Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

On vote 802:

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask further questions. I had asked about the community renewal programme. I don’t think the minister dealt with that question. I would like to have his reply to that.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is absolutely right. I didn’t have time to deal with the part of her question in regard to the Ontario Home Renewal Programme, which gives grants of $25,000 to those municipalities whose population is less than $10,000.

We have so far approved applications from nine municipalities for a total provincial grant of $2,001,519. The municipalities are Brantford, Cornwall, Niagara Falls, Windsor, Grimsby, Sarnia, Napanee, Hamilton and St. Catharines. Would the hon. member like the details as to how much has been allocated to each one?

Mrs. Campbell: No.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have that if you wish. In regard to what were formerly called urban renewal projects, we have approved a number of allocations to the following municipalities: Hamilton, Ottawa, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Toronto, Windsor, Cornwall, London, Niagara Falls, Thunder Bay, Kitchener, Timmins and Sudbury.

Under NIP -- Neighbourhood Improvement Programme -- we have Almonte, Arnprior, Brantford, Brockville, Cochrane, Cornwall, township of East Gwillimbury, borough of Etobicoke, town of Grimsby, city of Hamilton, town of Hearst, town of Hespeler, town of lgnace, city of Kingston, town of Lindsay, city of London, town of Midland, town of Napanee, city of Niagara Falls, city of Orillia, city of Oshawa, city of Ottawa, city of Port Colborne, town of Ridgetown, city of St. Catharines, township of Sandwich West, city of Sarnia, township of Sarnia, city of Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury region, city of Thunder Bay, city of Timmins, city of Toronto, city of Vanier and city of Windsor.

The funds that have been allocated from the federal government total $17 million; the funds allocated provincially are $8.5 million; the funds that have to be allocated from the municipal government are the same, $8.5 million. We have a total funding for the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme of $34 million.

We think, Mr. Chairman, that this programme has been very well accepted and has certainly filled a gap which existed in the past few years. As you know, the Home Renewal Programme can be added to the NIP and RRAP programmes.

I don’t know whether there are any other details which the hon. member wants at this particular time but I do have, as I say, the actual dollars for each particular municipality.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have the details in both of the categories for the city of Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Chairman, under urban renewal we have, in the city of Toronto, Alexandra Park with a total amount approved of $14,804,758, the provincial share being $3,701,189. We have Don Mount Village, total amount approved $4,379,500, the provincial share being $1,094,875. We have Trefann Court, phase 1, total amount approved $2,082,207, the provincial share being $520,551. We have Trefann Court, phase 2, total amount approved $4,770,489, the provincial share being $1,192,622.

Then we go to the NIP programme. Toronto funds allocated by the federal government were $1,720,000, our share being $860,000 and the city’s of course being the same, $860,000.

My staff informs me that the city hasn’t applied yet for anything under the Ontario Home Renewal Programme.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if he could give me the amount allotted for the town of Ridgetown?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Maybe I should, Mr. Chairman, give all the amounts, if you like. If there are other people interested, I would be quite happy to do so. Ridgetown in NIP is what the hon. member is asking for?

Mr. Spence: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The total amount allocated by the federal government is $258,000, the provincial contribution being $129,000.

Mr. C. J. S. Apps (Kingston and the Is- lands): Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Cochrane South.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): How about Kingston and the Islands?

Mr. Apps: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask the minister how much money has actually been expended in the city of Kingston under the NIP programme; if any has yet been expended or whether this allocation has been taken up at all or not?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, in the city of Kingston we have expended funds for the study to the extent of 2 per cent of the allocation. Once the study is available to us, then the amount that has been allocated will be given to the city.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions. Last spring, or fall there was a ministerial order putting a freeze on development in the Timmins area outside of some of the built-up areas. I think that freeze is still on, at least in part. I wonder how long it is going to stay on.

Is the minister in a position to say how much work is being done in the municipality to develop an official plan for the whole of the area? I know this was one of the objectives of the consolidated municipality when it came into being about two years ago. The desire was to have more local decisions made, in particular with regard to planning, and a special effort was to be made to develop the official plan.

I don’t know how far advanced they are in this planning procedure, whether they are nearly ready to adopt it or just where it stands. Perhaps the minister could fill me in on it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to.

The freeze still exists. What we have allocated in our estimates is $500,000 for assistance to municipalities which wish to proceed with official plans or zoning bylaws and do not have the funds, in our opinion, to proceed. There are some municipalities that haven’t the necessary staff to prepare official plans or zoning bylaws.

We have not, to my knowledge, received an application from the particular municipality that you mentioned with regard to financial assistance or as to what steps they wish us to take. I would be happy to have a letter from them.

I have been informed of grants that have been finalized. I can read them out to the hon. members: town of Alliston, $1,500; township of Bruce, $3,125; town of Caledon, $7,500; township of Collingwood, $5,000; township of Eramosa, 2,500; township of Michipicoten, $5,000; township of Murray, $5,000; town of Pelham, 50 per cent of the cost up to a maximum of $5,000; township of Rideau, $5,000; township of St. Edmunds, $3,000.

I have been informed by my staff that Proctor and Redfern are presently working on the plans for Timmins in consultation with our own ministry staff. If there are any holdups that the member is aware of I would be happy to hear from him directly and we will try to resolve them.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Chairman, there are a few things I would like to say about the plans administration branch, and specifically the special planning grants. A great deal of the province has been taken over by regional government. In all these bills there has been provision made that official plans be completed by a specified date, so in that regard we will see what I hope will be proper planning procedures instigated in that part of the province.

Dealing with the rest of the province, I have said on numerous occasions -- and I think it bears repeating to the new minister -- that I feel very strongly we’re never going to get proper planning in the smaller municipalities and the rural communities until such time as the minister is prepared to give some financial assistance to those municipalities which find themselves without official plans and with no money to hire the proper planning expertise to develop plans.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): That’s right.

Mr. Good: What happens is that things go along without any plans. There is no proper zoning and no official plan until sometimes a developer moves in, as has happened in many of these municipalities. Then a ministerial order has to be placed on the area. In many instances it’s too late to stop what has already been started; and we find then that instead of orderly procedure development, we have the old routine right back where the dollar bills of the developer in fact institute and start the original planning for that area. This has happened time and time again.

Another scheme used is the lack of approval by the ministry down here until such time as official plans are completed by that municipality. The minister, I’m sure, knows full well that that municipality does not have the finances to lay out a great deal of money within that next year or two to develop official plans, and consequently nothing proceeds in that municipality.

So you have the two extremes: One where somebody gets in beforehand and starts the development, which then is stopped on all further development by a ministerial order; and the other extreme where nothing happens in that municipality because no approval is given down here for lack of official planning.

We had planning grants years ago through the area planning board, and I presume there are still area planning boards getting special grants as well as other planning boards. I believe your planning boards, Mr. Chairman, will not be able to do a proper job until such time as they are given the authority to put some teeth into the recommendation. Any municipality in the area can very easily thumb its nose at the recommendations of an area planning board simply because they represent nothing but a co-operative effort. If one municipality chooses to use its own strategy, nothing is done in a wide area.

The Toronto-centred region was put forth as the be all and the end all to planning in the central core region of Ontario. We all know that it has been violated right, left and centre, by this very government, from its original concept.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Good: It has served, in my view, practically no useful purpose. It has said there is not going to be development west of Toronto; it was going to put development east of Toronto. To date it has been exactly the same as it always has been. The development has been west of Toronto. There’s been nothing to promote development east of Toronto to any extent, other than what the government has called its North Pickering village. That is not east of Toronto; that is just an adjunct, an attachment to Metropolitan Toronto which will enlarge the problems which are right here in the city at this time.

The small municipalities have got to get assistance to do their planning. This government has never seen fit to have an official or a proposed broad brush plan for development across the province. Nothing has ever happened to the proposals in the Toronto-centred region as to where the strategic growth points should be in the southern part of Ontario. Nothing has ever happened in that regard. We find ourselves right back.

I would be very interested to know, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could tell us what progress has actually been made in the filing of official plans by municipalities across the province of southern Ontario, outside of the regional government areas. I have looked at the map over in the former community planning branch which showed which areas are under official plans. Believe me, Mr. Chair- man, there were very few coloured marks in the map of southern Ontario for areas that actually had official plans completed, or in fact where there were official plans in the process of being completed.

This morning at the presentation of the Niagara Escarpment planning area, the point was brought up that even though Niagara regional government is charged in its bill to have ready by -- I think it’s either 1975 or 1976, at the conclusion of that year -- an official plan --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): It is 1975.

Mr. Good: It is 1975 the member for Welland South tells me. That work and that plan can still be changed by the new planning area of the Niagara Escarpment and the planning development of the Niagara Escarpment Commission will hold precedence over the official plan of the new region.

In my view, many areas of the province are still in a chaotic situation because of the lack of leadership through provincial planning from the top down on a broad brush base and then giving the local communities the authority to establish their plans within a framework of strategic growth which has been laid down. l wonder if the minister is giving any consideration to trying to infuse money into the smaller municipalities to get some real good planning at the local level within a broader framework through to completion,

I still feel there are too many areas in the province that are not properly controlled for their own good, although those people are only too anxious to do it, in order to know where they stand. They want to do it themselves if they have the funds rather than have the ministerial order come in telling them to do this.

It was only four years ago that many parts of southern Ontario had subdivision control placed on. It is shameful to me that in the seven years I’ve been here there haven’t been greater strides made by the government to look after overall planning of the province to indicate where we want our growth and then do something to promote it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the member for Waterloo North has brought up a matter somewhat similar to that of the hon. member for Cochrane South. I explained just a few minutes ago that we have a fund of $500,000 for those municipalities which lack proper funding for planning purposes. I agree with the members that we do have to provide funds for those municipalities. We have implemented this programme this year and intend to improve upon it. We have enlarged our staff out in the area of the municipalities, not in Queen’s Park. We’ve got field offices now which have been established in Thunder Bay, London, Sudbury and Ottawa to ensure that people can contact our own staff in the immediate area rather than having to come to Queen’s Park as they used to do.

In doing so we have recognized that many municipalities have been very hesitant to take on proper planning procedures. We have been also hesitant to impose ministerial orders, as the member has mentioned. We don’t wish to do so. We do so only in extreme cases such as the hon. member brought to my attention the other day, and to which I replied several times. In Oso township and South Sherbrooke township we imposed the ministerial order in both townships because of unplanned development being proposed. We recognize there is much more to be done; we would be happy to receive resolutions from municipalities which wish not only financial assistance but staff assistance so that we can improve on their planning procedures.

I think the hon. member brought out a very good point -- one which may not be entirely in conformity with his own party’s views, if I understood him correctly.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He mentioned that the planning boards should be -- I thought he said the planning boards should be separate from municipal control, but maybe he said it was the other way; maybe he said planning boards should be under the municipal councils, so that the municipal councils can proceed with planning.

Mr. Good: I don’t think I said that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Could the hon. member clarify what he meant in that case? I’d like to know.

Mr. Good: What I said was that the planning that was done by your area planning boards in many cases was money down the drain, because the municipalities were not obliged under any condition to deal with their recommendations.

If there is an area planning board, it’s got to be a joint venture of the municipalities involved and part of the municipal framework, so that there is some real planning done by those municipalities which want to do it on a broader base than the one particular municipality. You gave money over the years to area planning boards that had absolutely no power to enforce the things they were doing. In many cases these area planning boards were representative of the municipalities, but the municipalities had their own planning departments and could, in fact, if they wanted to, thumb their noses at the other boards. I don’t know why you were giving money to area planning boards that were not a projection of the municipalities, with the municipalities’ power to enforce decisions.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The hon. member may be correct that we gave moneys to area planning boards. I am not aware of that. I will check into that particular matter to determine how much and when.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t really know of any area planning board in my area that receives any funds from the provincial government. Area planning boards are funded by the municipalities involved. That is what has happened in the past, to my knowledge.

What you are talking about, really, is a good case for restructured counties. This is what we are saying, that we want to have the power put into the hands of the local elected people and we do not want special-purpose bodies. We have said this consistently and we continue to say it. I am de- lighted to hear that the hon. member has recognized the necessity that this particular part at least be under the municipal council’s jurisdiction.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, let me just reiterate, for the minister’s information, the planning of regions or the planning of counties is the one function that we have always said should be at the regional or at the county level. But what you have done under regional government is you have stripped the lower-tiered municipalities of all their powers. We in this party have always said that that would eliminate a lot of the necessity for regional governments, if you had sound regional planning under an overall provincial plan, which you’ve never had although people have been urging you to have it so for 25 years.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t think it is fair to say we haven’t had a plan for overall planning.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): You should read the member for Downsview’s statement of 1966.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): All right. Have you got it available?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You weren’t around then. You were still supporting Diefenbaker in 1966.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: And I will today; there is nothing wrong with that.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Do you hear that, Don?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Except that I don’t want them to say that it was 25 years ago; that’s what you do.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Don’t say that to me.

Mr. Roy: You don’t remember 1966.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes I do, and I remember the record, too.

Mr. Bullbrook: You don’t have to take that from him.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I don’t from the member for Ottawa East -- he is still wet behind the ears.

An hon. member: You might as well sit down, Don.

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, where is your gavel?

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am sorry. It was Jim who started it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the interjections, because I think they are quite relevant to what we are talking about, at least I suppose they are.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Oh yes, especially that one of Deans’.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But in any event, I do believe the province has been very much concerned and very much involved in overall planning, and we intend to get more involved in the future. I ask the hon. member to tell me, at his first opportunity, if he knows of a case of a municipality in need of planning assistance, and I guarantee to him that I will assist that municipality if the need is warranted.

Mr. Good: Why wasn’t there planning in the municipalities on which you have just had to put a ministerial order? They must have been in need of some planning assistance. I bet they have never received five cents from this province.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I think it comes back to the very basic fact that there is a resistance to a degree, and rightly so, by some people in some municipalities to have any planning. In their opinion they can get along without it, but I say that you have to have plans.

Mr. Haggerty: The minister doesn’t want any planning; that’s what it is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am saying that if they take up planning procedures which are not good for the Province of Ontario we’ll put a ministerial order on any municipality, and we’ll do it in the best interests of those people. But what we want to try to do is to make sure that they plan in co-operation with the province’s overall planning concept for the future. We can talk about the past, if you like, but I’d rather relate our remarks to the coming months and years, whereby we can improve our development throughout all of Ontario, which will be in accord with good planning for the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Good: Surely not Metro Toronto.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk for a few minutes on two programmes that were given great publicity. A great deal of emphasis was placed on them by your predecessor twice removed, so that your colleague sitting beside you now isn’t responsible for any of the statements that I am going to refer to this evening --

Mr. Roy: He is never here.

Mr. Stokes: Two years ago your predecessor twice removed promised that 100 homes would be built in northern Ontario in areas without municipal organization. It’s a programme, the announcement of which I welcomed to a great extent, and I look forward to the implementation of that programme. In the two intervening years, you have built 20 homes in Minaki. Some are still unoccupied simply because you were so anxious to get going on the things that the basements were poorly constructed, they were built on pillars, the doors are jamming --

Mr. Chairman: Are these Ontario Housing?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: You should be on vote 803.

Mr. Stokes: No, no, they are the Ontario Housing Action Programme.

Mr. Chairman: Ontario Housing Action Programme is 803.

Mr. Stokes: I am not sure that it is under Ontario Housing, all I know is --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: -- that it was a commitment made by the previous minister responsible for housing.

Mr. Chairman: There is no item in this 802 as far as housing is concerned.

Mr. Stokes: It’s exactly the same thing as the former speaker, the member for Waterloo North, was talking about.

Mr. Chairman: No, no.

Mr. Stokes: The only difference is it’s an unorganized territory as opposed to organized.

Mr. Chairman: I have to disagree with you.

Mr. Stokes: The minister agrees with me because --

Mr. Chairman: Order for a minute. The member for Waterloo North was talking about planning.

Mr. Stokes: So am I.

Mr. Chairman: Community planning.

Mr. Stokes: So am I.

Mr. Chairman: Get to community planning, because you are talking about housing.

Mr. Stokes: Okay. There was a plan within this ministry to build 200 homes within the next two years. There was also another plan called Housing North, launched with great fanfare.

An hon. member: That’s very catchy.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, Housing North.

Mr. Chairman: You are off base; you are still off base. We discuss housing in the next vote.

An hon. member: Jack, don’t take it sitting down.

Mr. Stokes: Sheesh!

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. Stokes: The minister has got it right in front of him, he has prepared the answer, and you won’t let him.

Mr. Chairman: He will answer it in the next vote.

Mr. Stokes: Put my name down again.

Mr. Chairman: I did.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Would the minister explain to us what he is going to do in connection with the North Pickering expropriation, on the problems that were brought to his attention quite forcefully by the court regarding the inadequacy of the appraisals that were attached to the expropriation orders, and the fact that the new appraisals that are being done are based on transactions that are not close to the date of the expropriation? How is the minister going to deal with this matter to ensure that the people whose lands are being expropriated are going to have proper evaluation on which they can judge and contest or agree to the offer of expropriation?

Mr. Roy: You can’t even expropriate right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows, this matter is still before the courts. There has been an appeal. The action was brought forward by one of the residents, Mr. Bamborough, before the Supreme Court of Ontario, seeking relief from expropriation on the grounds that the appraisal report accompanying the offer was inadequate. The relief was denied by the court. The criticism, as I see it, is that the North Pickering project was denying him, Mr. Bamborough, the information necessary for him to determine whether the offer was fair and reasonable. The Supreme Court judgment requires the project to provide more detailed documentation, explaining how the value of the property was made.

The Sept. 10 judgment by the Supreme Court of Ontario, as far as we are concerned, in no way invalidates the expropriation of the properties within the site. The project is proceeding, with the preparation of detailed appraisal reports for delivery to those who have been expropriated, but with whom the province has not as yet reached settlement. These reports will amplify the basis for the offers made by the province last spring. The form of appraisal reports will meet the principles set out in the judgement.

The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the section of the Expropriation Act which has been causing some uncertainty regarding the form of appraisal to be provided to any expropriated owner. As I mentioned at first, the government has asked and been granted leave to appeal; so I think until such time as we have a decision, that is where the position is at this time.

Mr. Deacon: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will ask the minister why the government has asked for leave to appeal when, in effect, it’s going ahead with more detailed appraisals. To my mind, that indicates it’s admitted it’s wrong. Why are they moving to update these appraisals until they have got a final judgment on the matter?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, it doesn’t in any way indicate that the government feels it is wrong; but the government wishes to make sure that it is right, and the staff of the North Pickering project have now completed the preparation of new appraisal reports for all properties.

An hon. member: He is taking no chances.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We don’t prejudge, as I mentioned before. Some people have judged matters before these estimates, certain people being one way or the other. I am saying that we wish to determine our course of action -- once the final analysis is made by the courts -- and then we will proceed in that manner. We have to find out, as far as we are concerned, what the people in the area wish; and we have, as far as the staff is concerned, proceeded in that way.

The staff of the North Pickering project have now completed the preparation of the new appraisal reports for all the properties that are not occupied by resident owners; and that’s very important, I believe. Those are the properties which we intend to take possession of on Nov. 6.

These new appraisal reports, together with the new offers of compensation, which represent offers 115 former owners, have now been served In respect to such properties. The balance of the properties, numbering 171, involve the properties of former owners still resident on the site. New appraisal re- ports, together with new offers of compensation in respect to these properties, will be prepared and will be served prior to the end of this year.

Now I think, as some of my colleagues might be aware, Mr. Chairman, an appraisal report is a statement of professional opinion of a qualified appraiser as to the market value of a given property at a given time.

Mr. Good: Which you don’t believe in.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think it is quite true to say the opinion of two different appraisers concerning the same property may very well vary considerably. It is not uncommon to have them vary to a range of 10 to 30 per cent.

In making the new appraisal reports, we have used wherever possible the appraisers who did the work previously, asking them to review their work and write a new and more detailed appraisal. In a number of the cases, it was impossible to assign the same appraiser and we had to engage new appraisers. As a result, opinions of market value expressed in many of these new reports vary from the appraisals which were served last spring. Certainly the amounts vary from property to property.

In no case -- and I think, Mr. Chairman, this is what I want to bring to the hon. members’ attention -- is a new offer less than the one made previously.

Mr. Roy: I guess not, you said land is supposed to be increasing. You have got a real insight on this.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: So we feel that the North Pickering project staff who have been in the field have done their utmost to ensure that the people there have received their full rights in regard to the compensation due to them.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I find that a very confusing explanation that the minister is reading. I don’t know who is giving you that information. Why are you putting those people through the expense of another court case -- an appeal -- when in fact you are admitting you are wrong and you are bringing up a proper report? It just doesn’t make sense.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I told you we are not admitting we are wrong.

Mr. Roy: The court says you are.

Mr. Deacon: But you put through a two-page document; it was inadequate, you wouldn’t even have accepted that yourself if you had received that as a basis of valuation, you know that. It was just a sketchy outline that you hoped you could push through.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think it is obvious if we felt we were wrong we wouldn’t have appealed, Mr. Chairman. The member says --

Mr. Deacon: Well why are you going ahead and having these new, more complete appraisal reports made if you knew they weren’t wrong? If you think you are right, stop this new appraisal work; go ahead with these two-page things you have shoved at the people before saying: “That’s adequate.” This isn’t consistent at all. The way you pool the resources of all the people here, the taxpayers, against these poor folks the way you do -- to try to shove them around, make them go through more court cases and appeals -- it certainly is no wonder they are furious with you out there.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He is answering your objections, what’s the matter with you?

Mr. Reid: Don the dictator.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Are you for the two pages or aren’t you?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The hon. member knows full well that is not right. He knows full well that we have every right to provide new detailed appraisals if we wish, and we are going to do it to satisfy his people, the ones he was standing up for, crying about the fact that the government hasn’t done enough for them. We have bent over backwards to make sure that people in North Pickering have been compensated fully and to the best of our judgement.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That really is effrontery, you know.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They like you out there.

Mr. Roy: Oh yes!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In regard to the one who has a case before the courts; we have paid expenses, we have considered this a test case. We are waiting to have the appeal heard.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, does the minister mean to tell us that he thinks, and his ministry thinks, that a two-page, sketchy report of an appraisal is sufficient to give people as a basis of judging whether or not the value they are being offered for their property is sufficient? Does the minister tell us that is what he thinks is right?’

Mr. Roy: Yes, that’s what he thinks.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, he is doing better now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The judge turned it down.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deacon: If he does think that, okay; let him go through the courts up to the Supreme Court of Canada with his case. But would the minister recognize that if he wants to be fair with these people he’ll block the darn case, admit the ministry is wrong, and go ahead with a full appraisal to all these people, and let them know of the basis on which you are making your offer -- a proper basis for it.

I think this is really trying to prove you’re right when you’re wrong all the way, and you know you are by what you are doing here.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the member is so far off base it isn’t even funny.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): As usual.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not admitting that we are wrong.

Mr. Roy: You wouldn’t admit anything

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Don’t be concerned because that is par.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I feel it is quite appropriate to have new appraisals made.

Mr. Good: If the others are right, why haven’t --

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, the other matter I want to find out is: What is the minister going to do in order to get those lands back into operation again? I know all summer they have been offering people some sort of ridiculous fees -- I don’t know how many have accepted -- but they are not going to get those lands looking like anything other than like a war-devastated area, which it now looks like. North Pickering is worse than Malvern -- and that is saying a lot -- because by taking over the ownership, they have killed the incentive and people are moving off the land.

Has the minister considered letting these people buy back their lands minus the development rights, so that they can get some sense of ownership and interest and involvement? It is going to be years before that land is ever built on, if it is ever built on. And if the government owns the development rights, it will have the power to do it someday, if it can get the permission of the local municipality. In the meantime, we could get that land back under the ownership of farmers who would take care of it.

Go through that area now and you’ll see barns with boards missing, abandoned houses and houses rented by people who have no interest in them -- and they won’t have any interest in them until they can become owners again. Surely the minister recognizes that we will never build up a strong community until people can own what they have.

Tenants have great difficulty --

Mr. Yakabuski: Oh, oh. Watch it!

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): Say it: Tenants are second-class people.

Mr. Deacon: Well, I’ll say that tenants have great difficulty when they are farming unless they have a really long-term agreement so that they can look at other than what is needed, and the return they can get from minding that property.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We know what you think of tenants. That will come back to haunt you.

Mr. Deacon: I would like to ask the minister right now, what is he going to do to restore that countryside to something we can be proud of instead of something we are so ashamed of, as is the case.

Mr. Yakabuski: Well, there’s the Lower Town bumpkin.

Mr. Roy: Yes. You found your way back, eh?

Mr. Yakabuski: The Lower Town bumpkin.

Mr. Roy: You probably walked all the way.

Mr. Yakabuski: The Lower Town bumpkin.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, earlier I mentioned that as far as the development plan is concerned, I expect legislation will be processed at this session whereby we will have a development corporation that will work with the residents and the elected representatives of the area municipalities and the regions in regard to how the new plan will be developed for residential, commercial and industrial purposes.

In regard to those who are living there, we have said they can repurchase if their property is compatible with the plan. Otherwise, it is a leasing operation, which we are proceeding with right now. Whether or not the people have looked after the properties is not the fault of the province in my opinion.

Mr. Deacon: Oh, yes it is.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes it is, all the way.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think it has to be the responsibility of those who live on the properties, and if you don’t share that concern as much as I do, it is unfortunate. I believe, as I said before, that we have done everything possible -- to make sure that the people in that area were treated fairly.

The sooner we get on with the development, the sooner the whole area will prosper and grow. But it needs the co-operation of you, as a local member, of all those living in the hamlet and of those in the area municipalities and in the region, to proceed with the development plan. The government has committed itself to provide the funds for developing the area. We have done everything possible in regard to the farm land there. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has worked with us in terms of a farm leasing programme. Now what else can we do at this particular time?

Mr. Deacon: I would be surprised if the lease that is proposed for those lands is one that has been proposed and developed by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart). I don’t think it is a lease he would sign to farm and operate those lands.

As for my co-operation with you, I went to some meetings, and I think your staff will perhaps say that I was trying to develop a basis of communication and co-operation between your staff and the people, because I think that is vital. But I also think that for it to be successful, we have to recognize what motivates people -- and that is not accomplished by having powers removed even from the people in charge of that project. They say: “Look, we think your ideas are all right. But we have to get approval from the powers that be at Queen’s Park.” There is never anyone at those meetings who can say: “Yes, we will agree with this” or “No, we won’t.” They are always remote. So they no doubt have to receive opinions, but they can never approve deals. It’s important that it be possible for those people to work directly with those who can give them answers and work out arrangements.

I’ll give you an example of situations with landowners who have been expropriated. Let’s take Woodland Park and Austin Reesor -- I think the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) has been approached by Austin Reesor because his land was in her riding.

That land has now been expropriated. It was a very attractive development, with campsites. That’s where the annual butter festival of Cedar Grove was held. That’s all dead now, because it was impossible for Austin Reesor to get an answer from the minister’s department as to whether he could repair things in that campsite. He could have leased the darn thing, but he couldn’t get any basis of co-operation with your folks as to the investment that could be reasonably made by them to keep it up. You could have got a return, just as he got a return on it. He would have been glad to work with you if some sort of deal was possible. But no answer could be gotten from your ministry. That frustrates people.

I’ll just tell you, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, that basically we can get co-operation from those people, but we’ve got to recognize that there has to be a basis of understanding and agreement, negotiation and discussion where they are not going to be continually put off and offered the kind of leases that no sensible person would ever want to sign.

I’ve seen some of those leases, and no lawyer would ever recommend that people sign them. It’s heads the government wins and tails the tenant loses. It’s a very bad arrangement right now.

I certainly would tell the minister, Mr. Chairman, that I’m prepared to co-operate with him. I recognize he’s expropriated those properties. I want to see that area restored and I’ll work with the minister to do it, but he’s got to take a very strong position himself with his cabinet colleagues and get the right to move ahead with deals that make sense.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, let me elaborate a bit more. The hon. member has brought forth the point that he will co-operate. That’s great. I’m delighted to hear him say so.

Mr. Roy: We always do. I will even co-operate with the Solicitor General and that takes some doing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This we need. But let me say there are certain things that we have done, whether or not they have been recognized. My figures show the number of tenants as 342; the number of licensees as 171. We are maintaining 13,015 acres. The total revenues that have been received are $367,783.46. This is during the fiscal year of 1974.

When I had the opportunity to be in England and Scotland this year with some of my senior staff to look at new towns and new cities, we found out very quickly, as we had expected, that they’re not developed in a year or two. They take up to 10 years to be developed. There’s a transitional period which is difficult for those who live in that particular area. We have tried to get across that bridge. We have, to the best of my knowledge, achieved that at this particular time.

The majority of the people there are now satisfied. There may have been problems in the past, I’m not saying there weren’t, but I’m saying that I think we have corrected whatever mistakes were made. I intend to make sure that we improve as we go along, if we can.

We worked with the farmers in the area, along with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to ensure that the farm leases were good leases. I don’t know what more we can do. If the farmers, or those who own the land are satisfied, if there’s a lease which looks appropriate to our government and to those in the area, I don’t suppose we can question that.

What else you want to do is beyond me. I’m open to any suggestion the hon. member has to improve the situation.

One thing I would again bring to all members’ attention is the fact that our job has not been made any easier with the indecision on the airport. Many owners have been affected by the land freeze which we had to put in force because of noise cones. It doesn’t relate to this particular part, but when that has been decided one way or the other, then I think there will be certain restrictions lifted, depending on what decision it is.

We’ve also tried to improve the park areas they have out there. I think we spent $7,000 on Woodland Park. We have, in my opinion, fulfilled everything that we should, as a government of Ontario, to the people in that area. We Intend to proceed as quickly as we can with a well-thought-out, well-developed plan, but only in co-ordination with all those affected.

Mr. Chairman, let the hon. member be well aware that it’s going to take a long time yet. It is not going to be this year, it is not going to be next year before the houses start to be built in North Pickering, or before the first commercial enterprise is opened or the first industry is located there. It is going to be some while. So let’s not get our hopes too far advanced in regard to the development. But we are planning and we are proceeding in what I consider a very appropriate manner.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, as far as development is concerned, when it occurs is going to be up to the minister, I hope it never occurs in anything but the southeast comer, because I think that’s about the only appropriate place that development should occur.

Be that as it may, what I’m concerned about is the rest of the 17,000-acre or 18.000-acre block and what we can do to make that attractive and get it restored to a viable condition. I think one of the things that frustrates the local people is the fact there is a huge staff there who are falling over themselves and who can’t give answers. Maybe the fastest way to solve this thing will be to have the minister go out on his own and have a meeting with a few of these folks and myself or the local member, the hon. Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), on the other side.

I think these people are prepared to work sensibly and fairly, but they get very frustrated, as I mentioned before, by the fact they are having to deal with a lot of people who can’t give them answers, or the answers they do give are completely impractical.

I just urge the minister that if he wants to get on with some of these things, he knows the ground rules on what can be and what can’t be done. I think he’ll find the people will recognize a lot of things, but they want to get that land back into good operation, and there are ways of doing it which are much better than those that have been put before them so far by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, that may be. I don’t concede that’s a fact, but I do say that every Minister of Housing who has preceded me has been out to the project, has talked to the people and has made sure they understood what our staff was doing at that particular time. We’ve had all kinds of public meetings. The staff has been there at all times to be available when there wasn’t a public meeting. I think there has been more consultation in North Pickering than in any other municipality in Ontario.

Mr. Deacon: It is a one-way consultation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: So if the hon. member finds sometime in the future that there isn’t the co-ordination or the good spirit that we have at the present time -- because I really believe that we have good communication with the people in the area -- I will be quite happy and delighted to go out with you and talk to the people. But I do not see the need of it at the present time. I believe our communications have been full.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask if the minister would come to Austin Reesor’s next Saturday when he has his little apple butter gathering. I’m sure he will get an accurate impression of how the people feel. Don’t make it a big affair, just a quiet visit, and I think it would be a very pleasant one.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, just on a closing note, we’ve got to remember that we are not going to satisfy all the people in any area at any time.

Mr. Deacon: You don’t satisfy anybody there right now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But I think we have satisfied the majority. Now as a politician you know full well that you can invite a small group if you wish, but I’m not going to go to a small group meeting. I am going to have a meeting with everyone, if I go out there, and I will make sure that everyone knows I am going to be there.

It’s not going to be a closed meeting. We will go out and talk to people as frankly as we are talking tonight. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by having some of those people who are dissatisfied come to a little meeting, and express what they have said before to every minister. I know full well some of the people you are referring to and we will never be able to satisfy them. But we will try our best to satisfy the majority.

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

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on this matter, but prior to that I thought I should make a few remarks to the minister. I frankly wonder, when discrepancies or when failings are pointed out in your ministry, as have been pointed out, I suggest to you, this afternoon and again this evening by my colleague about the question of North Pickering and the expropriation, why you are either a bear for punishment or you just want to bull right through this. I don’t see why you don’t admit, for instance, that there have been certain weaknesses in the expropriation procedure.

What you are saying, in the face of a court judgement, a decision of the Supreme Court of Ontario, is that the evaluation you sent along with the expropriation was not adequate. Your statement here in the House today that you feel you are right, in my opinion, borders very nearly on contempt of court, because the court has said that you are not right. You are appealing, but until you are successful in your appeal the decision is one that is against you. And the best evidence, probably, that you are not right is that you’ve gone out and tried to remedy some of the failings of the notices sent out to these individuals.

I suggest to the minister that some of the statements we have been uttering here in the House certainly have validity. I suggest to you that you are wrong when you say there has been nothing wrong with the expropriation. According to my reading of the Supreme Court judge in that case, his suggestion to you was that you were not even following the Expropriation Act of Ontario or complying with some of its requirements. You state here in the House tonight that you feel you are right even though the judge said you are not right.

Secondly, you go out and try to correct your earlier notices. I don’t see why you don’t admit there have been certain failings on this instead of trying to give us such an explanation as you just did, which in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, has no validity whatsoever.

Proceeding to the point of community renewal, I would like to ask the minister, first of all, is that the programme whereby all provinces got money from the federal government and then certain portions of that money were allocated to certain municipalities? I recall the city of Ottawa got $1 million and then other municipalities had to make application for it. Have all funds under this project been allocated as of today?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I just read the amounts out, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the member wasn’t in the House at the time, but the amounts and the municipalities involved were discussed at great length.

Mr. Roy: That was not my question. Have all funds been allocated?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Just a minute while I answer one part. The municipalities that are involved in the programme were ascertained by consultation with the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee. They were the ones who recommended certain municipalities, the city of Ottawa being one. All the funds for this year have been allocated unless there are additional funds forthcoming from the federal government of which I am not aware.

Mr. Roy: My second question, Mr. Chairman, is have any funds been allocated to the city of Vanier?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Roy: How much?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to make sure I have the amount correct. For the city of Vanier, funds allocated by the federal government are $90,000, by the province, $45,000, and by the municipality, $45,000; for a total of $180,000.

Mr. Roy: Under the community renewal programme then?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Vanier was one of the areas that had to apply for it. As I understand the plan, and I was talking with your predecessor -- not your immediate predecessor who is seated next to you, but the original --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Roy: Yes, the original Minister of Housing (Mr. Welch), at the time that this plan was announced by the federal government, said the reason there were the earlier allocations to a number of municipalities was because they had made application some time ago, even before the planning got going.

I was asking about Vanier because I understood they had an application in. What you are saying to me today is that $18,000 has been allocated to Vanier under this plan. Is that what you are saying?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The $180,000 total has been allocated under this plan. In some cases, I believe there were five municipalities that were eligible from the former urban renewal programme, which the federal government decided not to proceed with approximately a couple of years ago.

Mr. Roy: I understand that as regards the city of Ottawa, about $1 million had been allocated to the city of Ottawa -- something in that area?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The city of Ottawa, Mr. Chairman, was allocated $1,290,000 total from the federal government, $645,000 from the provincial government, and the funds from the municipality have to be $645,000 also, for a grand total of $2,580,000.

Mr. Roy: It would seem that at the time of the allocation to the city of Ottawa there had been some suggestion by the mayor at that time, the present mayor -- well, the unsuccessful candidate in Carleton East, and I don’t want to belabour that point --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Say it again, say it again. You don’t want to belabour it, but say it again.

Mr. Roy: Yes, yes, you want me to say it again? No, he is still the mayor of Ottawa and he stated at the time that he did not think he could use all these funds. As I recall reading something about him, he had said that he felt the city of Ottawa would not require the full allocation and that some other municipalities might well use it.

The reason I ask that, is that if you are familiar with the problems in Vanier and some of the living and housing conditions in that city, some of them are pretty deplorable, some of them are pretty bad, and it’s not an easy situation. The experience in Lower Town was, in fact, a bad experience, where you knocked buildings down. This was a plan which started four or five or maybe 10 years ago when the community in Lower Town was effectively or very nearly destroyed by buildings being down and there being no alternative accommodation for the individuals and the community living down there.

Anyone who is familiar with the Lower Town area will know there has been severe criticism about the approach taken down in Lower Town. Of course, I suppose what would be needed in Vanier would be that kind of a renewal for much of the city, but not in that fashion. So it seems to me that $180,000 for Vanier, considering the need for housing and considering the deplorable living conditions of many citizens in that area, does not appear to me to be quite adequate.

I was wondering, first of all, was I right that Ottawa had said maybe it had got too much? Secondly, how come Vanier is not getting more than this?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before to the hon. member, we consulted with the PMLC, which agreed that certain municipalities were the ones to receive the funds for this year. As far as next year, the city of Vanier can apply and it will be eligible for certain funds.

We have also consulted the PMLC in regard to the criteria to be used for next year, and if the member wishes I can read them off. They are rather lengthy but I would be quite happy to go through the criteria necessary.

I suggest to the hon. member that Vanier also had the opportunity to apply under OHRP and RRAP, under the Ontario Home Renewal Programme. There are other programmes in which it can assist itself in regard to providing adequate housing. So if it has only $180,000 in this and it wishes to apply under another programme, that doesn’t stop it. I think it is up to the city to apply.

The mayor of the city of Ottawa, at one meeting of the PMLC, if I remember correctly, did say that possibly there were too many funds allocated to the city. But as I understand it, the amount was agreed upon as I read it out.

Mr. Roy: Did they turn any back?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I haven’t received any refunds, put it that way.

Mr. Roy: None you could transfer, for instance, to Vanier?

I appreciate that this is certainly not a one-way street. A lot of the initiative in these projects often depends on the municipality or on city council to take the initiative and make an application.

But I would take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to point out to the minister that certainly I will be talking with the municipal politicians. It seems to me that I can’t emphasize enough some of the living conditions in Vanier.

I intend to talk to the minister on a later vote on the lack of, for instance, family accommodations under the HOME programme in Vanier -- in other words under low rent accommodations. They have only got about 15.

Some municipalities don’t accept senior-citizen or low-rent families from other municipalities unless it is an emergency situation. Some landlords are taking advantage of this and are renting deplorable flats and apartments to individuals.

I would just urge the minister that when requests come from the city of Vanier, that certainly serious consideration be given, because I think it is one Ottawa area where certainly you don’t have to drive around very long to realize how deplorable some of the conditions are.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like to assure the member that I will give serious consideration to any request from the city of Vanier. I am fairly well aware of the area, also, and will look forward to receiving any application which they wish to proceed with.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on behalf of a group of people I represent, and I am sure that the hon. member for York Centre represents, too. They are the unfortunate people who had lots on record at the time of the freeze of the proposed Pickering airport.

I have spoken in the House before and I have talked to the ministry. What would be the matter, Mr. Minister, with the person who owns the lot building a residence on it? I know the implications, but I think this would relieve those kind of implications as far as compensation is concerned.

In later years, or such time as the airport is established, there could be compensation for noise or what-not. But what would be the matter with issuing a building permit if the person applying for the building permit was aware of the hazards? They do know now -- they are aware -- but make them aware and have them sign something that will go on their deed saying they won’t apply for compensation, if and when the airport is built, because of noise pollution or whatever pollution there may be.

Now as I have said, I have talked to former ministers on it. They thought it might be possible. Now you have the new approach. Maybe you can come up with something for us. Not for us -- I am not speaking on behalf of the member for York Centre, or myself, because we are not really affected -- but a lot of our residents are. And also the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) and the member for Ontario South (Mr. W. Newman) are affected very much.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the member for York North has brought forward a very, shall we say, attractive proposal, if it can be implemented legally. I have endeavoured to assure myself that it can be done, and to this date I have not received legal advice that this can be done. If it can be done, I certainly would proceed with it. I will continue to investigate that matter and report to you. But as I say, to this date the answer I have had is it is not legally possible to do so.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Well Mr. Minister, I don’t know what lawyers you are talking about. I talked to a few. They won’t be charged with the obligation proposed in the legislation, I know that, but they feel that this can be done. I wish you would pursue this very conscientiously. I don’t know how many lawyers’ opinions you have on it, but that is what law is all about. Lawyers would go out of business if they didn’t have different opinions. In any event, I would hope that you would approach more than one or two lawyers on this.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the hon. member that we have done that. We have checked on legal opinions within our own ministry and we have checked with the lawyers of the Attorney General’s ministry to determine the views of not only the Ministry of Housing but also the Ministry of the Attorney General.

As we see it, the problem is with the future buyers of the property -- not the ones who buy in the first instance, but the second buyers. I will be quite happy to go further into this and find out if we have some way of resolving this. It certainly would assist a lot of people; there is no doubt about that. But, as I say, to this point we haven’t been able to agree on that particular approach.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Thank you very much for pursuing it. I would just like to extend a thank-you to your ministry for releasing that number of lots within the Whitchurch-Stouffville area in the last six months. We certainly appreciate that, and this is why I am pressing here tonight for something to be done for those who live within the restricted area now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thank you.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the matter just raised by the member for York North, I was pleased that when the present minister was parliamentary assistant he did allow a building permit for a lot lying within the noise zone. The lot was part of a farm, actually farmed by the applicant for the building permit. As I say, the minister did allow him to build; I believe the minister arranged for a document to be signed indicating that the owner recognized he was building in a noise zone and that he would not be claiming later.

I guess at the time I though you had a legal opinion on that letter, because I think it took several months to get the letter drafted. Maybe the minister would explain that situation, because I thought it was a fair approach to the problem. I was just hoping we could do it with every case of hardship that comes up; and, as the minister knows, I’ve got a few that I’ve been bringing to him continually that I think should be dealt with.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, that was a true hardship case. There are some cases that are brought before us that are not, in our opinion at least, hardship cases. If someone has sold a home and wants to move to another part of this particular area, I don’t feel that is a hardship situation. But in certain cases there is a hardship caused by this particular zoning order.

At that time, I did put a notice on the registration to try to make sure that those who would be involved at later dates would be aware of what they were buying and what they would be owning. I did not have any assurance at that time that this was full authority to do so. The actual transaction was based on the matter of hardship, and not really on this registration.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, one way it might be done, I think, is to register a third-party agreement on title, which I know has been successful in other cases where we have tried to be sure that future buyers were aware of the situation.

Basically, though, as I have discussed many times with the minister, I think the whole matter of the freeze is a most iniquitous action, because there is no compensation provided for those who are deprived of a right that they purchased when they bought their land. These people could expect to get, and in many cases they had already taken out, building permits. In one case that I brought to the minister’s attention, the man became ill and was unable to build, because of his illness, until after the building permit expired. Then he found, when he went to reapply, that the freeze was on. He has been put in a very difficult position as a result.

I think it’s time as I have discussed with him, that the minister said to Ottawa: “You pay these people compensation for the right you have taken from them, or we will lift the freeze.” I don’t see why this minister and this government should continue to protect Ottawa from what I think is its obligation to compensate those who are frozen in these noise lands.

I happen to live within the noise lands. We don’t want to build on our property, but many others who have bought lots, assuming they could build, have now found they are stuck with that land. They can’t buy another lot to build on, they are renting property at a high price when they thought they would be able to own their own home, and they have a lot of money tied up in the land. They are locked in, and there is real hardship.

I don’t see why this government should protect Ottawa any more from its obligation here. I would like to hear the minister comment on that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member knows that I for one am not a sympathizer of the federal government, and I never expect to be as long as it is a Liberal government. In any event, in regard to this particular matter, you and I have had previous discussions only this week, at which time it was indicated by a press advertisement in the local newspapers that the “new international airport” was hiring some employees. I forget all the details -- I haven’t got them in front of me -- but I was intrigued by the “new international airport.”

Now that you have brought the matter up, I feel that since you have asked me to do something I will again ask the federal government to give us a decision. If the hon. Barney Danson --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Your federal member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- who is the local member --

Mr. Deacon: He is our federal member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- can assist us in resolving this matter I would be delighted. I think now that we have seen this new advertisement which indicates to the people in the area, and the people of all of Ontario, really, that we have had a decision made by the federal government, it would warrant a formal decision, and certainly I would think they would write the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) to let us know that they have decided to proceed with the airport.

If the advertisement is wrong then I hope that they will deny it, but I will undertake to send a letter to the hon. Barney Danson next week and ask him for an immediate disclosure of the federal government’s plans as to whether or not it wishes us to know at this particular time, or whether or not it has made a decision, and what can we do for the people of this area.

I want to make sure that you also assist me, because I have an idea you might have somewhat more pull than I would have with your colleague.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I think the issue isn’t whether or not they are proceeding with the airport. I hope they don’t proceed with the airport, as you well know. The issue is the matter of compensation for the removal -- really the withdrawal -- of the rights that these people have, and that compensation is vital in this case. I don’t think the issue that the minister should be contacting the minister about, with all due respect, is the matter of whether or not they are proceeding with the airport. It is: What compensation are those people within the noise lands, whatever it is, going to receive for the loss of their right to build?

I think that will satisfy us. We know that there has been provision made to these people for compensation, and I would urge the minister to push on that, because once we get that principle settled then we can certainly get some pushing on the actual boundaries -- and I think those boundaries are already delineated.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the hon. member that I got the point that he was mentioning just now and I certainly will have that included in my letter. I think there are two matters to be decided -- the one being compensation, the other being whether or not they are proceeding with the airport.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask a few questions on this subject of the minister. I am sorry I didn’t have a chance to joust with him during the lead-off of the estimates, but I was unavoidably in New Brunswick, where there is also an election campaign.

Mr. Deacon: You mean they need a special campaigner to run this campaign?

Mr. Cassidy: It gets in the blood -- that’s right. I tell you that is the last venture I make outside of eastern Ontario, unless there is a by-election somewhere else that we can win.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Is that a promise? We sure don’t need you up north.

Mr. Cassidy: You know, the NDP will increase its vote as sharply in New Brunswick as it did in the Carleton East by-election this year. It was quite a shock, I think, for both of the other parties.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was a shock for you guys.

Mr. Deacon: Did you double your vote as you did in Stormont?

Mr. Cassidy: Well, from such a base, I mean --

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister about the Home Renewal Programme, because that has been in the works now for about --

Mr. Chairman: This is not involved under home renewal programmes.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, it is, under vote 802.

Mr. Chairman: Eight zero what?

Mr. Cassidy: Eight zero two.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, community renewal.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s correct, yes.

Mr. Chairman, it was promised for the first time in February, 1974, following from a conference in Ottawa in about 1971, I think, at which the plan was originally unveiled, again to great publicity by the government. I suspect that the minister was probably present then in his former personality as the mayor of Prescott. It’s taken three years to get the programme on the rails. Eventually, the government offered $10 million, but by August, six months after the original announcement, the policy had still not gone to cabinet. It was finally unveiled yet again, for about the 14th time, on Sept. 19, as another major new initiative -- 3,750 units.

The member for Ottawa East was bemoaning the fact that his area, the city of Vanier, which has need of this kind of renewal funds, is only getting a few grants during the course of the coming year. I can say the same thing about areas in my particular riding. It just seems to me that the programme is not related at all to the situation of older and less expensive housing in the province -- housing which could, in fact, continue to provide decent accommodation for families, many of whom are on low incomes.

In 1971 in Ontario, Mr. Chairman, there were 187,000 houses that didn’t have a central heating system but were heated by space heaters or by stoves; 66,000 with no inside flush toilets; 34,000 with cold water only, and 45,000 with no running water. Naturally, a number of those were in the rural areas, but when you get into municipalities of 100,000 or more, you find that the number of houses there that require some substantial renewal is very significant.

There are 26,000 with no decent heating system; 3,700 without inside flush toilets; 5,700 with cold water only, and 3,300 with no running water, including 2,800 houses in the Toronto census metropolitan areas with no running water. Obviously, that’s an indication of the kind of renewal problem that exists in Toronto and in our major cities.

We’re talking of at least 100,000 homes in urban areas, and another 100,000 homes in rural areas, which are in need of substantial renovations. Many of those, if given those renovations, would be adequate accommodation for many years to come.

The 3,750 units the minister is proposing are simply an inadequate response to the kind of need for home renewal, particularly at the outset of the programme. If the minister wanted to say that for five years the government would undertake renewal funds for 10,000 or 12,000 units a year and then would subsequently taper it down, that might make some sense. But there is no sense of urgency in a programme which, for Ottawa for example, provides for about 150 or 200 grants during the course of a year, I believe, and for Vanier, maybe a dozen, and for the city of Toronto, an equally small number.

There simply is no urgency in it, and I wonder if the minister can defend the level of the programme and the slowness of the programme, and say whether the ministry has any plans to increase its commitment to renewal rather than leaving it at the present inadequate level?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the hon. member for Ottawa Centre wasn’t here before, because I did go through a pretty detailed analysis of the programme itself, the municipalities that have received, assistance and the people who can receive assistance.

We have $10 million established for the Home Renewal Programme. We have, as we have said before, the need to preserve 100,000 housing units per year, as we estimate right now. We have this loan grant administered by the municipalities. The municipalities themselves are paid $150 per application to process the fund. The interest rates vary from zero to eight per cent depending on the income of the family. As far as we’re concerned it has been universally accepted throughout the province as being an excellent programme to preserve housing stock.

We want to find out whether or not there is a demand from the municipalities for more funds for next year. If there is a demand we’ll adjust our funding. At the present time, I think it’s a little too early to prejudge whether $10 million is too little or too much. We think it’s a very adequate amount of money.

Whether it was announced in the early part of the year or not, or when it was announced by myself is not too relevant, except to say that when I announced it, it was because of a change in some of the criteria. This is the reason why I made a speech in London, Ont., of which the hon. member may have got a copy -- I think he did -- and every municipality in Ontario received the details of the programme. The guidelines have been out for some while.

To me, it is something which each municipality should take very seriously, and some of them have.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s fine, Mr. Chairman, but the point I am making is that it has taken 3 1/2 years for the government to move from the policy paper, which I think was called -- the minister’s people can remember it -- but it was a programme for renewal or renovation of existing property in Ontario, which was introduced at a conference at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa about 3 1/2 years ago.

It takes that long to get started and to get to the point where money is allocated. We are now near the end of the calendar year 1974. I’m not sure if some of the first grants have been made yet. Have they? Has any money actually poured out under the programme yet?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, it has.

Mr. Cassidy: How much?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I guess I will have to go all through it again, Mr. Chairman. But I want, first of all, to make clear that the time is not 3 1/2 years. We only worked on this programme since the latter part of last year and the first part of this year. So the time, I think, is very limited. We have given to the following municipalities: Brantford, an allocation for 1974-1975 --

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps the minister would permit me to ask a question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All right.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m asking whether any money has actually got into the hands of individual homeowners. I know about the allocation to the municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I will answer that, if I could, in a minute. I’d like to explain what happens. We have given an allocation to Brantford of $184,335; we have advanced $46,084. We have an allocation to Cornwall of $134,016; the accountable advance is $33,504. Niagara Falls, total allocation of $196,340; accountable advance $49,085. Windsor, allocation of $398,500; accountable advance is $99,625. Grimsby, allocation $47,256; accountable advance $11,814. Sarnia, $164,346 of an allocation; accountable advance is $40,000. Napanee, $44,540 of an allocation; accountable advance $11,135. Hamilton, $607,588; accountable advance $151,897. St. Catharines, an allocation of $224,598; the accountable advance is $56,150.

Mr. Cassidy: This isn’t what I asked.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What happens in regard to the moneys going from the municipality to the homeowner has to be decided by the municipality. They are the ones that decide what homes are to be renovated or rehabilitated. Whether or not those funds have been spent, I’m not in a position to say. It’s entirely up to them.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. The answer of the minister is, he doesn’t know. Those renewal programmes could have begun this year if the funds had come out of the ministry earlier. Sure, the ministry picked the programme up off the shelf some time in the spring. But it was there on the shelf three years ago. The need was there then. It was there a long time before that. During the time that this government has been in power, the need has obviously been there and been increasing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are obviously not talking about the same thing.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure. But the point I want to make and which the minister has so carefully avoided is that 3,700 units in a year is damn little when you are talking about at least 100,000 units in the province that are in need of renovation and when you are talking about an additional number of units which may be falling into the state of disrepair where they need renovations in every year. With a couple of million units in the province, if only one or two per cent of those units are falling into disrepair in the course of a year, that’s 20,000 and you are only providing funds for the renewal of 3,000 or 4,000.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the member if he would be kind enough to tell me whether he is talking about a report put out by a Mr. Lawson called “Maintenance of Property”?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I thought so. “A programme for Ontario”?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All right. Well, this is an entirely different programme.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And I think it’s quite successful. I think it will be more successful once people are more aware of it. But again I say to you that it’s very difficult for me to tell you tonight how much has been expended by the municipalities themselves on the homeowner. That will come in in due course but I don’t have those figures for you today.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, okay, Mr. Chairman. One of the points to be made, of course, is that in “Housing Ontario” reference is made specifically, I think, to the Ontario Home Renewal Programme and others resulting in repairs to 3,750 units during the course of the current year. The minister, as far as he is aware, doesn’t know of a single unit which has been repaired yet.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, let me make it awfully clear to the member that this programme was designed in co-operation with the municipalities. All right.

The municipalities took considerable time to tell us exactly what they felt should be the criteria for the programme. We have proceeded after having full consultation with them. They in turn have to decide how to implement the programme and I hope that this will be done very speedily; in most cases it has, as I understand it. So I feel, contrary to what the member has said, that this is a most successful programme.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, we welcome the programme, we support the programme. We deplore the delay in the programme. We deplore the fact that when there is such a substantial need for lower-income housing in the province and when that is being met so badly by the policies of this government, that more is not being done to upgrade the standard of existing older housing in the province.

The next thing I would like to ask the minister is this. He’s made quite a good deal of play of the fact that the lot approvals by the plans administration branch have been going up. It’s a bit like the Treasurer (Mr. White) with the triple-A rating down in New York, not bothering to mention that a large number of other jurisdictions also have had triple-A ratings for some time.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: Because many of the lots which have been approved in the past have never come to development, there is a kind of a bank of lots there for which subdivision approvals have been given, but which for various reasons don’t get developed. It’s quite customary for the number of approvals in any particular year to exceed the number of lots that are actually developed.

While we welcome the speedup in the minister’s approvals, I am curious to know whether the ministry is monitoring in any way the use of those lots after they have been approved; and whether in particular the ministry has evidence, as has been turned up in Brantford and other parts of the province, about lots deliberately being held off the market in order to keep the price of urban residential land at a high level.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, what we were talking about when I mentioned that certain figure of approvals was draft approvals, which, as I mentioned before, will exceed 100,000 this year -- the exact figure I have given out. As to the actual development of those, this agreement has to be reached between the owner of the land, and/or the developer, and the municipality.

In many cases it could be that the municipality has imposed certain conditions which the developer is not willing to accept. Or it could be that, because of the high cost of mortgage funding at the present time, the owner or developer is unable to proceed with the servicing and the ultimate building of housing.

As far as we are concerned in the government, we have at least cut through any regulatory obstacles we have had in the past; we have made sure that the staff for the plans administration division has at all times been on its toes to make absolutely sure that these draft approvals were achieved with the full co-operation of all those concerned. When I say that, I am talking about the ratepayer groups, the local elected council, and any other appointed body or any other provincial ministry.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that at this particular time we can force any municipality to proceed with a development unless it wishes to. This is something which has to be worked out between the owner of the lands and the proposed developer. At that time I believe this is something which, hopefully, we can assist on. I have tried to assist development of certain approved lands by talking to the municipalities and talking to the developers and trying to come up with a reasonable solution to some of their problems -- but I certainly can’t resolve all of them.

Mr. Cassidy: How many lots are there -- equivalent housing units -- for which draft approvals have been given in the urban areas of the province, but which are not right now proceeding to development? How many lots are there sitting there in the kind of private landbank that developers have built up?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we have mentioned before is that there were 101,755 residential units in the unused stock of draft approvals at the end of September of this year. I don’t have any further information past September, but I believe that is up to date in regard to the number of draft approvals, which I mentioned before. This is almost twice as many as last year. Therefore, I am saying to the member that we have certainly proceeded forthwith to get these draft approvals before those who wish to proceed with development in any area.

Mr. Cassidy: In Brantford the other day an alderman was saying -- which we know from other areas, too -- that one of the two developers at the present time was simply holding land off the market. This has been the case with the allocation of the trickle of land on to the market in areas like Oakville and around Metro Toronto, and in other parts of the province as well. Is the minister monitoring that activity, and is the minister aware of the way in which developers are using that kind of controlled market in order to keep prices higher than they ought to be, at the expense of the purchaser or tenants of property that is ultimately developed?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As I indicated just briefly, I have been talking to developers, to owners, to municipalities, to everyone concerned. We have to recognize, I believe, that with today’s interest rates there are not too many developers wanting to hold lands back. I think there is a very large cost in regard to their particular financial position.

If they have their land draft approved and they can’t get them serviced, or they can’t proceed with them within a period of years, it’s going to cost them an awful lot of money.

I don’t know how we resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone. What I am trying to do is to ensure that where housing is very urgently needed, we are proceeding underneath OHAP agreements and in other ways to discuss with the parties involved how they might resolve their differences.

In many cases the municipalities have been levying fees which are excessive, in our opinion. Sometimes we try to have catch-up funds. This is not something which will help housing being developed in Ontario. Though there may be problems in regard to some developers holding lands back, I think that it has to be the opposite case where in this particular year and next year they will want to bring them on the market and get rid of them. They need their money to be continually in use rather than sitting in land.

There’s no money in having land purchased for several years without any development on it, because of the fact that we have since the middle of this year introduced the land speculation tax. If there is going to be an increase in the land value, they are going to have to pay a tax on it. Possibly they did withhold the land previously, but I say now they will want to get it on the market and they have to improve it up to 40 per cent, and they will if they can. In some cases, they have not reached agreement with the municipalities involved.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister ignores the fact that the developers are exempt from the tax unlike other individuals in the province. Under normal laws of supply and demand, which the ministry claims to go by, one would expect the price of the land to fall. It’s very curious that developers are so anxious to put their land on the market that fewer housing units are being built this year than last and fewer are projected for the year after that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Could I ask the member his definition of how the developer is exempt from the tax?

Mr. Cassidy: Sure, he is specifically exempted from the tax if he puts a house up on it or if he puts any other kind of unit on it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s exactly the point I was getting at, that he’s exempt if he brings the lot into production. That’s what we want him to do and that’s what we have, I think, assisted by giving draft approval to this number of units. What I thought you were referring to was the developer not bringing the lots into production. Was that not the point you are making?

Mr. Cassidy: But he doesn’t need to anticipate paying the tax. If he has a landbank that he intends to eventually develop at a very high price, then he will not pay the tax. In that he is separate from a private individual or from a speculator who does risk the tax because he won’t develop it personally.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We still have the point of his money not being liquid at the time, and I think it’s a very valid point.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to raise a couple of other questions. I am trying to touch these points quickly, Mr. Chairman. The first is as any assistance been given to municipalities under the special planning grants which related to review of official plans and zoning bylaws required from changes in provincial housing policies? If so, can the minister give details and also details about planning in the central Ontario region for which grants have been given?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have given that detail to the House but would be glad to give it to the hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps he could let me have it. Then I won’t ask for it here.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Pardon?

Mr. Cassidy: I won’t ask for it here if you read it in the House.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s in twice.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have. It’s $500,000 of a total grant, plus the following municipalities: Alliston, Bruce, Geraldton, Collingwood -- approximately 10 municipalities -- with funding up to $7,500 and a minimum of $1,500. We intend to improve the planning throughout all of our municipalities in rural areas where they do not have adequate staff or the financial capability of proceeding with planning in the proper manner. As I stated before, I have read all these figures; I have also stated our policy. Maybe you might go through Hansard.

Mr. Cassidy: I am just a bit underwhelmed, given the kind of development pressures in an area like Markham in the riding of the member for York Centre. The amounts that you mention are simply underwhelming.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: When we mention Markham, we are talking about entirely different matters.

Mr. Cassidy: Those other municipalities face the same pressures only they are only a year or two away.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, and we have recognized that by giving special grants to those areas which are OHAP areas. We have contributed $100,000 towards studies for various municipalities. If you will give me a few minutes, I might be able to produce the figures for you. Mississauga was one.

Mr. Cassidy: We are coming later to the central York servicing scheme, which is why I don’t want to raise it right now. But I think that the minister has to realize --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If you give me a minute, I might be able to get the figures for you, because we are talking about two different programmes.

We have: Oakville with a grant of $10,000; Mississauga, $100,000; York region, $25,000; Halton Hills, $25,000; Brampton, $100,000; Whitby, $50,000; Newcastle, $100,000; the region of Durham, $90,000 for an economic base study, plus a preliminary engineering study of $62,500; Sault Ste. Marie, with a housing policy and planning study, $49,000; Gloucester, $30,000. That makes a total of $659,250.

We have been down to Markham; I was down with my deputy and others of our staff two or three weeks ago. I have indicated to Markham that if I received the request from them it would be favourably considered. To my knowledge, I haven’t received it as yet. I expect I’ll get it.

Mr. Cassidy: I am still a bit underwhelmed. I want to raise another question with the minister. Metropolitan Toronto was so shocked at the powers over housing which it received from the Legislature under the amendments to the Metro Toronto Act a few months ago that it is apparently on the verge of giving them back. The minister may recall that that particular amendment was fiercely opposed from this side of the House; it had raised enormous fears among various Metro councillors. We warned them that the quiet, secret deal that had been made between Paul Godfrey and the government would simply not work out and would prove to be counter- productive. And that is exactly what happened.

What are you intending to do about the very sweeping housing powers, in terms of housing policy, that were given to the Metro Toronto government just about six months ago?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, what we intend to do is to meet in the very near future -- about next week. I think the member has been away for a while.

Mr. Cassidy: Keeping in touch.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Right. The last executive meeting of the council decided to proceed with a modified housing policy. The deputy minister and other staff will be meeting next week with Metro to proceed with this policy. I am not sure whether you have full knowledge of all that has happened down there, but I think you will find the original attitude that you were expressing has changed considerably, and I think you will find that they are going to be quite able to proceed with the housing policy.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They agreed that we were right, finally.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 802 carried?

Vote 802 agreed to.

On vote 803:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay -- I promised him the floor a long time ago.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you very much. I have been very patient and I found I was rewarded. I am not going to repeat what I got out before I was ruled out of order, Mr. Chairman, but, I want to remind the minister that a former minister in this portfolio promised 100 homes -- I see the northern core is coming to the fore here now -- in unorganized municipalities to meet the needs of those people who weren’t able to band themselves together and put the kind of pressures on for housing surveys. A good many of them were prompted by the pressure that was built up by the Metis and non-status Indian associations in many of the northern communities. As a result of the introduction of that programme by your colleague, who is sitting over there now with his spectacles off and who was the --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for

Resources Development): I am surprised you recognized me.

Mr. Stokes: -- man who authored that. He promised 100 homes in one year. Now that was well over two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did I say that?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, you said that -- and to date we have 20 homes in Minaki. Some are still unoccupied because of a breakdown somewhere along the line, and that was as a result of poor soil conditions, poor planning, settling of inadequate basements or foundations. As a result of that, it hasn’t gone much beyond the 20. There is only one other programme you undertook; that was in Aroland, where there was a commitment to build between six and eight homes under the NOAH programme. Some of those are still unoccupied.

Now, let’s assume that you have made an honest effort with the 26 to 28 units that were promised two years ago -- but it is still a far cry from what was promised, and still falls far short of the need for some kind of housing in unorganized portions of northern Ontario.

I would like to have some kind of commitment from the minister that a commitment that was made two years ago will be lived up to and expanded upon to come much closer to meeting the need in unorganized communities where they can’t muster the same kind of concerted effort that they can in some of the heavily-urbanized areas of the province.

The other programme that I want to talk about is the Housing North programme. That was a catch phrase. I am not sure who was the author of it -- whether it was the minister who is now responsible for the Resources Development field or whether, in fact, it was your immediate predecessor, the man sitting on your left. However, there was a Housing North programme promised for unorganized communities and unorganized settlements in the north. Is it still just a vision, a northern vision, or have you progressed to the stage where you are able to commit yourself to a certain number of units or a certain number of dollars?

I was just thinking, when you were answering questions put to you by my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, that even if you had used the $600,000-odd in an actual Housing North programme that you are using strictly for planning and surveying of housing needs in the south, it would have gone a long way to meeting the needs of some of the people in unorganized communities in the far north that need it so badly.

I am not going to prolong this because of the time constraints that are put on us. If you can give me answers or some kind of commitment that you are going to try in a realistic way to meet the housing needs of people in unorganized communities in the north, I will say no more.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I am very sympathetic with the views of the member. I have to go back to the record. As I understand it there were 100 units planned for production. Canadian Instant Buildings Ltd. contracted to supply 100 prefabricated units to OHC in July of 1973.

Mr. Stokes: And they went bankrupt?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. Owing to financial difficulties, the company was unable to meet its commitments. Village Square took over the operations of Canadian Instant Buildings.

Mr. Stokes: And they, too, went bankrupt.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Recognizing the need to obtain a reduction of the units as quickly as possible, OHC in early 1974 rescinded the contract and awarded it to Village Square Ltd. to try and erect 50 prefab houses in six communities selected for the NOAH programme. We also had a proposal call for an additional 50 units, which closed on Aug. 2, 1974. The contract has been awarded to Northland Trailers.

Mr. Stokes: They were the ones who got an ODC loan.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have been informed that units have been started or will have started in the following municipalities: Spanish, 10 units; Foleyet, eight units; Hudson, 12 units; Savant Lake, eight units -- I’m having problems with this next one, but there are 10 units there --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is written in Cree.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- Aroland, 10 units; Nakina, eight units; Sioux Lookout, six units; Sultan, 10 units, for a total of 82.

The one I couldn’t make out looks to me like D-i-n-o --

Mr. Stokes: Dinorwic.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Is it? All right. Thank you.

So we recognize that we haven’t proceeded as quickly as the hon. member would like. I would also appreciate receiving his views as to what we could do. I think we have to proceed in this direction to implement housing, but I haven’t been able to do it as quickly as I want to. I admit that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You’ll just have to keep your fingers crossed.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I am saying to you is that this is a programme to which we have devoted considerable time. We have not done as well as we would have liked, but we hope to improve to your satisfaction.

Mr. Stokes: All right. I don’t want to prolong it. I am aware that there are some foundations in at Nakina, but there were no homes on those sites the last time I visited the area. I also know of an effort to construct some homes in Savant Lake, since I visited the site. All I’m asking is that you do more to meet the needs and do it faster.

I want to get into one specific item that may sound piddling, but it may just be the tip of the iceberg. I’m talking about the amount of money that is required to construct housing units and related services. I’m thinking of one community in particular, Savant Lake, where it is extremely difficult to find a site that lends itself to housing or any other kind of construction because of the soil conditions.

I am advised that it cost OHC $16.50 a cubic yard to bring in aggregate from several miles distant in order to provide an adequate field for a septic tank system in that community. That might sound all right in Metropolitan Toronto, but it sure doesn’t sound all right to people in Savant Lake, where there are literally miles and miles of good porous gravel. As a matter of fact, one of the best airstrips in all of the north was built by a private developer on a natural sand eskar not three miles from Savant Lake. Yet your ministry, for whatever reason, chose to build on a site where it was necessary to transport crushed aggregate some 50 miles at $16.50 a cubic yard in order to provide an adequate septic field. I think there had to be 5 ft. of coarse gravel under the septic field and an 18-in. covering on top of the piles. As I say, it may sound piddling, but it’s almost impossible for me to justify that to people in Savant Lake who are waiting for these kinds of houses.

All I’m suggesting is that maybe you should monitor what’s going on in the various communities and see that you’re getting value for your money. I’m not saying it applies all over, but in that particular instance I think you should take a look to make sure that the dollars you are spending are being put to good use and that we collectively, as taxpayers and as a government, are getting value for our dollar.

That’s the only kind of advice I would like to give to the minister at this time. As I say, it may be a very isolated instance, but it leaves a bad taste in everybody’s mouth when they see dollars spent in that way when housing is at such a premium. We’re not criticizing what the minister is doing. All we’re saying is that you’re doing it too slowly and you’re not doing enough of it, so please hurry it up.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I’m delighted the hon. member has brought this incident to my attention because it is something which doesn’t on the surface appeal to me one iota. I say I’ll look into it immediately. I’ll have a talk with you as to why it happened and we’ll endeavour to assure you that we supply at the cheapest possible price in your area and every other area. This would seem to be exorbitant from what you have said.

Mr. Cassidy: The Housing Action Programme, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Campbell: It is my prerogative.

Mr. Cassidy: Do you wish to go ahead? Please go ahead.

Mrs. Campbell: I will be brief at this point. I have made my opening statement based on the Housing Action Programme in part. The minister, if I may remind him, stated that he would address his replies when it came to this vote. If he is prepared to do so, I shall not belabour that question again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I have the full details with me and I’m glad the hon. member for St. George brought it again to my attention. I’d hoped also that we might get into the other matter that was raised this afternoon which I said I would bring back to the House. This is a lengthy reply.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is this the matter you were thinking of?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. I think it’s important that --

Mr. Bullbrook: Very interesting.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- we get all the details. I hope the hon. members will listen to what I have to say.

With regard to the OHAP proposals and OHAP agreements, first of all, the W. B. Sullivan Ltd. and Deltan Realty agreement. There are 705 condominium apartment units at Finch and Leslie in North York, of which 136 are one-bedroom units, costing $28,430, which can be acceptable to and carried by those who have an income of approximately $11,250. There are 468 units with two bedrooms at a cost of $34,490 for those with a $13,200 income. We have 95 units with three bedrooms at a cost of $42,570 for those in the $16,250 income bracket.

I want to make sure that we understand that 55 of the two and three-bedroom units will go to HOME for those in the $8,000 to $14,500 income range at an average cost of $28,125, which in my opinion is excellent. These are already under construction.

Now we go into the next proposal.

Mr. Cassidy: Are all 700 under construction in this case?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, they are all under construction.

Mrs. Campbell: The figures that I had were 699 units in North York, some of them already renting. How do these relate to these figures you are giving us, because they were simply refinanced under OHAP, having been practically completed?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: My information is contrary to what the hon. member said. I just want to give to the House my information. The building was never occupied and the building was never advertised until last week. It was advertised in late October as a condominium with units affordable by families earning $13,200 to $16,250. That’s the answer to the statement you have just made.

We go into the next agreement, which is 282 townhouse units at Warden and Cass in Scarborough at an average cost of $42,829.50 per unit, for those with an average income of $15,800. All of these are three-bedroom units.

Two hundred and forty-seven units are offered as follows: one-third, or 83 of the units will be available for the $14,500 to $16,000 income range; one-third, or 82, will be available for the $16,000 to $18,000 income range; one-third, or 82, will be available for the $18,000 to $20,000 income range. Thirty-five units will go to the HOME programme for the $8,000 to $14,500 income range, at an average cost -- again an excellent cost -- of $28,125 per unit, for an average income of $11,250. These units are to be started prior to Dec. 31, 1974. I say again to all hon. members that this is an excellent bargain at anybody’s level in regard to this particular area or in Metro Toronto.

The next agreement is 45 townhouse units at Birchmount and Huntingwood in Scarborough at an average cost of $42,829.50 per unit, for an average income of $15,600. Again, all are three-bedroom units. Thirty-seven units are offered as follows: one-third, or 13 of the units will be available to the $14,500 to $16,000 income range; one-third, or 12, will be available for the $16,000 to $18,000 income range; one-third, or 12, will be available for the $18,000 to $20,000 income range. Eight of the units will go to HOME for the $8,000 to $14,500 income range, at an average cost of $28,125, for an average income of $11,250.

Now we go into 548 townhouse units at John St. and Bayview Avenue in Markham. All are three- or four-bedroom units. These units have been presently appraised by Ontario Mortgage Corp.

Mr. Cassidy: Are they built?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No. These units will be started prior to Dec. 13, 1974.

Mr. Cassidy: Are the foundations dug, then?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.

Four hundred and eighty-eight units are offered as follows: one-third of the units, or 163, will be available for the $14,500 to $16,000 income range; one-third, or 163, will be available for the $16,000 to $18,000 income range; one-third, or 162, will be available for the $18,000 to $20,000 income range. Sixty units -- and this is important -- will go to HOME for the $8,000 to $14,500 income range, at an average cost -- again a very low figure -- of $28,125, for those with an average income of $11,250.

We go to Brampton, where we have 200 single-family units.

Mr. Cassidy: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Would the minister say what the monthly charges are for principal, interest and taxes, heat and utilities on each of these units? Just give an example in each case. I think that would be more instructive than just giving the income ranges.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, this is something which is impossible for me to give tonight. I would have to go to the municipalities, for instance, to get the taxes. But I will give you some answer tomorrow, if at all possible.

Let me proceed to the member for St. George. I think I owe her that response to finalize this particular matter.

We have 200 single-family units in the residential 10 area of Brampton. One hundred and eighty of these units are awaiting Ontario Mortgage Corp. appraisal and are offered as follows: one-third, or 60, of the units will be available to those in the $14,500 to $16,000 income range, and the same formula as the one before will apply, except for the 20 units going to the HOME programme for those in the $8,000 to $14,500 income ranges, at an average price of $28,125. These are to be started prior to March 31, 1975.

We have a total commitment of 1,780 immediate units of which 178 are to be for HOME. We have a future commitment of 5,000 units under the same income ranges from the same developer. We have Bramalea Consolidated in Bramalea, adjacent to the city centre. We have a 210-unit apartment building as follows: 17 units, one-bedroom, at a cost of $32,950 for the income range of $12,200.

Mr. Cassidy: One-bedroom?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: One-bedroom, sorry?

Mr. Cassidy: One-bedroom.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have 104 units, two- bedroom, costing $34,950, for the income range of $12,750. We have 71 units, two-bedroom, at a cost of $35,950 for those in the income range of $13,200. We have 18 units of three bedrooms at a cost of $37,995 for those in the income range of $13,880. This building is under construction. Completion is expected by June 30, 1975.

We have a further 211-unit apartment building with 18 units of one bedroom at a cost of $33,450 for those in the $12,350 income range. We have 104 units, two-bedroom, at a cost of $35,450 for those in the $13,000 income range. We have 71 units. two-bedroom, at a cost of $36,450 for those in the $13,350 income range. We have 18 units, three-bedroom, at a cost of $38,500 for those in the $14,050 income range. This building also is under construction. We expect it to be completed in July, 1975.

Underneath this agreement we have a total commitment of 421 immediate units. We have a future commitment of 1,900 additional units in Brampton’s Residential 10, of which 10 per cent will be HOME units, as well as acceleration of the limited dividend rental projects in conjunction with OHAP in Bramalea city centre east.

Mr. Chairman, I want to correct what I might have misread before. The total commitment is 421 immediate units, and I might have said a further 421.

We go into the next agreement, Campeau Corp., which has 135 townhouse units in Blossom Park, Albion Rd., city of Ottawa, which has 120 units, three-bedroom, at a cost of $34,235 to a maximum of $36,750 for those in the income range of $13,000 to $14,000. There are 15 units of four bedrooms at a cost of $38,350 to a maximum of $41,000 for those in the income range of $14,500 to $15,300. This building is under construction.

Mr. Cassidy: Also under construction?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: Was it under construction prior to the agreement?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am sorry, I can’t tell you at this time. I’ll find out for you.

We have 177 condominium apartment units in March township, Teron Rd., which has 17 units, one-bedroom, at a cost of $28,324 for those in the $11,000 income range; 117 units, two-bedroom, at a cost of $34,757 for those in the $14,600 income range; 43 units, three-bedroom, at a cost of $41,321 for those in the $15,400 income range.

We have a future commitment from Campeau of 1,300 units by 1976, of which 10 per cent will be HOME. And we also have 2,800 acres committed by Campeau, of which 10 per cent will be HOME.

We have Minto Construction in Ottawa and 206 apartments at Britannia Bay in the city of Ottawa with 166 units, two-bedroom, at a cost of $37,400 to a maximum of $38,400 for those in the income range of $14,000 to $14,300. We have 40 units, three-bedroom, at a cost of $45,400 for those in the $16,800 income range. This building is also under construction.

We have a future commitment of 600 units in Orleans and 1,600 units in Nepean, of which 10 per cent of these will be HOME.

We have in Oshawa an agreement with Tilio and Gata for 92 garden apartment units at Taunton and Mary streets. There are to be 25 units, two-bedroom, at a cost of $38,000 for those in the $14,250 income range; 67 units, three-bedroom, at a cost of $39,800 for the $15,000 income range. These are to be started prior to Dec. 31, 1974.

Under the same developer, we have 58 stacked townhouse units at Colborne and Mary streets in Oshawa, with eight units, two- bedroom, at a cost of $43,750 for those in the $16,250 income range. The remaining 50 units are three-bedroom at a cost of $45,250 for those in the $15,800 income range. These are to be started prior to Dec. 31, 1974.

We have a future commitment of 292 units in 1975, of which 10 per cent will be HOME. In Oshawa, we have an agreement with Robert Mason Construction Ltd. for 119 townhouse units. There are to be 59 units with two bedrooms at a cost of $37,600 to a maximum of $37,900 for those in the income range of $14,250; 60 units of three bedrooms at a cost of $39,700 to $39,900 for those in the income range of $14,600. These are to be started prior to Dec. 31, 1974. And this is a small builder, by the way.

We have an agreement in Oshawa with MT and D Developments Ltd., for 44 stacked townhouse units. We have 32 units of two bedrooms at a cost of $36,309 for those in the $13,800 income range. We have six units of three bedrooms at a cost of $39,675 for those in the income range of $14,850. We have six units of four bedrooms at a cost of $42,176 for those in the $15,600 income range. These, again, are to be started prior to Dec. 31, 1974; another small builder.

So, Mr. Chairman, a summary of the units which we have signed -- 3,033 units. Of these, 1,620 units are for incomes under $14,500; 178 units of these go to the HOME programme for incomes between $8,000 and $14,500; 153 units for incomes between $11,000 and $11,250; 243 units for incomes between $12,000 and $13,000; 780 units for incomes between $13,000 and $14,500. We have 1,411 units for incomes between $14,500 and $20,000 as follows: 667 units for incomes between $14,500 and $16,000; 444 units for incomes between $16,000 and $18,000, and 300 units for incomes between $18,000 and $20,000.

With everything which I have stated tonight and previously, we have far exceeded the proportion that we originally set out to maintain, which was 60, 30 and 10. I want to say to the hon. members, of the number of units which I have just summarized, approximately 38 per cent of the total units will be priced to the HOME programme instead of the 10 per cent which are units for those in the income range of $8,000 to $14,500. The remaining 1,856 units will meet incomes of $14,500 to $20,000. The figures are based on a 30 per cent gross household income expenditure, including interest, principal and municipal taxes.

Mr. Chairman, we are very encouraged with the income mix which, as I mentioned, goes far beyond our own objectives. Our goal in these agreements is to reduce the price and to accelerate completion of the units, which is in keeping with the original policy we established for the programme. I am very much encouraged by this first announcement which we made. I have the full intention of announcing in the near future another agreement or several, depending on how many I have available at the time. I want to say to you that OHAP, in my opinion, has certainly gone a long way to fulfilling a particular need for those in the low and medium bracket.

Mrs. Campbell: I regret that I am not very good at getting all the details through my head in a lengthy statement of that kind. I wonder if the minister could provide a copy of his statement to me. I won’t belabour the matter but there are so many discrepancies. I wonder if the municipalities and the developers are aware of these figures that you are giving. May I give you an example? You stated, as I understood it, that in Markham the units would be started this year. The information that we had, and I’m not sure of the number you gave -- I had 550 units --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It was 548.

Mrs. Campbell: All right, I’m sorry. I had 550. Our information is that the land is not serviced; the subdivision has not been approved; and there is no way these units can commence this year. I would also point out that the minister did make the statement that in those cases where there was refinancing under the OHAP programme, this was done, if I’m quoting him correctly, in order to expedite the buildings which would not have been completed otherwise. If I’m not accurate in that quote, I’m open to being corrected.

My information about the 421 units in Brampton -- which seem to be counted twice on your statement, but I won’t be sure about that till I see it -- is that they were practically completed, and that the 699 units in North York were all but complete and some of them were renting. So if these are being included as part of the 3,033 for this year, then we go back to the Stanley Randall game of counting in Toronto’s housing as a great housing gain for OHC.

I won’t go into the others, but in Scarborough, for instance, our information was that there would be about 30 HOME units there. The figures you gave me, as I tried to take them down, were larger than that, as I understand it.

I just can’t account for these discrepancies between what the municipalities and the developers tell us and your figures. Perhaps if I see the statement I will be able to equate some of this.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, well I will be very glad to provide the figures and the statement I have read from tonight. I will be happy to make sure that there is no discrepancy.

I replied to you about the North York situation. As far as Markham is concerned, I spoke personally to the mayor, and building permits are to be issued or already have been issued for some of the sites that have been serviced. So I have to ask you and my officials to determine who is right and who is wrong. I only can go by my information, and in talking with all the mayors involved in all the agreements that were brought before the House, it was indicated to me that the municipalities were quite prepared to issue building permits and to proceed with the proposals.

I also indicated that the proposals brought forward would not have been as good as they are, without the help of mortgage funding at a reduced rate; it is something that is very necessary to bring these units on to the market.

There is absolutely no way that anyone can say that these proposals are not excellent as far as those who are going to be living there are concerned. The prices I have read out to you tonight cannot be disputed.

Mr. Cassidy: They certainly can.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They cannot be disputed in terms of the price range in Toronto or in any of the other places.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a disastrous result of your housing policies. There is no housing available at a reasonable cost.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is working. That’s the problem.

Mr. Cassidy: What do you mean it is working?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s working, and that’s the problem.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Ottawa Centre has absolutely no idea about the cost of housing. He has been campaigning in New Brunswick and all around the world, and I must say his party made a poor choice --

Mr. Cassidy: It had a pretty shocking effect on your party, didn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I wonder why anyone would ever send him as a campaigner --

Mr. Cassidy: We did pretty well in Stormont.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Why don’t you get down to facts and realize that we really have a bargain here because of the co-operation between developments, the government and the municipalities? And we are going to continue to proceed in this fashion --

Mr. Cassidy: That is nonsense. It really is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The only nonsense right now is coming from the member for Ottawa Centre.

An hon. member: There’s nothing new about that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Why doesn’t he ask the reeve of Gloucester?

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to say a couple of words before the debate closes, although we will continue this tomorrow. I want to say that the Ontario Housing Action Programme has been revealed tonight as a fraud -- nothing more than a fraud.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s working so well you are irritated about it. You can’t stand a successful programme.

Mr. Cassidy: If you want to go back to the record, Mr. Chairman -- I have a minute to speak here -- last year at this time the Premier said he hoped there would be 30,000 or 35,000 serviced lots in 1974-1975 under the Housing Action Programme. The purpose of the programme, we were told, was to increase significantly the production of new housing available to families of low and moderate incomes.

Moderate family incomes in this province are under $14,000, and you may as well forget it. A thousand units or so, many of them one- or two-bedroom -- which are simply not suited for a family with two or three young children and another on the way -- and the housing that is coming in, are costing $4,000 a year or more by the minister’s figures. The ministry has failed. The number of units provided -- 3,000 -- is a pitiful response to the housing problem we have in the province. There is nothing here for young families; I would suggest that the minister send a copy of his statement tonight about the price of these units and what it costs to afford them to every young family across the province and he’ll find out that they will not support the Conservative government in the next election, or ever again. You’ve failed!

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 802 carry?

Mr. Cassidy: No, we want to go on with it, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn, the member has made some remarks as to the quotes of the Premier and I think the member is absolutely wrong. I know he’s absolutely wrong. The number of units that were promised for this fiscal year and for next year --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Where were you? You weren’t even there.

Mr. Cassidy: You promised 10,000 for this current year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You are absolutely wrong again. You have absolutely no facts in front of you. Take “Housing Ontario/74,” turn to the proper page and get your facts straight and we’ll continue the debate tomorrow.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I thought you would have memorized that page by now.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Before I move the adjournment of the House I would just like to say we’ll continue with this debate tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.