Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Legislature, 30 grade 12 students from the Barrie District Central Collegiate Institute and give them a very hearty welcome.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take the time to introduce a class of students from a little place in northern Ontario called MacDuff. There is a pulp operation up there and a hamlet with about 150 people living there. I have students from there today, grades 7 and 8, with their chaperones, their two teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Pierre Lacombe, and Mrs. Morin. I’d like the House to welcome them at this time.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I’d like the House to welcome a group of students from the G. B. Warren Junior High School in Yorkview with their teachers who are here today. They have been here since 10 o’clock this morning and are enjoying their visit to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sure the hon. members will also join me in welcoming to the Speaker’s gallery this afternoon the hon. Gerard Amerongen, QC, MLA, the Speaker of the legislative assembly of the Province of Alberta, and Mrs. Amerongen.

Speaker Amerongen was in Ottawa, along with other Speakers from across Canada, to attend the annual Speakers’ conference last weekend. I am delighted that he and Mrs. Amerongen were able to spend some time visiting Toronto and our Legislature this afternoon. Thank you.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): We’ll give them a good show.

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): In the west gallery I would like the hon. members to welcome six Rotarians from the Philippines who are being hosted by the Rotary Club of Burlington.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

LIQUOR LEGISLATION

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing for first reading two important pieces of legislation -- a new Liquor Control Act and a new Liquor Licence Act. Both will replace existing legislation.

Mr. S. Lewis: (Scarborough West): An announcement a day.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Further, within a few days we will begin distribution of a suggested code of administrative procedures under the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the review of liquor laws in Ontario was carried out over a two-year period and involved consultation with many groups and individuals. Their concerns ranged from the economics of sunning a licensed establishment to the impact of alcohol consumption on provincial health and social programmes.

In our review, it became clear to us that the issues are much broader than most people anticipated. As part of our deliberations, we have had to look at the quality of life the people of Ontario want and how the use and abuse of alcohol can have an impact on it. Most people recognize that moderate consumption of alcohol is socially acceptable. But alcohol abuse results in significant economic and social cost.

The provincial government is responsible for coping with the excesses and the problems associated with alcohol abuse. These problems increase as alcohol consumption rises, a relationship which appears to be applicable world-wide.

Mr. Lewis: We could have a royal commission to investigate it.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We could appoint the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston) as the chairman.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I won’t send over that picture of the leader of the NDP and his orgy in Ottawa, but he’ll be seeing it --

Mr. Lewis: I had an orgy in Ottawa? I want the picture.

Mr. Roy: That was a good advertisement for Labatt’s.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will send the picture over to the member.

Those who abuse alcohol constitute a small minority, but that minority increases with the accessibility of alcohol. The costs of abuse are borne by all of us, for in our society we are responsible for each other. It is no use pretending all of us are free to do as we please -- when everyone else pays the bill.

Therefore, we decided that much is right with the way liquor is sold in this province. We have rejected foreign drinking standards. There is nothing particularly desirable, for instance, about drinking customs which fill one in every two French hospital beds with alcohol-related disease.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Is that a slur on the Frenchmen?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would like to review for the House some of the major decisions reflected in the two Acts.

First, the distribution of alcohol will remain the sole responsibility of the Ontario government. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario may take justifiable pride in its efficiency and the selection of products it provides. More than 530 stores now offer 1,975 different products, and its quality control and testing standards are second to none.

Distribution and sales will continue to be managed by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. All other regulatory activities will be transferred to the Liquor Licence Board operating under the new Liquor Licence Act.

There will be an appeal procedure from all decisions of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to a newly created appeal tribunal, with a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Ontario on matters of law. This policy follows the McRuer report and provides protection against arbitrary or inconsistent decisions.

The liquor licence policies will be codified under the Liquor Licence Act. This will ensure that licensees and applicants are fully aware of their responsibilities to conform to this written code. Failure to do so will imperil their privilege of obtaining or holding a licence to dispense liquor.

There will also be a number of recommendations involving special-occasion permits in the suggested code. The fact that special-occasion permits are now being issued at an annual rate of 170,000 suggests further clarification of the guidelines.

Two permanent advisory committees to the minister will be established to help monitor continuing changes in social attitudes and ensure that we remain responsive to all viewpoints on alcohol consumption.

Mr. Lewis: They are running amuck with committees.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: One committee will deal with special-occasion permits and --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Providing jobs for the back-benches.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- the other with concerns on overall liquor policy.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Is the government trying to create an Ontario senate?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will be looking for detailed study and comments from the public, the industry and members of this House, before this legislation is finalized.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) be the chairman?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Changes in the organizational structure and administrative procedures of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, many of which have already been implemented, will improve the manner in which applications, inquiries, and recommendations are handled. In addition, we plan to decentralize the function of approving and issuing special-occasion permits.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Your friendly local liquor office.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Another proposed change will mean one public hearing for new licence applicants. Under the new Acts, the community can become more directly involved. Citizens will be able to express their views at these hearings in much the same way as they are now involved in determining questions of community growth. Responsibility for advertising new applications will be assumed by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, one area of change which I am sure will be of interest to all members is clarification of the duties of inspectors. In addition to a clearly defined inspection role, they will assume as one of their primary functions the role of advising and counselling licensees and new applicants. We are also working with municipal jurisdictions and other ministries to eliminate duplication of inspection.

Another area I should also mention is communication. Efforts are already under way to improve the way the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario communicates with licensees and the public. Future changes in legislation, regulation or procedure will be communicated to licensees in writing. Work has also begun on a number of brochures to help new applicants and to inform licensees as to how they can maintain the high standards the Ontario government demands.

Mr. Lewis: The Ontario government’s summer employment programme.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I have talked about change, and indeed many changes are taking place. Improvements have already been initiated. I now look forward to receiving the advice and counsel of all members of this House on the proposed legislation. In addition, I welcome submissions from the public and the industry as we continue our studies.

Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank those people who participated over the past two years with my predecessor, the Attorney General (Mr. Clement), in the preparation of the new legislation and the suggested code. Some of them are in the gallery today and I know that they look on this as a culmination of long, hard, but most rewarding work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The leader of the Opposition.

FIRE SAFETY ON LICENSED PREMISES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister who just spoke if he took into consideration in forming the bill, the recommendations of the inquest into the fire in Paris, Ont., which resulted in the death of, I believe, five men in a hotel there. Is he changing the requirements for fire inspections so it is clear that the responsibility in no way lies with the Liquor Licence Board or the Liquor Control Board or any of its emanations, but is a municipal responsibility under the jurisdiction of the fire marshal?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at the present time, there is a policy of the Liquor Licence Board that all licensed premises must conform to the fire marshal’s requirements and in order to enforce that, it has been the responsibility of the liquor licence inspectors under the authority of the fire marshal to establish whether or not those standards have in fact been met.

In the new suggested code, which will be distributed within a couple of days, we are leaving the code silent on the issue because we do feel, and I think most members of the House will agree, that fire prevention and fire protection should be under the sole jurisdiction of the Solicitor General and the fire marshal’s department.

There will be a problem, of course, because at the present time the fire marshal simply does not have the resources either in manpower or funds to carry out a complete fire prevention function. There will be a transitional period during which there will probably be more than just the liquor licence inspector involved in this very very important work.

ENTERTAINMENT IN LICENSED PREMISES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I may, can the minister tell the House what decision was made about the chairman of the liquor commission’s control over the suitability or otherwise of entertainment in licensed premises?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, again in the suggested code for administrative procedure, it will be silent on the issue.

Mr. Deans: Will he be silent on the issue? That is the question.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would hope that members of the public and the industry will make suggestions --

Mr. Lewis: It is a pretty imaginative code.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- because we are concerned about the possibility of entertainment standards being very low in licensed premises and particularly that minors may be exposed to certain standards of entertainment without knowing what they are going to be exposed to.

Mr. Foulds: Sort of like violence on television.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would like to see licensed premises at least announce to people exactly the kind of entertainment they are about to show --

Mr. Roy: I think we should have a royal commission on that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- so that people can be forewarned before they enter licensed premises and therefore can avoid anything which may be distasteful to them personally, because now they have no way of knowing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We should leave that to the police.

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

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Yes. I am afraid I don’t understand. When the minister says the code is silent, does that mean it is for the present time, inasmuch as he will instruct Mr. Mackey to keep out of that field?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is no regulation which would require Mr. Mackey not to use his judgement or that of the members of the board in determining whether or not a licence should continue to be in force.

Mr. Shulman: Silent only where it’s important.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Deans: The code can’t be silent if it will help him make those decisions.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary of the minister about his statement today about the code. Will there be anything in the code dealing with the discrimination by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario against women, who can work only part-time in self-serve stores and cannot work at all in other stores? How are they expected to earn a living?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the code, of course, is designed to govern the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol beverages and therefore it, too, will be silent on the issue my hon. friend raises.

Mr. Shulman: A very silent code.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Silent indeed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Surely the minister recognizes that if the code is silent on the board’s right to dictate what is or what is not an appropriate level of entertainment, he has granted the board that right and since Mr. Mackey has abused that right in the past, why does the minister invite him to abuse it in the future?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t quite follow the member. One doesn’t give power by being silent on an issue.

Mr. Lewis: One doesn’t remove it by being silent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: it is exactly how the minister did it before.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The code, when it is finally passed -- which it hasn’t been and we are waiting for a feedback from the public -- will not at the present time, as it is being distributed, say whether or not the board will have any jurisdiction over entertainment standards.

Mr. Lewis: So they will continue to exercise it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, they won’t. They cannot exercise a right which has not been given to them.

Mr. Shulman: it is not in the code now but they exercise it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They will continue under the present regulations until they are replaced by the new Act and the new regulations.

Mr. Shulman: Why doesn’t the minister do that now if it’s not in the present law?

Mr. Lewis: The minister said he would leave it to his good judgement.

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

Order, please.

The Leader of the Opposition.

CONDITIONS AT DON JAIL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Attorney General if he has read the report of the grand jury which brings to public attention the fact that conditions in the Don Jail are such that they recommend it be evacuated until it be cleaned up? I ask the minister in the absence of his colleagues, has he read it and is the government considering a course of action?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): No, Mr. Speaker, I have not read that particular document.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, surely the Attorney General should not have to read yet another complaint about the Don Jail to recognize that it is old, tired and useless and should be replaced. Can the minister tell us when the Don Jail is going to be replaced so that we won’t continue to be embarrassed by reports of grand juries such as this one?

Mr. Roy: It’s even in better shape than the member for Scarborough Centre.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the members as to the age and the physical condition of the Don Jail. There is a matter of physical implications to be considered; I personally would support a replacement of the Don Jail. I haven’t had the opportunity to visit it since I was a law student and it seemed rather ancient at that time which, as members know, wouldn’t be many years ago.

Mr. Singer: Yes, even as far back as that time.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It has aged even more rapidly.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would support it, but again the overall matter of physical priority is being dealt with by the Ministry of Correctional Services. I can’t give any estimate at this time as to when it may be replaced. Perhaps when my colleague, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter) is in the House, he might have some better views on it.

Mr. Singer: The Provincial Secretary for Justice is supposed to know all about the operations of these things.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary for --

Mr. Breithaupt: The social secretary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you very much; the social secretary? Can the minister inform the House when we might expect the long-promised legislation dealing with teacher-board negotiations now that the situation in Ottawa has apparently been settled? Is it now appropriate that the government move by way of introduction of this legislation, and can she tell us, as a matter of policy, if we can expect it at this session?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge it still is a matter under consideration by the policy field.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can the minister tell us if there has been a commitment on the part of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) for herself as policy secretary that the bill will not be introduced until there has been consultation with the trustees and the teachers’ organizations concerned?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the member direct that question to the Minister of Education. I have made no such commitment.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: However, the minister would, I take it, be prepared to concede that the bill in its present draft form, ready for submission to the Legislature, gives to the teaching profession the right to strike? That is no longer a quietly-held confidence; she can now admit that?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That information will be revealed in due course. Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: It was about to be revealed at this point. You pre-empted a revelation.

EMERGENCY QUARTERS FOR CABINET

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I have a moment, I would like to ask the Attorney General, the Provincial Secretary for Justice, if he can assure us that the famous bunker up at Camp Borden, which is prepared to receive the minister and his colleagues in the event of atomic war, is going to be dispensed with? Is that closed down? We saw a picture of it in the paper the other day. Is there really a fuehrer bunker np there ready to receive the powers of government in the event that it’s necessary?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I think the are all up there today.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I haven’t seen the bunker, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If the Leader of the Opposition insists, I would be glad to go up and have a look at it. I am glad he is concerned about my physical safety; I really didn’t think he cared.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I do, I do.

Mr. Breithaupt: We just want to know where to drop them, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Don’t worry. The members have dropped a few in the past and they didn’t do much good.

Mr. Lewis: In the event of attack, the leaders of the opposition parties would also be invited, would they?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have not personally been up to that particular piece of construction but if the members would like me to, I would undertake to go up there and come back and report to the House as to what I see.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a supplementary, I wonder if the minister can explain, since he is not sure whether or not it is going to be kept open, are there arrangements made so that a selected group of Conservative backbenchers can be saved so that the future of the universe can be assured?

Mr. Breithaupt: We don’t want to endanger the species.

Mr. Roy: For posterity purposes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Is the member advising, perhaps, a task force on procreation of Tories, is that it? In which case, I will take the question as notice.

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

MINISTER’S STATEMENT ABOUT EQUAL PAY

Mr. Lewis: If I can direct a question to the Minister of Labour, who is expecting it, I am sure, Mr. Speaker: What caused him to lose possession of his faculties last night and say on a public platform that society is not sold, the public is not ready to accept the concept of equal pay for equal work and therefore he wasn’t prepared to embody it to the full extent in legislation?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly surprised at the question. I do have trouble when it gets to dealing with the women, I am afraid, sir.

Mr. Cassidy: He sure does.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I did get into some trouble yesterday and I think maybe it’s time I turned to the Bible.

Mr. Lewis: I know the minister has prepared his answer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that going to save him?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think I have to find something to say. I am thinking of the New Testament, sir, where --

Mr. Lewis: Is that the Old Testament or the New?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- there is the parable about the workers going into the field and you will recall that they went in at different hours.

An hon. member: It was a vineyard.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s right, it was the vineyard. I am not as familiar with the Bible as I should be. They received different rates of wages, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: The same rates of pay.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That may be a pretty old parable --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, order.

An hon. member: They have more clergymen over there. The minister can’t win.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, it may be somewhat of an outdated philosophy but at the same time it’s the point I am trying to make in regard to what many of the outspoken women of this province would like us to enact in legislation -- that is, the words “equal pay for work of equal value.” I have tried to explain, perhaps not very successfully, the difficulty of enacting those words.

Our legislation, as embodied in section 33 of the Employment Standards Act, and I won’t take the House’s time to read it, is as advanced as any that one will find in any of the western jurisdictions. It is good legislation and it does make a comparison as far as women being assured of the same pay as men in a particular spot.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Not even in the government.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The trouble is that if we put into legislation equal pay for work of equal value, then what are we going to compare it with? I use the phrase that there is no legislation here that assures two men, working under similar circumstances under the same employment, will get equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Lewis: Even the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Winkler) did it for the civil servants.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Well, we should have it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Maybe there should be, but I’m not so sure that we all want to be put in that box. Who, for instance, is going to determine what equal value is?

Mr. Lewis: Some independent assessment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Look around.

Mr. Lewis: I can see the minister is embarrassed by last night, but he’s overdoing it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, it’s nonsense. One can determine value. The minister is becoming more discriminatory as he goes along.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I said, who would be the one to determine my value to the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Bullbrook: And what did your wife say?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: She looked at me with a rather jaundiced eye, sir, and indicated that my value wasn’t too high to the province. That’s the sort of thing I say one is into if he is going to --

Mr. Bullbrook: Who asked this question?

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry, I did.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- enact equal pay for work of equal value. One has to categorize all of these jobs and somebody has to determine the value of the work produced.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is just digging it deeper and deeper and deeper.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is the kind of thing that I say would be impossible to administer, and that’s what I meant when I said the province isn’t ready for it at this time.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Doesn’t the minister understand that when he says the legislation now in effect does as much as society is prepared to accept, and when he provides that kind of answer in this House, what he is saying is that he will doom women in Ontario to unequal pay for equal work as a matter of government policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what he is doing.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I say there’s good legislation there and we are anxious to have it put to the test. We feel it is adequate to do the job that we want it to do, sir.

Mr. Lewis: Put to the test!

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Does the minister not realize, though, that it is not that society is not ready to accept it, but that he is unwilling to administer it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That of course, sir, is not the case.

Mr. Foulds: That’s exactly what the minister has just said.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this ministry does, in fact, classify many jobs across this province, why is it so difficult for him to conduct a job evaluation in other areas? Why is it that he and his own government consistently have women serving in virtually the same, if you like, classifications with different titles at different rates of pay?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as far as the government is concerned, that is under active review at the present time --

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, come on!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- and that will be adjusted, if adjustments are warranted. In industry there’s no great problem. Through union agreements, these things are done all the time. But if one looks at the many non-unionized sectors across this province, and I refer to any general office, it would just be a nightmarish job with the bureaucracy that would be required. I say it’s a good theory, but one would need so many people to administer this --

Mrs. Campbell: Try it now.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- to go across the province and determine the value of one job as against another job in private industry and private offices.

Mr. Martel: It’s unbelievable.

Mr. Lewis: Do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bounsall: Get them used to the idea.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

PROTECTION FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS

Mr. Lewis: I have another question of the Minister of Labour. What prompted his earlier spasm of irrationality, when he said publicly that civil servants don’t need the same collective bargaining rights as others in the province because they can turn to individual members of the Legislature who are, as it were, their employers to defend them? Does the minister really believe that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is going back quite a way when he brings that statement up.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all. It is part of this statement, the same kind of stuff.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I suggested, I think sometime last summer, that people who work in the public sector had certain protections -- just the very fact that they were working for the public -- that people in the private sector did not have, and that if there were injustices they could be brought up, as my friend has indicated he is bringing up one now, and some have suggested today that they are bringing up injustices. They have this sort of recourse.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are many employment positions across this province that don’t necessarily carry with them the right to withhold their services, and we have indicated some in the police services, in the fire services, in the hospital services, and that, I think, is a reasonable thing. There are ways that those people have their rights to fairness protected, and I think one of those ways is through this House; because these people work I for this I House and the people in the province.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Who protects them from members like the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot)?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have further questions? No? I think we should get on with new questions.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the original question? We have been veering off and wasting too much time on supplementary questions.

Mr. Roy: Well I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the time is wasted over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: The questions weren’t long.

Mr. Speaker: There has been too much time on questions which weren’t really supplementary to a question. I will allow the member this final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: My question of the minister subsequent to his statement is this, Mr. Speaker: Is he prepared, as Minister of Labour, to issue a directive to all departments that they not dissuade any public servant from complaining to his member of the Legislature, where, in fact, in the liquor board area some public servants are told by their superiors not to complain to their members of the Legislature --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That supplementary question is far away from the minister’s statement which he reportedly made last night about women’s employment. The hon. minister? The member may ask that as a new question later.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Lewis: I don’t understand your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I will explain my ruling. The original question had to do with the minister statement about employment or equal wages for women -- I am shortening that -- and this is entirely different.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Lewis: I asked a separate question on the matter of civil servants. It was a quite separate question.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an answer for it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I gather it was whether somebody working for the civil service had the right I to go to his member. To my mind, yes. The members of this House are open to anybody to go to from time to time and I think a lot of them do.

Mr. Roy: Without being fired?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Nobody stops them.

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

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Minister of Health, is he aware that in Elliot Lake, by virtue of overtime work permits, a large number of men have now worked underground equivalent to 3.5 working-level months’ exposure to radiation in the first three months of this year, so that they are almost at the maximum, and yet continue to work underground under terribly hazardous circumstances, much more hazardous than dust? Since Natural Resources has cut off the overtime, will the minister have them removed from underground?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I don’t normally enter into the order to remove a given person. In fact, I just spent some time today with a delegation from Elliot Lake discussing some of those very principles with them. I was surprised to find that even the wives of the workers at Elliot Lake who visited us today did not want compulsory removal of men from the working place, but rather advice given to them on their state of health and what the risks were.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the minister would, of course, appreciate that they don’t want compulsory removal because there is no job to go to and therefore no income. So, when men are exposed to radiation above the level set down in the law, can the minister not see to it that they are removed from danger?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy has answers to questions asked previously.

ONTARIO HYDRO POLICY

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Riddell) posed the following supplementary question:

“Why is Ontario Hydro being permitted to do away with the marketing division sales section, a group whose job has been to provide heat loss calculations for buildings and to specify insulation requirements, and what is going on in connection with phasing out the programme of Ontario Hydro?”

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that Ontario Hydro has not done away with this programme. However, the insulation inspections are being done at a reduced rate. Hydro is attempting to transfer this activity to municipal hydro representatives and to other segments of the building industry such as contractors, local building inspectors, and so on, where it properly belongs.

Although Hydro is now charging $20 for a heat loss calculation, their actual cost is about $45. They have trained people to do these calculations and the $20 charge is an incentive to have other people take on the responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons for the reduction in the marketing programme is to avoid any public image of Hydro promoting the use of electrical energy.

ONTARIO HYDRO POLICY ON AGRICULTURAL SUPERVISORS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on the same day, I believe, the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Spence) posed this question:

“What is the policy of Ontario Hydro in regard to the agriculture supervisors across the Province of Ontario? I am told that last year there were 13 and now there are six. Is it the policy of Ontario Hydro to do away with these agriculture supervisors? This is a great concern.”

Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro’s marketing policy and objectives have changed in recent years, and it has replaced its former sales activities with a significant conservation effort. This is in accord with the wishes of this government, my ministry and the many conservation and environmental groups and, we think, with the wishes of the public as a whole. Obviously this has meant that staff in many locations, who were hired originally for direct sales activities are surplus now to Hydro’s needs and are being redeployed to carry out work in other functions.

This does not mean that Hydro has stopped assisting the farmer, who will continue to have at his disposal the assistance of an electrical safety inspector, an electrical applications specialist or other customer service staff through Hydro’s local area offices.

When the question was originally raised on March 18, the concern expressed was that Hydro had reduced its “agriculture supervisors” from 13 to six. Currently there are seven applications specialists in Ontario Hydro who are assigned directly to meeting the requirements of the agricultural industry, a reduction from the 11 who were originally assigned to this work.

Mr. Martel: This is a ministerial statement. It is not an answer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: At the same time, however, I should state that the agricultural community has available, through Hydro local area offices, the assistance of electrical inspectors and other customer service staff whose numbers have in no way been reduced and who will continue to provide the essential services required by the individual customer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

LAWYERS’ TRUST FUNDS

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General indicate what interest rate is paid on the trust funds held by lawyers, the money that goes into the legal aid plan?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the rate being paid at the present time is three per cent on the minimum monthly balance.

Mr. Reid: Can the Attorney General indicate why it is not the same rate as a bank would ordinarily pay to a depositor? Why is it only three per cent?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the banks compute the interest on the minimum monthly balance at three per cent and remit quarter-yearly to the law foundation. That is a net sum. The banks, I am advised, had to set up a specialized system for this because their ordinary current accounts, which they maintain each and every month, are based on the half-yearly minimum balance.

The rate paid here is the same rate that is paid, I think, in Manitoba. I have some figures here, which I would be pleased to show to the hon. member, but I believe it’s the same rate that’s paid in Manitoba. In Saskatchewan the rate varies between 2½ per cent and three per cent. In British Columbia, each law firm negotiates its own rate of interest.

If the banks paid the five per cent or six per cent rate that is paid on a current account, if I may use the phrase, then there would be deducted the administrative charges of the bank for each cheque written on that account. Presumably the more cheques, the greater the charge, and in fact the trust account of a particular firm could end up earning nothing if it happened to be a particularly busy trust account. Therefore, the Law Society, in negotiating the rate on behalf of the law foundation, agreed with the banks to a flat charge of three per cent, as I indicated, with no charge on the number of cheques written being levied against either the firm writing cheques on that account or against the interest accrued on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Reid: One final supplementary, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Is the minister satisfied, when we consider the size of Ontario and the number of law firms, that the law firms are contributing their share to the legal aid plan, and that the banks particularly are not ripping off the public in this respect on something like $14 million, I believe?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I certainly cannot suggest that the banks are ripping off the public. I should indicate to the House that the trust accounts of firms fluctuate tremendously, even in a small law firm operated by one or two practitioners. It may vary from a relatively few thousand dollars per month and on a particular transaction could have any amount on deposit -- $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000.

But I can assure the member, having had a trust account in my practice, that those large amounts are not left lying around by a client in a lawyer’s trust account, for the simple reason that the client will keep it in his own account to earn interest until it is required for the completion of the proposed transaction. It will be merely an in-and-out-again type of thing. It may be in there, in many instances, for only a few minutes. Accordingly the Law Society while negotiating these rates left it open, as I understand it, to review them annually to see if the amount is in fact correct.

I have the report here with me. If the hon. member would like to peruse it at his leisure I’ll send it over with a page and he can see the amounts that were in fact generated between April 1 last year and Dec. 31, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

HURON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education, if I can get his attention: Has the minister yet met with the delegation from Huron County Board of Education with regard to the total rejection by his ministry of its capital expense programme?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Is that Huron or Bruce county?

Mr. Foulds: Huron.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Huron? I’ve had conversations with the chairman of the Huron County Board of Education.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What led the ministry to the total rejection of their budget for renovations? Surely this is contrary to the minister’s stated policy of equalization of educational opportunities throughout Ontario when he is discriminating against the rural board here.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, there is no attempt in our capital programme to discriminate. I’d have to find out. Indeed, I believe that in last year’s programme there were things for the Huron county board.

As I told my friend the other day, this year there was about $293 million worth of requests -- obviously more than we’ve ever had in the great days of the 1960s when enrolment was increasing. We just don’t have that kind of money available within our budget. We have a much, much more limited amount, away down near the $100 million mark, so obviously everything that’s been requested couldn’t be accommodated.

On a priority basis we’ve tried to first accommodate requests where new pupil spaces had to be built and then as many renovations and additions of general purpose rooms and resource centres as could be accommodated. If I look at Huron I may find that they got some last year and some other board is getting some this year.

I have had an informal meeting with the chairman of the Huron County Board of Education three or four weeks ago; I haven’t met in any formal way with the board. But as I said with Bruce, we are always willing to take a look and listen to what the board has to say about the rejection of their programme. The plain and simple fact is there just isn’t enough money to accommodate all the needs -- all the requests, I should say.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew South.

RENT CONTROLS

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): What again? Two days in a row?

Mr. Yakabuski: In view of the fact that the leader of the New Democratic Party has advocated rent controls during his Throne Speech address and at other times, I’m wondering if the minister is aware of the disastrous effects rent control has had in socialist Britain, as per the editorial in this morning’s Globe and Mail?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Speech.

Mr. Martel: Did the member send it to the minister?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I’m well aware of the editorial that the hon. member is referring to. I’ve also said in this House many times that this party does not support rent controls and will not support rent controls at this time or in the future, because we believe supply is the answer.

An hon. member: That’s why this government is going out of power.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister said he might be forced into it. He warned the industry more than once.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the editorial very clearly substantiates what I’ve been saying for months in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth has a supplementary?

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Doesn’t the minister recognize that in his recently announced apartment building programme in Toronto he has in fact imposed rent controls on those apartments? How does he pretend to deal with the spiralling rent increases when there are very few apartments being built in the private sector and none by the government in most sectors of the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wentworth has again misinterpreted the facts. We have not imposed rent controls on our limited dividend programme.

Mr. Deans: The government certainly has.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It does not have a rent control --

Mr. Deans: It does. The minister doesn’t even understand his own measure.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- per se, because the rent control that we have is a rent stabilization in the limited dividend programme --

Mr. Deans: What does the minister call that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and I have said this to the member time after time.

Mr. Deans: What does the minister call rent stabilization?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Examine the programme and understand what it does. It allows a rent escalation according to the inflation factor, which may come from year to year.

Mr. Deans: Is that not rent control?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Now, the private sector is the one that will provide enough rental accommodation. It’s not up to the government to provide all the housing accommodation throughout Ontario.

Mr. Deans: The government hardly provides any of it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Nor in my opinion should the government in any part of Canada provide all of the housing accommodation. The socialist party may think that, but we don’t.

Mr. Deans: Well we will.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Did the member for Etobicoke have a supplementary to this question?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Etobicoke with a supplementary.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, if he is not in favour of rent controls, would he at this time come out in favour of rent review boards for places such as Toronto and large centres?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t hear all of the question. Can I ask the hon. member --

Mr. Braithwaite: Is the minister in favour of rent review boards?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.

Mr. Braithwaite: Why isn’t he?

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

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have stated why many times before, and if the hon. member was here he would know.

Mr. Lewis: Not even rental review?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Lewis: The Housing minister is a dinosaur that predates the testament.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Ottawa East with his question.

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General, if I can get his attention. It pertains to the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) statement yesterday about a royal commission into violence in films and on television. Would the minister, who is a lawyer, advise why the government would grandstand in the area of television where it has no jurisdiction and not do anything about an area where it does have jurisdiction. For instance, there are comic books, magazines, pocket books advocating violence, and kids read them every day? Why would the minister limit his inquiry simply to television and films when he has jurisdiction in the publishing field?

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier grandstands and now the member is grandstanding.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I don’t agree with the member’s remarks that the Premier was grandstanding. I think the Premier made it very apparent in his statement yesterday that he was not being exhaustive in the context of his remarks. He did not want to be restrictive, and in fact my understanding is that the guidelines of the royal commission --

Mr. Roy: That is not what the statement said.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- the objectives of it will be as broad as are required to allow the commissioner, in the conduct of her inquiry, to look into all matters pertaining to the questions of violence.

Mr. Roy: Would that include types of publications where the government does have jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think that would have to be a matter determined by the commissioner, whether she felt it pertinent. I cannot answer for her, but if she felt it to be pertinent and relevant to the issue, I would feel somewhat confident that she would insist on the objectives of her royal inquiry being broad enough to encompass that type of material.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister indicate how many charges have been laid against violence on the hockey rinks in Ontario, either professional sport or amateur?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Professional or amateur?

Mr. Reid: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ll take the question as notice. I cannot give the members the exact number, but there are some investigations going on right now. I believe there have been some charges laid. But I will take his question as notice and get back to the member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

HAMILTON AREA HOME PROGRAMMES STANDARDS

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Given that I have provided the Ministry of Housing during the course of the last two years with at least 100, and perhaps more, cases where the HOME programme houses were either not completed to standard or required repairs after the owner moved in, and which were not completed expeditiously; and given that last week an inspection showed structural defects in at least one, perhaps in other homes, built by Valport; and given that there have been a great many problems with Settlement Corp., will the Minister of Housing order a re-examination of all of the homes built in the Hamilton area in the last two years? And particularly will he inquire with regard to structural matters within the houses to ensure that people are not going to be faced with major repair costs in the very near future?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member brought this matter to my attention I said -- if I remember correctly -- that if there were defects such as he mentioned, they would be corrected by OHC. Since then I have received additional information. I will have to refer to it, since there are quite a few details I can’t remember offhand.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would take this down, on March 27, OHC made a pre-occupancy inspection which at that time indicated to us that the unit was not ready for the new owner and it was assessed accordingly. A further inspection was held on April 3. Some of these deficiencies have been corrected but not all, and it is still not ready. Another inspection was held on April 9. There was a meeting on April 11 which was held between OHC and the builder. The builder agreed that the house should not have been offered until it was ready and that it would be brought up to HOME standards before it would be occupied by the new owner.

This builder, Mr. Speaker, I think I should bring to the attention of the hon. member, has built many homes for the Ontario government, for OHC, and for the last several years his building has been all right. In this case, it’s definitely not up to standard and be was told so. It will not happen again, I can assure the member.

Mr. Deans: I have a supplementary question. This is only one house. Quite obviously, if the builder can build one house like this, be can build many houses like this. I want to ask the minister whether he will put a sufficient number of inspectors, in the first place, in the area to conduct an inspection in a proper way and, secondly, whether he will reinspect all of the properties built by this builder to determine whether this is one isolated incident or whether it’s a practice of his not to comply with regulations.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have already told my staff to make sure that this particular builder is very closely watched in the future. I would be happy to give further inspections if any other deficiencies are brought to my attention, but they have not been to this particular time. If the member knows of any, I would appreciate receiving them. I don’t believe there are further deficiencies now existing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

HALTON REGIONAL COUNCIL OHAP LOAN

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Can the Minister of Housing explain the difficulty that occurred in the Halton regional council in connection with an $8.8 million OHAP loan? Why was it necessary to rush it through so that many members of council weren’t aware of the details? What was the urgency and why wasn’t it done within the fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the difficulty was as far as the council was concerned. Certainly they have been after assistance in regard to improving their sewage plant capacity. It has been under capacity, as I have stated in the House. I think the member’s leader brought the question to my attention and I said at that time we wanted to improve the facility. We gave housing grants for the very definite reason that we want to build more homes in that particular area. We have proposals before us right now which will allow us to do so, once we have improved this sewage capacity for the entire area. As to the council’s confusion, if there was any, there shouldn’t have been.

Mr. Singer: Can the minister explain why he got caught in the jam of having to spend his money so quickly that he didn’t have time to explain to council what the agreement involved?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we’re never really anxious to spend money too quickly but I think every member of this House knows that members have been after me from all sides to try to get housing built. I do my best to ensure that we do. If I have the money, which to me it is quite sensible to spend in regard to a sewage facility capacity, I should do so as quickly as possible and at the request of the council.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Was it too fast for the member for Downsview?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has just left his chair. If I could get his attention, I have a question.

Mr. Speaker: He may be back. We’ll give you an opportunity in a few minutes.

Mr. Martel: He is on his way now.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He was getting into the Premier’s chair. He liked that pretty well.

Mr. Cassidy: He will never make it.

EFFLUENT AT INCO PLANT

Mr. Martel: Can the Minister of the Environment indicate whether the studies conducted by his staff in the Copper Cliff area indicate that Inco is in any way responsible for the fog conditions which resulted in so many accidents in the past couple of years?

Mr. Laughren: He should answer his letters too.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have reason to believe that there is some reaction from the effluent being dumped into the stream. We are working on this, as I think I have indicated to the member before. We hope to have the matter corrected by this fall at the latest.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister of Industry and Tourism have the answer to a question?

ODC LENDING POLICY

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Huron asked why J. F. Farm Machinery Ltd. of Exeter was turned down by the Ontario Development Corp. for a loan for a capital project. The facts are as follows:

During 1969, the company inquired respecting a forgivable loan but was informed that it was not eligible. In 1970, the terms of reference relating to forgivable loans were changed and the company then made an application, which was approved, for $90,000 on Jan. 10, 1973.

It has, sir, from that date been given a forgiveness of $9,000 on Nov. 5, 1973, and again on Dec. 1, 1974. At that time the employment was 95 and it had predicted that it would reach a maximum of 41.

On Sept. 12, 1973, the company was granted an export support loan in the amount of $250,000 with an interest rate of 6.5 per cent.

On Oct. 25, 1974, the company requested that the export support loan be increased to $400,000 from the $250,000. The company was advised that the request would be subject to our current rate of interest -- 8.5 per cent interest. The company did not pursue the application with us and on March 21 the company repaid in full its export support loan that was outstanding at that time, from the receipts it had received from the orders.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario Development Corp. has served its role well in assisting this company when it was unable to obtain financing from other sources. Later, it was able to withdraw when the company was strong enough to obtain financing from the private sector. I am completely mystified as to why the member for Huron would not check his facts out before he brought this question to the House. However, my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), informs me that this is par for the course.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I don’t read comic books like the Liberal Party.

Mr. Riddell: Is the minister aware that the ODC extended assistance to Kongskilde in Exeter, whereby they built two buildings for Kongskilde and they leased the buildings and J. F. Farm Machinery Ltd. asked for the same assistance and the minister’s official, Mr. Burton, told the president of J. F. Farm Machinery Ltd. that they would not extend that assistance to J. F. Farm Machinery because they didn’t want to encourage competition in a field where they had already extended assistance.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I really didn’t get the significance of the question, but let me make it very clear to the member --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Make it perfectly clear.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, to the Liberal leader likely everything is very clear in a very mystified sort of a way.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Running scared.

Mr. Roy: We have heard that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Okay, we are not reading comic books on this side. There are no jokes.

Mr. Speaker: We are wasting valuable time. Does the minister have a short answer?

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is very rattled, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not as rattled as the member for Ottawa Centre was with the settlement of the Ottawa school teachers yesterday, that’s for sure.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Huron very clearly indicated that there was a verbal inquiry made on a very general basis. There was not, as he indicated yesterday, an application related to the specific case that he is quoting at the moment When the application is made, then it will be reviewed by the board at ODC and a decision made. The question was generally an inquiry of our office.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. No. The time has really expired, but the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville was on his feet before.

Mr. Riddell: Why would he make an application when the minister’s official told him there was no sense in it?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I’ll allow the member for Windsor-Walkerville to pose his question.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about the industrial park in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the provincial Treasurer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. members give their colleague an opportunity to ask his question?

The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Now the hon. member.

OMERS PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. B. Newman: A question of the provincial Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. Is he looking into or will he look into amendments to the OMERS legislation that will permit municipal employees to buy back in pension benefits for war service, just in the same fashion as is given to provincial employees today?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The members will buy back in.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): That, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, is a matter which is in front of the government as a whole in terms of a number of pension plans. I don’t believe any final decision has been made by the government. The decision to do such a thing, of course, would be made by the board of OMERS and recommended to the government for legislation. It would not be initiated by us.

Mr. Roy: How come they didn’t keep the minister in Ottawa?

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired, but the minister --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me tell the member for Ottawa East, they would not --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Labour indicated he had given some wrong information in an answer yesterday and he would like the opportunity to correct it, so I think we should allow him that opportunity.

An hon. member: We’ll be here all day.

Interjections by hon. members.

HAZARDS IN KITCHENER AREA PLANTS

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House’s indulgence and I apologize to the members. I indicated there were 195 safety complaints from labour unions in the Kitchener area. I have given ourselves too much credit for overwork. That figure referred to the whole province and not just the Kitchener area.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

LIQUOR CONTROL ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves first reading of bill intituled, the Liquor Control Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the bill continues the Liquor Control Board to perform the present functions of the Liquor Control Board concerned with the marketing of liquor by manufacturers and the operation of government stores.

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves first reading of bill intituled, the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, this bill re-establishes the Liquor Licence Board to perform all the licensing functions, including those now performed by the Liquor Control Board. The principal changes are: (1) provision is made for licensing procedures and for hearings, review and appeals; and (2) the offences are revised and simplified.

Mr. Shulman: The minister should be embarrassed.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced in the last session. The purpose of the legislation, of course, is to protect individuals who are arrested or confined under the Mental Health Act and to permit these individuals, within a period of 24 or 48 hours the right to have a hearing and to be examined by a psychiatrist. This would prevent individuals who are picked up under the present Mental Health Act from going for a period of time -- sometimes nine weeks at a time -- without getting an adequate hearing.

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Public Hospitals Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, this bill was presented in the last session as well. It would amend the Public Hospitals Act to prevent incessant appeals by hospital boards which are making appeals at public expense, for instance in the case of Dr. Schiller. This legislation would provide that they would be limited to an appeal to the court of appeal and that pending the court of appeal decision to the decision of the appeal board would remain in force so that an individual like Dr. Schiller could continue to practice in that hospital pending the appeal.

I have another piece of legislation here, Mr. Speaker, that I consider the cornerstone of Liberal policy.

Mr. Foulds: Their leader is away. Are they sure it’s policy?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: That woke them up over there.

Mr. Roy: Look at the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett). We should send him back to Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Let’s get on with the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

ONTARIO BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Ontario Bill of Rights.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: The Ontario Bill of Rights from the Liberal Party?

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: It begins with the incarceration of the Japanese Canadians and ends with the War Measures Act.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, this legislation was presented in the last session and it’s very unfortunate that the government did not see fit to adopt this legislation.

Mr. Foulds: It would prevent Ontario from coming under the War Measures Act.

Mr. Roy: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bill of Rights is limited only to federal legislation and has no application whatsoever to provincial legislation.

Mr. Bullbrook: I sometimes wonder if it has any application to federal legislation.

Mr. Roy: It has been limited. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation would be to create what is called an Ontario Bill of Rights under which the fundamental rights and freedom of individuals in this province would be protected from any legislation passed by this Legislature. Of course, many other provinces have this type of legislation and we would encourage the government to adopt this type of legislation.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Braithwaite moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: It’s an act to provide that all tenants vote Liberal.

Mr. Braithwaite: They will anyway.

Mr. Lewis: Under the bill of rights, previously passed.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, the amendment provides for mandatory landlord and tenant review boards in municipalities with populations over 150,000 persons. These boards would have the power to determine the amount of rents and to order tenants removed from premises for non-payment of rent and for wilful damage to the premises.

Also, Mr. Speaker, this bill is introduced to bring once more to the attention of the government the sad plight that most renters in Metropolitan Toronto are facing in view of the unconscionable rent raises they’re having to pay.

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Braithwaite moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the marking of dates on perishable food packages which will, without the use of a code or guide, clearly indicate the date the food was packaged, together with the expiry date.

ATHLETICS CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Braithwaite moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Athletics Control Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prohibit the practice whereby senior house leagues require individual leagues to submit personal information on members.

The bill would also prohibit the selling of the names of league members to companies who wish to compile mailing lists.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is introduced to draw to the attention of this House the fact that the Metropolitan Toronto house league, and a hockey league in my particular riding, known as St. Benedicts, are having difficulties with reference to the furnishing of names and the sale or the possible rental of these names to commercial outlets.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Braithwaite moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for noise control regulations on a province-wide basis rather than by by-laws passed by individual municipalities. This bill is introduced to draw to the attention of the House the problem that municipalities such as Etobicoke and Mississauga have with reference to noise emanating from sources outside of the municipalities -- in this particular case, Malton Airport.

ONTARIO WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECLAMATION COMMISSION ACT

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Ontario Waste Disposal and Reclamation Commission.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been introduced before. It proposes to establish a utility similar to the former Hydro commission to provide solid waste disposal and reclamation services, including incineration and landfill throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

ONTARIO HOME BUYERS GRANT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves second reading of Bill 28, An Act to provide for the Payment of Grants to First Time Home Buyers.

Ms. Speaker: The member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, in view of the problems of housing in this province at this time, we are in a Position on this side to support almost any measure that might ease some of the burdens. We do resent, however, and I believe the people of Ontario will resent the fact that such needed help is introduced temporarily, in effect to cover an election period, in view of the fact that the house must have been purchased or built prior to Dec. 31, 1975.

For practical purposes, it is difficult to ascertain how much help this really will be, but if there is one person benefited I suppose we are in the position that we can do none other than to support the principle.

We are aware of one case in particular where up to one month ago one builder had 1,000 units unsold on the market. We believe similar situations exist in other areas because of high prices and high carrying charges. At the moment, therefore, we do have some housing in some areas and we certainly have people who wish to buy. We hope that this grant, picayune in a sense as it is, may assist to fit them together.

We are interested in knowing why the Treasurer of this province (Mr. McKeough) should seem to give preference to those who are from out of the province, because if one reads the principles of this bill --

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): The Treasurer had better listen to this.

Mrs. Campbell: -- it seems clear that one could have owned a home outside of Ontario and still qualify under this programme if that person moved into Ontario. We would like the Treasurer to explain that apparent preference for those who are not now citizens of Ontario, since this government has laid to the door of those coming into this province a great deal of the responsibility for the lack of housing. That, of course, is only one area in which they have tried to lay responsibility for failure.

We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, as to what will happen at the end of this year. We are interested to know why, in the light of all of the prognostications, this particular programme should effectively end as of the end of this year as to the period of purchase. Surely this programme ought to be tested and evaluated before being terminated unless, of course, the government really believes that someone will wave a magic wand -- and it won’t be the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) -- and, miraculously we will have no housing problem after the end of December. We suggest that no time limit should be set, and certainly not before the programme is even implemented and any assessment possible.

We have another serious reservation about the programme. We are concerned lest this encourage conversion to condominium ownership, especially in the Metro area, which will impose an additional hardship on tenants already beset by unconscionably high rents.

I suppose that could be rather academic in view of the time-frame; nevertheless we express this concern. We are curious as to whether the government has equated the provision of this grant with the refunding of the sales tax on building materials. I would be interested to know if there is any relationship between the amount of the grant and the sales tax collected on a moderate-cost home?

We are pleased that some relief is forthcoming to home buyers. We are distressed that it will be terminated on Dec. 31. We certainly urge the monitoring of the situation in condominiums and we most precisely want to. know, in conclusion, why the citizens of Ontario should be prejudiced as against those citizens who may have owned homes in other parts of Canada or other parts of the world, but who may qualify on moving into this province, as we read the legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, the Tories are going to try and simplify the debate on the hustings about this particular measure by saying, “Okay, who voted for the $1,000 and who voted against the $1,000?” That’s the kind of way in which the Conservatives have handled housing policy. They’ve dealt with a very severe crisis in this province over the last few years in a simplistic fashion. I wish that we could have a better level of discussion of this bill and of the housing policy of the government in general.

We consider the grant that’s proposed in this bill to be an exceedingly modest contribution to the housing problem. I have to say that we are going to support it. We do so limply and without any particular great enthusiasm. We do it, however, because we don’t feel that we can expect anything better from the government. We will get a string of announcements as long as one’s arm from the Minister of Housing. If this were a sunny, warm climate without any precipitation it might be that the paper on which those announcements were printed could be used for shelter. However, our climate is not that way and at least this is a concrete policy.

However, it has many, many defects and I wish that the minister would acknowledge that it’s simply a piece of election candy which does not provide any real substance in solving housing problems, whether for the particular target group or for the population of the province as a whole.

The first defect in the scheme is, very simply, that one needs to be rich or almost rich in order to afford to benefit from this particular scheme. Since housing prices are averaging around $46,000 in the province as a whole, and since they average something over $55,000 to $58,000 in Metro Toronto right now, since the monthly cost of purchasing housing is running around $400 per month or more at current interest rates and with modest downpayments, it is clear that the vast bulk of Ontario families are simply shut out from this particular scheme entirely.

The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who may have some hankering to go there himself, points out that this is going to benefit certain scions of the rich who will buy their first home, having just emerged from finishing school or from their world tour or from a couple of years working the way up in dad’s firm. Then they will pay $80,000 or $100,000 for a pleasant house up in Willowdale or on the fringes of Rockcliffe or some other part of the province. They will benefit. They’ll take the $1,000 and go down to Nassau for a couple of weeks for an end-of-season vacation, and by God if they won’t get $250 for air fare for the next two winters running in order that they can repeat that particular kind of experience.

The minister’s policies are selective and discriminatory in favour of just that kind of person. Working class people need not apply. Many middle class people need not apply either. Right now I remind the minister in the House that the average industrial wage in Ontario in January this year was $10,149. It had risen from $7,673 in 1971. Back in 1971, somebody on the average industrial wage couldn’t quite buy a house but at least they might have some hopes. Now it is completely out of reach.

The basic home -- if we can call it that -- the basic $40,000 house in Metro, if we can find one, is going to cost $376 per month including taxes and it is going to require an income of $18,000 per annum if we assume that a person can save $5,000 and if we have them paying 25 per cent of their income for the house. That is not a working income. The median family income of the province right now is $5,000 less than one needs in order to afford a house. It’s running at about $13,000 per annum. People who earn $18,000 or $20,000 or $25,000 per annum basically own homes as well; 80 per cent of them approximately, have their own homes. What have we got then? We have a kind of quixotic policy which may benefit a few but which escapes the needs of most of the people for whom it is designed to appeal.

It will, perhaps, help developers unload their unsold houses. It may help some appliance dealers because people will wind up buying a house they had intended to buy anyway and will then find themselves with $1,000 cheque from the minister, conveniently delivered a few days before the election. They may go out and spend it on a fancy dishwasher or a $700 refrigerator or something like that. It cannot effectively increase the supply of homes between now and the time the programme runs out. The programme is going to run for all of about -- is it eight or nine months?

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Eight and a half.

Mr. Cassidy: Eight and a half months. During that period of time, the major constraints on the supply of housing are going to be mortgage rates which are so high that most people can’t buy homes; the supply of serviced land; the time it takes to build new housing. Very few units, if any, will be begun, as a result of this particular scheme.

In certain cases, it will be impossible to put up new houses and to let people have title to them by the end of the year. I think, for example, of highrise condominiums for which the time between inception and completion is generally longer than the 8½ months. If a developer had said on April 9, that is, last week, “I will build in order to allow the purchasers of this condominium to take advantage of this grant,” the chances that he could have actually had units ready for people to move into by the end of the year are very slight indeed.

If somebody moves into a condominium which was commenced in March or February or January, there is possibly a chance that those units will be completed by the end of the year. It cannot be argued that the minister’s programmes will have gone to create one single new unit in that particular condominium since the planning for it was already well under way at the time the bill and the programme came in.

The bill does nothing for tenants. The budget does nothing for tenants, nothing at all. The Minister of Housing clearly is completely insensitive, doesn’t understand the problems and is unwilling to do anything at all. He is wrapped in his own 19th century ideology and is not aware of the suffering that is taking place out there. I challenge the minister when he comes to reply in this particular debate to tell me what his bill is going to do for a lady who called my home yesterday.

This is the mother of a former babysitter of ours who happened to call. She lives in a highrise apartment and is facing a $44 rent increase for her two-bedroom apartment in June or the beginning of July. That is an increase of about 20 per cent. It will bring her rent to about $220 a month for a modest two-bedroom apartment.

Over the course of the last couple of years her daughter, our former babysitter, was killed in a car accident. Her husband has died of illness. The woman herself is now suffering from multiple sclerosis and she has a 13-year-old daughter who is still living with her. She is attempting to live on the pension her husband was able to leave her. She is damned and determined that she won’t move into rent-geared-to-income housing because she says she has not got to that pass yet, and now she is facing a $44 rent increase.

There is no money in that family to pay $400 a month in order to afford a new house or even a used house. That is probably as much as this woman’s total income from her pension. There is no way in which that particular family can benefit from this programme or any of the programmes that are being proposed by the government. This is not an isolated case. It is a case which could be repeated hundreds and thousands of times across the province.

The next thing is that the proposal that the minister has brought in is quite likely to have an absolutely perverse effect where it could even lead to the point where these purchasers are worse off than if the programme had not been introduced at all. Certain ones might be a bit better off because the $1,000 could help them to meet their downpayment. Mr. Speaker, if you bring 55,000 people in with an extra $1,000 jingling around in their jeans and if you take the current supply situation in the housing market, then you have added demand without providing extra supply and, as the minister knows, there is a very strong tendency that that will lead to higher prices.

The government has presided, without acting effectively at all, over a doubling of housing prices in the province over the last four years, that is, since the last election. In 1971, the price of a house in Toronto was averaging around $31,000.

In 1974, it was averaging about $50,000, $53,000 or $54,000. Just in the three months from the time that this minister took over and began to consider what kind of candy he would offer in his budget, the price of a house in Metro has gone up by far more than the total amount of these particular grants. The average in Metro was $52,800 in 1974. In January, 1975, it was up by $2,000 to $54,806. In February, it was up by another $1,700 to $56,500. In March, it was up by another $1,700 to $58,200. In April, the selling season has just begun.

The prices are increasing every month by an amount which is greater than the value of the grant which the minister is proposing to provide. Not only that, but if one looks in the minister’s budget itself and looks at the statistics -- I think I can find them here -- on the housing sector, back in page A21, they show graphically that the housing crisis that was reflected in starts last year will be reflected both in starts and in completions this year.

Last year, oddly enough, despite the drastic drop in starts, completions were up in urban Ontario from 83,000 to 88,000 units. That meant that the supply situation last year was not appreciably worsened. However, starts last year in urban Ontario were down from 93,000 to 72,000 -- down by 21,000 starts. That will be reflected in completions this year.

Nothing that the minister has proposed is going to have any effect on that at all. In fact, an even more drastic decline in housing starts in Ontario over the first three months of this year will mean that those completions are not going to recover until some time, at the earliest, in the spring of 1976.

There is no way with the programmes that the government is proposing now that it’s going to come around. Therefore we’re going to have more dollars chasing a sharply reduced supply of housing, with the inevitable results. I ask the minister to tell us how the grants are going to cure that particular kind of situation.

I said at the beginning that we’re going to support this particular bill. I said it at the beginning at the urging of my colleagues, because they pointed out that if I didn’t, I might well convince us that we would vote against it by the end of this speech.

It is a cynical election move which will have no long-term benefit because of the fact that this particular measure is only provided for a period of eight months. If there is any real commitment by the government to the plight of people buying a home for the first time, then clearly this should be a measure which should be in place on a permanent basis. We find it doubly cynical that in the same budget, where sales tax reductions and homeowner grants are provided for only eight months, the candy that is provided to big business should extend until some time well until the end of 1977. We intend to propose that the home buyers be treated at least as generously as industry. We would make the grant permanent. For now, we will propose that it go on until the end of 1977.

I think that this measure is cynical as well, Mr. Speaker, because the people from Detroit who advised the government have told them: “Look, go heavy on violence, go heavy on small business and go out to those home buyers who are getting frustrated; they’re always potential Tories [more homeowners are Tory than tenants for a number of reasons]. Pander to what people want.” And I’m afraid to say that is precisely what the government is doing.

The minister estimates that 55,000 first-time home buyers will benefit during the course of this particular year. If you go back to 1973 and 1974, to any typical year, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the number of first-time home buyers in an average year is probably considerably higher than the 55,000 that are estimated for the coming year.

After all, if our housing starts are running at a rate of 100,000 per year -- and the people who buy a home who had already owned one don’t count because they leave a house that has to be sold -- then one has to assume that something like 100,000 people per annum are first-time home buyers. This year it is estimated there will be only 55,000.

Then one has to ask: “How many of those 55,000 people would have already bought?” The answer again is obvious. The number of people is limited to those who could afford $400 to $600 per month in carrying charges on a home or have a father who is a vice-president of the Robert Simpson Co., a minister in the Conservative government, or someone else who can afford to lay some money down for them to buy a first home. Most of those 55,000 buyers would have bought already.

In terms of social policy, in other words, this is not a particularly effective use of $55 million. We support it only because we can’t see anything better coming from the government. But it’s quite possible that no more than 5,000 first-time home buyers in fact will become buyers because of that extra $1,000, and even many of those will simply be accelerating their purchases from the spring of 1976 until just before Christmas, 1975.

What really breaks my heart is that out there, Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of couples, people with one or two kids, families who have been saving up for 10 or 15 years to try to get a home of their own but they’re always just a bit too short. Or perhaps they now regret the fact that at a time when they might have been able to afford it, their priorities were elsewhere and they thought they would put it off for a year or two, with the result that they lost the one chance in a lifetime when they might have found a home of their own.

For every family that benefits from this programme there will probably be 10 or 20 families across the province who would like to be home buyers, who sympathize with this programme but won’t understand why it’s not benefiting them.

The member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) was pointing out to us today that many of those people are already getting cynical because of what they see. They see that rich people benefit; they don’t benefit. A few people who are now paying 35 per cent or 40 per cent of their income for homes they brought in March or April see that if your timing is politically adept for the Conservative government’s re-election, then you benefit; and if you happen to be busting your wallet in order to get a home of your own, then you don’t benefit either.

Mr. Speaker, because of the way it’s drafted the bill is going to create some fairly severe problems, firstly for people who have just bought, and for apartment dwellers who are shut out because they are into a one- or two-year lease and can’t break it. I would like to know what the minister is going to do about those problems.

There’s also the cynical treatment of co-operatives because co-operatives are said to be encouraged by this particular measure. This comes after a year in which the provincial secretary responsible for housing has been one of the leading proponents of the anti-co-operative housing movement in the province, in that she has been actively working against co-operative and non-profit housing in her particular riding with the full support of the government of which she is a member. Nevertheless, the government says that cooperatives will be encouraged by this particular measure.

If it takes more than a year to get a condominium under way, Mr. Speaker, it obviously takes even longer to get a group of people together in order to form a co-operative, find land, thread through the red tape that has been erected by the various levels of government and eventually get a project on the ground. No new co-operative which is born or conceived after April 8, 1975, will benefit in any way from this particular measure.

There are problems with condominiums that are proposed by this measure, Mr. Speaker. On the one hand, I have had calls from people who maybe want to evade the purpose of the Act -- I am not sure -- but who are occupying a condominium unit under an option agreement which in certain cases is a binding agreement of purchase and in certain other cases is not. Where the option is not binding but there is a clear intention to purchase and they have been in for several months, I am not sure personally whether the minister intends that these people benefit from the homeowner grant or not, and I think that he should make that clear.

Even more serious though, there will be some condominium purchasers between now and the end of the year who were duped by clever sales tactics into assuming that they will benefit to the tune of $1,500, who will move in before the end of the year, but who will be in a condominium where title is not registered until 1976 and the way in which the bill is drafted right now, they will not benefit. I see that the officials may have already considered that --

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There is an amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: There is an amendment on that particular measure, okay. I am glad to see that that one has been tackled.

I believe that the matter of fraternity houses with revolving purchasers can also be handled, and I am sure that the minister will have a statement or an amendment on that particular thing as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is the centrepiece of the government’s housing policy in this particular budget; the centrepiece -- $55 million in home purchasers’ grants. I can see the ads now. I would like to know what the allocations to the Ministry of Housing are just to advertise this particular programme. I would like to know what the advertising schedule of that programme is and how it has been integrated with the other government advertising programmes leading up to the 1975 election, because clearly it is going to be used for that particular purpose. The Tories are coat-tailing themselves on the public purse in trying to get themselves re-elected.

When you look through the budget in general, Mr. Speaker, you find that there is no indication of any measures to stop the runaway rent increases that we are experiencing right now. There are no proposals to stop rent speculators. The money that is being put in for land acquisition is away down. There are no proposals to lower interest rates.

We find that last year the government’s target of 30,000 assisted housing starts was missed by about 50 per cent. The government only got half of what it said its target was going to be. We find that last year when they talked about 100,000 housing starts, only 85,000 were achieved, that during the last fiscal year -- that is 1974-1975 -- the total of housing starts was even less. The record is getting worse and worse, quarter by quarter.

We find the government lashing out at the federal government for its inaction and yet refusing to come in and use the very ample credit of the Province of Ontario in order to fill the gap that it charges the federal government with creating. We find the government equally bitterly and viciously lashing out at the municipalities and always trying to pass the buck from its own responsibilities, despite the fact that the Province of Ontario, the provincial government, holds the keys to housing policy and successful fulfilment of a housing programme in the Province of Ontario.

We are confronted with yet another series of announcements in the budget -- 10,000 public housing units, other programmes and so on -- which are just as incredible as the programmes that have been announced in the past. We are just as sceptical about them because the record, Mr. Speaker, has led us to believe conclusively that you have to cut back any announcements that the government makes about housing. They never fulfil what they promise to deliver. They never even spend the money that they budget for housing. They are down by 100 million bucks over the last three years on funds which have been allocated for housing, and if that’s the case, then what on earth do we have the right to expect of the programmes that are announced in this particular budget?

That particular double dealing was added to in the budget itself where mortgage money for the OMC, which will go to $208 million in 1975-1976, will in fact be $35 million less money than had been promised for this current fiscal year by the government during the series of announcements made by the Minister of Housing during the latter months of 1974. Merely to repeat last year’s allocation and to provide the additional funding that was promised but not spent last October would require a budget of $233 million for 1975-1976. But the budget figure does not even provide enough funding to honour last year’s commitments.

Mr. Speaker, that’s about it. The house purchase benefit will benefit those who can afford to buy and to close in the next nine months. It’s absolutely useless for the majority of low and middle income earners who have been priced right out of the market. And the Treasurer isn’t doing anything to get them back in.

By the time these grants start to flow, the value of houses or the prices charged for houses will have gone up right across the province by more than the $1,000 value of the grant or even by more than the $1,500 value of the grant over three years. There is nothing to accommodate the problem that most families earning less than $15,000 a year cannot afford $400 or $500 per month in order to have housing.

We will propose, during the course of the committee stage of this bill, Mr. Speaker, that the time limit which was put in to make this a piece of election bait be extended to be comparable with the concessions made to industry. We may even make that indefinite.

We also want to propose, in order to prevent people using this on $80,000 mansions and other such types of property that there be limits set on the value of the homes which can be bought with this particular grant. We’ve considered the alternatives -- whether it should be the limits set for the federal $500 grant or the limits set for the assisted homeownership purchase programme. We believe that if there is going to be this amount of money going in, it should encourage and permit first-hand home buyers to buy modest priced homes and there should be a substantial incentive to the development industry to price homes closer to what those admittedly middle-income families can afford.

We would, therefore, propose that the regulations which would be set by the minister would limit that to the figures set under OHAP; that is, ranging from about $42,000 maximum in most of the province to a ceiling of about $48,000 here in Toronto. I find those figures are ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. I can’t find better ones because of the insane kind of situation in the housing market which has been created by the Tories.

Ineffectual as it may be, cynical as it may be, we will rather grudgingly support this particular programme on the part of the government but we will move in committee stage to try to make it an effective, if marginal, contribution to the housing market. We will continue to press for a comprehensive housing policy which ensures that every Ontario resident, regardless of income, achieves the right to decent housing at an affordable cost. God bring the day when that will be the policy of the government of Ontario rather than the cynical kind of election baiting which is all we’re getting from them right now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt the government has a very great bent for bringing forth policies with great sex appeal politically, and passing them forward not knowing what their real implications and their real worth actually will be in the long run. There’s no way anyone in their right mind could oppose the idea of putting money into the hands of home-buyers. It’s something needed and overdue.

I did a little research, Mr. Speaker, since this was introduced in the budget and I have found some startling things which just don’t add up to the picture the minister has painted regarding this particular programme.

When the Treasurer was on TV following the budget, he admitted there was a great glut of homes on the market at the present time and that this particular measure would take these homes off the market. Then he was questioned, “What have you done for apartment owners?” After a little humming and hawing and thinking it suddenly dawned on him that that’s going to move people out of apartments to pick up this supposed glut of homes that is now on the market; there will be vacancies in apartments for tenants, so that should keep rents at a particular level.

Mr. Speaker, surely he must know that that is a lot of nonsense. There isn’t the glut of homes that people are able to purchase, or can afford to purchase, on the market in the Province of Ontario. I checked in my own riding and I find that the only homes for sale that have been on the market for any length of time are overpriced rowhousing, townhousing and condominiums, The low-priced single-family units are snapped up as quickly as they can be bought.

I asked for a few examples of what type of housing really is there as a backlog. So I was handed one slip from the Multiple Listing Service and it is a townhousing type of unit selling for $44,900. This is one of the better deals in that it has a $6,500 second mortgage which is interest free for the first three years. They really must be pushing to try to unload these overpriced houses if they are offering a second mortgage of $6,500 interest free for the first three years. So after a downpayment of $4,500, with an interest-free second mortgage of $6,500, one would still be faced with a first mortgage of $34,000.

Mr. Speaker, a mortgage of $34,000 at 11 per cent requires monthly payments of principal and interest of about $330. When one adds on taxes we are talking payments in the neighbourhood of $400 a month. The problem is not that people can’t manage the downpayment on a house -- they can save the few thousand dollars that are required for the downpayment -- that is only part of the problem. The major problem is who can afford the carrying charges of mortgages at their present rates and the size of mortgage that is required?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Right on.

Mr. Good: So figuring it out, taking about somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent of income -- and this varies depending on who one gets his or her mortgage from -- but taking say 27 per cent, there is no way that a person can afford a house unless he or she is making somewhere around $18,000 a year. The people who need housing are in earning ranges which are considerably less than that. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who really wants a house and is making $18,000 a year in today’s market could have a house. If it was his or her top priority in life to own a house I see no reason why he or she couldn’t have a house.

The $1,000 grant from the government is going to do one of two things for anyone who is trying to get into one of these overpriced units: It can reduce his downpayment by $1,000 or it can reduce his monthly payments by $10. The two realtors I spoke to said: “If you have a prospective buyer and he can’t afford the $400-a-month payment, there is no way he can afford $390 a month,” and that is all the $1,000 is going to do.

So I don’t think we are going to move the type of home which is today the backlog that the Treasurer has spoken of. These are houses in the middle and upper price range and a $10 reduction in monthly payments, or the $1,000 reduction in downpayment, isn’t going to take those homes off the market. If those developers have seen fit to build, on speculation, homes in the medium and upper price range, I would say let the normal process of buyer and seller take its normal course and if they get stuck with them for a while let them be stuck with them. What we need is a programme that is going to put housing in the hands of the people on lower incomes and I agree that the $55 million could have been used in another manner which would have been more equitable and fair.

I think we will see abuses come into the system, as we did with the simplistic approach that the government first developed in its farm tax reduction scheme.

The first time they introduced it they said everybody living on the farm or in the rural area with over 10 acres would get 25 per cent of their property tax reduced. So the fellow who built a $100,000 home in the rural area on 15 or 20 acres of land got 25 per cent of his municipal taxes refunded. This thing was abused for two or three years, Mr. Speaker, simply because all this government looks at is a headline-grabbing, eye-appealing approach to policy; policy by headline. They’ve been doing it for as long as I’ve been down here.

Granted, Mr. Speaker, this programme does have great political sex appeal. We don’t doubt that. But in my own riding it doesn’t seem to have gone over so big, judging by the calls I’ve had. I must confess I’ve had only about a half a dozen calls and letters on it and of that half dozen -- I received one letter today, a copy of which went to the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- these people are simply disgusted. They say: “I strongly object to the $15,000 being given to first-time home buyers.”

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): It’s $1,500.

Mr. Good: Fifteen hundred, I’m sorry; $1,500 being sent to home buyers.

They go on to explain their objections. They had to skimp and save to get their downpayment, and now they’re going to have to pay for other people. Well, maybe or maybe not that is a valid objection. In two other phone calls I had, the people were quite incensed because they had purchased just a week or two before the April 8 deadline on which the policy was announced. They feel it should be retroactive to this fiscal year. Well the government fiscal year starts April 1, so at least it should go back to April 1, if that would be any advantage; maybe it wouldn’t.

I don’t think it’s going to create one new housing unit in my area. I don’t know about the Toronto area. I understand there are quite a few houses on the market. I also understand they’re in the price range where a person on average wages just can’t afford to buy them.

With a little more forethought and a little more detailed analysis, perhaps that $55 million could have been used in a manner which would have been more beneficial to those people who are really in the bind. There’s no possible way they can ever get into a house.

I’m all for home ownership. I’m all for people owning their own property. I think it’s the only hedge you can have against inflation. I come from a community where not many years ago, 87 per cent of the people lived in houses that they were buying. That has been distorted greatly in the last 10 or 15 years because of the advent of the high-rise apartment. I believe that home ownership gives a family a great deal of stability and I’m all for it. But I don’t think this particular programme has had that much thought go into it, other than its political implications. Along with the whole budget, people are wrapping this up into one bundle and saying it’s nothing more than electioneering with public money.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I have a few points on the legislation. The scarifying of the same has been done adequately by my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre. There are several points which I want to peruse or muse about, or go over with the minister. Why 55,000 homes -- is that the idea? Where does that figure come from? How is it arrived at?

I would point out to the minister that the gift tax is being monumentally increased from $2,000 to $5,000. A rich man gives a $5,000 gift, and so forth, and the government adds $1,000 to it. Not many people have rich fathers who are in a position to give $5,000. It’s another element in the overall picture of not benefiting. On the contrary, it is giving positive and extra emphasis or weight to certain elements in the population who really don’t need all the government’s beneficence and handouts. The failure in the legislation is that it is not restricted to those who might very well use it and could.

We would abjure, or request that the minister be clear on the dates that are effective here. A good number of the pubic, from telephone calls received -- and I’m sure the minister has got them in abundance in his office, too -- haven’t been thoroughly informed about the transaction. Even if entered into prior to April 8, if it closes, if there’s a transfer of title or possession subsequent to that date and up until midnight of Dec. 31 of this year, they qualify. I don’t think it’s clear enough yet. Certain lawyers have asked me about it. They think that if a transaction was entered into prior to that date then the matter is out the window. The transaction has to be entered into, in other words, subsequent to April 8, which is not the point and intent of this bill. In handling it that way, there is equity, and there is a sense of fairness written into the thing. It falls within a certain period; there is not that arbitrary deadline, that is true.

Well I don’t think the man whose deal actually closed on April 7 should wring his hands. I mean that was set up. It would have been nice, but I don’t think one will get that sense of chagrin or bitterness in the way that this is set up. But please give it a little publicity so that the thing will be made clear.

I’m also a little bemused to wonder what’s going to happen to real estate transactions, say around Dec. 20. I can imagine quite well somebody buying a house on Dec. 31, insisting that it close the next day. I suspect there will be ballooning and pressure mounting towards the end of the year as this legislation comes to a close.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Law offices are mainly closed after Christmas to New Year’s.

Mr. Lawlor: We are going to send it into committee anyhow and I can get that answer without my hearing aid. We want to point out to the minister too, that when the government passes legislation of this kind for industry, conferring benefits upon them by way of subsidy or largess, it doesn’t quite handle it the same way as it does for ordinary people. The production machinery stuff that we’ve been handling here in the past few days, for instance, goes on until 1977. It’s constantly extended, and it’s anticipated that it will be extended. It has been extended from 1968 right clean through.

The flexibilities involved there and the open-handedness in that regard are quite diametrically opposed to the toughness of these measures, although I suspect that possibly as part of the government’s campaign tactics Dec. 31 may not become all that arbitrary. Doesn’t the Treasurer agree? Isn’t that in the back of the government’s mind as an extra move?

I have certainly some misgivings about this. I was speaking last night as I came home, to a real estate salesman on the street. I said: “What impact has the $1,500 or $1,000 in the first-year situation going to have?” He said: “Oh, Lawlor, we’ve already picked that up into the price.” Unless the Treasurer is prepared to bring in some kind of controls, some way in which to place a lid over that, he can’t open Pandora’s box over here. He defeats his own purposes, cuts into the revenues of the province by $55 million and doesn’t achieve what he seeks to achieve at all. It’s all siphoned off and the gravy is slurped up by those whom even the Treasurer didn’t intend would be the beneficiaries of these particular measures.

The Treasurer does it constantly because he is so purblind about setting up some kind of alternative fixed figures. He has the whole apparatus under the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) to inspect, allocate, set prices for property, determine tax for land transfer tax and land speculation tax measures. There is a whole new department operating in these areas which he could very well, as Treasurer, utilize in this particular regard to set a price which will not be exceeded and which will ensure that all the benefits are not incorporated into different lands than what was the original intention of this legislation.

It’s pussyfooting. But even if it is pussyfooting, miniature and a slight thread that can hardly be seen even in the brightest sunlight, we feel it’s a move in the right direction and we are kind of forced, more or less against the grain, to support it.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other hon. member who wishes to take part in the debate? The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments or Bill 28, An Act to provide for the Payment of Grants to First Time Home Buyers. I do support the bill in principle but with some reservations. No doubt a grant of some $1,500 will induce many individuals of family status to purchase a home for the first time. Not realizing that this purchase will be one of the most important financial investments the purchaser will be faced with in the period of his lifetime, I’m afraid many of them will not really know the cost involved and whether or not they can afford it. Other members have mentioned that the announcement is nothing but a vote-getting programme. I can agree with them on that principle, that is what it is for -- just something to go to the public with sometime this year, within the nine-month period, with the hope this will gain additional support for the Conservative government.

My main concern, Mr. Speaker, is the cost involved to induce these individuals to go out and buy homes. I was interested in a brief presented to our caucus last week -- it was a submission to the Ontario government -- on the employment and housing crisis and it was presented by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. It was a very well documented brief and well put together. I was interested in page seven of the brief and perhaps I should read it into the record.

“By 1973 the average Metro home had gone up to $40,000; so assuming a $30,000 mortgage and with the new interest rate of 10 per cent, a 25-year mortgage would require a monthly payment of $268. That is a whopping increase of 320 per cent over 1961.”

I don’t believe wages have increased that much.

“By March, 1975, with Multiple Listing Services’ average home prices at $58,000, a $50,000 mortgage would be typical; with an interest of 12 per cent, a 25-year mortgage would require monthly payments of $515.95. In other words, if one is to keep to the recommended maximum of 25 per cent of income for shelter an annual income of $25,000 would be required to buy the average home listed by MLS in Metro Toronto. With residential and second mortgage interest rates running from 14 to 16 per cent the whole issue of financing housing has gone beyond reason.

“Put simply, since 1961 an increase in interest rates of 85 per cent has raised interest charges by 1,000 per cent over the life of a 25-year mortgage.”

I am concerned when we deal with the Ontario Housing Corp., particularly with a proposed development in the town of Fort Erie. I raised the matter last Dec. 18 with the Minister of Housing over the involvement of Ontario Housing.

They moved into the town of Fort Erie to establish Ontario Housing. They set a price on lots of some $10,000. Of course when you mention $10,000 to the Legislature here perhaps in some areas that’s peanuts compared to what they have to pay for a lot in Toronto. In particular it’s mentioned here that the average income in Ontario today is around $10,000. That may apply in some municipalities. It doesn’t apply in all municipalities throughout Ontario and $10,000 a lot, particularly in the town of Fort Erie, is out of the reach of the average wage earner in that municipality.

When I mentioned about the programme I had figured it out at 4½ or five homes built on an acre of land. The developer would be making a profit of almost $25,000 -- that’s clear -- after all the services have been put in. In the overall picture, looking at 200 homes, there was $1 million in profit which would go to the developer at the expense of the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Housing Corp. Again, I say if the involvement of the government is to get into building houses, it must put them on the market at a price the average wage earner in Ontario can afford.

I was concerned particularly about the interest that would be involved in the purchase of a home in that area. I suppose we are looking at $30,000 or $35,000 at 10 per cent to 12 per cent. I suppose we are talking about, in the first year, $3,500 on it and it would run roughly at about $285 to $300 a month to purchase a home in that area. No individual in that area without an income of $25,000 is going to come in under that scheme.

In various election campaigns, we have laughed at one of the political parties, Social Credit, and in particular at one of their main planks, which is to lower the interest rate to about six per cent. When it is mentioned, it raises a few eyebrows and produces a heckle from the crowd or the other candidates on the platform. But I think it makes sense when they say that the interest rate should be around the level of six per cent or seven per cent.

I think we must take a look at the usurious rate of interest in the Province of Ontario and perhaps throughout Canada. I was interested in the comments of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) when he mentioned in the House this afternoon, that certain companies got loans through ODC at 6½ per cent, while the highest is about eight per cent. I believe that’s reasonable.

An hon. member: There are some at zero.

Mr. Haggerty: But for some reason the Ontario Ministry of Housing can’t come through with an interest rate of six per cent or eight per cent. One must conclude that the ministry is in bed with the developers.

Looking at the interest when one has to go out and buy a home through Ontario Housing, on a 40- or 50-year term that interest will bury him for sure. He’ll take it with him to his grave. There are many municipalities, today where there are a number of new homes waiting for buyers, but the buyers cannot afford the interest. Certainly the programme is good for nine months, but all the Treasurer has actually done is to remove the sales tax for that period of nine months.

The Liberal policy in the past, and it probably will be this time, is that the sales tax should be removed on home building. I see the minister has got a little smile on his face, but it is true.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am just delighted that we’ve come that close to hearing the Liberal policy.

Mr. Haggerty: The federal government has moved in that direction and reduced it from 12 per cent to five per cent --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That represents a step forward. It has made the whole day worthwhile.

Mr. Haggerty: -- but not for a period of nine months. If one looks at the resolution presented by the Liberal Party following the last provincial budget, one would see that it was suggested there that the sales tax should be removed from home construction in the Province of Ontario.

If the government is serious about what it wants to do to provide housing in Ontario for the average wage earner, then it should remove the sales tax and, above all, it should lower the interest rate. If they can do it through the ODC loans to businessmen, surely they can find some accommodation for the home buyer in Ontario to bring the interest rate within his means and capabilities in providing a home for his family.

The bill itself, you might say is just a headline hunter. The government obviously hopes it’s going to pick up a few votes from those persons who are going to be able to qualify under the programme -- and how many will be able to qualify, I don’t know. I suppose that when they read the information that is on the application form, they’re going to have second thoughts. They’ll probably soon realize they’ve got to invest $40,000 to pick up $1,000 this year, $250 the next year and $250 the following year. I don’t know if the government is going to be able to fool them or not. If the government is serious enough and wants to provide homes for the people of the Province of Ontario, then it should lower the interest rate. The government can do it; it has done it in other provincial programmes to assist industry and the like. Surely if the government can find money for that, it can find it for the home builders in Ontario. And, after all, if a person goes out and buys a home in Ontario, he’s going to be buying furniture, appliances and so on; this is what is going to keep industry going, and they’re going to get some benefit out of it.

I think the government’s whole housing programme is going to fail because people today just don’t have the money to be able to go out and buy a home. They’re fortunate enough to even have the downpayment, without having a mortgage for 40 or 50 years; and as mentioned in the brief that was presented to the cabinet, they mention 25 years. I think that 25-year club has gone. I think the present condition is 50 years under the Ontario Housing Corp. I think if the government wants to do something it should lower the interest rate.

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

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, Bill 28 is, of course, part of the government party’s election gimmickry. It is allegedly designed to stimulate house building, but because the first-time owner may buy an existing house there is no assurance that any new housing is going to result.

It is almost impossible for a young couple to initiate the construction of a new house in the time period allowed. The young couple would have to find a lot, go through the legalities required to secure title, then find a contractor who could guarantee to have the house finished by Dec. 31. That is a rather tall order, involving some possibility that the deadline might arrive before title is obtained or possession taken.

In subdivisions in which new houses are being finished there may be a stimulation of sales, although not necessarily; or sales to people who were not already planning to buy. There is no assurance, of course, that the first-time buyer will not have to pay $1,500 more than would have been the case if no grant had been announced. Any real estate agent will learn in a few minutes whether a prospective buyer is a first-time buyer or not. The likelihood is that the seller will also be affected by this knowledge and will bargain more harshly accordingly.

When the government eventually issues a report on the effect of this scheme in a year’s time, Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to know how many of these first-time buyers actually based their decision on this grant offer. If 55,000 buy under this plan, there may be only 2,000 or 3,000 who would not otherwise have done so.

Another feature of Bill 28 that I dislike is the fact that a buyer who has plenty of money will get this election gift although he may have no need for this inducement whatsoever. The poorer citizens who have recently become first-time buyers, before April 8, are looking askance at this whole plan, realizing as they do full well that they are subsidizing many well-to-do persons who had no need of financial help.

With the experience that many people have had with such transactions and the snail’s pace at which some lawyers work, then I predict that in December of this year many MPPs will spend a considerable amount of time trying to expedite legal arrangements to enable the first-time buyer to receive his $1,000 Christmas gift.

I feel this grant should not be given to those who can well afford to buy their first house. There may not be many such people in Ontario, but these people should be excluded from the provisions of this bill. Because I disapprove of the means-test procedure when it can possibly be avoided, I feel that the grant should be restricted to those purchasing houses with less than a certain designated value. That the means test should be placed on the house -- the value of the house -- not on the financial capacity of the buyers.

If I may pick a figure out of the air at random, let me use the round figure of $35,000. If houses with price tags of $36,000 or $37,000 were not eligible for this grant, the effect on the seller or the developer might be to bring the price down to $34,995 so that the first-time buyers would be attracted under this grant plan.

But as it is, I fear that a $36,000 house is more likely to have a $37,000 price sticker, on top of the previous label, so to speak.

Most of the people who are delighted with this Bill 28 are those who have already decided or even started to buy a house for the first time. There are many better ways of stimulating the provision of new housing in this province, which our party would use. For an example, the Ministry of Housing could provide mortgages on a sliding interest scale, depending on a family’s income -- as is done with houses that have their rentals geared to income.

Bill 28 is a hastily conceived, ill-considered election device that I cannot applaud. My instinct is to oppose the bill, but it is just possible that this grant will make enough difference to enable a few hundred low income couples to buy some low priced homes being vacated by senior citizens moving into other accommodation or dying. I certainly would not like to deny such people a chance that may never come again to enable them to enjoy home ownership with all that usually means in enhancing family life and family solidarity. And for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I shall not oppose the bill.

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

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Speaker, I was tempted not to speak to the bill because, unlike my colleagues, I wouldn’t suggest for a moment that the Treasurer brought in this particular piece of legislation with any political motivation behind it, such as the election. But interestingly enough I had about 15 calls on the weekend. There was great interest shown. The people in the Sudbury area are pretty astute and they all realized that this was gimmickry. I had five or six calls who asked me this: “Do you think I should make the application?” And I said: “Are you buying the house?” And they said: “Yes.” And I said: “By all means, but I am delighted that you focused my attention on the fact that this was political chicanery.” But they saw through it.

I want to tell you at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that in speaking to that 15-odd couples on the weekend, there were at least four who had missed the deadline by about a day or two. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that has rankled them to no end. Of course, the other five or six who I told or advised they should make application for the grant, they drew to my attention that this was political chicanery. So I, in turn, drew it to the attention of the four other couples who had missed the deadline. I didn’t want to do it. I don’t have a suspicious nature, Mr. Speaker, but it is more than one can endure, really. What in God’s name is the government doing?

We are talking about 1,000 bucks to people who are in the process of buying. Some of those who called last week had the money in order to buy. Therefore, they were in the process of buying. You have got other people who are hamstrung for time, Mr. Speaker, with that nine months bit. If they have got an apartment lease and they are going to be there for the next 12 months, there is no way they can get out of the apartment and finalize the total transaction and qualify to move into a house. In fact, Mr. Speaker, you are alienating a lot of people and there is cynicism out there over that and the two per cent on sales tax like you wouldn’t believe.

I addressed a nominating convention in North Bay on Saturday night and the press was absolutely cynical. The only press that isn’t cynical, of course, is the Sudbury Star, run by the minister’s friend, J. R. Meeks. It’s a Thomson newspaper and they saw that as the greatest budget in the world.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): He is not only running it; he is running it into the ground.

Mr. Martel: In fact, Don Collins said it was the best budget in the last 20 years.

Mr. Laughren: Who is he?

Mr. Martel: Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it does nothing for anyone.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Of course, he is a two income family.

Mr. Martel: Of course, he is a two income family. He works for J. P. Robarts; or I guess it’s his wife who works for J. P. Robarts now on the study.

Mr. Deans: How much does she earn?

Mr. Burr: Is he going to buy a first-time house?

Mr. Deans: How much does he get? Is he an average wage earner?

Mr. Martel: Donald Collins? About $50,000, I guess now.

I listened intently one day when the Minister of Housing was talking about the carrying charges on Ontario Housing Corp. units in Ottawa, I believe he said $426 a month. Who in God’s name in this province, except I suppose $20,000 or $25,000-a-year income earners, can afford $426 a month? Where is the assistance for people to get them into a home? Of course, the Minister of Housing denied it last week. I happen to believe that the young people who are going to use this plan will not be buying new homes. As the time is very short for them to get into a home, I suspect they will resort to older homes to fall within the nine-month period.

I can see the first thing the real estate agent will say: “Are you a first-time home buyer?” They say yes, and his pencil comes out and he adds another $1,000 on the deal, because he knows the government is going to give them $1,000. They’re going to be buying old houses. They’re not going to be buying the type of house they need with a young family over the long haul. That’s one reason that group will move into that type of housing.

If they’re caught with leases and so on and can’t get out of the lease until the end of October, they’ve got two months to finalize the transaction. That group too will move into old houses, when what they need are houses for the long term if they’re going to raise families; and I suspect most of the first-time home buyers will be young couples. They will be jumping into old houses which ultimately will have to be renovated at tremendous cost to them. Consequently, we’re going to see the opposite to what the Minister of Housing said. That class of houses will go up over the next couple of months rather than, as he tried to convince this Legislature, going down. I couldn’t understand the logic of the Minister of Housing the other day when he said this programme would drive housing prices down. Maybe the Treasurer could explain to me very slowly how that’s going to occur. If this programme is going to drive the price of housing down, I’d like to get it from him.

Finally, I have two other points. I heard pension funds mentioned. I recall engaging the minister some years ago in some discussions with respect to teachers’ funds. Instead of borrowing $210 million to support that giveaway budget, which we’ll ultimately pay for after the next election anyway, the Treasurer might have gone to the superannuation commission of my own teachers’ fund and said: “Look, give us $210 million.” As he talks to Jim Causley, and I’m sure the Treasurer has done that in the past, he could say: “Now look Jim, lend us $250 million more for long-term loans for low mortgage rates for housing.”

lf the Treasurer was really interested in a housing programme that’s where one starts. Instead of going to the Canada Pension Plan fund and just throwing that money into the consolidated revenue fund, he might take some of that pension money from CPP and put it into housing.

Direct, very deliberately the teachers’ pension fund and the funds from the CPP into housing. In fact, he might even try the railroad. I’m told that they have a pension fund that’s valued at over $2 billion. I believe they’re getting 3.5 per cent for it now.

Mr. Haggerty: They put money into the Workmen’s Compensation Board building.

Mr. Martel: They put $33 million into Fidinam from the railroad pension fund. We might have got that type of low interest rate money and deliberately put it into mortgage money. I’m sure that teachers -- I am a little familiar with them -- would have been delighted, particularly with the interest rate that this government has been providing teachers over the last number of years.

The final point I want to make, and this is a direct question to the minister, is that I want to know what happens if someone is involved in an option-to-buy situation and they’ve been paying rent for, let’s say, two or three years, and in the final analysis they decide they are going to purchase the house and the rental then becomes the down payment. Do these people qualify for this $1,000? I think that is important because Falconbridge is selling houses in the Sudbury basin in that manner and I have had a couple of calls which I simply couldn’t answer, based on the content of the bill. I would like a direct response.

I tell the minister if it was up to me this party would vote against the bill because I think it is just cheap chicanery in the final analysis, which isn’t going to do anyone any good. I want to tell him it isn’t buying the Tories any votes; it really isn’t.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to take part in the debate? The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I originally had no intention of getting into the debate but as no one has covered a topic in the legislation that I thought should be covered and brought to the attention of this House, I thought I would partake and hope to make some type of contribution.

Practically everyone has mentioned the political implications of the introduction of this bill. There is no need to go into that area of discussion any further; it was quite emphatically made by practically every member, prior to me, who has made some type of suggestion or some remark.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that puzzles me -- I shouldn’t say puzzles me but concerns me -- is that the price of homes is now getting into a range where practically the only people who can purchase one are those in a two-income family. There are two incomes in the family and as a result they are able to make a sufficiently high down payment to be able to purchase the home. The $1,500 which will be provided by the government is an assist but it is only an assist to those who really could afford to buy a home without this $1,500 assistance. No one is going to turn a gift horse away when the government sort of insists on the individual taking the $1,500.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the bill do not prevent someone coming from another jurisdiction and purchasing the home. Naturally it says it must be the principal residence but I can foresee some of our friends to the north or to the south, whichever way one wants to look at it, our American friends, coming into Ontario and taking advantage of this. There would be some favourable aspects to that in that there would be home construction and as a result it could stimulate the economy.

The individual does not have to be a citizen. It has to be his principal residence so he can make his residence in the Province of Ontario for the prescribed period of time, or have someone live in that home and then, at the end of that one year, either pay for the home or use it as a summer cottage. I would think he would prefer to buy that type of accommodation in the vacation resort area so that it could serve a dual purpose, both as a summer cottage and as a year-round residence, especially in Essex county where he would be within commuting distance of his employment. He would be just as close to his place of employment in the State of Michigan in many places or in the city of Detroit as he would be if he lived in the suburbs of Detroit. I can foresee that Americans could take advantage of the provisions of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, one area which disturbs me a bit is that this is going only to a first-time buyer. I can accept it for a first-time newlywed or younger couple but I think there should be included in that bill “for the first time in the last 25 years,” since 1950. An individual may have owned a home 25 years ago, in the 1940s, and may have left the area, gone to another area and simply rented accommodation. He has returned to the community and has now tried apartment living, isn’t satisfied with that and would like to purchase a home. This could be an incentive for that individual if one of the requirements was not that he must be a first-time buyer. If it was the first time since, say, 1950 -- that would be going back 25 years; a generation -- it would enable individuals in their later years of life an opportunity once again to purchase a home of their own.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why there wouldn’t be provision in the legislation to enable an individual to build a home himself and qualify for the grant. He could have the outside done and it be a sort of shell type of home which that individual could complete in his spare time, with his own expertise. In that fashion he could own a home that would have the market value of today’s style of home, as a result of his own physical capabilities or with assistance from friends. In this way he would be able to complete this type of home and still qualify for the $1,500 first-owner grant. I would hope that there would be provision for that type of approach by individuals.

Likewise, maybe on a co-op basis, we would have a group of school teachers or members of any other profession get together and, through a co-operative effort, build a series of homes at a substantially reduced financial outlay to themselves.

Mr. Speaker, the government set up an advisory task force on housing policy. I wonder why, after setting up a task force to look into the housing situation, it wouldn’t accept some of the recommendations presented by the task force. I’m going to refer to residential mortgage assistance, on page 70 of the task force report. The following recommendations are made there, and I would suggest to the minister that these should have been considered:

An Ontario Housing Finance Corp. should be established as a successor to the Housing Corp. Ltd., with the following duties and responsibilities:

a) To provide grants and interest subsidies for mortgages for low-income families; second mortgages for moderate-income families; and to enable purchasers of older homes to undertake needed renovations.

b) To lend directly to individuals when and where the private market does not operate, and to owner-builders.

c) To provide mortgages below market rate to non-profit organizations and cooperatives for the construction and rehabilitation of low-income housing.

I certainly think that the recommendation of subsidized mortgage payments --

An hon. member: Subsidized interest.

Mr. B. Newman: -- subsidized interest payments, would be a substantial assist. I’ve noticed that some of the American jurisdictions do have a sort of geared-to-income mortgage payment scheme where the lower the income the lower the mortgage interest on the payments the individual must make.

As conditions are today, and because the average wage is a little over $10,000, the one-earner family -- unless he, she or both are able to save their funds and live very, very conservatively and put everything they possibly can away for that day when they can buy their dream home -- is going to be relegated to mobile housing, because mobile housing is practically the only housing that is within the financial means of most people today. I understand that probably 80 per cent of homes under the $15,000 price range are mobile homes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to see that the minister has included mobile homes in here, but what he is really saying is that practically everyone in our economy can purchase homes, but that those with a limited income or a very small income must buy mobile homes. The minister is relegating the senior citizen or the older individual and also the newly married into mobile housing.

There is nothing wrong with putting them into mobile housing and there is nothing wrong with providing a first-owner grant for those who are going into mobile housing. But, Mr. Speaker, no provisions have been made concerning the development of mobile-home parks. No provisions are made concerning the quality of the homes. I know the minister has a clause in here that states that mobile homes must meet certain Canadian Standards Association requirements. Those I understand, Mr. Speaker, are not as satisfactory as they could be.

Likewise there is the problem of taxation when it comes to mobile homes; that needs to be cleared up. There is also the problem of a mobile-home owner’s bill of rights. I can recall back in 1966 recommending to government that they should look into the mobile-home field as one of the answers to our housing problem -- as an assist in our housing problem. I’m pleased that mobile homes have been included in here, but the problems of mobile homes haven’t been completely resolved.

Mobile homes are good homes. They are substantial homes in many cases. They provide to the individual decent housing at two periods in the individual’s life: when they first get married and then later on in their years when they are going to retire and don’t want to go into apartment living and prefer that mobile-home style of living. Many of us know relatives and friends who now live in some of the sunnier states of the union and they generally live in mobile homes because they can’t afford the condominiums in those sunnier climes.

So mobile housing is good housing. It has a part to play in the overall housing picture. I would certainly suggest to the minister that amendments may be made to legislation so that those who live in mobile homes don’t have the problems that they are confronted with today concerning the sale of their mobile homes -- the master-slave relationship that exists between the mobile-home-park owner and the mobile-home owner.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister takes into consideration some of the comments I have made and if necessary makes amendments so that those who purchase homes for the first time since, say, 1950, would likewise qualify for this $1,500 first-owner grant. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Martel: He is opposing the bill, you know, Mr. Speaker. That fellow is opposing the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: No, the heavyweights have to defend it.

Mr. Kennedy: No, Mr. Speaker. I’m not opposing the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Kennedy: I’m here to enthusiastically endorse it, as I’m sure those fellows opposite really feel in their hearts --

Mr. Cassidy: We can tell that enthusiasm from his speeches.

Mr. Kennedy: -- should be their stance. They are just not prepared to admit it, that’s the trouble with them.

Mr. Martel: Some of us have a heart.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Never been used, though.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, as one who has had considerable experience in past years with first-home owners, I want to commend the minister for bringing in this measure in his budget.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): How many times has the member been a first-home owner?

Mr. Kennedy: There are those who pooh-pooh the idea of $1,500 as being insignificant. To me $1,500 is a lot of money. It always was and still is.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the member get appointed to a select committee?

Mr. Kennedy: This, along with the federal $500, gives a real lift, I would say, to a first-home owner.

Mr. Cassidy: It puts you ahead by at least a month in Metro -- maybe two.

Mr. Kennedy: I’m pleased, too, at the wide range of accommodation that’s being provided for in this bill. The member for Windsor-Walkerville who just spoke touched on mobile homes, which was something I was going to make reference to as well.

Mr. Martel: My son wants a tent, does the member think he can apply? His first tent -- he is 10 years old.

Mr. Kennedy: Really, just to endorse what he has said, that is a very, very acceptable type of accommodation now. There is resistance by municipalities and this, somehow or other, needs to be broken down. The stigma that still seems to surround occupancy of mobile homes is totally unwarranted and has to be further dissipated. People in that type of accommodation are just as comfortable and happy -- if not happier. They usually don’t have the burden of debt over their heads. I can’t speak too highly for the merits of this type of accommodation.

Mr. Lawlor: They wiped all the parks out of his riding.

Mr. Kennedy: Pardon?

Mr. Lawlor: They wiped all the mobile homes out of the member’s riding. He wasn’t out there crusading.

Mr. Kennedy: If the municipalities in my riding are opposed to it, I have no more sympathy for them than for the councils of any other municipalities. I say there is accommodation that can result in as a happy and as contented and as suitable living conditions as any other type.

Mr. Lawlor: I agree with the member. They all got kicked out.

Mr. Kennedy: No, some were moved; this is true. I know the park the member is speaking of. The owner said he wanted them out. He sold the property for highrise apartments. They are now under construction.

Mr. Lawlor: I understood the council forced it.

Mr. Martel: They are all moving to Chatham anyway.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, however it was done, that is what happened.

Mr. Speaker and Mr. Minister, as it refers to providing housing units for young people who find it such a struggle, I am sure that this financial assistance, along with a breakthrough in the mobile home field, would give a real lift to those people who wished to have their own separate units of accommodation.

The other thing I wanted to refer to was the land transfer tax, which isn’t referred to particularly in this bill, but I know we can speak broadly about it.

Mr. Deans: It certainly isn’t. It isn’t in the bill at all.

Mr. Martel: The member is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Kennedy: The Treasurer isn’t without interest --

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, he has to speak to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Would the hon. member direct his comments to the principle of this bill?

Mr. Kennedy: The Treasurer isn’t without interest in financial affairs.

Mr. Deans: Stick to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Would the hon. member speak to the principle of this bill?

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, I will. My principles are even higher than that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: It wouldn’t be hard to be higher than the principles of this bill.

Mr. Kennedy: A transfer of property, $35,000 or less, attracts a tax of three-tenths of one per cent. Over $35,000, it’s six-tenths. If one gets a $50,000 home, the six-tenths is some $300. Well, that is still quite a hit of money. I would like to see that land transfer tax reduced to a tenth, as I think it used to be. Or, alternatively, the break point between three-tenths and six-tenths should be raised to something like $50,000 or $60,000 -- something that is more realistic in today’s escalating housing market.

Mr. Lawlor: The Treasurer should have consulted with the member when he made the budget.

Mr. Martel: He might have followed the select committee’s report on land.

Mr. Kennedy: So with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I know that this bill has been enthusiastically received in the entire Legislature this afternoon, and quite properly so.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I wouldn’t want to disillusion the member, but if he thinks this is an enthusiastic reception for a bill, he has got an awful surprise coming to him.

Mr. Kennedy: Actually I could, Mr. Speaker, mentioning a few examples --

Mr. Deans: Is he back up again?

Mr. Kennedy: -- I could have mentioned a few examples.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member for Wentworth continue please?

Mr. Deans: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Don’t be quite so provocative.

Mr. Deans: I wondered a bit about this bill over the weekend. I did something on this weekend I have never done in 7½ years in the Legislature. It just happened on Saturday that I had the annual meeting of my riding association.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: Is the member for Durham back again?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Deans: I took the opportunity to put some of the budgetary matters before them to get their views. I explained to them, as I am going to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Treasurer, that my own personal view of this was that it wasn’t worthy of support. My personal view of this particular piece of legislation was that there were so few people who would benefit from it, who were in need, that the bill itself really didn’t justify discussion in the Legislature. In fact, it ought not to have been brought forward.

I asked the question -- and I ask it of you, Mr. Speaker -- how many people earning $10,000 or less in the Province of Ontario will qualify for the $1,500? How many people in the Province of Ontario will be able to qualify for the $1,500? How many people in the Province of Ontario who earn $10,000 or less will be able to purchase a first house in this province? There may be people who have already owned houses who will sell them and, with some of the money they get from that house, will have a sufficient down payment to be able to buy another house --

Mr. B. Newman: They’re merely upgrading themselves.

Mr. Deans: -- who will be upgrading themselves and who will fall into the category of earning $10,000 or less.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the average wage earner in the Province of Ontario doesn’t earn over $10,000. The average classification in the Steel Co. of Canada, which is considered by many people to be a fairly high wage payer in the Province of Ontario, is job class 6. Job class 6 doesn’t provide a person with $10,000 a year, which means that probably 50 per cent or more of the people who live in the city of Hamilton earn less than $10,000 on a single-income basis.

The average family income in the Province of Ontario is something around $13,400. There will be very few people earning $13,400 who will qualify to buy a first home in the Province of Ontario in the next nine months, given the value of the houses.

The fact of the matter is that this measure, brought in by the government, will not satisfy the needs of very many people in this province earning the average wage or less. There may be two or three isolated instances where people will benefit from it, but the majority of people working every day in the average job in the Province of Ontario, who are attempting to purchase a home for the first time, will have great difficulty in qualifying for this $1,000 this year and $250 in each of the next two years.

One must understand the reason for saying this. The average home in the city of Hamilton, by CMHC standards, costs over $50,000. The average young couple, in order to buy that home, would have to be able to save $10,000 in order to have a $40,000 mortgage. That $40,000 mortgage would require them to pay $360 to $380 a month.

Mr. B. Newman: Plus taxes.

Mr. Deans: On the average wage, they can’t afford that; they can’t buy those homes.

When you take a realistic look at it, this kind of measure doesn’t even begin to deal with any of the major problem areas. Certainly there will be some people who will buy a home in Ontario who will get the $1,500 and who will use that money. It will be considered by most of them to be of some consequence; they will be happy to get it. I’m going to be the last guy to deny them that, but I say that this government’s record in the housing field is so bad that when it brings in a measure like this, without bringing in any other legislation that will provide rent stabilization or enable a sufficient number of houses to be built in the Province of Ontario for people earning average and below-average wages, then we’ve got to look at this measure as being a little bit of politicking. There won’t be enough people who will benefit to justify calling it a lot of politicking.

Mr. Germa: Shame.

Mr. Deans: Over the course of the last few years -- well, let me go back a bit further, because I think it’s worth putting on the record. Ten years ago, it was possible for the average wage earner in the average family to buy a new home in the Province of Ontario. Ten years ago, the average man or woman in the average job, with a single-income family, could go out into the marketplace and buy a new home. They can’t do that any more in this province. There’s no way that the average person can do that in this province. This has happened under this Treasurer and this Premier (Mr. Davis) and his predecessor. We have got to the point where the average hard-working person in this province can’t raise enough money to provide a home for himself and his family under this government’s programmes. It builds houses, as I have said to the Minister of Housing on numerous occasions, and provides subsidies for people who are earning more than $20,000 a year. It provides subsidies and housing -- not a lot of it -- in a limited quantity for people earning between $12,000 and $20,000 a year. But bear in mind that the average wage earner earns $10,000 or less and this government doesn’t provide a blessed thing in this province for 60 per cent of the wage earners.

The minister comes forward and asks us to endorse enthusiastically the $1,000 grant over nine months to a selected few people who would have been going into the housing market in any event and to somehow view that as a stimulus toward housing. There won’t be one new house built in the Province of Ontario as a result of this $1,500 grant. The housing stock of the Province of Ontario will not have increased by one as a result of this measure.

I heard it said by one of the cabinet ministers that this wasn’t really intended to stimulate housing. What was really intended was that this first-time home buyer could purchase a fridge and a stove and a washing machine perhaps, some of the appliances they will need for their new home.

I put to the members this question: How does the government go to those people in the province who are saddled with $35,000, $40,000 and $45,000 mortgages, who have been saddled with these as a result of this government’s inactivity over 10 years, and say it is going to tax them a little more so that a selected few people who happen to be able to purchase during the nine-month period -- April to December, 1975 -- can buy I a fridge and a stove and a washing machine? How does it tell these people it is going to raise their taxes in January, 1976, as it is, so it can pay back to the coffers of the Province of Ontario the money it has paid out under this programme in order to allow people to buy washing machines, fridges and stoves for nine months?

In heaven’s name, what kind of fiscal policy is that? What kind of Robin Hood complex is it that says the government is going to take from the already hard-pressed who are having extreme difficulty in meeting their obligations now -- which they had to undertake in order to provide accommodation for themselves and their families as a result of this government’s inactivity -- it is going to go back to them and tax them even more in order to provide a few people with $1,000 or $1,500? I don’t know how it is going to explain that to them. I don’t even know how it dreamt this up.

Mr. Laughren: That is the really intriguing point.

Mr. Deans: I don’t even understand the rationale behind the budget any more because as I read it over again on the weekend I tried to see, somewhere in the budget, some sort of common thread which would tie it all together and set it up as a reasonable fiscal document which would be used somehow or other by the Province of Ontario to guide the economy of the province. When I looked at it, I have got to be quite honest with the members, all I saw were some -- not many, a few -- items obviously conjured up by some desperate politicians trying to woo votes.

I said to the members when I started that I have wondered a lot about the appropriateness of this. On Friday I could, I think, have brought myself to vote against it because I don’t agree with it. The minister knows I don’t agree with it. But I said to my riding association, “What do you think of this?” I put to them what I put to the minister. I said: “What do you think of this?” I mean, recognizing that the average wage earner will be in no better position to buy after this bill goes through than he or she was before, recognizing that there will be no additional houses in the marketplace as a result of this legislation, recognizing that housing prices are likely to be inflated to take up the additional moneys that are going to be made available, recognizing that rents have risen by 30, 40, 50, 60, up to 80 per cent over the last year without any action from this government, recognizing that what it is really doing is taxing already overburdened taxpayers to pay to a select few who were going to buy a house anyway, a few dollars to make the government appear good in their eyes, recognizing those things on Friday last I would have voted against it.

They said to me: “Ian, you are right. You know, you are right.” There is only one problem. I am not sure that the public would be given sufficient time for them to understand what the government is saying. I am really not sure that it’s possible to get to every door and to explain to them adequately just how bad the government’s fiscal policies really are, or just exactly what this taxing measure means -- because that’s what it is. It’s a tax. They are imposing a tax on the one hand to hand out on the other hand and without any consideration for ability to pay.

A man who is earning $500,000 a year could get this $1,500, whereas a man who is earning $10,000 a year isn’t likely to qualify because he can’t afford to buy a house. I know it’s a ridiculous extreme, but let’s put it in a more sensible way: A man earning $40,000 a year who can qualify to buy a house today and who may, in fact, be in the market for a house today, qualifies for $1,500, some of which will be raised by way of taxation from people earning $10,000 and less and who can’t qualify to buy a house. What in heaven’s name kind of policy is that?

Mr. Laughren: It’s perverse.

Mr. Deans: What kind of policy is that? Well, I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with my promise not to make it more difficult for them, I won’t vote on it. I don’t support the measure. I don’t support it. I can’t support it. It’s wrong. It’s wrong to tax a man who can’t afford a house in order to give to somebody who can, and that’s what they are doing. That’s exactly what they are doing and if they can’t see that, then there is something terribly wrong with their mentality. There is something wrong with their fiscal policy. There is something wrong with their understanding of basic economics.

Mr. Laughren: It could be all those things.

Mr. Deans: When I look at all these people living in apartments, young couples working every day, who are struggling like hell to try and buy a house and can’t get into the marketplace because the government has allowed house prices to become inflated to such an extent that they can’t even undertake the mortgage, when I see those young couples and I think of this -- and they are going to have to pay higher rents, because the Conservatives won’t take any measure against the rent increases, and higher taxes so that they can hand out $1,500 and look like nice guys in the market -- I have got to wonder seriously about their integrity. This is a very, very bad measure.

Mr. Laughren: What puts the price up?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Trade unions and ripoffs.

Mr. Deans: In fact, it borders on one of the worst types of political chicanery -- I used the term the other day -- that I have ever seen. The whole budget smacks of it from beginning to end; from beginning to end. The member for Renfrew South should think about it. I will tell him something -- I say this to him as a friend --

Mr. Yakabuski: There are better-versed people than the member who say it’s tremendous --

Mr. Deans: Well, I don’t doubt --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- and the response that we as members are getting is absolutely unbelievable.

Mr. Laughren: They are telling the member what they want him to hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Wentworth will continue.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I don’t doubt that there are people who think it’s a great budget. There must be some, because the government obviously brought it in. But I am saying that that kind of measure has no place in a modern society.

Mr. Yakabuski: Don’t twist it.

Mr. Deans: The government doesn’t have the right to tax the poor to pay for the rich, and that’s what that measure does.

Mr. Laughren: They do it every day of the week.

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

Mr. Laughren: Would you believe Nickel Belt?

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry. The member for Nickel Belt.

An hon. member: Stand up.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the member for Wentworth, I have some interest in monetary and fiscal policy. I too looked through the budget for some indication of the direction the government was hoping to move and some overall fiscal plan, and I couldn’t find it either.

Certainly I couldn’t find it in this bill, Mr. Speaker, because the budget stated that there were certain premises on which it was based. It made certain assumptions that the economy was going to upturn this year and so on, and the petroleum prices would be stable. Then to bring in these interim measures or halfway measures to attempt to keep the economy stimulated for the balance of the year, really doesn’t hold together as logical fiscal policy.

If one looks at the principle of this bill, of course it implies that first-time home buyers need help. That’s the implication of the bill. It also implies that there are houses available for these people, otherwise, of course, there would be no sense in introducing the grants.

Given the fact that in 1974 the province fell 25,000 houses short of its 110,000 goal, I wonder why the Treasurer didn’t concentrate in his budget on increasing the supply of houses available to people of moderate incomes. I think that most of us are very tired of RIP and RAP and CRP and NOAH, and now this. It would have been so much nicer to have had a housing programme. It would have been so much nicer to have had in the budget some meaningful kind of land assembly programme for the municipalities. But none of that. Instead of that we once again get an interim housing programme that does very little, and does very little for only nine months.

Why not, for example, concentrate on policies that would increase the supply of housing? Why not concentrate on a policy that would make houses affordable for people in the Province of Ontario? Certainly that’s not so now. How could one even suggest that this programme is going to increase the supply of houses in Ontario? How could you even suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it’s going to have any thing to do with the prices of homes in Ontario? It does nothing at all.

Surely, even first-time home buyers who are looking at a $50,000 or $60,000 home in the large urban centres in this province, must look with a little bit of chagrin at this kind of subsidy they’re getting. And it certainly does very little for them.

Not only that, but I was struck by the arbitrary dates set in the budget, particularly those applying to this bill. I was struck, not just by the fact that it’s nine months, not just by the fact that it establishes April 8 as the date, but by what those arbitrary dates are going to mean to a lot of people. I can imagine that, come next Jan. 2, 3, 4 or 5, that there’s going to be all sorts of people whose solicitors didn’t get the deed cleared at the proper time when they thought they would. And I can imagine the way that those people are going to feel.

I’ve already had -- and I’m sure other members have had too -- phone calls from people who purchased their house on Feb. 8 or March 30, and now are faced with seeing themselves eliminated from being eligible for this grant, just by the fact that there was such an arbitrary date set.

Also, the whole question of first-time ownership is something that should be debated, I think. I’ve had calls coming from an area where there have been company towns, where people 20 years ago had an opportunity to move into a company house at very reasonable rent and sold their house and did so.

Now, 20 years later, International Nickel in Falconbridge are selling all their houses. They’re divesting themselves of all of their residential real estate holdings. And here are these people now being thrown on to the housing market for the first time in 20 years, and yet they’re ineligible because 20 years ago they owned a home. Certainly, the conditions under which people enter the housing market now are entirely different than what they were 20 years ago.

I would have preferred that rather than have this kind of interim bill, which isn’t going to stimulate supply or do anything about prices, there should have been a programme that would have done something very specific. It perhaps would not have applied to the entire province. There could have been a programme that would have equalized prices in different parts of the province; there could have been a programme to build more public housing; there could have been a programme to stimulate the building of houses in northern Ontario and allow more equalization of building costs in northern Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: Excellent idea, first rate.

Mr. Laughren: Right now from the last figures I saw it cost something in the neighbourhood of -- I shouldn’t quote figures, as I don’t remember, but it cost significantly more to build a house in northern Ontario than it does in southern Ontario. There is nothing in the bill or in any of the budget to do anything about that. When I saw the statement that grants to northern municipalities were going to be increased 42 per cent, I thought that sounded like a big figure. The special grants to northern communities go from $7 million to $12 million. If you look at that, Mr. Speaker, if there are 750,000 people in northern Ontario, you are talking about giving the northern resident $7 more per person because of the increased cost of living in the north. I can tell you it costs my family more than that just in the increased cost of milk, not to mention fuel and all sorts of other goods.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, that the government has introduced an inadequate bill. We shall not oppose the bill in the Legislature, although I can tell you there are those of us who are sorely tempted to do just that for the same reason that we could not support the reduction in the retail sales tax because of the obvious cynicism of the bill.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Act to provide for the payment of Grants to First Time Home Buyers is a very inadequate response to the problem of people trying to buy their first home or trying to buy housing in this present market. It benefits, as far as I can see, simply the upper-middle income earners or those people who, in fact, have two full-time earners in the family. This is to whom the $1,000 will go and it will not be able to go any way toward the purchase of a house. It is coming after everything is settled toward the purchase of a house.

Let’s make no mistake. It is not a grant that helps them to purchase that house; it is a grant which allows them perhaps to furnish that house after they have got it. But the problem in Ontario is that most people cannot get housing; they cannot afford to buy housing.

They usually have furniture. Furnishing is not a problem, but the ability to purchase a house is a problem. This does not help in any way, shape or form toward that because it comes only after the house has been purchased. What the government is giving is a $1,000 handout in the first instance -- and if they live in that unit an extra $250 for each of two years -- to those people who have the funds and the ability to purchase new housing now in the Province of Ontario. This bill helps in no way at all as I can see it -- or only very, very minimally -- those persons who have really given up the idea of purchasing a house. This bill and the amount of funds in this bill do not help those people to ever getting into housing, no matter how they might initially react to the bill.

My secretary indicates to me that our calls on this bill are breaking down into two categories: Those who oppose it, saying that this is a misuse of funds and should not be given out in this way, and those who can afford to buy housing and simply want to make sure that they get in on the grant. That vast majority of people, who were unhoused heretofore and who before the presentation of this bill could not look forward to ever being able to purchase a house, are not at all helped by this bill. There are no safeguards at all in this bill that this $1,000 simply won’t end up added on somehow to the cost of that housing and in the pockets of the present owners or the developers of estates and so on.

The short-term application of this bill bothers me. There’s a section in here that deals with housing units being built and says that people will occupy them. With the time constraints in this bill, people won’t occupy those units before the end of December. There won’t be a person who will be able to fit into that category unless the basement is being dug at the moment. It will not encourage people. There is simply not enough time for a couple to go out and decide that, as a means of cutting down costs, they will put some of their own labour into a house. They will not have it completed by Dec. 31. Therefore, this bill doesn’t help in that area where one would hope it would help.

There are two other sections of this Act that I have questions about. There is a section that deals with a grant not being given to a person where the spouse of such person has owned a house in the past. I assume that if one has a decree absolute in a divorce and was not a co-owner of a house in that previous marriage, then that divorced person is eligible. In a sense, that’s fine, but even if the spouse was a co-owner and now is in a divorced situation, I’m not so sure that they shouldn’t be eligible for this handout as well. After all, they really have much changed living conditions than they had while they were married; and if one is going to give a handout, I don’t see why this particular group of persons should be disadvantaged.

The other matter is the mobile home situation. For the purposes of a handout in this bill, I can see that it’s nice to include a person who is buying a mobile home. But what about those persons -- and I know of one such situation -- who owned a mobile home for a short period about 10 years ago because there was such a shortage of housing in the locality in which he lived? Their only means of getting housing was to buy a mobile home, which they got rid of as soon as they could to get into more decent rental accommodation. That was back when a mobile home was in no way defined as a house and they suffered many disadvantages by being in a mobile home, because they could take no other home in a particular community. Yet, by having owned a mobile home at some time in the past, which in no way was considered adequate or good housing, or even in the category of housing years ago, I understand -- unless I’m corrected -- that those persons are not able to get this first-home buyers’ grant if they are now thinking of purchasing a first home.

I can see nothing in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that is going to add to the stock of homes available. Couples are going to go out and get into the competition for the purchasing of homes because of this $1,000. There have been no great plans to add to stocks of housing in this province, where the planned programme is still well behind the target need. What’s going to happen is that it will increase the competition by those people who can already afford to buy a home for the small amount of housing that exists already. I can’t see that doing anything else but driving up the prices of the homes that are available. This $1,000 handout will encourage people to go out and buy housing, but at the same time the price of that housing is going up because there’s a limited supply.

In a bill relating to grants to homeowners, I would have been much happier to see something that did something to de-escalate the price of housing. There should be someone in the government really concerned about housing who would be introducing legislation dealing with land speculation and to take the cost of land out of the price of housing. There should be someone in the government really concerned about getting people into housing and at reasonable prices, who would be interested in seeing housing provided upon land that was not bought and sold at vastly escalated prices in the marketplace; rather, the price of that land simply should be the original price years ago plus reasonable holding costs, and not a tremendous speculative price on the land, which is really the major component which has put housing out of sight for most people, that and the continuing shortage and inability of this government to really catch up with their housing programmes.

This does give $1,000 to people who can afford to actually purchase a house. I’ve nothing particularly against this group of people, therefore I can’t work myself up into a great lather about voting against the bill.

All I’m saying, and will repeat again, is that I’m very disappointed in legislation which does not come to grips at all and cope with the situation of housing the people in this province. I would have hoped the government would have taken legislation of this type seriously and really had a programme to meet or to start to cope to meet with the needs of the people of Ontario; and this bill doesn’t. Mr. Speaker, I simply won’t bother to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker: Any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I might make a general comment, other than dealing with the member for Sudbury East, who made a point of drawing attention to a certain fact -- and I think the last speaker as well. I must say that I’m impressed, overwhelmed; flabbergasted, at the infatuation of members opposite with their concern about elections, election dates, vote getting, and about advertising. Some members even felt constrained to make some sort of partisan remarks, which I thought was out of keeping.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister never does.

Mr. Yakabuski: Never has.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But I have never seen such a display of concern about the politics of a certain piece of legislation. I will just say in response to all of those remarks --

Mr. Lawlor: The minister is above all that.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): What was the budget all about?

Mr. Lawlor: The member doesn’t have to compound the cynicism.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would just say in response to all those remarks, which must have accounted for at least half of the time of the debate this afternoon, that as a country boy from Kent, I’m really not concerned with being political.

Mr. Roy: What was the budget?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Those of us on this side of the House are just trying to do a job. We are not concerned about an election. We’ll just go on doing our job the way we’ve always done it.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Even after the election we will keep doing that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: And the people will take our performance into account at that point in time.

Interjection by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It seems to me that there were two or three questions which were asked.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): He should smile when he says that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I might deal with them now, although they may come up in committee.

Mr. Roy: He should be on television.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: First of all, someone asked about condominiums. There will be an amending regulation. There are two points of closing a deal, as I understand it; either possession or the actual registering.

I think it was the member for Lakeshore who was concerned about when, in fact, the possession might take place in a condominium. They might move in tomorrow, but the registration might not take place for a couple of years. They are in fact in possession, and I think the regulation will make that clear. That’s a point.

The member for Lakeshore and others asked why $55 million? The member for Ottawa was a little bit confused, I think. He was relating figures which were really apples and oranges. Last year there were about 220,000 residential transactions in Ontario, as opposed to the normal 80,000 or 100,000 starts. The 100,000 starts obviously included rental accommodation. In fact, the ratio is about 50-50.

Our estimate is that about 25 per cent of the residential transactions are, in fact, first-time home buyers. And then you translate that into a nine-month programme, as opposed to a full year’s programme and you come up with what we would hope to see happen, rather than what might happen if the whole industry is not spurred in this particular way.

Mr. Cassidy: That then means no increase because of this programme.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Several people mentioned ceilings and the variations in prices which may occur. We have had something like 5,000 phone calls, over 5,000, in the three ministries on this to date. About 35 of those phone calls concerned themselves and were, in fact, complaints about sellers who appeared to have raised their prices by $1,000. Half of those were from one area of the province, the others, I think, were scattered enough probably not to be of concern. Half of them were from one area of the province and once that word is out I think his sales are not going to benefit from the programme. The market, in my view, has a very effective way of dealing with those sort of fluctuations in the marketplace.

Mr. Cassidy: Just like the rental market deals with tenants?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the member knew something about the metal market, he’d see what has happened to the price of copper without any controls in the last two or three months. He would talk to his friends from the north instead of being the great expert on nothing from the south and he’d find out what a great concern there is in the metal markets today and what it is doing --

Mr. Cassidy: The rental markets.

An hon. member: He said rental markets.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- to unemployment in various parts of the province.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m talking about tenants, not copper.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He would concern himself with listening, instead of yapping for a change, as I listened to him -- and learned nothing.

Mr. Yakabuski: He never learns, he won’t listen.

Mr. Cassidy: Now tell us about the tenants that the Treasurer met --

Mr. Yakabuski: He just won’t listen, that member.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): He never stops. His tongue is in perpetual motion.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member for Lakeshore also wanted to know -- perhaps I could lead into this just a little bit -- if the programme was related to the sales tax. The seven per cent sales tax on construction materials, totally, is about $200 million. It would have been something less than that in terms of the cut from seven to five. The horrible problem with the sales tax on construction materials is to distinguish what is residential, what’s industrial, what’s commercial. That’s one of the problems.

There is also the problem of ensuring that if is passed through. There is a very considerable lag between the time the sales tax is paid on the construction materials and the ultimate disposition of the finished product, be it a house or an apartment building That was certainly one of the things we looked at.

I think, in looking at the total housing situation in the province in the spring of 1975 we see a number of things which are improvements from last year. Mortgage rates are down. Our indications are that there is mortgage money available.

Interestingly enough, although we talk about the lack of serviced land -- it is a problem and it is more of a problem in some municipalities than others -- the Minister of Housing will indicate to members at some point, I am sure, if they asked him, that the number of serviced lots awaiting final registration has risen rather dramatically in the province.

The final approval of a plan of subdivision used to be very much of a formality once the draft plan had been approved, subject to certain conditions being met, then, usually reasonably quickly, the plan was finally registered and the lots registered in the registry office. What has happened in the last five or six months is that there has been an upswing of something over 100,00 lots -- I’m not aware of the final figures -- which have had draft approval in various parts of the province and which are not moving forward to final registration.

It is true in my own community, and one can drive around and take a look, that there is an inventory of unsold houses. Some of that inventory has carried through the winter. Some of it is too highly priced, no question about it; but the fact is that because there is that inventory of unsold houses and because of a variety of other reasons; in the rental area because of the continuing concern or threat, if I can put it that way, of rent controls --

Mr. Cassidy: Where is that threat coming from?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and because the return is not high enough in the view of many builders, and the worry about mortgage rates and, as a matter of fact, I think the general feeling that mortgage rates are coming dawn further and therefore the builders are holding off -- all these things, in my view, and the view of a number of people, combine to create a lack of confidence both in the housing industry and on the part of the normal house buying public. What our task was in this particular measure was to try to get that market moving, to try to get some, stimulus going and to try to get rid of some of the inventory, because until that inventory is gone new starts will not be made. If one talks to any number of builders around the province, big and small, he will find they weren’t moving on new lots because they were nervous.

Mr. Cassidy: So this is directed to the developers then. This is a developers’ bill, not a purchasers’ bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, why doesn’t the member just shut up? He hasn’t said anything this afternoon -- let him just pipe down. He is annoying me and he has annoyed everybody else. Let him just be quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister shouldn’t get so offended. He is saying it is a developers’ bill, and that is what it is, to help bail them out with their unsold houses.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have a combination of circumstances coming together which brought about a lack of confidence, in our view, both on the part of the industry and on the part of those who hopefully would be buying houses and should be buying houses, whose disposable incomes because of tax cuts last fall have advanced and have moved ahead. I said this the other day -- and the NDP doesn’t like to hear it because it likes to ignore inflation -- that the fact is that if a house was selling at $55,000 a year ago, there is some justification for it selling at $60,000 today, because we’ve had that kind of rate of inflation and we’ve had across-the-province increases in wages of 10, 11 and 12 per cent so that actually that house shouldn’t have moved up from $55,000 to $57,000 or from $56,000 to $58,000 as was quoted by the leader. One could make an argument that it should have moved further.

Mr. Cassidy: That is unreal. If it was overvalued a year ago, why should it continue to go up?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: For a whole variety of reasons, I want to make it very clear that the government does not take on its shoulders, as they would in that party, the task of building by ourselves 100,000 houses or units in this province.

Mr. Martel: But the government will have welfare and unemployment insurance and people unemployed.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We happen to think that there is an industry out there, a gainful industry which is capable of doing the job and which, in fact, has produced something like 80,000 or 90,000 of the 110,000 units which have been produced in this province --

Mr. Lawlor: That is big work for the building industry.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- without government assistance. Our job in this bill, and the objective in this bill, is to get that industry back to work. Members over there don’t really care about that industry. Their objective is to build the whole 100,000 units themselves.

Mr. Martel: Don’t give us a lecture.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m here to tell them we’re not going to do it. That’s their objective and it’s not ours, pure and simple.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, we would not. The Treasurer builds straw men and then he burns down houses.

Mr. Cassidy: He is almost entertaining.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: One of the hon. members -- in fact, several -- asked what does this bill do for tenants. Then we heard about the mother of the babysitter of the hon. member for Ottawa and the islands. The bill does nothing for her. The bill doesn’t do anything for tenants. Those things are in other bills and in other legislation and in the minister’s estimates, but they are not part of this bill.

Mr. Cassidy: No, they are not. They are not in the budget. They are not in the minister’s policy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The purpose of this bill is to spur the industry to get starts under way, and most of all to get a housing industry back to work and everything that flows from that. Members over there made light of the durables, but people are going to go out and buy a washing machine or a washer and a dryer. There are people out of work in this province today because those kinds of durables aren’t being built in this province because there isn’t a market for them. I’m not going to sneer at people who want to buy a washing machine, because behind those people there are people building washing machines who deserve to get back to work in this province. Instead of snivelling over there about something that the programme isn’t designed to do --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): What is the Treasurer saying, that behind every washing machine there is a builder?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- wake up and make the economy work; join with us and get people back to work. Members over there are not going to go anywhere. They’re dedicated to putting people on a bread line. We’re not; we’re going to get them back to work, and that’s what this piece of legislation is all about.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer is talking nonsense. Does he realize what he said? For the first time, he stated the purpose of the bill is to bail out the industry. This is the first time he has admitted that was the reason. It is not to protect consumers but to bail out the industry.

Mr. Martel: He blew his cool.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Why do you suddenly intrude while we’re barracking? That was one continuous barrack.

An hon. member: The NDP are doing it all the time.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker wishes to complete the transaction here.

Mr. Lewis: Complete the transaction! That’s as good as the washing machine analogy we’ve had this afternoon. Behind every washing machine -- well, complete the sentence.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: That whole party is a laundering operation.

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

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I wish the members would not make it necessary for me to take an extra step at this time.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves second reading of Bill 29, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Breithaupt: There are some comments that have to be made with respect to the bill, albeit they may be fairly brief.

It is interesting to see that at this point we are proceeding to attempt to raise some $1.4 billion on the general credit of the province with the loans that the minister is now going to be able to make.

Just to review briefly what we did last year, in Bill 69 as it then was, it is interesting to see that at that point we were going to require only some $800 million as a maximum credit to tide us over from time to time. Certainly an amount which is this substantial, and which is well over the $1 billion mark, is something that we should seriously consider.

I would appreciate hearing from the minister when he responds to the bill as to the reasoning behind the setting of this particular figure. After all, Mr. Speaker, when we move from one year to the next and are somewhat close to doubling the amount that we are going to expect to require from time to time on a short-term basis, it may well be that there are certain underlying presumptions that we should be the beneficiaries of and have shared with us by the Treasurer.

The bill, of course, is a routine one and ordinarily passes without much particular problem, since the Treasurer from time to time brings this kind of legislation forward to us just after each of the budgets -- certainly in my time in the House.

I would appreciate, though, some elucidation on that particular point when the Treasurer does respond to the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I recognize that we have a bill similar to this before the assembly each year to authorize the raising of money, but over the years I still have never quite understood the authorization for it and the way in which the financial statements of the government are introduced. I have never understood the way in which the financial statements of the government for each year then reflect back to the authority granted by this assembly under the Ontario Loan Act for the particular year.

For example, and just for the convenience of the minister and for the convenience of my colleagues, there may very well be a simple answer to a couple of the questions that I want to raise, but I do want to understand the bill for the first time in any of the years that I have been here. I took the liberty of putting in synoptic form, drawn directly from the financial statements of the government, the comparisons with the authorizations which we granted from the year 1970 through to the request this year in 1975.

If the minister would take a moment to look at the synoptic form presentation that I have put in front of him he will note that in the year 1970, by chapter 48 of the statutes of that year, we authorized $460 million to be raised by way of loan. The proceeds of the loan as shown by the financial statement of the government for that year was $772 million. I have rounded the figures for convenience, and these are the headings used in the financial statement. The loans matured or retired are $74 million, leaving a total on net debt transactions of $698 million. This, of course, is in excess of the $460 million originally authorized.

Similarly, in 1971, by chapter 38 of the Statutes of Ontario, we authorized borrowings of $800 million. The proceeds in that year were $718 million. The loans matured or retired were $85 million and the total net debt transactions were $633 million, which was within the limit that particular year.

In 1972, by chapter 79 of the Statutes of Ontario, we authorized loans to the extent of $800 million. The proceeds of loans in that year were $1,177,000,000. The loans matured or retired were $95 million. The total net debt transactions were $1,082,000,000; again a substantial excess over what was authorized by the assembly.

In 1973, we authorized by chapter 35 of the Statutes of Ontario $900 million to be borrowed. The proceeds of the loan in that year were $1,295,000,000. The loans matured or retired were $113 million. The total net debt transactions were $1,182,000,000.

In 1974, we authorized $800 million by chapter 33 of the statutes of that year. The proceeds of the loan were $1,196,000,000. The loans matured or retired were $264 million. The total net debt transactions were $932 million.

Now, in four out of the five years, those figures would indicate that the amount of the net debt transactions of the government during that period of time were in excess of the amount that was authorized.

I then looked at the specific terms of the bill. And, of course, the bill hasn’t varied in its term for any year It states that the “Lieutenant Governor in Council is authorized to raise from time to time by way of loan in any manner provided in the Financial Administration Act such sum or sums of money as are necessary” and so on, up to the amount of the specific aggregate to which I have referred.

That, of course, drove me to the Financial Administration Act. In part 4 of that Act, under the heading of public, debt in section 29, we find that “No money shall be raised by way of loan by the Crown except under the authority of this or any other Act of the Legislature.”

The only other authority granted in the Financial Administration Act that I could find, and I may, have, overlooked some of the provisions, was the fact that any refunding operation can be carried though without the authorization of a special Act. It can be carried through for refunding purposes under the authority of the Financial Administration Act itself. But I have taken into account in arriving at the net debt transactions, as shown by the financial statements of the government, those very loans that have been matured or retired. And I assume that the figures here exclude any refunding operations.

So it would appear, following the logic of that argument, that in four out of the last five years, the government has exceeded the statutory authority. If that were true, of course, it’s in breach of the statute. And if that’s true, it is not paying any attention to the limit of borrowing placed upon the government, upon the Crown, by the actions of this assembly.

The only way that I can understand it in accordance with this bill that is before us, which is similar to the bill that was passed in each of the other years, is that in subsection 2 of the bill it said:

“The sum or sums of money authorized to be raised by subsection 1, for the purposes mentioned therein, shall be in addition to all sums of money authorized to be raised by way of loan under any other Act.”

Mr. Good: That answers the question.

Mr. Renwick: No. All I want to know now is what are the other Acts under which there is authority to borrow money? In the net effect of my comments my good friend, the member for Waterloo North, indicates he knows the answer to it. I would like to know under the authority of what statute the excess borrowings or the excess of the net debt transactions over what was authorized took place? I don’t know myself what those statutes are.

The explanation we have received in other years, of course, is that the non-public borrowings and the public borrowings were the kind of borrowings which were authorized by this annual statute. That’s the first point I want to make.

I think I’d like, finally, to understand whether or not there is statutory authority or the borrowings of the government in excess of the authorities which we grant annually in these bills. I’d like to know specifically under which Acts that excess borrowing takes place.

The second matter which was of concern and, naturally, is of concern to all of us, is that while in each of the preceding five years the amounts have grown from 1970’s $460 million, nevertheless, from 1971 to 1974, they were either $800 million or $900 million. In three of the years, they were $800 million; in one of the years $900 million. This year, of course, it’s $1,400 million that we’re being asked to authorize. Of course, my friends on the right are concerned about that particular matter.

I thought I would take a look at the 10-year review that appears in the financial statements of the government. I looked at the 10-year review included in the financial statement for 1974 and the 10-year review that appeared in the financial statement of 1970. I find, of course, that the figures are quite interesting and all are quite within any realistic percentage.

The net debt, if I may say so, is a defined term or an accepted term of art for the purposes of these financial statements. It is defined both by the auditor and by the Treasurer in identical terms that the net debt of the province is the excess of liabilities over revenue-producing and realizable assets. Year-to-year changes in that debt are related directly to the amount by which revenues exceed or are less than expenditures in budgetary transactions.

That definition is for what it’s worth because in these statements the net debt is shown for each of the 15-year periods that I was looking at and is then related by way of percentage to certain matters. It shows that the net debt as a percentage of budgetary revenue, even in the year 1974, was only 41.9 per cent. In 1913 it was 41.2 percent. In 1972 it was 39.9 per cent. I need not go back because, for practical purposes, in the early part of the last decade and in the latter part of it it was a substantially higher proportion of the budgetary revenues.

I think, however, the ratio which is of significance is the net debt as a percentage of gross provincial product. In that case, it is of significance that that ratio is 5.3 per cent in 1974. In 1973 it was six per cent In 1972 it was 5.7 per cent. In 1971 it was 4.4 per cent. In 1970 it was 4.3 per cent. It varies but it was within that sort of range for the preceding 15 years.

It does not seem to me, and I’ve tried to give some consideration to the position taken by my friends on the right -- it does not seem to me that at this particular juncture it is unreasonable for the government to have projected a deficit of $1.6 billion, as was set out in the budget. I think it is quite within the principles, as I understand them, under which the Smith committee operated in setting out what it believed to be a reasonable position for the government to take.

It does appear to me that, subject to whatever accounting changes there have been by the government -- and I know there have been accounting changes by the government since the time of the Smith committee report, but not so significant as to alter the principles that were set forth by Smith. I refer in this particular instance to the Smith committee report, from which there is no disagreement, even though it is about 10 years old. Chapter 40 of that report was headed, “Provincial debt policy to 1975,” and they made various projections of one kind or another in order to try to understand the range within which government borrowing should take place.

They clearly state, of course, that they did not expect that the projections which they made would become historic fact. They made the projections for the purpose of illustrating the kinds of conclusions to which they came about provincial government borrowings. In paragraph two -- and I think it should go on the record -- of chapter 40 of the Smith report, Smith states:

“In this context the relevant policy issue is that of deciding in what proportions the government’s projected levels of expenditures should be financed by revenues and by borrowing, and in this chapter we advance certain recommendations concerning some basic requirements of a sound provincial debt policy with particular reference to the forthcoming decade.

“We shall first discuss the most appropriate behaviour of provincial debt in terms of its secular trend -- that is, its longer-term average rate of growth -- and then conclude with some observations relating to appropriate cyclical or short-term variations from the trend, viewed as a fiscal contribution toward the attainment of economic stability. As presented in chapter 6, the projected burden of provincial net debt (the ratio of net debt to provincial domestic product) in 1966 is approximately nine per cent.”

Well, I think with the accounting adjustments, if the accounting was reflected back, it would have been somewhat less than that, but there certainly would have been a margin between the present level of borrowing by this government on the long term and the percentage recommended by the Smith committee report. It then goes on to say:

“It is nevertheless appropriate, in view of the prospective continuing growth of the Ontario economy, that the province undertake a substantial expansion of debt as one means of financing the continuously rising levels of government expenditures forecast during the next decade. Failure to do so would necessarily be reflected in undesirably heavy increases in taxation, with possible adverse effects upon growth and other economic objectives.”

He goes on to state the committee’s conclusion:

“We think that a policy that restrains the rate of expansion of provincial net debt to that of the rise in provincial domestic product [which we now know, of course, as gross provincial product] represents a basically conservative approach to provincial finance.”

And they make a recommendation:

“As a partial solution to the projected annual expenditure-revenue gaps, the province permit a modest expansion of its net debt at a rate at least equal to the growth in provincial domestic product (or gross provincial product).”

Well, that is the longer-term trend, and it seems to me that when you look back to 1965, or indeed to 1960, that has been a realistic approach, and I do not think that we in this party would quarrel with that particular way of looking at the provincial debt in relation to the revenues through taxation of the province.

But then the Smith committee report went on to deal with cyclical fluctuations in provincial debt and stated that in doing so, they emphasized again that appropriate fiscal policies at any particular time will necessarily reflect current economic conditions and recommended that in any given period provincial policies concerning appropriate levels in composition of taxation and expenditures be consciously directed toward the objectives of moderating cyclical fluctuations within the Ontario economy.

Within that framework, I think that we in this party, in the discussions which we have had would -- in this caucus in any event -- indicate that the proposed deficit of the government in light of the current economic situation in the Province of Ontario is and would be, to us, an acceptable one, even though it is an immensely substantial increase over what we have been used to authorizing the funding of through borrowing in previous years.

Having said that, it would appear to me that basically what we are concerned with is whether or not it is an acceptable level. We certainly say a deficit of the amount projected in the Treasurer’s budget is not inappropriate. But whether or not it is appropriate, in the light of the deterioration of the economic situation, presumably only time will tell. But within broad limits, I, and I believe my colleagues in this caucus, do not have any quarrel with the overall amount.

It is interesting, strangely enough, that up until 1973, one of the items which was included in the 10-year period forecast was the net debt per capita in dollars. Of course, if you look at those figures, Mr. Speaker, they do appear rather dramatic. In 1971 it was $210.57; in 1972 it was $276.09; in 1973 it was $326.57. But, of course, in 1974, the government in its wisdom, decided to eliminate that particular calculation. So I don’t know what the per capita net debt is for the year 1974, nor do I know what the projected per capita debt is for the year 1975. My third comment to the Treasurer is that I hope he would elucidate in the course of his remarks the net debt per capita for 1974 and what is the projected net debt per capita for 1975.

Mr. Lawlor: Put it back in the budget.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s in table C9.

Mr. Renwick: All right. I was looking only at the financial statements of the government as presented for 1974, and I do hope that it will go back into the financial statement in subsequent years so that we will have the benefit of that figure.

I want to ask the Treasurer if he, once and for all, at least for my benefit, would explain to me why it is that the total net debt transactions as shown by the financial statements of the province for the last five years are -- for four out of the five years -- in excess of the amount authorized by this Act. This is assuming, as I do, that the refunding operations were done under the Financial Administration Act or, in any event, are taken into account in the net debt transactions. I would like to know under what other statutes of the Province of Ontario the government is authorized to raise the kinds of funds which are reflected in its debt transaction statement in its annual reports.

Mr. Speaker: Will there be other speakers?

Mr. Good: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but there are only a few minutes left.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Mr. Good moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday we will continue with these bills and the other bills announced by the House leader.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 o’clock, p.m.