Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will be pleased to join with me in welcoming 30 students from Fern Ave. Public School who are in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I have received the third report of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature.

Statements by the ministry

REPORT ON ELECTION EXPENSES

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, relating to the report you have just tabled, which I guess none of us has read yet, there are just two preliminary observations I would like to make.

I think it is fair to state, Mr. Speaker, that it will be regarded as a very important report and that all members of the House will wish to have the opportunity to study it. Certainly this will be my approach and that of the government.

However, there is one aspect I would like to emphasize, and I go back to the time when the commission was asked to undertake this study. I said then that my personal point of view was that full disclosure of contributions to political parties should be the basis or the cornerstone of any set of procedures or changes that are adopted. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated this probably had to be established in legislation, and I am quite convinced of that fact. So no matter what else may be in the report and what the views of the members may be, I am saying to the House now, Mr. Speaker, that from the government’s standpoint, this aspect of election financing will form part of the legislation when brought before the House.

I think it’s also important to restate what I said to the leader of the New Democratic Party Wednesday or Thursday, or sometime last week, when I was asked if this report would be dealt with -- that is legislated -- prior to the next election. Mr. Speaker, it is quite obviously a fairly voluminous report and will require, I think, a fair amount of detailed consideration, but certainly it is the government’s intent that it be legislated as soon as possible and certainly before any general election is called.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all members of the House study this and study it carefully. I sense that it is a fairly far-reaching document in terms of its recommendations and will be, I think, a very significant step forward in terms of the political process here in this province, hopefully removing some aspects from the questioning and some degree of cynicism on the part of the general public as it relates to election finance. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to a very detailed consideration of it and, I am sure, quite substantial discussion here in the House.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing.

SOUTH MILTON DEVELOPMENT

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I undertook during the estimates to report back to the House on the details surrounding Ontario Housing Corp.’s South Milton land assembly. I have waited until today to make this statement in order to ensure that all the relative material is placed before the House so the members and the public will be fully aware of the circumstances surrounding this assembly.

The land acquisition situation in the South Milton area in the fall of 1973 -- and we must examine the assembly in that light -- was outlined by me on Nov. 14. The situation at that time was as follows:

The parkway belt west study, published June 6, 1973, specifically delineated South Milton as a site for future urban growth.

Restrictions on substantial urban growth within the present metro boundary, plus the dynamic Toronto land market, made it essential for the province to move quickly to acquire sufficient acreage so as to dampen the pattern of future land speculation.

Prices in the Milton area, along with other heavily urbanized areas, were escalating monthly.

Rapidly rising prices forced OHC out of two of the four assembly areas originally selected.

In order to give the hon. members a clearer picture of what was happening in the land market at that time in areas immediately south and east of this assembly, I am tabling a sampling of private transactions, the majority of which occurred in late 1973 and early 1974. This, I think, will tend to put our actions into the proper perspective.

To the south of the OHC assembly: Eastern Holdings paid $17,319 more per acre for land than it cost two years previously; Whitehall Development Corp. paid $10,513 more per acre than the previous purchaser six months prior; Andrews Paving and Engineering Ltd. paid $6,634 per acre more than the land sold for a year earlier.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Weren’t those all in Mississauga?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: To the east of the OHC assembly: Rindor Holdings paid $4,867 per acre more than the previous purchaser 18 months prior; Archway Builders had to pay $6,500 per acre higher than the price for which the land turned over just three months previously.

In other words, private assemblers using their best judgement were paying increases of up to 38 per cent a month for lands adjacent to OHCs during the same period of time.

Turning now to a chronological outline of our activities in South Milton where our hope was to assemble approximately 4,000 acres out of the 8,000 designated in the parkway belt west study for future urban growth, on Oct. 18, 1973, Mr. S. C. Procter, director of land acquisition for OHC, made a preliminary assessment of the South Milton area. I am tabling, at this time, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Procter’s notes concerning the site. Attached to Mr. Procter’s notes were samplings of real estate properties listed for sale in the area. They indicated prices ranging from a low of $3,500 per acre to a high of $20,000 an acre.

After discussions with senior OHC officials, Mr. Procter was then instructed to meet with officials of Gibson Willoughby Ltd. on Oct. 25, 1973 to determine that firm’s capability to assemble land on behalf of OHC. The Gibson Willoughby firm was approached because it had considerable expertise in land assembly; could assemble a very competent team from its Toronto office; was extremely knowledgeable about the area; and use of a private firm helps to maintain confidentiality. On Oct. 31, 1973, the OHC board of directors approved the general strategy, and staff then began negotiations with the Gibson Willoughby firm. On Nov. 5, 1973, the first operational meeting was held with Gibson Willoughby and our solicitor was instructed to commence having photographs taken of the deeds in the land registry office. This work commenced Nov. 8.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I’m tabling a receipt for fees paid for this work, together with extracts of these titles prepared from the photographs in the solicitor’s office. There were 119 titles searched and they indicated prices being paid in the South Milton area which ranged as follows: In August, 1966, $3,000 an acre; in January, 1968, $1,000 an acre; in February, 1969, $2,468 an acre; in May, 1969, $2,651 an acre; in August, 1969, $2,578 an acre; in September, 1969, $2,515 an acre; in November, 1969, $2,799 an acre; in January, 1970, $2,936 an acre; and in November, 1972, $3,026 per acre.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but that’s sufficient indication of the prices actually paid for the land over the years in the South Milton area. It shows OHC was fully aware of land prices in the area prior to its decision to set initial target prices for acquisition.

On Nov. 13, 1973 an agreement was signed between OHC and Gibson Willoughby to act on our behalf in the assembly of this land. Mr. Speaker, I am tabling that agreement. Because some questions have been raised about the qualifications of those associated with the assembly, I am tabling a list of OHC officials and our agents, together with their qualifications.

While awaiting the title search summations, Gibson Willoughby made inquiries on properties for sale and determined prices being asked at that time in the immediate area. No decision regarding the initial offering prices was made until after the title searches were received. On Nov. 23, Mr. Bartlett, executive vice-president of Gibson Willoughby, met with Mr. Procter to set the date When acquisition would, probably commence. At that meeting the initial offering of $3,000 an acre was established. This was not to be exceeded without further instructions. I am tabling at this time, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Procter’s minutes of. that meeting.

During the course of the debate on the estimates, I was asked why we didn’t carry out an individual appraisal of each parcel of land in the assembly area. The appraisal process, Mr. Speaker, involves a detailed inspection of the land, and eventually alerts all the owners in that area that an assembly is under way and tends to drive up the prices. Furthermore, formal appraisals would have created a time delay at a period when prices were rising very rapidly and OHC and its agents had already thoroughly reviewed the market.

Every effort was made to maintain confidentiality of the purchases. For example, our agents were instructed to assume first, second and third mortgages rather than offer cash, to mask the fact that the government was involved. After considerable effort, the corporation found no owners willing to sell at $3,000 an acre, and on Dec. 6, Mr. Procter instructed Gibson Willoughby to begin raising the offer.

I now wish to table, Mr. Speaker, a list of all the transactions up to and including April 11, 1974. This list indicates that the first purchase was on Dec. 19 at a price of $4,500, and that the lowest price we were able to obtain in that area was on Dec. 28 at $4,100. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the average price paid for the 2,300 acres, the total acreage that we acquired, was $5,384.

Specific reference has been made to the transactions with Morris Freedman of Bonnydon Ltd. The first meeting with Mr. Freedman and one of our agents was Dec. 12, 1973. Mr. Freedman first indicated he would not sell, but later that day, when rejecting an offer of $4,500 an acre, said he would think about selling and let us know.

On Dec. 17, he indicated he had 400 acres for sale at $5,500 an acre and said he was consultant for other persons and groups who might sell at this price. On Jan. 11, 1974, Mr. Freedman indicated he could deliver approximately 1,250 acres at $6,250 per acre. Gibson Willoughby offered $4,750 an acre, the maximum that they were authorized to offer at that date. After further negotiations, Mr. Freedman offered to deliver the full package for $5,500 an acre.

On that same day Gibson Willoughby notified OHC that the principals of Bonnydon Ltd. were offering 11 properties on the following terms: They were prepared to sell the entire package at $5,500 an acre, but were not prepared to sell individual parts of their package. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it was an all or nothing offer which required an early response from OHC.

The properties offered were dispersed throughout the entire area and without them the assembly would lose its viability. They represented one-quarter of the total acreage of the desired acquisition. Most of the owners within the assembly area had been approached by this time and asking prices had been determined. The majority of them required a price in excess of $5,500 an acre. In other words, acquisition of these 11 properties were essential for the success of the land assembly, and the price was comparable or lower than was asked for similar properties. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a map which indicates the locations of the Bonnydon lands in reference to the overall assembly.

Some members have indicated that the information concerning the previous prices paid by the Freedman-related firms might have been easily ascertained by checking the registry office. This is not so. Full information relating to the Freedman options or purchases was not available to us at the registry office on Jan. 11. We had to make our decision on the basis of our knowledge of the market at that time, on the value of these lands to the overall assembly, and on the experience gained by many weeks of continuous negotiation.

On April 8, 1974, the last authorized purchase occurred at $6,000 an acre from J. Cecchine. All the other prices which were determined in the area were above this figure. For example, owners were asking $6,600 an acre, $8,000 an acre and $10,000 an acre. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling details as of March 31, 1974, of the lands in the assembly area which we endeavoured to buy, along with notations outlining the nature of the negotiations and the reasons for not purchasing those remaining lands.

Let me summarize, Mr. Speaker. First, in regard to the criticism that there was insufficient pre-planning or investigation of prices in the assembly area: 1. A complete search of all relevant land titles did take place, together with an analysis of transactions and prices. 2. Both OHC personnel and Gibson Willoughby reviewed those prices. 3. There were assessments of the market situations, both by OHC and Gibson Willoughby, based on recent sales and offerings in the area. 4. The initial Gibson Willoughby offer of $3,000 was set after joint OHC-Gibson Willoughby consideration.

Considering the procedure used to purchase land within the assembly. 1. There were tough negotiations throughout. 2. The government’s agents didn’t go out with cash in hand but rather bargained closely and operated under price guidelines. 3. These agents were highly skilled negotiators who knew the area well. 4. There were continuous and close consultations between the two teams, confidentiality was maintained and OHC approved all prices.

As to the suggestion that OHC used poor business acumen and knowingly allowed considerable speculative profit, I say this, Mr. Speaker: 1. The technique we used in this assembly -- the same technique used by other governments and the private sector -- was related to the market at that time. 2. The market was one of rapidly spiralling price. 3. We had to buy near market or else abandon the concept of a landbank at that time. 4. We accepted this fact and, as a result, acquired a controlling interest in the area, cooled speculation and provided the potential for future urban development.

It has been suggested by some members that we should have used the Expropriations Act to acquire these properties. Mr. Speaker, as you know, a hearing of necessity is required to consider whether the taking of the land is clear, sound and reasonable. In order to provide this information, a comprehensive development plan would have to be prepared. I want to remind the members, as I indicated in my statement announcing the South Milton assembly, that the ultimate specific use of these lands at the time of purchase was not fully established. Therefore, it is very questionable that such an expropriation hearing could have been successful.

In the question periods last week a number of specific questions were raised by hon. members. The member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) asked, on Nov. 21, if the government has used real estate firms to assemble land on other occasions. I would refer the hon. member to page 5285 of Hansard as this has already been answered.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Will the minister answer yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) asked, on Nov. 21, how much the legal firm was paid. I would inform him that the answer is $48,475. This rate is below tariff and was negotiated at the rate of one-half of one per cent of the total acquisition price. Fees paid to Gibson Willoughby, at five per cent for the first $100,000 and 2.5 per cent thereafter, were $301,973, also below tariff.

Mr. Shulman: A real bargain.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Downsview asked on Nov. 19 if Gibson Willoughby negotiated the purchase of some 250 acres from a father and son who had previously listed their land for $1,500 an acre and had received no buyers.

Mr. Speaker, the father, Mr. Robert Marshall sold his property in 1969 for $2,600 an acre. This transaction fell through in June, 1969. Later that year Mr. Marshall listed the property, again for 90 days, at $1,700 per acre, excluding buildings and a small parcel, without any success. Three years later, Mr. Marshall sold his farm, including all buildings and property, to agents of OHC for $4,500 per acre. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, after a period of three years this is not unreasonable.

On Nov. 19 the same member asked if we would explain the purchase of 100 acres which he stated was purchased by a Mr. Smith on Dec. 12, 1973, for $3,300 an acre and then:

Smith then agreed to sell it to Bonnydon, one of the companies we talked about; Bonnydon agreed to transfer it to Moccasin Trail and then, on Jan 16, 1974, Moccasin Trail agreed to sell it to Gibson Willoughby Ltd., apparently nominees of the government, for $5,500 an acre.

The hon. member is referring to one of the 11 properties offered by Bonnydon Ltd., this being a property of 84 acres. As legal problems were encountered in title, the land was not purchased by OHC.

Mr. Singer: No, he refused to sell because he thought he was being taken.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Downsview also inquired on Nov. 21 about property owned by persons named Stewart and Knox, on lot 7, concession 8, which was allegedly offered to OHC in 1973 by these persons. Mr. Speaker, OHC has determined that at no time was this land offered to our agents; nor was any contact made with Stewart or Knox. The parcel in question was eventually acquired by OHC as part of the 1,250 acres offered by Bonnydon.

Mr. Singer: That’s wrong, too.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Members have asked for the facts, Mr. Speaker, and I have tabled them.

Members have questioned the manner in which OHC assembled the land in South Milton. In my opinion my statements have refuted the allegations made about the business procedures followed by OHC.

Members have stated that the method of assembling the land allowed unconscionable speculative profits to certain individuals. Mr. Speaker, again I say the corporation paid market value for the lands in South Milton. I also want to say again that we paid market value to all persons from whom we purchased land in this assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. members must understand that if we were not prepared to pay market value we would not have been able to assemble these lands, and our objective was to assemble land to provide for land banking for future urban development. We assembled 2,300 acres at an average price of $5,384.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Was there a necessity for that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This acreage, at this price, I am very confident will prove to be a wise investment and will complement the province’s overall land-use planning. Thank you.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity, on behalf of my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Paterson), to introduce to you, sir, and the members of the House 120 students from Leamington District Secondary School? Would you join me in welcoming them and their teacher, Mr. Keith Campbell?

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

SOUTH MILTON DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, further to the statement made by the Minister of Housing, in his concern for building up the landbank particularly, has he got a policy of not approving the use of landbank properties for housing in those areas which are not under the jurisdiction of a regional government? I refer specifically to the thousand acres in Brant, right next to the city of Brantford. Has he indicated he will not permit that development to go forward unless there is a regional government?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Ministry of Housing is concerned, I would say any land development will be in co-ordination with the province’s overall plan for development, with the co-operation of the regional governments or the area municipalities involved, and after full determination has been made as to the best use of the land at that particular time. I do not have full knowledge of the specific fact to which the hon. member refers, but I can assure him that any such development will come under my full consideration and will not be made without all of the various ministries of this government being involved.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since we are concerned with the costs paid for the property, would the minister not agree that in the situation he has outlined in detail in response to our questions, that there ought to be some consideration given to the utilization of these lands for the establishment of new housing projects, particularly in those areas where, as in the case of Brantford, they have independently acquired land for housing projects on their own, with this thousand acres sitting there waiting to be developed?

Further, is the minister not aware that the reason being given in that particular area for the thousand acres not being developed, is that the minister refuses to consider the development since there is no regional government in place or in the offing?

Mr. Speaker: I deem that to be a new question, and not a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, whether or not there is a regional government there, I do not believe that has any bearing whatsoever on the development of land. The development of land in any particular area, as I said before, depends on the demand for housing, the demand for agricultural purposes, or whatever else the land might be developed for; but we would deal with the municipality involved, whether it’s regional, area or local.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West with a supplementary.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Yes, I would like to ask the Minister of Housing, how does he defend what emerges, in this saga of a government that pays market value, which amounts to extreme speculative profits for those who hold land for no other purpose than speculative gain and who hold it apparently to sell to the government, which becomes the agent to satisfy the speculative dreams? How does he justify that in the Ministry of Housing, given his alleged attack through the Land Speculation Tax Act and his devotion to low-cost housing? How does he engage in purchases which satisfy the most extreme and gross speculative appreciation?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned last week, when we purchased these properties, as the hon. member is well aware, we did not have the land speculation tax.

Mr. Lewis: That’s true.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If we had, we wouldn’t have had the spiralling prices. We have said continually that the land speculation tax has been a very effective method of controlling prices. However, at that time, prices were escalating very rapidly in that area. By controlling the overall area by buying certain properties, we have set the pattern of price.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Sure; very high.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If we had not, the prices could have been much higher than they are now. The land speculation tax is effective now but it wasn’t then. That’s the point.

Mr. Deans: The government made them high.

Mr. Lewis: That’s why the government needed the tax -- because of its own speculative activity.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Could the minister explain whether he was correct in the statement he gave this afternoon, when he said -- if I heard him correctly -- the prices weren’t fixed until Dec. 6, as contrasted with the statement he made in the Legislature on Nov. 14, as reported on page 5286, when he said that prices were fixed in mid-October? Which was correct, October or December? Which information do we believe?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would have to go back to establish very clearly in my mind what we were referring to in the previous statement.

Mr. Singer: Yes, I think he would.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have taken time on this statement to make sure that the facts --

Mr. Singer: Did the minister take no time on the other statement?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I took time on this statement to make sure that what I’m referring to is right. I can assure the hon. member for Downsview, and any other member, that the statement here is correct. I am still of the opinion my other statement was correct. We may not be referring to the same particular transactions; maybe we should check that out.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Is it not true that the government is in fact in the business of speculating in land --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Buying land, not speculating.

Mr. Deans: -- and that at the time that that land is subdivided and finally offered to individuals for purchase it will be at the then current market value, which is likely to be determined by the surrounding land owned by the private developers?

Mr. Lewis: That’s why there is a housing crisis and why no one can afford one.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The question has been placed. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How much does the member think it is going to cost?

Mr. Singer: They’re not going to build on that land for 25 years.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the government, at any time, in the land speculation business whatsoever.

Mr. Deans: It is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I say, though, that if the member for Wentworth were to listen to his leader he would have heard him say: “Let’s buy up 150,000 acres.”

Mr. Lewis: At the original purchase price, with the addition of holding costs, but without a penny for speculation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: “Let’s go out and buy 150,000 acres -- let’s buy the 150.000 acres by confiscation.”

Mr. Lewis: That’s what Comay said, that was the government’s task force.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Now let’s understand what we are talking about.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what the task force said.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The socialist party would like to take everybody’s rights away.

Mr. Deans: Oh come on!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This party is going to make sure we respect the rights of people.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the member going to give us a speech again?

Mr. Lewis: No, just a footnote.

Mr. Speaker: Your point of privilege?

Mr. Lewis: We don’t have to accept that kind of claptrap. The proposition we’ve put forward is based on the government’s task force report of 1973 and don’t forget it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t have to be misrepresented by that kind of nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: This is developing into a debate, which is out of order. Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a supplementary question of the same minister Mr. Speaker, if you will permit that.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like him to clarify the profit of $1 million that was apparently associated with just the seven transactions that were brought to his attention originally, I guess two weeks ago, associated with the one family, Freedman, and their three companies. Now, would he not agree that surely there is some question in the utilization of public funds, both federal and provincial, for the acquisition of land under these purposes, when a profit of $1 million is associated with only 600 acres? Surely the justification that the prices were spiralling and the minister’s statement that he was only trying to buy out the speculators --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The question has been placed.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- is one that is not acceptable.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I endeavoured -- as I said I would -- to make the statement as clear as possible so even the Leader of the Opposition could understand it. Now I don’t see how he can misunderstand what I’ve said. Prices were escalating. We paid market value. Whether the price we paid gave someone a profit of $1 million --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A profit of $1 million on 600 acres; maybe even the minister can understand that is unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- or whether it gave them a profit of $200,000 is not the relevant fact.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what is called speculation by government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No it isn’t.

Mr. Lewis: Yes it is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The whole land assembly had to be considered in its total aspect. It wasn’t how much somebody made out of one piece of property or how much they made out of 10 or 11; it was on the total number of acres acquired. I fail to understand why the Leader of the Opposition doesn’t take a look at the statement first of all to see where the properties are, if he doesn’t already know where they are located, so he may see how essential they were to the overall assembly; and then make some statements if he wants to.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put a question to the Chairman of the Management Board pertaining to the negotiations with the Civil Service Association. Since we didn’t get a very rational answer on Friday to the same question, will the minister explain why he does not now introduce the amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act so that these particular matters, which are extremely sensitive in negotiations with the civil service, could at least be made public and would hopefully withdraw some of the pressures from the negotiations which are so far so unsuccessful?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I would thank the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, for the question. I would say that the information that was imparted to him on Friday was absolutely correct -- and I have looked at it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Information which was one of those garbled political statements.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: However, as a further elaboration, Mr. Speaker, on Friday the hon. Leader of the Opposition directed a question to the Premier with respect to the status of discussions with the CSAO on proposed amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. The Leader of the Opposition suggested, I believe, that the amendments will have a substantial influence on the course of the current negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to believe this would indeed be the case, but I am not encouraged by the public utterances of the leaders of the CSAO.

Mr. Deans: Will the minister stop this?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Darrow has been quoted as saying the changes in the arbitration system will have no bearing on the course of current negotiations. He indicates that the 61.5 per cent wage demand is quite independent of the request for changes in the arbitration procedures and it appears that the leaders of the CSAO will encourage a withdrawal of services on Jan. 1 if their wage demands are not met, regardless of any changes we might contemplate in the legislation.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that the CSAO has responded to my request for a second meeting between officials and the CSAO and the Management Board of Cabinet to review their proposals for changes in the Act, and such a meeting has been scheduled for 10 a.m., on Thursday of this week. The hon. Leader of the Opposition may wish to question me after that time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A further supplementary: Has the minister been properly understood when he said there will be amendments to that statute at this session of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: After our discussions, as I indicated to the House previously, and upon the results of our meeting on Thursday, that certainly might well be the case.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Is this the first time he is putting the specific amendment proposals to the CSAO -- this Thursday morning?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As to the proposals that we currently have, the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Well that’s very helpful to the negotiations!

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

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities if he has examined the effect that his statement on funding for the universities is having with the various provincially-assisted universities? Has he got anything of a concrete and constructive nature to resolve the problems -- the bind they find themselves in -- as a result of inadequate grants, the agreement with the government that they must not raise tuition; and the statement from the Premier on Friday that he, certainly along with everyone else here, would be very much against keeping students out of the universities. Under the present grant system the more people they bring in the more money they lose.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition should recall that the grant level we spoke of is based on this year’s enrolment not next year’s enrolment; so that the universities know, on account of the slip-year formula as applied, the enrolment on which the grant is predicated. Of course nobody can say exactly what the enrolment will be next fall. It would appear from the pattern we have seen emerging in the last three years that there will be some, but a very modest, growth in the universities, assuming other things being equal; and particularly as far as the high schools are concerned, that a much higher proportion of the students will be going to the community colleges.

As far as any change in policy is concerned, at this present time there is none, Mr. Speaker. When I met with the college presidents and the board chairmen I indicated that, looking at the financial picture and the resources of the province, the amounts that were announced were the amounts they should plan on.

I was very interested in the letter President Macdonald of York University wrote to the Globe and Mail the other day about some sort of a short-term fund. I would mention to the House, as I think I did previously and as I did mention to the presidents, that the Council on University Affairs is presently meeting with the various institutions and will complete its tour of the 15 provincially-supported institutions on Dec. 21. With that background, I was very interested in President Macdonald’s comments.

I would point out to the House that, while I don’t have the figures, the universities by prudent management do what many businesses do and have reserve funds for operating and for maintenance. I am not aware of the total of those funds at the present time, but I would suggest that it is far in excess of the amount that the deficits which the universities are predicting at the present time add up to. It may well be that the universities themselves could finance through a bank to tide them over the very real short-term financial difficulties they face while they are making plans to reduce some of their expenditures, which I am quite convinced they can in the administrative and the academic fields.

I’ve been rather interested in some of the comments I have read in the last few days in this connection. I think if we continue to work with the universities, as we propose to do, we will be able to sort out the problems and sort them out within the financial capabilities of the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister implying, then, that the statement made, for example by the president of McMaster that they face a $4-million deficit under this arrangement is, let us say inflated or not based on the facts as he has them?

Hon. Mr. Auld: If he is talking about his current deficit, I am not in a position to judge. I haven’t looked at his books, but I have no reason to believe that he would be wrong. If he is looking at a deficit as opposed to any reserves that there may be, there may be a different answer.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

SOUTH MILTON DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the Minister of Housing and ask him this question: Since the Minister of Housing argued that he couldn’t use the Expropriations Act -- because he wasn’t able to establish need, as it were, under the Act -- why does the government not introduce a special Act for the purposes of land banking and provide within that Act compensation at original purchase cost, plus holding costs, without paying public money to the extent of a $1 million profit for speculative appreciation? Wouldn’t that make more sense?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will take that under consideration. If there is a better method to acquire lands, I would be happy to find out what it is. At the time we assembled those lands that was the best known method of assembly.

ECONOMIC SITUATION

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Given the serious economic dislocation in the United States, which is already having and will probably have greater spillover effect in Ontario in the next few months; and given most of the economic indicators not being very optimistic: Is there some kind of government initiative or government programme rather more extensive than winter works, which he is prepared to introduce or contemplate over the next number of months in consideration of pretty serious economic and perhaps even unemployment problems in the latter period of the winter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are quite obviously keeping a very close eye on the situation. I, personally, have always taken the position, in dealing with economics, to be realistic but at the same time to endeavour to retain the confidence of the public and the business community and all of us.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I will be realistic but at the same time not speculate on what the leader of the New Democratic Party is suggesting by way of what he may feel will be a substantial downturn in the economy. There’s no question, Mr. Speaker, that certainly in some industries we are very closely related to our neighbours to the south, particularly the automotive industry, and it has had some impact to date, although it has not been as great as some had anticipated and I don’t think there’s any indication as to what the duration of it will be necessarily.

I would only add this, Mr. Speaker, that quite obviously we are paying very close attention to it. We are very interested in seeing the economic vitality of this jurisdiction maintained; this is very basic to whatever else we do. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I am really not prepared to speculate on a significant downturn or recession in the economy. I, quite frankly, don’t think that would serve any useful purpose at this moment.

Mr. Cassidy: What does that answer mean?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Ottawa Centre wouldn’t understand it anyway.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, would the Premier be prepared to advance by a year or two certain of the major municipal projects, some of the housing programmes which are now held back for the need of capital funding, in order to create jobs to stabilize the job market over the next several months, because, the United States apart, the economic indicators show that Ontario may well be in trouble in four or five months’ time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons, not just economic but social reasons as well, this government -- and I think it has been very clearly demonstrated -- is most anxious to move ahead with its housing programme. I think it is also fair to state that the hon. member has expressed some concern here in the past about inflation and the two can be somewhat contradictory. While there may be some public works that the government or the municipalities could undertake, we have also committed ourselves at this point to minimizing our own capital expenditures by reason of trying to reduce the effect or impact of inflation. I regret that the New Democratic Party leader’s resident expert in economic matters has left the House. He could help us all with his own expertise.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The commodities market opens in 10 minutes.

Mr. Lewis: Which expert is the Premier referring to?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): The soya bean kid.

Hon. Mr. Davis: While I recognize some degree of contradiction, the policy, certainly at this moment, is that we will continue to constrain our own capital works expenditures. We think this is still the proper route to go. But as far as housing is concerned, first, it has a real impact on the economy and we want to encourage it; and second, we think there’s a very real social need to be met, so the housing programmes will continue to have high priority.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? A supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the Premier, on behalf of the government, made a commitment at the federal-provincial conference a few weeks ago to restrain capital expenditure, can he indicate what changes have been made in, let’s say policy or the decision to spend money? Is there any specific instance that he can think of where there has been restraint?

Mr. Speaker: That’s completely away from the housing implications in the main question. If the Premier wishes to answer, he may.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I will try to make the question valid, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I really appreciate that, both of you helping me out that way.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- by making one observation. I didn’t go to the federal-provincial conference to give a commitment to reduce capital expenditure.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But he did.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We had already made that policy determination here and had said so publicly. What we said to the federal government was, “It’s time that you, as a federal jurisdiction with some leadership responsibility, followed the same policy -- ”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: “ -- that we are following here in the Province of Ontario.” That’s what was said to the federal government. It was said, I think, very pleasantly, but also very clearly.

I think it is fair to state, Mr. Speaker, I’ve listened to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) and others who talk about the significant capital projects in the health field and the educational field. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition isn’t aware of some of the capital constraints, I’ve got a list as long as my arm I would be delighted to send over to him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West, a further question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There may have been one or two in the Leader of the Opposition’s riding, I don’t know.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There has been no change there. The government is still spending nothing in Brant.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Here now; that is not right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, roads and Rhodes; fine, both kinds.

Mr. Lewis: I’m told the government is spending mightily in Scarborough West, albeit for other reasons.

RESOURCE TAXATION

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Premier, has he thought of taking up the percentage area which the federal government has vacated and left to the provinces, in resource taxation in particular? I guess it would be up to a 15 per cent abatement which the provinces could occupy should they wish.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the leader of the New Democratic Party has a thing about the resource industry. We’re looking at a number of things, quite obviously, but we’re not looking at measures that will further inhibit the resource industry in this province.

I think it is fair to state, Mr. Speaker, and I guess has to be stated again, that the resource industry forms a very important economic aspect of the life of this province. We want the taxation to be equitable, but at the same time we don’t want it to be inhibiting. While I recognize the leader of the New Democratic Party has a very simple solution, and that is the nationalization of most of the resource industry, Mr. Speaker, that’s not the route we’re going.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Oh of course we’re not going that route either, but if the Premier wants to lay his groundwork let him go ahead, nobody’s paying any attention to that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh come on. Who is the member trying to kid?

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is going to have to do a lot better than that to regain his credibility.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It is Lougheed who is going that route, Lougheed and Frank Moores.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who are the members kidding?

Mr. Lewis: Is the Premier telling us here that the taxation of the resource industries in Ontario over the last several years and even this year is considered equitable compared to how the government taxes individuals and families in Ontario? Is that what he is trying to tell us?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I say that in the year 1974 we feel the tax on the resource industry is equitable.

Mr. Lewis: Fine, okay. Glad to have it on the record.

Mr. MacDonald: By definition, it wasn’t before 1974.

MINERAL PRODUCTION STATISTICS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask one question of the Minister of Natural Resources? Why have we not received the up-dated statistics on mineral production in Ontario over these last three or four years, including the taxes paid and reported by the mining companies? I believe he promised the 1970 report. I have the 1969; are the 1970 or 1971 or 1972 reports out?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Those facts and figures are available and I’d be glad to get the information for the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Where?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Through the Queen’s Printer.

Mr. Lewis: Where are they? Are they in published form?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There was a Management Board order about three years ago that we refine and modify our presentation as an economy measure. The member will note there have been some changes in the annual reports. These figures are still available and I will make sure they are available to the member. But they’re not being published in the same way that we did in the past.

Mr. Lewis: I see. How is it that the refinements and the economy in the publication of figures manage to omit the taxes paid and reported by mining companies? Is that the way the minister works out his economies in the Ministry of Natural Resources, to fit the equity the Premier talks of? Why aren’t the statistical reports up to date for, say 1973?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I just said that the information is available and if the hon. member is interested I would be glad to make it available to him.

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

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

SOUTH MILTON DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Could the Minister of Housing explain why he laid such great stress on comparative purchases in Concession 1? Concession 1, I would presume is Mississauga, isn’t it? It isn’t a new survey? Why this stress when the particular properties we are concerned about and the ones he deals with -- the ones we asked about -- are in Concessions 6, 7 and 8 and apparently not in this vicinity at all?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I said in the areas adjacent. That was what I was relating to, to indicate to the hon. member for Downsview that the prices were escalating in other areas much more rapidly than possibly in that area; but it is a comparative price.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary: Could the minister give us an approximate location of these lots in Concession 1? How far south and how far east are they of the lands that we have been asking the minister about over the last 10 days?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Downsview knows full well where the lands are. I think we can go round this merry-go-round for a long time; but I am not going to go into a witch hunt on every darn thing that the member mentions. The areas were mentioned and the properties were mentioned. The member had the research facilities himself to find out if my statements were not right; I think he can find out.

Mr. Singer: By way of one more supplementary: Are the lots in Concession 1 that the minister referred to reasonably available to a water supply; when the lots in 6, 7, and 8 are perhaps 25 years away from a water supply

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment on that.

Mr. Singer: I didn’t think the minister would.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

H.O.M.E. PLAN PRICES

Mr. Deans: Could I ask a question of the Minister of Housing, please?

Why has the Ontario Housing Corp. changed its policy whereby previous purchasers of Ontario Housing Corp. HOME units were able to acquire the land at the end of five years at the price that was set at the time of original purchase, to a policy whereby they must at the end of five years pay the current market value as reflected by sales of private homes in the surrounding area?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Does he pay speculation taxes?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very obvious that it makes it more equitable for all the people who are subsidizing housing, or subsidizing land, or subsidizing any acquisitions in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Deans: They are not subsidizing it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If we have moneys provided for housing, why shouldn’t the person at the end of five years pay the market value for that land, rather than the market value of five years before?

Mr. Deans: May I ask a supplementary question? What possible good does it do to the inflationary spiral that is affecting the land to enter into an Ontario Housing Corp. subdivision with the prospect of being able to hold prices down, when in fact one ultimately has to pay the same price anyway?

Mr. Lewis: That’s an unanswerable question; that’s what the minister did in Milton.

Mr. Deans: That’s what he is doing and that’s why he is in the game of speculation.

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

WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour.

Could the minister indicate to the House when the Legislature will have the opportunity to question the cost and present procedures relating to the operations of the Workmen’s Compensation Board?

Mr. Deans: We asked that last week.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, but we haven’t had an answer yet.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, this, I think is the first time that question has been asked.

Mr. Deans: No, it was asked of the House leader last week.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, in any event I have the answer. I was speaking to the deputy clerk a few moments ago, sir, and he is preparing the necessary resolution that I should move, to refer it to a standing committee -- and as soon as we get together, that will be done.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

FLASHING LIGHTS ON SCHOOL BUSES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications regarding flashing lights on school buses: Is the minister considering changes in legislation to give discretion to school boards and /or local school bus drivers to determine when local traffic conditions warrant the use of flashers?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, there will be new legislation introduced in the House very shortly. I don’t believe there are any changes even contemplated in that area. That discretion has always been there, in that the requirement of the motorist is to stop when the lights are flashing. Bus operators do have that discretionary power, if you will, at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for St. George?

CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Housing: Following a question I asked before in the matter of condominiums, is it the practice of the Ontario Housing Corp. to send officials to meetings of the homeowners’ association prior to takeover to advise them of the policy of Ontario Housing that they will not take over a deficiency when those same homeowners are asking for an audited statement of accounts?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the matter to which the member is specifically referring, but I would hope that the officials of my ministry contact everyone possible on any particular subject so that the people are aware of what our policy is. If the member has some specific reference she wishes to bring to me, fair enough, I’ll look into it. But I think that the more we communicate, whether it is with ratepayers’ groups or with owners in any project associated with our ministry, the better it will be for all concerned.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, yes.

Mrs. Campbell: Having heard that answer, may I ask why they would send someone in to make that statement when the homeowners couldn’t get clarification from OHC of that policy and when the then minister, on June 13, advised that that was not the policy of OHC, so that it took from December to June for the homeowners to find out what the policy was?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that what the hon. member has said is right or wrong. All I’m saying is that if there was a matter of poor communication, surely it’s up to us to try to adjust that. And I think that is what the ministry was trying to do.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

HIGHWAY 6 CORRIDOR STUDY

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister explain why it would be that the study group studying the alternatives for what is called the Highway 6 Nanticoke-to-Hamilton corridor study would be holding a public meeting tomorrow night without ever first having met with the local councils in the area to discuss the proposals they’re going to put forward?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of that particular public meeting and I would have to agree. I would feel that the elected representatives in that area most certainly should be contacted before any general public meeting is held.

Mr. Deans: May I ask the minister if he would inquire of Mr. Radbone, who is the senior project planner, whether it is his intention to meet between now and tomorrow morning with the Glanbrook council, for example, since all of the routes that are being offered go through that municipality and they have not yet had the opportunity to express any opinions?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I most certainly will. I said I concur with the hon. member’s opinion and I will look into that immediately.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? The member for Essex-Kent.

AMHERSTBURG JUVENILE DETENTION HOME

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General, although I think the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow) may be involved in it. Does the Attorney General’s office look after the recommendations of the grand jury with regard to juvenile detention homes? If so, have the nine recommendations, or any of them, been rectified since the grand jury gave the report of four months ago on the home near Amherstburg in Essex county?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, certainly the reports from the grand jury do come to the Ministry of the Attorney General. I haven’t got the response to that specific question, but I will take it as notice and provide the member with that information.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

BILINGUAL PERMITS AND LICENCES

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister now satisfied that it is possible to have bilingual driver’s licences and motor vehicle permits in the province and that the information can, in fact, be put on the ambit of a form of the existing size? If so, is that the intention of the government?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, anything is possible, but I will also point out I believe I did state in response to a question asked by the hon. member earlier that it is our feeling at the present time that we are not able to put both languages on the existing form. It would require a new form and my officials are looking into what implications there are. I can say that we may run into some real problems with this, especially in attempting to computerize the whole system to handle the bilingual licences.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since this has been done in Quebec where for many years the forms have been bilingual, will the government move within the forthcoming year to make a declaration of policy and take some action on behalf of the 800,000 French-Canadians who live here in Ontario and have lived here for an awfully long time?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, we are looking at that present possibility; but as I state it it is a possibility.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

HIGHWAY 404

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Now that the city of Toronto council has expressed its concern about the effect on the Don Valley expressway of the proposed extension north, has the minister met with the council? Has he advised them of any proposal Mr. Cass has made for ingress and egress at the lower end of the Don Valley or its offshoots?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have not met with any representatives of the city of Toronto. This is the first interest the city of Toronto has shown in this particular area. Prior to that I had met with officials of a number of municipalities further to the north who had indicated interest.

I may be mistaken, but I do believe representatives of the city of Toronto so far are simply making their feelings known to the Metro executive council. They have not communicated anything directly to me.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for -- one supplementary.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is aware of their concerns now, and I believe I brought it out at the estimates, would he not think it would be important to get in touch with them to find out what their concerns are?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, if the city of Toronto council does have concerns -- and I’m assuming from the reports in the press that they do have -- then I would think they would have communicated with me, rather than simply going through the news media. I am waiting for them to contact me. I will not simply pick up the newspapers and call the mayor of Toronto. If they have some concerns, I’m sure he’s competent and capable enough to communicate with me.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are not even talking to each other in city council.

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

TREASURER’S TRIP TO MIDDLE EAST AND EUROPE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Treasurer: well, tell us about it.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I’m glad to have the opportunity to do so.

Mr. Cassidy: The sheik of Araby.

Hon. Mr. White: My officials and I were away for 12 days, we had several dozen meetings in London --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): All inside.

Hon. Mr. White: -- Kuwait, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Paris. Everywhere we went, sir, the name and fame of Canada had preceded us and everyone we talked to knew of the high repute of Ontario --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: They talked about his triple-A rating.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and of its triple-A rating.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I missed the Treasurer, if no one else did.

Hon. Mr. White: The revised figures for Ontario Hydro Electric Corp.’s needs have been increased. This year they borrowed $770 million in the United States and Canada; their new figures for 1975 are $1.4 billion and for the next 12 years they are $30 billion.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is progress.

Mr. Deans: Getting a little oil money back.

Hon. Mr. White: So we will attempt to utilize every capital market in the world available to us at reasonable terms and conditions, and I am confident that we can utilize that mid-eastern capital market to some extent, perhaps beginning in the first quarter of 1975.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, exactly how much did the Treasurer in fact negotiate, in cash or goods or booty or whatever?

An hon. member: No booty.

Hon. Mr. White: Exactly nothing, because I didn’t expect to.

Mr. Lewis: Exactly nothing. That is a nice 12-day trip; what about the opposition going?

Hon. Mr. White: We did introduce ourselves. We did explain the needs of this province, the credit-worthiness of this province, the Ontario Hydro Electric’s expansion --

Mr. MacDonald: The Treasurer was treading in Caesar’s steps.

Mr. Cassidy: They knew about it, yes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: -- the Ontario government’s debt reduction programme; and we did learn how the markets work and we did learn which financial intermediaries were trusted and effective in that area.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer could have done that at home.

Mr. Deans: That could have been done at home.

Hon. Mr. White: We will, within the next 10 days or so, decide which financial institutions should be utilized as we come to the detail of floating an issue there for Hydro.

Mr. Breithaupt: Any sugar and spices?

Mr. Lewis: Okay.

Hon. Mr. White: I made it abundantly clear to anybody who showed any interest in the trip before I left that we were not going down to make a fast deal.

Mr. Cassidy: Did the Treasurer go scuba diving in the Red Sea?

Hon. Mr. White: That we were going down to explore the possibility of establishing a long-lived, two-way relationship involving capital from that part of the world and perhaps some Ontario technology in the mid-east and in the developing world.

Mr. Deans: Something like the pipeline.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Did the Treasurer investigate the possibility of further investment from these sources in the private sector here? Evidently there is a lot of that money coming into private development.

Hon. Mr. White: No, I did not, although it was curious to learn that large sums of money are going into speculative land purchases in Montreal and other parts of Canada -- those having been effectively deflected from Ontario by our land speculation tax and land transfer tax.

We had with us, I’m glad to say, His Excellency, the Canadian Ambassador, James George, for the visits in Kuwait; and we had for all of the visits the company and the assistance of Mr. John Bailey, who is the trade counsellor working out of Beirut in that part of the world.

While it wasn’t our principal intention, we did find that the two objectives I have mentioned to the member, that is, capital out and technology in, were augmented by development of possible new markets for Ontario and Canadian goods and services.

We have been rather successful in selling consulting services down there. I think there are 85 Canadians in Abu Dhabi alone. The day we left, as members will see in the paper, project planners of Toronto were successful in getting a $500-million award in Saudi Arabia to build a new university. There has been a fair amount of Canadian activity, particularly in the service sector. The visits we had in company with these two federal officials, I do believe will open up some of these markets to a much greater extent.

The Canadian ambassador and the trade counsellor were simply delighted to have been part of a ministerial mission, because quite frankly, without undue immodesty, I don’t think that would have been possible had we not had a mission of this stature and size. I will be glad to give a full report, sir, now or at some other time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Tell us about Paris the next time.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The question period has expired four minutes ahead of time.

Mr. Deans: I want that saved for tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: I will take it under consideration, but the answer is --

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moved that on Thursday, Nov. 28, following the question period, the standing social development committee meet concurrently with the House to consider Bill 72, the Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, could the House leader be good enough to advise us what we might be doing on completion of Bills 134, 136 and 155, which I expect we might be on to this evening?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I expect to give the order then for the balance of the week, Mr. Speaker. I just hesitate to do it at this moment without firm commitments, but I certainly will do it.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 23rd order; resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 134, the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West was speaking when we adjourned last.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I adjourned the debate on Friday, I was commenting on the disgraceful situation of a new Employment Standards Act which makes no substantive changes whatsoever in the termination of employment section of the Act. This was the opportunity to increase the length of notice to employees; but there have been no changes and no increase by this minister. It should have gone to one month after one year, as in the Province of Quebec, two months for the period one-to-two years, three months for the period two-to-five years, and six months for more than five years.

I will not present the arguments in detail on that except simply to state that the long-term employee with the psychological shock of having been terminated, the adjustment he needs to make and the retraining he needs to find, with his skills heretofore appreciated and now obsolete, needs that six months’ termination notice or pay in lieu of termination. It is a disgrace that nothing has been done to increase the length of notice time given to employees. Here again was the chance for the mass layoff notice, currently at 50, to be reduced to a reasonable number, such as 10 in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba, but this minister has chosen not to make any change in the mass termination notice figure.

Nothing has been done about covering workers terminated while on strike, in spite of the advantage being taken of this section of the Act by employers such as at Acme Screw and Gear.

No extension has been made where plants are closed down under any statute of the Province of Ontario, and not just that section relating to the Environmental Protection Act. A worker should be entitled to termination pay because of a closure under any statute of this province, and not just because of a closure under the Environmental Protection Act. There should be the establishment of a termination pay insurance fund so that under termination for bankruptcies or in a receivership situation, the employees would receive all of their wages, vacation pay and termination pay entitlement, irrespective of whether the Bankruptcy Act is changed to make them the No. 1 creditor. That does not guarantee that they would receive all of those benefits. Such an insurance fund would also ensure that it came immediately and not after the long delays in sorting out the receivership and the bankruptcy.

The minister mentions that his ministry is having some talks with the Unemployment Insurance Commission related to termination pay. Well, it had better not be, I say to the minister, a lessening or a dropping of the termination pay provisions in this Act, inadequate though they may be at the moment, because termination pay comes wholly from the employer, and not just two-thirds, or three-quarters if you have dependents, which is the pay received under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The pay comes entirely from the employer, and not partly from the employee and partly from the employer or from the general taxpayer, which is from whence the UIC payments come.

In talking with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, with respect to and with relation to the termination pay sections, we would hope that the minister will not be talking in terms of any lessening or throwing away of the inadequate provisions in this Act but, in fact, in terms of the federal government decreasing the waiting period and in terms of Ontario’s attitude to the waiting period that exists under the Unemployment Insurance Act. That is where the minister’s emphasis should be falling on behalf of the workers in Ontario, and not on any decrease of the termination section of this Act. This is, of course, of very great interest around the province now because of the high unemployment in the auto industry, where subsidiary unemployment benefits cannot be collected immediately because of the waiting period under the Unemployment Insurance Act.

On behalf of all those people employed in the auto industry in Ontario -- and in excess of 40 per cent of the employees in Ontario are associated with the auto industry -- the minister should be having discussions with the Unemployment Insurance Commission about seeing that all unemployment insurance benefits are increased and made available, particularly to that group of auto workers in the Province of Ontario.

Another part of the termination section which needs some real scrutiny, it really appears in the regulations but we should be discussing it when this bill goes out of the House to committee and we should be tabling the regulations with respect to this section. I refer to the situation of temporary layoffs for 13 weeks and the abuses by employers of that section of the regulations.

I have had more than one situation come to my attention in connection with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the blind and sighted employees they hire. Their practice seems to have been to lay off an employee -- temporarily, of course -- and to call him back after 12½ weeks, if it’s in a large city, to another location in the city at a far distant point from where that person lives. Blind and sighted as he is, he cannot find his way to that location very easily, so he finds that he must turn down that employment; as a result he is terminated, of course, with the employer not having to pay any termination pay whatsoever. Or they make him or her that offer of another job, one which they feel that they cannot do and at lower pay. When the refusal of that job comes, they have, of course, offered them another job within that 13-week period. The job offer is such that the employee has to turn it down and, therefore, the company gets off scot-free in terms of paying any termination pay whatsoever.

Perhaps that can be covered in the regulations. It certainly cries out to be covered in the regulations when a person’s job is terminated. If there is any suggestion at all that a re-offer before the 13-week period is over is at another location or is at a decreased rate in pay or is of a vastly changed job make-up such as to cause that employee to have to turn it down, the employer should then pay the termination pay as provided under the Act.

There are several other sections of this Employment Standards Act which cried out for amending and which could have been amended in this new Act but aren’t. One of them is the minimum wage. BC is now paying $2.50 an hour; Alberta, as of Jan. 1, will be paying $2.50; and as of Jan. 1, Manitoba and New Brunswick will be paying $2.30. Isn’t the minister happy to see Ontario tied for sixth place with Saskatchewan for the minimum wage, as of Jan. 1? This is set by regulation. But our party’s policy and stand are that in the minimum wage section of this Act a formula should be used; a formula should be inserted whereby the minimum wage is related to the average industrial salary paid in the Province of Ontario. This would be a formula similar to the Manitoba formula where this is, in fact, applied.

I would suggest for Ontario that in this section there was the opportunity to introduce a formula, and a very simple one, saying that the minimum wage in Ontario will be 60 per cent of the average of the salaries and wages in Ontario, adjusted periodically -- and better quarterly than semi-annually. If that was the case as of last July, Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage in Ontario would be $2.73 an hour, which is equal to 60 per cent of the average of salaries and wages in the industrial sector. That average industrial sector wage includes all of those currently on the minimum wage, so it is really an unrealistically low figure. As of July, including those on minimum wage in that industrial average, if Ontario had a formula paying 60 per cent of it, which should be adjusted periodically, the minimum wage in July would have been $2.73, and not the current one which was changed last October to just $2.25.

As for vacation with pay, there was an opportunity here, Mr. Speaker, to have introduced some meaningful changes into this Act. In this new Act, under vacations and vacations with pay we have the provision that the employer shall give to each employee a vacation with pay of at least two weeks upon the completion of each 12 months of employment or the equivalent of that, four per cent of his salary, if vacation pay is given in lieu of vacation with pay. There is no provision thereafter.

This is a minimum Act that we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker, which means that that is all the protection guaranteed under this Act to employees, irrespective of how long they have worked at their place of employment. This was the opportunity to have introduced three weeks after five years and four weeks after 10 years, which aren’t very much even at that for employees in the Province of Ontario.

This was a place, Mr. Speaker, to have introduced a completely new concept. It is of particular importance to the older people in our community that there should be a leave of absence, given as a right, equal to the amount of vacation which an employee has earned. With the way in which our economy has been fluctuating, one finds that many employees change jobs or are forced to change jobs in the middle of their working life. At that age when they should, in their normal employment, be enjoying three, four or five weeks’ vacation, under this Act they are back down to the minimum of two weeks. Giving them a leave of absence -- not requiring it with pay, a leave of absence without pay, equal to their vacation benefits would allow them to continue the normal vacations which they so justly and rightly need.

Here is the opportunity as well in this section to make it very clear when vacation pay should be paid. The provision should be very clear that vacation pay shall be paid not later than the beginning of the vacation period or periods, rather than the situation -- which is not widespread but still occurs in the Province of Ontario -- where someone goes off on vacation and receives pay at the end, or in some other instances doesn’t know when he is going to receive his normal pay for that vacation period for which he has a right to receive pay.

On the subject of overtime pay, as of Jan. 1, the change in the Act which the minister made last June will come into effect, in which overtime pay will start after 44 hours. Here, again, this was a time when we could have amended that, Mr. Speaker, in this entirely new Act, particularly when the federal government, BC and Saskatchewan’s overtime pays start after 40 hours and Newfoundland has this for their shop assistants. Ontario is happily tied again with Alberta and Manitoba in sixth place, in terms of when overtime pay must start in this province.

The minister has indicated that the bill will go to committee outside the House. This is a welcome announcement from the minister. When we get to that committee this must be a time when we look at the exemptions to this Act as they are contained in the regulations. There has been a group within the ministry looking at the exemptions. They worked very hard on it during the summer. We understood, during the discussion of the estimates, that the minister had on his desk the final memos on what should be the disposition of the exemptions that are contained in the regulations. This would be an opportunity, and it really begs for it to be done, that when this bill goes to committee to look at this particular Act that accompanying it would be the minister’s thoughts and decisions upon the exemptions that are going to occur in the regulations. If he doesn’t have final thoughts, then at least the memos relating to all this should be looked at and reported at the same time in a very frank and what would be a productive discussion of the exemptions.

There are many which don’t make much sense. There was a private member’s bill debated here a week ago today, introduced by a member of the minister’s own caucus, which would look at the situation of superintendents, janitors and caretakers who live in the same building. They are exempted from the hours of work, the overtime pay and the minimum wage provisions. None of that seems very reasonable.

The amount that a person pays for an apartment is well established, the hours of work can be established, and there is no reason why he should be allowed to be paid beneath the minimum wage. He is not exempted from vacations or vacation pay, pay in lieu of vacation. The problem is that people caught in this situation, with the hours of work being set for them, really find that they cannot get away with their family for a vacation. If they go away one of their family must cover, or if their family goes away they must work doubly hard for it, because another building superintendent substitutes in their particular apartment building. This whole area needs cleaning up.

Salesmen other than route salesmen who receive all or part of their remuneration from commissions are also exempted from the same three provisions, but they are also exempted from vacations with pay. I have mentioned this to various Labour ministers before; to this minister and to the previous minister. It doesn’t at all seem realistic that when a salesman who receives part of his remuneration as salary and part as commission should be exempted from vacation pay for that portion of his remuneration which comes from salary.

Farm workers are exempt from them all -- hours of work, overtime, minimum wage, vacations, and so on. I understand that there is a report on the minister’s desk relating to the farm work study done by the research branch of his ministry, and that it is a joint report to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart). They are exempted from virtually everything in this Act, Mr. Speaker. I would hope at the committee stage the minister will indicate exactly what his thoughts are and those of the Minister of Agriculture and Food on the farm workers’ situation in this province. The material of the study should be published immediately, as well.

Let’s not get into the rather thorny problem, for the moment, of the part-time farm worker or the migrant farm worker. But with full-time farm workers, what possible reason is there for them to be exempt from the minimum wage over the course of a year? Or from vacations? Or from vacation pay? Or from holidays equal to what is granted under the minimums under this Act to other persons in this province?

What percentage of full-time farm workers get a paid vacation, Mr. Speaker? What percentage don’t get one at all? What percentage get a vacation less than what is provided in the Act for other workers in this province? Does it amount to 2 per cent or 30 per cent -- or what is the figure there? It shouldn’t amount to any; but if it’s anything like 20 per cent or 30 per cent, then this is a deplorable situation.

What about the full-time holidays, holidays equal to what is granted to other workers in this Act over the course of a year for full-time workers? The Act allows other days to be substituted for it. What percentage of full-time farm workers don’t get any holidays? What percentage get less than what is granted in the Act to other workers in this province? There shouldn’t be any, and there’s no reason why they should be exempted at all.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks about this Act, there’s one thing which is very clear to me. The minimums in this Employment Standards Act are, in fact, maximums for many employees in this province. The minimum wage is a maximum wage for many employees in the unorganized sector in this province. The holiday provisions, the vacations with pay section and vacation pay are not minimums in that sense; they’re maximums for many employees in this province.

By not increasing these or providing some fairer minimum wage in this province, the minister is saying he’s quite happy to have those employees working under the maximum conditions laid out as minimums in this Act.

And the maximums in this Act are, in fact, minimums for a great many unorganized employees. The hours of work provision which the minister is content to see stand at 48 is, in fact, the minimum number of hours that many employees in this province work. The overtime pay, not starting until after 44 hours, is the position at which most unorganized workers in this province find themselves. The two-thirds of the work force which are organized certainly would not get overtime pay starting before the 44 hours. The minister is happy to go along with this situation. I say to the House that this is a deplorable situation.

But it is not nearly so deplorable as the one provision in this Act which the minister deleted from the old Act; and that is withdrawing the right of a female employee to request transportation home between the hours of midnight and 6 o’clock. When this bill goes to committee, Mr. Speaker, I’m sure we will spend some time on this deletion. We would hope that by the time this bill comes back in the House that entire provision, which is an extension to all employees when they feel they have the need of it, related to the public transportation system, will be back in this House.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other hon. member who wishes to take part in this debate?

The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I have just two brief comments that I would like to make on the amendments to the Employment Standards Act and they arise out of two particular problems that were brought to my attention very recently. One was just at the end of last week, when a young woman was given notice by her employer that as of Dec. 31 her employment would be terminated, with no reason and no explanation given. There was no question about her competence on the job.

When I phoned your labour standards branch I was advised by them that the only requirement under the Act as it is presently written is that they serve four weeks’ notice. I see nothing by way of an amendment that would change that provision in the Act, and other than through the Ontario Human Rights Code and through the intervention of the Human Rights Commission, unless he could prove discrimination, there is no recourse for a person whose service is being terminated.

Now, if the job were to have disappeared as the result of some reorganization or something of that nature, one could readily understand why the employer should be given that right, but under the normal course of events I see no reason why an employer should be able to terminate the employment of an employee unless the job itself, to which they were assigned, were eliminated or done away with through some technological innovation or something of that nature. What I am really saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not that I object to what is in the Act, in this particular instance; it is what is not in the Act by way of protection for an employee.

The only other thing that I would like to mention in connection with the Employment Standards Act is that there is a provision in it for equal pay for equal work as between male and female and, in a very vague, very general reference with a major qualification, equal pay for equal work among people of the same sex. There again it is discretionary, inasmuch as it is quite possible to have somebody working on the surface in the construction industry doing a particular job and an employee doing the self-same kind of work in a hole 10 or 12 ft down and they can say that because it is left to the discretion of the employer they deem it to be not the same kind of work.

I even had an instance this summer where they changed the classification of an employee -- it was new to me -- to a “labourer-helper.” It is the first time that I have ever known that a labourer had to have a helper. They are either helpers to someone who is skilled in a particular trade or craft or they are both labourers, but it seems to me that it was just a way of circumventing the Act by creating a new category or classification by suggesting that because someone was a labourer he was worth $3.25 an hour, and because he was a labourer-helper, they could pay him something less, something about $3.

This is happening. It was brought to the attention of the employment standards branch and, of course, they said it was left up to the employer as to who was best qualified to do a labouring task. I realize that any task, however menial, requires a certain amount of training and a certain amount of getting used to, but when one is on the business end of a shovel it doesn’t take one all that long to become proficient, so I think it’s just another instance where certain employers are taking advantage of a situation in order to pay less for an honest day’s work, or an honest hour’s work. Those were the two things that I wanted to draw to the minister’s attention, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully, when he’s looking at the Act another time and undertaking to amend it, or make some form of change, he will take those two things into consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just have a few general remarks before I deal with the specific remarks of the three members who have spoken on the bill.

First of all, I think all of the opposition members who have spoken are in favour of it. Their concern is that it doesn’t go far enough. As Minister of Labour I would like to be able to grant all of the things that they are requesting, but the philosophy that bothers me on all of this -- which at least the NDP supporters seem to adopt -- is that it’s industry that picks up the bill for all of these things. I think we all know that is not the case; that when anything may be given in the way of increased benefits it’s the whole economy that picks up the bill. It’s you and I and the ordinary citizen who have to bear the expense of these greater benefits that we want to pass on to the employees of the province. So I sympathize with their suggestion that we should do more.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, but the minister must realize that it’s the people on the lowest end of the totem pole who don’t have the economic strength to bargain.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I appreciate that, and I say we want to go further, but it’s a case of the whole economy bearing it and it has to be done in some sort of step by step process. We’ve gone one step further here in this legislation, and the comment of the opposition is that the step is not great enough. I appreciate those thoughts.

The member for Welland South (Mr. Haggerty) regretted that the time after which overtime would be paid has only gone from 48 to 44 hours. At least that’s the proposal. Here again our problem is dealing with many specific cases as opposed to general legislation. The member himself mentioned the seasonal work problem. He specifically mentioned highway construction. We all know that in highway construction they have a longer work season than they used to have, but it’s still a relatively short period.

I think over the years the pay of many highway workers has reflected the fact that they weren’t full-time workers the year round. Perhaps during the season they received a little higher rate than people doing similar work in industries that were full time. So, there may be some reflection in their basic pay scale of the fact that they do seasonal work, and they’re quite happy to work long hours when the weather is good so that they can build up as many hours at the regular rate as possible. However, I know what the member is saying: that 44 hours is a pretty long week. If I may be allowed a personal comment, Mr. Speaker, one summer I worked in the construction field, in highway construction, and I remember one week in which I put in 72 hours. That was all at the regular hourly wage, which was a pretty good wage.

Mr. Stokes: I’ll bet the minister didn’t agree with that.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): He does not want to be told.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I guess maybe the truth was I didn’t know any better in those days, but those were the terms. I’m just suggesting that we’ve come a long way from those war years. Of course, the war was on and that made a difference too. Many people were putting in long hours then; but it was a 72-hour week that I was paid for.

The member for Welland South raised the matter of bankruptcy, and we dealt with it in discussions before. The member for Windsor West also dealt with that. Certainly, I’d like to have a solution. I don’t believe, however, that we should be getting into a field that, at least in my mind, is so clearly that of the federal authority; that is, bankruptcy. We are watching with interest the fact that they have such legislation in British Columbia; my understanding is that it has not been challenged as of yet, and certainly if it is not challenged shortly, that may change our own position or own views in regard to it.

With some concern, and some interest as well, I noted the comments of the member for Windsor West in regard to pregnancy leave and his suggestion that perhaps we should have paternity leave that the men could benefit from as well. I know his thoughts in this regard, that perhaps the man could be as much help around the house after the arrival of a new child as the woman. In all of these things, however, when we are making progress in these fields of innovation, I think we’ve got to move not much faster than the general public will permit us to move. I’m not so sure that we have sold the general public on the full benefits of pregnancy leave, let alone getting into maternity leave. I think that if it involves a little education of the public, if that is the right way to go, then it requires more education and acceptance by the general public.

Mr. Bounsall: We will look forward to seeing it later.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It may be; but, as I say, we can’t get too far ahead of what the majority of the public are ready to accept and, in fact, what they want.

Night transportation is one matter that causes me considerable problems, Mr. Speaker. My answer to it is that our efforts should be geared to making our streets safer for everybody, rather than to some means of avoiding the streets. I think that’s what we have to do. There are suggestions being made that this works against women because we have clauses in our legislation which state that you can’t discriminate against women. Some women are suggesting that because that law is there, it is more difficult for them to get employment after 12 o’clock at night or in the night hours. Now, that may or may not be, but that is one thing they have used. Other shifts are ending at 11:45 p.m., or just before the night transportation comes on, as a means of avoiding it.

Mr. Bounsall: That is why we should tie it to transportation.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s the next point. The member’s suggestion is that we should supply all workers -- I suppose he means all hourly rated workers -- with some kind of night transportation; but then the problem is he is suggesting that should apply for men as well --

Mr. Bounsall: Right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Then do we tie it to all hours of work or just certain night hours? Because as soon as we tie it to specific hours of work, then we get somebody changing the shifts to try to avoid that. There are certain problems carrying it out: Everybody doesn’t want to go straight home after work either, and that sometimes leads to a few embarrassing situations.

However, all of these matters are always under review, and that is one of the things that causes some concern. But at this time I can’t see passing that benefit on to the male sector of the population; and unless we do pass it on to the male sector, I think the majority of organizations, such as labour movements and women’s movements, feel that there should not be discrimination in favour of the women either.

Mr. Speaker, I say my answer to the problem is to make our streets safe; and the more people we have on those streets, perhaps the safer they’ll be.

Mr. Bounsall: But we cannot do it with this bill.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But we also want to do it, of course, by way of public transit; and the more demand there is for public transit, rather than taxis, the better service we will enjoy in that field.

My friend from Windsor South also referred to termination pay. We have always taken the stand, Mr. Speaker, that it is not termination pay, but pay in lieu of notice. We do not want to get into competing with the work of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, which we feel should be looking after unemployment as such. But in regard to pay in lieu of notice, the purpose of that, of course, is that if termination is to be brought about for any reason we want the employee to have fair and reasonable notice so that not only he himself can take steps to readjust his situation to find other employment, to train himself if necessary, but so that our ministry as well, through our employment adjustment branch, can work with the person or persons involved and see whether or not we can help them.

I was interested in the remarks about the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. I am surprised to hear that, and I would like to get more private information from the member if I can to follow that up. As I say, I’m surprised to hear that.

Now, the member talked about the minimum wage; that Ontario is in sixth place. That is so if you take into consideration the Northwest Territories and the Yukon; and only then, of course, after the first of next year. The minimum wage is also continually under review. The member suggested that the review should be quarterly; we have been trying to work on a six-month basis so that we can give notice. Notice is important in some industries, and we want to give as much notice as possible. That matter is, as I say, constantly under review because of the problems of inflation.

The member also suggested that minimum wages become maximum. I suppose that’s inevitable; that’s the very nature of the Act. The minimum wage is the law, and regrettably there are many industries that work on a minimum wage. So to those people it does become, I suppose, the maximum. But it’s not a maximum as far as the law is concerned, nor as far as our hopes go. But you could say that about any minimum wage we set, no matter what the figure was, because that’s the very nature of the beast.

The member referred to two-thirds of the unorganized work force working at the minimum wage. I don’t really think that’s the case, unless we are just talking about labourers as such and those who are not organized; and there are many, of course. But I wouldn’t accept for one minute that two-thirds of the unorganized work force are working at minimum wage.

Mr. Bounsall: Minimum vacations.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Well, they may be at minimum vacations -- I don’t know that. But certainly I wouldn’t accept it as far as minimum wages go. I don’t know the figures on vacations; but that’s something we can discuss when this bill gets into committee, where I will have some of those figures for the member.

I think what the member for Thunder Bay was, in effect, asking for is a guarantee of employment. In other words, that a person could not be discharged from his job unless there was adequate reason, or the job itself came to an end. I know that that is the case with many union contracts, but it has never been the concept of the Employment Standards Act, as far as I know.

I don’t even know what consideration has been given to it, as far as employment standards are concerned. I can see it fraught with many difficulties, particularly when the number of employees is very small, and when a difference of opinion or a conflict of personalities develops between the employer and the employee.

I think the employee should be able to say: “Here, I have worked for this person long enough and I am fed up.” But I think it is a two-way street. Possibly the employer, over a course of time, just develops a personality conflict with one or two employees, and I think the employer has to have the same right as the employee. I will be glad to discuss it further, but I can’t see how --

Mr. Stokes: The employer in this case was Imperial Oil, so it wasn’t just a case of one or two.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right, that’s a big company and the philosophy wouldn’t be quite the same as the one I am suggesting it might be in a much smaller organization. They were not organized, is that right?

Mr. Stokes: No.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I will be glad to discuss that further with the member, because it is interesting.

Now, equal pay for women; the last point the member for Thunder Bay raised. I don’t know how you get over the ingenuity of man -- or woman -- in trying to --

Mr. Stokes: Circumvent.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- to circumvent this type of discrimination. Again, it’s a problem of education; of getting the public to accept this. We have tried to improve it in what we are doing here. I was speaking to somebody on Friday afternoon who was certainly not satisfied that this went far enough. Madeleine Parent was speaking to me on this as recently as Friday afternoon, and she says that she is not satisfied yet.

The present principle is equal pay for work that requires equal skill, effort and responsibility. The new principle is equal pay for work that is substantially the same and that requires substantially the same skill, effort and responsibility. Again, no matter how one draws the law, there may be somebody, such as in the case the member is giving, where one person works above ground, one person goes down a few feet and does the same type of work, and they differentiate on that basis. As long as we are making laws in regard to this, somebody is going to find ways of differentiating.

Certainly the ministry wants to do its best to make any discrimination that is there illegitimate -- that is a poor way to put it, but if there is a difference in pay, it must be on some legitimate basis rather than any kind of pure discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, I hope and wish that this bill should go to a standing committee so that many of the things that have been raised can be discussed more fully and with a more detailed reply than I have made here today, sir.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, before you put the question, I wonder if I could put a question to the minister on the principle of the bill?

Mr. Speaker: If the minister accepts it, yes.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I will accept it if I know the answer. On the principle of what?

Mr. Gisborn: A principal point in the bill.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, I will be glad to; I may not have the answer.

Mr. Gisborn: One of the principal points in this bill, as in any other bill, is those parts that are arranged by regulations, under the Lieutenant Governor’s permission. Last Monday we debated Bill 122, which was introduced by the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), and which wanted the caretakers and superintendents of apartments to be included in the bill; they are now in the exclusion portion. On the principle of this position, does the minister concur with the member for Scarborough Centre? And does he intend to have the superintendents, caretakers, etc., included in the bill in the future?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, just let me say I am sympathetic. It is difficult to put all of the round pegs in square holes and the legislation tends to make square holes of something; or you can put it the other way around. But there are all these categories. Farm labour, I suppose, is the prime example that is difficult to fit into the boxes that we make by our legislation.

We have it under review as far as the caretakers are concerned; there will have to be special provisions for them. I am sympathetic to the bill of the member for Scarborough Centre and the hope and the thought that are involved there. My ministry has it under study, and if we can find some way of fitting them in we will do so, but that is, of course, the obvious reason why we have to have regulations.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: It is my understanding from the minister’s comment that the bill will be referred to a standing committee of the Legislature.

Agreed.

LAND TRANSFER TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister is agreeable to sending this bill to standing committee along with the other bills that he has brought forward. Accordingly, I don’t think it necessary for my remarks to be but for a few moments.

There are a couple of points in the principle of the bill that I think are worthy of discussion. The first deals with the matter of the lease of land, where the minister is going to have the opportunity of having no tax placed on a lease on a term of 50 years or less, including renewals. It’s interesting to note that if the lease might be for the term of 50 years, in fact, the value of the consideration on which the land transfer tax is payable is to be the fair market value. One wonders if this term “fair market value” will apply to the whole term of the lease or just to the value of the term in excess of the 50 years. Presumably the minister by regulation could determine if it was to be the latter value, and I think it would be worthwhile to hear from the minister if that is his intention.

There are several other amendments in the bill, Mr. Speaker, which is otherwise generally a housekeeping bill. It’s interesting to note that the non-resident corporation shareholder matter has now apparently been finally defined. There were comments earlier on in the session concerning this problem when the original bills were discussed and when the matter of companies akin to the Tara Exploration Co., which changed its head office, were brought up as examples of corporations whose residential shareholders might for some federal purposes fit into federal legislation but not fit into provincial legislation.

It would now appear that the matter of non-residents is finally defined, based upon the residence or non-residence of the shareholders who control the corporation. This appears to be a reasonable and clear way of approaching the problem. I commend the minister for finally resolving what had appeared to be a slight problem, certainly one which would come before the courts without too much time having passed and one which might add some confusion to the kinds of tax policies which should otherwise be quite clear.

We were interested to note further in the first section that the matter of non-residency is dealt with with respect to a trust as well, so that appears now to have been defined and attended to.

I would ask the minister perhaps to give us some general explanation of the matters set out in section 7, wherein he deals with the repayments to non-resident persons who fit into certain categories. The information which is required, presumably by affidavit, as to the details that would allow a person to recover the difference between the 20 per cent tax being paid and the much lesser amount of 0.6 per cent is spelled out there. I’m wondering if the minister can give us some examples of how he sees this kind of situation working and whether the problem he expects will be a particularly large one.

There is, of course, set out later in that section the details of these matters and other requirements that the ministry is going to make in order to have certain of these conveyances to non-resident persons be at least put through some sort of a filter to make sure that if there are claims made for recompense of those taxes, they in fact fit in with the law of the province as we see it.

I don’t think there is anything more particular that one might say on second reading, Mr. Speaker. I commend the minister for clarifying at least some of the points that were raised earlier in the lengthy debates on this bill and, of course, on matters that related generally to the land speculation tax, which is also going to be brought forward and some changes to it made when we deal further with Bill 25.

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

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) also has a few comments to make during the course of this debate; I had intended to follow him rather than precede him, but I did want to make a couple of comments about the amendments.

As the member for Kitchener has already pointed out, a number of these amendments are consequent on experience that the government has had with the bill rather than making any major point on principle.

However, we were disturbed, I must say, at the decision to exempt leases of up to 50 years -- or 49 years. It seems to us that there should be a full discussion by the minister about that particular provision during the course of this debate, because it seems to us that yet another loophole is being put into the land transfer tax from the way in which it was originally installed.

If any investor wishes to evade the tax now, it is possible, as I understand it, for him to acquire a lease of 49 years or thereabouts. Presumably the question of whether there are options for the continuation or not is relevant. Nevertheless, given the patterns of commercial financing, I would have thought that in certain circumstances people would be quite happy to acquire property on a 49 or 49½-year basis, since the pattern of these leases has tended to be shorter over a period of time. It was our understanding that the intention of the bill was to try to discourage the entry of foreign money into the Ontario market and was intended to keep foreign speculators out of Ontario but they have now had the back door open for them in the form of the leases.

The second thing the government appears to be doing and on which I think the minister should comment, has to do with the exemptions that have been made. There have been a number of them. I believe they have all been made public, but I think that there should be a public statement by the minister related to the use of the exemption powers over the period since the bill was originally put forward. Second, it seems to me that the minister should defend the new powers and the decision to rewrite the powers which are put in section 7.

We are concerned that investment by foreigners in the residential land market, as I can see it here now, has been broadened to the point where the Land Transfer Tax Act is completely ineffective. It seems to us, on some examination of the bill -- and the member for Lakeshore may have some other comments on this -- that if it is possible for a non-resident to acquire land for the purpose of development and resale of land for residential, commercial and industrial purposes, then the foreign-based speculation in land, which, we understood, the tax was originally intended to curtail, is simply going to continue under the fiat of the minister. It may be that political contributions to the party in power will be required in order to get that kind of permission. It may be that there are certain time limits imposed so that long-term speculation in land or long-term landholding will not be permitted. Nevertheless, the interpretation and the rules under which this power of discretion is exercised are being removed completely from the Legislature, as far as we can see it from the proposed rewording of the bill.

It just doesn’t make any sense at all. It would appear that the bill’s main impact now is going to be in two areas. We are not in disagreement with either of those areas but, nevertheless, it will be only in those two areas. One would be on the purchase by foreigners of vacation and recreational property in Ontario where they would be discouraged because of the imposition of the 20 per cent tax. The other would be in the acquisition of real estate which is extant, which has already been built. Fine, okay. If a Hong Kong investor wants to buy an apartment which has been existing for several years, it would appear that he might have to pay the land transfer tax. But if that same investor is coming in and buying land in the area of South Milton, for example, which his company intends to develop and resell for residential purposes at some time in the future, that appears to be eminently permissible according to the government.

We don’t see any commitment there by the government to take away some of the people who have been pushing up the price of land for development or any commitment by the government to move into the land field and to take over the action from the private sector. There seems to be a mistaken and fallacious view on the part of the government that money that is put into land is somehow a contribution to economic activity here in Ontario. I would suggest that quite possibly the answer is the opposite, because the money that is put into land simply sweetens people’s pockets. It helps to raise the price of land -- of all land, not just the individual parcel of land that is bought. The profits from land have tended in the past to be put into further real estate speculation -- that is, into further land purchases -- rather than being put into productive investments, shall we say in the construction of apartment buildings.

If foreign resources are brought into this market, we don’t see why they shouldn’t be brought in in the form of mortgages and in the form of debt financing in order to permit the acquisition of the resources -- the lumber, the concrete, and the other things that you need in order to build property -- to build housing, to build commercial or industrial properties. But that’s not what the minister says here and that’s not what the government says here.

In effect, the government is now opening a second very broad loophole which will permit the renewed and widespread speculation by foreign investors in residential, industrial and commercial land provided they have the imprimatur of the minister. I don’t know what kind of restrictions the minister can put on that.

If he says, for example, that the permission will apply only if the land is to be developed within a year, then what does he do if there is some delay in servicing or some delay in planning, because of municipal action, or the ratepayers’ group, or the Ministry of Housing, or the Treasurer, which defers the commencement of residential construction beyond that period of time? What does he say if somebody purchases land which he intends to use for residential purposes, or says he intends to use for that purpose, five or 10 years in advance? How does he tax a corporation which is purely speculating in land for development in 10 years’ time, while he exempts a foreign controlled corporation which is acquiring a land bank which it says it intends to develop in 10 years’ time after it has used up the land bank that it has for four, six and eight years from now? Those kinds of distinctions are extremely difficult to draw, and it would seem to me that the right answer should be that the land remain in Canadian hands.

By all means let’s have foreign entrepreneurship in the form of construction expertise -- and there are vehicles, such as partnerships and so on -- so long as the government is going to rely as heavily as it does on the private sector. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we would suggest that rather than invite foreign speculators back into the Canadian market the public sector should be becoming much more active in the development and in the ownership of land.

Our feelings about the exemption for industrial purposes are very similar. We feel that there, too, this can be handled on a leasehold kind of basis, with the ownership remaining in Canadian hands rather than with the kind of exemption which the minister has allowed in this particular case and which the government is clearly committed to.

We will have a number of other comments to make during the committee stage of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I wish that the minister would rise on those two points, to say why the loopholes, why he is letting the speculators back in and how he has dealt with those discretionary powers over the past year.

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

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I must confess I was looking forward to hearing from the member for Lakeshore, but I guess I will have to defer that until we get into committee.

Both members who have spoken have touched on the matter of 50-year leases. The problems we confronted in administering the Act as it stood were mainly in the commercial end, where, although it is possible to value a lease with a straight form of monthly payment or yearly payment or whatever for a term of years, leases in the commercial sector were a different thing altogether. Many of these leases have a form of profit-sharing related to sales -- either gross or net profits, escalation clauses and the like -- and, therefore, from our administrative standpoint, it became impractical to endeavour to administer a land transfer tax. Under the Land Speculation Tax Act, the same problem arose too. In other words, to establish a present value for future income from a document known as a lease.

Initially, and by the terms of the regulatory powers reposed in the Lieutenant Governor in Council, we passed a regulation exempting leases up to 30 years, thinking that that would overcome most of the problems. But then it turned out that there were still a number of commercial enterprises in which leases of 30 plus 10 and 10 were not uncommon. These leases were related to mortgage financing in many cases and it was desirable, therefore, that the lease provision shouldn’t prejudice the mortgage financing that went along with it.

Therefore, it appeared to be practical to deal with leases of 50 years or less -- treat them as something less than a full conveyance of an interest in land greater than 50 years as though it were a conveyance of the fee.

I might just mention to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre that one of the objectives of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism was that Ontario land remain in Ontario hands, or at least not get out of Ontario hands. And when it came to leases, therefore, I am advised that their feeling was that they didn’t really care; because a leasehold interest eventually terminates whatever its term might be. It might be 50 years or 99 years or 999 -- I’m not sure I’d be happy about going along that long -- but their view was that a lease for a finite period of years eventually terminates.

Therefore, they were not concerned about the loss of our control of our land on the long-term basis, where the lease would eventually terminate. And so we selected a term of 50 years, and did so by regulation. And this amendment now confirms that regulation; it will make the regulation redundant.

But the amendments to the Act also establish other criteria for the placement of value. The hon. member for Kitchener touched on this point and was asking how we do value a lease. When you look at a lease in excess of 50 years, we really consider it a conveyance of the fee. We therefore value the land as though it were a conveyance of the land at that time, and fair market value for that parcel of land would have to be established and worked out with the ministry.

Mr. Breithaupt: At the time of the lease.

Hon. Mr. Meen: At the time when the lease is tendered for registration, that’s when our interest in seeing that justice is done arises; it’s triggered with the registration of the lease. And if at that time the term remaining is 50 years or less, then we’re not interested. But if it’s in excess of 50 years, then we take a look at the value of the leasehold interest as though it were a conveyance of the fee. And we determine the land transfer tax that would be payable as though it were a deed of conveyance.

The hon. members have asked for some explanation to the exemptions that have been granted. I was asked a question in the House the other day. I had hoped that I’d have the answers detailed so that I could give the answer in the House today during the question period, but regrettably the material was not available to me. I was only able to get it a few minutes ago.

I might just remind the hon. members of the question. I was asked by the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) what reason was there for me, as the minister, “for giving the land transfer tax in the case of the Kellogg Co. of Canada Ltd. in London.” And by way of supplementary he asked:

“how it is that he [myself] has to grant a company of that size a $5,000 tax forgiveness to construct a parking lot? Can he explain to us how he has maintained Canadian jobs in London which might not otherwise have been maintained; how that $5,000 was pivotal to the economic security of London?”

And the member for Kitchener, who spoke earlier, said:

“Mr. Speaker, I have a kind of supplementary. Would the minister provide us with the details of the other amounts that have been forgiven and the reasons for them, so that we can see that as a public record as well?”

I replied that I had the information and I would endeavour to assemble it and give it to the member. I have it here.

The exemptions that have been granted to date and gazetted are some 10 in number. I think in reviewing these it may help to set the stage and draw the picture for the manner in which we eventually established the criteria set out in section 7, particularly in subsections 1 and 4, I think, of the amending bill.

Electrolux (Canada) Ltd., for which there was a tax reduction of some $454,841, was already operating in Canada, and bought out another non-resident company in Brockville that was shutting down. The purchase not only protects existing jobs but is expected to create new ones. I am advised that the jobs that were protected at the time of that exemption so that the business could continue were some 200, or would be 200 within the next year or so, and they expect to have a total of 500 within five years.

The second one was Holmes Insulations Ltd., for which an exemption of some $800,000 was granted. Now this company was taken over by the acquisition of shares by Babcock and Wilcox Ltd. Holmes Insulations Ltd. was in financial difficulty and the sale will permit the continued operation and expansion of the plant in Sarnia. I am told approximately 100 jobs were retained by that refinancing that took place because of the infusion of capital from the non-purchasing by the non-resident company.

So there you see another principle.

White Motor Corp. of Canada Ltd. had a remission of some $70,000 in tax. This company was operating in Brantford and acquired an additional site for expansion and research facilities. That is still another principle that we think is in the interests of a growing economy here in Ontario. They are expecting some 100 jobs in 1975 and a total of 600 jobs by 1978.

Another one was Devereaux Canada Ltd., with a remission of some $90,000 of tax. This company was operating in Ontario, I am advised, and acquired a site near Bolton to establish a processing plant. I am advised that some 79 jobs would be expected in the first year, increasing somewhat to 111 jobs in about five years.

Xerox of Canada Ltd. had $369,000 of tax remitted. The company, through a number of subsidiaries, acquired a site for a new research centre. Most of the site had been acquired prior to April 10, 1974, and the tax relief applied for the remaining parcels in the block of land acquired. The new centre will result in new technology being brought to, and developed in, Ontario. We are advised that there will be some 500 jobs in the first year and about 1,000 jobs within four years.

CEB Ltd. had $107,200 of tax remitted. The company operates in Ontario, and bought a new building and property to replace rented accommodation. There had been a substantial commitment to the transaction prior to April 10, 1974. But entirely apart from that, which was one of our earlier criteria, of course, and is set out specifically, the fact remains that they were an ongoing operation and were expanding, replacing rented property.

Kellogg Co. of Canada Ltd., the subject matter of the question asked of me the other day, received a tax remission of $5,122. This was part of a plant expansion in London. The company had to provide additional parking space for employee cars and it acquired the land for this purpose. I might say, Mr. Speaker, I consider provision of parking areas for employees an integral function, certainly an ancillary function appropriate to any industrial or commercial operation.

The next one: Reynolds and Reynolds (Canada) Ltd., $349,305 tax remitted. This company operates in Ontario and had acquired buildings and land of another non-resident company in order to expand its operations.

The next one: Paul and Kay Orenstein and Kappell (Canada) Ltd., tax remission of some $131,055. The company purchased a plant in Dundas, Ont., which was in imminent danger of closing. The sale to the non-resident company followed unsuccessful attempts to locate a Canadian buyer. The plant’s operations are to be enlarged, thereby not only protecting existing jobs but also creating the opportunity for new jobs.

Lastly, among this list of 10: BDH Chemicals Ltd., a tax remission of $115,505. The company acquired property from another non-resident company in order to relocate and expand its present operations with some 50 jobs involved.

Mr. Speaker, that summation of the 10 exemptions granted and gazetted to date indicates the scope of the areas we found compelling as arguments for remission of the tax -- the creation of new jobs, the opportunities for new jobs, the bringing of new technology, the preservation of existing jobs. That kind of guideline became pretty clear to us as we heard these various arguments advanced by the companies seeking to have tax remitted. So the members will see those principles embodied in section 7 of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister exempt the purchase of a Canadian firm by a non-resident firm operating in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member’s question. If the non-resident corporation were in business in Canada on April 9, we would not preclude its extension of its operations. To do so, in our opinion, would be to tamper with an existing situation where a company has set up, is operating, and has employees who, we think, have every right to anticipate a future with their company, the creation of new jobs and the growth of that company. Therefore, we would consider it to be appropriate. That’s one of the exemptions in the section.

Mr. Cassidy: Has the minister done that so far?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think the answer to the member’s question is yes.

I think the member for Kitchener also referred to section 7(1) and the proposed guidelines for deferral. Section 7(1) is quite an elaborate one and I’d be happy to go into it in greater detail in committee. I don’t know whether it would be of use to the members to review just some of the areas of exemption contemplated, or deferral contemplated by section 7(1).

Clause (a), for example, deals with the “acquisition of land by a non-resident for the purpose of purchase of residential, commercial or industrial development and for resale.” In that case, if the purchaser is a non-resident the high rate of tax will apply, but if not, then on the resale to a resident it would be at the lesser rate. That’s the way subsection (a) would work.

I’m going to clarify my thinking here. Clause (a) of section 7 deals with “acquisition of land by a non-resident for the purpose of purchase of residential, commercial or industrial development and for resale.”

On that basis, the minister may with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor defer the payment of the tax, or remit the tax if it has been paid, on such conditions as to the use and development of the lands as are considered advisable.

Clause (b) refers to relocation of an existing active business where the non-resident undertakes to obtain necessary zoning changes. We’ve seen a number of instances where an existing non-resident property owner wished to purchase the property adjacent. That property may well be zoned agricultural or might be zoned for some use not appropriate to the non-resident purchaser’s intended use. We would say to him, “We will not give you an exemption now but we will give you a deferral. If you obtain the necessary rezoning, then there would be tax applied only at the lesser rate.” And so on down through these various subsections -- and I direct this observation to the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), Mr. Speaker -- I think we’ll be able to give him illustrations for each type of case we would anticipate encountering under these various subclauses.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand this is to go to standing committee?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Justice committee please, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: So ordered.

ALGONQUIN FORESTRY AUTHORITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier moves second reading of Bill 155, An Act to incorporate the Algonquin Forestry Authority.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will permit me, I have a short statement to put on the record prior to the debate beginning.

Mr. Speaker, I’d just like to make a statement in connection with the second reading of the Algonquin Forestry Authority bill, which was tabled in the Legislature and given first reading last week. The hon. members will by now have had the opportunity to study the bill. Before the debate gets under way, I’d like to describe briefly the purpose and the effect of this important piece of legislation.

It follows the recommendations of the Algonquin advisory committee, whose final report I tabled in July, 1973. The overall aim of the forestry authority will be to conduct logging in Algonquin Park.

After an extensive seven-year study of the park, it was determined that logging is essential in the park both for silviculture reasons and for the economic health of the Algonquin area. Recognizing the necessity for logging, my ministry concluded that the most effective, the most efficient and the least disruptive way to conduct logging in the park would be by a Crown corporation.

The advantages of such a Crown corporation will be obvious to the hon. members. First, it will facilitate a close control over logging operations in the park. Secondly, it will permit better utilization of timber resources, enabling more products to be obtained from fewer trees. Third, it would be much less disruptive than the 18 separate companies that now operate in the various areas of the park. Fourth, it will allow the ministry to direct logging operations so that purely therapeutic logging can also be carried on, that is the felling of trees that have no market value but should be cut for good silviculture management.

The forestry authority is one element in a series of moves to ensure that Algonquin Park will remain a healthy, green, recreational area for the people of Ontario in perpetuity. The other elements include the development of a master plan for Algonquin Park and the creation of a parks council that will oversee the implementation of a master plan for Algonquin Park as well as advising my ministry on all the parks in the province. The creation of the Algonquin Forestry Authority is an important step forward in the best possible management of Ontario’s most important recreational resource, Algonquin Park.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to spend just a moment or two refreshing your memory, sir, and perhaps those of others as to some of the events that have led up to the introduction of this bill.

After the park was established in the late 1800s, it did not change significantly from its previous use; and that had been as an area which had been extensively logged right from the city which now is known as Ottawa, through the area up into North Bay and beyond.

We can admire the foresight of the members of the Legislature in those days, but since that time the area of Algonquin Park has been treated very much as other logging areas, and it is with the introduction of this bill that the minister tends to establish the imprimatur of continuing logging and the exploitation of those particular natural resources on a permanent basis.

We feel very strongly that the government should at least accept the goal of phasing out the logging operations over a period of time -- if necessary, a substantial period of time -- and that the decision to establish this authority is not in the best interests of the whole of the community of Ontario, or even the many people in this part of North America who look on Algonquin Park as one of the finest examples of a natural park anywhere in the world -- and we have it here in Ontario.

Over a number of years, and through the responsibilities of a number of ministers, we have been treated to various attempts to come to grips with the problem that is before us today in the form of Bill 155. An advisory committee was established, including most of the members of the Legislature in the areas directly concerned; it was chaired by no less an eminent citizen than Leslie Frost himself. His qualifications were undoubted as an outdoorsman. Personally, he didn’t politically trade on that; he was a bona fide outdoorsman and he knew many parts of Algonquin Park personally and well.

The appointment was an interesting one and had the political usefulness, as far as the then government was concerned, of putting this problem on the shelf for probably a total of five years. My colleague, the member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith) served on that advisory committee; and, as it was his responsibility to do he referred to it from time to time in our caucus and we were able at least to observe the changing attitudes of members of that advisory committee over a fairly long period of time.

The announcement of the forestry authority was made palatable at the time because it contained the statement that no less a personage, once again, than former Premier John Robarts would have the chief executive authority in operating that authority when it came into being. There were complaints in the Legislature from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre among others, that Mr. Robarts had what amounted to a conflict of interest because of the interlocking directorships which he had received since leaving political life.

Whatever the case, Mr. Robarts’ involvement soon receded into something less than public awareness, and I think he very properly indicated to the minister’s Premier (Mr. Davis) that he was not prepared to participate because the feeling in the community was that his usefulness probably would have been diluted, if not lost entirely, because of his other interests.

There have been very strongly feelings expressed by many people in the community that while the wood resources in the park are considerable, we ought at least to accept the principle that in the long run the park must be put over completely for public use and that at the same time we must make the commitment that in the long run, those industries and individuals who depend on it for their livelihood must in no way suffer personally or financially. This then must be accompanied by government planning in those areas in Renfrew, Nipissing, Parry Sound and Muskoka, and I suppose to some extent in Victoria county and Haliburton, so that the wood resources are going to be replaced from some other source or industrial changes will be such that people are going to have an opportunity to continue their way of life in that particular area and not have to give up anything by way of employment or remuneration on behalf of a policy which we believe would be acceptable to the province as a whole.

Because it is acceptable to the province as a whole, we believe the government must involve itself in this kind of long-range planning, and we on this side regret that the government has made no such statement, that it has not accepted that as a goal. For that reason we cannot support the bill in principle.

I would particularly have liked to have seen some further discussion on the establishment of a commission operating in Algonquin Park in the same way that it is operated with substantial success in the Niagara Parks area and in the St. Lawrence Parks area; those areas which have come into substantial and increasing use by the citizens of this part of the province and the northern United States, who have come into the area in greater and greater numbers and, in fact, want to feel that the parks are for their utilization.

We certainly do not want to see a huge inroad of tourist utilization, even camper utilization, without very careful planning in any of these park systems, and this is particularly true of the Algonquin situation.

We have been interested in the discussion that has taken place between the minister and the leader of the NDP over the availability of other wood resources in a 50-mile area of Algonquin. It is to some degree unfortunate that the report authored by G. Pierpoint and made available a few days ago by the minister, came so late in the sequence of events leading up to the debate on the principle of this bill.

We were not prepared to support the NDP when they say this is simply an apologia for the government’s policy. We simply must accept the background of Mr. Pierpoint and those others who assisted him. Dr. Frank Raymond is another. Surely their professional assets and their reputation are such that the report must be accepted as a valuable one in the discussions pertaining in this regard.

I do, however, regret that the emphasis on the so-called 50-mile limit has been to the exclusion of other hardwood resources in the province. When we talk of 3,000 jobs associated with the lumbering industry in Algonquin, it has never been made clear what these jobs entail; whether, in fact, this includes the manufacturing interests, for example, in the town of Woodstock, which depends upon the supply of yellow birch, or how many people have come into the province from Quebec to work in the woods in some of these operations. I believe the statistics associated with this argument that has been put forward by the government have been sparse indeed, and have not been deep enough in their community ramifications to be as significant as the minister and some of his supporters indicate they are.

I would hope that during this debate, perhaps in committee, there would be further information available as to the number of jobs and the distribution of the jobs on which the people in the local community depend, and as to what would be the alternative responsibility if the other policy had been accepted and the goal of eliminating logging in the long run had been a part of government policy.

The other thing is that we should be aware that across this province, not on Crown land so much as on privately-held land, there are many hardwood bush lots which have not been properly developed -- and I suppose, to be fair, I must use the word exploited -- so that the mature timbers could be made use of for the financing of farming operations and for the supply of hardwood for that industry, which is an important part of the woods industry in this province as a whole.

Setting the 50-mile limit has excluded the possibility of the utilization of those resources even down in the farming areas of southwestern Ontario. There was a time when southwestern Ontario was covered with very fine hardwood stands, maple particularly as well as oak and other woods. Very few 100-acre farms are without their 10 to 20-acre bush lots, which in my view have not been adequately used, developed and exploited as an aspect of the farming industry. I believe the argument that the industry depending on yellow birch, and maple particularly, would have to go out of existence is not a valid argument; and the argument that Algonquin Park would have to keep producing these hardwood logs for that purpose is, therefore, an irrelevant one in this connection.

The 50-mile limit that was established by the question put forward by the leader of the NDP, and responded to in the Pierpoint report, is for that reason, in my view misleading to that extent in the discussion of the issue that is an important one and that lies before us at the present time. It has not been made clear either whether the survey of the availability of hardwoods, yellow birch and other sources of wood material, has had included within it the reference to those resources from privately-held land or whether the emphasis is only on Crown land entirely.

I would say again, Mr. Speaker, that I think it is unfortunate the alternative of establishing a park commission, which would have something more than just the overseeing of the removal of logs, has not had a larger place in the minister’s thinking. He announced just a few weeks ago a further advisory committee that would have responsibility in Algonquin and for other parks. The idea of establishing an authority dealing exclusively with the removal of timber seems to be far away from the general line of the citizens of this province, who were concerned obviously with the livelihood of the people who live in those communities, but who are also concerned with the preservation of one of our most valuable resources, particularly in its wilderness aspects. This alternative is one to which the minister might have given further consideration, particularly since it was reviewed by the advisory committee meeting over a number of years, and which he has rejected.

The acceptance and the establishment of a general master plan has also given rise to some questions in the minds of those people who have been very definitely concerned with the future of Algonquin Park. Statistics can be put forward in such a way that the area actually utilized for the removal of logs appears to be insignificant, but there are those who frequent the park -- and I must admit to you, sir, that I am not one, unfortunately -- who have indicated that the intrusion of the logging interests is a serious one as far as the wilderness aspects of the park are concerned, and one which must concern us all.

I am very much of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has not given sufficient weight to those people who are also expert in the management of forests and in the provision of a proper park management in general, who contend that the continuation of a logging interest -- which will probably be stepped up, rather than phased out -- is anything but in the best interests of the community at large.

The minister shakes his head and indicates his policy will be to maintain it at its present level. If that is the case, then surely over a period of several years, as a matter of policy which should be enunciated at this time, we could establish the goals which I have put before you, Mr. Speaker, and which I and other members of my party have indicated we are prepared to support.

The concept of this legislation is that even though the authority is undoubtedly ours, we bypass the examples, which have been fruitful ones indeed, of the establishment of commissions at Niagara -- and I see that the chairman of the Niagara Parks Commission is here -- and other centres. This concept, Mr. Speaker, is one which really indicates the government is not prepared to learn from their own experience.

I have also been very much concerned that the minister has indicated that the main value of the authority envisaged in this bill is to control the removal of the logs. After all, he is the minister of the ministry of Natural Resources, which has as its prime requirement the inspection and the supervision of the laws and regulations which are enacted under the authority of this Legislature. To establish another intermediary body, which in fact has as its main responsibility a logging operation rather than the supervision of a logging operation, seems to fly in the face of good sense.

The authority is at present resident with the minister and he has access to plenty of officials and inspectors and those people who can enforce that authority in and out of the park if he wants to continue a logging operation, whether he phases it out or not. To hand this over to an authority dealing specifically with that area is a concept which seems difficult to accept, since the authority already rests with the ministry.

There was a time when I was very much in favour of the concept of putting a barrier of people, appointed rather than elected, between the power of a minister and a specific responsibility. I don’t feel that way now. I feel that it is much too difficult for a public reaction to impinge on such a commission or an authority as would be established here; whereas the minister, who has the day to day responsibility to answer for his decisions and his administration in this House, is much easier to contact by the public, and I would say further by the representatives of the public, the members of this House.

I find the bill regrettable on those specific counts. It accepts the concept of logging in perpetuity. It resorts to the argument that, in fact, it is good for the forest to have the logs removed, rather than the acceptance of the concept that this is a special area set apart by our predecessors almost a century ago in this House with the concept that it is to be used as a park by the people of this province and others who travel here.

Most of the parks established by the province, and all of the parks established nationally, expressly prohibit this sort of utilization or exploitation. It is therefore regrettable, as we see the importance of Algonquin increasing year by year, that the government is prepared to accept the concept of the continuation of this utilization. I don’t suppose, Mr. Speaker, much can be gained by talking about the alternative for the woods industry in the 50-mile area or even from the resources of the province at large. The minister feels, as a matter of policy, that it is essential the logging operations be continued.

I would say to him, whether he decides it is essential now or in the future, there will be a change coming in this province and it is essential that a phase-out operation be established as a plan for the area. It is possible to do this, surely, without infringing on the rights of the people there for continuing employment with a standard of living which should be increasing rather than decreasing.

We believe in this party this is the future for that area. When we are talking about alternatives, we are not talking about the alternatives bound up with early retirement and simply make-work programmes, but about the sort of plan for that part of eastern and central Ontario which has been lacking in the past and which continues to be a very serious vacuum in general government policy.

I must say we do believe very strongly that a good deal more should be done for the development of the park along the lines of those matters that were put forward not only by the original advisory committee but also by other groups that have been involved in this in recent months. The minister seems to have put aside most of these considerations with his concentration on the continuation of logging.

We would hope that government policy would establish the kind of park governance that has worked well elsewhere, that the government would accept a goal of eliminating the logging practice; and that we would have a type of master plan which would emphasize the wilderness aspects rather than the manicuring aspects of the park. Along with this, a plan for the development of the whole area would ensure that neither industries nor individuals would be lacking in opportunity if the acceptance of our alternative were to become a fact.

We believe, further, that the government has not played fairly, either with the members of this House or the citizens in the area in that they have consistently been unwilling or unable to provide the statistics associated with the utilization of the wood facilities or a direct statistical survey of the employment that is now a part of the wood industry based on Algonquin logging. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues will be unable to support this bill in principle.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I have some extended comments to make on the bill. I would think they will take half an hour or so or 20 minutes to half an hour. Do you want me to begin now or would you like to call the private members’ hour?

Mr. Speaker: There are about six minutes. Perhaps you could make your introductory remarks.

Mr. Lewis: Sure that’s fine. I have no objections at all.

Let me say, Mr. Speaker, just as an introduction, as the minister opposite would guess we intend to oppose this bill as the Liberal Party does. We will not under any circumstances support the constitution of an authority whose job it is to perpetuate logging in Algonquin Park. If the minister had come to us and said we want to have an Algonquin Park authority which will supervise the phasing-out of logging in Algonquin Park over a given number of years, then because we in this party believe in Crown corporations and because we believe that that would have been an intelligent proposal, we would have supported him happily. But to set up an authority whose job it is to maintain logging in Algonquin is something we will never support, because we consider the minister’s fixation with Algonquin to be destructive; it indicates that the government is determined, to gradually, systematically desecrate parts of Algonquin and to force an incompatibility on the park between the logging on one hand and the use by people on the other, which cannot be countenanced. Therefore, the bill cannot be supported.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, and I agree with him, one of the most irritating and frustrating aspects of this debate is that it hinges to some degree -- not totally, but to some degree in any event -- upon the question of alternatives for Algonquin Park. Many of us, recognizing the implied dislocation for the work force when logging is phased out of the park -- when and if logging is phased out of the park -- wanted to have an alternative. The alternative obviously had to be contained in a radius very proximate to the park or it wouldn’t be manageable or practicable. So the possibility of finding equivalent amounts of softwood and hardwood outside the park within a 50-mile radius became the argument.

That battle was joined in a sense when the ministry’s division of forests sent to my office on May 27, 1974, the figures for allowable cut and actual cut of conifers and hardwood inside and outside the park. They seemed to demonstrate on first analysis -- to us, in any event -- that there was plenty of wood outside the park that could satisfy the requirements, and why the devil were we indulging ourselves in hatcheting the park, both metaphorically and actually.

The minister has tried to respond to that by giving us a document by Mr. Pierpoint of his forest research branch, analysing the woods contents and availability of timber in the 50-mile radius outside the park in order to demonstrate that we must rely on Algonquin.

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make a point that isn’t going to satisfy anybody. I am going to deal with this report. There are, I may say, a couple of quite remarkable statistical inaccuracies in the report. I have all the respect in the world for Mr. Pierpoint, but his electronic calculators have one or two things wanting -- I will come to that at 8 o’clock -- when even I, as a layman, reading it in the second half of the Grey Cup, Mr. Speaker, found arithmetic errors. My nine-year-old daughter discovered one of them, and she is not as accomplished in the arts of arithmetic as Mr. Pierpoint. But who knows? To the young are vouchsafed insights never given to those of more mature timbre, as it were.

I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is irritating beyond belief that a report comes down on a Thursday, on which is based the whole argument, and we have to debate the bill on a Monday without any real opportunity to analyse the document. I think that’s wrong. Again I want to say, through the Speaker to the minister, as part of second reading, albeit a slight diversion: This is exactly what is killing the Legislature of Ontario, this kind of basic contempt for the democratic process.

We have had a debate raging for nearly six months now, with competing figures and competing references, as to whether or not we could supply the requirements for the entire woods industry and all the employees. Then the minister provided us with a report on Thursday, a scholarly document which I assume Mr. Pierpoint took at least two or three months to put together, and he gives us no time at all to subject it to some outside or independent interpretation ourselves.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I understand the House leader’s dilemma. I don’t want him to view this in any sense as a personal rebuke. He has to call on the minister and he has to call the bill, but it’s wrong to call the bill at this time. To have delayed it until Wednesday or Thursday or Friday or next Monday would not have made one jot of difference to logging in Algonquin. It might have allowed us to measure the weight and substance of this document. And the refusal to allow us the time to even meet -- my colleague from Thunder Bay said to the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources at the end of last week, “Could we meet with you?” Now, how much better faith can we have than that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That is not right.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister telling me that the hon. member for Thunder Bay isn’t telling the truth? Come on now!

Mr. Stokes: Is that what the minister is saying?

Mr. Lewis: There are some things that really defy credulity.

Mr. Stokes: Is that what he’s saying?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Thunder Bay told me that at the end of last week he would attempt to arrange with the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources --

Mr. Stokes: The assistant deputy.

Mr. Lewis: The assistant deputy minister -- his name escapes me.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Ringham was there.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Ringham, that’s a name.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They agreed, but the member didn’t get back to them.

Mr. Stokes: Art Herridge.

Mr. Lewis: Art Herridge.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They agreed but the member didn’t get back to them.

Mr. Stokes: Didn’t get back? We agreed to meet tomorrow morning.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: With whom?

Mr. Stokes: With Art Herridge. We agreed to meet tomorrow morning.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I see it is 5 o’clock, you see how time passes?

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Let’s have some co-operation from the minister.

Mr. Lewis: It was an effort to meet with the ministerial people involved to try to look at the contents of this report. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is approaching it in good faith, to understand what the ministry is trying to accomplish.

Let me tell the minister, this corrupt ministry -- whether it’s mercury pollution, Elliot Lake or Algonquin Park -- this corrupt, deficient, incompetent ministry can’t even take the time to do that in a civilized fashion. We’ll deal with that after 8 o’clock.

Mr. Lewis moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR:

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

Mrs. Campbell moves second reading of Bill 47, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, the amendment which I am proposing lies between the non-productive rigid position of rent control and the laissez-faire let-the-marketplace-decide position of the government.

There is no question that rigid rent control has a very prolonged and far-reaching effect. But when I hear the deputy minister publicly state that this government’s answer to the problems of tenants in the Province of Ontario is to have them call him if they’re having a problem, then, of course, it’s quite apparent that there is no policy flowing from this government to meet the needs of the people.

I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Braithwaite) has also expressly asked me to have him joined with my remarks, since he is experiencing the same problems that I am.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That removes all credibility from the bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Consider the source, Mr. Speaker.

In spite of pleas for protection from countless tenants across the province and from at least one municipality -- and I’m referring, of course, to Toronto -- no action has yet been taken, either to give security of tenure to tenants or to provide some recourse against the exorbitant increases that are being experienced in most of our urban centres.

Mr. Speaker, tenants are quickly becoming the majority group in our population. The incidence of home ownership is declining in Ontario, from 67.1 per cent in 1961 to 62.9 per cent in 1971. In large urban areas the story is even more discouraging. In Metropolitan Toronto, home ownership has declined from 59.9 per cent in 1966 to 51 per cent in 1971. In the city of Toronto, the 1971 census reveals the predominance of tenants over owners -- 58.4 per cent of dwellings tenant-occupied, 41.6 per cent owner-occupied.

The group we are concerned about today is very large in our population and quickly becoming a majority. It should not be necessary to cite examples of the rent increases that we are all so concerned about. Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe even the deputy minister was very surprised when he was on a talk show that people were phoning in to give him figures which contradicted the figures that he was giving on behalf of the government.

Our offices are receiving complaints daily. Thousands of moderate-income families are paying far too high a percentage of their incomes for shelter. My party believes it is absolutely imperative that tenants be protected from unjustifiable increases in rents, and most especially in the present situation of the extreme shortage of moderate-income accommodation -- or moderate-cost accommodation, depending upon your point of view.

There is no alternative housing available. Families are forced to pay these exorbitant increases, and obviously some other part of the budget suffers -- be it food or whatever. In many situations they have one choice, and that is to go without necessities. There is one other alternative, and that is doubling up. There is no question in my mind at all, Mr. Speaker, that the doubling up of families is occurring at an unprecedented rate. In addition, we have known incidences of actual homelessness.

Of course, this is further aggravated as a problem by the change from rental accommodation to condominium. That kind of conversion is also affecting this particular group in the community.

We believe equally that the landlord must be protected from tenants who do not meet their rent obligations, or who abuse the property. The bill makes provision for that situation.

What I am proposing in this bill is quite straightforward, quite clear. We are requesting that there be established in all municipalities over 50,000 in population, landlord and tenant review boards. Of course, that is a mandatory provision. The objects of the boards are set out in the Act under section C:

“(a) to advise landlords and tenants in tenancy matters;

“(b) to receive complaints and seek to mediate disputes between landlords and tenants;

“(c) to disseminate information for the purpose of educating and advising landlords and tenants concerning rental practices, rights and remedies;

“(d) to receive and investigate complaints of conduct in contravention of legislation governing tenancies;

“(e) to conduct hearings concerning rent increases, to allow the increase or order the landlord to decrease or freeze the rent;

“(f) to conduct hearings concerning vandalism and damage to premises by tenants and to order a tenant to be removed from premises where wilful damage has occurred;

“(g) to conduct hearings concerning rent arrears by a tenant where the arrears are for two months or more, and to order a tenant to be removed from premises where the arrears in rent are substantial.”

Each board must have the right to subpoena witnesses and documents. On the basis of the evidence before it, the board would hold the rent at the present level as suggested or deal with it in accordance with the provisions of the amending legislation.

We also believe that if a landlord proposes to increase the rent there should be reasonable notice to the tenant -- we say approximately three months, although that is not hard and fast in our proposal -- to allow the tenant time to notify the board that the tenant wishes a hearing.

I was very pleased to hear the deputy minister advise the people calling in on this show that he agrees with this, in part, and with some of the features of the proposed legislation, and that he felt there had to be some move toward granting greater security of tenure to tenants. Certainly, in the city of Toronto there are many people who are unable to obtain a lease at all. A one-year lease in many cases has now been reduced to six months and there is simply no built-in security whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how to get through to this government the urgency of this particular situation as I see it, and not only in my riding. I’m sure any other person representing a Toronto riding would have to know this is a major concern. My friend from Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman) will be discussing the concern and the problems in his area.

Ontario Housing Corp. cannot provide all of the accommodation for people in this province, nor do I feel that it ought to. But when you have a situation today where people are really forced, where they’re under duress and have no place to go, to have a government sit silent on this subject is completely unbelievable to me, as well as being absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, while all of this is going on, there is another problem that faces the people living in apartments -- that is, with the doubling up that has to occur if people are to survive, there is a deterioration in many cases in the maintenance of buildings. This is not entirely the fault of the landlord. Elevators don’t work, partly because they were designed to take a certain load depending upon the design of the building, and once you’ve doubled the number of persons in the building, naturally, this sort of thing gets out of hand.

Surely it is incumbent upon the builders to have some kind of responsibility to the people of this province and not to take what the market will bear, but to assure us that what they are charging is fair, having regard to their particular expenses. There is no doubt that some of their expenses have gone up. They’re increased greatly, taxes probably being the first that one could look to, as have water, hydro, the cost of staff for maintenance and security. There is no question in my mind that the owner of buildings is entitled to have consideration given for the increases in the costs which he faces.

By the same token, however, we can be told that, of course, rents have not been increasing as fast as other features until recently. This is the apology of the government to the people at this point -- that actually the developers are only trying to catch up with what other people have been experiencing by way of increases in other commodities over the years. That, Mr. Speaker, is just not a good enough answer, particularly when one looks at the importance of housing to the people of this province.

Certainly if Ontario Housing or the ministry had been able to get further into the field of housing instead of simply developing schemes on paper, perhaps the situation wouldn’t have been so bad as it is at the present time. We see no particular thrust toward real new building, although we do hear a great deal about new proposals which will basically take effect, maybe in 1976. But what are people going to do right now?

I wish, Mr. Speaker, that this particular debate could be carried on in a non-partisan fashion, because I think, and I submit to you, this is a matter critical to the people of the province and we should all be looking for some solution to this situation.

I understand that a review is currently going on of the Landlord and Tenant Act. But a review, Mr. Speaker, has to have some terminal point, and if there were a review it should have had an answer to us months ago. I don’t see how the members on the government side have escaped hearing of the problems. I can’t understand why they haven’t put their minds to bear on this situation.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. When people become frightened, when they become anxious, where they have no security of tenure, where they see that their rents can increase month to month, as in some cases is happening -- it is happening here. The member is shaking his head --

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): It’s terrible.

Mrs. Campbell: But it is happening here.

Mr. Cassidy: The member is probably doing it, too.

Mrs. Campbell: -- then you have people who will not sit idly by and wait, and the government face a continuing and growing demand for rent controls. There is no doubt of that in my mind. The fact that Toronto has asked for it is just a start.

Mr. Speaker, I have used up my available time. I would hope that some of the things I’ve said will cause the government to give thought to these concerns. But as I look about me I have that horrible feeling that I have in debate here, that there are so few in the House --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): We are listening.

Mrs. Campbell: -- there are so few concerned -- at least, they appear not to be concerned -- and you wonder if you are just standing here for the sake of hearing yourself speak --

An hon. member: No, the member is not.

Mrs. Campbell: -- over something which is as vital as this is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have the member for Algoma down for the second speaker.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How does that happen?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the member for Wentworth had to sit down and let me speak. When I think of how efficient --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I would have thought the chairman of the caucus would have --

Mr. Gilbertson: -- the members are, I am just one of the --

Mr. Deans: What’s this got to do with the bill?

Mr. Gilbertson: I am just more or less pinch-hitting, but --

Mr. Deans: What the member is really saying is that he has nothing to say, so he will spend the time saying nothing.

Mr. Gilbertson: No, no, that’s not it.

Mr. Deans: It is.

Mr. Gilbertson: That’s not it.

Mr. Deans: Well, say it then.

Mr. Gilbertson: That’s not it. I am concerned about --

Mr. Deans: Don’t waste other members’ time.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- about landlords and tenants.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): How many apartments has the member for Algoma got in his riding?

Mr. Gilbertson: I have had the occasion to be involved.

Mr. Deans: As a landlord or a tenant?

Mr. Gilbertson: And, I know that --

Mr. Deans: Was the member a landlord or a tenant?

Mr. Gilbertson: The first thing I want to do is to congratulate and commend the member for St. George for taking the initiative to bring forth this particular bill. I think that many times when a person brings forth a bill like this, even though it doesn’t become legislation -- they tell me that it’s very seldom that a private member’s bill ever becomes legislation --

Mr. Dean: We don’t need a lesson on how the House operates. Talk about content.

Mr. Gilbertson: But it has happened; it has happened -- and maybe this could be the time that --

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Does the member support it?

Mr. Gilbertson: -- the government would see fit to pick this up and --

Mr. Deans: Would the member support a free vote now?

Mr. Gilbertson: -- it would become legislation. I understand that a few years ago one of the opposition members introduced a private bill, and it became legislation.

Mr. Ferrier: We don’t want the member to lay a heavy on the subject.

Mr. Gilbertson: And it was that fine member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) -- would it be?

Mr. B. Newman: Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gilbertson: Huron-Bruce.

Mr. B. Newman: He is a fine member.

Mr. Gilbertson: Now, it is very unusual that a private member’s bill becomes legislation, but in this particular case it did.

Mr. Ferrier: One of the bills of the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) became legislation.

Mr. Gilbertson: Now, I know the purpose of this bill. We have many landlords in Ontario and many tenants, and so many different kinds of things can happen on either side. There can be unscrupulous landlords and tenants; and they can create an awful lot of controversy. If you get a bad tenant, he can practically ruin an apartment. Also, landlords can take advantage of tenants and raise rents unduly, and so on. I am sure that a bill like this for a tenants’ review board, may not be such a bad idea.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Let’s have a free vote.

Mr. Gilbertson: I say again, it is important for members to take the initiative, whether it is on the opposition side or the government side, to bring in a private bill. I think every one of us should put our thinking caps on, because even though it doesn’t become legislation, it will be food for thought.

I have said before and I will say it again, that there are often times when the government will pick up these ideas and eventually one will see a bill introduced in the House that will be very similar to a private member’s bill, perhaps. So I think it’s a very good idea. I have read this bill over. I am not completely familiar with it, but I have looked at it.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s an accomplishment.

Mr. Gilbertson: I would say practically every bit of this bill is something that would be really constructive. The hon. member suggests in her bill how many members should be on the board and so on. When we think of establishing boards, we also think of the remuneration involved, the cost and so on. I don’t suppose she could suggest how much these members should get -- the chairman and the vice-chairman and the rest of the members.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): That’s a matter for regulations.

Mr. Gilbertson: I suppose it wouldn’t be too difficult. They would soon find out because the first thing a board member wants to know when it gets established is, “What is there in it for me? How much of my time is going to be taken up?”

Mr. Deans: No, there are a few people who would do it for nothing. There are some of us who do something for nothing occasionally, unlike people opposite.

Mr. Gilbertson: I’m sure the member never turned down his remuneration.

Mr. Deans: No, but I sat on a landlord-tenant bureau for nothing.

Mr. Gilbertson: The member did?

Mr. Deans: Yes.

Mr. Gilbertson: Well, he must have had something in mind for later then.

Mr. Deans: I had something in mind. They needed representation; that’s why.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the member just continue his discourse?

Mr. Ferrier: The member for Algoma shouldn’t judge everyone by himself.

Mr. Deans: Discourse? Come, come!

Mr. Gilbertson: I notice section 1, subsection 2 of the bill says: “The council of every municipality, where the population of the municipality is greater than 50,000 persons -- ”

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the member read the whole bill into the record?

Mr. Gilbertson: -- “shall by law establish a landlord and tenant review board subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.” I must say in the area where I come from we don’t have to worry too much about that much of a population, but we do have our difficulties up there.

Mr. Deans: And the member is one of them.

Mrs. Campbell: He should be happy to accept the amendment.

Mr. Gilbertson: These are on a smaller scale, I would say to the hon. member for St. George, but we have every bit the same content of difficulties.

I am sure there will be others, I would say to the member, who will be speaking on this. I don’t know what their comments will be but I have read this over --

Mr. Stokes: He agrees with it.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- and it looks to me as though it is a pretty good bill.

Mr. Deans: Well drafted on nice paper.

Mr. Gilbertson: I say again with the magnitude, the money and the number of people involved this is a very good idea. I think the member had a good thought there. I would say to the member that I am looking favourably on this bill of hers.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): The member should use his influence and have this bill enacted tomorrow.

Mr. Gilbertson: I didn’t get that interjection. Maybe it is just as well. I understand that the member for Wentworth will be making comments on this bill too, and there will be others. Mr. Speaker, I will just sit down and let someone else have an opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to begin by saying to the member for St. George I am in support of the principle of the bill, I don’t think there is any doubt that on this side of the House there is major support for the principle of establishing some form of control of rentals. I don’t necessarily agree with each clause in the bill but we would debate that, if it ever came to a clause-by-clause debate.

I want to say that the problem that we have got is the result of the inaction of the government in the housing field. We wouldn’t require a bill such as this if this government had done something over the last 10 years to try to make sure that there was adequate rental accommodation available for people in the province at a price that they could afford, and if they had used the Ontario Housing Corp. properly to build apartments and to build townhouses and to build homes so that people who currently are forced to be at the mercy of the private landlord would have been able to have an alternative marketplace to which to go. I think that the need for this bill rests four-square with the government.

In addition to that, I want to say that in my time in the House, which now is almost seven years, I can recall the city of Ottawa asking for the power to have rent control established strictly for that municipality. It was voted against by the government members in the private bills’ committee and it never came forward again. I can recall the city of Toronto indicating that it would have liked to have attempted a pilot project, but it obviously met with little favour from the government.

I know that many people have brought to the government’s attention the major problems that confront them in attempting to find suitably priced rental accommodation.

I want to suggest to the member for St. George that one of the things that crosses my mind as I think about rental review boards is that the board ought not to have power to vary; I think I said that in the last debate. I’m interested in seeing the board make a judgement on the size of the increase being requested. The landlord or the tenant -- it would likely be the tenant -- would have the right to apply to the board. The board would review the books of the landlord and determine whether or not the rental increase being requested was reasonable in the light of increased costs and expenditures. It would have the power either to approve or to disapprove but not to vary.

The reason I say that is because I believe it would bring about a great deal more truth and a great deal more factual information about the conditions faced by the landlord. The landlords would be required to come forward with pretty sound arguments, based on facts, from which the board would be able to make its decision. Otherwise, they may use the old game of asking for a lot and hoping to get a little. I think we could avoid that.

I think the fact that there would simply be either approval or disapproval would tend to cut down the number of times that rental increases were put into force. Landlords would be much more careful. They wouldn’t have to go before the board as frequently as they might in the other situation, because landlords in the first instance would become extremely careful about the way in which they imposed rent increases. They would look very carefully, knowing full well that they might be dragged before the board at some point, and would attempt to make sure that whatever they were asking for was justifiable or as close to being justifiable as possible. That would mean that the board wouldn’t have the great number of cases to hear in the province over the course of a year because of what it would instill in the landlords in terms of the way in which they would approach their need to ask for additional moneys.

I think that in itself probably would create a new environment in rental accommodation. It would create a different approach, both by tenants and by landlords. It might even be possible to gain support from some of the more reputable landlords for that kind of an approach, because they would know that provided they were prepared to come forward with all of the justification necessary and to document it by opening their books, in fact they would then be entitled to get a rental increase in accordance with whatever was necessary to meet the need.

The other problem that I have -- and that’s not what is in the bill, just in case the member from Windsor thinks it is; it isn’t in the bill --

Mr. B. Newman: The member thinks not?

Mr. Deans: There is, in the bill, the power to vary if need be; either to approve, disapprove or vary. I suspect that ought not to be there, and there’s no point in us arguing; I think we could agree on that. I think we could probably come to an agreement on that if this bill ever got any further than it will.

The other problem is this, though: The difficulties we are currently facing have been coming on us over the last five, six or seven years. It was evident to most of us in the House who have to deal with tenants and tenants’ problems, that we were going to be faced with a day when it would be absolutely necessary to impose some form of rental control in the province.

The reason is pretty obvious. For the majority of people, far more of their disposable income was taken up by fixed-cost items -- rent, food and fixed-cost items of that nature -- than ever was taken up before. What we are really facing is that unless we are prepared to deal with this and to try to provide accommodation for people within their means, we are going to find that there will be less and less truly disposable income available to people. As that disposable income becomes less and less, they will be able to purchase less and less. As they are able to purchase less and less, there will be less and less manufactured. And as the manufacturing is diminished, there will be fewer and fewer people working. That is the sort of snowballing effect of having too high a ratio of fixed-cost items taken out of the family budget.

As housing costs rise to 40, 50 and 60 per cent of people’s incomes, and as food costs rise to 30 and 40 per cent of people’s incomes, we find that less and less of their income is available for the purchase of the wide range of other things which make up the standard of living which most of us have enjoyed over the years. As we allow that to occur, I say, as sure as I stand here, that it will have an adverse effect on the entire economy, an effect which we in Canada, and we in Ontario in particular, cannot afford to have.

If we carry this bill on beyond just rental accommodation into the whole field of housing, to try to ensure that people won’t be required to put out more of their income than they can reasonably afford -- given all of the other wide range of things which they must be capable of purchasing to maintain the economy and the economic prosperity -- what we are then doing is trying to say that the economy in Ontario cannot stand to have such a large percentage of people’s incomes taken by way of accommodation costs.

What we are saying then is that to deal with it in the field of rental accommodation it becomes essential that there be a justification point, a point at which landlords and owners of buildings have to justify what they extract from the economy. They have to justify their rental increases; they have to be prepared to say publicly, or to the board, which is in effect publicly, why it is that they must have more of the available dollars, dollars available for purchase throughout the economy, for their own particular use; why it is that they should be expected to be allowed to have more of the available dollars channelled into their pockets, thereby reducing the purchasing power and purchasing capacity of people out in the marketplace.

I think it is far more profound than just simply a statement of whether or not landlords would like to have rent control. They wouldn’t like to have rent control: nobody would like to have rent control. But quite obviously the actions of the landlords over the past number of years have indicated to me, and I suspect to a lot of other people in the House, that they -- not all, but many of them -- are incapable of exercising self-control. When you can’t exercise self-control, someone else must exercise it for you.

There are far too many landlords -- a minority, I suspect, but nevertheless far too many -- who are prepared to take from the market whatever they can get, knowing full well the costs of moving, the dislocation of family, the pressures on people in general, plus the very fact that people tend to like to establish a home -- not just a place to live, but a home -- and because of these factors people tend to pay perhaps a little more than they would normally pay rather than face the additional costs of moving to another place. Landlords take advantage of that situation, and they shouldn’t be permitted to.

I think, in very general terms, that we have to have a way to ensure that no sector of the economy can extract more than can be reasonably borne by the economy as a whole. I think that is really what we are talking about; it’s making sure that the poor are able to find accommodation at a cost they can afford. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that that won’t occur in the private sector. The poor won’t be able to find accommodation in the private sector; it will take a massive public housing effort in order to provide accommodation for them.

But the middle-income people who are currently being gouged -- and I know of many of them, as does the member for St. George, and I suspect so do other members -- are not gouged simply because they fall into something called middle income, and because landlords think that because they are in that category they are able to extract more and more from them because they ought to have it, by some statistic put out by Statistics Canada. I think what we have got to be sure about is that people have the opportunity to enjoy a better lifestyle and a better standard of living, and that requires that we not allow any sector -- housing at this point -- to gouge more out of the public and take more out of the economy than can be reasonably justified at any given time.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has just expired.

Mr. Deans: One final point, one second: there is a drastic lack of accommodation in this province for people of special need -- the crippled, people who require to be in wheelchairs, people who are unable to be mobile. There is no accommodation provision in this government’s plans for those kind of people. There has to be special attention paid to them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the remaining speakers -- there are three who have indicated they wish to speak -- that if each one could knock a minute or two off the 10 minutes it would be appreciated, I am sure, by the remaining members

Mr. Deans: I only took 10.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support Bill 47, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act, as introduced by my colleague, the member for St. George. If anyone in this House knows the need for such legislation, I am sure we’ll all agree that the member for St. George certainly does. She lives in an area that we can almost call Rentsville, surrounded solely by all types of highrise. There are very few one-family accommodations in the area, an area in which people are practically always being taken advantage of when it comes to the spiralling costs for rent.

Mr. Gaunt: She is my member.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, she of all members has knowledge of the need for this legislation and I would assume that that was one of the reasons why she introduced this legislation.

One of the big problems as far as rental accommodation is concerned, is that of the security of tenure. An individual renting accommodation doesn’t know if he is going to be able to stay in those accommodations for any length of time beyond the period of the lease, and if he does remain in the accommodations, he never knows at the expiry of the lease how substantial his rent increases may be.

One of the second concerns is the unconscionable increase in rental payments. Not all landlords are such, Mr. Speaker, but there are too many and that is probably one of the reasons why the member for St. George thought enough to introduce such legislation.

The fact that people have to go into rented accommodation is as a result of the failing policies of this government to provide the incentive for the building of sufficient housing accommodation. There is the decline of home ownership as homes get beyond the financial ability of the average citizen to purchase them. With the spiralling and the mushrooming effects of inflation, you can readily see, Mr. Speaker, that more and more people are being driven out of the idea of ever owning their own home and are going to have to resort to rental accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, one type of accommodation that we haven’t heard mentioned this afternoon and that can be sort of an assist not only in home ownership but in providing rental accommodation to people is that of mobile housing. I will make mention of this a little later in my comments and will point out where mobile housing should be included in this legislation. In fact, in the report of the advisory task force on housing policy, they do make mention of it on page 41: “It was recommended that mobile homes be covered by the Landlord and Tenant Act.”

Mr. Speaker, this bill not only attempts to protect the tenant but it also does protect the landlord. As you can readily see from the explanatory note, these boards would have the power to determine the amount of rents and to order tenants removed from premises for non-payment of rent or wilful damage of premises. One can see both sides of the fence are covered by this legislation.

This bill is all-encompassing, Mr. Speaker. It does have teeth in it. It does permit the board to increase or decrease rentals according to the justification provided to it by the landlord or by the tenant who can come along and show that his rentals are abnormally high.

Mr. Speaker, there isn’t one of us in the House who hasn’t heard almost daily pleas from single-parent families, from elderly, from people in all sorts of walks of life, of unconscionable, abnormal rental increases. The pleas quite often lead to actual crying on the other end of the telephone, where a mother will come along and telephone and say that her rentals have been increased $25, $30, $35 or $50. In fact, Mr. Speaker, even Ontario Housing in its latest increase of rentals in my own community in some instances raised the rental from $52 up to $107 in one fell swoop, so we can see that even government sometimes can be called a gouging landlord.

Now, Mr. Speaker, quite often you find new development put in the more remote areas in a community. As a result, the new developments, whether they be for government geared-to-income housing or regular type of rental housing, put the individual at a distinct disadvantage -- especially the individual on a fixed income or on some type of a governmental assistance programme. It puts him at a real disadvantage -- or the working poor at a real disadvantage -- when it comes to even renting those accommodations. The rent may be attractive, it may almost be within the means of the individual, but there is transportation that adds to the cost of rental or adds to the cost of accommodation. As a result, the individual who goes in there quite often has to deprive himself of other necessities of life simply to have shelter.

Mr. Speaker, my own community attempted to have rent controls back in the Sixties. Council, in its wisdom, turned down the proposal at the time. However, as a result of the pleadings of various members of council, they did set up a landlord and tenant advisory bureau.

Mr. Speaker, I have checked to see how busy that bureau has been. In the month of August there were 292 telephone calls to the landlord and tenant advisory bureau. Now, this bureau has no teeth whatsoever. All it can do is attempt to get the landlord and tenant together; get them to re-think their positions and try to resolve their problems.

In the month of August there were 292 telephone calls, and of the 292, 19 people actually came down to the city hall to speak with a Mr. Ouelette, who is in charge of this bureau, in an attempt to have their problems resolved.

In the month of September there were 306 appeals on the part of either the landlord or the tenant concerning their problems. Of these, 32 of the 306 people were so concerned over their problem that they actually came down to discuss it with Mr. Ouelette and explain more fully what their situation was like and attempt to have the problem resolved.

In the month of October there were 329 calls. And 22 came down and appealed to Mr. Ouelette. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that by multiplying these figures by 12, in the course of a year over 3,600 individual residents in the city of Windsor would be contacting the landlord and tenant advisory bureau in an attempt to resolve problems.

Now, that bureau has no teeth. This legislation does have teeth in it. Had the government thought to introduce such legislation or amend the Landlord and Tenant Act encompassing the idea of this legislation, a lot of these problems could have been resolved in the first instance. The landlord and tenant bureau, or the board as it’s called, could have talked to both landlords and tenants, and by discussing their problems I assume they would have been able to resolve them quite readily.

I will conclude my remarks very shortly, Mr. Speaker. I did mention earlier that one of the answers to the housing shortage could be mobile housing. Now, in the mobile housing field there is still a problem: Mobile housing is looked upon as a sort of second-class type of housing. The individuals who actually go into mobile housing, Mr. Speaker, have problems with their landlord. And as a result of their problems, I think they should be included under any landlord and tenant legislation so that they can resolve their problems, the same as others.

Mr. Speaker, it’s a real pleasure to endorse my colleague, the hon. member for St. George, in her attempt to fight for the little people.

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

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to join in this debate. The fact that two bills dealing with this social problem have come forward to the Legislature this year I think is indicative that there is concern. It is a problem.

However, the first one was a bill calling for rent control. It came last May from the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. Both these call for rent control any way you cut the cake. To hear the preceding speakers one would think that nothing had been achieved by this government. There is still the fact that the 100,000 or 105,000 units-somewhere in that area -- that were produced last year was the largest ever total in Ontario and, of course, exceeds the numbers constructed in the other provinces. I think it exceeds all those put together. I don’t have the statistics on that, but I know it is very, very significant.

So there is a real effort to provide the needed housing; but obviously we need more. People are flocking into this province because it is a very attractive place to live, and regrettably they are not spaced out as we would like to see them. There is a great attraction that Metro Toronto has, and Hamilton and the “golden horseshoe” generally, so we do need more housing. I

Just to speak to the bill for a moment, this bill, in effect, is just to change the one section -- I see the member for St. George is nodding her head. Section 110 of the present Landlord and Tenant Act empowers municipalities to voluntarily establish landlord and tenant advisory bureaus, and these bureaus have advisory powers only. They would have no power to adjudicate disputes or to make binding decisions. Accordingly, if they cannot resolve a dispute using persuasion, it would be necessary for the matter to be referred to a lawyer and then ultimately, if necessary, to the courts.

The philosophy of the present section 110 is that bureaus be established on a purely voluntary municipal basis.

Mr. Cassidy: It hasn’t worked though.

Mr. Kennedy: I am not too sure they haven’t worked. We have an interesting development in Mississauga. There is a one-man bureau which handles these complaints and I think he gets along quite well. I haven’t heard of any significant problems, not lately anyway, and I think it is working not too badly, so I just don’t accept the remarks of the member for Ottawa Centre as whole cloth.

Anyway, it was thought in 1970, when section 110 came into force, that only certain municipalities would require the bureaus and it would therefore be wrong in principle to require all municipalities, regardless of their size, to establish bureaus. So it is a voluntary thing, and I am not sure what happens when the population is under 50,000 or over 50,000. It seems to me they could have 49,000 and have as significant a problem as in a larger municipality.

Mr. B. Newman: Does the member recommend an amendment to the section?

Mr. Kennedy: Yes. I am just saying, I wonder if we need a figure at all. I don’t support rent controls, and I will develop that in a minute.

The member for St. George’s bill establishes several major changes in principle by repealing the present section 110 and replacing it with a new one. We mentioned the 50,000 persons who are needed to establish this review board and I don’t see any great purpose in having that figure at all.

Second, under section 110(6), boards would have not only the advisory functions of the present boards but also have powers to adjudicate and decide things, such as vandalism and damage conduct hearings concerning rent arrears, to order a tenant to be removed from the premises where the arrears in rent are substantial, decide the amount of rent that is reasonable in all circumstances, and I may order that the rental agreement be continued at the rental mentioned in the board’s order.

So it is obvious that this provides a form of rent control and it passes significant powers to a review board. Presently anyway, the government’s position is, as I understand it, that rent control will not at present be employed by the government, but rather other devices, such as increasing supply and so forth.

Mr. Cassidy: The government has lined up with the landlords.

Hon. Mr. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Has the member ever thought of anything else but, “Man the barricades”?

Mr. Kennedy: I’ll tell you of some of the things that happen where they do have rent control or nationalization, Mr. Speaker. In Sweden they wait five years for an apartment. In British Columbia rent control isn’t working. It was in the paper the other day that rather than rent a vacant apartment they’re leaving them vacant.

Mr. Ferrier: The member doesn’t believe everything he reads in the papers, does he?

Mr. Kennedy: This is a real worry. It’s not working in Quebec, despite what we said last May.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s been working for 25 years in Quebec.

Mr. Kennedy: Not well. It’s not working in New York, and this is a real worry. In trying to correct and provide for more apartment units and dwelling units, it may backfire and create a worse situation insofar as shortages go. We can’t force people to build them unless we go to nationalization as Sweden has done.

Mr. Cassidy: The government gets sucked in by the landlords every time they make that argument.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re very short of time. Will the hon. member shorten his remarks somewhat?

Mr. Kennedy: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member please keep in mind my request to give the last speaker at least a small opportunity to speak?

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’ll try to conform to that request.

The federal government has rejected price controls and, as we said last May, how do you treat this one issue in isolation? The member for Wentworth had some comments in that regard, and I think he recognized it. Incidentally, in his remarks he mentioned something about providing for the handicapped in buildings. I understand that the redevelopment of Mohawk Gardens in Hamilton provides a certain percentage of housing units for the handicapped. This was as a result of a community group asking for it, and they’ve agreed to do that. So that’s a step in the right direction too.

But what we need, Mr. Speaker, is more federal participation. We need to expand limited-dividend housing. The member for Windsor-Walkerville mentioned that the government has done nothing -- and I touched on this before.

Mr. B. Newman: I didn’t say that.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, he implied that they weren’t enthusiastic in providing incentives. We put more than $50 million into this --

Mr. B. Newman: There were only 64 senior citizens provided with accommodations in 1974.

Mr. Kennedy: -- while the feds have put in only $25 million. They should get going on this.

Limited dividend housing, I think, is one of the best vehicles we could employ to provide incentives for more dwelling units. I think, too -- and I see the minister is here -- that we should take a look at this 20 per cent land transfer tax which is levied against foreign investors.

There was an article -- I think Fraser Kelly was the author --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Time is just about up.

Mr. Kennedy: I will just close out then. We don’t have the capital that’s needed. We have something in the order of $1.5 billion. We need billions -- $5 billion. We can’t live in isolation. We can bring in needed capital under certain conditions, under our rules.

Mr. B. Newman: The member doesn’t agree with the previous speaker.

Mr. Kennedy: I won’t go on, Mr. Speaker; suffice it to say, that we should proceed, in company with the federal government, to provide more incentives to ensure that our housing supply is increased.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: In one minute, Mr. Speaker, can I point out for the benefit of the House that the member for Peel South is willing to advocate a change in government policy to benefit foreign capitalists, but he is not willing to advocate a change in policy in order to benefit domestic tenants who are here in Ontario.

Mr. Kennedy: It is to help the people.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s symptomatic about the government. They fiddle around the edges while the tenants of this province are being exploited week after week by landlords.

Mr. Gilbertson: The member should stop trying to make a big issue out of it and get on with his speech.

Mr. Cassidy: I’ll put on the record one example of rent increases, which happens to come very close to home: It’s my mother who has to pay this. In a bachelor apartment on St Clair Ave. her rent is going from $156 to $182 in the new lease in the first year and to $202 in the second year. That is happening to hundreds of thousands of tenants, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kennedy: On a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a point of order?

Mr. Kennedy: Yes. I said that the foreign funds -- or funds from anywhere they can come from -- would come in on our terms to increase the supply so that the persons needing rental and other accommodation, and for whom I have a great sympathy, will have it provided it to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s nonsense. Foreign capitalists can bring in money and mortgages with no restrictions whatsoever. What he says is he’s willing to pander to capitalists who want it on their terms and not on our terms. We say that’s wrong. We endorse the principle of the bill. I have some disagreements, as the member for St. George knows, about the practicalities of this particular proposal; but we’ve debated that during the course of my bill on rent control and security of tenure. Certainly in principle she and I were together. I wish that she spoke for all of her party in endorsing rent control in order to protect the tenants of the province. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: This completes this order of business.

Clerk of the House: The 33rd order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 155, An Act to incorporate the Algonquin Forestry Authority.

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