot of those things are directly related to the housing area.

Of course, we expect and hope this is one of the spinoffs from the $1,500 homeowner grant, or $1,000 in the first year. If they already have the down payment, fine and dandy, they’ll go out and spend that $1,000 on a new refrigerator and a new stove, rather than making do with the old one. We think there’s some indication that this is what has happened or is happening. But there’s no question that appliances are among the worst hit of the Canadian domestic industries.

Having said that some of this is attributable to the housing industry generally, I also have to add that there are roots to the problem which are more serious than that. They are very definitely the problems related to our competitive position in the world. Television is the obvious example. In the riding of my friend, the member for Kitchener, Electrohome Ltd. is living proof of this -- the very serious problems it is having with imported television sets coming in from lower-wage-rate countries of the world. It is making life very difficult indeed for Canadian manufacturers and for the employees of those firms. It is true in a number of other areas as well.

We’re now into the whole question of domestic inflation, and what domestic inflation is already doing in a small way, perhaps, in terms of not only our export-oriented businesses but other businesses as well, such as the applicable industry, which is suffering right here at home, not just in export sales.

It’s a very large question of our competitive position, of our productivity, of the relationship of our wage and salary rates to those of our competition throughout the world -- and particularly to our competition in the United States, just 20 miles away from my friend’s home.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not getting through to the minister, but I’ll at least try once again.

I recall that about 10 years ago a very successful measure for stimulating the Canadian economy was introduced by the federal government of the day. That was back in the days when people didn’t build houses in the winter very much. It was thought that was a difficult kind of thing to do, and housing starts traditionally, were always low in the winter as a consequence.

The government of the day introduced, for two or three winters I think it was, a $500 winter house-building bonus. If you bought a house that was begun during the months of December or March I suppose, then you got an extra $500. The builders used that as a marketing device; it stimulated them to look into means of getting housing started in the winter.

The increase in housing starts was really quite extraordinary. There was a shift in the balance of the industry from concentrating all of its activity in the summer to more even employment the year round; there were savings to the government in unemployment insurance and that kind of thing; there was a better flow of labour -- the whole bit.

The cost of getting those extra houses built in the winter was $500 per house; since maybe half of the houses would have been started in winter anyway, it was equal to about $1,000 for each house, which was probably worth $18,000 or $20,000. A small amount of government money, applied strategically at the right place, was enormously effective in terms of achieving several aims of federal government economic policy, and the cost to the treasury was relatively small compared to the impact on the economy.

Compare this with the measures taken by the Treasurer. In order to achieve an increase in production in Ontario of around 5,000 cars in this half year, he is laying out a sum that is equivalent to about $5,000 for each additional car produced. That is rather like having the federal government back in the 1960s lay out $20,000 for each additional home begun in the winter, rather than $1,000.

The federal government with that winter house-building programme was able to use a leverage and put in money equal to about five per cent of the value of the economic activity it stimulated. In the case of this particular ministry, the Treasurer has come up with a programme where every dime of additional stimulus to the economy in car production is being taken out of the pockets of taxpayers; there is absolutely nothing coming from the private sector at all. That is why we object and just wonder whether this whole thing couldn’t have been thought through more carefully and whether the Treasurer shouldn’t have looked less to the political sex appeal and more to the economic efficacy of what he was doing. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we simply are not convinced this measure is particularly effective economically.

On the other point, it is no good the Treasurer saying he disagrees with us in ideology and therefore won’t look at the differential. The public will judge about that $150 million to $200 million that is going out every year to GM, Ford, American Motors and Chrysler because of the differential in prices between Ontario and the United States. They will judge as to whether the Ontario government shouldn’t express some concern or some desire to protect the consumers.

If the government can be critical of the federal government about so many other things, it seems to me that the government surely can move in and act here or it can press the federal government to act. Or else it can use its acknowledged powers of economic analysis in order to see what composes that differential, and how much of it is justified and how much is not, in order to shame the companies into giving a square deal to the Ontario consumers. There are any number of ways in which the Treasurer could have acted on the differential, instead of which he has come in with a policy which frankly looks weaker and weaker the more we look at it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 2 carry?

Mr. Cassidy: When can I talk about energy?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Item 2?

Mr. Chairman: Well, we are on vote 1004. I presume item 1 has passed; now we are on item 2.

Mr. Breithaupt: There may be a number of other items that might come up, although I have none with respect to programme administration as such, if you wish to have that item carry.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I’ll call it item 1 then. Item 2.

Mr. Stokes: Item 2 deals with the Ontario Economic Council, does it not?

Mr. Chairman: It deals with the state of the economy; energy and the economy; and the automotive industry. Those three items are under it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It also has to do with the Economic Council. We’re on vote 1004.

Mr. Chairman: Right. Will item 2 carry then?

Agreed.

Mr. Chairman: On vote 1004, item 3 -- federal-provincial relations, interprovincial relations; Ontario-Quebec permanent commission and the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee -- is there anything on this item?

The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I think a few words regarding certain matters that were part of the Economic Council’s latest report could be worked in here. We can work it in under municipal-provincial relationships. It has to do with the need for financial data to be made available at the times when there has been restructuring of local governments.

This has been one of the major concerns of people at the municipal level and people in the opposition parties over the past number of years when there have been restructurings going on at the municipal level with the formation of regional governments and the formation of restructured county governments. As the minister knows, there are a good many municipalities presently undergoing preliminary studies relating to the restructuring of municipal governments across the Province of Ontario.

I don’t want to take too much time on this, but one of the major recommendations deals with the pending reviews of governments and the possible future feasibility studies of regional governments. The report says:

An analysis of the issues surrounding political structure at the local level suggests that the economic aspects of restructuring are very important.

In preparing this report, the Economic Council goes out of its way to say that it feels, by and large and in all instances, the economic aspects of the whole matter of municipal government have been sadly neglected in the detail and the data made available for restructuring of the government.

Further, they go on to point out that much of the data perhaps isn’t available. Much of it could be produced at certain costs, but the province has always seen fit not to provide the necessary funds to produce the data that is required before a complete understanding can be had by the local municipalities of what the implications will be about the restructuring. Certainly this was true in our own area, in the Waterloo region. We asked why studies weren’t made into the financial implications at the time.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I don’t mean to interrupt, but that particular report of the Ontario Economic Council, as I recall, was not talking about projected local government costs. It was talking about the inadequacy, in their view -- and I would not necessarily agree with that -- of existing municipal statistics. I don’t think it was drawing reference to what the member is talking about, which is projecting municipal costs after restructuring.

Mr. Good: All right, maybe I don’t understand this properly then and the minister can help me. The report says:

“It is, therefore, recommended that in the future reviews of existing local government structure should allocate considerably more resources to exploring and analysing the economic issues relating to alterations in political structures.”

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You’re talking about two different reports.

Mr. Good: This is February, 1975. It has just been received within the last week or so. This was an important point, which I think has been sadly neglected in the past. They go on to say:

“Finally, it is apparent that data pertaining to municipalities and their activities prior to reorganization are difficult to find and gain access to. If effective monitoring and evaluation of changes in political structures are to be carried out, it is important that all past data be made available to the public.”

They go on at some length to state that the financial implications have been sadly neglected in the past.

I spoke to the mayor of one of the cities in our own region quite recently -- not my own city -- and it was indicated to me that the financial implications of this were certainly not foreseen at the time the regional government was instituted. The plea was:

“If we could only go back to square one and start over again, maybe we could do things quite differently.

I think, coupled with this, the province has to recognize the need for review of these restructured governments, as has been indicated in the Niagara region. I think in the future an important part of restructuring of governments at the local level, whatever form they may take, has to be a better compilation of facts and the availability of statistics.

In our own case in the Waterloo region, Mr. Chairman, the statistical information was basically there because we had just completed the Waterloo-South Wellington review in the area and much of the statistical information was available; but additional sums to bring it out and implement it were not forthcoming from the government. It appeared to be a direct policy of government at that time that the people should not know, nor should any attempt be made by anyone to find out, what are the future financial implications when there is restructuring. I bring this out because I think that is very important.

In the same report the council points out the tremendous need -- I guess we have passed the section dealing with the Ontario statistical centre -- if we are going to keep proper relations between the province and municipalities, the tremendous need for better statistics to be available to the municipality and the province.

They are critical of the blue book which gives facts and figures which are no basis, in some instances I suppose, for a common method of compiling statistics. While the need for statistics perhaps is overplayed in some instances, I think they can be a very great asset to municipalities in plotting their future paths if they relate them to costs which have been established during the past.

That was the one item under this particular vote, Mr. Chairman, that I wanted to say a few words about.

The other thing is to say briefly that I think the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee has made great inroads in the area of helping to chart its own path as far as the province is concerned. Unfortunately I haven’t attended as many meetings as I would have liked but I believe the fact that ministers are available and can be questioned by the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee is good.

They have access to information which I think should be made more widely available, especially to members in the Legislature when there are issues being discussed. I know it’s our own fault if we don’t get there to listen to the discussions but when the House does sit sometimes at the same time it’s difficult.

I think we have to continue this liaison with the committee; and while the structure of it perhaps is such that it can’t speak for all of the municipalities, I’m certain there is a broad cross-section of opinion expressed by the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee to government. I hope the government heeds what it says and takes action on many of its recommendations.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one comment. I’d forgotten I’d read that report of the Economic Council; we have it before us now. With the greatest of respect to the three authors of it, they are essentially statisticians, statistics gatherers. One of the great tendencies of a lot of people is to collect figures and do nothing with them. We want to be very sure that figures are being collected for a worthwhile purpose. I make that general observation.

The other point that I would make in reply to my friend is that -- and I had forgotten that criticism was there -- the figures were all available as to the past history of the municipality, say in Waterloo. What the government will not do and has no intention of doing is prejudging or in some way predetermining in projections what the newly elected council or councils are going to do with the resources which are provided to them.

I’m not going to put my head out on a limb, nor is any minister responsible for restructuring government, and say that if this happens and that happens the tax rate next year is going to be 100 mills and will produce X number of dollars, because you are then completely prejudging what the local councils which are elected to spend that money are doing. We’ve had this discussion before. We are not going to put local government, new or old, in that kind of a straitjacket.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, just to take it one step further, that may be what you think is a very solid position to take, that you are not going to prejudge what local councils are going to do. But the fact of reality simply is that neither the people nor the local council realize the implications of their restructuring.

Just a few examples: Let me state that no one realizes what the implications are of the debenture debts on the sewage and water systems across the region. That is never projected. It’s never shown what effect it is going to have on the various area municipalities when they come into the new structure, or what effect it will have on those areas with low debenture debt compared with those areas with high debenture debts; that is what the levelling off will be.

The implications of the regional road systems are never fully projected as to what they might be and how they might affect the area governments in the future.

I agree that you can’t tell the municipal councils what to do in the future, but you know what the basic projections would be --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not necessarily.

Mr. Good: -- when it comes to establishing the present financial condition and how that will be affected under the restructured governments. People in the new restructured governments don’t have a clue that they are going to share the former debts. They think that from here on we ate going to share our problems and our debts in the future.

These things could certainly be projected without committing the governments of the time. It was a very few months before it was ascertained what the system would be as far as the sewage and water works were concerned, what the regional road system would be, and the debenture debt on certain other things within the region.

These things could have been tabulated and they could be projected. I think this is the type of information they should have. Everybody walks into a restructuring quite oblivious of the fact that these things are going to have a direct effect in the future. I think there could be much more attention given to those known items, those things which are available at the time, and projections made as to what their effect will be, irrespective of what the actions of regional councils are in the future.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I want to pursue just one step further something I had started with the minister last night, with regard to the restructuring of his ministry, how he felt it was working and I --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we can get back on the track, as you suggested?

Mr. Stokes: I am going to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Are you?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Great stuff.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, and I want to thank him for his remarks last night, because it gave me a better insight; but I want to get into the office of economic policy, vote 1004, item 2.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Okay, right on.

Mr. Stokes: The programme description states:

“The monitoring and analysis of short and long-term economic activity; the research and development of economic policy; the co-ordination of macro-economic policy [whatever that is] and technical liaison with other governments on matters relating to economic policy.”

I missed my opportunity during the vote on the Ontario Economic Council, so I am going to take advantage of this vote to sort of highlight and to pinpoint some of the observations I made last night. During the recent tour of the Ontario Economic Council through the north, where they wanted to get some insight into the kinds of problems that people were experiencing in northwestern Ontario as a result of some rather rapid change and rapid developments in the resource-based economy of northwestern Ontario.

This ministry has the responsibility for economic development and the formulation of plans such as Design for Development:

Phase 3 for Northwestern Ontario. I am sure the minister is well aware of the apprehensions that have been expressed by people in northwestern Ontario about the appropriateness of using Design for Development: Phase 3 for Northwestern Ontario, which was based on premises that were quite valid in 1968, 1969 and 1970.

Because of the rapid changes and the rapid growth in the resource sector, particularly mining and forestry resources, obviously we must have at the very least an amended version of Design for Development and a brand-new emphasis based on what we know of the growth and the development of the resource sector in northern Ontario, particularly northwestern Ontario, since that is the only area in the north where you have accepted Design for Development as government policy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t want to interrupt, but if we are going to follow this sequence, I guess I am. The Chairman indicated we were talking about vote 1004, item 3, which is federal-provincial relations, interprovincial relations, the Ontario-Quebec Permanent Commission and the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee.

Mr. Stokes: I thought we were talking about vote 1004, item 2.

Mr. Chairman: No, we had finished that.

Mr. Stokes: Okay, I will give a budget speech on it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Wait until vote 1006.

Mr. Chairman: There is an item later, I say to the hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: His comments would come under vote 1006.

Mr. Chairman: Right. Shall vote 1004, item 3, carry?

Vote 1004 agreed to.

On vote 1005:

Mr. Chairman: Item 1, programme administration. Shall this carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. Vote 1005, item 1?

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1005, item 1. Shall this carry? Carried.

Item 2, debentures planning? Carried.

Item 3, fiscal policy. Shall this item carry?

Mr. Cassidy: On vote 1005, item 3, Mr. Chairman, I want to raise some matters regarding property tax reform and market value assessment. It’s rare that we actually get to the responsible minister for this area because of the division between the Ministry of Revenue and the --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): There is no responsible minister.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, maybe there is no responsible minister, because of the division between the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) and the Treasurer. One is always prone to talk to the Minister of Revenue and eventually he reveals himself as a eunuch. Is he here? No; but I assure the House that’s true.

Mr. Laughren: It is.

Mr. Cassidy: Anyway, there is a serious problem that has been created by the continued delays in the market value assessment programme as far as owners of condominiums are concerned. In Ottawa at the present time, there are about 20 condominiums whose owners are getting together and appealing to the assessment tribunals in order to get a better, more reasonable kind of treatment on the assessment of their condominium apartments. Their lawyers, who I think include the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy), have unfortunately had to tell them that their prospects for getting anywhere in the assessment review process are minimal. The reason for that is that the condominiums they live in are to be compared, in terms of assessments, only against comparable property.

The minister or his advisers can give the details of how that works, but effectively what it means is that at this time one condominium is being valued for assessment purposes against another condominium and against another condominium, and they are all being over-assessed as against residential property of other sorts and kinds.

To give a specific example, I have a friend who has a small, three-bedroom condominium. Her pay is probably not more than $10,000 or $11,000 a year. One of her children is handicapped. It hasn’t got any of the kinds of amenities you find in a normal, old-fashioned kind of house close to the ground. She is a single-parent mother and her property taxes on that condominium amount to about $700 a year on a property which probably cost $25,000 to buy a year or so ago. That tax is twice as much as the tax on many residential properties within the city of Ottawa on properties which may be worth many times more than that particular property.

There is a real disparity which has come up, Mr. Chairman, and which obviously extends not just to Ottawa but across the province, where you get $30,000 and $40,000 condominiums which are being assessed at the same rate as $50,000 and $60,000 and $70,000 homes, It’s really inequitable and it’s really frustrating the purposes of the condominium programme as it was introduced by the province a few years ago. I think it is sufficiently gross and sufficiently inequitable that whatever the progress of the market value assessment programme, the minister should step in and, as a matter of policy, either should come up with new values for assessing condominiums or some other means of getting people out of this I am.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, that is the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue, not myself. He is responsible for assessment in the province. If there is an error in the assessment, then no doubt you would want to question him during his estimates. I would only make this comment, that right across this province, I would think, practically in every municipality, except those municipalities which have been reassessed in the last four or five years -- such areas as Peel, parts of my own county, Grey-Bruce, where it wouldn’t be much of a factor, and Pickering, but certainly in Metropolitan Toronto generally -- there is no question that apartment buildings, and I suppose those apartment buildings which have been converted to condominiums, are substantially over-assessed.

I don’t know what the ratios are now, but at one point in time residential units in many municipalities, Toronto perhaps being a case in point -- this goes back four or five years but I think the relative relationship is about the same -- were being assessed at about 20 per cent of value, commercial and industrial property roughly at 30 per cent of value and apartment buildings at 40 per cent of value. You had people living in apartment houses paying through their landlords twice as much in many instances in terms of market value assessment, had it been applied, as those people living in single-family homes. I suppose what the member is talking about is simply an extension of that into high-rise condominiums.

Mr. Cassidy: That is correct. I’m just saying the continued delays of the market value assessment programme -- I’ll talk about that in a moment -- have created a continuing series of inequities.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The delays in the market value assessment programme are something which should be directed toward the Minister of Revenue in his estimates rather than in mine.

Mr. Cassidy: No, Mr. Chairman. Somebody has got to be responsible over there. The Minister of Revenue says the Treasurer is responsible for assessment policy generally. Not only is the policy of market value assessment presumably laid down by the Treasurer, but also the timing is laid down by the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m responsible for taxation policy but not assessment policy. If these buildings are over-assessed and if there is a delay in market value reassessment, then obviously, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that is a matter for the Minister of Revenue. I’m not responsible for the delay. It’s my colleague, the Minister of Revenue, not I.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the whole property tax reform programme emanated from this ministry to begin with.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, property tax reform. We’ll take the responsibility for that but we cannot proceed with property tax reform any further until we do have market value reassessment, which is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Revenue.

Mr. Cassidy: I am sorry, this is passing the buck. People will read this and --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What the hon. member is doing is reaching and he knows it. He knows he should be talking to the Minister of Revenue and he wasn’t here that day.

Mr. Cassidy: I have talked to the Minister of Revenue and he refers it back to this minister because he refuses to carry the can for the problem either.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Stop twisting.

Mr. Cassidy: There is a real problem there, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Will you sit down please?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has made his statement and stated his policy. I see no point carrying on the conversation further. The member for Waterloo North is the next speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did begin to raise this because the minister’s people apparently feel they are responsible for policy as regards market value assessment, whether or not the minister is at some point.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has stated his position. I would think any further discussion now would be out of order.

Mr. Cassidy: If I could make one final comment, Mr. Chairman, and then I will subside on this particular point.

One of the functions of this Legislature is to ventilate serious problems which are abroad in the province. I am using the Legislature now in order to say there is a real problem with assessment generally and with condominium owners in particular. There is a real grievance there. Whoever is responsible within the government -- and I can’t find out who -- and whoever the civil servants are who administer this problem. I am telling you this is the problem. For God’s sake act and cure it because people are suffering out there.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I have to say probably could be a combination of items 3 and 4 dealing with fiscal policy and debt.

Mr. Chairman: I assume item 3 will carry?

Mr. Good: Under item 3 there are provincial revenues and expenditures, taxation, and fiscal policy matters which could be in there or, it doesn’t matter, under 4 as well.

Mr. Chairman: All right.

Mr. Good: I’ll say what I want to say --

Mr. Chairman: We’ll take it under 4 then.

Mr. Good: All right.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North is next.

Mr. Good: Did you want to carry 3 first?

Mr. Chairman: Yes. I presume 3 is carried, fiscal policy?

Mr. Good: No, it isn’t carried yet.

Mr. Cassidy: On 3, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Nickel Belt on 3.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a few comments and ask the Treasurer a couple of questions on the whole area of fiscal policy and I believe this is the appropriate time to do that.

I am a great fan of the Science Council of Canada and not such a great fan of the Economic Council but they both published reports in the last two years which indicated we were heading for a crisis in the public sector. They detailed their remarks to some extent and said that if we, as a people, are going to continue to demand growth in the delivery of social services there is going to have to be some way to finance that growth. We cannot continue to go on the way we are, they said, letting the public service grow, without a corresponding growth in the industrialized sector of our country. Of course, Ontario is the leader in that respect.

I am wondering to what extent the Treasurer has looked into that whole question. We are seeing now in Ontario and elsewhere -- not just Ontario -- the problem of the public sector and restraints on the growth of the public sector and ways in which we can control the growth of the public sector.

We have seen the federal government imposing restraints with its budget. We have seen the provincial government imposing restraints on the growth of the public sector yet it seems to me -- I’d like to know what the Treasurer thinks about this -- that is a very short-sighted view in that we know that people are going to continue to demand growth in the delivery of services. We have created those kinds of expectations in our people; certainly as a government and as an opposition we have done that.

I don’t understand how a government, at whatever level, can’t see this handwriting on the wall because surely it’s there. Surely we know this is the case without saying what are the long-run solutions to building up the kind of economic society or economic development in a country or a province which will allow us to increase growth in the delivery of social services because that’s really how we measure progress very often. I am talking about things like the delivery of health services; the improvement in the educational system; things like that. They are not frivolous expenditures because they are in the public sector. They are truly required; they are justified expenditures in modern society.

I am wondering what the Treasurer sees as being the long-run solution to the whole question of the public sector taking up an ever larger portion of either the provincial product or the national product -- the creation of wealth at whatever level of government we are talking about -- and whether or not the Treasurer has anybody within his ministry working on this problem or whether he has involved himself in the problem because I think it is a serious one.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that we approach it from the same point of view.

Mr. Laughren: That’s probably healthy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Certainly we have dealt with this, I am reminded, in budget papers in 1971, 1973 and in the 1975 budget. I’d refer my friend to the table which is on page B4, which shows public spending as a percentage of gross national product, both in Ontario and in Canada.

The fact is, in public spending in Canada, the figure that is used most when one reads about public spending today is 40 per cent of the gross national product. I don’t think it is quite that high. The last figures we have are from 1974. For all of Canada it has risen from 34.6 per cent in 1970 to 37.5 per cent in 1974. I doubt whether it has risen to the 40 per cent level in this year, but that is the figure that is kicked around.

In the rest of Canada other than Ontario, in fact it has risen from 36.3 per cent to 40.5 per cent, so other than Ontario it has reached the 40 per cent mark. In Ontario, the figures have held pretty well constant: 32.1, 33.3 33.3, 32.8, 33.2 in 1974, so it has risen 1.1 per cent from 1970 to 1974. Actually, the province has done better than that -- much better than that. The provincial figures have gone 10.5, 11.3, 11, 10.5, 10.7; so we are up 0.2 but if you consider in with that local spending, which in effect we are responsible for one way or another, the combination of the two -- provincial and local -- the total would be 19.9 in 1970 and today it is 19.1. So, actually there is a drop in the combination of the two or, put in another way, were about even and local spending has actually declined a point as a percentage of gross national product.

The people who are most to blame, as always, are the government of Canada, who have risen from 12.2 per cent to 14.1 per cent. Obviously I can’t be held accountable for their actions, but I have pointed out on a number of occasions since the budget, in a whole variety of speeches, that despite the protestations of the chamber of commerce and others, our record in Ontario is rather good. The Premier (Mr. Davis) used those figures and other figures in a speech which he made to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in Niagara Falls a couple of months ago.

I would simply say this; there is no magic number as to what the percentage can be, but I think we in this party feel that government spending, government involvement in the economy as measured by spending, is high enough and it is our determination to keep our share of the pie, if I can put it that way, not growing, to try to leave more money with the citizens to sort out solutions to problems. Whether that will be possible or not I simply don’t know, but we aim to try not to increase government’s involvement as a percentage of gross provincial product any more than it is now.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, would the Treasurer agree that his investment creates real wealth and there is investment or spending that does not create real wealth? I am sure the Treasurer would agree with that -- that the frivolous kind of spending does not create wealth and therefore it is truly a growth in the public sector that cannot be justified. I suggest the Treasurer, being, I think a Keynesian, would agree with that. What I am trying to get the Treasurer to respond to is whether or not he agrees that there should be an increase in the creation of new wealth in this country and in this province. How can he deny that? He is plugged into the growth as are all his colleagues.

If my assumption is correct, that the creation of new wealth is considered to be a good thing -- assuming now it is a positive kind of growth and not producing atomic bombs and so forth -- then how does the Treasurer see the Province of Ontario going about this? If I can be more specific, the Economic Council tends to brush all this aside and say it is a problem and we are going to have to cope with it. The Science Council, on the other hand, gets right down to the nitty-gritty and says that until this country -- and substitute “province” for “country” -- until this province uses its resources -- we are getting to it now -- to unlock that kind of development then we are never going to be able to prop up their support or parallel the growth in the public sector without it being an undue strain on the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario. I would like to know what alternative there is.

I obviously see things from my socialistic viewpoint. Since the Treasurer has stated it often enough, I know what his viewpoint is on the socialistic perspective. But my perspective, of course, is that only through the public ownership of those resources will we be able to unlock the development of the Province of Ontario.

I must say to you that my perspective is at least partially influenced by the area I represent, the Sudbury area with its enormous wealth. I was reading the other day that there has been 20 billion pounds of nickel taken out of the Sudbury basin since the turn of the century. The Treasurer knows the problems of the Sudbury basin and just how serious they are. Surely you see the contradictions of the kind of development that has taken place there, versus the kind of wealth that has been taken out and the kind of problems that the people in the Sudbury basin are left with.

What I am asking the Treasurer is whether or not he sees an alternative to the people of Ontario taking those resources unto themselves and developing them in such a way that it creates employment -- not unemployment. I am sure the Treasurer is aware that there are now approximately 5,000 fewer employees in the Sudbury works of International Nickel than there were three or four years ago. We truly have de-industrialization, and that’s very serious. It is the opposite of what the Science Council and, indeed, the Economic Council are both saying as the answer to Canada’s economic problems -- particularly in the public sector.

I think the Treasurer will see that you can’t separate the public sector from the private sector when you are talking about percentage of the gross national product, or the gross provincial production. I would sure like to know what the Treasurer sees as being an alternative to the ownership of those resources -- so that we can develop them to the benefit of the people in Ontario; and so that we can truly industrialize Ontario where the opportunity exists. The opportunity is there -- and there’s no question about it. Where did those 20 billion pounds of nickel go? We know where they went -- I wonder whether or not the Treasurer can tell me what he sees as the alternative?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t tell you what I see as an alternative, because I am afraid I just don’t follow the member. Is he suggesting that public ownership of International Nickel would have provided the 5,000 jobs which have disappeared in the last few years?

Mr. Laughren: That’s a specious reply. I am not talking about the public ownership of International Nickel in order just to keep those 5,000 people employed. I am not suggesting that for a moment. I am suggesting to you that if it were under public ownership and a Crown corporation, that resource could be further developed and processed in the Sudbury basin. World-wide decisions are now made solely in the interests of the corporation in New York. We could actually develop the resource further in the Sudbury area. We still see Falconbridge Nickel Mines shipping out its resources and not refining them there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You know, I guess that it just doesn’t worry the member whether you can produce the nickel and whether you can sell it or not -- it is not a consideration. I mean, we part company there.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, the Treasurer is really not serious in suggesting that there would be no market for nickel that is produced in the Sudbury area?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Obviously the market has fallen in the past few years.

Mr. Laughren: Obviously. I don’t know how far back you want to go, but let’s go back 20 billion pounds -- shall we? If there had been a kind of sane policy for development in this province 75 years ago, an awful lot could have been done with that 20 billion pounds that has not been done. Surely you know that.

The minister indicated earlier in his response that he agreed there was a problem in the public sector, and that there was a reason why governments had to impose restraints on growth in the public sector. But he will not tell me what the alternative is. I mean, how do you see it developing? What do you see in terms of Ontario’s future and the industrial development of the province? Surely, as Treasurer of the province, you must have some ideas, or some long-term ideas?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t see it through the rose-coloured eyes that you see it through --

Mr. Laughren: They are not rose-coloured.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- or glasses, which indicate that public ownership is the answer. I happen to believe that given the resources which we have in this country, which the good Lord gave us --

Mr. Laughren: And which we give away.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- given the people we have in this country, who have arrived from many places, given the educational facilities which we’ve offered to them, and which, by and large, they’ve taken advantage of, given the level of technology which we are achieving, given a very healthy and a very strong, if not perhaps the best, capital market which has emerged in this country, particularly since the war and the support that’s been given to it --

Mr. Laughren: Triple-A even.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- no, I said capital market; that has nothing to do with our position in it -- the capital market itself, and given appropriate government policies, given confidence on the part of the Canadian investor and the Canadian consumer, then I see nothing but up for this country. I don’t see the need or the necessity for further government intervention or government intervention of natural resources. No, I reject that.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I won’t delay this unduly. I realize the minister has many things for which he’s responsible, but I suspect he’s aware of what the resource corporations are doing now in terms of development in the third world --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right.

Mr. Laughren: -- and that our resources are being used to help these corporations develop in the third world. How long do you think those corporations will continue to bestow their munificence, if I could use the word sarcastically, on the people of Ontario if those resources are available cheaper someplace else? Isn’t that one reason why they have refrained from developing further the resources in this province, refining them further, creating the extra jobs here, rather than shipping them out?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If it can be done more cheaply elsewhere, is that your question?

Mr. Laughren: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: To refrain from doing something because it can be done more cheaply elsewhere, is that your question?

Mr. Laughren: No, that’s not my question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is.

Mr. Laughren: No, it’s not at all.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My answer is yes. I assume the reason that International Nickel, for example, or whoever, are looking for nickel in Panama is because they feel the ore body may be richer, can be developed at a lesser price than another ore body somewhere in northern Ontario. I don’t see anything particularly wrong with that.

Mr. Laughren: It’s not just Panama you know, it’s all around the world, including the ocean floor. You see nothing wrong with them doing that, and in the meantime just shipping out the resource here? What are we left with then?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think the resource is being shipped out to the extent that the member is talking about.

Mr. Laughren: Of course it is.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have a Canadian automobile industry, an automobile industry which is thriving in this province and which could be doing a lot better, which uses an awful lot of Canadian nickel.

Let me add this: I’m very proud, as a Canadian -- which the member doesn’t want to be -- that International Nickel --

Mr. Laughren: Oh come on. Why do you have to throw in those snide comments?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- now a Canadian-controlled company --

Mr. Stokes: He’s much more nationalistic than you are.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- is, in fact, operating in this whole world, using Canadian technology, Canadian capital, Canadian people, and is in fact doing business around the world. I’m very proud that this country of ours has come that far. I’m very proud of the fact that International Nickel was, in fact, a British-owned and then an American-owned company, and is now a Canadian-owned company. I’m very proud of the fact that Massey-Ferguson is doing business throughout this whole world. I’m very proud of the fact that the Canadian financial community is recognized throughout the whole world as a leading community. I’m very proud of the fact that the five major Canadian chartered banks --

Mr. Cassidy: This is a hymn to capitalism.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- are recognized as world leaders throughout the world in financial circles.

Mr. Cassidy: A eulogy to high finance.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m proud of the fact that Canadians have, in fact, been moving out with their technology, with their skills, with their money, into the world -- and making a profit doing it, I might say -- to the benefit of all of us back here in Canada. You don’t agree with any of that. So be it.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, I can’t let that go by. I’m surprised that the Treasurer can’t engage in a debate without resorting to the ad hominem kind of arguments he does, but we’ve grown to accept that from the Treasurer. Yes, you’re quite right -- I’m not proud of the fact that Falconbridge exploits the black people in the third world the way it does. I’m not at all proud of that. I’m not proud of the way the Royal Bank of Canada conducts itself in the third world either. Yost measure things in a different way from the way I do. You measure them strictly in terms of the profits. Yost say that yourself.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I didn’t say the profits.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, you did.

Mr. Laughren: You can cloak yourself in your aristocratic arrogance if you will and talk about profits alone, forgetting about social development, but that’s not where we are at in this party and that’s why we are on opposite sides of the House.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 3 carry? Carried. Shall vote 1005 carry?

Mr. Good: No.

Mr. Chairman: On item 4? The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Dealing with general financial management, cash flow and what not, I would like to ask the minister for a few more details regarding our relationship and use of the Canada Pension Plan fund. This was mentioned by the member for York Centre in the budget leadoff, but I don’t think we got any particular answers.

The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) asked a question the other day relating to the time when the expenditures in Canada Pension Plan funds would equal the receipts, and the answer I interpreted from the minister’s remarks was that we are not worried about that because that is some time in the future.

While the contributions have remained the same -- 1.8 per cent for both the employees and the employers -- the benefits of course have been increasing, with the result that progressively there is less and less money available in terms of receipts over expenditures. I suppose that as an actuarially sound fund, it will eventually reach the point where the receipts into the fund will equal the expenditures paid out on an annual basis and there will be no surplus of funds available for the province to borrow. This year’s budget indicated that the province expects to borrow $750 million from the Canada Pension Plan fund. This will be the largest amount borrowed, having gone up from $536 million in 1972-1973.

The Canada Pension Plan fund, of course, represents about 56 per cent of all the provincial borrowing and is a great source of revenue for the province in that they have not had to go to the public money market for a good many years.

I would like the Treasurer to comment on Ontario’s proposals, which I understand would require amendments to the Canada Pension Plan Act, which requires a majority representing two-thirds of the provinces and two-thirds of the people. Ontario’s proposals are that the funding should be increased so that when that levelling-off point is reached, there would be additional funds available and the provincial cash flow would not become negative, let’s say, around the beginning of the 1980s.

The chart I have here shows that in the 1980s the surplus of contributions, plus interest, will disappear to the extent that all the moneys paid in will be required to keep the fund solvent as it reaches its position of full benefits being paid out.

The proposal from the province, I understand, is that the input he increased so that there will be borrowing capacity. I understand the proposal by the federal government would allow the contribution payout to become equal once the two meet. However, this would not leave any excess money available for the province to borrow.

If you look at the proposal of the Ontario government -- that is, the increase in the Canada Pension Plan contributions at a rate greater than the escalation factor for the benefits -- I feel that in effect is providing additional moneys for the Province of Ontario, over and above what is needed for the plant and, in fact, would be comparable to a direct tax so that the province has non-public moneys available for its borrowing purposes. While I agree that this could not be accomplished without the consent of the other provinces, or at least two-thirds of the other provinces representing two-thirds of the population, I don’t think it’s the proper way to look at financing for the Province of Ontario because, in effect, the people then are subsidizing the province because your interest borrowing rate to the pension fund is somewhere around eight point something, I believe.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s more than that now.

Mr. Good: Whatever it is you borrow from the pension fund. The people pay excessive premiums, or they will have to, if your plan materializes, with the result that really you’re asking the people of Ontario to pay an additional tax to give you this nice built-in source of funds which you can borrow anytime you want without going to the public money market. This has been a great bonanza and I shudder to think what the financial position of the province might be in relation to its ability to borrow in the public market, had you had to borrow all the funds available through the Canada Pension Plan on the public market instead.

I understand, this last issue in the beginning of July was snapped up quite quickly. Could the minister correct me? Was that issue at nine per cent, that $150 million at the beginning of July? This shows that your issue was readily accepted at a relatively good rate of interest and that perhaps is simply because people have been waiting for four or five years to go to the public money market because you’ve had all your sources of funds available from a private source.

I don’t think the people of Ontario should have to pay excessive premiums for Canada Pension Plan to help finance the Province of Ontario. That’s what it is going to amount to, if you don’t let this thing work out to its natural meeting of the two lines on the curve and keep the Canada Pension contributions only at the level required to keep an actuarially sound pension fund available,

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But it is not actuarially sound. It wasn’t designed that way.

Mr. Good: Eventually, it will be at the point, whether it is actuarially sound. The original proposal is that it gets to the point where the contributions equal the payments out. Whether it’s actuarially sound or not is immaterial. People are paying in what they expect to get out. If your point of view is followed through to its logical conclusion, you’re saying: “When you’re paying your payments in, pay something extra because we want some nice money available for the province.” Is the minister saying that was not the proposal? I understood it is your proposal.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, we haven’t any proposal at the moment that I’m aware of for changes in the plan. There are discussions going on between the provinces. The government of Canada has certain proposals; the Province of Quebec has certain proposals. We haven’t anything firm to put in front of anyone.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, the minister is quite correct. You have nothing firm but the proposals made from Ontario have been that the plan’s contributions be increased over and above that required to meet outgoing payments, which in fact would be an additional tax on the people of Ontario to give you a good borrowing source. I think that is wrung. It’s just not going to be all that simple to change the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan but I think your position should be made known because you have benefited greatly from this source of revenue. While your initial $150 million offering on the public market two weeks ago was very well accepted, now that you require an extra $100 million this year for a total of $675 million, one wonders by the time your last offering goes just what the public acceptance will be and what your rate of interest at that point will have to be.

I wonder too then what the minister is going to propose to replace the Canada Pension Plan as the source of borrowing when the two lines on the chart meet to show that our revenue will not exceed amounts being paid out. What are your plans for the long-term financing of the provincial debt?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The long-term plans?

Mr. Good: Yes; when these funds are no longer available.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: When these funds are no longer available? That’s probably -- 82 is the crossover point.

Mr. Good: Five years?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We’ll wait to see what develops in terms of consensus among the provinces, Quebec in particular, which runs its own plan. Certainly I make no apology for the plan but these pension funds have been of great assistance to the province, to our municipalities and to our institutions as a source of borrowing. Of course, I would point out that if, in any way, the Canada Pension Plan had been on an actuarially sound basis -- as it would have to be if it came under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act -- the premiums would be considerably higher than they are now; much higher. It can be said that for the premiums paid we are all going to get a very good pension.

Mr. Good: At the present time, I understand you are borrowing from the plan on a 20-year debenture basis; could the minister indicate the total debentures you have issued against the plan up to this time? While in your Treasurer’s report I can find the interest on public debt, which is $677 million a year, could the minister indicate what interest you are paying on the total non-public debt and what that amount is at present?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The total is roughly $4.3 billion Canada Pension, and the interest we are paying on the $4.3 billion is included in the $677 million interest on the public debt; correct?

Mr. Good: You mean the interest shown on public debt includes that, but when you show your non-public borrowings you separate the borrowings but you don’t separate the interest; is that correct?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s correct.

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

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, three out of five nodded yes.

Mr. Chairman: Is Item 4 carried?

Mr. Laughren: No, we are still on item 3, I believe, Mr. Chairman.

I’ll be very brief. I detected a note of derision in the tone of your voice --

Mr. Chairman: We are on item 4.

Mr. Laughren: Three.

Mr. Chairman: Four.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Four.

Mr. Laughren: When did we move?

Mr. Breithaupt: Just after you finished.

Mr. Laughren: When it comes to Treasury, Mr. Chairman, on item 4 which is what I want to talk about, having detected a note of derision in the Treasurer’s voice earlier I wanted him to be aware of the fact that my views on the resource corporations in the third world are shared by the Anglican Church.

Mr. Cassidy: Of which the minister is a well-known member.

Mr. Laughren: I didn’t know that.

Mr. Foulds: It is the true church of the Family Compact of which the minister is a number.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 4 carry?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, if the minister could spare us from a long statement could he briefly give a bit of elucidation on the development loans included in this vote? If the minister has a very long statement I wish he’d send it over rather than take up the time of the House; development loans, a statutory vote under this item.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: One hundred and forty-four million?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes. After hearing about women for 20 minutes yesterday I don’t want to get a long statement but I would appreciate a short one.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I didn’t think it was quite that long. I found it very fascinating; of course, we on this side have a genuine interest in the --

Mr. Cassidy: So do we, Mr. Chairman. We have been fighting the government for a long time on it.

Mr. Foulds: That’s because you like the sound of your own voice.

Mr. Breithaupt: You didn’t let him finish. He was going to say he had a genuine interest in statements.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What does the member want to know about the development loans?

An hon. member: Everything.

Mr. Cassidy: I just want a statement on them.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know how we could make a statement on them. Those are loans which are made -- do you want a breakdown of them?

The Ontario Education Capital Aid Corp., $91.8 million; the Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corp., $42.3 million; the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp., $10.5 million; totalling $144.6 million.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1005 carry?

Mr. Good: On that point; under the Ontario Municipal Improvement Corp. That’s the area in which you pick up all the debentures on municipalities under 20,000?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, yes. We will if they want us to. It’s not mandatory.

Mr. Good: At what rate of interest do you buy those debentures?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Presently. 10¾. Our rate is 10¼ at the moment and if we add on half a point, it’s 10¾.

Mr. Good: So you borrow money from the public sector for nine per cent and you charge the municipalities 10¾. What are you running over there, a bank?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We borrowed money at nine per cent last month for eight years and we are lending it out to the municipalities for 20 years. There is a difference.

Mr. Good: At 10¾, yes. Man, your spread is almost as big as the trust companies and banks.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The province’s long-term rate at this moment for 20 years would be about 10¼. We are making half a point on it.

Mr. Good: There’s nothing to prevent those municipalities from going to the public money market?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are delighted if they do.

Mr. Good: Could you give any indication of what they have to pay on the public money market?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Most of those that are borrowing from us would pay -- oh, I’m guessing, but probably half a point or three-quarters of a point more. We deliberately keep the rate about half a point above our rate because that rate, hopefully, we see to be around where the larger municipalities and the regional municipalities are borrowing, and borrowing very well. We want them to continue to do that rather than our lending more and more municipalities money.

Mr. Good: On your review in your budget of total assets and liabilities --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Metro would be paying about 10¼ now if they were going to the market.

Mr. Good: Total liabilities and then total assets; now when you in your financial statement show assets, I presume you are showing the notes that you bold from universities and the Education Capital Aid Corp. and the municipalities?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: School boards, yes.

Mr. Good: What about the universities? Really their only source of income is this government, eh?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member’s quarrel is with the Universities Capital Aid Corp., which was set up 10 years ago, or with the Education Capital Aid Corp., which was set up I think about that long ago. You’ve made this same point time and time again.

I suppose it was certainly to be looked at as a financing device at that point in time -- in effect to say that instead of paying for a new university building in one year, in effect we are going to pay for it in 20 years. Does that make the member feel a little happier?

Mr. Good: No. I have no objection to the way you finance universities. My objection is to your method of accountability and reporting to make your statistics look good. You know, you show as assets a drawerful of notes held by the university and the only way those will ever be paid off is for you to give them the money.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, don’t be sure.

Mr. Good: And the same with the education corporation; 50 per cent of that money to pay off those notes that you keep as assets in your drawer has got to be given to the school boards first --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s higher than that.

Mr. Good: -- it’s 60 per cent now on the average.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: it’s much higher than that.

Mr. Good: On the average, 60 per cent.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Much higher.

Mr. Good: In my own area it’s 50 per cent.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, no. Capital -- it’s much higher.

Mr. Good: Capital is much higher?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Certainly it’s higher.

Mr. Good: So then you admit that the backing on a large percentage of what you show as assets has to come from the province to begin with.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In the future.

Mr. Good: What I’m saying is it distorts your financial picture -- which would really make your net debt considerably more than what it really should --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Do you want me to agree with you? I agree with you.

Mr. Good: I would like you to put out a financial statement which is really representative of the true financial position of the province.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister agrees with the member.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is put out on a basis consistent with everybody else in the financial field,

Mr. Good: Sure, if you are consistently wrong. There’s nothing good about that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is consistent with everyone else’s statement. Stop running the Province of Ontario down all the time. That’s what you are doing -- running the province down all the time.

Mr. Good: No, I’m not. It’s just your way of juggling the books that we are concerned about.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): What we are asking, Mr. Chairman, is that the minister present the true facts and do it in a way that --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the member wants us to we can carry on the books billions of dollars. This building right here, which even the member opposite would think was worth something, is carried on the books at $1, along with all our other assets. Ninety per cent of the land area of this province is carried on the books as part of that dollar. Stop trying to prove the province is bankrupt. It hasn’t been for 32 years. It nearly was when the Liberals left, but it isn’t now.

Mr. Good: It nearly went bankrupt several years ago.

Mr. Deacon: What I was trying to state is that we should be consistent in government accounting. The government accounting that was brought in, we understand, is quite different from general business accounting, where you do show the value of assets and depreciate it. In government it has been the practice to write it all down, as the minister says, and to show this building as being valued at $1, although we all know it to be worth many millions.

Why not be consistent? Since the province cannot expect them to generate revenue to pay off their debt, why not show all the province’s educational and similar buildings as zero assets? They should be written right down so they are not presented as an offset to the gross debt. Legitimately show what they are; don’t represent moneys that have been borrowed from the public for self-generating and self-supporting assets. Boy, it is aggravating --

Mr. P. Taylor: -- doesn’t even have the courtesy to listen.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Statutory matters are not usually items for lengthy debate, and I would suggest that this would more rightly belong in a budget debate.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, do you mean to say that discussion of whether the moneys owed by the Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corp. should be shown as an asset, or written off and not shown on the asset side, is something to do with statutory debate?

Mr. Chairman: No, I am simply saying that this is listed as a statutory matter, and as a matter of courtesy the minister discussed it with you; but lengthy debate is not usually entered into on statutory matters. It is, I submit to you, a proper subject for budget debate.

Mr. Deacon: That gets the Treasurer off the hook.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Chairman, this may be an appropriate place to move that the committee rise and report.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, unless my colleague wishes to continue on this particular point, we would agree to have this vote carry or whatever is wanted by the members.

Vote 1005 agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report it has come to certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the permission of the House to return to reports.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have such permission?

Agreed.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson from the standing social development committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

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

Bill 100, An Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between School Boards and Teachers.

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

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

PROVINCIAL SCHOOLS NEGOTIATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves second reading of Bill 132, An Act respecting the Negotiation of Collective Agreements between the Provincial School Authority and Teachers.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): No.

Mr. Speaker: All right. The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister would have an opening statement, since there may be some substantial changes in this legislation as a result of Bill 100.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I made an opening statement on this bill when I introduced the bill. I think it is a very simple piece of legislation. It provides for the establishment of a Provincial Schools Authority and it then provides for the establishment of a bargaining unit made up of the teachers who are employed at the present time on contract by various ministries of this government. Once those things are done in this bill, the provisions of Bill 100, excepting certain things that wouldn’t pertain to these particular teachers, then apply to them in their bargaining. I think it’s all very straightforward and does not need any amendments except one very small one where we changed a number of a section in committee during discussion of Bill 100.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has explained the thing, I won’t make any further comments.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments? The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will be brief, although not as brief as my colleague.

I have seldom felt more pleasure at a bill brought forward by the government than this one. A number of members may recall that on Nov. 12, 1974, during consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Education, I brought to the House’s attention a serious problem surrounding the negotiating procedures between the teachers working for the various ministries and what was then the school management board, I believe it was called, with the ministry. Fortunately those serious situations, which appeared pretty close to heading towards a breakdown, were resolved before the end of 1974. I feel, perhaps somewhat immodestly, that both inside and outside the House I was able to make some small contribution to that. It was during that debate that this party brought forward very strongly the suggestion that the teachers teaching in special schools for the various ministries should have the full rights and privileges of other teachers in the province. So I wholeheartedly endorse this bill.

I know there will be some difficulties after the Act is passed. There will be some difficulties for a year or two as both parties are finding their feet under regularized negotiations. I know there may even be difficulties within the ranks of the teachers as they become more unified in one group, as they will be under this bill. I think all these things will work out; (a) for the betterment of the teachers involved; but perhaps even more important, (b) for the betterment of the school system operated under the various ministries.

Mr. B. Newman: And the students.

Mr. Foulds: As my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville points out, this bill will also benefit the students who are special students in many of these institutions -- the blind, the deaf, some emotionally disturbed kids and some juveniles with the Ministry of Correctional Services who need special attention and special care.

The principle involved in this bill goes one small step further in reality than does Bill 100, even though it piggybacks on the principle of that bill; that is, it is extending the principle of full collective bargaining to those who have been contract teachers within the ministry, with no real classification and no real association.

I can’t say how pleased I am that this bill is being brought forward. I think I know the small amendment the minister talks about. I assume it will come in section 6 of the bill as it stands. I’m almost sorry that we have to go to committee to do that, but I suppose it could be done very quickly.

I wonder if the minister could respond to indicate the eventual future or structure of the bargaining unit. I imagine we would need an amendment to a different Act to do this, but would it be possible for these teachers at some future time, once they’ve organized their unit, to be affiliated with the OTF, for example, which may be their desire and which I assume would be useful and profitable for the teachers in terms of professional development in particular.

If that is a possibility, I would certainly urge the ministry to bring forward the appropriate amendment probably to the Teaching Profession Act at that time.

We in this party support the bill. We know that there will be some shaking down process necessary over the next year or two. It’s a principle we endorse. As I read through the legislation, I could not see any faults in this bill comparable to those that are in the bill that is being brought in under the Ministry of Colleges and Universities which tried to piggyback on Bill 100 somewhat less successfully. For all those reasons we support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, I also rise to support the bill, which agrees in principle with what we would be introducing if we were in the same position as the minister, which we hope to be.

There is one point I would like to bring to the minister’s attention, again in this bill as with the other one, and that is the question of the appointment of the Provincial Schools Authority.

Is the Provincial Schools Authority in this case to act in a similar manner in negotiations to the Education Relations Commission? Is there no provision for term of office and for the right of challenge appointments to this body? Is this authority strictly an operating authority? Exactly what is its role in the matter of negotiations? It seems to me, if it’s similar to the commission in its role, which I interpret from this, we should be sure it is a commission that has the confidence of the employees. Therefore there should be the right of challenge and there should also be some term of office designated in clause 2, so that the members of the authority don’t carry on indefinitely and there is room for new ideas to come in from new appointments.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members who wish to speak to this bill? The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I wanted to make a couple of comments in supporting the comments that were made by the member for Port Arthur, Mr. Speaker. I am also supporting the bill, but I am raising a more general question which the minister might wish to engage in or which perhaps he would like to get the Chairman of Management Board to comment on.

The teachers involved -- 600 or so of them -- have been in a very difficult situation up until now because they have been contract employees. They were not Crown employees; they were neither fish nor fowl. They came not under the Labour Relations Act nor under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. However, if one looks at the section on administration in the bill, under section 4(2) in particular, it spells out fairly clearly that the administration for these teachers will be by the deputy minister of the departments concerned.

These schools are effectively an operating branch of the government. What we are seeing in this bill is that the government had moved one step closer to that kind of hallowed area which is still being excluded from free collective bargaining, that is the people who are Crown employees who work directly for the Province of Ontario. As it happens, these teachers did not have the Crown employees status before, but in all other respects they could have been considered as government employees. We have to ask the question that if a formula for free collective bargaining can be created for people who work in the various provincial schools across the province and who work in schools that are, as the Act says, administered by the deputy ministers of the departments concerned, and if they can be given the right to strike under certain circumstances, then what is it in logic, in principle or anything else, that bars the government from taking the same steps with respect to those tens of thousands of civil servants who plough the roads, who cook the meals, who type the letters and who do all the other jobs which are needed for the Province of Ontario, and who are also performing tasks that are very similar to those in the private or in the non-provincial government sector.

If teachers in provincial government schools get the same rights as teachers in board of education schools, then why shouldn’t secretaries in Queen’s Park get the same rights as secretaries in Bay St.; or cooks in the cafeteria downstairs get the same rights as cooks in the Toronto-Dominion Centre; or bulldozer operators for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications have the same rights as bulldozer operators who work for Pigott or Cape or some other big construction firm.

The inconsistencies that are revealed by this bill trouble us greatly, Mr. Speaker. We would hope that the minister, having acknowledged that the public servants within his realm of responsibility should have free collective bargaining rights, including those that are administered by his own ministry, would extend that principle and would argue very hard in cabinet that the principle that is created here be extended to all Crown employees.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments on this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the unanimous support from the parties opposite on this bill. I think it is a good bill and it does something that should be done insofar as this group is concerned in its negotiations with the government.

The matter of their future relationship with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation is going to have to be something that will have to be considered and worked out as the process develops under this bill and future negotiations and these people feel their way under this whole new setup. That will have to be something that will have to be worked out among the teachers and the federation and the Provincial Schools Authority and the government. I wouldn’t want to predict what it would be at this time.

I think there is a misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker, about the Provincial Schools Authority that is set up in this bill. It is not in any way the counterpart of the Education Relations Commission. It is the employer and it will be made up of five civil servants of the government from either the ministries or the Management Board.

Mr. Deacon: It is like the school board, is it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is the school board for the purposes of the hiring and bargaining; but not for general administrative purposes, which as my friend just said remain with the deputy ministers of the various departments. The Provincial Schools Authority will be five civil servants who will in effect be the management side of the bargaining process that goes on.

Mr. Foulds: Is it roughly the same as the school management committee that now exists?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, because the school management committee really was a device that was set up to allow us to sign contracts with the teachers but it had no authority to negotiate. Under this bill this group will act as a school board and in the context of Bill 100 will be the party that is referred to here as the school board. In fact they will be representing the government; they will be the official management side at the bargaining process.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves second reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is there an opening statement by the minister?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I introduced this bill, this is a collection of housekeeping and minor amendments to bring things up to date in the Teachers’ Superannuation Act. There are not any major changes in the plan here. The major change in this plan, insofar as teachers are concerned, is the adding of the escalation feature which was accomplished through the bill that my colleague, the Chairman of Management Board, piloted through this House last week. It adds this very important new feature to the teachers’ superannuation plan. As I indicated at that time, Mr. Speaker, the teachers have accepted the provisions of the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act that was presented so that they will be contributing one per cent additional of their salary and enjoying the benefits of that particular Act.

This is a collection of housekeeping and minor amendments, a couple of which are to mesh in with that escalation Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that this bill does end one hit of sex discrimination, in that widowers now qualify as well as widows. Also, there’s provision for a person who ceases to be employed due to the adoption of a child or duties as a member of the municipal council or local board, to contribute to the fund for the period so that they don’t lose out on that.

As we see it, this is certainly a good housekeeping bill. We are looking forward to a bill that will provide for the independence of the superannuation fund from the province, where they invest their own funds in a way they see fit and get a good return in the future from their pension contributions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could speak at great length on this bill for what it does not accomplish, but I won’t.

I often wonder how the term housekeeping bill arose. I think it’s probably a sexist and discriminatory term that we should eliminate from our vocabulary in the Legislature.

It is a bill that tidies up a number of minor things that I gather the ministry and the teachers have been able to agree on before any blood-letting in the fall. But the major amendments that we had hoped for are not forthcoming at this time.

We support this bill, although one is always a little uneasy in the Legislature ever since the Premier (Mr. Davis) brought in a housekeeping bill in 1968 that gave the minister the right to impose ceilings, so one tries to read the clauses pretty closely and pretty thoroughly. Having done that, though not a legal expert, I don’t see any large holes through which the superannuation fund can be further exploited than it is.

There is one matter I would like to bring op with the minister. We were discussing the superannuation fond during his estimates. We did get a commitment from the minister that at some point we would bring the superannuation commission and the commissioners before a standing committee of the Legislature so that we could have a thorough discussion of the fund and its implications and ramifications. As the session winds its way to its post-solstice conclusion, I don’t suppose that is possible.

I would just like to say that when this party forms the government after the election we will be glad to fulfil that commitment of the present minister.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments on this bill? If not, does the hon. minister wish to reply?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that it had been fully my intention, and really I had discussed at some time with the chairman of the committee about the superannuation commission appearing. I guess the concerns that we have had about Bill 100 and other legislation have caused this to be delayed; plus, I think, the fact that we were carrying on active discussions regarding the escalation bill. I think all concerned felt that we should wait until those discussions and the determination of policy in that matter had been finalized before the commission came down. But I will guarantee my friend, since I fully expect to be here in the fall when we meet again, and doing this job, that I will have them here then.

I would like to just correct something that has just been mentioned during this debate, because I think it is a fallacy. I hope that my friend, the member for York Centre, will realize that it is. He talked about hoping for the eventual independence of this board, the superannuation commission, and the inadequate returns in interest and so forth.

I just want to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that during all the discussions that we have had -- and we have had many wish the teachers about these amendments and about other superannuation matters -- the official position of the Ontario Teacher’s Federation, has first of all never been to ask for the independence of the teachers’ superannuation commission.

Mr. Deacon: Are they still afraid to be on their own?

Hon. Mr. Wells: They have not asked for it, and the commission has not asked for it, and they are happy to stay in the same legal status that they are at the present time. Furthermore, they do not make with us the point that the fund is being mismanaged or exploited. That has never been the official position that has been pot forward to us by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and those bodies that make it up in official meetings.

Mr. Deacon: There is certainly a division of opinion within the body on the matter.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is a minuscule group of people who have some differing ideas, but by and large, recognizing, as I know my friend does, the democratic process and so forth, the vast majority of people represented by the Ontario Teachers’ Federation have not asked for those kinds of structural changes in the commission.

Mr. Deacon: Is the minister sore it is minuscule?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly I’m sure it is, because I’ve discussed it with them many times. Certainly they’re interested in major changes, such as my friend has indicated over here. They want major changes in the plan, but in the benefits side of the plan. They don’t want to take over the fund, and they don’t charge that there’s been mismanagement of the fund at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 139. Shall this motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 139, An Act to amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves second reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North. Oh, is there an opening statement by the minister, first of all?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): The bill we are discussing is the reprinted bill.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry. I might indicate to the members, in order to do this, of course, we’ll have to go to committee with this bill so that we can move for consideration of the reprinted bill. In the time between the introduction of the first bill and the consideration of the matters which it was intended to handle, it became obvious that a different way of handling the matter should be taken than was in the first bill. So we have reprinted the section in the reprinted bill, and I think that handles better the matter that this is meant to cover.

I will assure the House that when we go into committee we’ll move consideration of the reprinted bill. Instead of debate on second reading it may be that the better way to handle this, Mr. Speaker, would be to go into committee and then have the bill fully discussed in committee so that we are officially and legally discussing the reprinted bill.

Mr. Speaker: There may be some appropriate comments at this time. The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: I have other commitments, Mr. Speaker, in the labour committee down there. I would just like to address a few remarks on second reading and I probably won’t be here in committee.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, we could go into committee right now if that was the desire. If we wanted to give this bill second reading and then go into committee, we could.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, we would be quite happy to proceed with it directly into committee.

Mr. Speaker: We will put the motion then. The motion is for second reading of Bill 118.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand it’s to go to committee of the whole House.

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

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 118, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments, questions or amendments on any section? If so, which section?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Section 2, Mo Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Before we discuss the clause by clause, perhaps we should establish that it is the reprinted bill that is to be considered, is it? Is that in agreement with the committee?

Agreed.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Move your amendment.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The minister should move it, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Yes, I am moving it.

Hon. Mr. Wells moves that the reprinted bill be considered by the committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North on section 2. We assume section 1 is carried.

On section 2:

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, I think at this point I will have to say a few words on the background of the bill -- which probably more correctly should have been said on second reading -- so that we can understand the difference in the change between the original bill and this particular bill.

When the Schools Administration Act was amended in 1968, and the county school boards were formed, there was a provision whereby treasurers of municipalities could deal jointly with hardships created by the educational levies of area municipalities that were affected under the formation of the county school boards. Shortly after that time, with the coming into effect of the Ottawa-Carleton regional government, there was great hardship effected on Torbolton township. They took their case before the treasurers of the area and eventually appealed it to the OMB as a matter of principle, stating they could not endure the hardship created with the imposition of the increased educational levies. Well, Torbolton township no longer exists, and is now part of West Carleton.

The appeal to the OMB, as I understand the problem, is what created the necessity for this particular bill. As we all know, Mr. Chairman, in other statutes of the Province of Ontario, where a municipality receives grants in lieu of taxes, either from the Crown in the right of Canada, or from the Crown in the right of the Province of Ontario, that municipality must count that grant in lieu of taxes as additional assessment when that municipality figures out its levy to the county government or to a regional government.

The levies to those municipalities are, indeed, affected by grants received in lieu of taxes -- under the Parks Act, the grants of $50 for each student at university, hospital training schools, correctional institutes and all agencies of the Crown that made grants in lieu of taxes. The municipality must figure that money as additional assessment when it figures its levy to the next level of government.

However, the Municipal Board took a most unusual approach to that appeal from the arbitrators, composed of the treasurers. It said that the Ottawa-Carleton county school board must take those levies -- which they didn’t receive, but which the municipality received -- the school board must take those levies into account when they pay their assessment or their levy to the county school boards. So we found all the area governments making their new levy to the county school board affected by the amount of grants they received in lieu of taxes. Now, some of the municipalities -- in particular, Gloucester township -- had a considerable amount of money coming into the municipality in grants in lieu of taxes from the federal government. There were many installations in the township paid for by the federal government.

The OMB resolved the inequities of the education tax in the various governments by saying that with those municipalities that received additional funds, the educational levy from that area of government must also take into consideration the grants in lieu of taxes received by the municipality. That, of course, would make the levy from that municipality considerably higher.

On the surface this may have appeared to be a just way of handling it, because one would say that if the municipality got extra money, the school tax would be less. But there is one fallacy in the decision of the OMB. While the municipality got additional money, that money was spread out through the whole area to reduce taxes, not only for the public school supporters but also the separate school supporters. I understand that about 45 percent of the people in Gloucester township are separate school supporters.

The result was that the burden of education tax then forced on Gloucester township county school board was tremendous; so much so that after three years of this type of decision by the OMB -- the mistake was repeated each year -- the province had to step in and issue a grant of some $800,000 up to 1973. I think that bill went through in 1973 per 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973. That took care of the problem.

As far as I know, this is about the only time the OMB has ever made a decision like that.

The unfortunate thing about it was that there appeared in the Schools Administration Act -- or the Education Act, 1974, which replaced the Schools Administration Act -- a clause stating that the OMB’s decision was final. It could not be appealed to cabinet so it could not be reversed. Naturally in its own interests, the OMB repeated its decision every year because it didn’t want to reverse the decision it had made each year; so this thing was appealed.

I am pleased to see the minister stepping in with amendments to the Education Act which are specifically designed to correct what I think was a poor decision by the OMB. There had to be some relief, undoubtedly, from the taxation but certainly I don’t think this was the correct way of going about it. While the extra grants in lieu vent to the municipality, certain of the county school boards did not get them directly and all citizens, including the separate school supporters, were benefiting from these grants but only the Carleton school board had to include those grants in its tax levy to the county school boards. It created great inequities on Gloucester township. When one-third of the assessment and 45 per cent of the population were a part of the separate school system and separate school supporters, it did indeed create a number of inequities.

I am intrigued by the reprinting of the bill, Mr. Chairman, in that a different approach has been taken as to how to correct the situation.

In the first bill the words, “whose decision is final” meant the OMB’s decision was final. Those words were struck out, meaning that the board could appeal the OMB decision to cabinet. Under the first bill the OMB had only two alternatives. It could accept the decision of the arbitrators and confirm the apportionment made by the board, or it could send it back and go through the whole process and apply the Act as it was written -- the mechanism as it was written in the Act -- to the procedure to see if any mistakes were made originally.

Under the new bill we find that the OMB’s decision is final. I can’t quite decide in my mind whether or not that is better than the first way of doing it.

The other point, of course, is that it specifically says, “Any grants in lieu of taxes paid to the municipality must not be used when calculating the apportionment paid by that municipality for school purposes to the area government.” That is a more direct approach and I agree with that. It certainly means that this matter cannot be perpetuated.

This comes into effect in 1975. It will affect the assessment for this year. The grant of $800,000 cleans up the business from 1970 to 1973. I don’t know what the minister has in mind to do about 1974; whether or not that can be dealt with in some satisfactory manner.

Perhaps the minister would explain why he feels that a matter of this magnitude should not be appealable from an OMB decision to cabinet. My goodness, only a year ago we had in our municipality people appealing an OMB decision to cabinet and it represented only about $25,000 on a curb and gutter installation. I think that is wrong. I don’t think cabinet should have to bother itself with things of that magnitude in appeals from the OMB, but that type of thing is allowed to be appealed from the municipality.

I see that the minister now under the rewritten bill is perpetuating the original intention that an OMB decision relating to school apportionments of municipalities may not be appealed to cabinet. I would appreciate his comments on that. We would support the bill, Mr. Chairman. That section 2 is the major part of the whole hi] and his answer to that one question would satisfy my comments on the whole bill.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I’ll be very quick, or I’ll try to be, Mr. Chairman. May I say that you dignify the chair in a way that few others could manage to do. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) is in the chair.

I wanted to make two or three comments to the minister. First it’s wonderful how by-elections concentrate the mind of the government. I suspect it may only be because of the Carleton East by-election that an equitable settlement was reached in the problems of Gloucester township with the allocation of its grant in lieu of assessment.

Second, the whole problem in this case arose because of the desperate frustration of the people of Torbolton township in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton over their tax treatment under regional government and over the avowal of the Liberal reeve of Nepean, Andrew Haydon, who then decided to jump on the bandwagon and to stir the pot for all it was worth and to try to see whether he could rip off the taxpayers of Gloucester for $500,000 or more.

I must say that there has been seldom such an example of cheap municipal meddling as Mr. Haydon was guilty of in that particular case. It is certainly clear that what had been achieved by the OMB decision was hopelessly unfair, particularly to the separate school ratepayers in Gloucester who were most affected and also the separate school ratepayers in Ottawa and Vanier, where a similar ruling was brought in by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Next -- and again this sort of goes beyond the purview of this particular minister -- the role of the OMB in this matter is rather suspect because, far from interpreting or adhering to ministry policy as one had thought it was intended to do, the OMB chose deliberately to ignore the ministry regulations under which the Carleton board of education was acting when it apportioned its education taxes to the Gloucester school board and when it decided to ignore the grant in lieu of assessment. The regulations said you ignore the grant in lieu of assessment so that, as the member for Waterloo North was saying, both separate and public school taxpayers can benefit from it. But the OMB ignored that ministry directive in reaching its rather perverse decision.

The amended bill, in my opinion, is much better than the original proposal. The original proposal would have left it with the cabinet to try to set the OMB straight, and God knows whether anybody could set the OMB straight. It made a lot more sense to lay out the rules precisely. I presume that the wording here is pretty much drawn from ministry regulations. It’s then appealable to the courts if the OMB consistently decides to continue in flouting the ministry policy which will now be expressed in regulations.

We’ve thought about ways in which you can handle the matter of grant in lieu of assessment. The situation in Gloucester is almost unique in the province. The alternative to doing this way is to take your grant in lieu of assessment in every part of the province and divide it up between separate and public school ratepayers in some formula or another, whatever that may happen to be.

They point out that that would then entail a loss of provincial grants. They also point out that in certain areas, such as in the county of Renfrew, there would be very serious problems of very poor boards which would suddenly find their ratepayers saddled with burdens that the federal government would not pay directly.

Finally, Mr. Chairman -- and I don’t know if anybody in the chamber, apart from the minister, the member for Waterloo North, the chairman and maybe myself, understands the content of this debate because it’s an exceptionally difficult area to grasp -- I would like a statement by the minister, as was asked by the member for Waterloo North on if it is correct that there has been no damage to the taxpayers of Gloucester or any other municipality because of the OMB decisions. In other words, have the payments which have been made effectively repaired the damage of the OMB decisions and is the situation that with this bill and actions taken by the ministry everyone in the province will have been treated as though this Act had been in effect?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, too, are very happy to see you performing such a fine function in the chair.

Mr. Cassidy: We do doubt if you understand it.

Mr. P. Taylor: I want to be very brief because we all know the clock is running out and I just want to recognize publicly the contribution my colleague, the member for Wellington North, has made to this --

Mr. Good: Waterloo North.

Mr. P. Taylor: -- Waterloo North? I’m sorry -- subject which, as the member for Ottawa Centre has described, is very important to this part of the province. It’s a good bill and of course we are supporting it because it unravels a very complicated situation.

The thing that disturbs me most is that apparently in this reprinted version of the bill the OMB decision is non-appealable. For people in remote parts of the province who see the OMB perhaps a little differently from people in this part of the province that is very damaging and very unproductive. I want to say that any time decisions of Crown agencies are non-appealable, it really seems to me to violate the whole concept of the royal prerogative.

This bill also clears up a fight among some local politicians in our area around Ottawa which has also been extremely counterproductive. I would say that the --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Local Liberal politicians?

Mr. P. Taylor: -- the reeve of Nepean has conducted himself in a manner which is in sharp contrast to the conduct of the reeve of Gloucester township who has chosen instead to fight the argument behind the scenes on paper. We are supporting this bill.

Mr. Stokes: I have one brief little question.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I have one brief question and that has to do with the grant in lieu of taxes. Could the minister enlighten me as to how this will apply to northern independent boards such as Savant Lake and Armstrong? They have no municipal organization but they have a small local school board and there is some kind of a longstanding arrangement whereby the Canadian National Railways, in lieu of taxes, pays a grant to those local boards.

I wonder if this will have the effect of enhancing the ability of those small local boards to gain funds through the grants or will this inhibit their ability to generate much-needed funds for school purposes in that area? I know that for some of the small local boards the government has to pick up as much as 93 per cent of all of the tax dollars required for school purposes.

If there is an opportunity to get additional dollars out of what amounts to a Crown - corporation, like the Canadian National Railways -- I don’t presume to be very familiar with the method of collecting taxes; all I know is that it is a grant in lieu of taxes -- I’m wondering if the minister or any of his officials could enlighten me as to how that might change that or how it might enhance the ability of the small northern boards to get more money from these Crown corporations for school purposes?

Mr. Chairman: Is there any response from the minister to that comment?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, first, in answer to the question from the hon. member, I don’t think this bill either enhances or detracts from those municipalities getting grants. This bill really deals with grants in lieu from Canada and Ontario, except in certain exceptions here, and how they will be handled and apportioned. I don’t think it says someone will not get grants in lieu insofar as the boards are concerned. I would be happy to look into that problem a little more.

I really can’t say anything more on that particular problem insofar as it affects the northern communities; but that would be my impression based on this bill.

Mr. Stokes: But you will look into it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will look into that, yes. Insofar as the other questions that have been asked, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. members who have spoken have indicated they understand this very complicated bill. Perhaps we should ask a few others to explain it to us. I must say that I found this one of the most complicated things to completely grasp. I would far rather do three teacher-board negotiation bills than one of these financial apportionment grants in lieu bills.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Only in terms of complexity, not in terms of stamina.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, in terms of complexity.

However, as has been stated, I think that the amended bill which we are considering does the job in a better way than the original bill did. That is why we brought in the amended bill. We felt, on reflection, that it could do the job better.

The answer to the question about the situation insofar as Gloucester and March is concerned is that to the best of my knowledge the grants that we have paid to the Carleton board will be to the benefit of Gloucester and March. It has corrected the situation and they should enjoy equity.

The year 1974 has not been taken care of, and it would be my understanding that we will be paying grants to the board at this particular time in order to correct the equities for 1974, and then the bill will take effect thereafter.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a commitment, is it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s a commitment.

Mr. Good: That satisfies the appeal for 1974.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They have already gone to the OMB. As I understand it, the OMB has already decided as it had decided in 1971, 1972 and 1973. So we will have to correct the 1974 situation, and then from there on in this bill will take effect. That should permanently correct the situation.

It was our decision as we brought in this amendment, Mr. Chairman, that because we were amending the bill in such a manner to correct the situation, through saying specifically what should happen, we should still leave in the section allowing no appeals to the cabinet. The cabinet is not particularly anxious to have appeals in these particular matters. I think that having got over this problem, we should leave it with no appeals to the cabinet. If it is felt there should be appeals from the OMB to somewhere else. I think that is a far larger problem that should be taken care of in some other manner.

Bill 118, as amended, reported.

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