Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have read, sir, of the attack on a young woman in the streets of the city on June 18 and also of the heroic defence and assistance brought to her by two men who happened to be nearby. Since we too often read about citizens who pass on the other side and do not want to get involved, I know, sir, you would like to join with me in welcoming the two gentlemen, Mr. Farley Faulkner and Mr. Fillip Kotarski, who are sitting under your gallery this afternoon -- heroes, in my opinion.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the other members of this Legislature, 38 grade 8 students from Our Lady of Lourdes School in Sault Ste. Marie, who are in the west gallery to attend this portion of our session. They are under the guidance of their teacher, Mr. Troietto. I would ask the members to join with me in welcoming them here.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce:) Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House, 40 grade 7 and 8 students from the Wingham Sacred Heart School in Wingham; Mrs. O’Malley is in charge. I would like the House to give these young people a welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

HOUSING ACTION PROGRAMME POLICY

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a report to the House today on the progress made to date by the Ontario housing action programme.

OHAP’s objective is to expedite the servicing of raw land in designated housing action areas so as to accelerate housing production where it is most needed. A second and equally important objective is to encourage the production of less expensive housing in action areas.

When we originally designed the Ontario housing action programme, we made an initial decision not to override the local municipal planning function --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Listen to that!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- or the role of the private developer and builder. This was a pragmatic decision based upon the belief that a co-operative venture would achieve more housing at a faster pace than unilateral provincial action.

To encourage a housing partnership including regional and area municipalities and developers, the provincial government under- took to do a number of things.

Firstly, we have offered municipalities special financial assistance so that accelerated development will not take place a burden on existing property taxpayers. This assistance includes tax stabilization grants to absorb any area municipal tax increases resulting from accelerated development in housing action areas. Secondly, we have made available interest-free loans to regional municipalities for their share of services for new development. Finally, we are providing grants to local governments for housing and engineering studies. These initiatives express our fundamental commitment to local taxpayers that they will not bear the cost of new development.

Mr. Speaker, the provincial government has made other important changes in its policies as they affect housing, and I would like to bring them before the House today.

Firstly, provincial funding for future schools, trunk sewers and major highways is being put into current budgets to speed up and encourage new housing development.

Secondly, population ceilings high enough to permit accelerated development have been included in population allocations for major urban areas recommended in the Toronto-centred region plan. While the need for long-range planning limits remains the same, we have removed any serious obstacles to short-term building programmes. In York and Peel, this policy will permit us to accelerate development in a number of housing action areas without the limitations imposed by previously identified population targets.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The minister has abandoned the Toronto-centred region.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Thirdly, the provincial role in the processing of plans has been streamlined. We have now approved, at the provincial level, land for more than 90,000 housing units, up 10,000 since May. This land is now available and waiting for final agreement between developers and municipalities.

Fourthly, my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), is now engaged in negotiations with Metro Toronto and the regional governments of Durham and York regarding the construction of the central York servicing scheme, which will release thousands of serviced lots on to the market in the immediate future.

I would like to announce today that my ministry is prepared to make a significant financial contribution toward the cost of this scheme, which will probably do as much to moderate housing prices around the greater Toronto area as any other single project the government has undertaken.

But we are prepared to go further. Several weeks ago, I proposed to the federal government a merging of their assisted home ownership programme with our HOME programme. My proposal was designed to ensure that the federal funding available under AHOP was actually put to use in major Ontario urban centres where it is most needed. The recent federal announcement of increased house price ceilings for eligibility under AHOP does not go far enough for Ontario.

We have asked for a merger of AHOP and HOME which would accentuate the favourable features of both, eliminate competition between two programmes having the same basic objectives, reduce public confusion and expand the assistance available to low-income families. I have not received a reply to my proposal; nor have I found in recent federal government housing policy announcements the programme initiatives necessary to sustain housing production in Ontario. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that we must ourselves intervene to a greater extent in the private mortgage market.

Immediate action is needed to reduce the negative impact on housing starts and carrying costs resulting from the high rates and short supply of mortgage funds. Clearly, more mortgage money must be made available to achieve provincial housing objectives. The HOME programme is already making available $75 million in new mortgage funds to help families with incomes from $8,000 to $14,500 buy HOME units. These funds are also a powerful incentive to builders to respond to the programme and to keep to production schedules. A source of additional funds below prevailing market rates of interest is now needed to support developer proposals for housing priced to meet the $14,500 to $20,000 income range and to help keep carrying costs within acceptable limits.

I would therefore like to announce today, as the fifth additional new provincial commitment to OHAP, that our government will make available $58 million in this fiscal year for first mortgages to families with incomes of less than $20,000, so that they can purchase accommodation in housing action areas.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Yes, that’s really intervening in the private mortgage money. That’s a real intervention there.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s only 1,500 units.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Why doesn’t the member go back and do his arithmetic and listen for a while?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Up to $35,000 will be available to each purchaser at 10.25 per cent, which is nearly two points below current market rates of interest.

Mr. Lewis: Now there is charity.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t like to spoil the fun of the members opposite but they might like to listen and learn something.

An hon. member: They will never learn anything.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The programme will be administered by the new Ontario Mortgage Corp.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, OHAP has up to now concentrated its efforts on the designation of action areas covering large tracts of land. As our sixth new initiative, I would like to advise the House that we are now including in OHAP an infill policy for serviced and planned sites with potential for 250 or more units.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): That is the most amusing thing that has happened today.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: These sites will be eligible for designation as housing action areas. There is a potential for thousands of units in such areas in Metro Toronto alone.

I believe provincial effort and resources, including the mortgage financing already mentioned, should bring many of these sites into early production, some in 1974, but most in 1975. Much of this potential is urgently needed multiple rental accommodation. An infill programme of this kind will provide an additional opportunity for urban municipalities to participate fully in OHAP. Considering our basic programme and the six new initiatives I have mentioned today, the sense of provincial commitment to OHAP has, I believe, been fully demonstrated.

Mr. Cassidy: Some would question that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Turning now to the response of the private developers, who are a major partner in OHAP, we have asked for specific price concessions as the requirement for participation in accelerated development.

Regarding the home ownership part of the programme, we have requested land for 10 per cent of dwellings for the HOME programme; 30 per cent of units for families with incomes in the $14,500 to $20,000 range; and additional price stabilization measures on the remaining 60 per cent.

Mr. Cassidy: For the upper crust.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The lots for the HOME programme will be sold to OHC at a price determined by a book value formula, resulting in a substantial saving to the province and the ultimate consumer. We hope that the income mix for OHAP production can be further shifted toward the needs of low and moderate incomes in the next year.

Mr. Cassidy: Further shifted? The government hasn’t begun.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: For rental units within housing action areas, I am asking developers to make special efforts to provide their units to lower-income families in an integrated programme, using both rent supplement and limited dividend features. Mort- gage funding at below-market rates will also be available for these projects in housing action areas under terms that I intend to announce shortly.

Mr. Cassidy: At 10.5 to 10.75 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Generally speaking, the private development industry has responded well to our initiatives. We now have 44 proposals from 23 developers, covering nearly 175,000 units.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: These units are spread over a considerable period of time.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But specific commitments have already been received for more than 33,000 units over the next three years --

Mr. Lewis: Three years?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- and I anticipate we will receive more of these in the next several weeks.

Mr. Cassidy: How many agreements has the minister got?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: OHAP is primarily a short-term programme and we have been asking developers for agreements on production over the next three years.

Mr. Cassidy: How many agreements has he got?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But developers are looking for longer-term commitments.

Mr. Cassidy: How many agreements?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are convinced that land prices can be further reduced and the income targets more adequately served if assured production schedules are extended over a longer period of time.

Certainly one of the contributing factors to house price increases has been the uneven pace of development. Developers and builders have been virtually invited to take short-term profits and to add on the cost of uncertainty to their prices.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s Tory free enterprise.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We think it desirable to reverse this trend. We are therefore considering long-term production agreements to flatten out the production peaks and valleys, eliminate cyclical excess demand and promote more efficient use of capital, labour and materials.

Mr. Cassidy: We have been asking for that for 20 years.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am convinced that we will get better prices for the consumer if developers and builders can count on sustained production. Many of the developers are giving us the concessions we need to bring housing prices into line with incomes. The proposals include land for 12,500 HOME units to date. We estimate the total reduction in prices for this land to be nearly $65 million or an average of more than $5,000 per unit.

Mr. Lewis: What is the cost? What is the total price?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Although these figures are certainly encouraging, we are still not completely satisfied with the developer response. We want a greater effort from some developers to shift the mix of housing in favour of the low-income families. We also want more production brought forward into 1974 and 1975 because the schedule for development can be just as important as the final price, as far as impact on the market is concerned.

In addition, a few of the largest developers have yet to submit proposals.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can only say at this point that participation in our programme will certainly help the developer to expedite planning approvals and servicing for his land.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: This incentive should be sufficient to offset the price reductions we require to meet our income targets.

Having reviewed with the members the provincial agreement and developer response to OHAP --

Mr. Cassidy: How many agreements has the minister got?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- I would now like to focus our attention on the third OHAP partner --

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t he tell us?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- namely local government. The response from both regional and area municipalities has been mixed and the progress generally slow. Regrettably, the mayor of Scarborough has shown us no co-operation.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): What about Etobicoke?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Some municipalities, like Brampton, Mississauga, Whitby, Newcastle, Thunder Bay, Cumberland, Gloucester, Goulbourn, Nepean, Markham, Dundas and Sault Ste. Marie have been generally positive in their initial response. We are now looking to them for the detailed commitment to developer proposals that will expedite development in the housing action areas.

Many of the remaining municipalities we have talked to have yet to respond to the programme in specific terms.

Mr. Speaker, to bring the members of the House up to date, I am tabling in the Legislature today a detailed summary of the status of our negotiations with local governments and developers, by region. These reports refer specifically to the actions needed to expedite new development. I am also making available maps outlining both the housing action areas we would like to see covered by developer and local governments and those which have been identified by municipalities to date. I should also emphasize that the full benefits offered under OHAP are available only to those developers and municipalities who have met our terms withing housing action areas.

There are many reasons for delay at the local level. Commitments to slow growth policies, negative attitudes to low- and moderate-income housing, the restructuring of local government and demands for additional financial support have been among those most commonly expressed.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure, blame the municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In many cases housing action proposals will direct and shape development patterns for the next 10 years or more. I can appreciate that long-term commitments such as these may be difficult to make. Some local government hesitation is understandable. But new housing must go somewhere.

It is unrealistic for local governments to talk about the need for more affordable housing without also accepting their fair share of it. Some municipal leaders seem to think that it’s okay to have more low-priced housing as long as it’s not in their own backyards. If we are going to bring the cost of housing back into line with family incomes, we need firm municipal commitments to the programme and we need them now. Decisions to proceed with 1974 production must be made in the next few weeks, otherwise much of the 1974 building season will be lost.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is catching on to that?

Mr. Cassidy: But the government is aggravating the problem.

Mr. Lewis: Coming to mind, is it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In the last four months, we have expended a great deal of time seeking out municipalities and attempting to interest them in our programme. We have taken our message to 27 area municipalities and eight regional governments and we have consulted with each of them on the designation of housing action areas and production targets. Now I am asking those who have not responded yet to come to us. I am looking for immediate municipal undertakings to implement the programme, including the designation of specific areas and targets and a commitment to do what is necessary to meet low- and moderate-income requirements.

Mr. Lewis: How long is the minister prepared to wait?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In other words, I am asking for the same degree of response and commitment from local governments as we are getting from the private developers and that we are providing ourselves as a province. I believe municipalities will recognize their responsibilities and respond to them quickly and fairly. But if I am wrong, we will have to consider other approaches.

Mr. Lewis: How many agreements does the minister have?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I intend to make a further report on the extent and nature of municipal response to OHAP within the next three weeks.

Mr. Cassidy: How many agreements has the minister got?

Mr. Lewis: How many signed agreements can he table? These are not agreements; these are proposals.

REPORTS ON LEAD POLLUTION

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct come erroneous information contained in this morning’s Globe and Mail on a meeting of the Toronto Board of Health.

Mr. Lewis: This is just a prelude; wait until we see what is coming.

Hon. W. Newman: The article said that the members of the Toronto Board of Health received a report on lead pollution after being tipped off by me. Ald. Dan Heap was quoted as saying that he was told of the information in a letter from me. Ald. Anne Johnston, chairman of the board of health, indicated also that information had not been made available to the members of the board of health.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Who was the fellow the minister tipped off?

Hon. W. Newman: First, Mr. Speaker, the letter that Ald. Heap referred to was sent not to him but to Mr. E. Doyle, secretary, Toronto Board of Health on May 14. The letter did mention an interim report that had been released by a special committee of medical and technical specialists in January, 1974. The report was entitled, “Interim Report on Lead in the Environment in the Vicinity of Secondary Lead Smelters in Toronto.”

However, Mr. Speaker, on March 20 a letter was sent to Ald. Anne Johnston from C. J. MacFarlane, then director of the air management branch, in which the same report was mentioned and the fact that it had been sent to Dr. George Moss.

This letter was sent to Ald. Johnston by Mr. MacFarlane because the ministry was concerned there might be a breakdown in communications between my ministry and the board of health. This letter listed the various reports, the date they were sent and to whom.

Going further back, Mr. Speaker, on March 14 a letter was sent to Ald. Heap pointing out that an error had been made in the dustfall data in the report entitled, “Air Quality in the Vicinity of Canada Metal and Toronto Refiners and Smelters, Toronto, Ontario.” The same letter refers to the interim report that Ald. Heap claims not to have seen. So, Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that Mrs. Johnston and Mr. Heap were well aware of the report as far back as March.

I do not know what advantage Ald. Johnston and Heap hope to gain from their public statements. But in an effort to clear up any misunderstanding and deal fairly with this matter, I would like to table the correspondence to which I have just referred.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Shame!

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Mr. Lewis: It is an attack on people who cannot defend themselves.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member is choking on that.

MINING TAX ACT

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in my budget statement I proposed measures to secure tor the people of Ontario a higher return from our mineral rescources. A parallel objective was to ensure that companies operating in Ontario remain internationally competitive and enjoy strong incentives to expand exploration, development and processing in this province.

A number of the tax changes I proposed for mining companies are included in the Corporations Tax Act, already before the House. Today I’m introducing the balance of these changes in the form of amendments to the Mining Tax Act. At budget time, it was estimated that the net impact of these changes would have increased provincial revenues from the mining industry by $50 million, from $75 million in 1973 to $125 million in 1974.

This estimate was based on the best data available to us prior to the budget. The mining industry is experiencing strong earnings growth this year, and more recent forecasts indicate higher revenues than had been predicted.

The graduated mining tax rates incorporated in the bill I am tabling today capture a fair share of this increase in profits. If present profit trends continue, the new tax policies I am proposing would generate an estimated $202 million in mining tax and income tax to the province.

Mr. Lewis: Say that again.

Hon. Mr. White: I said $202 million.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Treasurer mean $202 million and not $125 million?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes. I now estimate that the new mining tax after new processing allowances would yield $144 million in 1974 compared to $45 million produced in 1973.

The amendments to the Mining Tax Act establish a new graduated rate structure, rising to 40 per cent on profits’ in excess of $40 million. In addition, a number of important incentives are provided to encourage the growth and development of the mining industry in Ontario.

First, it allows the disaggregation of new mines for the purpose of calculating the mining tax. In effect, this allows new mining investment to earn its way up to the marginal rate structure. This will encourage new mining investment and will provide equal tax treatment to all companies in respect of future mining operations in Ontario.

Second, the depreciation allowance will be increased from 15 per cent to 30 per cent on new mining assets acquired after April 9, 1974, as a further incentive to encourage the expansion and modernization of Ontario mining operations.

Third, to increase exploration and development activities in the province, all preproduction expenses will be allowed as a deduction in computing the mining tax.

During the past six months, the province has developed comprehensive draft regulations fully detailing the provisions of the Mining Tax Act. These proposed regulations would increase the processing allowances in a number of ways:

By encouraging the refining of ores in Ontario.

By establishing a new incentive category to promote further processing in northern Ontario beyond the prime metal stage.

The processing allowance would be applied when capital works are constructed, thus paralleling capital cost allowance provisions.

Mining companies would no longer be able to reduce their tax in respect of processing facilities outside of Canada.

These features will strengthen the base of Ontario’s mining industry, encourage new investment and expansion, and provide increased economic benefits to the north.

Now, sir, the statement has a chart here which I am going to attempt to verbalize.

The processing allowances under the past system provided for an eight per cent offset for processing outside of Canada and provided eight per cent to the concentrating stage in Canada; 16 per cent cumulative to the smelting stage; 20 per cent cumulative to the refining stage in Canada, on the value of processing assets in use.

Under the new system the rate will be zero outside of Canada, while for the rest of Canada it will be the same at eight, 16 and 20 per cent, and for northern Ontario it will be eight per cent for concentrating, 16 per cent cumulative for smelting, up from 20 to 30 per cent cumulative for refining, and for further processing up to 35 per cent in northern Ontario alone. These are applied on the value of processing assets as constructed, as indeed is the case with capital cost allowances for federal and provincial corporation income tax purposes.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario’s revised tax structure for the mining industry is fair to everyone. It will result in an increase in Ontario’s total tax revenues from the mining industry of more than $125 million, from $75 million in 1973 to $202 million in 1974. It will enable the industry to enjoy good rates of return on investment and it will induce additional industrial development in northern Ontario.

It has been designed to take into account explicitly the federal government’s tax policy for mines, as announced by the Minister of Finance in August, 1970. The intent and result of that federal policy was to leave to the provinces the final determination of the total tax burden on the mining industry.

I believe the proposals in the recent federal budget which would have increased the tax burden on this industry, after the province had already determined the appropriate total tax burden in keeping with the existing rules, displayed a lack of understanding. This created a round of uncertainty in this important industry, which could have retarded the expansion we anticipate in Ontario. It is fortunate that these measures were rejected by the House of Commons.

The bill I am introducing today represents an equitable, comprehensive and rational tax policy for the mining industry.

GRAND RIVER FLOOD INQUIRY

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, as you and the hon. members are aware, I recently announced the appointment of Dr. A. D. Booth, president of Lakehead University, to investigate certain aspects of flooding which occurred on the Grand River and caused considerable damage there.

In the course of the first public hearings into this matter on Monday of this week, in the city of Cambridge, questions were raised about the form of inquiry as an appropriate instrument to pursue these matters.

In the light of these questions, I have been in consultation with my colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. Welch), and I wish to advise the House that some uncertainty as to the legal position and as to the necessity of appointing a commission under the Public Inquiries Act has yet to be finally resolved.

However, I am hopeful that the hearings can be reconvened early next week, and as soon as the legal situation is clarified I shall be in touch with those responsible for the inquiry to expedite resumption at the earliest possible date.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, on Monday my colleague, the Minister without Portfolio in our ministry, (Mr. Irvine), outlined our programme to improve local government in northern Ontario.

Today I should like to give the House some details of a companion programme in which 10 ministries are initiating special projects to encourage economic development in northwestern Ontario.

These activities manifest the government’s commitment to make a special effort to improve the economy and living standards of northern Ontario through our programmes and through joint programmes with the federal and municipal governments.

Members will recall that I signed a federal-provincial agreement at Thunder Bay on May 31, under which our two governments will spend $42 million over the next three years on projects to improve the economic base of this region.

This year we have provided an additional $9.3 million in our regional priority budget for northwestern Ontario; this money will be used on 28 specific projects which are over and above the normal commitments of ministries to this important region.

Full details of the programme are set out in a folder which we are making available to all members of the House. We will be distributing this material to local councils, community organizations and visitors to the Canadian Lakehead Exhibition, which opens at Thunder Bay on Saturday.

The regional priority budget for northwestern Ontario was initiated last year when we provided an additional $2.4 million for extra road construction, airport equipment and special surveys.

With the much-expanded programme this year, we are able also to meet more of the social and cultural needs of citizens in the north with consumer education, library facilities and training of native people in policing and probationary services.

Mr. Speaker, the need for these people-oriented programmes was emphasized by many citizens during the recent visit to northwestern Ontario by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) and the ministers in that policy field.

In developing these programmes, we have worked closely with the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Transportation and Communications and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle), and their personal interest is reflected in the range of programmes that they are initiating.

Many of the initiatives we are taking this year will be extended or expanded as the needs of the region are developed in the future. These initiatives are the emanation of our Design for Development programme, which is most advanced in northwestern Ontario, and they provide further proof of this government’s commitment to northern development.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): And from prodding by the opposition.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A great day for --

Hon. Mr. White: A great day for northern Ontario.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, before the oral questions, if I may.

Sir, there are some serious allegations in this morning’s Globe and Mail referring to myself, the government and the Ontario Provincial Police. I rise to say they are completely false.

The first allegation is that I have certain confidential government documents. I have no such documents. I have brought here to the House today every document and every piece of paper that I brought back from my trip, and anyone in the gallery or in the House is welcome to see them.

I believe the document that so excited the man who jumped to all the conclusions is this “Police Guide to Organized Crime.” If he had taken the trouble to open the first page, he would have seen it is for sale from the superintendent of documents in Washington.

The second allegation is that there was some deal made between myself and the government whereby they are going to feed me questions that are to be asked.

Mr. T. P. Held (Rainy River): The member has sold out.

Mr. Shulman: I think anyone in this House knows how ludicrous and ridiculous this is.

Mr. Reid: They want to make him chief coroner.

Mr. Shulman: Not only is there no such deal, no one on the government side or anywhere else has ever approached me to make any such suggestion. I think, sir, if you will allow me, I will briefly explain the circumstances of the trip.

I was approached some two months ago by a Mr. Wendland from the Detroit News with information that there were connections between organized criminals in Detroit and Toronto. He invited me to come to Detroit and look into this. I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), since I was going down, if it possibly could be coincided with a visit by one of their officers. I thought it would be of mutual advantage, both to me and to them, to get whatever information I could receive. The Solicitor General kindly co-operated with that. There was nothing mysterious about it. I informed my caucus about it at the time.

Finally, sir, there are occasions when anyone can go bonkers, and I presume that’s what happened with this particular reporter. But surely there is a responsibility on the Globe and Mail, which had two reporters investigate this matter and could not find a single shred of corroboratory evidence to back it up, to do more than just print un-backed-up allegations.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Not like the member.

An hon. member: They have no professional courtesy.

Mr. Singer: They might even have read parts of letters or something like that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. Shulman: Finally, sir, if I may say so, there is a responsibility on all of us, regardless of party, to co-operate both with the police and with the government on matters involving crime. This is not a matter that divides any of us.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Shulman: And if I can do anything in the future to assist, I will be glad to do so. I want to make that quite clear. I don’t feel I have done anything wrong. I am proud of what I have done.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): I wonder if I might interfere with the orders very briefly, Mr. Speaker, to introduce a couple of visitors who have just arrived in the gallery. Firstly, there is the Premier of the State of St. Vincent, Mr. Mitchell; he is accompanied by Dr. Lionel Thomas, who is a commissioner with the Eastern Caribbean Commission. These gentlemen are visiting Ontario and Toronto. They are here to discuss other possibilities with the government of Ontario but partially to bring us up to date on some of the activities of people within this province in the provision of a new school facility on that very delightful island. So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of the House, I would like to welcome the Premier and his colleague here on this occasion.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the member for Dovercourt (Mr. G. Nixon) doing up there?

Mr. Singer: Is he Ontario’s ambassador to the Caribbean?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: That’s a good job. I’ll take it, I’ll take it.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

INDUSTRIAL PROFIT LEVELS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he would respond to the figures from Statistics Canada that were made public overnight about industrial profit levels in Canada -- and they must certainly pertain here -- which show that the profit levels are at least twice as large in their increase as the increase in sales. Would he now give some serious consideration to establishing a forum -- and I would suggest a select committee of the members of this House -- that could meet during the summer recess, if there is one; and we expect that there would be -- so that they can call before them those representatives of the industries that have shown these unconscionable increases in profits, with an eye to moderating the impact on the consumers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in that the members opposite are officially on record as opposing any form of a restraint as it relates to either prices or incomes --

Mrs. Campbell: That isn’t true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and in recognition of the statement he has made, I find the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition is really beyond my comprehension.

Mr. Reid: The Premier is not going to do anything about it again.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this government is concerned about price increases. It is concerned in particular, as we have demonstrated, about the increase in the price of land, which the members opposite are of course attempting to ridicule --

Mr. Reid: Oh, come on.

Mr. Cassidy: The government won’t touch anything affecting the consumer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and which the members opposite, of course, do not appreciate.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I just find the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition to be totally inconsistent and totally political in nature. At least the other opposition party is consistent about it.

Mr. Singer: “Put on your sweater. Turn down the thermostat.” That is the Premier’s philosophy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t put on a sweater.

Mr. Singer: Turn down the thermostat

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would not the Premier at least have the intellectual honesty to recognize the position that we and the other opposition party, the NDP, have taken with respect to the cost of petroleum products and our call in amendments for the last three years for the establishment of a review board of this Legislature? Surely he must realize his own credibility suffers when he makes such an irresponsible attack, as he has, in response to the deep and sincere concern of everybody in this House and certainly of everybody in this province. He’s got to do better than that or he is not doing his job.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will just make a very simple response. The position of the Liberal Party on so many issues over the past number of months -- in fact, over several years --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has been perfectly consistent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- is totally inconsistent; it changes from week to week --

Mr. Reid: Deal with the problems!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Their position on the question of price or income control, the question of petroleum products or what have you, is totally inconsistent with some other things they have said.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Perfectly consistent.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary question: Select committee of the Legislature aside, given the reference of the Treasurer today to the establishment of a fair rate of return in the mining industry --

Hon. Mr. White: I said “good” rate of return.

Mr. Lewis: The minister said what?

Hon. Mr. White: I used the word “good”.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that qualitative or quantitative?

Mr. Lewis: I’m not sure the minister did, in fact; he should go back and look at his statement. Given his reference to a rate of return in the mining industry which presumably means that one can be established, in light of that declaration by the Treasurer and given the StatCan figures, would the Premier consider the imposition provincially of an excess profits tax, over and above an adequate rate of return, for companies doing business this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think even the leader of the New Democratic Party realizes how totally unrealistic it is --

An hon. member: Why?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to refer to a company that is doing business here. It would have to be doing business here exclusively; we would be dealing with --

Mr. Lewis: No, not at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, that is fine. We would have an excess profit tax here, but they wouldn’t have it in the Province of Manitoba, the Province of Saskatchewan or the Province of British Columbia. It’s quite obvious -- and this is really the whole basis of the discussion that’s going on at this moment in Canada --

Mr. Lewis: We have a corporation tax in this province. We levy corporation taxes in Ontario. We can do it here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- if one wants to deal with the question of inflation, the question of cost or the question of income, it has to be done on a national basis.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Stop playing games.

Mr. Renwick: Levy it against the profits.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And to have this government involved in some form of excess profits tax, as it relates to this single jurisdiction, just doesn’t make much sense.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier cops out that way every time.

Mr. Lewis: What is he talking about?

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier why he is so unconscionably sensitive about this matter when he specifically says it is a federal responsibility, when the government of Canada’s proposal for anti-profiteering legislation was voted down by both opposition parties in the Parliament of Canada --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, it was a nonsense bill. It was a bogus bill. It was a piece of rubbish.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So says he. So says he. We will see when it is implemented.

But how can he continue to say that no responsibility lies with this chamber, or the powers that this chamber can confer on this government?

Mr. Bullbrook: Right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely he cannot reject that as a basic responsibility in his answers?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It will paralyse this country.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I happen to believe in the integrity of this country in its confederated sense, and for the Leader of the Opposition to attempt to draw a red herring into this issue when he and his party have no real concern about trying to find effective ways to deal with inflation, I find it is completely contradictor.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Red herring?

Mr. Cassidy: That is the pot calling the kettle black.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier has no concern. He will not use his powers. Why doesn’t he --

Mr. Lewis: Does the government not set a corporation tax on the corporations based on the profit generated in Ontario?

Mr. Cassidy: Of course, every day.

Mr. Lewis: So what is inconsistent with asking the Premier to impose an excess profits tax on those same profits? Don’t talk nonsense.

Hon. Mr. White: How about a 90-day pause?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the answer to that is relatively simple, Mr. Speaker, because we are dealing with Canadian corporations where one then has to distinguish the degree of profit in one jurisdiction in this country vis-à-vis another, and they talk about excess. They say excess over what? Well, it doesn’t make any sense.

Mr. Renwick: But they do it now.

Mr. Cassidy: They do it every day now.

Mr. Lewis: No, the Premier doesn’t do anything, so he cops out completely.

Mr. Renwick: Do it now.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member’s father is in favour of a 90-day pause.

Mr. Lewis: Who is in favour of a 90-day pause? Watch those slanders.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Premier would understand that other provinces have accepted this responsibility, saying, as they often do, that it is shared with the government of Canada? Why cannot we take at feast some steps in the Legislature here in Ontario at least to move as far as other provincial) jurisdictions have already moved? They have blazed the trail. They have shown how it can be done. Why cannot we follow at least that distance?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only say this, this government never follows behind any jurisdiction in Canada in matters of importance.

Mr. Lewis: Look at the oil companies. Look at the food companies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The only people we find lagging behind when we are attempting to do something, such as on the land speculation tax, are the members of the official opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who’s lagging behind?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Boy, he sure knows how to hurt a person.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They know they are lagging behind.

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

ORGANIZED CRIME IN ONTARIO

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Solicitor General if he is prepared to add to the information given to the House by the member for High Park, having to do with the possible availability of information to the member or to anyone else, from the police forces over which he has control? Has he any specific programme which can be indicated to us in the Legislature, that is working to bring the organized criminal forces in this particular province under some control? Does he believe that other jurisdictions are doing a better job and can he indicate what he is going to do in order to improve the situation here?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, as far as criminal activities are concerned in Ontario, it is my opinion that they are under control. They are under continuous surveillance and the police -- municipal police, the Ontario Provincial Police force and, in some cases, the RCMP -- have the matter under control and have the whole problem under control. As far as the hon. member for High Park’s statement is concerned, I really, haven’t got anything further to add to what has already been in the newspaper and said in this House. The hon. member travelled to Michigan with two members of the OPP.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Who paid their fares?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He paid his own way, I understand. He was not shown any confidential or restricted information whatsoever --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- nor was he told anything that was considered confidential. He met a number of people. He really talked with Michigan state police and, I understand, Detroit police representatives, and then returned to Ontario. It is my understanding that he was not given any documents that would be considered confidential or restricted, or which he should not be in possession of at this time or any time, and I think that really there has been nothing improper here. As I indicated earlier, if any members of this House wanted to take a similar trip and arrangements could be made with the US police forces in that state or any other state, this could be done at any time.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Privileged information --

Mr. Renwick: The member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Singer: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How does the Solicitor General know what was shown to the member for High Park? How does he know that no confidential information was given to him? How does the minister justify --

Mr. Renwick: Because the hon. member for High Park said so.

Mr. Ruston: Well, don’t trust him.

Mr. Singer: -- or does he care to justify the absolute contradiction --

An hon. member: Whoops! Pardon?

Mr. Shulman: Hey!

Mr. Singer: -- between the remarks in the Globe and Mail and the remarks made by the hon. member?

Mr. Shulman: Wait.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Lewis: Withdraw.

Mr. Renwick: Is the member for Downsview indirectly impugning the honour of the member for High Park?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): A point of order, did you get that?

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

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have already given my word I was given no confidential information or documents. The member from the Liberal Party says he does not trust my word. I ask him to take that back.

Mr. Renwick: And the member for Downsview is indirectly doing the same thing.

Mr. Lewis: Exactly.

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, the member for Essex-Kent says he does not accept my word.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, on that very point, I did not impugn the --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Our colleague did.

Mr. Stokes: The member for Essex-Kent said “Don’t trust him.”

Mr. Renwick: Indirectly, the member for Downsview is doing the same.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has suggested to me that the hon. member for Essex-Kent made a certain allegation. I didn’t hear it but if the hon. member did say it I would ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. Deans: I heard it.

Mr. Ruston: I think, Mr. Speaker, probably it would be shown in Hansard, I did make a statement that I didn’t necessarily trust his --

Mr. Stokes: The member said “Don’t trust him.”

Mr. Ruston: All right, “Don’t trust him.” The member has the report of the Globe and Mail; is he not trusting that man, too, then?

Mr. Renwick: Does the member withdraw it or not?

Mr. Ruston: If it’s the right procedure I’ll withdraw the statement if you so desire, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is the right procedure. The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Good boy.

Mr. Singer: All right. I misunderstood the remark. It was not directed to me so I won’t comment on the remark that wasn’t directed to me. I’d like the answer, though, from the Solicitor General.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I speak?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member --

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, please. The one question that must be borne in mind here is the definition of the word “confidentiality.” I think what my colleague for Downsview meant is whether the hon. member for High Park regards the word “confidentiality” in the same context as the rest of us?

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, the member for Sarnia is welcome to see everything I brought back. Everything.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t want to see everything. He said it was confidential.

Mr. Shulman: If there is any question in his mind that anything here is improper, I will be very surprised. There is nothing here which is not available in public records.

Mr. Singer: What about what the member was told?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview was asking a question, does he have that question? If not, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Singer: No, the minister hasn’t answered the question.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. member complete his question The hon. minister may respond.

An hon. member: Quit fighting over there.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is my understanding that at least one of the two officers who accompanied the hon. member for High Park was in his presence at all times during his tour. I’m satisfied, after talking with them, that no documents of a confidential nature, in their opinion, were shown to the hon. member nor was he told by any of the police officers --

Mr. Breithaupt: Why did he go?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- either from the State of Michigan or from this province anything of a confidential or restricted nature. The hon. member had a tour. He visited the state legislature; he visited television studios.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He talked to a lot of people in a very general way about criminal activities.

Mr. Breithaupt: Too bad the member for Lambton couldn’t go along, too.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He really was shown nothing of a restricted or confidential nature.

Mr. Speaker: If everybody’s happy with that topic, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Bullbrook: One supplementary: Can we be assured that if any of us accept the minister’s invitation we also can be introduced at Lansing to the legislative commission? That’s really important police work. I want to know.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, when the state House is in session.

Mr. MacDonald: How many million has the member made?

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

HOUSING ACTION PROGRAMME POLICY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker, if he can now indicate that his housing action programme, so-called, is completely in place? Is he satisfied with the results he announced to the House today, that in three years he expects 33,000 starts? Can he indicate, to begin with, how many additional starts, relating to the moneys we are prepared to vote here and the programme he has now put in place, will be a part of the housing programme this year? Will it counteract the projections that the housing starts or the units produced this year will be substantially down from a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in response to the first question which was, I recall, am I satisfied that it’s completely in place -- of course not. Negotiations are going on hourly, every day of the week.

Mr. Deans: How many contracts has the minister got?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Our housing action co-ordinators are out in the field meeting with municipalities and developers. There is no question whatsoever that these negotiations will continue until we are completely satisfied -- and from that point we will go on further to the other stages of our housing action programme.

I am becoming quite accustomed to the hon. Leader of the Opposition jumping to conclusions, but when he leaps to an assumption as quickly as he did, I find some difficulty in going that far with him. What we did say was that we have specific commitments received for more than 33,000 units over the next three years. I anticipate we will receive more of these in the next several weeks. We have proposals, but we have no commitments, from many of the municipalities.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, the objective of the programme from its very outset was to create an oversupply of serviced lots, and we are well on the way to doing that. One of the reasons why we have brought this task force report forward today was so that everyone would know that the 1974 part of our projection is in jeopardy, but that doesn’t mean that we will not have 12,000 serviced lots available for building, with a large number of housing starts on those lots in 1974.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the minister agree that the two funds he is referring to -- the one of $75 million and the other, I believe, of $58 million -- might better be apportioned, at least in larger part, to a reduction of the interest rates below the level of 10 ¼, which he believes is going to be so attractive. Surely, the subsidy ought to be directed toward the interest rather than providing the down payment, so that more people can benefit from the financing of the construction programme?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Again, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the mortgage money is designed to do. It is to reduce the carrying charges so that persons of lower income will be enabled to carry the charges on their new houses. The $75 million is being lent at this time, at 8% per cent, under the HOME programme. The $58 million will be at 10% per cent, so that people who are above the HOME income levels will be able to buy houses and be able to carry the monthly charges. It is approximately 1 ¾ to two per cent below the current market rate. If we had not intervened with the $58 million, the houses would still be built, the prices would be the same, but they would serve only the higher end of the group that we are attempting to serve.

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

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Am I to understand that your intervention on the private housing market consists of providing roughly 1,600 mortgages in the amount of $35,000 each at an interest rate of 10% per cent -- and you consider that to be a serious intrusion on the private mortgage market?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the $58 million mortgage money at 10 ¼ per cent will be restricted to the housing action area. This is a report on the housing action programme.

Mr. Lewis: At $35,000 a mortgage?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: A maximum of $35,000 to those who require it. Many of the developers already have committed mortgage financing. We feel that this is to ensure that the 3,600 units -- that is the 30 per cent of the 12,000 which were forecast in Ontario Housing 1974 -- will in fact be built and meet the needs of the people who are just slightly above the HOME-income levels. Otherwise, the buildings are still going to be built.

It doesn’t require the $58 million; except they would all be sold to people with incomes at $19,000 or $20,000. We are intervening to be sure that 30 per cent of the moderate income houses will be built and financed and sold to people who are in the moderate income group.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister tell us what developers he has agreements with; whether they are agreements with the municipalities in those particular cases; how many agreements there are; and will he table now in this Legislature any agreements that have been reached?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, a complete status report is attached to the statement which was issued to the hon. member. If he will read it carefully -- which I under stand he rarely does -- but if he will read it carefully he will find that there is a commitment of over 4,000 lots from one developer. There are no municipal agreements because we haven’t been able to get municipalities to pass the necessary motion.

We are now asking within the next three weeks to have firm commitments. We have said this: We expect them to be responded to; and I am confident that the municipalities will react favourably.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, if I remember what I read, the minister has one agreement with Campeau for a given number of lots --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Acres.

Mr. Lewis: Acres -- is that right? But the minister does not have another specific agreement with any developer, nor a specific agreement with a municipality. Would he table his agreement with Campeau so the House can see it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the order in council is being prepared and obviously will be tabled. We said in previous debates that we would table these as soon as’ they were approved by order in council under the ministry Act, which I have now been empowered to do. It has received’ royal assent.

Certainly I will table that agreement. There is nothing secret about it at all. The other proposals that we have will be drafted along the same lines, but with the Campeau agreement we had to have one specimen to use for the purposes of acting as a model. They will not all be identical, but I can say this, and I would like to pay tribute now to the Campeau Corp., that they in fact have acted as a leader in the industry in providing us with a road along which we are sure that the others will follow.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

Mr. C. J. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Housing in connection with his report. Why does he say that interest-free loans are made available to regional municipalities for their share of services to developments, and does he not think that other municipalities I might need that assistance just as much as the regional municipalities?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, so far the programme of interest-free loans only applies in the housing action areas. The housing action areas at the present time apply only in those areas where there are regional governments, including Thunder Bay, and Thunder Bay --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not Kingston and not Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Kingston and Windsor are being identified as seconds-phase housing action areas, Mr. Speaker. There is a limit --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: Second-class citizens.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would say to the hon. member for Kingston that we are devoting considerable efforts to our HOME programme in the Kingston area, and I hope to be able to expand that quickly this summer. I know that he is concerned about the housing shortage; there are housing shortages in many other parts of the province.

Mr. Cassidy: Incidentally, the government has been telling us that for the last year and a half.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We can only do as much as finances, resources, and human ability will enable us to do --

Mr. Lewis: As the private market lets the government do.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- and we certainly will be looking at seconds-phase housing action areas as soon as we have got enough commitments to carry on for this year.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, I have not determined yet that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has finished with his questions nor the hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Singer: I am sorry. It’s not a supplementary, it’s a new question.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: All right, a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: One final question; I would like to tie the minister down. Can the minister tell us, whatever is going to happen over 10 years in the agreement with Campeau, how many units are covered under the housing action programme agreement with Campeau over the next three years? Can he be specific? And in this year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as I recall the agreement -- and I would have to check the specifics of it -- all of the units in the Campeau agreement extend over three years. A reference to 10 years is the wish of some developers, and I think it is a very commendable plan on their part to try to stabilize production over 10 years. We are now going back to municipalities to ask them to accept this as a principle on which we can proceed. In the Campeau agreement, in some areas, as I recall the specifics, the agreements were specifically for three years and all of the acres that were in the agreement are covered in those three years.

Mr. Cassidy: How many units?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions? If not, the hon. member for Scarborough West is next.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Housing. Given his current anxiety to fulfil the target set for 1974, does the minister think -- referring to something quite different -- that he can respond to the efforts of intervention on the part of the mayor of Toronto, and now more particularly Mr. Jaffary, the member of the executive committee, in an effort to prevent the tearing down of some 250 homes in the island community, which I think that a number of his colleagues are concerned about as well?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the residents of the islands and my response to them has been that we could consider any motion that came from Toronto city council, that we would look at it. My understanding is that there has in fact been no resolution passed by the Toronto city council; Metro council has refused to reopen the issue.

My own personal feeling is that I would find it regrettable to see livable houses torn down until replacements are in place. But on the other hand I have no power to ask at this time, until such time as some resolution comes within my jurisdiction as Minister of Housing.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since the minister would find it regrettable -- I think most people do -- that at a time of housing shortage of this kind, 250 homes are indiscriminately torn down for reasons which mystify most, and since he is Minister of Housing and has a certain authority, can he not in conjunction with, for instance, a man like the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) who feels strongly about it, or with the Premier, ask for a meeting requested by the province to discuss precisely this issue with an effort to establish a non-profit, co-op housing corporation to handle those homes for low-income earners, or perhaps to establish some kind of rezoning for the island at the initiative of the province? Can he not intervene at the 11th hour before we do something so foolhardy?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The intervention requested by the hon. member would mean that the province is determining regional-municipal priorities.

Mr. Lewis: No.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Certainly it would and there has been a decision made establishing priorities at the Metro level. In my view, this ministry and I’m sure my colleague, who is not here --

Mr. Lewis: What is his name?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- would respond positively to a request which is within our jurisdiction without intervening with a heavy oar and telling both the Metro council and the city council what to do.

Mr. Lewis: The minister won’t initiate it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I feel very strongly that this would be an intervention in municipal affairs which is not appropriate in my ministry.

Mr. Haggerty: Why doesn’t the minister ask the member for Toronto and the Islands?

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary: Does the minister feel there is any cause for concern in connection with the attitude of Ald. Jaffary, with respect to the streamlining of his procedures, when the essence of Ald. Jaffary’s suggestion is that if they attempt to rezone the area in question it will take years to have the rezoning go through?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we deal with rezoning applications quite frequently. It would depend on the urgency of it. We would give it any priority the city council or the Metro council felt it should have.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of one final supplementary: Do I take it that the minister can assure the people of Ontario there are rezoning applications which go through in less time than years?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it’s a supplementary: If the minister had a request for rezoning of that section of the island within the next number of days would he provide that rezoning for housing to allow those units to remain, before Aug. 31?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t commit myself to that. Obviously, it would have to go through the procedures.

Mr. Singer: The ministry doesn’t provide that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can say that our procedures within the ministry could be completed very quickly. However, if there are legitimate objections to the request for rezoning, obviously there is a body in this province which has the responsibility to establish the priorities in those cases.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, so the houses go down the drain.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Premier: Given that the food index in Metropolitan Toronto was up 3.8 per cent in the last month; that the Ontario food basket, as reported today, is up 1.5 per cent in one month -- the last month -- and given his fervent declarations of his protection of the consumer against the rise in the cost of living, what can he do to control or roll back some of the food prices which are demonstrably set in an exorbitant fashion by some of the supermarket companies

Mr. M. Hamilton (Renfrew North): Roll back the wages.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to reopen the quiet discussion of just a few moments ago but I think, really, that question relates to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. I think the position taken by this government is one which is consistent and that is, matters of this kind are --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Consistently doing nothing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who in heaven’s name should be talking about doing nothing other than the party opposite us here today? Who in heaven’s name?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just give me a chance.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ll give the Leader of the Opposition his chance. Let him go out and vote for Stanfield on July 8 because he’s prepared to do something about it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Stanfield will be elected to step down.

Mr. Lewis: I think they should both step down. Can the Premier indicate how he is prepared to intervene to protect the consumers against these kinds of food price increases when there is no protection for them from any other jurisdiction?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier is not prepared to do anything.

Mr. Ruston: The do-nothing leader.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, we sat around and did nothing about land.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the Premier answer the member?

Mr. Lewis: It is too easy for the Premier to answer the question. It will keep him in power for sure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They are too easy, I know. I much prefer questions from there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But these people want to continue to protect the speculators in land. Sure they do.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m getting too many questions.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I’ll withdraw my question. I will consider my question answered; the Premier has been asked before.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No further questions.

Mr. Deans: What’s the point?

Mr. Speaker: Then the hon. Provincial Secretary for Social Development has the answer to a question asked previously.

MINI-SKOOLS LTD.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, on June 17, 1974, the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party requested information on Mini-Skools Ltd. I have that information today.

This company operates seven daycare centres in the Province of Ontario with an enrolment of approximately 900 children. This represents less than two per cent of the number of children enrolled in daycare in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I should point out that licences to operate in this field are granted to each centre on an individual basis and not to any corporation. The company at present is fully licensed to operate the seven centres. Neither the Mini-Skools, nor any other daycare centre, have ever been licensed on 24-hour intervals, as suggested by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

With regard to the officers and directors of the company, I can report that our investigations show that the president of the company is Mr. John Christianson and that Mr. Walter Weir is neither a director nor an officer. We have no knowledge of any connection between Mini-Skools and Great-West Life. And, Mr. Speaker, Mini-Skools have communicated neither approval nor disapproval of any new policies.

In his question the other day the hon. Leader of the Opposition seemed to be concerned about the provision of care to young children on a private, profit-making basis. The position of this government is that all forms of daycare that meet the standards of the Day Nurseries Act, whether they be parent co-operatives, non-profit, or profit-making, should be allowed to develop and compete.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Hard to meet standards now.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Finally, Mr. Speaker, my staff is now assembling the material I promised to table in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. member for Rainy River, I have a couple of other answers to questions. The hon. Minister of Transportation and Communications.

CERTIFICATES OF MECHANICAL FITNESS

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On June 18 the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) had asked a question of me concerning legislation to tighten up the system of certificates of mechanical fitness. At that time I answered the question, but I don’t feel that I gave him the complete information that he had required.

Mr. Singer: The minister gave him the wrong information.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I did not give him wrong information; but I would like to give him the complete information.

Mr. Singer: The correct information.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member suggested at that time that no legislation or regulations had been brought in to tighten up the system of certificates of mechanical fitness. I would like to put on the record that Bill 260, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, was given third reading on Dec. 12, 1973. The bill comes into force upon proclamation, which will be Sept. 1, 1974.

On Sept. 1, 1974, regulations regarding the method of certifying the fitness of used motor vehicles at the time of sale or transfer, will come into effect in the province. At that time only appointed inspection stations and motor vehicle inspection mechanics registered under the programme and in the employ of a station will be permitted to complete the safety standard certificate, which will replace the present certificate of mechanical fitness.

Private sellers of used motor vehicles, as well as dealers in used motor vehicles, will then be required to produce to the purchaser at the time of the delivery of the vehicle a safety standard certificate; otherwise the licence plates must be surrendered and the vehicle sold with an “unfit” permit.

Mr. Speaker, the ministry’s plans for implementing the programme involve sending a package of information to each garage operator holding a 1974 class A or B licence. I do not have the total number of these available, however I am informed that packages of information were sent to roughly 10,700 licensed garage operators. Each operator was invited to review the material and to reply to the ministry if he was interested in obtaining further information and application forms to be licensed under the new safety standard certificate programme.

The ministry has received approximately 5,500 replies to this invitation, and I am advised that 393 of these replies were forthcoming from the ministry’s Ottawa district, including the counties of Carleton, Lennox, Prescott, Renfrew and Russel. I am further advised that approximately 185 responses were received from the city of Ottawa proper.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy also has the answer to a question asked previously.

LENNOX GENERATING STATION

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Riddell) asked a question last week concerning a press report which appeared in the Globe and Mail of June 12 purporting to state certain allegations made by two members of the Kingston Utilities Commission. I indicated at that time that I was not in possession of all the facts. I am now, and will give the answer.

The statement that construction work was torn down to accommodate oil at Lennox is incorrect. The decision to use residual oil as a fuel at Lennox was made in December, 1969. There was no construction work on the site for at least seven months after the decision was made. From the date of the decision to fuel the Lennox station with oil, no consideration has been given to any other fuel source.

In regard to the second part of the question with reference to statements attributed to Mr. Ireland, the assistant general manager of Hydro, Mr. Ireland has stated that he has never stated that the Lennox station would be anything but oil-fired.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

FLAKEBOARD PLANT AT ATIKOKAN, ALLOCATION OF TIMBER LIMITS

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Has the minister made a decision as to the flakeboard plant and which company will be allowed to have the timber limits in the vicinity of Atikokan?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, just as a matter of information, I am sure the member will be glad to know that the government has been dealing with this particular matter for some considerable time. We are very conscious of the economic situation --

Mr. Stokes: We are aware of that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and the economic downturn that may occur in the Atikokan area. Consequently, we have invited a number of firms to give us proposals for utilization of the proper species in that particular area. We have boiled it down to two proposals. The matter is still before the government. I hope we will be able to make a decision in the best long-term interest of the Atikokan area very soon.

Mr. Stokes: The minister said that three weeks ago.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, if I may ask the minister: As he indicated in his estimates that the decision would be forthcoming, can he assure the House that this project won’t be lost because of the delay in making the decision?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are so close to making a decision I can make that assurance.

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

HEATH SURVEY CONSULTANTS LTD.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Is it accurate that the government of Ontario has entered into a contract with Heath Survey Consultants Ltd. of London for work in relation to Union Gas Co., and is it also accurate that that contract or that arrangement of the government with Heath Survey was entered into after they had withdrawn from work during the course of the current strike situation?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Certainly not to my knowledge. Is that Keith Survey?

Mr. MacDonald: Heath, like the ex-Prime Minister of Britain.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have never heard of it. I will make inquiries but I have never heard of either the firm or any such arrangement.

Mr. MacDonald: Would the minister indicate, if he finds that it is the case, what is the nature of the government’s contracts or arrangements with Heath and when they were entered into?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Was it with the Ministry of Energy or with whom?

Mr. MacDonald: It was work in connection with Union Gas Co. I assumed it might come under the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have no idea.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. In view of the statements of the hon. member for High Park earlier, which I accept; and in view of the statements that appeared this morning on the front page of a Toronto newspaper which usually has some substantial credibility attached to it; and in view of the possibility that there is a suggestion that some privileges of this House may have been breached --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Those words will haunt the member.

Mr. Singer: -- would the Premier be prepared to move the appropriate motion to bring this matter before the committee of the House that deals with privileges and elections in order to ascertain whether, in fact, any privileges of the House have been breached, particularly in relationship to the privilege that surrounds us in connection with freedom from libel and slander?

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member is reaching.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, come now!

Mr. Speaker: I am not at all sure that is a proper question to direct to the ministry. It might be brought up as a matter of --

Mr. Singer: No, it is the only way we can get to the privileges and elections committee.

Mr. Deans: What the hon. member is saying is, he thinks something took place.

Mr. Speaker: If the Premier wishes to attempt to answer that, it will be acceptable.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am always delighted to have your very generous rulings. I would only make this observation, from what I have read and from listening to the discussions here this afternoon, I really don’t sense any need to call the privileges and elections committee. If the hon. member for Downsview is privy to or learns of certain information which is not available to the rest of us, which he wishes to communicate, of course I would be delighted to receive it. But certainly at this moment I don’t see any useful purpose being served in calling that committee.

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

HAMILTON BAY PROPERTY

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. May I preface it for the benefit of the Globe and Mail by saying my source of information is the fourth estate? In view of the fact that the government is negotiating in Hamilton to purchase property of the Lax brothers, would the minister comment on the police freezing of their bank accounts, together with that of Danny Gasbarrini and former member of Parliament Russell Reinke earlier this week? Has that anything to do with the negotiations the government is carrying on at the present time; and has it anything to do with the Hamilton harbour scandal?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware that the people to whom the hon. member referred are involved with the police. I of course was aware that the Lax brothers property is involved in some dispute right now, but I’ll have to look into the other questions put by the hon. member.

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

SUPPLY AND PRICE OF FERTILIZER

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister going to investigate the statement of the soil specialist, Russell Johnston of the Ridgetown College of Agriculture Technology, that some plant-food prices are extremely expensive and a consumer ripoff?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Well I would, yes; but I haven’t heard that statement anywhere else. I wonder if my friend would give me the source.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Yes, I’ll be glad to give the minister the source of the information. It’s contained in an article published this morning in today’s London Free Press. It’s the lead item. It indicates that the price of plant food approximates $4,000 a ton. I think the minister should investigate that, if he would; as well as the possibility of misleading advertising associated with the same product.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think I know what my hon. friend is talking about. No, I didn’t see that particular article, but I did see reference made to it. He is referring, I believe, to small packages of fertilizer sold for garden use and for flowers and this kind of thing, which is a very minute percentage of the total fertilizer used in this province.

I suppose that if he were to go on further and read, certainly the article that I saw indicated clearly that anyone could go to a fertilizer dealer and buy a 50-lb bag of fertilizer for a fraction of what it would cost to buy these few ounces of fertilizer in a small package, and save it for next year or the year after, as the case may be.

That was explained in the article that I saw, and if that isn’t in the article my friend saw and to which he has just referred, Mr. Speaker, I think that it should be recorded here and made public that that has been an explanation that our staff have made. I would be doubtful that our employee, from Ridgetown, the employee from Ridgetown mentioned by the hon. member, would make such a statement unless he qualified it by saying that anyone is ill advised to pay those prices.

But I suppose a person who has a very small, perhaps in some cases a windowbox garden, would be most unlikely to go to the local farm supply dealer and buy a 50-lb bag of fertilizer. They would be much more apt to go to the local farm supply or the seed store and buy a few ounces, or a pound or two at the most. And in those cases they are paying a great deal more.

But as far as saying that there is a ripoff in fertilizer prices on general application, I think that is somewhat farfetched, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside and then -- I think there are only two minutes left, so perhaps we could skip the supplementaries -- and then the hon. member for Sarnia.

LEAD HAZARD FROM ELECTRIC KETTLES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding lead-emitting electric kettles:

Inasmuch as the manufacturers of electric kettles show no willingness to recall unsafe models, would the minister consider promoting a turn-in plan whereby new kettles could be bought at a generous discount depending upon the amount of use the customer has had from the old kettle; in other words depending upon the age of the kettle?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I met with senior executives of several kettle manufacturing companies as recently as yesterday. I elicited some information that wasn’t known to me; for example what is the life of an electric tea kettle. I just didn’t know if they had any way of measuring it. It appears that the industry takes the position -- and they gave me the reasons why -- that a kettle lasts approximately 15 years. Now there are exceptions.

Secondly, the information which has come to my attention would indicate that the older the kettle and the greater buildup of lime within it, the less chance there is for any emission of lead.

Thirdly, there appears to be great controversy among the authorities themselves, including the World Health Organization, as to what is a dangerous level of lead. It is generally agreed that lead is more harmful to young children under one year of age than it is to people, say, 10, 20, 30 years of age.

At this point it is very difficult to ascertain just what ethical, moral or legal obligation there is on a kettle manufacturer who sold me a kettle 15 years ago to replace that kettle. And I take it from the member’s question that he doesn’t expect that -- that there might be some pro rata apportionments made.

I had certain discussions with them and as I understand it, they will not be entering into any kind of programme because of the uncertainties involved. They are of the opinion that the methods of manufacture must change. And, in fact, they advised me that the methods changed some two or three days afterwards; they are using tin now instead of lead solder.

Mr. Reid: Get the lead out of it.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would not embark on any programme.

An hon. member: He just boiled himself dry.

An hon. member: The kettle is not dry.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Now, while I am on my feet, is there anything else the members would like to ask me?

Mr. Speaker: The kettle question took longer than I anticipated. I will give the hon. member 15 seconds.

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier in connection with that cornerstone of the Treasurer’s budgetary policy, the Land Speculation Tax Act. In view of the professed statement in the budget of the Treasurer -- that the purpose of the Act was to attack land speculation, rather than as a revenue-producing item -- could the Premier see his way clear to taking the advice of the editorial writers of the Toronto Star and perhaps abandoning the quantum of the tax so that the maximum amount of the tax impact, both federal and provincial, is approximately 87 per cent, and to rid us of the necessity of applying to the courts in the further balkanization of our country that might result from that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, I think there is a simpler solution.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on, spare us. What could it be?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the simpler solution, if one is referring to balkanization of the country, would be for the federal government to recognize what we are attempting to do here with respect to land speculation and have an interpretation of their Act which permits what we think is a valid deduction. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, this government doesn’t intend, nor does it want to see, a tax burden of something over 100 per cent. But I would say to the hon. member for Sarnia, perhaps if he could prevail on the federal tax authorities to be realistic, that would be a more appropriate route to go. A far more appropriate route to go.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Heading for a two-year court case.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has now expired. Petitions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, petition material has been made available to myself and the leader of the NDP as follows:

By way of an address to the Lieutenant Governor and legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario on behalf of 5,655 signatories, the great majority of whom are parents of young children, I present their petition to you and beg you to consider most carefully their most seriously expressed concern regarding the recently proposed revisions to the regulations of the Day Nurseries Act by the hon. Margaret Birch.

The signatories are residents of Hamilton, Metro Toronto, Ottawa, Kingston, Peterborough, Thunder Bay, Chatham.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): And more coming from Windsor.

Mr. Speaker: Are there further petitions?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from the Association of Early Childhood Education, signed by the --

Mr. Speaker: Have these petitions been cleared through the Clerk’s office as required by the standing orders?

Mr. Lewis: I think that the petition that has been tabled was cleared. Was it not?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, it was.

Mr. Lewis: The petition is drawn in the form appropriate. I am not sure whether or not it was cleared’.

Mr. Speaker: Of course it must be cleared through the Clerk’s office.

An hon. member: Are there any objections?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member has a petition, it should have been cleared with the Clerk’s office.

Mr. Lewis: Well I am not sure that it has.

Mr. Speaker: All right. Perhaps the Clerk would inform me whether or not it has been. The Clerk informs me he hasn’t seen one.

Mr. Lewis: Well, fine. Then I will introduce it tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member could do it tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Welch presented the report of the inspector of legal offices for the year ending Dec. 31, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Wells presented the annual report of the board of governors of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education for the year ending April 30, 1973.

Mr. Reid presented the interim report of the standing public accounts committee.

Mr. R. D. Rowe (Northumberland): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present an interim report of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table an interim report of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism, entitled “Capital Markets, Foreign Ownership and Economic Development.”

The capital markets report is the fourth select committee report to the Legislature. Preliminary reports were tabled in the Legislature in March, 1972, and in October and November, 1973. The committee tabled interim reports on foreign ownership of Ontario real estate and on colleges and universities in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the report today in advance of sufficient copies having been printed for all hon. members and interested members of the public so that hon. members may be apprised of the committee’s recommendations prior to the House rising for the summer.

In preparing a special report on this subject, the committee focused on a key issue -- the adequacy of Canadian capital markets and investment processes in channelling Canadian savings in support of Canadian economic development.

As the committee has noted in prior reports, for much of the postwar period Canada and Ontario adopted, as a development strategy, the substantial importation of foreign capital, technology and I entrepreneurship. The committee’s inquiries led it to conclude that this development strategy provided a major stimulus to economic development in Ontario and Canada in the 1950s and early 1960s. At the same time it was, over the longer term, a major factor in the underdevelopment of key capital markets functions in Canada.

In its report, the committee identifies five main weaknesses or gaps in the Canadian capital markets in support of economic development:

1. Insufficient development of the venture capital industry.

2. Lack of a merchant banking function to support enterprise growth from medium to large size.

3. Limited ability of the Canadian capital markets to mobilize large pools of capital behind Canadian control of major resource and infrastructure projects.

4. A general lack of entrepreneurial content in the Canadian financial system.

5. A lack of depth and liquidity in the Canadian securities markets.

To help correct these capital markets gaps and deficiencies, the committee proposes a comprehensive set of recommendations. Mr. Speaker, a summary of these recommendations is contained in the fuller text of this statement which is being distributed to all members at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that these recommendations are supported by hon. members of the committee from all three parties. Two committee members who have, in the course of the committee’s deliberations, been appointed to the cabinet have, for that reason, reserved their positions on the committee’s recommendations.

We are at present preparing and considering recommendations in a number of other areas within the terms of reference. The committee hopes to have its final report to the Legislature completed by midsummer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hamilton 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 22, the Health Disciplines Act, 1974.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Hamilton, from the standing social development committee, reports the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975:

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Ministry administration programme -- $31,831,000

Income maintenance programme -- $350,236,000

Social and institutional services programme, capital, operating and other grants -- $155,268,000

Community services programme, subsidies and grants to community groups and agencies -- $10,088,000

Mental retardation programme -- $99,558,000

Hon. Mr. Wells presented the annual report of the Teachers’ Superannuation Commission for the year ended Oct. 31, 1973.

Hon. Mr. McKeough presented the annual report of the Ministry or Energy for the year ending March 31, 1974, the annual report of the Ontario Energy Board for the year ending Dec. 31, 1973, and the annual report of Ontario Hydro for the year ending Dec. 31, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I had one here.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, make one up.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, I’ll just make it up.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that Mr. Taylor be substituted for Mr. Meen on the select committee on company law.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr. Cassidy: No. It is a school board gerrymander.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of this motion please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

Mr. Cassidy: Nay.

Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Boy, it’s as bad as the re distribution committee here.

Mr. Havrot: Out of step over there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member for Toronto and the Islands shows great respect for local government.

Mr. Cassidy: I have no respect for trustees who feather their own nests.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, this amendment provides for the division of the Ottawa school board into two parts for the purposes of the election of trustees by the public school electors.

At the present time, trustees are elected by a general vote of the whole school division.

LORD’S DAY (ONTARIO) ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Lord’s Day (Ontario) Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Renwick: Are we going to pass this tomorrow? Tonight?

Mr. Cassidy: I don’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It has to be through before Sunday.

Mr. Renwick: Has it got the approval of the archbishop?

Mr. Lewis: I have seldom seen the minister so smug. What is in the bill?

Mr. Deans: In fact, we have seldom seen him!

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to permit the earlier opening of agricultural fairs and exhibitions.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The present section 6 permits agricultural exhibitions to open at 1:30 on Sundays where the local municipality has so decided by bylaw.

Mr. MacDonald: This minister really grasps the nettle.

Mr. Lewis: We will have a filibuster on this one. This is not passing.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The amendment will simply change --

Mr. Lewis: This is not passing.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Well now, thousands of people are waiting for this to be passed.

Mr. Lewis: Oh all right, we’ll pass it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The amendment will simply change the 1:30 p.m. opening time to 12 noon. This amendment will bring the Sunday opening time for fairs and exhibitions in line with the reasonable expectation-

Mr. Deans: This is quite ridiculous, to pass a law to let fairs open.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- of Ontario residents and visitors to Ontario.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): A 1 ½-hour step forward.

Interjections by hon. members.

MINING TAX ACT

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

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: If he taxes them any more he leaves us only public ownership.

Mr. Cassidy: You know, you guys may run out of bills if you don’t watch out.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Don’t worry. We will never run out.

Hon. Mr. White: I have explained the provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I think I should mention that within a few weeks we will be publishing the draft regulations and we’ll deal with the further stages of the bill next fall.

Mr. Lewis: We will be ready for him then.

TAX SALES ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves the first reading of bill intituled. An Act to confirm Tax Sales.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to deal with another bill before explaining that particular Act.

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the last two Acts are intended to correct deficiencies which have arisen in the tax arrears certificate procedure under the Municipal Affairs Act and to confirm titles to land obtained under the procedure in the past. They also clarify the role of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs in that procedure. It is our intention to proceed only with first reading, and with second and third later on in the session.

MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Bounsall moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to establish Matrimonial Property Rights.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to recognize that marriage is an equal partnership and that upon a divorce or annulment the total value of the combined assets of the husband and the wife, acquired during the marriage, shall be equally divided between them.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

ONTARIO GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 96, An Act to ensure a Guaranteed Annual Income to Ontario Residents, 65 years of Age and Over.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, when the programme of which this forms, as I take it about a third, the GAINS programme, was introduced in the budget speech this opposition, of course, endorsed it since it fell, precisely almost, within the terms of the resolution introduced by my leader last year.

One of the difficulties, however, with the way in which this was introduced at this time, is of course that we are looking only at that portion of the total programme which relates to those who are 65 years of age and over. I feel it is incumbent upon me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the report from a committee on Community and Social Services, which has been brought forward today, to point out that when we were in discussion and we came to the GAINS programme there, on the estimates of that particular ministry, we were unable to discuss it by reason of the fact that the minister was not at all sure of the form the bill would take. He asked the committee to give consideration to awaiting the introduction of the bill, at which time the total programme would then be specifically before the Legislature and we would then be in a position to see the total picture.

At this point, of course, that is not so. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. minister was misleading the committee, but simply that he placed the committee in a rather difficult position. This is in view of the fact that the subsequent statement made by the Treasurer indicated that the other two-third portions of this total programme would be dealt with in part by changing regulations under the Family Benefits Act. Therefore, of course, we are not at all clear, as we look at this particular legislation, just what is contemplated in the changes in regulations to which the Treasurer referred.

I may say that the Treasurer in his statement, on page 3, dealing with the matter of the blind and the disabled, states that:

The blind and disabled who are at present receiving family benefits will automatically receive the increased benefit under the Family Benefits Act.

However, there is some dichotomy between that statement and the discussion -- hazy as it was -- in the committee itself. This is the committee which will, presumably implement the family benefits portion of the total new policy.

I’m sorry the Treasurer isn’t here, because I was hoping that as we move through the bill, he would be able to explain and clarify this situation so that we will know how the total programme is to be proceeded with.

I may say, too, that in this bill we do not see the breakdown on the matter of the drug benefit. There were specific problems in the committee in this area as well, which were to be resolved on the introduction of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, of course, I am sure there isn’t a member in this House who does not welcome the additional assistance to those who are 65 years of age and over. But, also, those of us in the opposition have great concern about those who have been bitterly disadvantaged; namely the disabled and the blind.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is imperative that these other aspects should be debated on second reading, because in essence this bill is supposed to really cover the legislation of the GAINS programme.

I would trust there will be confirmation at some stage in this debate from the Treasurer that the committee will be dealing with the bill and with the other aspects in committee, as an undertaking to that effect has been given to that committee and I don’t wish to labour the point if that is, in fact, to be the case. And I would trust, too, that at that committee there will be those present --

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes; I would just like to respond to that query. We will take the bill into committee immediately after second reading, at which time the Minister for Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen), who are dealing with the over 65s; and the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) with respect to the prescription drug plan, will all be present with their authorities. There are really some complicated arithmetical considerations, which I think will be better comprehended if we have some of the senior officials of the several ministries there. This is our intention.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That then shortens my introductory address on this bill, because on the bill itself, while there will be those who say that it doesn’t go far enough but as far as I personally am concerned at least it is a step forward as long as it is totally a part of the assistance to the disabled, the blind, and that the drug policy be very firmly spelled out.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that is my total reservation at this point in time. There are aspects of the bill itself with which I presume we will deal in committee, and I won’t take the time of the House at this point in dealing with some of those factors.

I must say that I am a little concerned at this point with the provision of the appeal through the appeal procedures under FBA; and particularly the appeal to the divisional court without the provision of transcripts. That, I recognize, is really something that can be debated in committee, but I raise it as a concern at this point.

Mr. Speaker, having said this, and in view of our leader’s position on his resolution, we are not prepared to oppose in any way the policy contained in this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers? The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few remarks I want to make with regard to the bill. I must confess some extreme misgivings about the bill.

I recognize, like the member for St. George, that the provision of a guaranteed income supplement or a guaranteed income for the pensioners of Ontario is something we have all been striving to get. And I think that I can say that I, as much as anyone in the House, have probably spoken on that topic over the course of the time that I have been here and expressed my concern, and perhaps even expressed in sort of general terms a concern which may well be in fact reflected in this bill.

Oh, there he is. I see the Treasurer has joined us on this side.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Don’t scare him away.

Mr. Deans: That is almost unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker: The member didn’t know he would get that much attention, did he?

Mr. Deans: I really didn’t. I realize we speak to the Speaker, but one always hopes, somehow, that it will drift through to the minister. I didn’t realize I had gotten to the Treasurer to the extent that he felt like crossing the floor. I have said so little.

All right, well now that he is back where he ought to be, let’s carry on.

I want to say to you though, Mr. Speaker, that while in December of last year I spoke at times rather heatedly about the lack of an adequate income level for pensioners and made reference from time to time to income levels made available in other provinces, I want to tell you that I cannot for the life of me see how we could expect a senior citizen to live in Metropolitan Toronto on $2,600 a year.

Hon. Mr. White: That’s probably the highest in Canada.

Mr. Deans: I am not going to get into that game, because in fact I don’t have any jurisdiction over any other area in Canada.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But the member sometimes talks about it.

Hon. Mr. White: Probably the highest in the world.

Mr. Deans: I talk about them. It may, in fact, be the highest in the universe, for all I know --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I think there is a state in Nepal that has higher levels.

Mr. Deans: -- but I have considerable difficulty trying to imagine us establishing an income level at $2,600. I don’t know where people would go to find accommodation, adequate accommodation; or where they would go to buy food, recognizing the ever-increasing cost of living; or where they would go to provide for themselves anything resembling a decent standard of living on $2,600.

While I’m prepared to concede that it may well be what other jurisdictions decide is adequate, it is obviously not adequate in Ontario. It is not adequate in metropolitan Ontario. It may be adequate in some far out- reaches of the province. It may be that in some small community, some place, $2,600 would be sufficient to maintain an individual; but I’ll be damned if I can see how $2,600 would keep anyone in Metro Toronto, given the ever-increasing rents, given the --

Hon. Mr. White: I think the member is talking of Harold Wilson, who put the pension for an elderly married couple up to £14 a week.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Especially when they have council housing that is freely available.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I’m speaking for heaven’s sakes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. Deans: Did the Treasurer say Harold Wilson? If my friend Harold Wilson raised the pensions to £14 a week, or whatever he raised them to, I can only assume that he did that in reaction to the people who elect him. Since I don’t have to deal with them, I’m going to deal with the people who elect me and the Treasurer and other people in the Province of Ontario, since that’s the only place over which we have any jurisdiction.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But the member sometimes refers to the others.

Mr. Deans: I refer to the others from time to time. I refer to them and say while they may have decided to one thing or another, that was their decision. And I sometimes think their progress is considerably better than that in Ontario. Nevertheless, I don’t take credit for what they did because I didn’t do it. But in the Province of Ontario I’m taking some credit, or I’m prepared to share some of the blame for what hasn’t occurred.

The $2,600 a year, to begin with, is totally inadequate and I don’t think that anybody need kid anybody else in this House. There is no point in us trying to say today that to provide something called a guaranteed income for pensioners at a level of $2,600 is even beginning to meet what are the legitimate needs of the majority of pensioners living in metropolitan Ontario.

I’ll wait until the minister comes back. I just will not speak to an empty seat. I just don’t think I should have to do that, so I’ll wait.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We’re all listening with bated breath.

Mr. Deans: I’m sure they are, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): We will record it.

Mr. Deans: I’m sure we will. That’s one thing we can’t stop.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Are we going to have to cut off the debate every time the minister goes out to wash his hands?

Mr. Deans: I think we might. I don’t think there is anything wrong with his being in his seat to hear the debate on his bill, just as I would support having the Premier (Mr. Davis) here to hear the member’s speech.

Hon. Mr. White: I apologize. I was called out to the corridor.

Mr. Deans: It’s okay, I understand; that’s why I stopped to wait. I realized that the Treasurer would want to listen.

There’s more that has to be considered than whether or not just $2,600 is going to be adequate. I think we’ve got to take a serious look at what happens to pensioners in the Province of Ontario.

To begin with they have been put in a position, through no fault of their own in most cases, of receiving totally inadequate pensions to begin with. That wasn’t the Treasurer’s fault necessarily. That’s a fault to be shared with Ottawa. But we in Ontario have had ample opportunity over the course of a number of years to implement a supplemental programme that would have guaranteed them an income level satisfactory and adequate to meet their needs.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Stanfield will fix that!

Mr. Deans: Somehow or other this government has consistently failed to do that. I don’t understand why, but they have. What worries me is that in this bill there is no provision to take into account the cost of living and the increases in the cost of living. There is no guarantee to people, even though at this point they are receiving an inadequate level of income, that as the cost of living rises over the course of time, there will be adjustments made in the Province of Ontario to adequately reflect their additional costs.

I want to suggest to the minister there has to be incorporated in this bill, in order to make it halfway satisfactory, some form of escalator clause; there has to be a guarantee to pensioners that this is not a once-in-a-lifetime established level and that beyond this they will not go; that there is an opportunity, as the cost of living changes, as it does month by month, for them to receive additional income to compensate them for the reduction in their purchasing power.

I want to suggest that that escalator clause ought not to be based on the cost of living index, because the cost of living index is in itself based on average purchases by those with average incomes and is not based on the purchases of somewhat less than average incomes. So when you use the cost of living as an index, you find that although it reflects an increase based on what the average family buys out of its average income, quite obviously a much larger percentage of the income available to pensioners is used to provide the necessities; and as the necessities rise, as housing costs rise and as food costs rise, the percentage of the income available to them that is set aside for those purposes and directed towards those things is considerably higher than the percentage of the income that is generally considered in the overall cost of living index.

So I want to suggest to the minister that as he considers his bill in committee and as he goes forth from here through to the third reading of the bill, that he consider the implementation of an escalator clause -- and perhaps index those parts of the cost of living index that are directly applicable to the cost of living in Ontario as it’s applied to low-income families, and particularly to pensioners. The changes in the cost of living index for housing and food should be reflected automatically in increases to the basic pension payable in the Province of Ontario under this programme.

Beyond that, the government has to make an outright commitment that as the quarterly adjustments are made in the guaranteed income supplement provided under the Old Age Pension, there will not be appropriate deductions or reductions in the amounts of money made available by the Province of Ontario in order to sustain those pensions. There has to be some clear indication that the government intends to allow any increases in the GIS to be taken in full by the pensioners, so that as that quarterly adjustment is made, whatever it may be, it will not result in a reduction in the supplement paid by the Province of Ontario.

What I am really saying is that the $2,600 level must be simply a benchmark, and from this day forward that $2,600 will be continually changing to reflect the changes in the costs of living -- and I mean that in the true sense -- the costs of living in the Province of Ontario for people 65 years of age and above.

This brings me to another point, a point which I think is of considerable importance in any debate about providing an income level for pensioners. It is that this bill ought to have followed the model in British Columbia with regard to providing pension levels for people above age 60. The age 65 is not adequate. And the reason I say that is this: It is not only reasonable, but it often happens that one of the spouses, most often the male, is over 65 while the other spouse, likely the female, is going to be under 65.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Stanfield can fix that.

Mr. Deans: What we then have is a situation where that family is forced to live on the income which this plan provides for a single person.

Now the minister might say that it is entirely possible that they may well qualify for some additional benefit under the Family Benefits Act. But why do we have to go through all that rigmarole? To begin with, they likely wouldn’t qualify; and even if they did qualify, why should we have to go through all this rigmarole of providing assistance through yet another programme, insisting that they channel themselves through other ministries in order to provide them with an income level that is adequate.

I think it’s time, in the Province of Ontario, that we recognize some of the realities of life. We have developed very rapidly -- or we are developing very rapidly -- into a society in which family income is the basis upon which calculations are made for cost purposes. It’s more and more a requirement for income purposes that more than one income be considered in a family.

When we talk about the average income of an individual that generally doesn’t reflect their disposable income. We are going to have to take a look at families over 60 and we are going to have to determine that a family is entitled to a certain level of payment. In other words, it should be based on the living requirements of two people. If there happens to be only one person, perhaps there would need to be an adjustment downward from the level established for two, but it shouldn’t reflect half.

Just as it doesn’t take twice as much for two to live -- in other words, it doesn’t cost exactly twice as much for two to live -- it obviously costs more than half as much for one to get by. What I’m saying is one doesn’t pay half the rent because there’s only one, or twice the rent because there are two. What I am saying is the old method of calculating these things on a single person and then doubling it for two people is wrong.

The government is going to have to establish something called required family income in Ontario for pensioners and it is going to have to do that on the basis of two people. It is going to have to say that if, as it has said, it costs $433.33 per month -- I think that’s the right figure -- for two to live -- and that, by the way while not adequate is certainly coming much closer to being adequate than what is offered for one -- if it costs $433.33 for two people to live in a society like ours, it doesn’t cost only $216.67 for one person to live. That single person has very likely as much outlay in terms of the provision of accommodation and has very little less in the provision of food.

The basis for the calculation is erroneous and out of date. That’s one of the major flaws in the bill and I want to suggest to the minister that it has to be rethought between now and the day on which it finally receives royal assent. If the $433.33 per month is a reasonable figure for a family of two to survive on, $216.67 is not a reasonable figure for one.

There simply has to be a change in the lower level, in the level for a single person, to bring them more into line with what their legitimate costs really are. I want to suggest to the minister that I don’t necessarily think that $433.33 is enough. Again it may be enough in some outlying community, but it certainly is very difficult for a family of two pensioners to maintain themselves in Metropolitan Toronto even on that amount, although it is not impossible. It is not impossible but it is certainly difficult. It doesn’t provide them with any good, affluent existence; it simply allows them to live and no more.

I ask the minister, please, when he goes before the committee, to give some serious consideration to changing the figure for the single person. I ask him to recognize that $2,600 is not enough; that $2,600 can’t possibly be the base from which to start. He should start at his figure for a family and make whatever calculation he wants to make; reduce it by a fifth, perhaps, in order to provide for the single person; or maybe a little more, maybe a quarter if he thinks that is satisfactory for the single person; so that the level payable to single persons in the Province of Ontario more adequately reflects their needs in trying to meet their commitments in this society. I think that’s a major flaw.

Beyond that, I do think when he is considering that he should also consider the effect that would have on the group of people I was talking about just a moment ago, when one of the partners is over 65 and one is under 65. I think that would more adequately reflect their needs. Where there are two partners in a marriage and one qualifies for this supplement under this programme and the other partner is not employed, then I think the level of payments should be on the basis of their needs as a couple, not on the individual needs of one. I think their needs as a couple to maintain themselves in a reasonable existence are something that we, in the Province of Ontario, could afford to undertake.

I don’t see why, in the most affluent area in North America --

Hon. Mr. White: Thank you.

Mr. Deans: You are welcome.

Hon. Mr. White: And we did it.

Mr. Deans: It was done in spite of the Treasurer, but nevertheless it happened and I am not going to argue with him.

Hon. Mr. White: Good government for 31 years.

Mr. Deans: Well government in any event, good or otherwise. The fact of the matter is -- why doesn’t the Treasurer pat himself on the back? I’ll stop for a moment until he does it. Does he have something to say to sort of bolster his ego? I’ll wait until he bolsters it.

Hon. Mr. White: I’ll just take the opportunity. The London Economist did say several years ago that Ontario might have the highest standard of living in the world. And I am glad to hear my hon. friend say the same thing.

Mr. Deans: Right:

Hon. Mr. White: He’s an experienced man, widely travelled.

Mr. Deans: Yes.

Hon. Mr. White: So to have him say that the great Tory government, stretching back to the early 1940s, has brought about this astonishing compliment really is high praise and it makes me very happy.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is certainly dream time. Why is it you spent so long objecting?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: It makes me very happy indeed to receive this compliment on behalf of the government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister must speak to the principle of the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: When is the minister leaving?

Mr. Deans: As I was saying, even if the minister were right and we in Ontario did, in fact, enjoy the highest standard of living in the world, if not the universe, then it certainly would indicate much more clearly and back up my contention that we can afford to provide a higher income level for our pensioners.

Hon. Mr. White: This is the highest in the world.

Mr. Deans: But you see, Mr. Speaker, the point is that it’s not nearly good enough to give the highest, if the highest isn’t adequate to meet the need.

Hon. Mr. White: The highest in the world.

An hon. member: How high is high?

Mr. Deans: No, you can have the highest in the world if you like, but there is no point in having the highest ladder if you can’t get to the window.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Any place you would rather be?

Mr. Deans: So there he is. What I am saying to the Treasurer is this: There has to be a revision of his thinking. Nobody quarrels with the need to establish an income level in Ontario for pensioners, below which they are not going to be allowed to fall. Nobody quarrels with the government moving into the field and providing a supplement to bring up what is an inadequate federal level of income provided for old-age pensioners. But we do quarrel, both on the level of payment to be made and in the way in which the moneys are to be distributed to the people who are in need.

If the principle of the bill is, in fact, to provide a guaranteed income for pensioners, then I suppose it’s easy enough to support the principle. But if the principle of the bill is to say that the $2,600 that’s being offered by the government as a level is adequate, then I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it isn’t, it’s not nearly adequate. It doesn’t even begin to approach being adequate.

I think the minister is obligated to decide that the family income I was talking about is, in fact, a much more valid concept than the single person calculation he has made, and to start at that point in the provision of an income level for people who obviously are not going to be able to provide it fox themselves.

Lest the minister raise the point, let me say that while this income level is certainly, as I understand it, on a par with that being provided in British Columbia, just to give him the benefit, I would have to think in looking at this that if their costs of living, rent and food, were as high as ours, then theirs should be adjusted too, lest the Treasurer should wonder about it.

Mr. Foulds: Their fuel costs aren’t as high.

Mr. Deans: But it’s pretty obvious --

Hon. Mr. White: I will mention that to Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Deans: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. White: I’ll mention that to Mr. Barrett.

Mr. Deans: Yes, I’ll mention it to him too. I’ll see him next week. But if that’s to be the argument used, then for heaven’s sake, it’s not very valid.

In addition to this, there is one other point I want to make with the minister. There is no point in pretending that all pensioners are treated equally across the province. Those who are in receipt of this income level for a couple and who are able to take advantage of senior citizen accommodation will probably find the income level quite satisfactory. But the many thousands, if not tens of thousands, for whom there is no senior citizen accommodation on a rent-geared-to-income basis and who are forced to go out into the private marketplace to find accommodation that’s satisfactory, are going to be faced with exactly the same difficulties they’ve always been faced with.

In addition to this it seems to me, and I think to this party, that we are going to have to work out a programme of rent supplement for senior citizens. We are going to have to work out a programme which will make equal opportunity a reality in the Province of Ontario. We’re going to have to work out a programme which will guarantee that simply because one is unable to find a senior citizen apartment one won’t be expected to pay out over half one’s income on providing accommodation for oneself.

I think this could have been incorporated within the programme so that there would have been made available, on a geared-to- income and geared-to-rental basis, an additional supplement for those who are forced to find accommodation in the private sector and who are therefore being deprived of the kind of disposable income their fellow senior citizens have who are able to move into rent- geared-to-income accommodation provided through a variety of different schemes.

I think that’s a major flaw in the government’s attitude toward pensioners, never mind the bill itself. I want to suggest to the minister that at some point in the not too distant future we would hope he would see fit to institute that kind of programme in order to ensure that the purchasing power of those who are senior citizens and who are being forced to live on inadequate pension levels will be restored to them. And that no matter who one is, the income level one gets will have the same basic purchasing power.

I think, as I say that to the minister, with those three or four points we will support the principle of the bill only to the extent that a guaranteed income level for pensioners is desirable and supportable. But the level is totally inadequate and the lack of an escalator clause must be corrected.

There has to be an understanding that the cost of living in Ontario must be taken into account in any calculation, either of an escalator clause or of income level. There must be an amendment to ensure that the federal government’s quarterly changes in the GIS will not be reflected in a decrease in the supplement payable by Ontario. There has to be a calculation on family income to ensure that those between the ages of 60 and 65 are not required to live on a single income when they need and should get the available $433.33.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Brant.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I believe the only other occasion when Ontario had a programme which supplemented the old age pension provided from the federal jurisdiction was in the late Thirties, when a good friend of many of us here, Farquhar Oliver, was minister of welfare in the cabinet of Mitchell Hepburn. The opinion of the day was that this province was rich enough to attempt to meet, at least in some small measure, the very serious hardships which were faced by the senior citizens and the old folks in this province then.

Times have changed dramatically, of course. Both the federal budget and the provincial budget in the late Thirties were absolutely, completely extended by virtue of revenues being at rock-bottom levels because of the world-wide depression’s effects and the fact that many people were not prepared to support any serious, large outlay of public funds in support of senior citizens. At least, it was not considered to be the kind of policy, in those days, which was universally supported.

The minister is aware, I’m sure, that this additional payment from Ontario was discontinued when the federal old age pension achieved certain levels and it was considered to be, by federal-provincial agreement, a wholly federal responsibility. But now the attitude has correctly returned to the thinking of provincial jurisdictions, and very properly so I believe. We at the provincial level have an additional responsibility to assess the needs of our citizens and taxpayers and to come forward with a programme which establishes a minimum level for the financing of their requirements.

On that basis and on that principle, certainly we are in support of this bill.

You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that the concept of a guaranteed annual income is still not generally well accepted by taxpayers across the province. There is a feeling that somebody is getting something for nothing. But certainly in the Province of Ontario, providing this basic level of income for senior citizens has had uniformly strong acceptance. I haven’t heard anyone critical of this, and everyone believes that we share the responsibility to provide this guaranteed adequate income for senior citizens.

I was listening to what the member for Wentworth said about the inadequacies of the $2,600 per year guarantee. Certainly no one could fulfill any family responsibilities on that, but our senior citizens are not asked so to do. And to be fair, many communities now have a substantial provision of senior citizens’ housing on the rent-geared-to-income basis -- which certainly doesn’t provide a modem apartment at subsidized rates for everyone who wants it, and I hope that we can improve on that; but the combination of the two in those areas where the programme has gone forward is remarkably successful and very well received, not only by the senior citizens but by the families which have, and accept responsibilities for, the older folks in the family.

The second point that was raised by my colleague from St. George, and certainly by the member for Wentworth, has to do with the indexing of the pension. More and more articles are being written that as soon as you index everything to the cost of living you really establish an inflationary machine over which there is practically no control. But in this particular regard, I believe there should be general acceptance that the basic old age security pensions and the guaranteed income supplements, as well as the so-called GAINS programme, ought certainly to be indexed to the cost of living, so that the citizens as they approach retirement, are assured of a basic level of support which is not going to change with the inflation rates of the province or the nation.

The government of Canada has indexed their payments. The statement from the Treasurer that the GAINS payments will be reduced to compensate for additional payments at the federal level because of federal indexing, should surely be reconsidered. I would hope, along with many people on this side, and I presume government supporters as well, that the government will recognize that an indexing feature must be brought into play if we are going to meet the needs of the senior citizens fairly.

The alternative is for inflation to go on, with the indexing at the federal level cancelled by reduced provincial payments, and with the government of the day in this province from time to time realizing it must relieve the financial problems of the senior citizens with gratuitous, generous provision of additional funds.

I believe we should accept these payments as a right for the senior citizens. Nothing should be based on any attitude of sensitivity or generosity by the government; there should be established a basic level of support which is then hooked into the cost of living so that senior citizens and those who are approaching that level -- like the Treasurer, like the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), the Leader of the Opposition and in fact all of us -- know that in the long run that basic support will be met as a matter of right and not on the basis of any spectacular generosity which might be hooked to political motives.

I recall, probably a decade ago, when the provision of financing for senior citizens was a very prominent part of politics in the United States, particularly in California, and on that basis there were the proposals and the promises for increases on a political basis every time the state elections or the regular election period came around.

Many people in those days said, and very properly said, as we say now, that this must not be a political football, that we must accept the rights of the senior citizens; as those people who control the public purse and the basis of the tax-generating powers of the province, we make that a basic, irrevocable call on our funding.

I would hope that the Treasurer would give some further consideration to an indexing programme. I personally believe that all pensions based on public contributions and governmental contributions should be so indexed.

The other matter I want to raise is that there is still some uncertainty as to the responsibility for funding this additional provincial programme. In the budget the minister has indicated that his anti-inflationary programmes, or the programmes to protect against the effects of inflation, will cost us, I believe the figure was approximately $200 million. This includes the whole range of programmes.

This pension programme and the other programmes, I suppose, are going to be recognized by the government of Canada under the Canada Assistance Plan as supportable to the extent of 50 per cent. The government of British Columbia has been negotiating this. I believe they were successful in having their additional payments supported to that extent. But I would like the Treasurer to make more specific reference to the funding of this programme, to say what we may be expected to find from our own resources and to give some of the details associated with it.

In closing, I simply want to say that the concept of the province in paying an additional amount in support of the residents of our province is supportable on the basis of a guaranteed adequate income. No one is ever going to be satisfied with what the term “adequate” means. The $216.67 was precisely the amount put forward in our policy statement at the end of 1973, and so obviously we are in support of this. But we recognize that there are going to be those who will be saying: “My neighbours down the street are getting the $216, and simply because my income level is a bit higher than theirs from other sources we are not getting that and that is unfair.”

We have had it put to us by the pensioners who marched on Queen’s Park just a week ago that the payment of $200 a month plus ought to be everyone’s right. I can’t support that contention. I suppose it is easy to say we shouldn’t be responsible for sending yet another cheque to E. P. Taylor in Nassau.

But Mr. Speaker, you yourself and I as well would hope, that when it comes time for our retirement we would be able to provide ourselves with a standard of living which would not depend on this additional burden on the taxpayers. But you and I know that with the very best disposition, let’s say in the case of some of us in the sale of farm property, inflation could actually use up those funds. We would find ourselves, as so many pensioners now are finding themselves, after hard work and what they consider to be adequate preparation, with inflation simply swamping them; and they are sitting back realizing that the cheque that comes from various governmental sources is their basic livelihood for the years that remain to them.

We don’t know what the future provides for any of us. That is why I want to close by saying that a basic level of support must be regarded as a right, not as a political gift or a plum, or a response from a sensitive government which may be replaced by an insensitive one a few years later.

I hope we are not in a position where the level of these pensions simply depends upon the proximity of an election. I would not say under these circumstances that the bill before us today does, but I am sure the government, when it eventually goes to the people, will say “Look what we have done with this so-called GAINS programme.” The government will find that if it does not index it at this time there will be a much stronger argument that the level of support is inadequate a year or 18 months from now compared with the acceptability at the present time.

I have talked to senior citizens who are living in senior citizens’ housing and others who are providing their own facilities who feel that the $216 is really a reasonable level of support. I think most people, when you examine the requirements of living in Toronto, as compared with the costs in Brantford or Paris or St. George, must realize that there is a regional difference in the cost of living in this province. I don’t know whether it is possible to recognize this or not. The argument comes forward frequently.

I notice that the hospital workers in all parts of the province are demanding the same level of pay as the hospital workers in Toronto; and I would support them in that. God knows, anybody who says the hospital workers here are overpaid must surely be unaware of the facts. But everyone feels he should have the same level of income if in fact it is either paid for or controlled by government. It is extremely difficult, politically, to recognize the difference in requirements regionally in this province, and certainly there is no provision in this bill to recognize the additional living requirements of people living in the various metropolitan areas.

As my colleague from St. George said, we support the principle of the bill, and we support it enthusiastically. We believe that substantial amendments to the concept must be brought forward in the future to make it more of a basic floor under the requirements that all of us will face in our senior years, and we hope this can be done with a procedure for indexing it.

I would say again that I would hope also that the minister would reconsider his statement that the payments from this programme will be reduced as the federal payments are increased. Obviously that is unfair. Surely there ought to be more co-ordination between the two levels of government in this regard, and we certainly hope for that in the future.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I just want to comment briefly on the bill, Mr. Speaker. While we endorse the principle of the bill, one can’t help feeling a bit jaundiced in watching the way the government has brought in this principle at this time when one considers the cynical manner in which it gave $50 to old age pensioners last December.

As I recall, we were told at the time that the major reason for that $50 handout was the effects of inflation on senior citizens. You may also recall, Mr. Speaker, that we opposed that $50 bill. It was also unanimously and universally opposed and rejected by pensioners themselves and their organizations across the province as an attempt to buy off the pensioners.

The true depth of that particular piece of duplicity comes to the fore when you recognize that in this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, certain people who were to be protected against inflation last year are, if you will, cast out in the cold again.

Many people who receive the guaranteed income supplement do happen to have a small income of their own -- $30, $40 or $50 per month -- enough that they will not qualify for any payments under these particular proposals. In fact, I think that if they have a private income of more than about $40 per month -- I think that’s the right figure -- they won’t get a nickel from these proposals of the Ontario government. This is despite the fact that the government moved in last year, when price increases were running at six per cent and seven per cent, with the declared aim of protecting people on the guaranteed income supplement, whether their total income was $185 a month or whether it was the maximum available under the guaranteed income supplement, which would have been in the area of about $280 a month for a single person and twice that for some- body who was married.

As the member for Wentworth has pointed out, this legislation is like so much legislation that has been presented by the government: A code word, an “in” word, a fashion is taken on; but because it’s Tories that are doing it, it’s done badly and inadequately. The member for Wentworth mentioned the need for indexing, the special needs of people who are aged 60 to 65; and the cruellest feature of all, which is that there is no guarantee of any pass-through of increases in the indexing of the federal pension and guaranteed income supplement.

I would like to make a couple of comments; one is about a very graphic experience I had the other day when I was in my own riding of Ottawa Centre, trying to help out our candidate in the federal election, I met a couple -- in fact, it was rather strange; I knocked on their door and nothing happened. I was talking with some other people down the hall when they came out. By chance, I managed to get back to them after they closed the door and found as sorry a picture as one could imagine of the plight of senior citizens in our society.

This was a couple who presumably had been of reasonable means in their younger years; they were now both over 65, and the husband suffered from arthritis and general ill health. The winters were a real trial for them, particularly in the climate that we have in Ottawa. They had an income of about $600 a month, which one would have thought might be adequate for the needs of an older couple. But when I talked to them, I found that they were slowly being stripped bare by the need to pay for their drug costs, by the need to pay for the extras that are entailed with ill health, by the money that has to be paid to the doctor; possibly the cost of a semi-private room in a hospital and things like that.

About four years previously they had to sell their car; therefore, given the arthritis of the husband, they had very little mobility. They had very little ease in getting around to see their family or to see other people.

There they were; in a relatively nice apartment renting for $175 a month, within walking distance of Parliament Hill. They could see Parliament Hill from their window, I think. But they simply couldn’t make ends meet on the kind of money they had available.

And I said: “Well, have you looked for another place?” And they said: “Yes, we have looked for another place.” But as we talked about it, it became very clear that short of moving into a completely uninhabitable basement apartment, renting for $150 a month -- we have that kind of accommodation in my riding -- their best bet was to stay in this one-bedroom apartment that they had occupied for a number of years and for which the landlord had possibly been a bit gentle on rent increases in comparison with those he had imposed elsewhere in the building. They couldn’t do better than this particular apartment even though, as it turned out, it was cold, the heating was bad and the windows leaked. There were a number of other things that weren’t immediately apparent to me, but they were making the apartment less desirable than it looked.

As I talked with them, I found out that the furniture they had came mainly from a sister, or from other members of their family. Their own furniture, they no longer had. They had nice furniture, but it was a façade. It was a façade which they were able to keep up only because of assistance from other members of their family.

And what was particularly poignant was the fact that they overlooked Blair House, which is a six- or seven-storey limited dividend project for senior citizens the city put up several years ago. The rents are quite reasonable, $80 or $90 a month. There are many senior citizen programmes carried out for people living in that particular building. This couple, with a larger income, couldn’t benefit from them. Because of various bizarre reasons, that I hesitate to comment upon, the programmes are not available or accessible to senior citizens who are out there living in the private sector.

The minister’s guaranteed annual income won’t touch this couple. We are going to have to try and find other means of helping them and of assisting them with their particular problems.

In fact, it is simply a guaranteed floor and nothing else; and it doesn’t give any assistance to people who are even a dollar above that particular floor -- despite the fact that they, too, have been suffering grievously from the increases in the cost of living. As the member for Wentworth pointed out, these increases particularly affect people who are poor and therefore particularly affect people who are aged.

I know that, for example, the minister wouldn’t expect an older person to live on food costing less than maybe $60 or $70 a month. That’s a third of the budget of an elderly person and it compares with maybe 15 or 20 per cent of the budget of, say a young person who is single and living in a place of their own and drawing a much higher income. And food is the item in the cost of living which has gone up most rapidly of all.

Over the last few years, we have seen that people in the private and public sectors have responded to the needs of senior citizens in a number of ways. We have senior citizen programmes, senior citizen clubs and there are Meals on Wheels services. There are church socials directed to senior citizens and there are movies for 50 cents, instead of the $2.50 or $3 we have to pay nowadays. There are half fares on the Colonial Coach lines and other bus lines. There are reduced rates for people to fly, if they are senior citizens.

But when it comes down to the essentials, Mr. Speaker, no reduced rates apply. You pay the same for your bread and for your margarine and for your eggs and for your bacon and for your ham; for your salt and your pepper and your porridge -- and all the other things that go into a family diet -- whether your income is $25,000 a year, $5,000 a year or $2,600 a year.

Unless you are resident in senior citizen housing, you pay the same rent for your accommodation whether you earn $25,000, $5,000 a year or $2,500 a year. If you take the same apartment unit, if you take the same place, you pay the same price or just about.

I just want to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, some comments which were made by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) about this particular inequity that exists between senior citizens, that is between those who are protected in their housing costs and those who are not. There is no allowance made for this in the proposals before us by the minister today. There are 270,000 Ontario pensioners aged over 64 who receive the federal guaranteed income supplement, which gives them guaranteed incomes of $2,200 and a bit right now for a single person, and $4,200 if they are married. That has recently gone up and the minister proposes to raise that to $2,600 and $5,200 through the GAINS system.

But if you look at the numbers of people over 60, to begin with, Mr. Speaker, because of the large numbers of people who are over 60 and have effectively been forced out of the work force by ill health, been forced out of the work force by way of discrimination, because of disability or because they simply aren’t able to find a job because people won’t hire older men and women when they can hire younger men and women, then you are talking about half a million people or so.

Figures that were brought forward by the Minister of Housing indicate half a million households contain people over 60; and about half of these contain those over 60 in the income bracket below $5,000. Of that group, according to the Minister of Housing’s figures, about 22,500 will have senior citizen units by the end of this year if all the 6,000 units projected for this year are actually built; if, and that’s a big if!

We have 16,000-odd senior citizen units right now. Thus about nine per cent of the target group of 250,000 households is to be served by the senior citizen housing programme.

I wish the minister would say what is going to happen to the other people who are senior citizens and who are forced to pay the going market rates for accommodation, or who are forced to pay the going tax rates and maintenance rates and other costs if they happen to have a home of their own. And many senior citizens no longer have homes of their own.

There is a tremendous inequity there; it is the difference between paying less than $100 -- maybe even less than $50 for senior citizen accommodation -- and having to pay $150, $160 or $175, which is the standard rent for a one-bedroom apartment in my riding now, it goes up often to over $200.

The minister knows that’s the case in Toronto also. I suspect that it is beginning to be the case in his home town of London. It is the case in Thunder Bay. If a senior citizen wants to have privacy, to which his years entitle him or her years entitle her, and can’t get senior citizen accommodation in an OHC building, what are they to do? They will be paying anywhere between $120 and $180 a month for the accommodation available in their particular community, which is something over half if it is a single person, and something approaching half if it is a married couple. That means that the amount left in their budget for their other needs will be quite grossly inadequate.

What then of the dreams we gave to senior citizens? What then of the promises we made to senior citizens that they could have their retirement in dignity and that they could do during their retirement some of the things they couldn’t manage to do when they were working productively in society, raising kids and trying to make ends meet?

Obviously we have given them a pile of promises that have no validity and no credibility. The $217 a month we are about to give now simply doesn’t guarantee to any pensioner living in an urban area in Ontario any kind of a decent standard of living, unless they also happen to be fortunate enough to benefit from other subsidized programmes.

Mr. Speaker, it might make an awful lot more sense, if instead of picking on a certain group of senior citizens -- and I am willing to have this circulated and so on, because I think the people understand the inequities that exist between those who have senior citizen housing and those who do not -- instead of benefitting one particular group and instead of the tremendous competition that now takes place to get into those projects, instead of the wrench, which is sometimes as crippling or as killing, of taking a senior citizen from familiar surroundings which they cannot afford into unfamiliar surroundings that they can afford, it might make an awful lot more sense if senior citizens had enough dollars that they, too, could afford the freedom of choice which one would have thought a Conservative government would want to grant them.

We believe they should have freedom of choice between living in publicly-operated housing, in co-op housing or in privately-operated housing. They shouldn’t be forced by economic circumstances, with or without this guaranteed minimum income, to go into senior citizen housing. Many of them enjoy it, but others say: “I like it. It’s fine, but I would have liked to stay where I was.” Others say: “It’s fine for me, but what about my friend down the street who couldn’t come with me?” People who aren’t in it say: “What about me? I am spending $175 a month and I know that so-and-so got in there because they had pull with their alderman or with their provincial MP.”

That kind of competition for senior citizens is simply demeaning. One thinks of the subsidies of $70, $80 or $90 a month which now prevail on senior citizen housing, and wonders whether one mightn’t take that money from the Minister of Housing and put it into the annual minimum income, or guaranteed annual income, to raise that to a decent level where all senior citizens could afford the choice of what kind of housing they were going to have.

It’s really wrong to say to people: “Okay, you have to do this or that or the other thing. The government is going to make your choices for you.” That’s wrong. We have to find other ways to do it, Mr. Speaker, and I am suggesting the government consider that very seriously.

Having said all that, we cannot fail to support the principle of the bill even in one as inadequate as the government is now implementing. We have been trying to get the government to move in this direction year after year after year and, dare I say it, if it had not been for the example, as in so many other fields, of NDP governments in western Canada, and particularly in British Columbia, we would be waiting still for this piece of legislation from the Ontario government.

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

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments to Bill 60, An Act to ensure a Guaranteed Annual Income to Ontario Residents, 65 years of age and over. I think we welcome the bill this afternoon, and the opportunity to debate it here in the Legislature.

It guarantees, I think, $5,200 a year for a married couple; it guarantees a single person $2,600 a year. When I look at that and compare it with the guaranteed annual income under the old age security guaranteed income supplement, it only amounts to about $153 more, so we are not really going overboard in giving assistance to a single individual.

Perhaps it was raised by other members, that more assistance should be given to the one survivor. In many instances they are short-changed even in private insurance schemes. The survivor is left with very little income to maintain a home or a residence.

Our leader, in December, 1973, presented a statement in the House, a policy statement, suggesting $216 should be the guaranteed annual income at that time; we see the government has followed that principle of $216 a month.

I can well accept that principle for those persons over the age of 65, but I am more concerned again with those persons under the age of 65. I understand this will follow in the regulations of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This is where I believe more help is required for those people with some degree of disability; those who are disabled; those who have lost the breadwinner in the family and have to raise a family. This is where more assistance should be given.

I was interested in the minister’s comments to the member for Wentworth. He was praising 31 years of Tory rule and stated that the province has the highest standard of living in Canada.

Hon. Mr. White: No, I didn’t say that.

Mr. Haggerty: Perhaps he doesn’t quite go along with the views that the standards of poverty should rise --

Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order, I said --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Haggerty: -- reflecting the province’s general economic progress.

Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: The minister has a point of order.

Hon. Mr. White: On a point of order, I said the London Economist a few years ago said Ontario might have the highest standard of living in the world.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Might have.

Mr. Haggerty: I am glad the minister has corrected it; it says might have. I just wonder if he does agree with the principle that the poverty level should rise with the economic growth of this province. When one looks back at 31 years of Tory rule, in this instance, it hasn’t kept abreast. That’s the point I wanted to raise to the minister.

Going back to those persons with some degree of disability or the misfortunes of ill-health who, I think, should be given more assistance. I understand there is a study being made or being initiated by the Ministry of Labour concerning such matters as transfer of payments. This deals with private insurance companies, Workmen’s Compensation, Canada Pension Plan, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, veterans’ pensions, veterans’ benefits -- there is a list of them.

I don’t know how many of the members have seen a pay cheque for a person employed in industry today. One looks at the left-hand side of the pay cheque and looks at all these things that are taken off. He is paying for these things; he is contributing to some type of social security programme; all of these, one can even find it in one’s automobile insurance. That person is paying for some form of security in case of an accident, so that he is going to receive a weekly benefit or so much a year or so much for dismemberment of the body; all of that. I was wondering if perhaps we shouldn’t be taking a deeper look into this matter. We should come up with a comprehensive programme in Ontario, and perhaps even in Canada, so that when a person has some misfortune -- an accident or an injury or sickness -- he has a decent income and he doesn’t have to go begging to the social workers or the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario for an income for his family.

I think this is where the improvement should be made. I think the persons working in industry who contribute to these programmes would like to see a change so that they are guaranteed an income sufficient to be above the poverty line which has been mentioned here on different occasions. I believe it is $5,000 or $5,200 for a family of four.

I would like to see some changes made on this line. The government should be bringing in some form of legislation which will give that person a reasonable guaranteed income. I was interested in the latest news release from the Minister of Community and Social Services, which said:

Persons who are under the age of 65 and who are disabled or blind and who are currently receiving family benefits will automatically be eligible for increased benefits under the regulations of the Family Benefits Act. It is not necessary for those persons to apply. Disabled or blind persons who are not currently eligible for family benefits but whose incomes fall below the new levels may be eligible if they meet the following requirements.

This is the point that I want to bring to the attention of the minister. It mentions degree of disability: I hope we are not going to follow the principle of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and say because a person still has one limb left he is only 30 per cent partially disabled. I hope he is classed as disabled and unable to obtain gainful employment. I hope, in that instance, he qualifies under this and gets the full guaranteed annual income.

I bring to the attention of the minister and the staff sitting in the back rows over there that I want a clarification on “degree of disability.” I think that is the point I want to raise at this time. I do support the bill and look for further comments during the standing committee dealing with this particular bill and with the other regulations perhaps that will follow in committee.

I hope the minister will take up some of the suggestions I have raised and that he will look into these other matters and that we do provide a good guaranteed annual income to those persons who are disabled by sickness or by some misfortune in industry. I hope he will look into it.

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

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, along with everyone else, I rise obviously to support the principle of this bill. I rather suspect I am going to support that principle for much more basic reasons than the ones I have listened to so far.

Mr. Deans: Because he is a Conservative.

Mr. Drea: There has been an attempt to trace the history of the activities of government in this province, both the government that preceded the very long and successful administrations of Conservative government as well as our own.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought that might start him off.

Mr. Drea: Oh, I give the Liberals credit. Where there is any due, I am glad to acknowledge it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that despite the fact that there was a supplement in this province in the Depression years, and through the inflation of the war years, we were the pacesetter in establishing the age of 60 for a form of pension for single females who for one reason or another did not feel they could continue in gainful employment. We were the first province to come to the rescue of the older immigrants who came with their children and who could not qualify for the 10-year requirement to get the old age pension in Canada; we gave them almost the equivalent of that after five years of residence in this province. Also, we were the first province in this country to establish the disability pension.

But, Mr. Speaker, all of those were within the context of social welfare programmes. That is why, with all due respect to my friend, the Minister of Community and Social Services, I think the principle of this bill is not only significant in the development of policy in this province, but indeed it is very exciting. For, for the first time, we have put retirement living, both the economic and the social aspects of it, within the framework of the provincial budget.

Over the years the evolvement of budgetary policies by government has come to deal with the economic stimulus of industry and with the quality of life within our province. But, unfortunately, because a person retired, regardless of the reason -- be it for as non-essential a reason as the age of 65 -- there was the concept that such persons were removed from the work force. There was the connotation that since these people were in retirement, since they had been placed on the shelf, they were no longer contributing to the gross provincial product. Instead, they were almost in the position where they were to receive something from the largesse of the province. And, unfortunately, it was tied to a social welfare programme in the tradition of the means test.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker that the GAINS programme changes all of that. It not only sets out a very basic minimum -- and, quite frankly, I agree with some of the speakers that the basic minimum for the single person certainly is not going to provide much more than the essentials of living, particularly at a time of very widespread inflation, as a result of massive government in- action in Ottawa over the last six years -- but it has established the principle that there is a --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’ll please the Treasurer.

Mr. Drea: Would the member like me to say it again?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Go on. Say it again. I wouldn’t insist on it, but go ahead.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Change your mind.

Mr. Kennedy: They are listening.

Mr. Drea: Does the member really want me to say it again? I’d be delighted.

Mr. Bullbrook: Go on. Say it again.

Mr. Drea: Well quite frankly, the plight of the older person in this province, economically and in terms of all the things that have been mentioned today, is a result of inflation. And inflation was not only caused by massive government inaction at the Ottawa level since 1968; when one looks at the budget that couldn’t be passed, they almost spent us out of the ball park.

Hon. Mr. White: That’s true.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that what the member said?

Mr. Drea: The member knows it’s true.

Mr. Deans: Why can’t he talk about the bill? It is really an important bill.

Mr. Drea: I am talking about the bill --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: I will talk about the bill, but I don’t need free advice from the hon. members opposite on how to do it.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think it is worthy of repetition.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as I was stating before, with this GAINS programme, the basic income has now been pegged. But that basic income is not just pegged in terms of dollars and cents; it is pegged as part of the provincial gross product. I find it very interesting that the GAINS programme comes out of the budget and is the subject of a bill by the provincial Treasurer; it is not the subject of legislation by the Minister of Community and Social Services. I think that marks a departure in this province as to policy.

No longer is the senior citizen or indeed, to divert for a moment, the disabled person within the meaning of the Family Benefits Act, considered to be a non-productive or shelved product in terms of the prosperity of Ontario. The person over 65 and the person who is disabled within the legal meaning of that Act are now part and parcel of the responsibility of the provincial Treasurer to ensure their entitlement to a fair share of the prosperity and of the other benefits that are now generated by the government through its economic policy.

I think this is a recognition that the retirement years are not just a time of economic lament, which they have been in this country for probably far too long a time, but that they should now be the goal of an enlightened government’s social responsibility. When we have extended a floor on income without regard to means, because they don’t apply to the welfare department to get it --

Mr. Deans: They don’t have to worry about that.

Mr. Drea: Well, an awful lot of older people do worry about it. I’m sure the hon. member has had the same experience as I have had; when they needed a supplement for drugs and I said: “Okay, you can go to the municipal welfare department,” they would not go. You literally had to drag them. That concerns me.

Mr. Deans: But when we establish a floor income we don’t have to worry about means --

Mr. Drea: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: -- because people with incomes are not on the floor.

Mr. Drea: Yes, but what I’m trying to point out is that when we establish the floor on income, we get out of the means test for certain other things. When we have a floor on income, it becomes a right and it doesn’t involve an application at the nearest welfare office. I think that type of thing has deterred some of the social programmes that have been specifically aimed at older people, because they have somewhat different ideas as to the role of social welfare in the community than perhaps we do.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it is a recognition that since people are retiring and living longer in retirement in the outside world -- be it in an apartment or in a home -- or perhaps in institutional care, whether it’s a nursing home, a home for the aged or what have you, that this province now has a social responsibility to meet their needs and aspirations as an integral a part of any budgetary and economic policy; just as the growth of industry, business, commerce and the service industries has been for the benefit of younger persons so it now reflects benefits to the elderly, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is exciting because it has brought the senior citizen and the disabled person back to the forefront of provincial economic and social life whereas before they were almost an afterthought.

I think one of the great pioneering things in this regard has been the activities of many of the enlightened unions, when they began a few years ago to bargain for the retired pensioner as well as the person who was still in a bargaining unit. That certainly has stabilized the lot of the senior citizen and the disabled in this province. Now we see government adopting that very same technique, that we are not going to permit any longer a group outside to depend entirely upon the largesse of those who were determining what they can live on and what they cannot.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is a tribute to the ability of the Treasurer of this province to link social responsibility with economic growth. I suggest to you that many of the objections, and I think some of them are valid, though maybe objections is a bit too strong a word, but rather many of the concerns that have been expressed by people on the other side, would be valid if -- and it’s a big if -- this was the beginning and the end. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this bill is merely the beginning of a guaranteed income for senior citizens and those who are disabled. I suggest to you that there will be many modifications over the years, just as there have been in existing provincial legislation dealing with the problems and the concerns of the elderly in our society.

I would like to close with a concern of my own. Indexing has become almost a universal panacea at the moment. I recognize in an inflationary society, where interest rates and costs and so forth are beyond the wildest dreams or even the wildest predictions of any of us it may be necessary; but I do not believe that in programmes like this one can speak out of two sides of one’s mouth. We are setting up a programme to try to stabilize the economic and the social position of the senior citizen in our society. My concern is if we go into indexing and peg it to the cost of living, it merely becomes another attempt to evade the ultimate responsibility of government, which is that when we set up a programme to stabilize we also inherit the challenge that we must do something about the outside forces that have so eroded retirement life in this country in so brief a time that the first universally accepted form of guaranteed income goes to the senior citizen.

To me if we were to index this we would be almost waving the white flag that we have no concern about those outside forces, but we will merely ride with whatever impact they have upon us.

Mr. Deans: That’s not right.

Mr. Drea: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to the fact --

Mr. Bullbrook: Is the member saying that indexing as a corrective is just a panacea?

Mr. Drea: Yes, I am.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member has as much social conscience as the Treasurer does.

Mr. Drea: My friend, I am very glad to have as much social conscience as the Treasurer, because he has the finest one in this province.

Mr. Deans: If one put both their social consciences together there wouldn’t be much.

Mr. Drea: In terms of social conscience --

Mr. Bullbrook: Doesn’t the member realize why he brought the bill in and why it is in his name? There are three ministers to administer it. The member spent half an hour telling us it is a great bill because the Treasurer brought it in. He is the only one who had the gumption to bring it in. None of the other ministers brought it in, none of his fearless colleagues.

Mr. Drea: He just finds the money.

Mr. Bullbrook: One can only stand so much of this adulation of the Treasurer; because he is not the social conscience of this province.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr. Bullbrook: I assure the member of that. He represents the vested interests of this province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr. Bullbrook: His idea of slumming is to go to the London Hunt Club.

Mr. Speaker: I have not recognized the hon. member for Sarnia. The hon. member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, apparently the prominence of the Treasurer’s social conscience has removed the plague that has afflicted my remarks over the past few minutes.

On a more serious note, I do commend the social conscience of the Treasurer of this province. I do commend the economic acumen which enables Ontario not only to have the highest standard of living anywhere in the world, but also to be able to ensure that it is not the highest standard of living for an elite within the population, regardless of their age.

Mr. Deans: He has tremendous acumen.

Mr. Drea: I think that this marks a very significant step forward when we are determined that there will be a fair share of that prosperity.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if I were a mean man, I would say to my friend, the member for Wentworth, and I have said it many times, this bill makes Dave Barrett out to be a piker.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): How is that?

Mr. Drea: I am very glad the member agreed earlier he was going to tell him that his bill needed revisions. I presume the revisions are at least going to bring it up to ours.

Mr. Lewis: How does it make him out to be a piker?

Mr. Drea: I came up -- I presume; I don’t --

Mr. Deans: Would the member like to explain that?

Mr. Drea: If I understood the member correctly about half an hour ago --

Mr. Deans: No, I don’t want him to explain what I said; I want him to explain what he is saying.

Mr. Drea: What I am saying is this bill is --

Mr. Deans: He said Barrett would want to bring his up to our level.

Mr. Drea: Up to our level, yes.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, did you hear that? How does he need to bring his programme up to the level of this programme?

Mr. Drea: How he needs -- sorry, I don’t follow the member. His programme is not as beneficial as ours.

Mr. Lewis: Of course it is. It is rather better.

Mr. Drea: I see. If it is, why don’t the NDP members vote against this and have us endorse Mr. Barrett’s programme?

Mr. Deans: Here we go. In other words, the member doesn’t know what he is talking about. He is talking just to fill time.

Hon. Mr. White: The member is entirely correct.

Mr. Drea: That’s entirely --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: It is not -- I will give him that credit.

Mr. Deans: It’s not more beneficial. He should never get up to talk on something he knows nothing about.

Mr. Drea: The member doesn’t like me calling him a piker, does he.

Mr. Deans: I don’t care what he calls him, as long as he is accurate.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: That’s very good.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Drea: I am being very accurate.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): We don’t mind as long as the member knows --

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker: I want to make it plain that I am not filling time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Drea: I am making some remarks which I think are very pertinent from this side.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: I am not one of those who says he heartily endorses the principle of the bill but finds almost everything in it to be not exactly worthy of commendation.

Mr. Deans: Neither am I. I don’t heartily endorse it.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I heartily endorse this bill. I heartily endorse the very exciting principle behind it. I endorse the amounts which have been set and, Mr. Speaker, I and the members of the back bench of this party are only too conversant with the very many challenges the Treasurer of this province is assuming by putting this economic and social principle into reality. Particularly, in putting it into reality at this time --

Mr. Deans: This isn’t reality.

Mr. Drea: -- because this is the most crucial economic time in the history of this country and, indeed, in the history of this province. If we were the jaundiced, cynical type of politicians we have been accused from across the floor of being, not too many minutes ago, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, we would not have brought in this programme in 1974; we would have waited until 1975.

Mr. Deans: I see.

Mr. Drea: I think it is a tribute to the Treasurer that he brought it in when it was needed without regard to political expediency --

Mr. Lewis: That is the member’s measurement.

Mr. Drea: -- rather than sitting back and waiting until the political times are right and things are so desperate people would grasp at anything.

Mr. Deans: He had to do something now to recoup the losses being --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville or is it the New Democratic Party’s turn.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will take just a few minutes. I must say that kind of speech, which I regard as a kind of social obscenity if the member would like to know -- I don’t know how else to characterize it -- does move a lot of us to wishing it were possible to vote against the legislation, although clearly we can’t and won’t.

Mr. Drea: Why not?

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): His comments on this bill will look good in his riding.

Mr. Lewis: To pretend, to talk with such facility about sharing what is fair in the Province of Ontario, about the highest standard of living in the world, and to give people $217 a month to live on, takes a level of presumption and insensitivity which is seldom achieved even by people on that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very few comments to make on the bill. First of all, I want to say to the Treasurer that one of the things which is not very happy about the bill and the way it’s named, is the abuse of the phrase “guaranteed annual income” by tying it to this piece of legislation.

He is simply prostituting the language. I think the Treasurer knows that, although it becomes a kind of fashionable procedure to attribute to a slightly increased social allowance the grandiose term, guaranteed annual income. It’s not a guaranteed annual income; it is a level of existence for senior citizens which is barely marginal.

Mr. Deans: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: Many of us in this House have asked that it be set at $200 a month or better, as was done in the Province of British Columbia. We did that because we were searching frantically, desperately, for some level which would allow these people to survive. We are not proud of it and we wouldn’t dignify it by the words “guaranteed annual income.”

What the government has really done in this bill is added I something like $25 a month to what the senior citizen now receives from the old age pension plus the guaranteed income supplement; the difference between $192 a month and $217 a month. The additional $25 a month, if members will forgive me, does not qualify as a guaranteed annual income. It is an increased social allowance perhaps; an increased pension perhaps; the minimum with which any of us can get away as we try to set a standard which is no longer an affront to the dignity of those who are subjected to low incomes. All of those things might be used to describe it but not “guaranteed annual income.” The government is so mutilating the phrase that it will no longer have meaning.

Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer tends to do that kind of thing. He has done it with the tax credit; the tax credit is a useful economic instrument; it is a useful financial tool for redistributing income. His tax credits tend, on occasion, to be applied in an incoherent way; there is very little cohesion to his tax credit schemes. He slaps them on whenever the pressure is there and he feels he needs some kind of escape route. We understood that the tax credit is reasonable and legitimate and we advocated and supported it but one doesn’t elevate that into a pretence of a guaranteed annual income. It’s little less than insufferable when he always adds to his budget statements the pretence that this is some guaranteed annual income plan; $217 a month for people over the age of 65. He debases the coinage of the language. He can call it what it is -- a modest pension; an inadequate pension which some of us have advocated; which a lot of us feel is insufficient; which should, in fact, be much higher, and I’ll leave it at that. I really feel he goes overboard, in a fashion which is unbecoming.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take it another step. Having fashioned a level which none of us is happy with but is a sufficient improvement to support, all of us then conspire, in the private world and in the public world, to maintain that level without increase. When we increase the public component of old age pensions, we will find, as I’m sure the minister does, that a great many of the private pension plans then reduce the amount they give to working people or non-working people -- those who have retired over the age of 65 -- by an amount equivalent to the provincial increase. This is the way many of the industrial pension schemes work. This is the way many of the mining companies, whom the Treasurer pretends to tax so extravagantly, behave in response to any increase to provincial tax law.

One of the things he might look at --

Hon. Mr. White: The member was pretty quiet when I mentioned it.

Mr. Lewis: I was quite fascinated by it and we are putting it to the microscope, my friend.

Mr. Deans: I guess I couldn’t believe it.

Mr. Lewis: It is a matter that’s kind of perverse; as soon as the state establishes a pension at a level which is barely subsistence, some of the private schemes cut back by the equivalent. I must say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Treasurer, that perhaps the Treasurer would consider companion legislation which would not allow private plans to reduce their pensions when the public component of the pension goes up.

But he invites them to do that when he refuses to allow a cost-of-living clause or indexing clause to be added to the bill. Indexing, as the member for Sarnia said rather neatly in response to the member for Scarborough Centre, is not a surrender to inflation. Indexing is kind of the minimum human response to the dilemma of rising prices every three months.

The problem is that those who set these pension levels without adding a cost-of-living index never change the basic rates for several years. We’ll live on $217 a month for I don’t know how long, until the government gets around to raising it again to a somewhat higher status. I don’t know what there is to comment upon from the point of view of the blind and disabled. Again, the minister has simply increased the social allowance available under the Family Benefits Act.

The drug component of this plan is interesting. I’m not sure that it’s been recognized, Mr. Speaker, but the arithmetic that can be done to take a look at the drug component of this plan, suggests that the government is providing full drug coverage for everyone over the age of 65 for a total of $45 per annum. That’s an interesting figure.

If I remember correctly, and I’m working from memory, the Treasurer said in his budget that the GAINS portion of the programme would cost $75 million. In his statement the other day he used the figure of $95 million for both the income supplement and the drugs. The $20 million of the drugs, when divided by the number of people who are eligible, works out to an average yearly cost of about $45 per person, but people over 65 are drug dependent.

Their usage is surely higher than the average for the province as a whole so the Treasurer has raised an interesting prospect of what it might cost Ontario to have a full drug plan attached to the health insurance plan. If at the most vulnerable areas in the areas of highest usage, it is only $45 a year, then I say to you this legislation has implicit in it, or certainly the announcement has implicit in it, the possibilities for a full drug plan for Ontario at a cost which the province can clearly afford. That’s a kind of neat incidental which flows from the announcements that have been made and suggests that you could have gone rather further sooner than you did.

Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to prolong it. We accept the legislation and will support it. We have called on the steps of the House, as have others, for the minimum pension as it exists in BC, and that’s largely what the Treasurer has enacted. The combination of their tax credits and our tax credits, their drug costs and our drug costs, their OHIP and our OHIP brings these two plans more or less into proportion. I think that BC is still slightly ahead, but not overwhelmingly, at this point.

I may say, Mr. Speaker, that means that the rest of us now have to set our sights where they belong at an annual minimum income for pensioners, which is real rather than illusory, an income rather than a social allowance.

If the pressures of society have brought you to the point of this level of allowance, maybe now, by applying some rigorous heat and documentation, we can bring you to the level of a guaranteed income which won’t mock the very term in the fashion in which you use it.

Not much is due you, Mr. Treasurer, by way of congratulation, not in 1974 at any event, but we will support the principle of the bill.

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

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on Bill 96, An Act to ensure a Guaranteed Annual Income to Ontario residents, 65 Years of Age and Over. I would like, at the outset, to bring to the attention of the minister that on Oct. 19, 1973, my leader recommended and suggested to the government that it establish $216.09 as a guaranteed income for pensioners and the disabled. I’m pleased to see that the minister has finally listened, seen the light and introduced legislation that was originally recommended by my leader.

Mr. Speaker, this really isn’t a guaranteed minimum, it’s a guaranteed maximum. This is the most that an individual can get from the government. If one looks at the poverty report of the Senate, one finds back in 1972 that the poverty line for a single person was $2,580. That is two years ago, Mr. Speaker. Now, with inflation as rampant as it has been over the past two years, you can see that the $2,600, which the Treasurer plans to provide each pensioner and disabled individual meeting the requirements set out in the legislation, really is not in keeping with the poverty level.

This increase, Mr. Speaker, is really $25 a month, $300 a year, or, broken down into hours, approximately 15 cents an hour. The $300 a year in some instances is not the equivalent of the $300 in education tax that the senior citizen has to pay on his own home. So you are not even compensating him for that even though he has already educated his children, does not use the schools any longer, but continues to pay education tax.

Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that on the introduction of this legislation the companion bill -- the one that would have provided drug benefits -- was not introduced. Because there is going to be confusion in the mind of the senior citizen who will be thinking that come the end of July he will be getting the maximum of $216 under the GAINS programme and he will be expecting the drug programme. He will be disappointed throughout the summer months and living in hope that when September rolls around the drug programme will be in effect. I would have preferred to have seen both come in at the same time to dispel all of those fears of the senior citizens.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that does disturb me on this legislation is that the provincial contribution, I am afraid, is not going to remain stationary. It is going to decrease progressively as the federal supplement increases according to the cost of living. And, as a result, within two years or so the province will not have any responsibility, will not be providing any of the funds to the senior citizen who now qualifies, unless the provincial portion is tied to the cost of living. And the cost of living that we talk about, Mr. Speaker, is a lot different for the rest of us here, than when we talk about the cost of living of a senior citizen.

The senior citizen generally has to buy his food in smaller portions in neighbourhood stores, in stores in which he cannot take advantage of reduced food costs because he cannot buy them in the quantity that the family individual can. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that it behooves the government -- and I would think the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) -- to set up a senior citizen food price index or a poverty -- I shouldn’t say poverty -- but a working poor food price index, because their cost of living goes up by far more than does the national average.

One of the other aspects that does disturb me, Mr. Speaker, is that we should first start with equality when we talk about senior citizens eligible for this supplement. Many senior citizens have to live in the normal rental market. They are not fortunate enough to be living in geared-to-income housing, in which their housing is subsidized, I understand, to about $95 per unit per month.

Now the senior citizen who lives in the commercial market has to rent, is not in geared-to-income housing and pays substantially more for rental. As a result, any increase that may be provided under this plan is not sufficient to put him on a par, as far as rental charges are concerned, with the senior citizen who lives in geared-to-income housing.

I think first we need to provide those senior citizens who are not in geared-to-income housing with a rental supplement so that the amount that that senior citizen pays is no more than the senior citizen who lives in geared-to-income housing.

After we have their rental accommodations on par, this type of a programme could come into effect and it would be of equal advantage to both the senior citizen renting in the commercial market and the senior citizen living in geared-to-income housing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, another point that I would like to bring up in this -- this should be, at least, tied to federal income tax. The single senior citizen has a $1,700 a year exemption, I think with $100 for charitable donations, giving him $1,800. Then he also has another $1,000 for being over 65. So I think the least we could have done would have been to provide him that income as non-taxable so the senior citizen would be getting at least $2,800 income under the GAINS programme. Increased exemptions from the federal government should be to the benefit of the senior citizen, not to his detriment.

I am afraid, as I mentioned earlier, that as pensions and supplements federally increase, the provincial contribution will decrease. It will not come to the benefit of the senior citizen. Another suggestion possibly could be made, Mr. Speaker: tying it to a minimum wage. I hesitate to do that, even though it probably may be a more just way of doing things, but I will leave that for others to talk about.

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas that does disturb me concerns an individual between 60 and 65, who is not eligible, according to this programme. That person may be physically fit and because he is physically fit, but because he has to stay home to take care of his spouse, he is not able to get gainful employment. And I think that that individual should be entitled to the benefits of the GAINS programme.

Mr. Speaker, living as I do in a border town, I am kind of concerned that some of our American friends now may be moving into Ontario knowing that with five-years’ residence, they would be eligible for this. Now, they might hide the fact that they are collecting the social security over there, or forget about reporting it, and then be eligible for the GAINS programme in Ontario as an immigrant. And after five years’ residency they might receive the full benefits of the GAINS programme. I hope the minister looks at that very carefully and I hope there is some way of overcoming people taking advantage of the programme.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the bill. I would have preferred to see an indexing feature attached to the bill, an indexing on the provincial contribution so that it could never be less than what it is today plus a supplement, an index supplement or any other increase that they wish to give, so that the federal contribution, as it is now, is indexed, will keep increasing and the provincial contribution would likewise keep increasing. These are the extent of the comments I wanted to make on this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any other members wish to enter the debate? The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I only want to make about two comments with respect to this bill.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Renwick: They will be rather lengthy, each of them.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): The hon. member for Riverdale wouldn’t want to disappoint us, would be?

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): He could talk until tomorrow on that one.

Mr. Renwick: I think, Mr. Speaker, the sensation which I had about this bill was one of immense irritation at the gradualism which has been inherent in the so-called step-by-step progress of the government toward the recognition of the fundamental social problem.

In the budget papers which were distributed at the time of the budget statement by the Treasurer, he takes pride and the government apparently takes pride in this gradual implementation of something called a guaranteed annual income. I can’t say it any better than the leader of this party said it a few minutes ago. This is not a guaranteed annual income and the gradualism of the approach taken by this government is no longer an acceptable programme for the Province of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, whether you are talking vertically in terms of the number of dollars which are going to be provided for a true and honest guaranteed annual income or whether you are talking horizontally about the extent to which it will be extended to cover other people within the Province of Ontario.

I was fascinated to note in the conclusion of the budget paper that there is a forecast, almost implicit, that during the coming year this programme will be extended to a wider range of people in the province. I’ll be very interested when the first intimation comes as to which that wider group is that is going to be given the benefit of this minimal standard of a pension or income support which is provided in this particular bill.

It would seem to me in a province as wealthy as this province that invidious comparison with other provinces and with other programmes is not something that this government should be engaged in. This is a much wealthier part, and much more solidly based in its economic wealth and in its strength through its wealth than any other part of Canada. It is not now necessary to make marginal comparisons between a programme of the New Democratic Party government in British Columbia -- which, after all, was implemented within a short time after the entrance into the government of that party -- and a programme of this government, a government which has been in power for such a great length of time.

It seems to me in all honesty what the minister should be saying to the House is that this is our target with respect to the adequate level of income for people in the Province of Ontario and we are going to move to that target immediately or we are going to move to it in two years or in three years or in four years. We would then get some indication of the social content of the government’s thinking with respect to this kind of problem.

What irritated us in our caucus as we came to consider the bill is a problem always in this kind of legislation that we are perforce going to vote in support of the bill. No one in the province can gainsay the fact that for a single person to be required to live at the level which is established in this bill, even adding into it the minuscule additional tax credit, and to be required to live on that number of dollars is inadequate. It is inadequate in terms of accommodation, inadequate in terms of food, inadequate in terms of clothing, inadequate in terms of recreational availability of funds, inadequate with respect to holidays and inadequate with respect to any number of other areas. The same thing can be said when one takes the amount which is paid to a couple in the province as pensioners under this legislation.

The leader of this party said the Treasurer is talking about $25 as the maximum amount being given per month by the government of Ontario to reach this level for a single person, and the maximum amount being contributed by the province to bring it up to the level for a married couple of $5,200 a year, if my subtraction is correct, is some $68 or $69 a month. It should say to itself, can the government of the Province of Ontario get by at this point in time by saying that its contribution is significant when the Treasurer is speaking about a maximum of $25 for a single person and a maximum of $68 or $69 for a married couple?

Well, those are my comments, Mr. Speaker. There will be other aspects of this that can be questioned when the bill goes into committee. The gradualism is wrong. The corruption of the language is wrong. The lack of target by the government is wrong with respect to setting the target that it must reach in order to provide the kind of adequacy that is required for a province such as this and for the people who live in this province.

Nothing the Treasurer can say can correct those matters. But it does seem to me that we are entitled, in the minister’s reply, to some sensation of his social thinking. He prides himself on being a red Tory -- I doubt if there is any such political animal, but he prides himself on that -- and if it has any content as a term, having come to Canada from England, then he’s got to be able to give his social philosophy and tell us where he is headed.

I think it would be very interesting for the minister to give us some indication of his broader thinking, both with respect to the target he has in mind and with respect to the enlargement of the groups of people within the province to whom this particular programme is to be extended. Then we could begin to come to grips with whether or not there is a real sense in the government of its obligation to the citizens of the province, particularly at the time when the dollar is being ravaged by the inflation that is taking place.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter the debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, now for the first time ever, every single person 65 years and over has $50 cash income per week --

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Not until July 1.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and every couple 65 and over has a minimum cash income of $100 a week. Now for the first time ever, Mr. Speaker, the blind and the disabled are on exactly the same basis as those over 65 years of age.

In one very significant step we have accomplished not only a higher minimum for 290,000 people who will qualify by virtue of their age and circumstances, but we have narrowed a gap that was a troublesome inequity to me certainly and to all those within the government, both elected persons and appointed officials, who were aware of that discrepancy.

We have taken another step, sir, because thousands of people who do not qualify for federal assistance, not having been in Canada for 10 years, will qualify under this new Act of ours -- 10,000 in all.

As I announced in my budget, this guaranteed annual income will be enhanced, qualitatively and quantitatively. It will be married with the world’s first significant negative income tax system, which originated in the great budget of March, 1969. As the decade unfolds, I have no doubt that we will provide additional resources and make wiser use of existing resources --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The universe is unfolding as it should.

Mr. MacDonald: The Treasurer must retire from politics and go into an advertising agency.

Hon. Mr. White: -- to establish a truly meaningful guaranteed annual income for all those people with restricted incomes.

Mr. Deans: Hogwash.

Hon. Mr. White: As a matter of fact, I’ve been impatient for years with the reluctance shown by some number of people. I remember a conversation I had two or three years ago with Jane Jacobs, who said: “There are two kinds of people on social welfare --”

Mr. Deans: Men and women.

Hon. Mr. White: “There are those people who are getting cheques called welfare cheques, and there are those who are getting cheques called salary cheques. It is the latter category that are standing in the way of progress.”

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): What about the dividend cheques?

Hon. Mr. White: Whatever the facts may have been at the time, Mr. Speaker, as we have developed this programme in co-operation with several operating ministries, I have found nothing but enthusiasm and acceptance of the proposition that we should get away from categorical programmes with needs tests, personal in nature, etc., etc., and get into a guaranteed annual income such as we have indeed started here in this province using this bill.

Mr. Lewis: The dismantling of needs test programmes began 20 years ago.

Hon. Mr. White: I really don’t want to forecast at the moment what qualitative and quantitative changes might be attempted some months hence, notwithstanding the gracious invitation of the hon. member for Riverdale. I wonder to myself about the age: I wonder to myself if both members of the couple should be 65 --

Mr. Deans: That’s a very important point.

Hon. Mr. White: I wonder to myself about some enrichment for a disabled person, but I must say that these matters, which seem to be rather simple at first glance, become tremendously complicated, as some of us will learn, when we develop the various sections of the bill in the standing committee later on today.

This, no doubt, is the reason it has been slow in coming, not only here but in other jurisdictions.

A number of points have been raised, Mr. Speaker, by the debaters, and I thank them for participating, and most especially, my very dear colleague, the member for Scarborough Centre, whose constructive remarks were greatly appreciated by me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He, unfortunately, is not here to receive the accolades.

Hon. Mr. White: I will send him a copy of Hansard.

Mr. MacDonald: At least the provincial Treasurer stayed to receive his accolade.

Hon. Mr. White: We have decided not to rush into indexing in any pensions or wages or other benefits. I quite understand the arguments in favour of indexing. I am inclined to agree, however, with the Leader of the Opposition, who pointed out to us the perils of indexing, or to paraphrase his words, “If one were to index everything, this would simply feed the fires of inflation.” I believe this too, as do most people who consider that option.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Except for a basic pension such as this one.

Hon. Mr. White: It becomes difficult to single out a particular benefit for indexing without being drawn into that quagmire. I was taken by the remarks from the member for Wentworth and the member for Windsor-Walkerville, both of whom posed certain objections to indexing, which they would have solved in somewhat different ways.

The member for Wentworth pointed out that elderly people may have a higher shelter component from the index than the average citizen, that they may have higher food costs because of the smaller quantities purchased from small stores in their neighbourhood, and the like. I think he has drawn our attention to one of the reasons why indexing shouldn’t be relied upon, if I may say so.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville was making the same point, in coming to the same conclusion from a different direction, by pointing out that the cost of living is a lot different, to use his words, for older people.

Mr. Deans: I hope Hansard doesn’t record my remarks exactly the way the Treasurer does.

Hon. Mr. White: Don’t put them in quotes, then.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The Treasurer is pretty free with his interpretation.

Mr. Deans: I would like to think that maybe I said a little more.

Hon. Mr. White: Statistics Canada is doing some work on a basket of goods and services for older people. If such an index should become available, I think we would have to take a good look at it. In the meantime I think we are going to be fairer to the people involved if we use our judgement, periodically, to increase the amount paid to this important group of citizens. I would anticipate such a review once a year, at the very least, and probably two or three times a year.

Some question has been raised about our position relative to other jurisdictions, and I think it is rather interesting. I don’t want to be in a race with British Columbia or any other province for that matter, but I think the members of this Legislature, as a matter of interest, might like to be aware of the fact that a single person here in Ontario will receive a total monthly benefit of $259.98. This consists of the guaranteed income of $216.67; a pensioner tax credit of $9.17 per month; sales tax credit of $2.31; property tax credit of $17.50; free health premiums of $11; free prescription drugs estimated at $3.33. So we’re at $259.98; and at the present time BC is $249.72.

Insofar as married couples are concerned, our total is $492.21 per month. British Columbia at the moment is $475.28. Their figures are going to go up --

Mr. Lewis: Out of curiosity, has the Treasurer got the BC figures broken down?

Hon. Mr. White: -- and then they will be slightly higher than ours. And then when ours go up some months hence, I suppose they will be slightly below ours.

An hon. member: They won’t even be around by then.

Mr. Lewis: Just by way of interest, does the Treasurer have the BC figures broken down?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, I have.

Mr. Lewis: Could he put them on the record?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes. These figures are for a single person. They have a guaranteed income at the present time of $217.17. There is a homeowners’ grant and school tax credit of $24.16 -- this is assuming the home ownership figure declines to $6.67 for renters. The pre-health premiums are $4.50; free prescription drugs, $3.89. But listen, I think we should not get drawn into this trap.

Mr. Lewis: Why does BC give $4.50 for its health premium and it is $11 for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. White: I don’t know. I will get the answer for the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, the Treasurer should get the answer for that, as well as straighten up the figures.

Mr. Deans: Why are their drugs higher than ours?

Hon. Mr. White: And why are their drugs higher than ours? I don’t know. I’ll be glad to get that information. That’s why, as a matter of fact, I’m taking this into committee -- so that we’ll have all kinds of expertise to help the amateur.

Mr. Reid: The Treasurer included himself on that one.

Hon. Mr. White: I’d like to make this point if I may. Yes, to help the amateur; that’s right. I pride myself on my gradualism and my amateurism.

Now, here’s the point I want to make. Please listen to me for a minute. If we become obsessed with the amount of money going to 311,000 of our 695,000 senior citizens, we may find ourselves putting resources into that smaller portion without regard for those people who are marginally better off. So, I want to daw your attention to a further comparison here --

Mr. Reid: That always happens.

Hon. Mr. White: -- which takes into recognition -- not just those qualifying for GAINS and free prescriptions and such like -- but which takes into account a very large amount of money. It is very large indeed. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being put into the tax credit system, about 40 per cent of which is realized by persons 65 and over. This is done as a comparison with BC for my edification; although once again, I want to say I’m not in the race with BC.

When one takes the amount of money dedicated to programmes especially designed for old age pensioners in the present fiscal year, our total cost is $302 million. I can break this down now or later.

Mr. Lewis: What is that?

Hon. Mr. White: British Columbia’s total cost is $98 million. If one takes the next nine months -- which is the start of our program -- the British Columbia figure, on a comparative basis, becomes $90,500,000. The number of old age pensioners here is 695,000 and in BC it’s 225,000. The average benefit per person in dollars here is $434.53. At the present time -- although once again I’ve got to say it’s going to change, because BC is going up in July, I think it is -- the average benefit per person in BC is $402.22.

I think that we should put very significant amounts of money into the tax credit system as we increase the payments into GAINS and other programmes designed for less than half of this large group of senior citizens, in order to get rid of some of the anomalies at the margin.

In fact, this new programme of ours will do that to some extent. It holds the people receiving institutional care in nursing homes at their present comfort allowance of $51. It increases the comfort allowance to people in senior citizens’ homes from $34 to $43. In point of fact, if one were to do it starting from scratch, one would give the people, I think, who are mobile -- the old chaps who can go down and have a draught on a Saturday night -- more than the people who are incapacitated in bed.

But putting these things in place, they are not easily changed, let me say. So we hope to rid ourselves of these anomalies and inequities as the additional sums of money are put into the programme. Nobody will come down, at any rate, and some significant number of people will go up.

Incidentally, the United Kingdom, which is the fountain head of all wisdom for the Keynesian Socialists opposite, is going from a single pension of $17.08 to a single pension of $23, and for a couple it is going from $28.75 to $36.80 in July.

Mr. Deans: So what?

Hon. Mr. White: I am just pointing out that your inspiration and others came from those of Bernard Shaw and his ilk. and I thought you might like to know what Mr. Harold Wilson was doing.

Mr. MacDonald: Would you give us the figure they have for complete health care?

Mr. Renwick: Harold Wilson is doing all right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: What is it in the German Democratic Republic, perhaps, or the People’s Republic of Czechoslovakia. You might like to compare it with those.

Hon. Mr. White: British Columbia, which is another source of inspiration for the socialists opposite, pays double the single rate to couples. We ourselves wondered about giving less than double to married couples, as the member for Wentworth suggests.

Mr. Deans: No. On a point of order, I am not going to stand for that. No, sir. I did not suggest at any time that the married should receive less than double. I said that it took more than half of the married rate for a single person to survive, and that is considerably different.

Hon. Mr. White: I would like to check Hansard. You would like to see a single person get more than half of the double, but he doesn’t want the double to get less than two singles -- but he wants the single to get more than half the double. We’ll go to work on that in committee.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the minister finished?

Hon. Mr. White: No, I am not finished.

Mr. MacDonald: We just wondered, because the minister seems to have drifted’ to a conclusion.

Hon. Mr. White: There are regional variations in costs across the province. This once again becomes a tremendous difficulty. We did have variable wages in Hydro, and it makes a lot of sense, too, because living costs in Brantford are very low, I am sure, compared to Toronto.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ask the member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett) before you accuse me of that.

Hon. Mr. White: At any rate, it does make sense, but the minute one attempts this -- and there is enormous agitation, as the hon. member pointed out, to have everybody put on exactly the same basis -- I think if we were to introduce regional variations, we would upset a lot of people. I don’t think we could hold to that. I don’t think the members opposite would want us to attempt that, quite frankly.

Sir, this is a general lead into the specifics which can be better dealt with in committee, so I thank those who have participated, and I am delighted, naturally enough, to have had the privilege of introducing this legislation toward the end of my own great career. I am delighted, too, to have had the assurance from the hon. members opposite that we are going to carry this historic measure unanimously.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You are discounting all of your other superlatives.

Mr. Breithaupt: He has so much to be modest about.

Motion agreed to. Second reading of the bill.

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

An hon. member: Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, this bill will go to the social development committee as previously mentioned. I move that the committee be authorized to sit concurrently with the House.

Mr. Speaker: The bill will go to the standing social development committee, and Mr. White has moved that the committee be authorized to sit concurrently with the House. Is this agreed to?

Mr. Breithaupt: Might I ask, Mr. Speaker, if it is the intention for the committee to begin, then, probably at 8 o’clock this evening?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I would think so.

Mr. Deans: On this matter, I don’t believe any notice has been given. I don’t believe any notice has been given to the members of the committee that it will sit.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I believe this committee has this understanding, although I can’t vouch for that.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the committee has the understanding that it will complete the estimates of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities before it proceeds to other business.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I have said many times I never interfere with the committee. I don’t know what they intend to do.

Hon. Mr. White: Just tell me when you want me to be there.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call 6 of the clock, I should point out to the members that earlier this afternoon Bill 22, the Health Disciplines Act, 1974, was reported by the social development committee, and I neglected to obtain the direction of the House at that time. I, therefore, now put the question, shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Some hon. members: Committee.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Hon. Mr. White: Committee of the whole House? Really it would be helpful if we could have --

Mr. Deans: Not the Treasurer’s bill.

Mr. Speaker: I was referring to a bill reported by the chairman of the committee earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, do I take it that the Treasurer is simply on call for the social development committee, for either tonight or tomorrow morning?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He is.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Plus Health, Welfare, Revenue and a few others.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s a queer way to run a railroad. The House leader has three ministers on call.

Hon. Mr. White: I really do believe we should start at 8 o’clock and go back to the estimates afterwards.

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