Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. members a class of students from central Algoma. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce them to the House. They are in the west gallery.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, my students have not yet arrived, but they are on their way in and will form, I’m sure, a vociferous claque in favour of the member who happens to be standing here. They are from Franklin Horner Public School in Etobicoke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I should like to introduce 20 third-year students from the St. Clair College of Applied Arts and Technology with their instructors, Mr. Victor Burgess and Mr. Graham Jones, who happens to be a member of the Tecumseh town council and a former pupil of mine. I should like the members to welcome these students.

ESTIMATES

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I have here a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand. Rise, gentlemen.

Mr. Speaker: By his own hand W. R. Macdonald, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1975, and recommends them to the legislative assembly, Toronto, March 29, 1974.

Statements by the ministry.

OPP AGREEMENT

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to announce that a one-year memorandum of understanding has been negotiated between the government and the Ontario Provincial Police Association. The agreement covers the period from April 1, 1974 to March 31, 1975, and provides improvements in salaries, employee benefits and other terms of employment for approximately 3,700 uniformed staff in this bargaining unit. The maximum salary for a constable under the new agreement will be $13,536 per year.

It is a particular pleasure to note that the parties in these negotiations have maintained their enviable record of having always reached agreement in direct negotiations since collective bargaining for members of the Ontario Provincial Police was initiated more than 10 years ago.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): One could say the same for the community college teachers now that the government has done something.

TRAILWIND PRODUCTS

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, earlier in the week after meeting with the Steelworkers and the employees of Trailwind Products in Weston, I undertook to speak to the management of the company and look into the lay-off of the 41 employees.

I am pleased to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that there are openings for all those who were laid off and that Indal has undertaken that these vacancies will be kept open until Wednesday. I should also add that these positions have been offered by the company at no loss in pay or benefits to those employees laid off. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the company is offering a $7-per-week extra travel allowance for those employees who accept jobs in Brampton.

I must stress, however, that the employees interested must seek those jobs very soon and I would think by next Wednesday that the company will be forced to seek employees elsewhere.

There are presently 10 jobs still open in Brampton, where five employees have already accepted positions. In the Toronto operations there are six jobs open at the Alumiprime division in Downsview; 10 positions offered and six still vacant in the Marine division in Weston; there are four jobs open in the Indalex division in Weston; and one person has filled the position at the Rebmec division in Weston.

Mr. Speaker, this amounts to 36 positions offered, with only 10 filled by the 41 persons laid off. The remaining five laid-off employees will also receive jobs if they wish to apply to the company.

The company has undertaken to hire all 41 of the affected employees if they apply before Wednesday. After that date the employees may still be hired, but the undertaking by the company lapses on that day.

The company has been extremely co-operative, Mr. Speaker, and has fully explained its reasons for the lay-off. I hope that those employees seeking jobs will avail themselves of these openings.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It required a picket line and the ministry’s intervention to make them co-operative. Don’t be so generous to the company.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): They sure weren’t co-operative when they set those guys down.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I’d like to ask a question of the Premier --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: All right, but look at what it required.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, I’m sorry to interrupt the member for Scarborough West.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Would the member like to give us a few more minutes?

GLOBAL TELEVISION NETWORK

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Premier if he has been approached by the management of Global Television for any assistance in their present financial difficulties through any ODC programme or any other programme that might be available through the province.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, there have been some communications with the government, including the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

The difficulty with the situation as far as the government is concerned, of course, is the concept of government assistance for the type of institution, such as Global which is really part of the news system. I remember discussions in this House with respect to the Toronto Telegram, for instance, as to whether government should become involved in financial assistance where the institution or the company is involved in the news field.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are very interested in seeing that Global remains in business. And while I can’t report anything specific to the House, I do know there have been a number of discussions, some of them reported in the press this morning.

It is our hope, of course, that Global can find the financing to remain in business, but it is something of a complex problem for government because of the nature of the industry. While we would like to be helpful, and certainly we will be to the extent possible, I certainly don’t want to hold out hope that funding through ODC would perhaps be an appropriate way.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would it be possible for the Premier to indicate at this time the urgency of the situation? Is there any possibility, for example, that the organization will not be able to meet its payroll and therefore be under those types of pressures? And about how much money is needed to keep them operating?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m really only going by second-hand information. I sense that the situation is relatively urgent. I can’t tell the hon. member the extent of the financial problem or the lack of financing, although quite obviously it is significant as well.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): They gave me a bum cheque this morning.

Mr. Lewis: This is now a scandalous emergency. This is the crunch!

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

Mr. Shulman: Is the Premier aware that Global has issued a number of bum cheques that bounced in the last 24 hours, one of which was to me, to which I object strenuously?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Which one?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Reply to that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They didn’t get their value.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hadn’t heard of the misfortune that has befallen the member for High Park. I can only assume that of all the members in the House, he perhaps can withstand that kind of misfortune more than the rest of us. I would say further that if they are looking for further financing, knowing his great capacity and perhaps his own resource, the Global directors might approach him for some form of participation in the organization to keep it alive.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He’s looking for a new career -- there it is.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Considering the size of the government’s deficit, has the Premier considered approaching the member for High Park?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would approach him and the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party as well. I mean, any contribution they might want to make would be gratefully received.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): This government always has to get bailed out by the private sector.

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

TTC SUBSIDY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications if he is now prepared to make a statement on the level of the subsidies that the government is prepared to pay to the Toronto Transit Commission to assist them in their deficits for this year?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister indicate why, when he said that information would be available this week, it has been postponed again?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, my comment to the press at that time was that hopefully we might have something to say this week. That is not possible. I think the hon. member knows, as it has been in the press, that there is to be a meeting of representatives of Metro and the Premier. I am sure that no statement prior to that meeting would be proper.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister considered making assistance to these municipalities for their public transit purposes in such a form that it actually doesn’t penalize the improvement in business that has been enjoyed by the Toronto Transit Commission; in other words getting away from subsidizing losses to giving an incentive to get more traffic?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that incentive is already there in the form of a subsidy per ticket in the existing formula. I am assuming that it is a subsidy there.

Mr. Deacon: Oh no; it is a subsidy on losses.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker; there is a subsidy that is paid to the TTC, based upon the number of tickets that are sold.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They should print that on the ticket.

Mr. Lewis: With a picture of Allan Grossman for senior citizens.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Have we decided whose picture is to go on the blooming ticket?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It isn’t going to be mine.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It couldn’t be the minister’s.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Why?

MINISTER’S PERSONAL POSITION RE KINGSTON TOWNSHIP COUNCIL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Because then nobody would buy them.

I want to ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism if he attended at any time in his capacity as a member of the administration, a meeting where the council of the township of Kingston came to Toronto in order to see why certain aspects of their business had been delayed by government decision.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I did not attend any meeting with the reeve of the township of Kingston or any member of the township of Kingston while a minister of the government. I had the opportunity of meeting with the reeve when I was then parliamentary assistant to Hon. Charles MacNaughton. We were discussing some of the problems relating to zoning and so on in that township, but not relating to the subjects that are currently in the press.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister give his assurance to the House that his personal relationship with at least one citizen in the area, who is very much concerned with the policies of the reeve and council of Kingston township, in no way interfered with his judgement, nor let’s say allowed him to recommend to his cabinet colleagues, that certain actions be taken with regard to that council?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, any decision I shall make as a minister of this government would be in the best interest of the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario, regardless of what overriding influence there might be. This private citizen in the township of Kingston, whom I happen to be related to and pleased to be so, is one who has an interest in the contracting rights of that municipality relating to services to be extended to those taxpayers.

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t have to be pleased,

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have not participated in discussions relating to any of the problems that relate to Kingston township in the current issue.

Mr. Lewis: The minister knows it and I know it, only they don’t know it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: At a meeting of cabinet which I attended at the time the item was brought forward, I openly and clearly indicated to the members present at that time that the individual who was leading the attack or approach on the township of Kingston council was related to me and was my brother. I see no reason to go any further than to say that I withdrew from any discussions that would take place relating to that item.

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

Mr. Lewis: It is not safe to have relations in politics.

Interjections by hon. members.

GASOLINE TRAVEL ADS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the same minister if he can explain further to the House the situation that led him to instruct his advertising agency, that is his ministerial advertising agency, to change any references in our travel advertisements to be used in the United States to the ready availability of gasoline here? Was that on instruction of the external affairs people in Ottawa? How did his own advertising agency make the serious error in judgement to include that matter?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Of course, Mr. Speaker, it’s entirely up to the leader of the Liberal Party as to whether it is an error in judgement. We thought it was an announcement advising the people of this country and the United States of the availability of gas and the type of holiday they could have here in the Province of Ontario.

As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, when government at the federal level suggests to the province it might reconsider its position because of some political overtones the ad might have for our friends in the United States, we accept that as good judgement and good advice. We decided, after talking to some of the other provinces in Canada, that it would be as well for us to recognize the request of the federal government and not to cause it any difficulties in the United States. It already has enough in Ottawa.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Was the advertising agency informed by Ottawa or by the ministry here in Ontario that the change should be made? Was there no consultation before all the television trailers and the ads had been established? What was the reason for the delay in that matter?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the Liberal leader is trying to be facetious. As far as any communications go between the government of Canada and the government of this province, I do not think the advertising agency representing the federal Liberal Party in Ottawa really contacts the advertising agency related to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism for the Province of Ontario. They likely work at the same commission rate and likely get their contracts in the same manner, both federally and provincially.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s been traditional. They operate the same way. No information in that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As far as the advertising is concerned, Mr. Speaker, withdrawing the portion related to the availability of petroleum in the Province of Ontario did not cause any real difficulty in reworking our ads. It was put in last year and retained in the ad this year and there was very little difficulty in removing it. It was a decision made within the ministry and not by any outside organization.

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

RENT SUBSIDIES FOR SOCIAL ALLOWANCES RECIPIENTS

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. In light of the report to Metropolitan Toronto’s social planning council describing the consequences of rent increases as possibly catastrophic for those in receipt of social allowances from the government, will he as minister make available the several millions of dollars required to provide a form of rent subsidy for everyone in this province in receipt of a social allowance to compensate for the extraordinary rise in shelter costs over the last year, both extraordinary and unexpected in some ways?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, certainly in our ministry we recognize the grave problem of the rising cost of rent and I think all members agree that housing is probably one of the most important components of social assistance. As hon. members know, on Jan. 1 this year, we did increase our food and our rental assistance; nevertheless, costs have been rising continually since. We are at present, with the Ministry of Housing, looking into this very aspect. We have amended our regulations, as the hon. members know, so that under existing regulations for supplementary and special assistance, we pay 80 per cent for recipients of the Family Benefits Act and elderly people to municipalities which, at their discretion, wish to give increased assistance for rents.

Also I have asked my people, and we should have this information soon, to let me know how many recipients are presently paying more than their increased allowances. Again, Mr. Speaker, we have responded in the past and we will respond in future to this very pressing problem of increasing costs.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): What are they jabbering about?

Mr. Lewis: Even with the Jan. 1 increase, the minister will know that fully 84 per cent of the recipients surveyed were paying in excess of 25 per cent of income on rent and a quarter of them surveyed were paying more than 50 per cent of their social allowances on rent, which destroys the food component of the social allowances entirely. Has he, therefore, made a survey of the kinds of percentages being paid? Is the government prepared to assume, for those on social allowances, the full cost of rental payments by supplements at this time when there is absolutely no alternative accommodation anywhere else?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, I am getting this information. At the same time, the hon. member will appreciate this is a complex factor. Often, when we raise our maximum shelter allowance, what happens is that the landlords raise their rents.

Mr. Lewis: Oh I see.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: So it is a very difficult area.

Mr. Martel: That’s free enterprise.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Now rent control is something that has been advocated. I don’t know the member’s views on that, but it is a very difficult area.

Mr. MacDonald: We have been advocating it for years.

Mr. Lawlor: Our views on it are well known.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: But again, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to reiterate what I said before: We have responded in the past and: we will respond to this increasing cost.

Mr. Lewis: Why penalize this group so severely?

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, supplementary.

Mr. Deacon: Would the minister not agree that in view of the fact so much of the increase is taken advantage of by landlords, this shows the need for a rental review board?

Mr. Lewis: Oh!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deacon: Before which the province can bring those who, without justification, do increase the rents and --

Mr. Martel: If it’s anything like the prices review board in Ottawa scrap it!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deacon: -- and alleviate by increased grants those situations where the recipients are being deprived of any opportunity to pay for increased costs other than just shelter?

Mr. Lawlor: Is this Liberal policy this morning?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, there may be merit in the hon. member’s suggestion, but there are other provinces that have review boards and I’m not too sure whether their results have been that satisfactory.

Mr. Deacon: Well maybe this province can do better!

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

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, why is it that the ministry is only now investigating the degree to which recipients pay more than the shelter allowances in rent, when figures have been available to the ministry as long as three years -- and I’m sure five and ten years, but certainly in the last three or four years -- from Ottawa and other municipalities, that show equally that 70, 80 or 90 per cent of recipients pay well in excess of the shelter allowances for their rent? Why didn’t the government act then when those figures were available?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, again, we have responded. We did increase our allowances on Jan. 1.

Mr. Lewis: The government is falling further and further behind!

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We did amend our regulations and we are prepared to do more.

Mr. Lewis: They let the landlord take the increase.

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

COST OF LIVING CLAUSES IN LABOUR CONTRACTS

Mr. Lewis: Question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Labour: Is he aware of the factors surrounding the dispute in Hamilton between the United Rubber Workers and the Firestone company?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: No, Mr. Speaker. At this time it really hasn’t come up to my level. Perhaps some of my officials are. I could find out.

Mr. Lewis: At what point is a strike, that has gone on for a month now, at what point are strikes and the issues in strikes reported to the minister? Is there no apparatus for a report to the minister after a week or two weeks or three weeks of a prolonged dispute?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: It all depends, Mr. Speaker. There are so many different cases. It all depends on the timing. It depends on the parties and it depends on their reading of the whole thing. So I cannot give the member a definite answer. Nobody can.

Mr. Lewis: Well, there aren’t that many strikes in the province at any given moment. I mean, does the ministry not report to the minister on a strike that’s gone on for a month over a matter of a cost of living index?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: They report to me, and as a matter of fact not only do they report I ask for a report. The member claims there are not so many strikes, well we have perhaps seven or eight going on at the present time.

Mr. Lewis: Seven or eight? Well, you know Mr. Speaker, the minister can manage that. Seven or eight strikes at one time are not beyond human capacity. But can I ask the minister, would he consider --

Mr. Lawlor: I’ve got three in my riding alone.

Mr. Lewis: Would the minister consider amending the Employment Standards Act in Ontario to provide the requirement that every negotiated contract have a clause which provides for an escalated cost of living increase as a part of that contract?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, we always accept suggestions. We are always glad to look at it. But I make no commitment right now.

SPENDING CEILINGS IN EDUCATION

Mr. Lewis: Question, Mr. Speaker, of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, if I could. When are the regulations governing the ceilings and the weighting factors for education in the Metropolitan Toronto area to be issued by the Ministry of Education?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) is out of the city at the present moment. I would imagine there will be some information when he returns.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, has it been brought to the attention of the provincial secretary’s policy development committee that a large number of jobs associated with the Metro Toronto boards -- several hundred, in the caretaker and support staff area -- may be lost unless the regulations related to the ceilings appear immediately? Why the delay? Has she any idea of the reason for the delay? Is she about to increase the ceilings significantly? Is that the reason?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the question is one that is under consideration in the policy field at the moment.

Mr. Lewis: Well, since my question was so convoluted, perhaps I can ask the provincial secretary which part of it is under consideration -- the loss of jobs or the increase in the ceilings?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The whole question of the impact of inflation on the ceilings.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Lewis: Could I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations whether he has discussed with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) the possibility of the four- or five-cent increase in milk prices which has been prophesied being referred entirely to the producer, being embraced entirely by the farmer, and this time eliminating many of the middle men and those who retail milk?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No, Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed that particular matter with my colleague.

Mr. Lewis: Has he yet noticed the most recent increase in profits reported by the Becker company?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker; and I think the House will be pleased to learn that some time next week I will be filing a study prepared by my ministry which I referred to in a discussion between the leader of the New Democratic Party and myself about two weeks ago. Not only does it deal with that particular industry but with several other retail stores -- major chains, and I’m thinking of Maple Leaf Mills, which is included there too. I think the member will find it of great interest. I’ll have that available some time next week for the hon. member.

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask one last question of the same minister and that’s all. May I ask him, has he considered calling in the various insurance companies -- the automobile insurance companies in particular -- to take a look at their premium rates as a way of effecting reductions which would eliminate the inflationary costs for all of those who drive; to bring the rates in Ontario, let us say, in line with the rates of a province like Manitoba?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): They’ve just raised their rates at least 20 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I have just two comments there. The office of the superintendent is always concerned with rates and discusses rate structures and requested increases with the industry each and every year.

With reference to the other province mentioned, I had the opportunity of being in British Columbia some three weeks ago and the government system there provides for $14 per hour for labour bestowed on an automobile in repairing it. The programme started, I believe, three or four weeks ago today. When I read an article in the paper two or three days later the complaints of the public out there were that the repair industry would not accept $14 per hour, but in fact added to that somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.50 to $3 per hour in addition to the provincial plan.

I bring that to the attention of the House, not as a criticism of that particular plan, but to show some of the realities of the cost increases that in fact the consumers are facing. I can only assure the House that the superintendent’s office will continue to be vigilant insofar as rate increases requested by the industry are concerned.

Mr. Lewis: Has the minister done any rate comparisons of the three provinces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, the superintendent has.

Mr. Lewis: Well, we will provide them to the minister next week.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Add in the $9 a year driving-licence charges to that, too.

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

RAPID DATA CORP.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Has the minister taken any steps to ensure that the $6.5 million in Eaton’s employees’ pension fund that was invested in Rapid Data Corp. is protected now that the company has gone into receivership?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear the entire question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Haggerty: Has the minister taken any steps to ensure that the $6.5 million in Eaton’s employees’ pension fund that was invested in Rapid Data Corp. is protected now that the company has gone into receivership?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I will be meeting with the director and two members of the pension commission at 11 o’clock this morning.

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

ALLEGED MAFIA ACTIVITIES

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Has his department been asked by the American police to co-operate in the investigation of the murder of one Harvey Leach? In the course of its investigation, has it looked into the activity of the Toronto lawyer who financed Mr. Leach through a Queen St. investment corporation? What is he doing about that particular problem of laundering money which is being used in Detroit, through Toronto?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I haven’t any direct information at this time involving one Mr. Leach. It is quite possible, of course, that the Ontario Provincial Police have some information, as well as the Police Commission, the Metropolitan Toronto Police, and our police information agency. I personally haven’t any information at this time.

Mr. Shulman: Will the minister inquire and inform me?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: What does the member particularly want to know?

Mr. Shulman: I am interested in what the Solicitor General is doing about the laundering in this city of Mafia money, which is then being sent back to the United States for criminal activities.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I’ll inquire if that is a problem.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

BAYFIELD LAND DISPUTE

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Considering there has been an ongoing dispute over the legal ownership of land on the river flats in Bayfield, which is in Huron county, and considering that the town of Bayfield has served an injunction on the alleged owners for the dredging and removal of sand on the land in question, why did his ministry officials do a complete about-face within a matter of one week and allow the alleged owners of the land to cut a channel into the river, which is contrary to sections 3 and 4 of the Beach Protection Act?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I will have a complete report prepared on this particular matter and report to the member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for --

Mr. Lawlor: Lakeshore.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry -- Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: We will have to get acquainted one of these days, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

CONDOMINIUM SPECULATION

Mr. Lawlor: I want to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and other forms of alienation.

Is the hon. minister aware that certain lawyers in particular, but others as well, are ripping off his condominium legislation in the way of pure speculation by buying up units which they have no intention of moving into and selling them off at gross profits?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Lawyers are doing that?

Mr. Singer: Just lawyers?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such practice pertaining to any particular group.

Insofar as the speculation in condominiums is concerned, I suppose it is like any other asset and people will continue to speculate in it in the hope of making fast profits. But I am not aware of any practice that is continuing.

Mr. Lawlor: Why doesn’t the minister plug it in his new legislation?

Mr. Lewis: No, not any assets, just housing.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister heard that, as a matter of budget, his government intends to introduce a 75 per cent capital gains tax on such forms of speculation?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Have I heard that?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, has he heard that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh.

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

INSPECTION OF LICENSED PREMISES

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I also have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Does the minister not feel that his officials in the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario made a booboo, if I may use that word --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Watch your language!

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: That was the wrong word.

Mr. Reid: -- in their instructions this week to the liquor inspectors to investigate the shows or entertainment, whatever words one wants to use, in licensed lounges? Does the minister not feel that perhaps the tactics of the LLBO, the way they go about almost blackmailing the people holding liquor licences in this province, should be something that should be looked into -- that and their arbitrary methods?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I must object to the tenor of the question put by the member of the Liberal-Labour Party for Rainy River insofar as his reference to blackmail is concerned. I am also grateful for his question on this matter of great public urgency with reference to the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario directive, which went forward this week.

The directive was issued this week, arising out of a series of complaints. I can assure the House that the basis of one of the complaints was extremely valid; that particular matter has not been completely resolved by the courts, and I can make no further comment on that particular thing.

I asked the board to review its directive, which was objective, for the simple reason that there were entertainers appearing, according to my information -- and not in lounges; I’m not referring to the straight lounges, I’m talking about dining lounges only -- there were entertainers appearing in dining lounges, described as go-go dancers, who in fact did not remove any particle of their clothing; and the directive as it went forward would preclude that type of entertainment where children were present.

As far as the other type of entertainment is concerned, there is a valid point to be made that this sort of entertainment should not be available where children under the age of 18, accompanied by their parents, are having a meal.

Mr. Breithaupt: They would do better to watch it on Global.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister not feel that the LLBO is one of the most arbitrary emanations of government in the Province of Ontario?

Is he aware for instance of a directive that went out some time ago to private clubs in the province saying that they could no longer hold a happy hour and give their members reduced prices on drinks between the hours of five and seven; and that they were not allowed to serve hot hors d’oeuvres to their members. Now, it is things like that that are completely arbitrary and asinine.

Does the minister not think it’s time that he looked into the whole matter and set down some guidelines for the LLBO, instead of letting them think these things up over coffee or from wherever they come?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The hon. member has asked three questions -- and my answer to the first two is “no”; and the third one is “yes.” We are in fact reviewing in depth the policies and legislation affecting the LLBO and the LCBO.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary question.

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

Mr. MacDonald: In this critical area of consumer protection that the minister is obviously so preoccupied with at the moment, does the minister not feel that if you want to enforce the law it should be enforced by the front door rather than using liquor regulations to enforce it by the back door?

If there is a violation of the Criminal Code, whatever the minister’s interpretation or the government’s interpretation of the moral implications of it are, shouldn’t it be enforced through the Criminal Code rather than through the back door on liquor regulations?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I do feel that the provisions of the Criminal Code are most predominant and that charges dealing with indecency or morality should, of course, flow from the Criminal Code and be a matter of jurisdiction for enforcement by the local police. There is no question that my feeling

Mr. MacDonald: Why is the government operating through the back door?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- that is number one. In the criminal courts the test, of course, is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standards, insofar as they are imposed by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, are not quite as stringent; there is a question of public taste. When we receive complaints, through that board, from bona fide members of the public objecting to certain performances --

Mr. Reid: What is a bona fide member of the public?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- in a dining lounge where children are present, I take the position the board has every right to demonstrate through its directives and instructions the standard that it expects from a person holding a licence in this province.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Reid: Can the minister explain what a bona fide member of the public is; and alternately what a non-bona fide member of the public is?

Mr. MacDonald: The president of the local Tory riding association.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will demonstrate that by saying a complaint which is not originated or encouraged by, perhaps a competitor; that’s what I mean by a bona fide member of the public. Sometimes complaints come in and we check them out and find that in fact they have emanated from someone who has a vested interest in a similar type of organization.

Mr. Lewis: Like the police.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Therefore I don’t, as an individual, place as much credibility on that type of complaint as I would on one originating from a member of the general public.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Shulman: Can the minister explain how the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario has assumed authority, without anything in the Act giving it that authority, not only on censorship but also on building standards and on advertising?

Does the minister know that Chief Mackey -- “Boss” Mackey -- has issued instructions that people who have licences under the Liquor Licence Act may no longer advertise that they sell liquor? Is he aware of that? And that the owners of Maxwell’s Plum were called down because they used the word “drink” in their advertisement. What authority do they have to assume these: “I am the law; I am the law,” tactics of “Boss” Mackey?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, any commission board or ministry operates on the basis of statutory legislation, regulations made under the statute and by policy directives.

Mr. Shulman: There are no regulations for that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: There is nothing unique about this; and if a policy is codified and is inflexible then it has to apply to all. Very often some of these things must be slightly inflexible because of particular problems in a particular area.

Therefore the policy matters are within the scope of the board, and if policy directives go forward and work very well and the public is aware of the policy -- and I think this is the root of the problem; that often policy goes forward from boards and commissions and the public are not aware. I am sympathetic to the public. I would like to see most policies resolved into regulations if at all possible. Sometimes it is impossible to do that.

Mr. Shulman: These policies come out of Mackey’s wet dreams.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

APPROVAL OF OFFICIAL PLANS

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the provincial Treasurer.

Is the minister aware of the large number of municipalities that have sent in official plans -- some of them as far back as October, 1973 -- and have not had approval as yet? As this is causing delay in work in towns, when will these official plans be approved by the Treasurer’s department?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): Well, sir, as of Jan. 8 this responsibility went to the Ministry of Housing, so I guess the precise answer to the member’s question is never, insofar as I am concerned.

Mr. Reid: That’s the Treasurer’s answer to everything.

Hon. Mr. White: The member might redirect the question to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) and get a better answer than that though.

Mr. Spence: Well, I refer my question to the Minister of Housing.

An hon. member: He’s not here.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member might put his question at another time when the minister is here.

The hon. member for Sudbury East.

AIR MANAGEMENT BRANCH INSPECTOR

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of the Environment. Has he found a replacement yet for Mr. Ross MacKenzie in the Sudbury area?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): No, we haven’t replaced him as yet.

Mr. Martel: I think they are getting somebody from Algoma.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener is next.

REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier: Can the Premier give us any preliminary information or a progress report on the operation of the commission dealing with redistribution within the Legislature? And can he advise us if there is any consideration being given for the holding of public hearings, at least on a regional basis, and the amending of the terms of reference for the commission in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I hope Hansard got that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only report to the members of the House that the commission is obviously making progress. I think the general pattern that will be followed will be for their preliminary report to be made available to the House, after which time there will be opportunities for discussion, by some members I am sure and members of the public, before it is then returned here for final passage. I can’t tell the hon. member the exact date, but I think it is perhaps only three or four weeks away.

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

ENFORCEMENT OF LIQUOR REGULATIONS ON TRAIN

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Has the minister any plans for maintaining law and order on tonight’s train from Windsor --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did the member for Scarborough West hear what he said? Law and order!

Mr. Lewis: What? Yes.

An hon. member: The member for Sandwich-Riverside caused the problem.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: From Windsor or to Windsor?

Mr. Burr: -- from Windsor to Toronto --

Mr. Breithaupt: What are the minister’s plans there?

Mr. Burr: -- by enforcing the province’s liquor regulations?

An hon. member: Oh!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am astounded to learn from the tenor of the hon. member’s question that law and order is not being applied. I just received a complaint, as I take it from the member for High Park, regarding the application of law and order. I am not aware of any breaches of the Liquor Control Act.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If the member will draw them to my attention --

Mr. Shulman: No, no; the misapplication of law and order -- the misapplication.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- I will certainly undertake to see that they are looked into. Could the member let me know what the matters are of which he complains on that particular train? I have never been on the train; I may want to go on it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: That will only compound the difficulty.

Mr. Ruston: Must have been streakers through the bar.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Burr: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Burr: -- does the minister forget the correspondence we have had on this matter?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I forget a lot of things and if I have overlooked it I apologize to the member. I don’t recollect it at this particular moment and I will look into it. I am sorry but, no, I don’t recollect it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: The minister had only 12 letters. One of the minister’s parliamentary assistants has taken over.

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

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Premier: Since the imposition of the ministerial order on the noise lands in the proposed Pickering airport was a provincial action, does the Premier intend to require the federal government to pay owners affected for the rights that have been denied them for the last two years or to lift the order now that this form of discrimination is becoming such a burden on the people affected?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only pass an uninformed legal opinion. I would suggest the hon. member might ask the question of the Attorney General (Mr. Welch), who I think would take it as notice. I question whether this province can order the federal government to pay compensation to anybody.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Since the action is a provincial action that was taken only by the province and is its own decision; and since that is a form of discrimination and the province has the right to lift that order any time it wishes, will the province lift the order since the federal government has not provided for compensation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, contrary, I’m sure, to the view of some on occasion, this government does try to co-operate with our federal government.

Mr. Deacon: The Premier is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The federal government has asked that these orders be placed on, if, by some chance, that area does become an international airport. I think there is wisdom, not for a prolonged period of time but for a period of time, in having this form of order there.

It’s very difficult. We would prefer not to do it. We would prefer that the federal government, quite frankly, assume the responsibility, but it doesn’t have, I assume, the legal right to do so. If the hon. member is saying to us lift the order and let the federal government then solve its own problems, I find that an interesting suggestion.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Does the Premier not realize that, in view of his power to impose this order, he has the right to demand of the federal government compensation for those affected? Why doesn’t he talk through just one side of his mouth instead of two sides at one time?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only say to the hon. member opposite that if there is anybody who knows how to talk in a hypocritical sense on certain very important issues it is that particular member. He can talk to us about this difficult issue where we are trying to co-operate with the federal government, but he shouldn’t come into this House and say that I am talking out of both sides of my mouth after what he did in relation to the York county school situation --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- seize the board one day and local autonomy the next day.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: It shouldn’t be allowed.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier pays him. I know he pays him.

SHINING TREE PHONE SERVICE

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, although under standing order 27(j), he might wish to refer the question to the member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman), the chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

In view of the fact that the government’s intentions in the Throne Speech indicated an end to the communications problems in the remote communities in northern Ontario; in view of the fact that the minister made a statement very recently in which he said: “Once and for all, a communications remoteness of the communities of northern Ontario will be ended”; in view of the fact that the Northern Telephone Co., a private enterprise --

An hon. member: Owned by the Bell.

Mr. Laughren: -- has agreed to establish an exchange in the community of Shining Tree in the riding of Nickel Belt; and in view of the fact that Ontario Hydro have agreed to let the Ontario Northland use their lines if they wished; how is it then, that the Ontario Northland has refused to establish the toll lines into the community of Shining Tree so that people in the community could have communication, not only among themselves, but with the outside world as well?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is like an amendment to the Throne Speech.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): It is like communicating with smoke signals.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member repeat the question?

Mr. Speaker: There are only 30 seconds remaining.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, obviously the answer to that would take more than 30 seconds and I would like to take time to get the information. I’m not familiar with the problem he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview, 25 seconds.

SAVINGS FROM ONE MINISTER HOLDING TWO PORTFOLIOS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General tell us what savings he has been able to effect since he became at the same time the Provincial Secretary for Justice and the Attorney General, since now there is only one minister instead of two, and since now there is only one deputy minister instead of two? How much of the $358,000 set aside for the office of the Provincial Secretary for Justice has been saved since this great event took place?

Mr. Speaker: There are 10 seconds remaining.

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to share that information with the hon. member when we go through our estimates.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I gave an answer to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Scarborough West dealing with a caution filed with respect to certain lands in some 110 townships in the district of Nipissing by the Bear Island Foundation. The hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked if I would table a copy of that caution, which I am very pleased to do this morning.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. White moves, seconded by Mr. Winkler, that the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil service and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1974, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriations following the voting of supply.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, briefly on the motion, I would like to point out to you, sir, as I have in the past, that I am not aware that all other democratic jurisdictions use this procedure. In fact, it simply means that our discussions of the estimates for the next many months tend to be somewhat academic since the approval of the estimates and the right to pay the moneys out of them are granted by way of this fairly routine motion -- or it has been routine in the past -- to the Treasurer.

In other jurisdictions, as I understand it, there is approval given but not for the full year’s expenditure. It is on a monthly basis, I believe, in the House of Commons and it is therefore necessary for the Treasurer or a representative of the government to come before the House at regular intervals to get an extension of the authority to pay if the estimates have not, at that time, been approved.

I am not prepared to offer any substantial objection other than that, Mr. Speaker, and other than that perhaps the Treasurer might do a survey of the procedures in other legislatures and parliaments, because it seems to me that the rights of the House are somewhat seriously infringed when we pass a blanket motion of a routine nature, such as this, which gives the right to spend the whole blooming $7 billion to $8 billion without any power to hold back by the House in the long run.

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, I am interested in these comments. I thought this was the practice in the British parliamentary system throughout the world. I do not see any obvious advantage to bringing in a motion like this once a quarter or once a month. I do point out that the estimates, while they won’t be concluded until perhaps next October or November, will be approved progressively and to that extent the dependence upon this motion is thereby diminished. However, I will accept the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition to see what the practice is elsewhere and see if this can, indeed, be improved upon.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Algoma.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me this morning to participate in the Throne debate. I must say I wasn’t really anticipating coming on so soon. But Friday mornings sometimes are a little bit difficult -- some of the speakers are not ready -- so I thought I would get up and make a few comments.

First, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that you are back in the Speaker’s chair. I knew you had a difficult time; you had a period of illness but I know I express the views of this House when I say how pleased we are to see you back in the chair and performing your function in a very efficient way, as usual.

Then, Mr. Speaker, as we all realize, there has been quite a shuffling in the cabinet --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Yes, of course.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- and I want to congratulate everyone who has been promoted to cabinet posts.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Congratulate those who have been demoted.

Mr. Gilbertson: And also I want to congratulate those who didn’t get promotions who have taken it so well, I don’t see anybody disgruntled around here at all.

Mr. Lawlor: I have never seen so many unhappy faces. They wept for two days.

An hon. member: There is more than the one who is disappointed.

Mr. Lawlor: They are not even here this morning.

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, I have been very interested and quite enthused about some of the rumblings that I have been hearing about nuclear plants being established through the various parts of the Province of Ontario. I have invited one of these nuclear plants to be established somewhere along the north shore in the riding of Algoma.

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Great stuff.

Mr. Gilbertson: It is something that we know would be quite a boon to the economy. And it is something that we need, because certain parts along the north shore are rather depressed areas where we need some more labour incentives and so on. I am sure that the minister will look favourably on establishing a nuclear plant in the Thessalon-Blind River area. They can even come up to Bruce Mines, Desbarats, or right over to St. Joseph island.

Now that we have such an extensive maple syrup industry there, we could use a secondary industry such as a nuclear plant.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Where are the samples?

Mr. Morningstar: No samples?

Mr. Gilbertson: And I am pleased with various things that are happening in the riding of Algoma. Not very long ago I had the privilege of announcing a sawmill operation that’s going into White River. It is a $9 mil- lion enterprise and is needed up in that part of the riding. I am very pleased that this is going to become a reality.

Mr. Morningstar: Good government.

Mr. Gilbertson: And there are rumblings from other industries --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): There are rumblings in the PC Tory organization.

Mr. Gilbertson: Well, I think the rumblings in the PC organization are not too bad. They are favourable rumblings.

Mr. Lewis: We are just hoping they are not too bad. We don’t want any palace revolution in Algoma, thank you very much. We are supporting the member. We have signed a lot of people into the Tory party to make sure he gets the nomination.

Mr. Gilbertson: Well, I am going to tell the members something. I appreciate any support, whether it comes from the NDP or the Liberals --

Mr. Lewis: I can understand that.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- or whoever it comes from. I am sure --

An hon. member: And the member for Algoma gets it all, too, doesn’t he?

Mr. Gilbertson: When you get a plurality like I got in Algoma, there have got to be some NDP and some Liberals who vote for me.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gilbertson: You know there’s the old saying that the brass is getting too far away from the grass. Well, you can’t say that in the Algoma riding, because I am right with the grass roots of the people.

Mr. Morningstar: Great.

Mr. Lewis: They ask: “Where is he? What has he been doing?”

Mr. Gilbertson: Oh, yes, well, of course this is a good opportunity for the leader of the NDP to throw in a little flak because he knows that the interjections go into Hansard and he is trying to discredit me.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, no. Shame, shame. I love the member for Algoma.

Mr. Gilbertson: Yes, I know he does. He loves me but he would hate like everything for me to get re-elected again.

Mr. Lewis: That’s exactly right. I would like that in Hansard. I think there should be a change in Algoma.

Mr. Gilbertson: Does the hon. member for Scarborough --

Mr. Lewis: West.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- West -- realize how close he was to not being in here at all?

Mr. Lewis: I won by 170 votes.

Mr. Gilbertson: That’s right. But in the previous election I think the member got a plurality of about 6,000 or 7,000.

Mr. Lewis: Just about. Well, I like the rhythm of fluctuation.

Mr. Gilbertson: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lawlor: He wants to live dangerously. The member for Algoma is too safe.

Mr. Lewis: Imagine talking about a nuclear plant for Blind River when the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) said a couple of months ago that it was Hydro’s decision. It was 10 years away. What about the --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member from Algoma has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: What about a serious thing for the people of the members’ community? Come on, now. Let’s talk about real things.

Mr. Gilbertson: The leader of the NDP is always so pessimistic.

Mr. Lewis: Talk about reality.

Mr. Gilbertson: He is too pessimistic.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Algoma speak to the chair, please?

Mr. Lewis: Call him into line.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): The member for Scarborough West will be leaving.

Mr. Lewis: I hope so.

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that one of the cabinet ministers who was appointed just recently was the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Rhodes). It couldn’t be more appropriate than to have “Rhodes for roads.”

Mr. Lewis: That’s another desperate effort to hold a seat.

An hon. member: He will, though.

Mr. Gilbertson: Well look, one has to be political and astute. The member knows that himself. Does he think we’re stupid?

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, I think the member is a smart executive director. I mean it in a generic sense.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gilbertson: The hon. member for Scarborough West thinks that way because I’m a backbencher from up in the north, the place where he’s going to try to get votes. The way he treats me will be the way he treats the people up in Algoma.

Mr. Lewis: The way I treat the member?

Mr. Gilbertson: I’m their representative.

Mr. Lewis: I treat you all right, my friend!

Mr. Gilbertson: I’m the representative --

Mr. Lewis: He certainly is!

Mr. Gilbertson: -- for the riding of Algoma, and I’m representing the people.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): And a good one.

Mr. Gilbertson: I think I’m doing a fair job and the people know it.

Mr. Lawlor: I think my leader treats the member for Algoma with a commendable courtesy, considering everything.

Mr. Gilbertson: Now, we have quite a lot of things that we want to get accomplished up there in the north. We’ve got a lot of things done, but the north is just now starting to really get into its own.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, it’s really moving ahead. Let’s hear it!

Mr. Gilbertson: We’ve got some good cabinet men up there. We have the hon. member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) in Natural Resources.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gilbertson: And the people over there have always been saying that we should have people from the north representing the north.

Mr. Lawlor: He is pretty much of a disaster, too.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Gilbertson: Now, I couldn’t think of a better setup than to have the hon. member for Kenora there as Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Lawlor: I could, without any imagination at all.

Mr. Gilbertson: Because we have all the lumbering --

Mr. Lewis: If the member takes our views he will be all right.

Mr. Lawlor: He’s in the pocket of the big guys up there.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- and logging operations and the minerals and all that up there.

Mr. Lawlor: He’s a big guy himself.

Mr. Gilbertson: And then I couldn’t think of a better person than the hon. member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle) to represent Community and Social Services.

Mr. Morningstar: Doing a good job!

Mr. Gilbertson: The north is getting on the map.

Mr. Lewis: Is this the epitaph for the Tories in northern Ontario? Is this the last word?

Mr. Gilbertson: And then I think of the hon. member for Fort William, chairman of Ontario Northland, another northerner.

Mr. Laughren: He has done enough for their image.

Mr. Morningstar: Good job! A great member!

Mr. Lawlor: A sinecure if I ever heard of one.

Mr. Laughren: He even put a telephone in Shining Tree.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gilbertson: And then I also think of the --

Mr. Lawlor: They even have a special boxcar he rides in!

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, another prominent member, too, is the hon. member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane).

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gilbertson: What is this fellow doing? He’s getting a great big new ferry to service the Bruce Peninsula from South Baymouth to Tobermory --

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) arranged that. Don’t be so stupid.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- just to bring more tourist dollars up into that area there, and it’s a great thing.

Mr. Good: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce arranged that.

Mr. Lawlor: Hey, did the member ever get a bridge to get the people off Manitoulin Island? He got one to get them on.

Mr. Morningstar: Oh, yes. He got it.

Mr. Gilbertson: No, no. The member is talking about St. Joseph Island.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, yes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on behalf of the people of Algoma, and especially of St. Joseph Island. And a big thank-you to this government for that bridge across to St. Joseph Island.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Well and South): What did they do with the ferry?

Mr. Gilbertson: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that that was a political football. It didn’t matter what politician came over to St. Joseph Island --

Mr. Lewis: Indeed it was.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- to solicit votes. It started back in 1890 when we first had our bridge committee there. And after that, when an election came up, every politician said St. Joseph Island was going to get a bridge. It never materialized until we finally got a member from St. Joseph Island in the Legislature of Ontario. The bridge is there. We’re using it. And we all appreciate it very much.

Mr. Morningstar: “Bernt Gilbertson,” “Bernt Gilbertson.”

Mr. Gilbertson: By the way --

An hon. member: It’s called the “Bernt Gilbertson” span.

Mr. Lewis: Does my friend know he left one of his northern members out?

Mr. Gilbertson: I’m going to get back to him too.

Mr. Lewis: The member is going to get back to him?

Mr. Gilbertson: I think my friend is thinking of the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes).

Mr. Lewis: No, I’m not. The member left one of his Tory members out. It’s kind of an interesting oversight. Tuck it away and think about whom he missed.

Mr. Gilbertson: Let’s see now -- I started at Kenora, and I kept coming down to Fort William --

Mr. Lewis: Right. He’s stuck up there on Maple Mountain somewhere. Remember that.

Mr. Gilbertson: I know who the member means.

Mr. Lewis: Yes?

Mr. Gilbertson: He’s sort of from northeastern Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: I see. So is the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Gilbertson: All right. I’d say that the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) is doing a terrific job.

Mr. Lewis: Oh good, good.

Mr. Gilbertson: He’s doing a terrific job -- and I’m sure hon. members will agree with me.

Mr. Lawlor: Now the member loses credibility. He had been doing pretty good until now, but he has lost contact with the grass roots again.

An hon. member: No, he’s got contacts with the grass roots.

Mr. Gilbertson: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that in my seven years in the Legislature I’ve seen a lot of things accomplished. There have been a lot of changes in northwestern Ontario and in northern Ontario.

I think, for instance, of the various highways that we have established there; there is one in particular that helps me out and I use considerably, Highway 631 from White River to Hornepayne. It runs from Highway 17 right through to Highway 11. Hornepayne is located right in the middle between those two highways. Before that highway was established, I would either have had to fly in or drive 265 miles around from White River. Now it’s only 61 miles across. In an hour and a quarter or so I can make it over into Hornepayne.

I think also of the various hamlets in my riding. I don’t have any big towns. I’m very concerned about the economies of places like Hornepayne. They have to depend mainly upon the CN railway, but they have a very prominent lumbering operation there and, to a certain extent, it’s the lifeline of Hornepayne. I would appreciate very much seeing that this lumbering operation continues for years to come. This company is working on a sustained yield. They’re working on the basis of perpetuation. One can go over some of their cut-over limits and see the second growth coming up. This is the way we should operate --

Mr. Laughren: Who planted them?

Mr. Gilbertson: -- and I’m sure the minister agrees with me, that this sustained yield and the perpetuation of our forests are things of which we should be more aware. I think we should be more aware of the perpetuation of our forests, not just in the type of operation we have in northwestern Ontario, where they depend mainly on jackpine, spruce and other softwood species but also, I think, in our hardwoods operation.

I think we should operate with the perpetuation of the forests in mind. We should take care that we don’t go in and just ruin the forest without being concerned about the upcoming younger growth, because in that area it would probably take 50 years I would say, for a tree to grow to 6 in. in diameter. We need to be careful that we don’t set back 50 years of growth when we’re harvesting the forests. I think this is something of which lumber operators should be very much aware, and we should be sensible about the way we take out our timber and look after our resources.

I might say that another thing which I think is very good is that, as members know, a few years ago a lot of the gold mines closed down because they couldn’t operate. They were just marginal, they weren’t making any profit and many of the mines had to phase out. But now, with the price of gold, several of these gold mines are being revived and this is a good thing because in a riding such as mine we depend on the natural resources.

There is an awful lot of good potential in the copper ore deposits up there. There may not be anyone big enough to set up a large operation but if we had some type of a smelter located where we could take these small deposits it would help out the little fellow. I can’t help thinking about the member for Welland; he often brings it up when he gets up to speak. He says we have got to look after the little fellow and this is what we need to do in a riding such as mine. We may not have very many big fellows but we have a lot of little ones.

Mr. J. P. MacBeth (York West): The member is a big fellow.

Mr. Gilbertson: These are the kind of people I like to take care of and like to assist.

Mr. Morningstar: You bet.

Mr. Gilbertson: I don’t know how long I have been speaking, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Morningstar: More, more; he is doing well.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- but I don’t mind it a bit because I think my people in my area want their member to get up and represent them. It is one thing to do a lot of constituency work but one has to be heard from time to time in the Legislature and make it known to the members and the whole of Ontario what our government is doing, and to present our needs as well.

Mr. Lawlor: And what it is not doing.

Mr. Gilbertson: I believe in the saying, “Ask and ye shall receive; seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened unto you.” I do knocking on doors and I do seeking and I must say that I do some finding.

Mr. Lawlor: The Premier (Mr. Davis) is not the member’s heavenly father.

Mr. Gilbertson: Would he repeat that?

Mr. Lawlor: No, I won’t.

Mr. Gilbertson: I believe in a heavenly father.

Mr. Lawlor: I said the Premier is not his heavenly father.

Mr. Gilbertson: No, but he comes next.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s pretty good.

Mr. Gilbertson: That is something I was almost omitting. One of the most important things is to compliment our Premier for the great job he has been doing. It is a very difficult job and it is very hard in this day and age when people are so unsettled and it seems as though we are all getting greedier all the time. We want, we want, we want. Let us not forget that the tax money we are working with comes out of the people’s pockets and whatever we want has to be paid for somewhere along the line. I think we have a Premier who, I feel, is running this province in a very efficient way.

I want to congratulate our Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) for the wonderful job he did through the difficult situation that arose with the teachers --

Mr. Haggerty: Which he created.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- especially in North York. I am pleased that so many teachers and school boards got their grievances settled.

Mr. Lawlor: He needs a little congratulation.

Mr. Gilbertson: I felt that the minister conducted himself very well through a difficult job.

Mr. Haggerty: The member must be looking for a cabinet post.

Mr. Gilbertson: Now I am only a backbencher --

Mr. MacBeth: He is in the front bench now.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- but I have been impressed -- there are certain things that a cabinet minister does which will impress one, either favourably or unfavourably -- and I say in this particular case, the minister went away up in my estimation with the way he handled the situation.

Our government, from time to time, will have to take stands and make decisions which may not be the popular things to do but are the right things to do. I am pleased when a member will stand up and say, regardless of what the consequences are, “I feel that this is the right thing to do. Whether it is going to affect us adversely politically or not, we are going to do it because it is right.”

That is the kind of government that the Conservative government has been.

Mr. Lawlor: They won’t do it again before the next election.

Mr. Gilbertson: This is the way we have performed for over 30 years. I believe that the people of Ontario are convinced that we are doing a good job. How do we prove it? Because we have been re-elected.

An hon. member: Year after year.

Mr. Lawlor: The government is beginning to wind down a bit now.

Mr. Haggerty: It is going to go the other way.

Mr. Gilbertson: I’m sure there are enough sensible people in Ontario who know when the government is doing a good job and when it is not.

An hon. member: The member is right.

Mr. Lawlor: The government just spends more money than anybody else; that’s all.

Mr. Gilbertson: I just happened to notice across the way the member for Armourdale (Mr. Carton), who has decided that he is not going to continue in politics too much longer.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Neither will the member for Algoma.

Mr. Gilbertson: I must say that I must congratulate the former Minister of Transportation and Communications for the fine job that he was doing in his department.

Mr. Lawlor: If only the government had recognized it.

Mr. Gilbertson: There is one thing that I am pleased about and I’ll never forget it. On that bridge going across to St. Joseph Island there is a beautiful bronze plaque and it has on it “the Hon. Gordon Carton and MPP Bernt Gilbertson.”

Mr. Good: Which is more important?

Mr. Lawlor: We’ll put a wreath up under it.

Mr. Gilbertson: And that is a monument for years to come. I thank the minister for finding the time to come up and help us to celebrate the official opening of that bridge.

Mr. Haggerty: But did the member for Armourdale get the oil painting in his office?

Mr. Gilbertson: There will be projects that are similar to that and we’ll continue to do these kinds of things for the people of the north.

So, Mr. Speaker, without any further ado, I think I’ll just take my seat and thank you --

An hon. member: Tell us about the Algoma Central Railway.

Mr. Good: That’s a good idea.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- for this opportunity to speak this morning.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems I always get the tough acts to follow. When I made my maiden speech I had to follow the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) back about seven years ago. Today it is the member for Algoma (Mr. Gilbertson). I don’t know which is the worse.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Does the member ever think of himself as a loser?

Mr. Good: There are just three things, Mr. Speaker, about which I would like to speak. First of all, I would like to say something regarding one aspect of the second report of the Ontario commission on the Legislature.

There is only one section of this second report about which I would like to say a few words, and that deals with services for the caucuses. The commission says it recognizes:

The reality that there could be no practical way of equalizing the resources available to a government caucus with that of an opposition caucus. [It goes on to say] In the determining of allocations of resources between government and opposition, this allocation should not preclude however, steps being taken which at least create a greater equity in the matter of resources. It is the commission’s conclusion, based upon an analysis of the present caucus grants, that they are deficient in providing opposition parties with adequate funds relating to their functional requirements. It could be said that the present grants allow the opposition parties to employ secretarial help for members, that they allow some administrative staff but do not provide a sufficient range of services.

The funds allow the caucuses to establish some research facilities but not of sufficient depth and professional competence and that the grants enable the opposition parties to offer some communications facilities to their members but of a primitive and restrictive nature and inferior to that enjoyed by government members.

Presently, Mr. Speaker, as you know, Mr. Speaker allows $11,000 per member for each of the opposition parties for all members’ services, plus a fixed fee to run a leader’s office. And I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the fixed fee to run the leader’s office is about comparable to one public relations officer’s salary in the Premier’s department.

The commission believes, however, that the opposition parties in the Legislature should have a research capability considerably greater than that which they presently manage to achieve out of their caucus allotment. The commission states:

We reach this conclusion not simply because the parties themselves have earnestly argued it, but because we believe it is in the interests of the legislative process and the general public interest that the research capacity of opposition members be improved.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the members’ allowances must be reduced sufficiently to run other services -- that is research facilities, as well as other administrative personnel.

Present research budgets for the opposition parties run between $40,000 and $50,000. I am sure it is obvious to all that, of necessity, opposition parties’ research budgets must be considerably higher than that of the government members’ caucus because, as the commission states, the government caucus has available to it the research resources of the ministry wherever reasonably required, just as it enjoys the value of ministerial briefings supported by the experts or consultants who have been employed in the process. This, then, results in the amount of information available to government members being more or less equal to their need for it. It is understandable that opposition members lack such access, and, indeed, it would be questionable if they would wish it, even if it were available.

“It is surely basic to their function,” the commission states, “that they have independent resources which, if unequal in number, need not lack in quality.”

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the commission proposed that each of the opposition caucuses be provided with funds specifically designated for the purpose of improving their research capability:

We would recommend that the caucus of the official opposition be given, for research purposes, an annual budget of $125,000, and the NDP caucus be given an annual budget of $90,000 for comparable purposes in the research field.

While I am not here to justify or argue the specific amounts recommended by the commission, I think it must be obvious to the cabinet and to government that if the opposition parties to the provincial Legislature are to fulfill the purposes for which they have been elected, increases in the research grants must be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable to us, as members of an opposition caucus, and I am sure it would be unacceptable to the electors of the Province of Ontario, that in order to provide proper research facilities we must reduce our secretarial allowance by a substantial amount. I make this plea as the caucus member of the Liberal Party responsible for the organization and operation of our research department. While there are other equally important and valuable recommendations in the second report of the Ontario commission on the Legislature, I feel that the expansion of research facilities by opposition caucuses must rank high in priority for government action.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make short reference in my speech as well to the matter of hydro transmission lines across the Province of Ontario.

As most of us now know, Ontario Hydro is in the midst of planning a new transmission system across southern Ontario which will eventually connect to northern Ontario. This system will be completed by 1978 and will have a tremendous environmental impact on the areas through which it passes. It will include a transmission corridor running from Lennox, near Kingston, on the east to the Hamilton area on the west. From this corridor lines connect to generating stations at Nanticoke and Bruce, to consumption areas in the vicinity of London and Kitchener, and to northern Ontario. This power transmission system will interconnect with the major generating stations and centres of consumption and also with power systems of Quebec, Manitoba, New York and Michigan.

One can scarcely realize the seriousness of this tremendous project. One needs only to look at a map of the existing power corridors to realize that Ontario Hydro’s transmission lines always went the shortest route between two points that were to be connected.

This method of construction, of course, is no longer good enough. It is only about six years ago that Ontario Hydro first realized that transmission lines could be bent and because of their environmental impact, Mr. Speaker, they must be bent and made to go through areas where they will do the least amount of damage -- visual, ecological and physical -- to agricultural areas.

The main emphasis regarding finding a suitable route has been that from Nanticoke to Pickering. The environmental assessment impact of this route has been under study for some time by Dr. O. M. Solandt who headed a royal commission to inquire into the best possible route for this transmission line. His report was tabled just a few weeks ago in the Legislature and he does in fact recommend a considerably different route from that which was the choice of Hydro. He has, as we all had hoped, recommended the passage of the line through a great deal of the parkway belt area.

Other routes, Mr. Speaker, and particularly the Bradley junction to Georgetown route, have not been so favourably designated and the environmental studies have been of an in-house nature done by Hydro itself. The impact and effect of this route in Hydro’s procedures thus far were well documented the other day by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt).

The inadequacies of existing procedures is alarming. One finds many discrepancies in their maps which show potential routes for transmission lines.

Mr. Speaker, the need for a permanent environmental impact assessment body is most apparent, especially when one considers these huge hydro corridors of 500, 600 and 700 ft wide, cutting across our province from one end to the other, connected by interconnecting links.

In 1971, that’s over three years ago, the Environmental Protection Act was passed and provision was made for a similar agency called an environmental council. Again, in 1973 in the Speech from the Throne the government said that it would place before us “legislation to establish a permanent agency for environmental protection, having the responsibility for a comprehensive system of assessment and evaluation of the environmental significance of activities of ministries of the government, utilities, projects funded in part by the government and related activities in the private sector which have comparable environmental implications.”

This, Mr. Speaker, is a fine-sounding phrase, but once again the government only talks about protecting the environment and has done nothing with public involvement up to this present time.

An hon. member: That’s very true.

Mr. Good: To add insult to injury, Mr. Speaker, again this year the Throne Speech said we will be asked to approve legislation which will require an environmental assessment of major new development projects. How this government can come before the people three times in four years with promises of this nature still to be fulfilled is beyond belief. The Premier (Mr. Davis), indicated in the Legislature a few weeks ago that the Bradley-Georgetown transmission line would not come under study by any outside environmental body; that the Arnprior dam project would be excluded from independent environmental impact assessment. So only the Solandt commission has had any independent influence on Hydro’s actions thus far in this great, important corridor grid that it is planning, for completion by 1978.

Mr. Speaker, this is just not good enough. The least that the people of Ontario should expect and should receive is that the Ministry of the Environment would take a look at the environmental studies done by Hydro on the Georgetown-Bradley route. The farmers and conservationists alike are convinced that the proposed routes are not being designed in the best possible manner to conserve our good farmland.

As an example the proposal for a connecting link between the transformer station marked as No. 60 and the Detweiler transformer station cuts in a straight line through the best farming land in Wellesley township. While this is just one proposal it is inconceivable to me that Hydro should ever even consider such a route. As I said before, Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro is a novice at designing transmission lines which will least affect our environment. It was not until six years ago at the Six Nations Indian Reserve that it first met a group of people who said, “You cannot put your line across our property.” That line was the first one that had to be bent.

I would most sincerely request, Mr. Speaker, that the Ministry of the Environment take immediate steps to review and, where necessary, amend the work that has already been done in the proposal through the study area, Bradley to Georgetown.

Mr. Speaker, the third area about which I would like to speak is that of the housing crisis in the Province of Ontario at the present time.

Not many years ago about 85 per cent of the people in the cities of Waterloo and Kitchener owned their own homes. Now, of course, this is a thing of the past. These municipalities had, perhaps, the highest percentage of home ownerships of anywhere in the province. Ownership of a home is a social benefit which should be available to any working person who so desires and, of course, we know there are many reasons why this is no longer possible.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Yes. like the federal government refusing to make available --

Mr. Good: Cost is now prohibitive except for persons with above-average incomes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Good: A single-family home is for many, I think, the most desirable type of accommodation. A recent survey of the social planning council of Metro Toronto said --

Mr. Laughren: Talk about hypocrisy -- the Liberal Party talking about housing problems. How ridiculous! Let them freeze the mortgage rate at six per cent if they are so concerned.

Mr. Good: -- that 67 per cent of persons living in highrise --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Good: Do the members want to listen for a while?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The NDP voted for it this week in the House of Commons.

Mr. Good: A single-family home, Mr. Speaker, for many is the most desirable type of accommodation. Recent surveys of the social planning council of Metro Toronto said that 67 per cent of persons living in highrises at present had grown up in the homes owned by their families.

Mr. Laughren: None of them is going to vote Liberal.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): They won’t vote for characters like the member anyway.

Mr. Good: People have been forced into highrises because other types of suitable housing are simply not available. In the survey 57.5 per cent of persons wanted to move out of highrise accommodation within two years, they hoped. The most frequent reason given for having to stay in highrise was because it was the best type of accommodation they could afford.

In this same survey 75 per cent of the families agreed that the family is under more stress and there are more problems concerning children, they felt, while living in highrise accommodation and apartment accommodation than there would be if they were living in their own single, detached, family home. Of those people wishing to vacate highrise -- or hoping to -- within the next two years, 82.5 per cent said they would prefer a single-family detached house and this is especially true among families where there were children.

The report reads as follows regarding the highrise environment for children: One of the most persistent criticisms of the highrise environment is its alleged unsuitability for children. This aspect of the common stereotype of apartment living was confirmed to some extent by the respondents. A majority of respondents indicated that their ability to supervise their children was not affected by living in an apartment particularly, and half said that the building created no difficulties for their children in their present life-style. However, the restrictions on children’s noisy activity; the feeling that children would be freer and less restricted in a single family home; the worry about their children’s safety; the negative attitudes towards raising children in apartments; the suggestion that children’s facilities and programmes would improve the building for family living -- all point to a dissatisfaction with the highrise apartment as a setting for raising children.

The report, in another section, indicated that two-thirds of pre-school children living in highrise apartments had to play in their own unit. Of the children in an older age group, the percentage was somewhat less, about 50 per cent.

There are many social benefits, I feel, for living in a single-family home. Community interest is much greater. It has been shown that people living in highrise apartments live more to themselves. There’s no fraternization among people living in highrise apartments such as exists with people living in single-family homes.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The member obviously has never been to St. James Town.

Mr. Good: It has been shown by many surveys that many people living in highrise apartments want to retain their own privacy, a desire which does not exist among those living in neighbourhoods.

Open space is something which is very important when we talk about children. The report states as follows:

Supplementary interviews reflected the opinions generally current in the community that living in highrise apartments can be harmful to social and family life. The image of the isolated and alienated apartment dweller, with children physically and emotionally affected by an unnatural life-style, is commonly held by both professional and lay people and voiced in journals and the daily press.

Mr. Speaker, I know that everyone cannot and does not want to live in a single-family home. As the situation now is, those who wish to live in a single-family home can’t afford it.

Apart from the social benefits, which I personally and many other agree do accrue to a person living in other than highrise apartments, there are other benefits which are of an economic nature. While it is true that one can scarcely afford to buy a home, I believe it is equally true that one can scarcely afford not to be buying a home. For many people, the only hedge they can have against inflation is the ownership of a home.

Home ownership represents a combination of rent and savings plus an increase in the equity position that that owner will enjoy as values rise. Employees moving from one city to another can hardly afford not to have a house to sell if they wish to buy one in a new location. The unfortunate condition which exists here, Mr. Speaker, is the wide disparity in housing costs from one part of the country to another.

A report recently released showed that it was almost impossible for a person who was transferred to Metropolitan Toronto, say, from Saskatoon or some other smaller community, to begin to buy a house when he arrived in Toronto with the equity position he had in his house in the smaller community.

We have all seen the ads of a few years ago, reading: “Own a piece of Canada.” Well, it’s a very appealing slogan; I think it’s something everyone would like to do but very few people can afford to do. It warms the heart of any person who has never enjoyed that position. I think it should be our right, here in Ontario, for more people to own a piece of Ontario.

I think a personal residence is the one piece of property that is the most desirable and it is the one asset that a person can have legitimately. It provides a roof over his head. It provides him with a hedge against the inflation that is going to take place. It’s just very unfortunate, in my view, that this should be the preserve of the wealthy. I feel that more, if not all people should reap the benefits of prosperity and have at least one buffer against inflation which is going on.

I would like to refer, Mr. Speaker, to an article of March 28, 1974 in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. It says:

Pity the family with three or four children in the market for a two- or three-bedroom single family dwelling. Their horror reading these days consists of scanning the properties for sale in the Record want ads. In 70 per cent of the cases new houses are beyond their financial reach. Those who waited for prices to drop or wanted to save a little more before plunking their nest eggs as a down payment for a house were horrified to learn that housing in this area [this is the Kitchener-Waterloo area] went up 28 per cent in 12 months.

In some local cases, single-family dwellings rose 50 per cent. And there’s more to come. Real estate people and house builders say single-family dwellings and semi-detached houses will likely rise between 10 and 15 per cent again this year.

There are a number of reasons why house prices have been skyrocketing in only one year. They include the lack of serviced land, lengthy delays and miles of red tape required in subdivision approval, rising costs of lots, material and labour.

Among the greatest contributing factors, according to Joseph Silaschi, president of Reliable Construction, a house building company, are the shortage of serviced land and the time required to register a subdivision plan. The developer has to pay additional interest and pay his staffs. This all adds to final cost of lots and buildings. Mr. Silaschi’s company is now building homes in Guelph, and since last September he says the price of a lot has risen $4,200 to $18,800 now for a 50 by 100 ft lot.

He said Kitchener-Waterloo’s scheme to slow down residential growth by failing to expand sewage treatment facilities and holding up subdivision is hurting a lot of small people. Surely the people in authority knew five years ago that Kitchener-Waterloo would grow and need additional sewage facilities. Why weren’t plans made at that time?

Well, this is something I’d like to get to a little later.

John F. Halsworth, president of the KW Housing and Urban Development Association, describes the red tape and delays in registering plans of subdivisions today as “phenomenal.” Dutchman Homes, he said, applied for registration of its 125-acre Laurentian Hills single-family, three- and four-bedroom home subdivision on Ottawa St., south of Westmount Rd., four years ago. The stamp of approval finally came, and the company will be starting to put up $35,000 to $50,000 homes this year. The longer the delays the more the homes will cost.

Mr. Halsworth and others in the house building and real estate business say the fastest way to make a dollar these days is to buy any kind of single-family home and turn around and sell it the next day.

And he gives a few examples, and this is something I’d like to make some reference to here; the matter of speculating on residential property, both before and after the houses are built.

A three-bedroom home with fireplace and garage in Cambridge was recently sold by the builder for $34,000. The buyer didn’t even bother moving in. He listed it, and five days later sold it for $46,900.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Where’s the capital gains tax?

Mr. Good: He said there are dozens of examples of this happening all over the Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph-Cambridge area. People themselves are inflating house prices. It’s not caused by the builder. The average Joe is a speculator today.

Mr. Speaker, this is something that has been going on in our area, and you being a resident of the Waterloo region are as well aware of it as I am.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t bring him into the politics of it, he’s the Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): No slum landlord.

Mr. Good: There is much frustration among the municipalities who tried to provide low-cost housing in the private sector by special agreements with developers. These are called special development homes.

Kitchener and Elmira have both been quite successful in building these development homes. They will draw up an agreement with the developer and say that in his plan of subdivision they want him to provide a certain number of 40-ft lots with somewhat fewer services and build houses -- and with the maximum sale price of the houses to be established before the agreement was reached.

This operated quite satisfactorily up until the past year, but since there is such an extreme housing crunch at the present time we find that people are buying these houses on speculation, never moving in and reselling them within a matter of days and making profits of $5,000 to $10,000.

One home on Strathcona Cres. in Kitchener -- a special development home built on a smaller lot and at a fixed maximum price -- was sold for $24,480 by the builder. It was immediately resold for $35,000. Two other units in Forest Heights which were special development homes were sold by the builder for $22,100 and resold shortly after, one at $27,700 and the other one for $27,900.

I understand the city of Kitchener is bringing in a private bill which, hopefully, can stop this practice and make some claim on that property so that the person buying it is buying it as a bona fide resident of that home.

Ontario Housing Corp., I understand, is the only agency at the present time which can have this particular guarantee when they sell a house. I understand that some loophole has even been found around their hold on that property. I think, Mr. Speaker, it’s just unacceptable that there should be ways by which people can speculate on private residences when we are in such an emergency situation, especially in our low-cost housing.

It was about a little more than a year ago when the housing prices in Toronto were first brought to my attention. A young lawyer, who happens to work in government, told me --

Mr. Cassidy: Where has the member been since 1967? It has been a problem all that time.

Mr. Good: He told me how bad the situation was in Toronto. When a house was advertised for $49,900, he and his wife went out to look at it. They took a look at it and said that they would like to make an offer. The realtor suggested to them that he thought their bid should be about $52,000 or $52,500, then they might have a chance to get it.

He related to me that he could scarcely believe that this is what was going on. If you want to bid on a house you don’t bid on it at the advertised’ price, or below the advertised price -- which was normal for many years. Now you have to bid somewhat above the advertised price to even have a hope of getting it.

He put in a bid, I think, for $52,500, but the house was sold for $54,500 and, unfortunately, he didn’t get it.

The cause of this type of situation which now exists in the “twin city” is very apparent. It’s simply a lack of housing. Instead of the situation which existed a few years ago in my own area where you had two or three houses for every buyer, you now have three or four buyers for every house that’s available on the market. People are desperate. And, of course, they are most desperate in the city of Toronto. But this spill-over has now come into the Kitchener-Waterloo area.

Mr. Speaker, in the Peel Village development in the city of Cambridge, I understand that 70 per cent of the sales in that area are to persons who are working in Metropolitan Toronto. The crunch is coming in the Kitchener-Waterloo area for several reasons. First of all, it is estimated presently that homes in the Kitchener-Waterloo region are at least $10,000 below a comparable home in Metropolitan Toronto. Many people say that the difference is closer to $15,000.

Mr. Speaker, the Toronto-centred region plan, in my view, was a farce. It has done nothing for the decentralization of population from Metro. It has only been talk, cheap government talk, and hasn’t done one thing to take the housing squeeze off Metropolitan Toronto. And those of us in the outlying areas are now feeling the results of the Metro housing squeeze, which has been on for some years.

The Kitchener-Waterloo area was designated in the Toronto-centred region plan as a normal slow growth area; nothing would be done to stimulate the growth in the Kitchener-Waterloo area because it presently was big enough. We were told the K-W area was not going to be a dormitory community for Metropolitan Toronto. However, there has been no effective government action to do anything about relieving the pressures here, so consequently we in the Waterloo region are now very quickly becoming a dormitory community for Metropolitan Toronto, and with that situation a whole new set of problems has developed.

The Cedarwood development in North Pickering is certainly not an answer to taking the expansion off Metropolitan Toronto. It will just expand Metropolitan Toronto, because it is simply an attachment to one side of it.

The idea was good, but the OHC land assemblage generally has not been doing the job of providing housing. We look at the 3,000 acres of farm land that was assembled in Waterloo region. The land, has been assembled for over five years. There hasn’t been one house built. There has been three-quarters of a million dollars spent on a study which would decide what was to be done with the land, but as yet all that has been accomplished is that the assembly of that land has driven up the price of adjacent land.

I believe the government has its priorities in the wrong place. There is a crying and desperate need for serviced land. Serviced land in Ontario is more important than projects like Maple Mountain. It is more important than Ontario Place and more important than large new government offices. If we are going to adequately provide housing for the people in Ontario, if we are going to give the average working person in Ontario the opportunity to own a piece of Ontario, to have a little equity in the province, to have a little hedge against inflation, we have got to give an opportunity to the average working person to be able to buy his own house. If the $9 million that was spent on the OHC’s land assembly in Waterloo region five years ago had been used to provide services we would not be in our present position.

This, Mr. Speaker, is an emergency situation. Any price can be asked for a commodity that is in short supply. Speculation on residential houses is unacceptable. Speculation on residential land is unacceptable in our present emergency situation. I feel that those who develop land and provide services need to hold land. They certainly can’t operate without an inventory of land.

Mr. Cassidy: Why doesn’t the member get his buddies to get a tax on in Ottawa?

Mr. Good: My quarrel is with the turnover of land, the shuffling of paper, and the passage of money before development takes place. This must be controlled, either by the employment of a windfall tax or through a special classification regarding property taxes, to discourage sales except by bona fide farmers to people who will develop and provide houses. There are areas, Mr. Speaker, in southern Ontario which I think could and should be used for residential development. There are still areas that have never been touched by a plough.

I don’t think we have to continue to develop our cities, which are generally situated in the best farming land within the province. The government must take immediate action to preserve our farm land and promote development areas in other than class 1 and class 2 agricultural land. The present method of providing services is unacceptable. The credit of the province must be what is at stake to provide service, and services can only be provided if the province is ready to infuse large sums of provincial money into the provision of services. There has to be control on the low-price residential housing so that speculation in low-price residential housing will cease and so that the people of Ontario can have their rightful position -- that is, of owning their own home or owning a piece of Ontario.

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

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about housing as well and I will wind up this portion of my speech by talking a bit about some of the things that we consider should be done. I would say to the member who has just spoken that it surprises and alarms me that he has only recently become aware of the fact that there is a housing problem in Metro Toronto and other parts of the province.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Where was the member in 1968?

Mr. Cassidy: In 1968? In 1968 I was in Ottawa trying to get a New Democrat elected.

Mr. Haggerty: He didn’t say that.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, he says he just learned about it. Secondly, his party in Ottawa has got taxing powers which would allow the kind of taxes that he has just begun to talk about.

The kind of dramatic conversion that we heard today from the Liberal Party, which is for the first time advocating rent review or rent control and in the second place is beginning now to talk a much tougher line on speculation, is welcome but is very belated, Mr. Speaker.

May I just start out by congratulating you in the regular way for the manner in which you carry out your office, Mr. Speaker. I think we’ll look forward with interest, not only to your work in the House but also to the way in which you carry on your new responsibilities under the Camp commission report. Now that you have full control or will be gaining, I understand, full control over the legislative precincts, I would hope on behalf of all members of all parties in the House that that control will shortly extend to the restaurant as well as the other facilities of this particular building.

Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech was a grave disappointment, particularly because of the degree of pre-selling that had been done in the area of housing. The government in the Throne Speech, as it wound up, had nothing to offer and nothing to say. They indicated that they were complacent and that they accepted the fact that since housing was going ahead at a rate of over 100,000 per year in the province that that was fine and there wasn’t any real particular problem. The government reiterated its view that it will trust the private sector to handle Ontario’s housing problems such as they exist.

The private sector, the Throne Speech said, would be encouraged to increase the supply of serviced lots and to work towards stabilization of land and housing prices. The government looks to the private sector for even greater co-operation than in the past in the construction of public housing and in involvement with rent supplement and in greater community housing programmes, and so on and so forth.

But the gist of the whole thing was that this government doesn’t believe there is a real housing problem. It doesn’t believe in the near crisis that was referred to by the Comay task force. It doesn’t believe in the reports, such as the recent one that has come in from the social planning council on the rent race and the effects it is having on low-income families, both those on public assistance and those who are simply earning a low income because of inadequate incomes in this city and in this province. It doesn’t believe there is any problem.

The members of the government are clearly insulated from the problem. They live very comfortably, I suppose, in houses that they bought some years ago. They enjoy handsome incomes and they are above the whole situation. The government, Mr. Speaker, is locked in, I would maintain, with the private development industry. It is displaying an iniquitous degree of over-gratitude for the contributions that have been made to the Conservative Party in the past by the development industry and it is simply incapable of taking any effective action as far as housing.

This came after promise after promise that indicated something bold, brave and new would be coming forward in the field of housing. The Ottawa Citizen’s response to that after the Throne Speech was, “Well, where is it?” We are at a loss to know where it is. We know where the problems are in every major city in the province, Mr. Speaker, but we simply don’t know where the solutions are from this government.

It is unusual and rather intriguing that just shortly after the Throne Speech when the new minister gave his first address as Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) that one of his fellow speakers was the president of a real estate company and the president of a development company, Mr. Brian Magee, who is also president of the Canadian Real Estate Association. And that fellow who is locked right inside the whole system is now telling the government that there is a crisis and that somebody had better get his finger out and do something about it. But the last person to act, the last person to believe that action is necessary, Mr. Speaker, is the new Minister of Housing.

It is a housing price crisis, he says, in the first interview he gave to the Globe and Mail, that organ of the government, the kind of Pravda of Ontario society. It is a housing price crisis and it stems from psychology and not shortages, says the new minister. It isn’t like 1948, he says; 1948 being, I presume, the year that he first established with his family and began to look for a house.

The government isn’t going to take over Meridian, it isn’t going to move into the development industry, but it’s going to do something about land speculation. And if one wants to sum up what the new Minister of Housing intends to do about speculation it goes like this: He is going to go up and down the province, and every time he can get two or three land speculators together, he is going to pull them into a corner and say, “Boo!” He is going to hope that somehow that will have an effect on land speculation.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the limit and the end of the programme that seems to be advanced by the minister. He says that he hopes he can scare people into getting out of land and getting stocks and bonds and other kinds of investment instead of into land.

I think that there are a couple of fundamental problems with that. One is the tenaciousness of the land speculator, which seems to me to have been proven over the last 25 years in Ontario. We have had these creatures with us for a long time, and they have been becoming particularly objectionable and particularly active over the last two or three years.

In the second place, Mr. Speaker, we happen to be, as I know some of the members on that side are aware and as I am sure the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) is aware, in a period of rampant, two-figure inflation -- 9, 9½, 10 per cent a year. It’s a period when people from Vancouver are writing bestsellers telling the public to put their money into Swiss francs and other currencies that are heavily backed by gold because currencies like the Canadian dollar, they claim, are not backed by gold and therefore are weak and subject to even greater inflation.

It’s a period, classically, when people with assets, with money, are looking for an inflation hedge. The three classic hedges against inflation, Mr. Speaker, are gold, works of art and real estate. Since gold and works of art are items or artefacts that are basically not available to the average investor in Ontario, he turns to real estate. And so long as there is not just a speculative philosophy or psychology in the housing market but an inflation psychology in the country, which is backed by rampant inflation, people will be going into real estate at a tremendous kind of pace.

It takes far more than a minister to say “Boo!” and to hope that somehow these nasty boys will go away and we will return to pre-crisis or pre-inflation conditions. It just isn’t going to happen. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the need for tough action is doubled and re- doubled at the present time because there are so many people, be they doctors, lawyers, Conservatives, former transportation ministers or whatever, who have some spare dollars and are looking for safe havens for them and see the real estate market as a place to put them.

The minister, in his psychology as well, has repeatedly indicated several things. He is very surprised to have the job. He didn’t want it. He has no knowledge about it. He’s not even aware, I noticed, of the housing market in his own municipality. He said the other day, in one of the early interviews, that as far as he was concerned, he wasn’t familiar with tenant problems, because he didn’t have that many apartments in his own riding.

The minister has something over 10,000 people living in apartments in his own riding, in areas such as along Meadowlands Dr. and in Bayshore, and as I understand it, apartments are increasingly a part of his riding. He also has a large number of townhouse developments which are rental projects, which are also within his riding. But he obviously doesn’t mix with that group in society.

He says that as far as he is concerned one of the fundamental areas of concern to Ontario citizens in housing -- that is, their situation as tenants and their protection from rapacious landlords -- is not a housing problem but is a consumer problem and he’s going to shuffle it off to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement). I really don’t accept the fact, says the minister, that the people who live in apartment units should control them. They shouldn’t call the shots. But when you look at it in detail, what the minister is saying is not just that they shouldn’t call the shots but they should have no protection at all, and that for a consumer to buy housing it is in no different a light, as far as he is concerned, as the same chap going down the road to buy a bunch of bananas or to decide which bicycle to buy for his teenage son or perhaps to buy a new automobile.

The market is everything. The market will deliver. He puts his trust in the free market and that’s it, baby. That’s as far as we are going to get with this particular minister.

One would hope that somewhere within the government, Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the mind of the Treasurer (Mr. White), perhaps in the mind of the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself, there is a recognition that whatever the basic ideology of the government is -- and we all know that the ideology is to leave things up to the private sector -- the housing crisis has gotten too far and that what is now needed is very, very massive, substantial public intervention in order to ensure to every Ontario citizen the right to housing at a price that he can afford.

Look what the minister himself admits in the speech he gave to the real estate board. Five hundred and sixty thousand Ontario citizens, he says, are earning less than $8,000 a year and are paying more than half of that income for housing. That means that one family in 12 -- possibly more, depending on how those figures are put together -- in the province pays more than one-half of its income in housing.

It makes the figures that the social planning council came up with today pale by comparison. These are Housing ministry figures. The minister admits that their own figures in the government indicate that land costs have gone up by 200 per cent in the 12 major cities of Ontario between 1961 and 1971. And anybody who follows these things knows that the big escalation of land costs has occurred since the re-election of the Davis government in October of 1971.

That’s the basic position. What’s the government doing about it? Well, says the minister, we are going to widen the housing advisory committee. It will still predominantly represent developers but we’re going to put a few architects and people like that on it. Well, he says in conjunction with the Treasurer, when we get all the p’s and q’s ready and the t’s crossed and the i’s dotted, we may permit some municipalities land banking powers. That comes, what? -- a year and a half, two years after those powers began to be sought by various municipalities around the province. In fact, it’s much longer that the idea has been broached by various municipal leaders. They haven’t been able to get very far because they knew the ideology of this particular government.

Ironically, land banking has been permitted and encouraged by the government for many years when it was municipal land banking to create industrial estates or industrial parks. A subsidy to get a new industry was okay as far as the government was concerned, but a move to control land costs for the housing consumer wasn’t okay because it interfered with the sacred property rights of the developers who were the government’s friends.

Now, the third thing is the housing action programme. This is where the government intends that the private sector will be enlisted in order to solve the housing problem. Well, we’ve been waiting, Mr. Speaker, since September for something on that housing action programme. And the delays go on and on and on, and as yet we have nothing at all. During that period from September until March, a period of seven months -- as my leader was reminding the Legislature the other day -- the cost of housing in Toronto has gone up from about $43,000 on resales to about $47,000; that’s $500 to $1,000 a month. I’m not sure what the rate is now. It has been zooming up at an incredible rate; and that has been happening elsewhere across the province.

When the minister spoke to the real estate boys he said, “Don’t worry, guys. We are not going to be nasty to you.” He said:

I am quickly perceiving that our goals within the ministry and the goals within the private sector are to a great degree the same. We are confident that enough serviced land can be brought into readiness for production this year, 1974, through 1976, to remove land supply as a price inflation factor.

It would need a Kremlinologist to understand just what that means. The gist I get from it is that the minister intends that the housing action programme currently under way within the bowels of his ministry will stabilize lot and land prices at the present levels of between $12,000 and $20,000 a lot, depending upon which large city of the province one happens to be in; let’s say $15,000 to make it easy.

Now that, Mr. Speaker, is simply not a price which is within reach of the average Ontario family. It means we are going to have houses on the market on this stabilized land produced by the ministry which will be costing about $40,000 -- let’s say at about the current level in most Ontario cities -- which will cost about $400 a month to own and obviously will be out of reach of the average Ontario family.

There was a leak in the Toronto Star a while ago which purported to give some other indications of what is happening with the housing action programme. I regret having to use it, but we haven’t had anything else but leaks, hints, whispers and that kind of thing. In this particular case it was leaked or suggested that the province would lean on developers to ensure that serviced lots were brought onto the market at 15 per cent below the prices which prevailed in the fall of last year. That means, Mr. Speaker, at, let’s say between $12,000 and $15,000 -- an accomplishment if it is achieved, but a minimal accomplishment because it still means we don’t have housing people can afford.

A freeze on the price of such lots? Well, the price of those lots has been sky-rocketing during the very months when the housing action programme has been going ahead.

A system of preventing speculation and resale of such houses and lots? Well, which houses and lots?

When the minister spoke he suggested one of the things which would be done would be to ensure that, as part of the whole programme, developers whose land was being accelerated into the market would be asked to undertake to the ministry that a percentage of units in the subdivision would be directly related to the needs of moderate income families. Moderate income is undefined, but the former minister was speaking the other month of the needs of families in the $12,000 to $18,000 a year category.

The moderate income families have been getting the short end of the stick for God knows how many years, Mr. Speaker. Their needs are overwhelming, but what the minister is talking about is apparently 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 25 per cent or 30 per cent of the lots to be made available for the group which makes up 65 per cent of the population of the province. On those particular lots there may be some effort to prevent speculation on the resale over a limited period of time, such as we have with the Ontario Home Ownership Made Easy plan, but that doesn’t get to the root of the problem. In all of this effort there is a relaxation of environmental standards, and God knows what else the ministers can come up with. All this effort is nibbling away at the fringes, eating away at the corners, trying to give the illusion that something will happen. Yet the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch), just a month before the present incumbent became Minister of Housing, was specifically attacking the private sector for its refusal to co-operate and its refusal to get involved in the programmes that had been announced by the present Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) the previous year that were designed to ensure greater integration and that were designed to give the private sector its opportunity to be involved in the provision of housing.

The integrated community housing programme, Mr. Speaker, in the course of about eight months or nine months, attracted two proposals for Toronto, totalling 206 units; one for Ottawa with less than 100 units; and nothing at all for Thunder Bay, Hamilton or Burlington -- despite a continuing call for proposals.

The rent supplement programme, which was also announced by the same minister a year or so ago, had attracted only 2,630 units from the private sector. In fact, this was only part of the way to the target of 3,300 and represented an increase of only approximately 700 units from the time that the OHC began to peddle the programme actively in the spring of 1973.

In other words, that wasn’t working either; and yet these were the means by which the private sector was being asked to show that it could do the job. And as far as the former Housing minister was concerned -- I don’t see him in the House here -- but so far as the member for Lincoln (Mr. Welch) was concerned, the private sector wasn’t doing a job and he was sufficiently up tight about it that he was willing to talk about it publicly and castigate that sector -- but the new minister simply goes ahead.

We have had a lot of talk in housing. We have had the member for Lincoln, and then we had the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) -- and we shouldn’t forget Stanley Randall and Robert Macauley and the Premier himself. And yet despite all of these statements, the housing crisis keeps on getting worse and worse. What we are simply being asked to put up with is a series of trade-offs with developers in order to make their business a bit more profitable and maybe bring a few more units onto the market.

Well I want to take issue with the minister specifically, Mr. Speaker, when he says, “There is no housing supply crisis,” because there very clearly and very definitely is a housing supply crisis and it exists in Ottawa and Toronto. It exists in Hamilton and St. Catharines. It exists in London and it exists in Windsor, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie -- almost every major municipality you care to mention, Mr. Speaker.

The government prided itself on the fact that the housing starts in 1973 looked fairly good compared to 1972. The total starts in 1973 for Ontario were 110,536 units, a seven per cent increase over 1972. And that’s what the Minister of Housing has been referring to and saying: “Look, we are building enough housing. Something else is the problem; we are not sure what it is, but our housing action programme is going to solve it.”

But if you look more closely, Mr. Speaker, those housing starts in urban areas which have got a population of over 10,000 rose by only one per cent in 1973, from 91,114 to 92,211. In other words, the increase in housing starts was all there in small towns and villages -- away from the census metropolitan areas; away from the Toronto commuting zone; away from the Hamilton or Ottawa commuting zones.

In addition, the starts in areas of over 50,000 population actually fell from 84,740 to 82,730, a drop of 2.4 per cent. In other words, while the small towns between 10,000 and 50,000 -- Cornwall is an example and Brockville -- had some increase in housing starts, there was a drop in those communities of over 50,000.

When you look at the communities of over 100,000, Mr. Speaker, there was a drop in housing starts of 3.9 per cent, from 80,475 to 77,361. And when you look at the figures city by city, you find that the pattern of decline goes on for the relatively smaller urban centres right up to Metro Toronto.

In Toronto, housing starts were down 2% per cent last year. I beg your pardon, that’s in the Toronto census metropolitan area. That includes Pickering, it includes Markham, it includes much of the borough of York, it includes Mississauga and the rest of Peel County which is being developed. Housing starts in the Toronto area weren’t up seven per cent -- that was the provincial average -- they were down 2½ per cent in the area that we know is the area of greatest housing demand. In Metro Toronto, housing starts were down 10 per cent.

In the city of Hamilton, housing starts were down 15 per cent, although they were up slightly in the Hamilton census metropolitan area. In Kitchener, down 5½ per cent; in the London census metropolitan area -- and take that, John Robarts -- housing starts were down by 28 per cent for the region and by 30 per cent for the city proper; in St. Catharines and Niagara, the whole Niagara Peninsula, housing starts were down by 6.7 per cent; and in the Windsor census metropolitan area they were down by 32 per cent.

The only area of the province, Mr. Speaker, where there was any substantial increase in housing starts was, in fact, the Ottawa area, where starts were up by 10½ per cent. And if I could find the figures quickly enough -- which I can’t -- I was having another look at them, and as it happened housing starts were down in Hull last year. So the overall increase for the Ottawa-Hull housing area, which is one housing market, was negligible.

That is the real position, Mr. Speaker, about the housing supply crisis. Not enough housing is being built in the major cities of the province, and that’s one of the reasons why we’ve had such extraordinary increases in housing costs.

The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) has already read into the record some of the figures for housing price increases across the province: 23 per cent in Ottawa, 25 per cent in Toronto, etc., over the past year.

I want to give some other figures, though, to indicate that this isn’t just a Metro Toronto problem and that it isn’t something that has only cropped up in the past year. If I can take the figures for my own city of Ottawa, we find there that single-family residential prices, as calculated by the Ottawa Real Estate Board average $24,700 in the first half of 1972 and rose about 10 per cent to $27,000 in, the first six months of 1973.

But in the first nine months of 1973 they were up to $37,000, Mr. Speaker, and for 1973 as a whole they were up to $38,000. The annual average for 1973 was 40 per cent higher than the average for the first six months. What that means, if you do the arithmetic, is that the average price of housing being sold in Ottawa today is something well over $40,000 -- probably $41,000 or $42,000 -- whereas 15 months ago it was around $26,000. That’s the degree of escalation or inflation that we’ve had in Ottawa.

Just the other day the city of Ottawa put on the market a number of lots that it happened to own in a good residential area. The lots were nothing sensational. They were 60 by 100 ft lots. Mr. Speaker, the bids that were received by the city on those lots ranged between $19,200 and $35,000. That was what people were willing to pay for lots because of the shortage, and because of the grip that the developers have got on land costs in the Ottawa area.

And yet, faced with that kind of escalation the minister and the government talk airily about a phased delegation of municipal land banking powers when they’re satisfied that the regional municipalities are prepared to take it. And they are going to delay and delay and delay because they don’t want that kind of interference with the private land market.

In October, 1971, Mr. Speaker, a house at 489 Sunnyside changed hands for $9,200; a very modest house. In March of 1973, that same house was sold for $19,000.

These are figures from Teela, which is the standard reference for property sales in all major portions of the province. The estimated value now, or rather at the end of 1973, is $23,000. That is probably low because of the increase in values that is now taking place.

On the same street, 187 Sunnyside sold for $12,000 in September, 1968, and was resold for $45,000 in March, 1973 -- a 275 per cent increase.

No. 360 Sunnyside sold for $16,000 in August, 1968; in March, 1973, that same house had gone up to $29,500. Its estimated value now is $35,000 -- a 120 per cent increase over the course of five years.

No. 2476 Alta Vista Dr. -- I don’t know the house personally -- it sold for $14,750 in November, 1972, resold in the same month for $15,250, sold in March, 1973, for $34,500 and is now worth $41,000.

No. 2090 Alta Vista Dr. sold for $35,000 in August. 1972; and 11 months later, in June, 1973, sold for $42,000 -- an increase in less than a year of 20 per cent.

In my riding, 91 Rochester St. sold at $19,000 in February, 1968, at $29,500 in March, 1973, and probably is worth $35,000 today.

No. 137 Balsam, a working-class house that ought to be kept for low-income families, was worth $18,000 in June, 1970, had gone up to $25,000 in June, 1973, and is still climbing.

No. 488 Gilmour sold for $25,000 in September, 1972, and $35,000 seven months later in March, 1973, and is probably worth $42,000 today.

No. 284 Flora St. -- again, an area in the working-class part of my riding, Mr. Speaker -- changed hands for $24,000 in May, 1971, for $33,000 in December, 1971 and for $42,000 in January, 1973. In less than two years, Mr. Speaker, that is an increase of $18,000, or of about 75 per cent. The estimated value of that house now is double what it was worth in May, 1971.

No. 151 Goulbourn St., in the area of Sandy Hill, experienced a similar kind of escalation -- $24,000 in March, 1971, and worth $35,000 in December, 1973. And those current estimates are probably very conservative and very cautious, according to the people who did the figures for me in our research department.

That’s Ottawa, Mr. Speaker, and Ottawa is known to have had a very inflationary housing market, thanks to the policies of this government.

But take London, good Tory country. I’ve got a number of figures from there. They show the same kind of thing. Let me select some of them:

No. 492 Wellington St. was worth $24,000 in 1966, $29,000 in 1968, $33,000 in 1971; it’s currently on the market for $68,000 and presumably will sell for double what it sold for in 1971.

No. 559 Waterloo -- $25,000 in 1970 and $33,000 in 1971, an increase of a third in one year.

No. 27 Yale St. -- $15,000 in 1968, $19,000 in 1972, $25,000 when it changed hands again in 1972, and $33,000 in 1973.

No. 492 Talbot St. -- $11,000 in 1972, $30,000 in 1973.

Here are houses that sold a couple of times during 1973 alone: No. 8 Christie St. in London sold in March, 1973, for $23,000 and resold for $31,000 four months later. No. 10 Elmwood sold in May, 1973, for $22,000 and in June for $29,000. No. 32 Emery St. -- $ 15,000 in June, 1973, and $18,000 later in the same month. No. 89 Hillsmount sold for $21,000 in June, 1973, and was resold in the same month for $48,000. That is what is happening under the Conservatives. It is clear that people who can afford to protect themselves against that kind of inflation are doing so with a vengeance. They are leaving up to the forces of a market which has absolutely no mercy, that enormous group of Ontario residents who cannot afford and can’t get into that kind of protection. Half of the population of our urban areas, Mr. Speaker, are tenants, and more and more of those tenants are tenants because they have no choice; they can’t break out.

Ted Harvey’s study for the social planning council indicates that there is increasing competition for lower and lower standard accommodation among people on low incomes. I can vouch for that. I have watched it in my own riding of Ottawa Centre, and I am sure that it takes place in this area as well. Six to seven years ago when I first lived in Ottawa it was possible for a low-income family to rent a large home for maybe $80 or $100 a month, and that was big enough to raise a substantial kind of family. Nowadays those same families are jammed into two- or maybe three-bedroom apartments if they are lucky, and pay far more than what the shelter allowance from the welfare department, if they are on social assistance, happens to be. There has been an increase in the number of people who are forced to live in single rooms and have been forced out of small apartments and other kinds of accommodation, if they are single. The same thing is happening with families. And the pressure goes on and on.

The social planning council here in Toronto says specifically that it believes that very shortly we will see an outbreak of homelessness, that is, we will have people on the streets because they have no place to go in the housing market which has been created by the Conservative government of this Premier.

Is it only happening in Toronto and Ottawa and London? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no. In Orillia, two years ago in a subdivision, there were lots selling for $3,000 apiece. They have now sold at $6,000, $7,000, $8,000 and $12,500, and are currently on the market for $15,000. Both in Barrie and in Orillia, where the wage level in industry tends to be as much below $3 an hour as above it, new houses are currently selling for around $40,000 apiece. In Guelph, the paper the other day indicated the prices for homes in Guelph were $25,000 to $30,000 -- that was one to two years ago -- and now they have gone up by $10,000 to $35,000 or $40,000.

If you listen to your radio, Mr. Speaker, here in Metro you will find an increasing number of advertisements by developers saying, “come to the quiet tranquillity of Guelph, only 50 short miles from Metro.” In other words, Metro residents are being forced to Guelph in order to get housing at a price that they think they can afford. Before long they are going to be crowding out the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) on his farm in order to find accommodation within commuting distance of Metro.

Lots in Guelph right now are around $18,000, Mr. Speaker. There are 300 serviced HOME lots in Kingston township, I learned from the reeve and members of his council yesterday. That is equal to about half a year’s production of housing in the Kingston township area, and that has been the major site for new housing in that region. There are 300 lots with paved roads, sidewalks one side, underground wiring, water, sewer and all other services. They are ready to go, Mr. Speaker.

The government is simply sitting on these lots. It called a tender, the tenders were unacceptable, and it is now saying it will call a new tender, but there has been no action by the government yet to call a new tender. In addition, the people in Kingston township who ought to know are aware that those lots were brought on to the market by the provincial government at a price of around $4,000 or $5,000. In the last year and a half in Kingston township, for a number of reasons, including those that we traded in the House yesterday, the price of a lot has gone up from about $7,000 or $8,000 to about $15,000.

Apparently, from the best information that the local people can get, the province is going to charge $15,000 or $12,000 -- that range of price -- to people on these HOME lots if, as and when it gets them. In the meantime it is holding them back from the market and is itself contributing to the housing price problem in the Kingston area.

Brantford: The Expositor says prices are up by 20 per cent during 1973. The council out there is going ahead with a very innovative and I believe successful programme of public land development, but with not a penny of assistance from this particular government.

Fergus: The range of new house prices is $30,000 to $40,000. It was $20,000 or $25,000 two years ago.

Kitchener: The price of a 50-ft lot has gone from $3,500 in 1965 to $11,000 today.

Windsor: The average price of houses is up from $20,000 four years ago to $28,000, and in 1973 the increase was 27 per cent.

What kind of lunacy is this taking place around the province, Mr. Speaker? What kind of lunacy? It is just plain insane, and it is insane not only in what is happening but it is insane in the fact that the government believes that the private sector is going to solve the problems.

I want to point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that one of the problems we have is the increasing concentration within the development industry. One day, it may have been that when you went out to Ajax or went out to North York and wanted to buy a house, there were any number of developers who were competing for your business. They were basically house builders. Many of them built a dozen, two dozen or five dozen homes a year. They owned a bit of land and they were hungry like wolves, but when you have that kind of situation in the free market sometimes it works not badly. In other words, if you had a classical free market situation and you had something like that, it started to work.

But that situation has disappeared now, because the big ones have been eating up the little ones and the process has become inexorable to the point where even the giants are being eaten up by firms even larger than they.

Take Markborough Properties, which I believe Mr. Magee in fact has an interest in. Its profits have risen from $984,000 in 1972 to $6 million in 1973, and its revenues from land operations had risen from $7 million the previous year to $29 million in the current year. It is one of the companies which has got a major stake or a major land bank in the Toronto area, and lo and behold, last fall some bigger fish descended upon Mark- borough in order to try to gobble it up.

Campeau Corp. of Ottawa came along and sought to take over Markborough and then there was a corporate fight, a boardroom fight, and ultimately Hudson’s Bay Co. was successful in taking over Markborough. The takeover by Campeau was thwarted. Perhaps that means that temporarily a certain concentration between those particular industries was thwarted, but other people came in again instead.

Currently, Mr. Speaker, there is a merger going on in Ontario among Cadillac, Canadian Equity and Fairview Corp. I want to read a couple of figures about these companies into the record.

To take Cadillac first, their assets are worth $332 million, Canadian Equity’s assets are worth $72 million and Fairview Corp. assets are worth $125 million -- and that does not include the fact that it has a controlling stake in a number of very large developments, including the Toronto-Dominion Centre, the Galerie d’Anjou in Montreal and the big Eaton’s Fairview development here in downtown Toronto.

Not only that, but these companies have an engaging habit of not valuing their assets at market. Canadian Equity, for example, which lists $73 million of assets in fact has got a heck of a lot more, because of the fact that they have the Erin Mills property and that is a very large investment whose value is going up literally week by week and month by month, because there is no control on land costs in the Toronto area.

Cadillac’s operating revenue went from $35 million in 1971 to $60 million in 1972 and for the first nine months of 1973 it earned more than it had in all of 1972.

Canadian Equity’s operating revenue was up by half from $8 million to $12.5 million in 1972.

Fairview -- I don’t seem to have exactly how it has done. It earned $13.5 million in 1971 and its revenues have also been going up very rapidly.

What is it in the housing and development market that companies of this size would need to get together? Where is the free competition of the private sector of which the Tory ministers are so fond of prating? It surely doesn’t exist when three companies of that size and with such tremendous land holdings and such tremendous influence in the land market -- let’s talk particularly about Metro Toronto -- need to join.

Here we have Cadillac, a big apartment owner, a big landowner in the Toronto area; Canadian Equity, which owns Don Mills and Erin Mills; Fairview, with the Toronto-Dominion Centre and the Eaton’s centre -- an enormous chunk of downtown land -- all sorts of shopping centres all over the place and probably some residential properties, already linked very closely by controlling shareholdings but not by majority or complete shareholdings and now deciding to combine.

I called somebody in the stock market and he told me I should ignore the fact that Eddie Goodman is a director of Cadillac and that there are all sorts of other links between the Conservative Party of this Premier and the development industry as represented in this particular merger. Then he said, “The institutional investors are nasty to the real estate industry.” There are economies of scale of some sort involved when firms of this size get together and when they concentrate.

The smaller developers simply cannot carry the extended development times now required for approvals. It is very useful for a big development company to balance its risks by having office and commercial development, land development, apartment development, you name it, and this new corporate giant is going to have it.

The stocks are undervalued in relation to their value and part of the reason for that is because the income stream from these big property companies is not as great as their ultimate gains from the capital gains they will make on their property holdings and on their landholdings. Finally, the true values of the companies aren’t reflected in their income statements where there are partially owned subsidiaries whose revenues don’t get grossed in the consolidated statement of the parent company.

I hope everybody understands that; I find it a bit difficult to understand. Basically, what he was telling me -- this is an expert in the market and a guy who knows real estate -- is that the aim of that merger is not to make any more houses, it is to make a lot more money. The Bronfmans who control Cemp who control Fairview, the Ephraim Diamonds and other people who have a stake in Cadillac and all the other people -- including, I am sure, people on that side of the House -- who have a substantial stake in these companies simply want to see their shares valued at much higher values in the market. They want access to that kind of super-money and, by God, they are going to get it.

The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) made a very interesting comment the other day about this question of concentration whether it be in the property industry or in other industries. We have a curious situation in Ontario law, Mr. Speaker -- or in Canadian law -- by which, federally, combines legislation can only be carried out under the Criminal Code. It is not a civil matter at the federal level. Provincial jurisdiction covers property and civil rights and therefore the Province of Ontario very clearly has jurisdiction in a merger such as the merger of Cadillac, Fairview and Canadian Equity, and has the right and the power to step in when such a merger is contrary to the public interest. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this particular merger is very definitely contrary to the public interest.

Any further consolidation, any further creation of monopolies and oligarchies in the housing and development industry is clearly against the interests of every tenant, of every citizen of the province who wants to have a place of his own or wants to be assured about having housing at reasonable cost. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that should be announced as part of a really vigorous housing policy, if this government means business, is that there will be legislation shortly in order to prevent further consolidations within the Province of Ontario and that the government will step in now in order to stop mergers such as the Cadillac-Fairview-Canadian Equity merger.

That merger should be stopped because that merger will hurt people who want housing in the Province of Ontario. The government should take every measure necessary, whatever it does to the private sector, in order to ensure that housing becomes available at reasonable costs. And it is not doing it.

I want to point out further, Mr. Speaker, that the current estimates that we have had from the province indicate that maybe 35,000 or 40,000 new lots or space for new housing units are to be created in Toronto, Ottawa and one or two northern centres over the next couple of years under the housing action programme. It’s very hard and very amorphous. Originally it was a 50 per cent increase in lots and then it became 25 per cent because it was spread over two years. But at any rate there is meant to be a substantial increase of lots. When you look at that though, Mr. Speaker, you find that that increase in lots is to be achieved by simply speeding up the flow of subdivisions that are currently locked in the approval process.

Obviously, if it takes a year and a half to get approvals through and you can cut that time to six months, then you can find 30,000 or 40,000 lots that are sitting in the pipeline right now and you can bring them forward and you can have some effect on the current housing situation. The problem with that is, though, that that is a one-shot effort. It’s obviously going to take, say, six months to get approvals through, no matter what government we have and no matter what bill it has to bring land for housing on to the market. It’s going to take at least six months. So the government’s 35,000 or 40,000 lots are a one-shot effort.

But when it does that, it takes away from the development industry, who are the people who carry these things through, their reserve of land that they had intended to bring on the market in 1976 and 1977. That means that we will go through the election of 1975 -- let’s say, that’s in October -- with possibly some marginal benefits from the extra lots that the government intends to bring in.

However, there is no action currently being taken by the government in order to ensure that after that, in 1976 and 1977, a continued high rate of housing construction can proceed. Nothing like that is being done at all. In other words, there is no phase 2 to the housing programme that the government has talked about in general terms, and we aren’t convinced there is a phase 1 either. If phase 1 comes through, we don’t know what’s going to happen on phase 2. The government needs to start acting now because it does take time to get all of these things done. If the government doesn’t start to act, there will be no housing built, and the escalation in prices of 1975, 1976 and 1977 will make even the last year’s record look like child’s play.

What we’re being guaranteed, Mr. Speaker, is $50,000 homes and $280-a-month family apartments for the next two years and nothing more. I would like to suggest that there is something deeper involved. I would like to suggest as well that the province is misunderstanding the situation if it says that there isn’t a supply problem as well as everything else.

We’ve looked at the demographics and the demographics indicate that if the government were building about 95,000 houses a year it ought to keep up with the increase in demand over the next two or three years. Therefore, one can argue that if we are building 105,000 or 110,000 houses a year, we ought to be catching up a bit with the backlog and helping to ease off the situation. Clearly though, the demand for the new housing is in the major urban areas and that’s precisely where the starts are dropping. It is not in the rural areas. That’s where the number of new houses built is actually increasing.

It seems to us that that increased flow of housing that we need has got to start now and it has to be continued. And if the private sector won’t or can’t do it, then the public sector has to do it.

I also think that if the new minister is to display any credibility about housing he has got to take urgent action about land. We have talked already, Mr. Speaker, about the NDP programme for land. Very briefly, we believe that land should be in the public sector in and around development areas like Toronto; that the bulk of development land should be publicly-owned or publicly-controlled, because that is the only way that you can stop the kind of ripoffs that are taking place right now.

But we admit that it takes a certain amount of time to bring that land into the public sector. In the meantime you have to ensure that the ripoffs of the private sector are stopped. Not just slowed down, not just tinkered with, but stopped and stopped dead. And if you can stop it so dead that the public has to come in and start buying the land, because that is the only way that you can get land going, that is just fine; because that means that you will get to the situation of public control of the land market that much sooner -- and that is the only fundamental answer to getting the housing.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Can we get to the Tory cabinet on this one?

Mr. Cassidy: Well, it is a pity that the Tory cabinet lost some of its expertise on these matters during the last shuffle.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, it has.

Mr. Cassidy: However, I am sure that we will find that it has returned. As a matter of fact, I have heard of a certain northern member who is developing some first-hand expertise in these matters, Mr. Speaker. I understand that he has bought a new house in Metro Toronto and intends to sell it in a few months when there is a handsome profit to be made. He does not intend, I understand, to live in that particular house.

Mr. Laughren: He didn’t make it into the cabinet, though.

Mr. Cassidy: He didn’t make it into the cabinet, though; that is right.

We would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that right now not only do we need a tax of 75 per cent in speculative gains in development lands, but we need to go beyond that to talk about speculative gains about anybody who was clearly buying and selling houses for a profit rather than for their own particular use.

If you want to play psychological games, you have got to play hardball, and this government isn’t even playing softball. They are just playing patsies.

We would recommend that probably starting back in October of 1971 -- that is a good psychological moment to start with -- the increase in value of any development land that is sold be taxed at the rate of 75 per cent. Now that means that if the land has been in one hand over that period of time and is sold, the owner would pay a speculative gains tax of 75 per cent. If the owner happened to have so bought the land recently at a very inflated price, he would find that in fact he couldn’t afford to do it. Well, that is fine. People who play that sort of game deserve to get caught.

We would say that on development land where that prevails, then the only way out of paying that 75 per cent tax for the owner would be for him to sell to the Ontario government at something around the price which he actually paid for the land -- whether it was two months or 10 months or two or three years ago. If the owner chooses not to do that, and to wait for some favourable change of government, as far as we are concerned there should be no allowance in that gains tax, Mr. Speaker, for any cost of holding that land after the date that the announcement of intention is made by the provincial government.

Mr. Laughren: How will the Tories make any kind of nest egg for their old age?

Mr. Cassidy: Well, that is right. That is a problem, as a matter of fact, for the member for Bellwoods. That would hurt him rather badly, because I think that he had some other different intentions.

Mr. J. Yaremko (Bellwoods): That is very unfair.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it is not unfair.

Mr. Yaremko: That is not fair.

Mr. Cassidy: The member was making a nest egg for his old age, correct?

Mr. Yaremko: What is the member for Ottawa Centre doing with his savings? Drinking it up?

Mr. Cassidy: No, I am devoting some of my savings to my riding office in my riding in order to ensure that people have good representation. I’ll do my best to change this government, because that is the biggest contribution that anybody could make.

Mr. Yaremko: I have served in office for 23 years.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Yaremko: Just ask the man beside the member -- former leader of the NDP, who is smiling -- where he put his savings. Speculative stock! I have never owned a single share of speculative stock since.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Oh, nonsense -- speculative stock.

Mr. Cassidy: Nonsense, nonsense. The member for Bellwoods has been speculating in land for the last 20 years, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the reasons he is out of cabinet. It should have happened far sooner.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, that where speculative housing is involved, and where the housing is not owner-occupied and has a value of more than $100,000, we would apply the same tax. If it is a fellow who lives in the bottom of a duplex and he happens to sell it, obviously that would be exempted. But anybody who is playing the kind of big money games that have been encouraged by the Conservatives ought to pay the same kind of taxes, and that means 75 per cent of the gain since 1971 or something along that line. If we want to make it the beginning of 1972 for convenience, that’s okay. But we need that kind of step, Mr. Speaker, if this government is going to show any credibility in the minister s determination to get the speculators out of the market.

Very simply, Mr. Speaker, right now the upside bonus or benefits that a speculator can expect from land are very high. The downside risk is very low because after all, among other things, half of it is paid for by government because of the tax system.

We would suggest that any losses on land speculation not be permitted deductions as far as the Ontario tax system is concerned, and that the provincial government recommend that the same step be made by the federal government. In view of the comments by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good), I suggest that perhaps the opposition party might suggest that to their friends in Ottawa as well.

If the housing programme announced over the next month doesn’t include steps at least that tough, if it doesn’t include steps to acquire a very substantial portion of land for public control, public development and public leasing, if it doesn’t include an adequate programme of rent regulation or rent control in order to protect those millions of tenants across the province who are now subject to insecurity, to rent ripoffs and to the kind of situation that was documented in the report tabled in Ontario this week, then there will be no credibility in that housing programme whatsoever.

My great concern is that the new minister is simply ideologically incapable of taking those kinds of measures, which are the kinds of measures that are needed for housing.

I think, Mr. Speaker, I have reached a convenient break in my remarks. I would like to resume next week to make a few comments about the Arnprior dam.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member would move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Cassidy moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will proceed to item No. 2, Bill 1, and then we will return to this debate.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.