Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

CONFERENCE OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure tonight to welcome to the province the attorneys general of the other provinces of Canada who are arriving to take part in two days of meetings in Toronto. The purpose of these meetings is to discuss matters of mutual concern and share advice and experience on common problems. The major topic for discussion will relate to the administration of criminal justice in Canada for which we as a group are responsible. We also hope to isolate matters of mutual interest with the federal government and to explore the central implications of such matters in order to determine those aspects which should form the basis for discussion with the Attorney General of Canada.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the decision to convene this conference was a joint decision of all provincial attorneys general, who felt it would be most helpful to each of us, to meet and to discuss the current problems in relation to the administration of criminal justice for which we are responsible, in order that we can assist and advise the Attorney General of Canada, who has the legislative responsibility for that subject matter. We feel that by meeting together and discussing such problems we will be in a position to advise the Attorney General of Canada in a very meaningful way with reference to proposed legislative action.

In this connection, Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon we are pleased to have with us the Attorney General of Manitoba, Hon. Howard Pawley, and his wife; and the Attorney General for the Province of Saskatchewan, Hon. Roy Romanow. I would also like to table the agenda which we will be using for purposes of discussion.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you and to the members of the House 125 students from the Associated Hebrew Schools in the riding of Downsview. They are accompanied by teachers Mrs. Ackerman, Mr. Blier and Mr. Morganstein. May I say, sir, that the Associated Hebrew Schools make an annual visit to Queen’s Park and the students and teachers are most interested in the affairs which govern the running of our democratic process.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

FIRE IN OHC TOWNHOUSE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Housing if he has undertaken an investigation into the tragic fire in Toronto this morning? The news reports indicated there were no rear exits from these buildings put up for Ontario Housing; even though they do conform to the building code of the municipality, none of them has a way out other than through the front.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I would first like to express, on my own behalf and on behalf of the government, a sense of deep sorrow and regret concerning this tragic loss of life. I am sure I speak for all members of the House in that regard.

As for the safety aspects of the dwelling unit, I would like to assure everyone in the House that Ontario Housing in all of its housing projects meets or, in many cases, exceeds all safety and construction requirements set by the municipalities, the province and the federal government.

The building in question was a CMHC designed building which was constructed by OHC in 1965, I believe. I understand all the occupants were trapped on the second floor of the dwelling. I would like to emphasize that all regulations pertaining to construction, exits and the like were adhered to and additional exits on the ground floor would likely not have been of very much assistance.

At the present time, there is an investigation being undertaken by the Ontario fire marshal’s office and I have indications that there will likely be an inquest ordered as well. Therefore I would not like to prejudice the investigation at this time by voicing any premature statements as to the technical matters which are being investigated.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my ministry again I would like to express the deep regret that this has occurred to tenants of Ontario Housing Corp., for whom we feel a deep sense of responsibility.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, I don’t quite follow the minister when he says that front doors are sufficient and the people all seem to have been trapped on the second floor. I know that at Lawrence Heights, the townhouses have both front and back doors. Has there been a change in Ontario Housing specifications that would have eliminated two doors? It seems to have been the specification in the past.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, this particular building -- I don’t know the building referred to by the member -- was built in 1965 and there are no building standards or codes either in existence then or now which require additional exists at the rear. I am not suggesting for one moment that it might not be advisable to have them in the future but this had not been thought of at the time of construction nor has it really been thought of since. Because of design considerations and not necessarily safety considerations, there may be extra exits which have been placed in other buildings; I would have to look into those to see the reasons for the additional rear exists.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of further supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth with a supplementary.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): May I ask one supplementary question? I ask it rather tentatively. Will the minister, in his investigation, require of his ministry that it look back over the last three years to determine whether my recollection is correct and that the matter of the single exit from those particular units was raised with the ministry at that time -- I think it was about three years ago -- by both the tenants and members of the Legislature with regard to the fire safety aspects of those particular units and other units in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will look into that to determine whether or not the member’s recollection is correct.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I think that while there are other members who wish to ask supplementaries, we should not have one member with two supplementaries. The hon. member for Etobicoke.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister in light of over 2,200 OHC units in north Rexdale and the borough of Etobicoke, if he can assure this House that steps are being taken by his department to ensure that a similar calamity cannot occur in those units?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, Mr. Speaker, before I can make a commitment of that nature, I am sure the hon. member would agree that I should await the results of the Ontario fire marshal’s investigation as to the cause of the fire and any recommendations that may arise as a result of that investigation or any subsequent inquest which might be held. We are always concerned about the safety of the people who are living in buildings that have been constructed by Ontario Housing Corp., and I will commit myself to the hon. member to the extent that we will look into the possible weaknesses in any safety regulations that may now exist.

Mr. Braithwaite: A further supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member has had a supplementary. Any further supplementaries? The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Is the minister not aware that the buildings in Lawrence Heights have been there for at least 20 years and that the row housing there has both front and rear entrances and has had, so it’s really not new, and shouldn’t he inquire as to when the standards were changed?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, Mr. Speaker, I made a commitment to the hon. member previously in his first supplementary that I would look into the design considerations that went into the supplying of rear exits in certain other buildings. In this particular building, it is my understanding, it’s a front-to-back type of design which may in fact have made it not desirable to have rear exits, particularly when the building code of the time, and any building code which exists now, does not require it. That doesn’t mean that rear exits might not be advisable, and I want to look into that and get some architectural and design advice, as well as safety advice, before taking any steps to correct any problems that might arise from the lack of rear exits.

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

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a further question of the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Can he indicate to the House the basis for his optimistic predictions about the levelling off, and in fact the reduction, of the average cost of homes under the influence of certain pieces of legislation and certain other activities of this government and of the federal government, when it appears from the information from the Toronto Real Estate Board that the average price of a dwelling in this jurisdiction went from $54,391 in April to $57,320 in the first nine days of May? Does he have accurate figures, or is he simply putting the best gloss on the statistics that are available in order to use his position, I suppose as he should, to moderate the demand?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first, if I may comment on the increase in price referred to by the hon. member, this refers to closings of sales which were made some time ago; and there is no question whatsoever that before the government’s very positive actions in this area, prices were rising. On the other hand, all of the information we have from a variety of sources indicates that not only has there been a stabilization, which in my optimism I felt we should look for this month, but there has been in fact a steady reduction; there are also many properties which are not moving at their presently listed prices, and those are going to have to come down. I expect the movement to accelerate over the next two months.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): How about that, Morty?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Wait until October.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the minister’s programme is geared to the so-called housing action programme, can he now indicate which municipalities are prepared to reduce their requirements for subdivision approvals in order, let’s say, to improve the record of delay which has hindered these approvals for so long?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe I have ever suggested that it was necessary for municipalities to reduce their standards for subdivision approvals. We had asked a number of municipalities to accelerate the process of subdivision approval in line with our own cutting of red tape within the ministry and many of them have indicated a willingness to do so. There are a number of details, and in my view these are now becoming very minor details; however, I don’t want to pre-empt the prerogative of any municipality to make its own announcement at a public meeting of council when everyone will get the news.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Would the minister indicate that a reduction of standards was a part of his programme when the town of Mississauga said that the minister or his advisers had asked it to approve programmes without parks and without libraries?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we have never suggested that they approve programmes without parks or without libraries. What we did say was that parks and libraries were normal social services which would be provided to all residents of the municipality, including those who came in under the housing action programme. We have offered them unconditional grants. It seems to me to be inconsistent for municipalities to be asking for unconditional money and then to come back to the province and say let’s have a shared-cost programme. We believe our unconditional grants are generous and are sufficient to provide the social amenities the hon. member is mentioning.

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

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary: Can the minister explain what it will do for families earning $10,000 or so a year, if housing prices do stabilize at a level which is accessible only to people earning upwards of $20,000 a year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member fails to recognize the domino effect.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): In John Foster Dulles’ famous phrase.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: As houses are occupied, other houses become empty. Certainly as we increase the supply to a variety of programmes, there will be more and more housing of a variety of types available to people in all income groups.

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

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary in relation to the levelling off of the price of housing. Isn’t the minister being somewhat premature in attributing the levelling off to the speculation tax, when certain real estate boards -- among others, Ottawa -- have said that there was a levelling off expected and, in fact, the levelling off has nothing to do with the speculation tax? What evidence does the minister have --

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Talk to real estate agents.

Mr. Roy: -- to go around and attribute this levelling to what he calls positive measures by this government?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, in my speech in Hamilton last week I mentioned three factors which have led to it, one of them being the speculation tax. If my hon. friend doesn’t believe that, I suggest he call Mr. Kirkup of LePage Realtors who has been saying now for two weeks that it was going to happen.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Go on!

Mr. Roy: What about Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Anyone with any sense of reason whatsoever could expect nothing else to happen, except a drop in prices.

Mr. Lewis: I ran against his brother and one can’t believe a word that that man says.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I also attributed part of the drop to the increase in the mortgage rates. When I was asked the question by the hon. Leader of the Opposition a few weeks ago, I told him that I felt this would be a measure which would have a depressing effect on house prices.

Mr. Lewis: Depressing is right.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The third reason is the number of people who are overcommitted, who found themselves holding a large number of properties and must now dump them on the market.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. There have been five supplementaries, which I believe is reasonable.

JOSEPH BURNETT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Solicitor General if he read the story in Saturday’s Globe by Peter Moon entitled “The Success Story of Joseph Burnett”? Does he recall on April 1, I believe, when the matter was raised pertaining to the laundering of money, and then later when it was raised as to the alleged establishment of a restraint of trade in potatoes -- which the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) is investigating -- that he assured the House that the gentleman referred to in these articles was investigated by the Law Society of Upper Canada? Can he assure the House that that investigation was on his current activities, and in fact that Mr. Burnett, let’s say after the investigation, was reported to the Solicitor General as above reproach in these circumstances?

Mr. Shulman: No, that’s not right.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, the Law Society was involved in investigating Mr. Burnett as far as the matter of laundering money was concerned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: When?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: At the time it was raised by the hon. member for High Park.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That was some three weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: About that time, yes, and before the discussion in respect to potatoes and food prices.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But within this session? During this session?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes. As far as Mr. Burnett is concerned, the investigation is going on as regards the laundering of money. There is also an investigation into the question asked by the hon. member of the Minister of Agriculture and Food in respect to potatoes. This doesn’t necessarily just include Mr. Burnett. The whole matter would involve, as I mentioned before, the food council and the possibility of charges under the Combines Investigation Act.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: The minister then can assure us that there is an investigation that was initiated, let’s say during the last six weeks, by the Solicitor General. Can he tell us whether or not he will be able to table the results of that investigation? Is it just sitting in some backroom somewhere or is he taking positive action, since we hear about this man on a fairly regular basis and his involvement in this community?

Mr. Roy: Let the Solicitor General tell us he is concerned.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, in the course of an investigation there has to be sufficient evidence in order to lay charges. That investigation, therefore, until that happens, carries on. As far as the story in Saturday’s Star is concerned, dealing with the incident of laundering money and Mr. Burnett, there was really nothing new in that story.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now you can’t even get a shirt laundered.

Mr. Roy: The minister read the wrong newspaper. It was the Globe.

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

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In actual fact did not the Law Society confine themselves to investigating whether Mr. Burnett had broken any of their rules? And did not their report say that in actual fact he had broken no rules of the Law Society and that was all they were investigating?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I think the Law Society’s standards go beyond criminal law. It is a question of ethics and a breach of conduct becoming a barrister and solicitor in Ontario; and certainly if there was any indication of involvement in any criminal activity, the Law Society, of course, would rule on that as well.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I might ask the minister whether he can assure the House that this gentleman, or any of his related companies, have not had any dealings whatsoever with any government agencies or departments?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any firm in which Mr. Burnett is involved has an officer or director who is dealing with the provincial government. I am not aware of that situation existing.

However, as the hon. member knows, Mr. Burnett is involved in a number of companies, mainly in the insurance field; and that, of course, is part of our investigation.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member for Downsview has one more question.

Mr. Singer: Could the Solicitor General tell us whether his investigations have revealed anything about the suggestions of control of the potato business involving the same gentleman who has been under discussion?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That investigation is going on, Mr. Speaker. We haven’t completed that investigation; and when we have, the House will know the results.

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

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister indicate if Mr. Burnett has ever done business with any provincial ministry or agency personally, aside from any company with which he is associated?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen opposite have some information that I apparently do not have; and I can only repeat my answer. Mr. Burnett is involved in a number of companies and apparently from the names of those companies they appear to be legitimate operations.

As far as personal involvement with the province is concerned, again I am not prepared to say. There is such a wide field. Who knows, he may have acted as an assistant Crown attorney at one time.

Mr. Roy: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I am not able to say emphatically whether or not he has had any dealings with the province.

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

HOUSING MORTGAGE RATES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Housing what representations he has made to his colleagues in Treasury Board to make on behalf of the Province of Ontario to the federal government over the continued and absurd increases in interest rates as they apply to mortgages in Canada, specifically in Ontario, and particularly over the last 24 hours?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have made no representations to my colleagues. I have been watching the progress of this and we have instituted a very complete and comprehensive study of the effects of this, both on private housing and publicly assisted housing --

Mr. Lewis: What does it show the minister?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We have instituted the inquiry only since the last increase and they are coming in so fast it is very difficult to keep up with them.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary: Is the minister aware that the increases in the last 14 or 15 months alone will add to the average price of a home over the 35-year amortization, which is now regular in Ontario, something like $34,600 beyond what it was in February, 1973, at 11 1/2 per cent. If it goes as high as 12 per cent, it will mean $41,000 more over the life of a home --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This government made representation over six months --

Mr. Lewis: And since the minister is so active in protecting the consumers and the purchasers of Ontario, when is he going to introduce a tax credit scheme to lower the effective rate of interest to six per cent?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, once again the hon. member faces me with an arithmetic calculation which I haven’t had an opportunity to check; but I accept that his research is usually quite dependable and accurate, so I am not going to argue with his figures.

On the other hand, there is no question whatsoever that interest rates as they rise, become cheaper as they go along, in terms of rising income -- in terms of real dollars.

Mr. Cassidy: What?

Mr. Lewis: Just say that again. Say that once again.

Mr. Deans: That interest rates become, as they rise, cheaper as they go on?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, if you buy money today at 12 per cent and your income increases at the rate of nine or 10 per cent over the next five years in fact, the money is cheaper, five years from now than it is today. I am not suggesting that as an excuse --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Now there’s profundity.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am giving the hon. member an arithmetic calculation to check out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A negative rate of increase.

Mr. Foulds: That’s the London School of Economics coming out again.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is a simple, economic principle, Mr. Speaker, if you buy dear dollars with cheap dollars, the dollars are cheaper -- and that’s fairly simple. I am sure even the hon. member will understand that.

Mr. Lewis: That’s very useful to have on the record.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we have looked at the impact of interest rates, not so much with regard to reducing them to six per cent, but as to whether or not we can maintain at 8 3/4 per cent, a preferred lending programme without federal participation, since they have $80 million which is not being used in Ontario because of the weakness of their own programme. We would like to add that $80 million to our own to expand the publicly assisted portion of our housing programme.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister aware that a person buying a house today, at say nine per cent less than he could have bought it last month, if that is in fact the figure, would in actuality be paying more for the cost of the house because of the increase of some 14 per cent in carrying charges in the last month?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Assuming, Mr. Speaker, one didn’t buy a mortgage with it as well.

Mr. Shulman: One must have a mortgage.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That would be buying the mortgage, that’s the thing.

Mr. Lewis: Only the minister buys houses without mortgages.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the minister if he would consider recommending to cabinet that the proceeds of the new speculative tax, that which is levied in the bills on the new speculative taxes on real estate, be used by this government to provide very low interest second mortgages for people who have incomes of less than $10,000 a year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They get 8 3/4 per cent money now in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer (Mr. White) has already committed himself to sharing the proceeds of the speculation tax with the municipalities.

Mr. Lewis: They’re great profit sharers over there.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Perhaps I can get some of it for the purpose the hon. member suggests, but I would like to have more money to operate our 8 3/4-per-cent programme which is now in existence for first mortgages.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister -- since he is systematically excluding everybody under $18,000 a year from ever owning a home in the Province of Ontario, can he indicate to us, given that the average rent for Metropolitan Toronto for a three-bedroom apartment is now $323 a month, meaning an income requirement of something between $15,000 and $16,000 a year -- how many additional units of rent-geared-to-income housing is he providing in Ontario in this year?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have constantly said that our programmes are all geared to the person under $18,000, and not just at $18,000 as my friend from Ottawa Centre continually says.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister gives them the gears, that’s why.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would have to check the figures for rent-geared-to-income, but in fact we are increasing our production; the figures should be available to us on a projected basis within a day or two. We have some projections. I have been looking at them just in the last day or two and I would rather give the hon. member accurate projections.

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t have that at hand on this the most important part of Ontario’s housing programme? The minister doesn’t have those figures at hand? He doesn’t know where the ministry is going now on geared-to-income housing?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member assesses this as the most important part of the programme.

Mr. Lewis: Sure it is. It’s for low-income owners; something this ministry hasn’t grasped yet. This government has programmes for the rich.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I consider there are a variety of programmes, all of equal importance to which we’re devoting an equal amount of energy.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

RADCLIFFE PETITION

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Community and Social Services: How is he going to respond to the petition from the council of the township of Radcliffe and 300 of its residents, pleading with him to turn St. Mary’s convent into a nursing home for senior citizens in the Madawaska Valley?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Which township?

Mr. Lewis: The township of Radcliffe in the Madawaska Valley. It’s near Renfrew. It’s in eastern Ontario, so the minister may have paid no attention to it; but the petition is from that area.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, if it’s residential care certainly it’s definitely our ministry’s responsibility; but often what happens today is that some of the residents are on extended care and some are residential. We work very closely with the Ministry of Health in this area.

I’d be pleased to let the hon. member know where the matter stands. What date is that petition?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the meeting was Friday, May 3, involving 300 residents of the Madawaska Valley. The letter to me from the township of Radcliffe is dated May 7.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I haven’t seen that letter yet, Mr. Speaker, but I’d be pleased to look into it.

Mr. Lewis: All right. By way of supplementary: Is the minister apprised of how critical the situation is throughout the Madawaska Valley and Renfrew county in the matter of senior citizens’ accommodation and nursing home accommodation; and of the need for him to do something other than to visit the communities hand in hand with the members, the Tory members?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I am very much aware, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member probably is aware, that both the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and I attended a meeting around December of last year, I believe --

Mr. Lewis: I know about the meeting.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We asked the representatives at that meeting -- there were representatives from the county and from the various other organizations, as well as municipal representatives -- if they would estimate, as closely as they could, the actual need in terms of residential care and extended care, and send us that. According to my information, Mr. Speaker, I have not as yet received the results of that survey. But there are some ongoing discussions between the Ministry of Health and my ministry, and we will definitely meet the needs of the people in that area. If it’s nursing home care --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): That is long-term.

Mr. Lewis: Well, that hasn’t happened yet.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It will.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister agree, specifically in connection with the convent that was referred to in the question, that there is a tremendous reason for the minister and his advisers to seek out good facilities such as this that have changed their function within the community, so that we can use the facilities that are built without having to fork out the dollars for expensive new buildings, particularly when these are designed and would be useful even now, without any delay?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Certainly, Mr. Speaker; exactly. We are entirely in agreement with what the hon. leader of the official opposition has said. That’s why last June we amended our legislation, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act, whereby we have a tremendous amount of flexibility: we can rent existing premises; we are using the foster care programme. What the three ministries are doing now in some areas -- the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Health and my ministry -- is we are looking at a complex of senior citizens apartments, nearby residential accommodation and extended care facilities so that those citizens can be together and we can provide the services. This is exactly the area we are moving in, but sometimes it takes a little time to know the exact needs.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, especially in eastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Oh, we’ll look after eastern Ontario.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of the Environment: Where is the inquiry officer’s report on the Arnprior dam?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): I believe I have signed that. The inquiry officer’s report is in hand --

Mr. Braithwaite: He’s got it.

Hon. W. Newman: -- and the owners will be notified first by registered mail.

Mr. Braithwaite: He’s got a copy.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: If I recall correctly, the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) indicated a week or so ago that the Minister of the Environment had signed it and it was on its way to the owners. Can it not now be tabled in the House?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, I signed the reports, and they all went out together.

Mr. Lewis: Will the minister table it in the House?

Hon. W. Newman: I’ll give the hon. member a copy if he’d like to have it.

Mr. Lewis: I would very much like to have it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We should have a copy, too.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I think we should have one.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary: May I ask the minister, has he received the inquiry officer’s report with respect to the Douglas Point power line?

Hon. W. Newman: No, I have not as yet.

FREE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Health. Can he explain why the estimated 10,000 people who are not entitled to the GAINS programme introduced in the budget, because they are not eligible for the guaranteed income supplement, have not been given the free prescription drug programme which was announced along with it in the budget?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, any attempt to define which group is excluded is a bit premature, I think, because the working groups are still establishing the criteria by which people either get GAINS or the drug programme. I understand within the next day or two I am to have a report on it from our own staff.

Mr. Lewis: Well, by way of supplementary, the minister will recall the specific reference to a large group of people -- I think 10,000 was the number -- who would be incorporated anyway in the basic monthly income, even though they didn’t meet federal residency requirements, but who were specifically not included in the extension of drug care. Can he give an undertaking that these people will be included?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t give an undertaking. I only say that we have decided to look at all of the criteria so that this figure which was announced earlier may no longer be applicable.

Mr. Lewis: One last supplementary: how is it that the Province of Manitoba is so much more enlightened in its budgeting that it can offer a pharmacare programme for all the residents of its province in its most recent budget, whereas Ontario is still so far behind?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They’re not building any houses.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How many houses have they built?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, I must admit that the question of that enlightenment might depend upon one’s perspective.

Mr. Lewis: Well, my perspective sees enlightenment.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Ah, I am so pleased, I am so pleased.

Mr. Lewis: Right you are.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: That’s a point of view.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, it is. The hon. member might have missed such things as ambulance services, which they don’t have.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, that is a slander. I know nothing about it, but I am sure they do, Mr. Speaker!

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

The hon. member for Downsview is next.

LAWRENCE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY CENTRE AND SWIMMING POOL

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Housing whether or not he has received representations from the tenants of Lawrence Heights in connection with the construction of a community centre and swimming pool, and if he would be prepared to match whatever grants may be given in that regard by CMHC?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any representations -- and I always give careful consideration to any representations submitted to me.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, would the minister have his officials inquire, because when this was discussed at a recent meeting, two of the ministry’s officials were in the audience and one would have thought that they would have brought him back a report. If they haven’t, could the minister tell us why they haven’t?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will certainly inquire to see whether or not there are any people on my staff who have any information on it.

Mr. Singer: They were there and I talked to them. They are very nice people and they should have reported to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It may very well be that they should have reported to me and probably they are awaiting some kind of a formal submission.

Mr. Singer: Speak to them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

WCB STAFF CAR MILEAGE RATES

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the hon. Minister of Labour: Has there been or will there be any change in the order that has gone out that rehabilitation counsellors under the Workmen’s Compensation Board must provide themselves with their own motor cars if they drive less than 15,000 miles per year, and therefore go on a mileage basis?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, this whole matter is being looked at at the present time. I don’t think I could possibly give a definite answer.

Mr. Deans: Everything is being looked at.

Mr. Lewis: He must be exhausted from looking.

Mr. Deans: When is the minister going to do something instead of looking?

Mr. Young: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that many of the counsellors are very concerned, because of the size of mortgages on their homes and other commitments, that this will drive them far into debt and they are very concerned about that debt.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes, they are concerned, Mr. Speaker, and, indeed, so am I.

Mr. Young: When is the minister going to do something about it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke.

HIGHBOURNE LODGE

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. He is no doubt aware of the article which appeared recently in the Etobicoke Guardian concerning Highbourne Lodge and the question of neglect. Is the minister prepared at this time to comment on the conditions at Highbourne Lodge in Etobicoke?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to comment on it. I know that each time we get a complaint from any nursing home licensed by the Ministry of Health, no matter how frivolous it may seem to be, we ask an inspector to go to that location and to investigate the complaint and report back to us. I have not received a report back on Highbourne Lodge, but I shall check into it.

Mr. Braithwaite: Will the minister report to the House when he does get a report on this?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think my object in any type of action is to improve the conditions in a given institution. Often this is best done in direct dealing with the people who have problems rather than in publicizing them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

DEATHS AT FERGUS PLANT

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, question of the Minister of Health: Can the minister indicate whether the investigations into the death of the four workers at the General Steel Wares Ltd. plant in Fergus has been completed -- as was indicated by Dr. Tidy on Wednesday of last week that it would be by now -- and whether or not the deaths are to be attributed in any way to the use of a coolant as was suggested by the doctor in his recent press statement?

Hon. Mr. Miller: As you know, Mr. Speaker, we did go into this plant right away. In fact, I understand we were in touch with other plants using the same coolant. It is my understanding that at least one plant has discontinued the use of the coolant pending results of our study.

The study of the four deaths referred to showed there was no relationship at all between the coolant and the deaths. In fact, the deaths were not of the same type and there seems to be no suspicion attached to that coolant at this point in time.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Is that the result of the investigation by Dr. Tidy, or is that the result of the coroner’s inquest which was conducted into the four deaths?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I received a report from Dr. Tidy to that effect.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary question: Can the minister now indicate clearly that there are no other plants, including Canadian Westinghouse in Hamilton, that need worry about the use of that particular coolant?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I can only base it upon the advice I have been given. On that basis, there is no need to worry.

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

SUDBURY GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health: Following the inquest into the unfortunate situation at the Sudbury General Hospital -- which has been over now for a month and a half -- what directives has the minister sent to the various hospitals across the province to assure that the mixup in gas lines will not be repeated in this province? What directives has the ministry sent?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have the feeling that if I answer one of these questions correctly I might win a prize. But just to have the hon. member asking me questions is reward enough. I can safely say that --

Mr. Roy: I don’t get the minister’s humour at all.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is all right. I am sorry about that. I am not being humorous about the issue.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): That’s good.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The issue itself is a very serious one and one on which I intend to take very careful measures to study.

I have read the complete report of the coroner’s jury. I have read the recommendations including those given by the expert witnesses; these referred to the Canadian Standards Association’s standards and the need to review them. As a result of that I have given this to a technical group within the ministry to study from a feasibility point of view, to report back to me as quickly as it can and for us to act upon once the report comes in.

Mr. Roy: If I might ask one supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister read the comments by one of the experts that had the ministry accepted these standards -- the Canadian safety standards; I think they were enacted in 1963 -- the mixup in Sudbury and, of course, the following deaths would not have occurred? Why is he waiting to accept this Canadian standard? I trust he will not make any delay in issuing directives so that we don’t get a repetition of this problem?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I did not see that particular comment within the context of the report given to me. However, we are going to accept those recommendations of the coroner’s jury and its experts which are practicable.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Middlesex South.

PARK NEAR KOMOKA

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services. Is the minister aware that lots are now being offered for sale within a proposed subdivision within the boundaries already announced for a provincial park at Komoka?

Mr. Lewis: Well, now!

An hon. member: Oh dear.

Mr. Lewis: What is going on in this issue?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that lots are being offered for sale in that subdivision. I have not had any report for the last few days relating to our negotiations for that land but I do know my staff have been negotiating with the owners of that particular subdivision.

I believe we obtained two appraisals on the land and have made an offer based on those appraisals. I believe the owner wanted to receive a third independent appraisal before he considered accepting the offer. I also understand that the owner agreed not to carry out any more construction work or bulldozing or any work at all on the land --

Mr. Lewis: I should think not; he has levelled everything in the park.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- until a decision had been made as to whether or not he was going to accept our offer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary --

Mr. Eaton: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In light of the fact that he’s going ahead by offering lots for sale will the minister take action to expropriate that property?

Mr. Lewis: He promised to expropriate two weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, if there is to be any expropriation carried out on that land I would first have to have the request from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) to proceed with expropriation. To my knowledge we have not yet received that.

Mr. Foulds: What’s going on?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is the alternative that --

Mr. Speaker: I think one supplementary is sufficient.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- we are going to have a town within the park or is the minister thinking of buying the lots up one by one as they are offered? Surely the minister can give a commitment to the House now that this subdivision is not going to go forward even though his colleagues have fumbled the ball?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The Minister of Natural Resources should stop dragging his feet.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don’t anticipate a town within the park but as I say --

Mr. Lewis: Just a little town; a small community; just a built-up area.

Mr. Stokes: Just a handful.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It might be a very --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Certainly we are taking every step possible within our power at this time to buy the property and negotiate a reasonable settlement with the owner of the particular land.

Mr. Cassidy: In the meantime they are held up to ransom.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am certainly prepared to proceed with expropriation when I receive the approval of my colleague.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is everything all right at Bronte?

Mr. Eaton: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker: Will the Minister of Natural Resources approve action to expropriate?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. That question is out of order.

Mr. Lewis: I have a very quick supplementary: Does the Minister of Government Services not recall that two or more weeks ago the Minister of Natural Resources indicated that expropriation would proceed if settlement couldn’t be achieved? That was while the owner was still bulldozing through the park. Is he now saying that nothing effective has happened from that day to this?

Mr. Singer: It is very hard to stop bulldozing.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m saying, Mr. Speaker, that to my knowledge we have not received authorization to expropriate from the Minister of Natural Resources. To my knowledge negotiations have been going along very well; no work has been carried on within the park.

Mr. Lewis: They have finished the first phase.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In view of the knowledge the member for Middlesex South has given me, that lots are being offered for sale, we’ll certainly take a look at it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Deans: Will the Minister of Natural Resources get up on a point of privilege and say something?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege if I may. If the members will recall, I did make a statement that if we ran into any snags or any problems with the acquisition of land in the Komoka park we would expropriate. I was not aware we were running into a problem at this time and as soon as I hear from the --

Mr. Stokes: Didn’t the minister know there was a subdivision in the park?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- Minister of Government Services -- as he has indicated, he is not aware of any problems --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He is not aware of any problems. I can assure the member that if I get any indication, we will take the necessary steps to expropriate. I believe that was the question he asked me.

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

COST OF LIVING PAYMENTS TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Chairman of Management Board, Mr. Speaker: It has been some time since he announced in the House that the cabinet would be considering a cost-of-living adjustment for Ontario civil servants. When might we expect the announcement of such a wage adjustment because of the cost of living? Why has he not replied to or agreed with the letter from the CSAO, of a couple of weeks ago, that he meet and discuss that matter with them?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is soon. The answer to the second question is, it’s a policy matter and we will discuss it with that authority when a decision is made.

Mr. Stokes: That’s “soon” and “don’t know.”

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

PENSIONERS’ TAX CREDITS

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Revenue:

Does he plan to revise present regulations concerning the pensioner tax credit which in its present form allows old age pensioner taxpayers, except a married couple who share the same dwelling, each to claim the tax credit?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, on that point it would be a decision reached, I think, with my colleague, the Treasurer, and other members of cabinet; but we do plan to look at the basic regulations over the next few months as the members well know. There will be some changes in the 1974 programme differing, in terms of amount and credits and the like, from those which applied with respect to the taxation year of 1973.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is the minister going to leave it so that they get the extra payment if they are living in sin --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What’s living in sin today?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- which is the way it is now -- without benefit of clergy, would be a better term.

Mr. Shulman: Is that sin?

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

CANADIAN PLASMA PHIRESIS CENTRES LTD.

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Has he licensed an outfit called Canadian Plasma Phiresis Ltd. which has been purchasing blood in Ottawa at the rate of $8 a shot, taking the red cells out and then pumping the cells back into people who are buying it? Is this the same outfit which was run out of Haiti last year for doing that very thing?

Mr. Roy: In Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea and therefore I’ll check into it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Has the member got a hedge on the market?

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

CANADIAN BRIDGE WORK STOPPAGE

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that some 300 employees of the Canadian Bridge division of Hawker Siddeley in Windsor are not working at present? Is he also aware that some of these unemployed do not qualify for social service benefits from the municipality? Will he look into the reason for the work stoppage and have his officials attempt to resolve the issues?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, shortly before lunch I was made aware of this work stoppage in Windsor. I have no further detail at this point but I will get in touch with my senior officials and report to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; a question of the Minister of Housing: Why is it that when he met with city council in Thunder Bay on April 25 the meeting was held in camera? Why did he not invite the Thunder Bay Housing Authority to attend the meeting? Why has he systematically ignored the advice and recommendations of the Thunder Bay Housing Authority with regard to senior citizens’ housing in Thunder Bay over the last year and a half?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, all of our meetings with regional councils and city councils have been in camera for the purpose of negotiating the housing action programme. It means, of course, there are a number of details which may be released prematurely and, maybe, incorrectly in view of the final agreement. We follow that procedure throughout, and I intend to continue it. When the announcements are made after agreements are reached they will obviously be done in public session at a meeting of the council by motion of the council, which is a public document.

With regard to recommendations of the Thunder Bay Housing Authority on senior citizens’ housing, I don’t recall having ignored them and I will certainly take a look at those recommendations to see if there is any substance in the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. It has been exceeded, in fact.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD ACT

Mr. Lewis moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which finally gives to the Ontario Energy Board authority and power to control prices of wholesale and retail gasoline, to requisition statements from the oil companies at any point at which they would increase their prices beyond the date of the bill, and levies fines of up to $10,000 per day on any company which refuses to conform to the directives of the Ontario Energy Board. It is meant, Mr. Speaker, to avoid the gouging of the consumers of Ontario of an additional $66 million effective this Wednesday.

GASOLINE RETAILERS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Deacon moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Gasoline Retailers Bill of Rights.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to prevent unfairness to the gasoline retailers in the province and also protects the oil companies against unfair practice or second-rate service to the motoring public. I was surprised last week to hear that the minister didn’t have any sort of answer to this problem and this is a bill that has been worked out by co-operation between retailers and the oil companies.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege I feel that I should at least correct the record inadvertently maligned by the Minister of Health. There is not always a cabinet minister in the gallery from one of the western NDP jurisdictions which makes it easy to check matters out.

The fact is, that in the budget this year in the Province of Manitoba as municipally-owned ambulance service for the entire province, cost-shared with the provincial government, was announced. I presume it is far superior to that which is provided here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Now take it easy you people; take it easy.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to join in the budget debate and of course discuss the budget presented by the Treasurer (Mr. White). I will expect to take a little time to cover a few other matters of concern to me and I think of concern to many people in the Province of Ontario.

I suppose we are, at this stage in the game on May 13, only about 57 days away from a federal election, and sometimes on an opportunity like this one feels compelled to say a word or two with regard to that. I don’t think I need to play any political role on anyone’s part, even though I have as a resident in my own area the federal Minister of Agriculture. I am quite sure the minister is quite capable of taking care of himself in this re-election campaign.

Mr. Speaker, in the case of the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Mr. Stanfield, I question whether he is doing the right thing in asking for the support of the Davis government of Ontario. I think Mr. Stanfield is a man of honour. He may not have much get up and go and he is far from being a dynamic leader but his integrity is not to be questioned by anyone. I think he is making a mistake in asking for the support of the Davis administration. I think the mistake is that he should be aligning himself with people in the cabinet of this province, for instance the member for York Mills (Mr. Bales) who is going to give his profit on land speculation to charity -- I say why not give it to the government; and the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough) and his conflict of interest in approving a subdivision while the minister responsible for such matters; the member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko) and his land deals; the member for Carleton East (Mr. Lawrence) and his famous trip to Cuba to pull sugar cane; and the member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) and his efforts to make a fast buck on land speculation at the expense of the people of Ontario, although he may have been frustrated by the publicity given to it by the press.

I question, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Stanfield needs this kind of support. I think he’s going to have a hard enough time even to maintain a reasonable opposition, let alone having this type of support. I think it’s going to hurt him. I think the people of Ontario are fed up with the Davis administration and the sticky fingers that some of his cabinet colleagues have had.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): The member must be worried.

Mr. Ruston: I am not at all worried. When one looks at the budget that was brought down in Ottawa only last week -- I will get to our budget in a minute, Mr. Speaker, but I thought maybe I would say a word or two on this matter before too many of the members left the House to go into the committee of supply and also the committee of health -- there were two or three articles in that budget that I thought were pretty good. In fact, I had an accountant speak to me on the weekend and he was informing me he thought that was about the best budget he had seen any government bring down in 25 years.

One of the key things in it that I was particularly interested in was the $1,000 of tax free income interest. Anyone earning interest on investments would be allowed the first $1,000 of interest tax free. To me, from the way he explained it I think he had a good point, that this was to encourage savings. In an inflationary period we have so many people buying there are not enough goods to supply the demand, so naturally the prices keep rising. The old law of supply and demand is still with us in a great many cases. I think this would have been great encouragement and I think this would have helped the people in what I call the medium to low income group.

Many people with incomes of $7,000 to $15,000 try to save a few dollars for their children’s education and for their old age. When they set a little aside, every year they get a notice from the bank or the trust company or wherever they might have it, a T-4 slip saying we paid you $200 or $300 in interest and you must include that in your income tax. Then they have to pay whatever the rate is, 20 or 30 or 40 per cent income tax on that amount. I think this is one of the key things in that budget that a lot of people didn’t really see that would have helped a great many people in Ontario.

Another thing was the tax taken off clothing and footwear. The tax was also removed for sewage and water supply services, from municipal buses and transit services and bicycles. I remember speaking on a private bill one day when the now Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) was speaking. I think he or one of his colleagues was suggesting that the retail sales tax should be removed from bicycles. I spoke at the time saying that I would be inclined to take it off shoes instead of bicycles. I guess the good Minister of Revenue for Ontario (Mr. Meen) in his budget did remove it from all shoes worth less than $30; so we certainly give him credit for that.

However, the federal budget, and all these things that I call good sound budgeting, have all been withdrawn because of the loss of confidence in their House by the members of Parliament in Ottawa. Now another thing that was of interest was the larger tax on mining, banks, trust companies, large real estate companies; in each case there was an increase in their taxation. Another part I thought was very good was lowering the corporation tax on small businesses from 48 per cent to 25 per cent on the first $100,000. I think this was a great step forward too.

So I question whether members of both of the opposition parties in Canada who voted against this budget really thought it was that bad. I think they had made up their minds they wanted an election; and of course now that decision has been made it will be up to the people of Canada to decide the right or the wrong of it. However, that’s part of our democratic system and we’ll all accept whatever they decide.

Another thing concerns me with regard to the political part of it, Mr. Speaker, and I feel while I’m on this part I would just like to say a word or two on it. I read in the Ottawa Citizen on May 14, 1973, which is a year ago, a story headed: “LCBO Job Forms Handed out by Tory Riding Association”.

An hon. member: Same old stuff.

Mr. Ruston: Now the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, in my personal opinion, has been the complete right arm of the Conservative Party of Ontario for the last 25 years. I’m not sure, maybe it’s changing a little in the last few months, it may be; but up until very lately I think this has been a political arm all the way through. I have had people ask me if there are any jobs available in the Liquor Control Board stores; and I just say: Don’t come and see me, go and see the president of the riding association or the local Tory bag-man, because I wouldn’t want to jeopardize your chance of getting a job. I think I did this in sincerity, I think it was the right thing to do. Because after all when the handwriting is on the wall, there’s no use fighting city hall when you know you can’t win.

When the Premier (Mr. Davis) was speaking a few days ago -- I’m not sure where, it was some group in the Toronto area I believe -- he said they were going to take steps to limit the number of liquor outlets in the future. I wonder if it means anything. On liquor licence activities for the week ending May 4, 1974, there were 28 applications approved for new licences. If that is restricting them, I don’t know what it would be if it was wide open; that’s quite a large number for one week. I think the week of April 27 there were 15 new applications approved; and the week of May 11 there were eight new applications approved. That’s about 50 new applications that were approved in about three weeks, all new outlets; and the Premier was only saying a few days ago that he was taking steps to restrict the number of new outlets.

Now Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a word or two with regard to Ontario Hydro. The Premier was down in our area, or rather the riding of the hon. member for Essex South (Mr. Paterson), only a week ago. He had two or three full page ads in the weekly paper inviting people to come and meet the Premier. The Premier said at the chamber of commerce luncheon that it was up to the government to control inflation. He said you can’t just shrug your shoulders and say it’s a world problem. I imagine he was laying the groundwork for the federal programme, the programme of the Conservative Party in the election campaign; but the same day Ontario Hydro announced that it was requesting an increase of 15 per cent in hydro rates.

The Premier may say that we should start controlling inflation, but at the same time an arm of his government has asked for an increase of 15 per cent in one year, which if it continues at that rate for the next five years, means our hydro rates will be 100 per cent higher than they are today.

Another thing I wanted to mention about Hydro -- and this was covered very well by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) -- is the taking over of rights of way by Hydro. A strange thing happened the day the member for Huron-Bruce was talking. My brother, who is a farmer, was down to Toronto that day for a day or two’s visit. He was sitting in the Speaker’s gallery, and when the member for Huron-Bruce was speaking, I went up to sit beside him for a while.

He leaned over to me and said: “Dick, that sounds just like the way they tried to get my property last summer. They come in one time and tell you they need the property, and they won’t give you an offer but they say they intend to build in perhaps a year or two. And a different man comes back about two weeks later and says they have to have this property, they would like to buy it this time, and they may give you kind of a low offer.”

In my brother’s case he already had lines through there; I think they were put through about 20 years ago, and at that time he got $25 a tower. He has had to work around towers with tractors and so on, and all he got was $25 a tower. He wasn’t very happy.

However, they wished to purchase this property, which went right through the centre of the farm. He did agree to sell it, eventually, although I advised him that if Hydro wanted to buy property right through my farm, that I didn’t think I would sell it; I think an easement would have been satisfactory. I don’t see any necessity for Hydro owning the land when they have towers going through.

For 40 years we have had about four high-tension lines going through our area, feeding power to Windsor and the surrounding area, and most of them are on easements. The farmers have had no trouble. If the Hydro had to come in, it was generally in the winter. They do all of the checking of their lines by helicopter, so there is very little need to go in unless there is an emergency. I understand they pay for any damages to crops if they have to go in on an easement.

When they are buying the property and taking complete title to a strip of land -- 150 ft., 200 ft. or, in some cases, 600 ft. -- right through the centre of a farm, all they want to give the farmer is a 30-ft. easement across it. They won’t even give him a lease in perpetuity for the use of the land, which I think would have been some compensation to those involved, so I am concerned with the way they have been dealing with these properties.

There was a hearing of necessity in Windsor, on May 8, just last week, and there was a newspaper article headed, “Hydro’s Land Expropriation Case Rapped.” And to quote from the report:

“During the all-day hearing at Essex county court house in Windsor Wednesday, Richard Walker, who is heading the hearing, explained that he was ‘not satisfied with the way this case had been handled by Hydro.’

“There is a difficulty, he said, when the expropriating authority comes to a hearing thinking that it’s totally informal.

“Hydro, Mr. Walker added, must be able to prove the need for the lands in question.

“Frankly, he said, he had found expropriating authorities at whatever level have tended to come to hearings thinking that they don’t have to outline their specific needs.

“That might have been the case 10 years ago, but that is not the law today.”

Mr. Walker happens to be a very prominent solicitor and QC in the city of Windsor -- a capable lawyer, I am sure. I won’t mention his political affiliation, because that is beside the point; but he is doing a good job, I am sure, as hearing officer.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): I have heard he is a Tory.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, he is. I said he was a good solicitor.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into some other remarks I should make a point or two in regard to the budget. The key thing that concerns me in the Treasurer’s budget, is the continual deficit we are running each year. I can recall speaking to a very prominent lumber dealer in our area who was a member of the Ontario Water Resources Commission for a number of years. There again, I guess he was a Conservative candidate, but he was a very capable businessman. He and I were quite close and we were working on water lines in our area. He said: “Dick, when you are running the Treasury of the province, it should be government’s job to refrain from overspending in relatively good times; but when we have recessions or mild depressions, then it should be up to government to do large spending projects to encourage employment.” But we don’t seem to do that any more.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Sounds sensible. I bet he doesn’t talk about our Treasurer.

Mr. Ruston: Our governments seem to keep on spending at a high rate whether we’re in good times or not. I would think that Ontario, with about a four per cent unemployment picture, is almost running at full employment for our needs today. I don’t think any country could do much better. We have large industrial areas, of course --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The federal government has done a great job on employment.

Mr. Ruston: The federal government with its auto pact has helped a great deal no doubt, and I’m speaking of our own area where we have all the auto factories running at pretty well full capacity. I think that part is fine, but I don’t think we should continue to have such a large deficit, because right now we are spending about 16 cents of every dollar we collect in the province to pay off our cost of financing. It’s fine, I think, for the individual to mortgage his home and buy on time, but I think governments should lead the way at certain times, especially at inflationary times and reasonably good times, to control their spending so we do not continue to increase our deficit, and the cost of carrying it continues to increase as well.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Tory times are hard times.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Like the federal government.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, being from a rural area I suppose a person maybe shouldn’t get involved in what we classify as our city problems, but since we do spend a lot of our time in the city, and reside I think in the riding of St. David while the Legislature is in session, I look out over the area and from the height that we are at on the 21st floor we can see --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The penthouse.

Mr. Ruston: -- we can see what I think is a deteriorating part of our city. I am concerned that when Mayor Crombie was into the private bills committee last week he was so concerned and he wanted a bill put through so that the city of Toronto could refrain from issuing demolition permits, so that developers couldn’t come in and buy homes; let them run down until they are no longer livable, then get a permit to demolish them; and in turn hold off building on them until they can get the city to change the zoning, put the pressure on them to change the zoning, so that they can put up a highrise.

I was just counting some of the highrises in one block over there and there’s about five or six. It seems to me when they put this many on one block they should at least have a park on the next block if they are going to demolish some of the buildings.

There are some old buildings there that are certainly not worth fixing, we know that. A lot of them are worth fixing, but there are some that could be demolished. I would think if I was demolishing them and I had anything to do with planning in Toronto, I would be putting small parks in there, even just little waterfalls and a few trees and a little grass and so forth. We have a number of them in the city of Windsor and it’s just beautiful at this time of year with the tulips and everything; but you can’t see a tulip any place in downtown Toronto that I’ve ever seen. In Windsor you can; and New York has hundreds of them. I have never been there but my family has and they tell me there are hundreds of small parks in New York City -- and they’ve got city problems. I think that’s something the city should be looking at in their development scheme.

I’m also concerned about crime and what’s going to happen in the cities in the future if we don’t take steps to control the size and the building up. I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, in my first speech in the Legislature in 1968, that I thought it was up to government to encourage industry to go into other parts of Ontario, to cities and towns that have populations of 40,000 or 50,000, and put in services there so these towns could be expanded to 100,000 to 150,000. People then have an interest in their town or city. I’m sure that in a city the size of Toronto many people have no interest whatsoever because it’s getting so large. With such a large population I’m sure that it’s very difficult for people to have much of a rapport with the members of city council or Metro council. It’s probably harder than with the members of the Ontario Legislature, who I’m sure seem far enough from some people at that. I think that cities are even worse.

We live not far from the city of Detroit where we’re oriented to the American TV and the problems of the city of Detroit, where crime is rampant in the streets. It’s almost pitiful to see a city that 20 years ago was a vibrant city now deteriorated in many places. If you go out on some of the streets, Michigan Ave. for instance, to the Olympia Stadium, you can go blocks and see where it has been pushed over with bulldozers. There’s nothing left there now.

Some of the streets have houses which have just been left to deteriorate by themselves. There is no planning. Cities don’t have the financial wherewithal. In fact, under their constitution the cities in the United States are worse off than the cities in Canada because they weren’t given the constitutional rights of taxation as we have it here.

It’s the same with school boards. In the United States, for instance, school boards only have a basic rate to go on. They must get approval from the electorate to spend more than a certain base rate. They have real problems, whereas in Ontario the government has always given the power to set the rates to school boards and so forth, and they set the tax accordingly. There is a kind of chance then for the elected people. They do have a better chance here than in the United States.

I’m concerned that the size of cities is probably part of the problem and that the same thing could happen here. I often think that what happens in the United States could happen in Canada within 10 years. I shudder if that’s right.

Part of this might be due to the fact that we’re not taking steps to control crime. I don’t necessarily mean crime in the streets. I’m thinking of crime on a large scale. We’ve had articles in the paper lately about that. There was another one in Saturday’s paper. I have an article I want to read that I read in the Detroit News. It is from the Sunday News of March 31, 1974.

The Detroit News is a very widely distributed paper. It is a conservative paper. As such, it leans to support Mr. Nixon, although about two months ago it did come out saying that he probably should resign as President of the United States. I’m just giving you the background of the newspaper. It has been the backbone of Detroit newspapers, radio and TV stations for a number of years. In fact, the Detroit News owned WWJ which was the first radio station to come on the air in 1920 or 1921. I can recall, when I was four years old, we had a battery radio and WWJ, Detroit, was the only station we could get. It has been around a long time and it is well respected in the city of Detroit.

I’m going to read an article that was in the Detroit News on March 31, 1974. It is written by Mr. Michael F. Wendland. The headline is:

“Toronto Investor is Probed for Mob Link; Loan Financed Two Joshua Doore Showrooms

“On the ninth floor of a new office building on Queen St. in downtown Toronto, a 37-year-old lawyer oversees a multimillion dollar financial empire that extends throughout North America.

“The empire is under investigation by US and Canadian law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, the US Justice Department’s organized crime strike force and the Ontario Provincial Police. They are trying to determine whether some of the investments of the lawyer-turned international financier are backed by organized crime.

“The lawyer, Joseph Burnett, has extended loans to several companies in Michigan. Among the recipients is a holding company that owns two of the warehouse showrooms of Joshua Doore Inc., a Detroit-based furniture company.

“The Joshua Doore board chairman, Harvey L. Leach, was murdered two weeks ago in what police describe as a gangland-style killing.

“Authorities stress there is no evidence that funds provided by various Burnett-operated branches to any of the Michigan companies have been used illegally -- or even to suggest that the companies know the sources of the money.

“Burnett acknowledged associations, however, with a man who has been described by the authorities as a major organized crime moneyman. He is John Pullman, a Canadian citizen now living in Switzerland. In 1969, former US attorney Robert Morgenthau described Pullman as, ‘a courier for the mob’ and as the ‘banking technician for Meyer Lansky.’

“Lansky is now living in Florida and is alleged by federal authorities to have directed the financial dealings of the country’s leading organized crime figures.

“Last month the US Securities and Exchange Commission charged Pullman and several others with stock fraud in connection with a business venture that allegedly swindled the Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit, the Bishop of Lansing and several Michigan priests out of $340,000.

“In a telephone interview with the Detroit News Burnett said he was a close personal friend of Pullman and had administered millions of dollars of investment for him. But Burnett contended he had done nothing illegal, ‘or the authorities surely would have charged me with something.’ He also said he had stopped handling Pullman’s investments.

“Indeed, said Burnett, he has been investigated by the FBI in connection with a $200,000 loan to a Detroit company for construction of a large privately-owned recreational development. The money, authorities said, had the characteristics of a wash, a transaction designed to hide the source of funds.

“‘The FBI checked me out and gave me a clean bill of health,’ Burnett said. ‘Just ask them if you don’t believe it.’

“A spokesman for the justice department in Detroit, however, said the transaction is still being investigated by several agencies and he would not elaborate.

“Burnett is reputed to have a personal fortune of about $5 million. He is a major shareholder in three food companies in southern Ontario and has interests in other Canadian companies. Burnett has had many ties in Michigan, especially the Detroit area. Over the last three years he has placed at least $20 million in loans in the state for construction of office buildings, apartment complexes, shopping centres and other facilities. Besides a small Detroit office, he operates across the continent with outlets in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, and Puerto Rico.

“Ontario police agencies say a man who has represented Burnett in Puerto Rico is an associate of four men now serving prison terms in the United States for gambling and narcotics smuggling. Two of the four are identified as members of the New York operation of the reputed Mafia chieftain, Vitto Genovese. ‘All I know is the man (in Puerto Rico) has placed business with me,’ Burnett said. ‘Whether he is a bad guy or a good guy, I don’t know. How do you know who someone is? I deal with a lot of people. I don’t ask them who their friends are.’

“Burnett said he carefully checked out the Joshua Doore company before deciding to lend nearly $3 million for the construction of two of its warehouse showrooms. He said he was contacted in mid-1972 by Fred Gordon, a lawyer who has substantial holdings and investments throughout the Detroit area. Gordon, who said he had dealt with Burnett before, is head of a holding company called MBA Inc. Gordon planned to build the warehouses and then lease them to Joshua Doore.

“‘By coincidence, our Detroit attorneys, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn, were also the attorneys for Joshua Doore,’ said Burnett. ‘We had them carefully check out all aspects of MBA and Doore and after they indicated good reports, we went along.’

“The showrooms Burnett financed are in Taylor and Warren, he said. The $2.4 million to MBA for the Taylor building was paid off last May, he said. On March 14, however, Gordon asked for and received a second mortgage on the Warren store, Burnett said. The second mortgage, for $400,000, was filed March 15 in Wayne county.

“Burnett said he never met Leach, the Joshua Doore chairman. Leach, 34, was murdered March 16, the day before he was to marry a Southfield divorcee.

“‘All our dealings have been through Fred Gordon,’ said Burnett. ‘Our loans were to him not to Joshua Doore.’

“In an interview Gordon described MBA as a shell company, basically a tax shelter for a bunch of doctors and dentists in the Detroit area. Gordon, a fraternity brother of Leach’s when they attended the University of Michigan, said Leach had no business interest in MBA. Leach and Joshua Doore’s president, Spencer Reuben were once partners with Gordon and MTP Inc., a Troy-based lighting firm: ‘They (Leach and Reuben) got into it with me as a sideline five or six years ago, before they were in an ownership position with the furniture business,’ Gordon said.

“Back in 1971, when they took control of the company, Joshua Doore then called Robinson Furniture, they terminated all connections with MTP.

“Gordon said he has been involved in two other deals with Burnett. One involved a $200,000 loan to the construction company building the Detroit area recreational complex. According to FBI reports -- confirmed by Gordon and Burnett in separate interviews with the News -- the transaction took place as follows:

“The construction company had arranged with a Bloomfield Hills man to borrow $200,000. But because the man did not want it known that he had such amounts of cash, the company’s officers went to Gordon. Gordon, in turn, contacted Burnett, who agreed to the plan.

“In August, 1972, an officer of the construction company picked up $150,000 in cash and a $50,000 cashier’s cheque from the Bloomfield Hills man. He then drove from Detroit to the Toronto International Airport, where he met Gordon, who had taken a flight there. The two then went to Burnett’s downtown Toronto office, handed over the $200,000 and received in return a cheque for the same amount written on one of Burnett’s lending companies. The transaction went on the books as a loan to the Detroit construction firm.

“Burnett, who told the US authorities of the deal said that this transaction was not illegal and it was also investigated by Canadian tax officials. Burnett’s files on the deal contain a letter from Gordon dated almost a year after the transaction occurred, which Burnett said he furnished to US investigators.”

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member would permit the hon. member for Thunder Bay to recognize his guests in the gallery.

Mr. Ruston: Certainly.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you. I want to apologize to the hon. member for Essex-Kent for butting in, but I have two groups in the east gallery, Mr. Speaker. There are groups of grades 7 and 8 students from Caramat Public School, who are down here under the guidance of their teacher, Mr. Brian Morris along with Mrs. Theresa Steudle and Mr. Abraham. Right alongside them are about 19 students from Nipigon-Red Rock District High School from grades 11 and 12 under their teacher Mr. John Krantz.

They have come a considerable distance, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you will join with me in welcoming them to Queen’s Park and hope they have an enjoyable time.

Mr. Ruston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to allow the interruption from the hon. member for Thunder Bay and to welcome the students as well. I will go ahead.

“The letter reads in part: ‘The principals of the construction firm informed me that the person from whom they had received the cash did not wish to have any notice concerning the cash and that therefore I suggested that a loan be arranged to so as to avoid notice which would result in the deposit of a large amount of cash.’

“Gordon confirmed the account. He said he had dealt with Burnett several times and always found him ‘upright and fair’.

“Gordon said he had never heard of a John Pullman before and therefore could not know that Burnett was an associate of Pullman’s.

“There are other Burnett loans in the Detroit area that have attracted official attention. One was for construction of a $4,950,000 apartment complex in western Wayne county. It provided for a payment of a so-called ‘finder’s fee’. It is a normal part of financing that compensates a person who finds the source of money for a loan.

“The finder’s fee in this case was $171,000. It was paid to John Pullman in care of the law firm of Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohn.

“‘The finder’s fee was rightfully coming to me,’ said Burnett. ‘What happened was that Mr. Pullman had a series of investments placed through our firm and had payments coming that totalled somewhere around $200,000. We were interested in clearing our books, so rather than string out his payments over a long period of time, I just assigned my finder’s fee to Mr. Pullman.’

“Jack Miller, a senior partner in the Detroit law firm, said he could not discuss the firm’s dealing with Burnett.

“‘Whatever Mr. Burnett tells you, you are at liberty to believe,’ said Miller. ‘But I couldn’t begin to discuss any business relationships involving our clients.’

“Miller said that it was coincidence that the firm represented Joshua Doore and Burnett and -- on at least one occasion -- Pullman.

“‘We are a firm of some 40 lawyers,’ he said. ‘While it may seem coincidental that we represented those three, it is not unusual. We represent a great many persons.’

“Pullman is well known to law enforcement officers. He came to Canada in 1948 from the United States and became a Canadian citizen in 1954, living most of his time in Toronto. He moved to Switzerland in the mid 1960s. His notoriety, however, stems from his alleged connection with organized crime.

“For more than 30 years, according to Morgenthau, the former US attorney, Pullman worked for Lansky as a courier and banking technician, buying into legitimate businesses and real estate with organized crime funds.

“After moving to Switzerland, Pullman allegedly took control of the secret bank accounts of the top American mobsters, legitimizing their earnings by funnelling them back into North America as loans to various businesses.

“Pullman, who dodged a subpoena issued by Morgenthau and cannot set foot in America without being served, admitted to Canadian reporters several years ago that he knew top organized crime figures.

“‘Yes, I know Meyer Lansky,’ said Pullman at that time. ‘He’s a wonderful man. He and his wife and me and my wife toured Europe together and had a wonderful time.’

“On another occasion, Pullman brought up the names of a host of US mobsters, several of whom were under indictment. He told reporters he knew them all well.

“Burnett said that though he no longer handles Pullman’s investments, he does do ‘an occasional personal favour’ for him. Burnett said he sees Pullman on Pullman’s regular visits to Canada, and that once Pullman brought a watch from Europe as a gift for Burnett’s wife.

“Burnett said he did not believe the allegations made against Pullman. ‘I am sure that if John Pullman was all that had been said of him, he’d be in big trouble,’ said Burnett. ‘But he’s never been charged with any offence in Canada and there’s nothing here he’s ever been subject to.’

“Of his own troubles with law enforcement officers, Burnett said they were ‘misunderstandings’.

“He strongly denied any connection with organized crime and said he would welcome a full-scale investigation into his dealings.

“‘My books are open to anyone who wants to examine them,’ said Burnett. ‘I’ve done nothing wrong’.”

Now, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, that’s a write-up that appeared in the Sunday News.

My concern and the concern of many people in Ontario is the enforcement of laws and the introduction of new laws governing things similar to this. When the average person, who goes to work every day and pays his income tax, reads in the paper about somebody handling millions of dollars and no one seems to know to whom he reports, I think he wonders if the income taxes, corporation taxes and so forth are actually ever being paid and if our government is receiving any taxes whatsoever.

It would appear to me that what we probably need is a new crime-fighting division in the RCMP and probably in the Ontario Provincial Police. I think they would have to be highly trained people, probably sharp accountants or former corporation lawyers. They might even hire someone who’s been in jail for 10 years; maybe that would help. He would know a lot of angles.

I see the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) smiled about that. It’s interesting, though, because sometimes it takes a crook to find a crook.

It’s just a point, but I think it’s a concern of most people and perhaps it is part of the reason why we’re losing some respect for law. When people see other people getting away with breaking the law -- maybe they’re not killing anybody or anything like that, but if they’re not paying their due share of taxes, for instance, then I think that people get to the point where they say: “Well, what’s the use of working our hearts out and trying to make a living when that guy can pick up a million dollars and pay no tax on it?” And that is the thing I’m concerned about.

I think we need sharper investigators to do this type of work on the border. On a number of occasions we have seen people come over who we were aware were racketeers to some extent, but we never took any steps to stop them although in many cases they were being watched. I can recall a number of occasions when our own police and the RCMP have been working on cases where we were aware of people and what they were doing to some extent; of course, it took a lot of investigation, so we had to just treat them the same as anybody else when they were coming across the border, hoping the police would get something on them while they were over here.

Now, I would like to say a word or two with regard to agriculture in Ontario, Mr. Speaker. Farming and agriculture have been going through quite a change in the last year or so. People talk about shortages of foodstuffs, where only two years ago we were talking about surpluses and wondering what to do with them.

I know that the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, Mr. Whelan, has been a strong spokesman on this type of thing for the last 17 or 18 months he has been Minister of Agriculture. He is taking the brunt right now, I know, from people in the cities who feel that food prices are too high. But it’s pretty difficult to compare food prices when, in the spring of 1972, farmers were producing eggs for 21 cents a dozen and they were being sold in the stores for maybe 33 to 35 cents; and the costs of producing the eggs at the farm at that time was about 33 cents a dozen, so he was losing 11 or 12 cents a dozen. So it is very difficult to assess whether something is too high.

I recall the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis), the leader of the NDP, talking about farm prices and talking about foodstuff and the increased percentage increase in prices. Well you know, if something is below what it is costing to produce, naturally it has to go up 100 per cent before you get everybody covered in between, so if you are losing 11 cents a dozen in producing a dozen eggs and it goes up 100 per cent, really you are still not ahead of the game because you have to have a profit besides your cost of operation. So percentages are really not a very fair way to look at it, I don’t think.

I suppose it’s like statistics. Anybody can use statistics, it all depends on how you want to use them. One fellow can use them altogether differently. Two statisticians or economists will come up with a different answer on the same statistics, so that’s why it is not too fair to use them when you consider the prices of farm products in the last few years.

In January of 1972 corn was $1.14 per bushel and today it’s about $2.75 per bushel. Sure, that’s a 140 per cent increase; but $1.14 a bushel wasn’t really covering the full cost of production and leaving anything. Then somebody will say; “Well, how do you keep producing when you are not making a profit, or losing money?”

A lot of people farmed up until the last 20 years. Their forefathers took the farm and developed it, cleared it and went on farming it, and their sons went on farming it. They didn’t have a big outlay. They went ahead and just kept on. Their cost of operation was very minimum so that they could produce things pretty cheaply.

But in the last 25 years, when we started changing considerably and mechanization and the cost of machinery and everything got to be a major cost of operations, naturally that’s when they started losing. However you can survive, and of course we know it, you can survive a year or two on a farm without any profit because you can live if you have a low depreciation. Naturally that helps you a little and you manage to survive or pick up a little part-time work in the wintertime.

That’s what happened to a lot of farmers. That’s what chased a lot of them off the farms, in fact. They found some part-time work in the wintertime and found the wages so good they never bothered coming back to the farm. It was just no use when you could make good wages out in industry.

Another article I was going to mention, Mr. Speaker, came out of the New York Times Service: “Foodstuff Shortages Spring from Years of Neglecting Agriculture.” This was in the fall of 1973, and the article says:

“The shortages of basic foodstuffs now plaguing the more industrialized nations of the world are triggering the most profound changes in their agricultural economy since the end of the Second World War. Having built their industrial might on secure and ample supplies of relatively cheap food, the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan and the Soviet Union, for example, now face soaring prices for what was formerly their cheapest raw material. On the other hand, the shortages of foodstuffs and other basic commodities are proving an economic boon to the less developed lands because they now have the financial resources to speed up their industrialization and compete with the older (and now high-cost) producers in world markets.

“These changes were gleaned from a survey of the international agricultural situation made recently by the New York Times. Basically, the survey discloses that the overnight shortages of foodstuffs are the result of years of neglect of agriculture in most lands. Japan and Brazil are noteworthy examples. The post-war economic miracle in Japan largely came about because of the country’s ability to secure ample basic foodstuffs, such as soybeans, from the huge US army stockpiles of former years. And Washington was glad to get the business.

“These cheap foodstuffs, in turn, enabled the Japanese to hold wages in line and industrialize rapidly as well as compete in the world markets. Japan has limited land for agriculture. Today Japan is in shock because 90 per cent of its soybean supply, for example, which came from the United States, is in jeopardy. [You might recall last fall the United States did cut off exports of soybeans for a while.] Japanese trade missions are busily scouring Latin America, Australia and other possible supplies for soybeans, beef, pork and other foodstuffs. With world surpluses gone, Japanese industrialists face even greater pressures from labour for higher wages to cover soaring food costs.”

That gives us an idea of part of our problems with the agricultural economy.

I look over the price of beef, for instance; last summer when we had a scarcity and so forth, it went up to about 58 or 59 cents a pound liveweight and that was when the United States had price controls. Of course, the farmers didn’t want to sell because they were restricted as to the price; the price wasn’t frozen at the farm gate but it was frozen in the store. The farmers were reluctant to sell because they figured they could get a higher price when the price ceiling went off.

The price ceiling was to be removed, I believe, in the fall and when it was thousands of head of cattle were ready for market. Many of them were overweight and they flocked them into Canada to get rid of them -- any place at all to sell them because they had so many -- and that forced our price down. When it forced our price down to about 44 cents a pound, the beef farmers found that since corn had gone up to $3 a bushel they were in trouble.

Two or three years ago when corn was $1.25 a bushel, they could produce beef at $45 a hundred and come out fine. When corn went up to $3 a bushel we found we had to have a much higher price for the beef.

Now we have the same situation in the hog market and Quebec has announced a hog subsidy in the province right now. I was talking to a friend of mine the other day; he sold 120 hogs in December at around $55 or $54 a hundred; he has another 120 to go and the price is about $41. He made a profit on the ones in December but it looks as though he is going to lose more on the ones he has now than he made on the bunch he had in December. Until we get stabilization of prices in some form in Canada for our farm products, I am afraid we are not going to have an assured supply.

I know the Minister of Agriculture for Canada is working on this but he has to get the approval of his government and all governments, of course. Now that we are going to have an election I suppose that will have to wait.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food for Ontario (Mr. Stewart) says he is not interested in any assistance to farmers on this basis because he thinks it should be done on a Canada-wide basis. I don’t know; I don’t agree with the Minister of Agriculture and Food on that basis. I think he should have a plan which he could instigate on emergency basis; like two years ago when the egg market was so low, I think he should have had some money available to help these people out at that time.

It’s the same right now. It should be on a temporary basis because no doubt, maybe in six months, the market will right itself and they will be back in a position where they can make a little profit. But I don’t think the Minister of Agriculture and Food should just throw up his hands and say it is a federal responsibility. He does that a lot and I think he has done it more in the last year than before because he has someone now to put the blame on -- the Minister of Agriculture for Canada. The federal minister is a farmer and of course understands the situation but he has to get his point across to his colleagues and he has had some problems with the opposition, too, in Ottawa.

It is an interesting point that there are very few farm people who are actually ministers of agriculture. I think the Minister of Agriculture for Canada said at one of his meetings in Italy, where all the agricultural people of the world were gathered, that he was the only active farmer who was a minister of agriculture. It’s an oddity, I suppose, but it is kind of a nice thing to see someone who understands the situation.

We also want to mention that we have some subsidies. The federal government is now paying a subsidy for milk production of about five cents a quart. The interesting thing is that the Minister of Agriculture and Food for Ontario seems to agree it is a great thing. In fact, he sent a news release out just a few days ago saying that the new industrial milk price should have been higher, and at the same time his parliamentary assistant, the member for Middlesex South (Mr. Eaton), was speaking to a group of wheat producers, and he said producers should avoid subsidies. So I don’t know whether that is a new policy of the government or whether it is just the member for Middlesex South talking without the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

I am inclined to think that subsidies are not the answer because they are at the whim of the government of the day, unless you have a policy set down. I have always been of the opinion that farm prices really should be relevant to the prices of everything else on the market. If other prices are up and farm costs are up and the cost of production is up, then that should govern the market price. Those people who cannot afford to pay the market price should be assisted by larger pensions or something and not just a handout as a subsidy to the farmer producing it.

It is really not a subsidy to the farmer. They call it a subsidy to the farmer but it is not, it amounts to a subsidy to the person buying the end product, because the farmer has his costs laid down. It is not a subsidy to him, it subsidizes the low-income person by keeping the price of goods down.

But in actuality you are not just helping the low-income person by this subsidy, you are also helping the person in a high income bracket. Of course, you take taxes away from the high income to give a subsidy to the farmer and it is a real circle, I grant you that, but I am not sure that it is the answer. I would be more inclined to think that the price in the marketplace should bear whatever the cost of production is and that it should be up to government and our citizens to see that the people are able to pay for their necessities.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things that a person could talk on. I had an article here that I thought was good and I think I picked it up in Toronto. I don’t know who distributed it, but I found this little item and it reminds me of something the reeve of Gossfield North, Mr. Joe Newman, would talk about. He was county councillor for 20 years and warden, and always had a good joke or two; he was always a great fellow. I was thinking of this when I read it and it says:

“High Cost of Living

“A farmer buying a new automobile was astonished at the extras listed on the bill of sale. Some time later when the car dealer inquired about buying a milk cow the farmer quoted the following price list:

“Basic cow, $100; two-tone finish, $45; four-barrel stomach, $75; genuine cowhide upholstery, $125; product storage and dispensing device, $60; four spigots at $10, $40; dual horns, $15; automatic flyswatter, $35 -- ”

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): They are getting smarter.

Mr. Ruston: “ -- field fertilizing device, $35; total, $540.”

Well you know how true that is. I heard the Minister of Agriculture for Canada say that the cow had the best manufacturing machinery of anything going and that man had it all listed; that is a very interesting thing. I must send that to the Minister of Agriculture for Canada, and one to the minister here.

Mr. Speaker, I should say a word or two to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), and the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman). Housing is, of course, a major thing in the cities and it is a major thing in all parts of Ontario as far as I am concerned. What concerns me -- and I have mentioned it I am sure on a number of other occasions but sometimes you have to keep repeating yourself to get the government to listen -- but I am concerned about the length of time it takes from the time the government decides to assist a municipality in building sewage disposal systems, until the day they put the first shovel in the ground to get construction going. It seems to me that there has just got to be a better way than the system as it is now.

When the province takes the responsibility of paying a major share of this, I don’t see why it couldn’t be government policy to say: “This is what we are to do. This is the money we are going to put into it, this is the money the municipality will put into it, and we authorize you to do that.” A large share of this delay is caused by the Ontario Municipal Board and its time in getting hearings set and giving approvals.

I don’t object to any decisions the Ontario Municipal Board has made. I think the board is always fair, but what concerns me is the length of time it takes to get an application over to them and get it back. When the contract is let, then if it’s a little different it has to go back to the board for more review and approval.

It seems to me that this should be a matter of government policy. It should not have to go back to the board. If the municipality agrees that this is what they have to do and the Ministry of the Environment agrees that we have to put this sewage lagoon in this town for the sake of the environment, then that should be enough. We should get our tenders out. We should get our plans and tenders out and go ahead and put them in, unless somebody is fooling somebody and we don’t need these, and they’re stalling. Although I don’t think that’s the reason, it makes one wonder when they go from five to six years before they get any construction going.

This really concerns me, because it drives up the cost of housing. If you had enough housing lots on the market today, in areas where I live anyway, you could buy a good lot for $7,000 and put a house on it for about $30,000. Then you’ve got a good home for $37,000 or even less. But they’re so scarce that they want $12,000 to $15,000 per lot.

I saw the other day in the paper where a house burned down and the guy decided to sell the lot. He was asking $16,000 for it. There are not that many around so they ask for a price and most of the time they get it because people can’t find lots because we have such a scarcity of lots.

This really has a lot to do with our inflation of housing. It’s the scarcity of lots. I think, Mr. Speaker, that that’s a matter of great concern. The government should take a lot more interest in seeing that these subdivision plans are approved right away and we get our construction going on these housing units.

Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve said about enough. I just would remark that one of the towns in my area is celebrating its centennial this year. I just want to say that the town of Belle River, 1874-1974, sends greetings from Mayor John George, Reeve Clifford George, Deputy Reeve Leonard Denomey, Councillor Marcel St. Pierre and Councillor Roy Byrne. The town has a great centennial programme planned for this year and we’ll welcome anybody to come down to our area. We’ll see that they are well treated, and when I say well treated I mean it. If you’re down in the area of Essex county, Belle River is having its centennial this year. I think on July 21 they are having a big parade.

Leamington, in the riding of Essex South is also having their centennial this year. If anybody is looking forward to visiting Essex county this year, we’ll be looking forward to making them welcome when they come down for the centennial of the town of Belle River and the town of Leamington. Thank you.

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

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, may I compliment the previous speaker on the quality of his address. I think he brought forward certain points that are of interest, not just to those who are in the western part of this province but also in the urban core, which is Metropolitan Toronto.

I noticed when he was talking about the new super crime-busting unit, he seemed to be a bit perplexed as to why, when he suggested that in addition to all the corporate lawyers and the accountants, the specialists who could deal with the complexities of the modern criminal, I seemed to be a bit amused by the fact that they would get somebody who had spent 10 years in jail. I would think that’s rather an admirable idea. I agree that sometimes it does take a crook to catch a crook.

What I was smiling at is that nobody does 10 years in jail anymore. It’s only seven and out for murder. In fact if you do more than three, there’s some suspicion that you’ve become an inmate who has a vested interest in part of the action inside of the place. The only smile I had was at where would he find anybody who at one time has ever done 10 years.

Mr. Huston: Maybe I meant sentenced to 10 years.

Mr. Drea: All right, sentenced to 10 would be fine. That means he would be out in about a year. That’s the way things are going these days. That’s another thing the man on the street doesn’t understand.

The man on the street has very simple and straightforward logic. If you go for 10, he doesn’t want to see you for 10. When he pays his parking ticket, they don’t give the man in the street one-third off for attending. They don’t take into consideration the fact that this may be a very bad week for him with his family. They don’t take account of the fact that, indeed, to pay a speeding ticket or some other driving offence or some of the common things that the ordinary people get involved in, he may lose a couple of hours off work. And unfortunately he doesn’t get paid for that either.

The courts, at that great moment in history, seem to look very sternly down from the bench; and when you go to pay, you either pay or it is the “or”.

Something the people on the street don’t understand is when you get 10 years why you don’t do 10; and when you get 20 how you are out in seven. I think that that is something that not only pertains to the federal penitentiaries’ system which has the longer term prisoners, but also with a great deal of truth to our own Ministry of Correctional Services and our own parole board.

We may have the shorter sentences, but people are inclined to think that when you are going to do two years less a day, they wouldn’t mind, 21 months with a couple of months off for good behaviour, but they certainly find it very difficult to understand six or seven months, a pat on the head and agreement that you were misunderstood.

After all, the person who has been robbed or hit over the head sometimes feels that the way things are going he has been at fault for having the audacity to have money in his pocket or to be walking at a certain place when someone who is misunderstood happened to come along.

Mr. Speaker, that leads me to the area of crime: and like the previous speaker I would like to talk a little bit about crime. Not only the organized and highly sophisticated types, but also the kind that, unfortunately, because of our geography perhaps, or perhaps because of our communications network, or perhaps because of our culture seems to almost be inevitably be upon us.

But first, Mr. Speaker, to the area of organized crime and the vast amounts of money that are generated. About 99 cents on the dollar of those vast amounts are generated from clandestine or illegal operations in the United States, or generated by the type of activity that is permitted in smaller countries but is not permitted in either the United States or Canada.

One of the difficulties with organized crime, Mr. Speaker, is that when you become successful at it you get yourself into a great deal of financial difficulty. You can’t hold onto the cash because if you do the income tax department wants to know why you have it and how you make your living. Besides, with inflation there is no sense hanging on to it because you are losing it at 10 or 11 or 12 per cent a year.

Since you have stolen it in the first place, I assume that you probably have much more concern about money than you do about other things, so that you have to invest it somewhere. And once again, when you go to invest in the corporate tax people, the income tax people in virtually every country in the world, would like to know how you got it, how did this vast amount arrive here.

Now then, in the past, Mr. Speaker, the concentration of that kind of money which is going through the process of being laundered or being made respectable and accountable, that type of money used to generate from New York City and from Philadelphia into the Province of Quebec.

When it was there it went into finance companies. Not the kind of finance company that operates nationally, but small finance companies that had they not access to this type of money probably, because of their own type of operation, would have found it very difficult to obtain money from the chartered banks or the recognized financial institutions. It was generated into the type of speculative building whereby there can be, without too much accountability, an enormous amount of profit -- or at the same time, there can be a small loss. And indeed, the small loss is sometimes very beneficial because it shows that at least there was a legal method to justify the enormous amount of cash flow.

That went on in the Province of Quebec for some time. Fortunately, in the Province of Quebec they at that time did have a crime buster who used both sophisticated and sometimes very blunt methods. He made life very untenable for the people who used to bring money from the United States into that province for investment, but where the real purpose was “laundering.” Unfortunately, that crusading Minister of Justice is no longer in that portfolio in the Province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker. He happens to be Claude Wagner, who has since become the leader of the federal Conservative Party in the Province of Quebec.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): He will be back in the cabinet, too.

Mr. Drea: Yes, I rather think that by August he once again will be the Hon. Claude Wagner. The only thing that will be changed from his crusading spirit will be that, like myself, his hair is just a little bit longer than it was in the high-rolling days.

Mr. J. R. Smith: July 9.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with the crackdown by the Ministry of Justice in the Province of Quebec, and with the somewhat uncertain economic climate in that province because of internal difficulties -- which providentially seem to have eased -- during that period of time this influx of foreign money began to come into this province.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that you have to be any kind of an expert now to realize that there are enormous amounts coming in. Whether they are actually invested or they just pass through here and in passage gain the respectability that the owners want, I think is immaterial. I think too, Mr. Speaker, there is a concerted feeling by the members of the public that this is not the type of thing that should be allowed to go on.

I agree with my friend the member for Essex-Kent that once again the man in the street cannot understand these intricate transactions where hundreds of thousands of dollars somehow cross over the border, are invested here -- nobody ever seems to know very much about them, nobody ever seems to be able to do anything about them.

But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that it is not the primary responsibility of a provincial government to get into this field, for I suggest to you there is only one way to end it. You cannot ask the credentials of someone with money, because if you begin asking the credentials of someone who wants to buy a building for $1 million, then, Mr. Speaker, you start asking the credentials of the fellow who goes to work and wants to build a house. And I think in that case the punishment, or the control, is far greater than the problem.

However, I don’t think any thinking person in Ontario wants the present situation to go on. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you the events of July 8 may be of massive significance in this field. For surely, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the question of the investments by organized crime from the United States in the Province of Ontario, the absolute, the final and the successful control -- in fact control is far too fine a word -- the permanent ban on such funds entering into not only this province but the entire Dominion, rests with the federal Minister of Finance. Because, after all, who else, by the British North America Act, can impose currency controls and currency regulations? The only way you can stop the influx of this money -- and indeed the casual visits by these people -- is by very strict and absolute currency controls.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that such controls are far outside of either the property or civil rights jurisdictions which the province has enjoyed. For it is not just Ontario that is being subjected to the pressures of these investment funds, particularly from the United States. The other provinces are involved, albeit to a much lesser extent. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, if you were to talk to the law authorities in the Province of British Columbia they would tell you they are concerned about some of the people who are making investments and where the money comes from. I would suggest to you that in the Province of Quebec, it has been a constant sore in the side of government after government -- and those represented not only the Liberal Party but the Union Nationale; it has been a thorn in their side.

The fundamental difficulty in this regard, Mr. Speaker, is that Canada is an investment country. We go to the world and we say: “Invest in us because we not only have the resources and the products -- many other countries have that -- but we also have the potential and we also have the stability of government that enhance your investment.”

Rightly or wrongly, Mr. Speaker, Canada has always been a high interest country. In the beginning we recognized that investment in the United States was more attractive than investment in Canada. We compensated with a higher interest rate. We are open to money from all over the world. And because we are open we are now, unfortunately, open to the type of detailed operation that was read into the record today by the member from Essex county.

I suggest to you a simple form of currency control. If you’re going to bring money in here let it be scrutinized by the federal Minister of Finance. Let it be scrutinized by the Bank of Canada. Let it be scrutinized by those who have access to the major international money markets. Let it be scrutinized by those who can make sure that it doesn’t come through any part of this country.

I suggest to you, it doesn’t matter if you ban it in Toronto, ban it coming across the bridge or through the tunnel at Windsor, ban it coming across at the falls, or ban it coming in through Montreal. Regardless of this it will come in from Halifax and wend its way back here.

Each step in the transaction only legitimizes the money and improves its condition, because the only reason it is coming here in the first place is to gain the respectability it needs in order to generate profits and provide a permanent yield to those who, quite frankly, rely upon the man in the street to keep them in business. It’s the man in the street who goes into the bookmaking parlours. It’s the man in the street who wants to gamble. It is the man in the street who looks for other forms of entertainment which are highly expensive to those who want to partake of them and even more lucrative to those who are willing to operate in that type of a demi-monde existence.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, law and order is out of control in the United States. When you say you should ban this type of person coming in here with their money, they’ll tell you they have no convictions. I’ve listened very attentively to that article from the Detroit paper. I noticed two or three times in it the guy said: “I’ve never been convicted of anything.” And yet the federal attorney knows what they do, the police know what they do; but nobody over there ever seems to be able to prove anything.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, rather than trying to aim at one or two people -- and mind you they deserve it; I find it very interesting that the man he was talking about in Toronto also figures quite prominently in the potato business. I find it very fascinating that a man who can make this kind of a deal internationally also has a great deal to do with something which comes on to everybody’s table, a staple like potatoes.

I suggest that no matter how much he deserves it as an individual, the way to put up a permanent curtain and barrier from Victoria all the way to St. John’s, Nfld., is for the federal government to accept its responsibilities in this area and to impose the type of currency restriction and currency control which would make these people show where the money came from. Since there will be innocent people or reputable people who have acquired large sums of money and do want to invest in Canada, I suggest that through the Bank of Canada and the privacy of the federal Minister of Finance is the way to bring about a really meaningful control.

I think it is deplorable at the same time, Mr. Speaker, that there are Canadians who are so willing to lend themselves to this type of activity. We have a different type of society from the society in those jurisdictions where this money is generated. Indeed, when one talks about crime, I think it is the greatest crime that for the sake of making money, someone will deliberately go out to subvert Canadian society and the Canadian way of life, so that ill-gotten gains from another jurisdiction can achieve respectability, can produce a mansion, a lot of cars and quite a few other things.

Mr. Speaker, that brings me to my second point concerning crime. I want to talk frankly about firearms. I think the member for Essex-Kent and the member for Essex South, because of their geographic locations, are probably far more acquainted with the problem of firearms, because Detroit at the moment, unfortunately, happens to be the murder capital of the world. I think this is a thing of concern to people not only in southwestern Ontario but in large urban centres like Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa; right across the province.

Mr. Speaker, in a brief period of time we have watched society to the south of us, on which we used to look up to not too many years ago, become a gun-crazy society. We have watched violence replace what used to be the rule of law and order when law and order meant something other than giving the police the unrestricted right to do what they pleased when they pleased and how they pleased to anybody they wanted.

We used to admire the society in the United States. We used to admire a society that could elect as president a man like John F. Kennedy. We began to get disillusioned when someone, for $11, $12 or $13 was able to buy an obsolete Italian army rifle, shoot him and kill him.

A great many Canadians admired the late Martin Luther King. A significant number of Canadians worked for him in many of his activities because he stood for an admirable kind of law and order, one which said “Even if the law is bad, you cannot use violence to overcome it. You use passive resistance and a number of other techniques.” Mr. Speaker, they were appalled when he was shot by an escaped convict who found no difficulty in buying a rifle in a sporting goods store.

There are a great many Canadians who were very impressed with the late Robert Kennedy. They thought he would make a fine President of the United States particularly at a time when we were watching society in the United States begin to crumble. Canadians were appalled when someone who had all the earmarks of being demented, was able to shoot and kill him.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago the most heavily-guarded man in North America was Governor Wallace of Alabama. Not only had he his personal bodyguards, he had state police bodyguards and he was guarded around the clock because everyone thought that sooner or later someone would take a shot at him. Canadians were appalled when a man who walked up to shake hands shot him. Apparently the wound has permanently crippled him. They were even more appalled to find out that the man who had done that had crossed the border and had every intention of killing the President of the United States when he was visiting Ottawa, except, unfortunately for the purposes of the assassin, fortunately for Canadians and fortunately for Mr. Nixon, he couldn’t seem to get close enough in Ottawa to do the deed.

Mr. Speaker, for the last 10 years people in this province and in this city have thought it appalling that a man could send away and buy an obsolete high-powered rifle and the ammunition for it through the mail. Everybody in the Province of Ontario can do the same thing. I refer you to page 394 of the Simpsons-Sears catalogue. On the page, among the firearms and ammunition that it offers for sale through the mail, it offers a Lee-Enfield .303. The Lee-Enfield .303 used to be the standard British Army rifle. The only thing that has been done is that the stock, which is probably the least important part of a firearm, has been somewhat modified, probably sanded down a bit, and then varnished lightly to make it more attractive to sportsmen. The only restriction on that page in the catalogue is that it says: “You must be over 17 to buy guns and ammo by mail.”

That was an intriguing sentence to me, Mr. Speaker, because I was always under the impression that, while you could buy almost anything by mail, you couldn’t send ammunition or explosives through the Canada Post Office. I rather suspect that what they mean by mail is that it will come to you by express. But it really doesn’t matter very much, because you are filling out an order form, no one even gets to see you, you can charge it on your credit card or you can write them a cheque and a man will come to your door. The only question that anybody is ever asked is: “Are you over 17?”

So in short, Mr. Speaker, people in Ontario say it certainly couldn’t happen here. Lee Harvey Oswald was a piker; he bought a real cheap gun through the mail. He could have purchased, through the mail order outlet here, a much more accurate rifle, and, quite frankly, in terms of this special price, because it’s a sale, in terms of constant dollars he would in 1974 be receiving a much better bargain, just in terms of cash, than on what he purchased back in the 1960s.

Mr. Speaker, we have a large department store in Toronto that traditionally will not sell cigarettes across the counter, at least in its main store. It will sell you a rifle and ammunition across a counter in the main store. If cigarettes are a moral hazard or a health hazard, it may be very commendable for that establishment not to sell them. I give them marks for that. But how do you equate the moral or health hazard of a package of cigarettes with selling, indiscriminately and without very much check a high-powered rifle, the ammunition for it; a shotgun, or indeed, since they are a rather deadly device at close range, even the cheapest form of small-calibre rifle? In the end it matters very little; if you are close enough and hit the right spot, even the smallest will do the job.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me we are at the crossroads in this province. We have watched the rule of the gun take over to the south of us in the second half of the 20th century when it supposedly had ended at the turn of the century. In the United States, in Mexico, in Central America and in most of South America it is quite true that the gun settled the issue and decided who owned what land and for how long.

In Canada, despite the fact that our children, as we were, are constantly subjected to the mythology of the American culture, the gun was not a significant item in the development of Canada and in the harnessing of the potential of the western frontier.

Our frontier was settled with the plough.

In our frontier to the west and now to the north, instead of the wild west and instead of the vigilantes or the Colt revolver, our system of justice and of law and order went west with the mounted policemen. And there is a fundamental difference between the image of the Northwest Mounted policeman and that of the western sheriff or the town marshal. You do not see any type of drawing or early tintype of a Northwest Mounted policeman when his rifle was not in the scabbard, on his horse; and his pistol was in a closed holster with the lanyard around his neck. There is a big difference between that type of necessary protective armament and the six-shooter tied down on the leg with an open hammer cocked for a fast draw and an instant solution.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think it is impossible for the United States ever to turn their back on the law of the gun, but that does not mean that it has to be inevitable in Ontario or anywhere in Canada that we have to tread along the path where everybody arms himself because he is frightened of his next-door neighbour, of somebody down the street, or of a minority group, of social change or just because he wants to be in the vanguard of those who are supposedly standing up for the things that count.

That was not the way this province was developed, Mr. Speaker. Even in the north, when we talk about the cracking of the frontier at the turn of the century in northern Ontario, and we talk about a rather chaotic society, it is in terms of a few fist-fights in a crowded beer hall on a Friday or Saturday night. There are no Billy the Kids or any of these people in Ontario. That’s why they say our history is dull. They don’t exist anywhere in Canada; they never were here.

It seems to me that a nation that could take that type of a moral tone, when it faced exactly the same problems in moving west and moving north as did American and Spanish society, should be in a position to set not only the moral but the legal tone for what is going to happen to the gun in our society.

I realize that like everything else in this country, this is a split jurisdiction. I don’t want to criticize the federal government. I think the federal government, while it hasn’t done everything that people like myself would like to see, has tried to cope with the problem of the handgun or the concealed weapon. That is in the Criminal Code. That is their responsibility. I think they have tried to cope with that. I think the present legislation in the Criminal Code, the present enforcement of it -- because of the sheer volume of the problem -- is not working as intended in the omnibus legislation which was introduced in 1968.

But that doesn’t excuse us, Mr. Speaker, in this province, from assuming the responsibilities we have in the jurisdiction over guns. We do have jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction over those types of firearms that are not in the Criminal Code. We have jurisdiction over rifles. We have jurisdiction over shotguns. If we want to assume it, we have the right to restrict the use of these weapons. We have the right to restrict the ownership of these weapons. We also have the right to restrict and control the places where they will be sold.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, there was no public outcry when the old Ministry of Lands and Forests moved in to the gun safety field and said that anyone who is going to apply for a hunting licence for the first time -- particularly the younger people -- had to undergo a gun safety course administered by people who were fully conversant with not only the dangers but also the proper use of those weapons in the bush.

That was necessary at that time, Mr. Speaker, because of the appalling death toll. We had people killing themselves walking through the fields because they went to climb over a fence and didn’t know the proper method of making sure the rifle was not in a position to discharge if their foot happened to slip.

We were faced with the problems of inquests because people went into duck blinds and were minding their own business and preparing to shoot and they happened to move and other people just blasted away because if anything moved it had to be the kind of an animal that you were hunting.

There wasn’t any public outcry, Mr. Speaker, and that was gun control. What we were saying was: If you want to hunt there is a responsibility; we will extend to you the privilege of hunting but it is your responsibility to undergo training so that you know the type of weapon that you are carrying and its potential for harm. You should respect the violence and the permanency of the impact of that weapon and therefore, when you are hunting you will be hunting in the safest possible manner; not only to protect your own life, not only to protect the lives of your fellow hunters but also to protect the innocent bystanders, like the farmers and the farm children who happen to be in the proximity of areas where at certain times of the year there are literally hundreds of armed people stalking through the bush, and unfortunately sometimes firing at even the least little wiggle of grass or the snap of a twig.

We did that and there was no outcry. I suggest to you the reason there was no outcry is that it was not only eminently sensible but it met a need. People were concerned about the indiscriminate carrying and use of rifles and shotguns in the bush and in the country. They wanted something done.

And it was done through the proper authorities. It didn’t become a big bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker; it wasn’t a cumbersome procedure to go through. You took your training through the local gun club. These were local people who knew local needs; who knew the local people. It has worked remarkably well. I could quote you the statistics, Mr. Speaker, to show that the death toll and the injury toll in the sport of hunting has gone down since that time. There is also a side effect to this: There is a new respectability for the hunter, because now the very possession of the hunting licence is a certificate that this is a responsible person who, in return for the privilege of partaking in a sport that requires the use of public lands as well as the right to cross over far more private land, has put some time in to accepting his own responsibilities. I don’t think that there’s very much difference between that and a control of firearms in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we have an appalling number of firearms in Ontario. Nobody even knows how many. One of the best estimates is somewhere around two million. That means, literally, there’s a firearm for about one out of every four people in this province. When you consider that a significant number of people in this province are under the age of 16, another considerable number are over the age of 65 and a very large percentage are female, where are the two million firearms in the Province of Ontario?

A year and a half ago I asked the then Solicitor General, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko), if it was really true that in Toronto there were 100,000 unlicensed handguns -- that there were somewhere around 200,000 handguns in existence, but 100,000 of them were illegal. I thought he’d say no. In fact, the real reason I asked him was when I read that in the newspaper I thought this was some kind of a myth, that this was some kind of a fancy figure, and let’s not alarm people. I was flabbergasted when he had to come back and say that appears to be about right.

First of all, I think it’s rather frightening that there are so many occupations in Metropolitan Toronto where even 100,000 pistols can be legally registered. There aren’t that many policemen. There aren’t that many Ontario Provincial policemen here. Take in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, take in the pistols that may be necessary for the militia, take in the people who guard money, such as the express guards through whatever company is employing them, take in the people who carry expensive jewellery or payrolls or other matters, it seems very odd to me that in a place of this size there’s a need for 100,000 legal handguns.

Frankly, it’s rather frightening that for every legal one there is an illegal one. Incidentally Mr. Speaker, unless you have something of significance on your record, the fine for an unlicensed pistol at the moment is exactly the same as for driving when you don’t have your licence. For failure to produce a licence or failure to produce an insurance certificate in the provincial courts, the fine for an unlicensed revolver that was found on you is $50 plus $3.50 costs. Somehow the possession of the handgun is now equated with the same type of carelessness when you don’t happen to have your insurance certificate available when you’re stopped on a relatively minor motor offence.

I think that’s of some significance, because if the possession of an unlicensed revolver was considered to be a significant crime, then I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it would be reflected in the punishment. I suggest to you that indirectly but inevitably we are on the road to Detroit. We are on the road to becoming Chicago. We are on the road to becoming Los Angeles and we are on the road to becoming New York City. The only thing that has saved us so far is that it has taken a little bit more time for the culture of the gun to so permeate our society that by default it is becoming acceptable.

What is the difference about reading a story from the United States about the purchase of a “Saturday-night special” -- I think at the moment a Saturday-night special, which is a cheap pistol in Detroit, would cost around $27 or $28 -- what is the difference between that and sending away by mail for a high-powered rifle?

Mr. Speaker, a victim would be in much better shape if he was more than 20 ft away from a person with a Saturday-night special, than he would be if the person had the type of firearm that you can legally, openly, easily, conveniently, and even on credit, buy in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, in Ireland they have a war. I think it’s a very sad war; I have personal reasons for thinking that. Do you know that we have six times the number of firearms in this country as they do in Ireland, and they are at war? They shoot each other every day over there, but we have six times as many firearms per capita.

For 25 years, Israel has been in a constant state of war; one never knows when someone is going to throw a bomb or shoot, or the cold war becomes the hot war. It’s a country that is supposedly armed to the teeth, where everybody can because of necessity defend his own home on an instant’s notice. And I’m sad for them, because I think they should have the right to have their own home without that kind of a thing. But just accepting the state of life there, we have three times as many firearms in Canada as they do in Israel per person -- and they are at war.

In fact, the only place that we are better than in terms of firearms is the United States -- and that is very small comfort. Because of the activities of the gun lobbies in the United States -- and surely they must be the most selfish, the most irresponsible and the most anti-social political lobbies ever mounted -- because of the tremendous pressure in the United States, there is a feeling that anybody who talks about gun control in Canada, particularly anybody who talks about the control of rifles and shotguns in Ontario, is about to face the wrath of thousands, if not indeed millions.

I must say I am indebted to the Toronto Star for advising me of that. I thought this was the kind of thing that decent people wanted. I have yet to meet anybody who doesn’t want it. I have yet to meet anybody who really was violently opposed to it, who said, “I have the absolute right to have a firearm at all times.” They are as rare as confessed land speculators, Mr. Speaker; just as rare.

Why then the delay? Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the reason why governments in this country, both the federal government and many provincial governments, have ignored this fundamental issue in our society term after term, is because they are afraid of this wrath that even concerns the mighty Toronto Star. There is no wrath. There is no more wrath, there is no more lobby against a decent, normal type of gun control in this province than there is against any other type of legislation that is needed.

There may be arguments on the better way. There may be some concern about the things that people have been doing, particularly in gun collecting or in the recreational use of firearms for hunting or other target shooting and so on, that perhaps their traditional way of doing things may be a little upset by the introduction of controls. There may be the concern -- and I think it’s always there when government is considering introducing any type of control -- or the fear of bureaucracy taking over. There may be the honest concern of the farmer who does require a firearm, particularly if he has stock. He may have to destroy some of the stock. He may have to protect his stock. Indeed, he may want to have a relatively inoffensive small calibre firearm around to protect his crops.

I refuse to believe that the farmers of Ontario are going to march on Queen’s Park because we are going to do something about gun control. I refuse to believe that the farmers of this province are not as aware as city dwellers of what has happened not too far away, that steps are needed and that they have sent people to this Legislature who are capable of producing a programme which will cause the least amount of inconvenience to those who legitimately require the use and ownership of firearms and make it the most inconvenient -- in fact a permanent ban -- on those who do not require them, have no good use for them and never will use them except upon impulse. Mr. Speaker, when one uses a firearm on impulse, there is no turning back. It is an irrevocable act.

I suggest that in the area of gun control the most responsible people in this province are the gun collectors for they have suggested the way. They have suggested that the same high standards which apply to them apply throughout the province. That is a fundamental departure from the administration of the Criminal Code type of registration for in the Criminal Code and for hand guns, we register the weapon by serial number.

This is impossible, particularly for the farmer with the small calibre cheap rifle and the inexpensive shotgun. They simply do not have serial numbers. Also the bookkeeping and the constant updating of the records is not only expensive, it is formidable. I suggest it might very well lead to the type of bureaucracy none of us wants in this area.

When it comes to the gun collector, it is registration of the person. If one wants to be in a position to collect not only pistols and revolvers but automatic weapons one must be registered as a person. It is not just the serial number on the automatic weapon one has purchased, it is the person. The serial number, the records -- yes, they are important but the fundamental licensing is of the person.

It is the gun collectors of this province who are being maligned because people are saying “They are going to mount a lobby against us.” They are not; they are the ones who suggested we register the person. When a person feels he has a necessity for firearms, whether for occupation, for recreation or for hobby purposes as a collector, we look at the person. Is he or she the type of person who can be relied upon as much as we rely upon anybody to act responsibly toward that weapon and toward the ammunition.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that ammunition is an interesting thing. If it wasn’t for ammunition, we could take off all the controls on guns, even the concealed weapons. All they are is a club without the ammunition. They are valueless without the ammunition so I suggest it not only is practical indeed, it is desirable that we begin to come to grips with the question of unrestricted rifle and shotgun ownership in this province. I was going to say “use,” but it’s not unrestricted use. A great many municipalities have bylaws making it against the law to discharge a weapon. For instance, if you want to shoot your rifle into the air in Toronto it’s against the bylaws. You’re not supposed to discharge it. It’s one thing to catch somebody target shooting in Toronto. That’s pretty easy. The police aren’t too far away. Houses are close together. Neighbours are around. It’s much more difficult in the country, Mr. Speaker. You wander out into the country where there’s just an empty field and blaze away. By the time anybody notices, you can conveniently have departed the scene. And if you’re questioned, you can say you really didn’t see those little signs that said not to discharge firearms within municipal limits.

Mr. Speaker, the rifle and the shotgun are freely available -- and not just in the downtown department stores. I was walking along Yonge St. this morning and, unlike my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement), I am not so much interested in the aids to the flesh as I am in who is selling what type of firearm. I noticed sales on. I noticed some weapons displayed in windows. I noticed the attributes of those weapons boasted about. I noticed the instant delivery available. Nobody asked any questions.

Mr. Speaker, for the life of me, I do not know why anybody in an urban area requires a rifle or a shotgun, unless they are a bona fide hunter as certified by their hunter’s licence. I don’t know why anybody would want to keep a rifle in his dwelling unless he was a hunter or, indeed, in that rather rare field, a gun collector. What are you going to do with it?

There is a very sad case in my riding, and I don’t want to refer to it in detail, because it’s still sub judice. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in that case the person who is now charged would give anything in this world if that irrevocable act of anger, or frustration -- it was not intended to do what it did; everybody knows that -- if that could be erased. But it cannot be because the rifle was available. The ammunition was available and it’s very easy to pull a trigger.

Mr. Speaker, the sportsman -- that is the hunter or the target shooter -- need have no fear about any type of control legislation on rifles or shotguns. The fact that he, or she, belongs to a gun club -- and I’ve never yet heard of a target shooter who did not belong to some kind of a club; they have to shoot somewhere. The hunter, he or she, doesn’t have to fear; they have their hunting licence. That not only certifies but underlines, as I said before, the fact that they have accepted their responsibilities towards firearms.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the farmer has anything to fear, because the farmer uses firearms for the protection of his stock, or his crop -- or, indeed, in some places, probably for his own protection. There’s nobody who is going to arbitrarily take away his right to a weapon; for he has established it. He also acts responsibly toward it. But, Mr. Speaker, the people who are going to be affected are the people who are making a good dollar out of the sale of war surplus weapons.

Mr. Speaker, the war was over in 1945. Even if you want to take the Korean war into account, there has not been a significant production of armaments in this country since 1953. That is more than 21 years ago. How much longer do we have to go on with war surplus stores featuring weapon after weapon after weapon?

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, most of the goods they sell are imported. This is weaponry that has become obsolescent in other armies; the weapons have been sold in job lots, and they are now being merchandised throughout this province and others.

Mr. Speaker, the man on the street is getting concerned about the frequency with which firearms are being used -- and not only in the commission of the conventional type or the inescapable type of crime. I don’t think there is a person who does not accept the fact that if you are going to be a bank robber you are going to have to be armed. I think we all recognize that. I don’t think there is anyone who thinks that any type of gun control, whether it be the Criminal Code on pistols or concealed weapons as we have now, or what I am proposing in terms of the rifle or the shotgun, will stop armed bank robbers. They are anti-social, Mr. Speaker, they have no regard for society. They are going to arm themselves one way or another; they are always there.

But, Mr. Speaker, this does not mean that because a percentage, perhaps two -- no, that’s too high -- perhaps one per cent of the population chooses to defy and to not go along with the law that doesn’t mean that you don’t put laws in. If that was the criterion, then you would throw out the sections of the Criminal Code concerning pistols or concealed weapons. You would say since one per cent or two per cent are flaunting the law, or since this is the number of unregistered or illegal firearms, then the law no longer is obeyed, the law is no longer respected -- throw it all out.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a single candidate in the next federal election -- the one that we have now -- from any party who would suggest that you throw out the Criminal Code on concealed weapons, not one. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if indeed you could find more than a handful of all the candidates -- not just from the major parties, of all the candidates -- who would want to ease in anyway the restrictions that now apply to hand guns. So it is a very facetious argument that because a number of anti-social people in our society are defying the law that that means we should have no law. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, anarchy would have been with us a long time ago.

But I also suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, if the people of Ontario want harder and harsher jail sentences for those who indiscriminately or illegally use firearms, if they want a tightening up of the registration processes, a tightening up on the importation regulations, a tightening up on gun sales in general, if they want that then I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, it ill behoves the Province of Ontario to point the finger at the federal government and the Solicitor General unless we are prepared to do something as meaningful.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the statistics will bear me out. The control of rifles and shotguns is just as imperative in our society as the control of hand guns. The statistics show that 38 per cent of the gun offences in Metropolitan Toronto involved rifles and shotguns. And, unfortunately, if you take away the professional criminal, who will get a pistol or some other weapon one way or the other -- if you take him out of those statistics; you remove him, because he is always going to be with you -- if you look at those statistics, the bulk of the other firearm offences are conducted by people who use rifles or shotguns.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, control is necessary if we are to avoid the fate of the US cities. Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether you have ever been in Mexico, but when you are taking a long drive across the desert, and people know you have money, they sometimes suggest to you that you carry a little something with you. They hand you a cocked .38 and tell you to leave it on the seat of the car.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t want ever to have to take a long drive across the Province of Ontario with a cocked .38 in the front of my car.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): The member is getting carried away.

Mr. Drea: No, I think it is a valid argument.

Mr. Deans: Some of his argument makes a lot of sense, but he is getting carried away.

Mr. Drea: It does, all of it does. I haven’t even warmed up, yet.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt ): Give it to him.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want --

Mr. Deans: Then the member should be carried out, not away.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to reside in a city that has gone the way of Detroit, or Chicago, or some other places. Mr. Speaker, there is not that much fundamental difference between Americans and Canadians. There is not much basic difference. There is at the moment a difference in attitudes, but their current attitude towards the pistol wasn’t that pronounced in the 1940s or the 1950s, it only came about in the 1960s.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Our history is different.

Mr. Drea: If you were here -- I elaborated at great length. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the first gun control on this continent was put into effect in New York State. This state, theoretically, has banned almost everyone from carrying a pistol since the turn of the century, and yet it finds out now that virtually a good one-third of its population is illegally armed.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that we in Ontario are at the crossroads. We can give lip service to the federal government tightening up the Criminal Code procedures. I suppose we can put some more economics behind the registration branch of the larger police forces and of the Ontario Provincial Police for pistols and concealed weapons. I think that’s overdue.

But, we must begin meaningfully to deal with the bulk of the weaponry in this province, and the bulk are rifles and shotguns. There are probably three or four times as many rifles and shotguns as there are pistols in Toronto. They both do the same job; in fact, one, if you know what you are doing, will do a far better job. In fact, I suggest to you if you don’t know what you are doing, a rifle or shotgun will do a far, far better job. Having had considerable experience with that I would suggest that the amateur would be much better off with a rifle or a shotgun. You can create quite a bit of devastation without knowing exactly what you are doing, with a shotgun.

But, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it is a valid argument to suggest that by coming to grips with this situation that the members of this Legislature are going to incur the wrath of the people who now legitimately use and have access to firearms. I cannot see how we would annoy a single sportsman -- he has already been annoyed, because either he has gone through the training programme or he has his hunter’s licence. He has already done that. The collector is already rigidly licensed and rigidly inspected. To the farmer, as I’ve suggested, the inconvenience would be only incidental. Incidentally, it is very interesting talking to farmers who say that they don’t want this. You talk to them and they tell you they are just as concerned about the indiscriminate use of firearms, and perhaps, more than those of us in the built-up urban areas. They don’t talk about people becoming alienated and going off the deep end. They talk about the kooks who walk down the road and let go. We may be a bit more sophisticated in our approach but they face the same basic problem.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member would find this a convenient spot to break his remarks since we do have a private members’ hour.

Mr. Drea: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Drea moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR

ONTARIO RENT CONTROL AND SECURITY OF TENURE ACT

Mr. Cassidy moves second reading of Bill 40, An Act to provide for Rent Control and Security of Tenure.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Okay, now.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I am subject to some kibitzing from my hon. friends, Mr. Speaker. However, as I think you will learn, they are all firmly in support of this bill, which is in fact an expression of official policy of the New Democratic Party in Ontario. In fact, the need for this bill has become much more urgent in the past year than when it was originally introduced in the 1973 session -- so much so that it has now been urged by the Toronto city council and by the North York council; and in fact the principle has even commended itself to the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), who has introduced a rather weak bill to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act which essentially endorses the same principles as Bill 40, which we have before us today.

Mr. Speaker, under the current conditions in the housing market, the way is clear for landlords to subject tenants to exploitative and unjustified rent increases, and they have absolutely no protection. This government has repeatedly refused the opportunities to equalize the powers between landlords and tenants; it has consistently taken the landlord’s side in landlord-tenant relations, and that is one of the reasons why we are at the situation we are at today.

Because of the inflation in housing prices in the province, which has been created by policies of this government, more and more people, particularly families with young children, have been compelled to become tenants or to remain tenants, having no other options. They are now in a position where they are at the mercy of landlords who can charge whatever they feel the market will bear because of an unreasonably tight housing situation.

It’s in those situations, Mr. Speaker, that it is time that we had a code of conduct, if you will, for landlords and for tenants in order that the relationships, which have been becoming poisoned by the current market situation, can be sorted out on a rational basis.

Years ago landlords and tenants seemed to get along fairly well; there was a kind of a friendly relationship between them, in which there was some tolerance by tenants for landlords and some tolerance by landlords for their tenants. That situation has changed with the introduction of very large property management companies and with the introduction into the housing market of a large number of smaller speculative landlords whose main aim is simply to make a fast buck -- the Rachmans of Ontario, if you will. We’ve seen a number of them in Ontario; in fact, they were one of the reasons that I originally got into politics.

Our problems in Centre Town Ottawa, which is in my riding of Ottawa Centre, have now become universal to every large city in the province. As more and more people are forced to be tenants, as the options available shrink and as the vacancy rate shrinks, thanks to the housing policy of the government, people are subjected to rent increases of $20, $30 and $40 for no increase in services; in fact, it’s often for a decrease in service.

The other day I had a phone call from a lady in a townhouse in North York, here in Toronto, whose rent was being raised from $216 a month to $298 a month. I have a letter here from a lady who lives on Metcalfe St., in the riding of Ottawa Centre, in a building that is 25 years old and where the tenants have had great difficulty in even getting painting or decorating, having the floors cleaned or any other kind of help like that, but last year they were subjected to rent increases of 10 per cent to 15 per cent, which were simply not justified by any increases in costs.

The statistics on this particular field are difficult to find. They are difficult to find for several reasons. The CHMC figures are clearly misleading. The information one receives over the telephone is much more instructive but is not comprehensive. I think if the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) were here he could probably produce some of the best information about the kinds of rent that people are having to pay and the kind of rent increases to which they are being subjected.

In the recent city of Toronto report, with which they backed up their request to the province for a rent freeze over the next six months, estimates were given, according to CMHC, that the rent of a bachelor apartment in Toronto is now averaging $152 a month and for census Metropolitan Toronto, $149 a month. In the case of a one-bedroom apartment, it’s $181 in Toronto; for a two-bedroom apartment the average rent of units available in Toronto is $270 and for the three-bedroom apartment, the average is $323 a month. Mr. Speaker, that is clearly quite out of the reach of the average Ontario family, the average Toronto family. It has to be taken in comparison with the average industrial wage here in the province which is still in the order of $160 or $165 a week.

Now, many years ago, back in the early 1960s, that average industrial wage was barely enough for a small apartment in the city of Toronto, but at that time people earning the average industrial wage who were raising families could buy a home or they could rent a flat. Nowadays the accommodation which is available on the market is almost exclusively high-rise accommodation. And families, if they cannot afford a home of their own -- that is, if they have an income of less than $17,000 or $18,000 -- are forced to rent. That family earning the average industrial wage simply cannot pay $250, $300, $325 a month -- the rents that are prevailing for family-sized apartment accommodation. And there is no protection for them. The landlords simply say that they should be subjected to the normal forces of the market and the devil take the hindmost and the government is no more willing to look after their particular plight.

I have a letter here from the minister in which he thanks me for a copy of the bill in which he then says there is some question in his mind as to whether one can transpose the Quebec experience with Ontario since the rental accommodation market in the major centres in Ontario has been different in several respects from that of Quebec in recent years.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the major way in which the rental market has been different in this province in recent years has been that it is a lot tougher, a lot tighter, a lot more inflationary. And yet it is very interesting and very curious that since 1953 the Province of Quebec has had a rent regulation or rent control system which has worked with a fair measure of success on the older properties to which it applies. And, Mr. Speaker, the principles of the Quebec legislation are the principles which are adopted in the legislation that is put before you in the Act to provide for Rent Control and Security of Tenure.

There are a number of important things that I think should be singled out because this is not panic legislation. It is carefully thought out and has been developed in conjunction with community groups, tenants’ groups and the like. This is not legislation that simply is directed to the question of the price of housing. It is also directed at providing better conditions for tenants in order to protect them against arbitrary action by landlords.

Those members who have examined the bill of the member for St. George will note that while it allows a landlord and tenant review tribunal to protect tenants against an unreasonable increase -- and there is no definition for that -- for a period of up to a year, there is nothing to stop the landlord from subsequently evicting his tenant, bringing in a new tenant and imposing the rent increase that he couldn’t get the first time around.

Now, it seems to us in the New Democratic Party that now that we have reached the situation where such a large number of people in the province are tenants; where certain people would prefer to be tenants and many more are compelled to be tenants because they simply cannot afford to purchase housing, we should do our best to equalize the condition of tenure as between owners and tenants. And the chief difference is the security, Mr. Speaker. If someone owns his own home then short of expropriation he cannot be kicked out except on economic grounds, and presumably it’s difficult for him to be kicked out on economic grounds if he was able to afford the house in the first place. If someone is a tenant, however, he can be kicked out if the superintendent doesn’t like the colour of his eyes or the way in which his daughter punches the elevator buttons on the way to or from school.

In those conditions, a family can find itself put out on the streets in the middle of the school year, with only four weeks’ and a bit notice, with no place to go and with no legal redress beyond an appeal to courts, which have proven themselves to be totally biased in favour of the landlords.

As far as the landlord is concerned, the only reason he needs to give in court to justify an eviction is that he didn’t want the people to stay or he wanted to empty or vacate the unit. The fact that he may have had no tenant for the unit doesn’t matter. The fact that the tenants may have been perfectly good tenants doesn’t matter.

If the tenants had been seeking to bring an action under the Landlord and Tenant Act, they conceivably may have an action against the landlord and be able to stay the eviction -- but that is a very temporary thing, because within a few months the landlord can come back and kick them out once the procedure under the Landlord and Tenant Act is complete.

What this bill says is that a tenant should be guaranteed security of tenure, and that this is a necessary accompaniment to the guarantee against arbitrary or unjustified rent increases. Clearly, tenants, like landlords, have got obligations; and those obligations are spelled out in the criteria under which a landlord can seek an eviction in the bill.

As I can recall them, a tenant who doesn’t pay his rent; a tenant who causes a persistent nuisance in the community; a tenant who is running a brothel or has some other illegal activity in his apartment; a tenant whose premises are overcrowded, according to the standards laid out in the law; a tenant who is damaging the rented property or its environs -- can be evicted on order from the landlord and tenant tribunal, which is set up in this particular bill.

In other words, there are clear reasons by which a tenant can be guided if he knows what he has to do to get kicked out, or alternatively, what he has not to do in order to stay in.

Finally, there is the one exception made, again paralleling the Quebec experience, which permits a landlord once every five years to actually ask a tenant to leave and to compel him to leave if the landlord needs that property for the uses of himself or of a close relative; and that is to take account of a situation of a very small landlord. As I recall, I think that we said that this bill should not apply to the situation of a family residence where there were one or two lodgers and which was not being run essentially as a commercial activity, because that is rather too far from the ordinary market.

At any rate Mr. Speaker, the security of tenure has got to be in this bill or else a landlord can evict a tenant who takes that landlord before the landlord and tenant tribunal in order to get a rent determination.

The next thing, also drawn from the Quebec experience, is an effort which I think would be successful, because it has been successful in Quebec, to ensure that the principles of this bill, as far as rent regulation is concerned, are administered so far as possible in the private sector, rather than by an army of bureaucrats.

The principle is that rent should only increase insofar as costs increase. If a landlord’s mortgage comes due and he has got to pay a higher mortgage rate, then clearly he has got some increased costs and that justifies some passing on of the cost of the tenants. If fuel oil goes up, or gas, electricity or maintenance costs go up, if there are substantial renovations that are clearly required, then a landlord is justified is asking the tenant to pay part of that burden.

We don’t object to that, Mr. Speaker. What we do object to is the landlord who simply piles an extra $20 on the rent every year or every year and a half for profit-making purposes, and the rapid passage of property from one owner to another in which rents are raised, the value is capitalized, reflected in a new purchase price and then the new landlord, in turn, finding himself overcommitted, raises the rents once again; and so it goes. That would not be permitted under this particular bill.

The bill says that rent review officers, who would work in a very informal fashion, would seek to mediate any dispute between landlords and tenants where the landlord and tenant couldn’t reach a decision on their own. It says that if the rent review officer is called in and the landlord and tenant are at odds over a new rent determination, if the landlord is asking more than the tenant feels is justified, say, then the landlord’s books should be open to the tenant. The bill says that if tenants wish to work in common, they may do so; because of security of tenure they are protected from arbitrary eviction which is often the fate of tenants who seek to organize their colleagues and fellow residents under the existing landlord and tenant law.

Only if one party or the other rejects the decision of the rent review officer, Mr. Speaker, would the case then go before the tribunal which is established in this bill. The landlord and tenant tribunal would then have the powers to make a rent determination, which would be binding on both parties.

I think the experience of Quebec in the early months of its new Act, which is very similar to this one, is very instructive. This indicates that 90 per cent of the cases referred to the rent review officers under their Act have been settled without going to their regie de loyer, their rent tribunal; and, for that matter, most cases of rent determination are settled without even having to go to the officials that are established under the Quebec Act.

I would point out, too, to the critics -- and I know that one or two people in the government are liable to cite the instances of rent control in other jurisdictions -- that as far as the critics are concerned, they had better look at the situation, not in exotic parts of the world, not in Britain and not in New York City, but in an area where the conditions most closely parallel those that we have in Ontario; that is, in the Province of Quebec.

Quebec has had rent control for 21 or 22 years. Previous to that, Quebec had rent control under the federal Act, which came in, I believe, in 1939 or 1940. So for a period of more than 30 years there has been rent control in Quebec of a flexible nature, which allowed landlords to pass on increases in costs but prevented the kind of inflationary cost increases and rent increases we have had here in Ontario.

According to all the critics, including numberless government back-benchers in this Legislature, the Urban Development Institute and other people like that, one should see slum after slum in downtown Montreal; one should see a completely frozen residential construction industry; one should see a situation of quite arbitrary differences in rents between the non-controlled sector and the controlled sector -- all sorts of disastrous things should be happening.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the major criticism about the Quebec legislation has probably been that it should have been advertised more actively. On the older property to which it is applied, it is applied successfully; and the rents on working class accommodation in Montreal, for example, have remained much more stable than they have in a comparable city, that is in Toronto.

Secondly, there has not been the drying-up of construction of accommodation, of duplexes, of walk-up apartments, of apartments and of other kinds of accommodation directed to working people that one would have expected, according to the critics. In fact, there has been a very steady flow of this kind of accommodation on to the Quebec market over the last 20 years, particularly in Montreal, the city whose market I happen to know best.

Then what about other kinds of accommodation? There has also been a steady flow of accommodation in the luxury and semi-luxury class. It has only been in the last year or so that Montreal for the first time has experienced any severe problems with a tight vacancy rate, and that is due to other economic circumstances, certainly not to this particular rent control thing, because after all rent control has been around for 20 or 30 years, and hasn’t had the predicted impact.

It seems to me that the experience in Quebec shows that it is possible to provide security of tenure, as they do in Quebec; it is possible to provide a code of conduct or a standard for landlords and tenants, a court of appeal for tenants -- or for landlords, for that matter, because sometimes landlords get aggrieved -- and it is possible to build enough flexibility in it to prevent the situations that have happened in Britain and in New York, where they do have a sharp disparity between the controlled and uncontrolled markets, to improve the social equity of the housing market and to prevent the kind of situation that we have been having here in this province.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when the price of family accommodation in Toronto is up over $300 a month; when landlords and other observers are freely predicting rent increases of 10 per cent or more; when many of those rent increases will be based simply on the fact that somebody else is getting that amount of money; when the documentation of the miseries being suffered by tenants is increasing; when the Housing Ministry now has federal figures that indicate that a third or more of Ontario families are paying well over 25 per cent of their income in housing costs and that that is getting worse and worse; when the councils of Toronto, of North York and other cities across the province are either adopting, supporting, or growing interested in this essential measure for the protection of tenants, this is an idea and a bill whose time has come. I commend it to the government and hope that it will waive the rules this once and adopt the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peterborough.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say a few words regarding this bill. I suppose anybody with a social conscience can have some sympathy for it and for what is trying to be accomplished through the introduction of the bill itself.

One of my reservations, Mr. Speaker, is I don’t really see how you can propose rent controls without imposing other forms of control. I don’t think you can pick out one segment of our society and say we are going to control you and let everybody else operate on an unhampered basis. Some people are probably very much in favour of this type of legislation for rather obvious reasons. I can think of just yesterday evening when I received three phone calls which were of a somewhat different nature than what the member for Ottawa Centre describes.

One was from a 63-year-old lady who had suffered two rather severe heart attacks. She is living on the third floor of a converted dwelling and her doctor has told her that she should not be climbing the stairs. Coincidentally, apparently just over the weekend, she received notice from her landlord that the rent would be increased for no particular reason. This woman is living on a fixed income and is of rather meagre means. She finds it a real hardship actually to pay the rent which she is paying.

The second case was a mother on mother’s allowance with four children and very similar accommodation, an apartment in a converted dwelling. Her rent was being raised from $129 to $145, which may appear to be a rather insignificant item. But having regard for the fact that this woman is living on a very small income with the responsibility of four children to clothe and feed, she finds it a real hardship. It would seem to me in a lot of instances that I’ve had experience with anyway the problems are not associated with what I call the professional landlord, but more closely associated with what I refer to as the amateur landlord. He is a person who converts his dwelling or buys another dwelling and makes apartments. Then in order to justify the cost of the purchase he has raised his rents.

It would seem to me also, Mr. Speaker, that governments should actually be looking for other means and more direct solutions before resorting to rent control. Obviously, tenants have more votes than landlords, and I suppose that it is politically tempting to impose this type of legislation as a temporary solution, I would suggest, to some very urgent problems. However, I think you have to look at the long-term effects of these things. I would suggest that once you impose any controls, the more difficult it is going to be to remove them. Those of us who remember what happened after the last war when we had rent control and then when the rent controls were removed, know that the results of removing them were often more disastrous then the imposing of the rent controls themselves at the time.

It would seem to me that possibly governments should be looking at what they can realize through subsidies rather through controls. Thinking in terms of rent allowances and public housing, which we are very closely involved with, I would suggest subsidies for people in the private sector as well as in the public sector.

I would suggest that if regulation is going to be introduced it should be done on terms which are very flexible to permit the rents to change as the landlord’s costs and management costs increase. And, of course, as the condition of the building improves or deteriorates. Any rent freeze, which puts the onus on politicians to suggest picking a figure from the sky would be to me a very serious abuse, in fact a very grave error.

The purpose of the regulation, I would suggest, must be only to ensure that rents are fair and reasonable in relation to other prices. If poor tenants need subsidy, surely it is up to the community -- the government, if you will -- to provide that subsidy and not their landlords. I would suggest that rents should be fixed by some valuation of the service that the building offers. All evaluations, of course, are comparisons. The best comparison to make in this case is with rents freely determined in sectors of the market which people accept as being fairly-priced, usually at the top end, or in areas where there is no shortage of housing.

The question that we should be asking is: How much should be paid for this accommodation if it is to offer fair value for money in comparison with what is being paid for accommodation agreed to be fairly-priced elsewhere? Everything about the accommodation should be considered; its age, size, maintenance, location, the length of the lease and, of course, the services that are provided, the general character of the neighbourhood and the opportunities that that particular district affords. And I would suggest that this sort of valuation demands competent and honest evaluators, obviously, who may or may not be in short supply. But they may not be as plentiful as some people may think.

And, of course, to administer rent regulation effectively there must be properly qualified and readily accessible officials stationed in offices throughout the area that is to be affected. They should have the powers, of course, to advise and arbitrate between landlords and tenants, to fix rents subject to some sort of appeal. However, I would suggest the most vulnerable and inarticulate tenants are unlikely to get their rights unless these officials or someone else actively goes out into the community and seeks them out.

It would seem to me also that an effective system of rent regulation is not a substitute for subsidies to the private tenants. And I think we will have to depend more on such subsidies.

These questions which I have raised are somewhat disconcerting to me. They raise a very real doubt in my mind as to how rent controls can be administered. One of the problems I am concerned about in having rent control would be whether we would possibly be driving investors from the rental market at a time when we need much more accommodation, thereby causing a shortage of supply. Also, if landlords are being, or could be, subjected to rent control, I question --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, could the member wind up his remarks now? His time is up.

Mr. Turner: Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wasn’t watching the time.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Ottawa Centre for bringing forward this bill and for the manner in which he has developed its philosophy.

It is unfortunate that at a time like this it is left to private members to try to grapple with the problem in a vacuum so far as the government of this province is concerned. There is no question that if I were simply to look at the matter from the point of view of the very heavily apartmentized people in my riding, I would give wholehearted support to the bill itself. There are things about it, however, with which I cannot agree.

The proponent of the bill has said that landlords and tenants had a good relationship in this province and that I believe to be true.

One of the things which developed was with the imposition during the war of rent controls. What happened there could be exactly what is, in effect, proposed in this bill. At that time a small homeowner who rented a house out was under control, but the head tenant was not under control, so that the head tenant was able to charge whatever he or she liked for a room but the owner of the house was strictly controlled and, in fact, could not even increase the rent in accordance with proven costs.

What you have here, will, as I see it, increase this kind of dichotomy where you start out with a fixed period -- December, 1972 -- and then you have clause 15, which will not permit any increase beyond five per cent regardless of what the costs have been. I would point out to the proponent of the bill that if this itself wouldn’t create problems, where the tenants are probably requiring from their union contracts more than five per cent, this is the sort of thing which creates the problems in this field.

One of the things which I, on the other hand, commend him for is that he has included in section 13 no discrimination by reason of marital status. Certainly this is something which this caucus would support.

But, look now at the philosophy of the bill. We develop a tribunal with which we are in hearty accord. We have a tribunal which can subpoena people to give the facts of their case, and to make a determination based upon the costs of the landlord. And, one of the costs, of course, that the proponent did not refer to in discussing the Ottawa situation was taxes. I would assume that he would expect that as the landlord pays increased taxes he would be expected not to have to carry that burden alone even under section 15.

It is good to arrange to have conciliators in this case, but I find it very interesting that this particular caucus -- that is the NDP -- were so infuriated at the idea of increasing the civil servants for warranty legislation, and yet they propose that sort of increase here. Of course a rent regulation officer would have to be multiplied by, I should think, hundreds in Metropolitan Toronto if he or she were going to deal with the matters which are proposed in part 3 of the bill.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that what we have here is a bill which ostensibly appears to be fair to both parties and yet which is heavily weighted against not so much the big landlord but, if you look at section 22, subsection (f), the small person. Surely, when you look at that provision where the landlord might be able to regain the use of premises if he or she can prove that they need it for themselves or for a relative you see that while the proponent talked about a close relative, that isn’t, of course, what the bill says. Be that as it may, it is only the small person who is going to come forward and say, “I need my house.” Now, they say you can do that once every five years. But of course, it doesn’t say when that five years starts to run.

These are small points and I realize that if we sat down together we could probably work out some closer compromises to this kind of legislation. But the fact remains that there is a gap in this government’s approach to the whole situation and in the riding of St. George I am going to see house after house torn down and taken off the market because we have no demolition control -- and those people are going to be needing houses. Then you find this government is not concerned about either the security of the tenants or about any form of assessment of rent, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that the government has a tremendous responsibility in this area.

I am very much of the opinion that one has to regulate rents; one has to sit down and work out what the landlord can, in fact, charge in the light of his costs. The control dating back to 1972 in today’s market is unrealistic and I can’t support it on those terms. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker: It is a shame that we have to move a bill like this in the Legislature. The government should have been able to see some time ago that there was a great deal of gouging taking place in the provision of rental accommodation and the government should have moved to do something about it. I think it’s got to be said that if this government had recognized that there was in fact no opportunity for the majority of middle and low-income people to get rental accommodation at a price that would be within their ability to pay, and if they had moved to provide that kind of accommodation, then the private sector wouldn’t have been able to gouge and we might not be faced with the problem we are facing.

The government itself knows full well that there is gouging taking place. The evidence of this is in the fact that they have established a rent-geared-to-income system even within their own Ontario Housing Corp. rented accommodation. They recognize that people in many instances can’t afford to pay the market value of what the market demands, from the wages they currently have.

So the responsibility for the problem that has arisen over the years rests four-square with this government. I think it was four years ago that the city of Ottawa came to Queen’s Park with a private bill and asked the Legislature to pass that bill and give the city of Ottawa the power, at its discretion, to impose a form of rent control which would have taken care of a problem which was festering in Ottawa at the time.

This Legislature, at least this government -- I shouldn’t say the Legislature, because the opposition in fact agreed with the bill -- decided to kill the bill, and kill it they did. The end result was that in the city of Ottawa, as in most other major areas across the province, rents continued to rise. Today we see rent increases being brought in of 50, 60, 70 per cent, even 100 per cent over one month.

I’ve had brought to my attention, for example, one rental increase where the rent was supposed to go from $130 to $240. It is absolutely ridiculous. We are not talking about the provision of colour TV. We are not talking about wall to wall carpeting. We are not talking about fancy automobiles. We are talking about an essential, and it is evident that people can’t withstand those kinds of rent increases. It is evident that the private marketplace is not about to come to grips with it, and when the private owner is asked what it is he needs the rent increase for, the answer inevitably is, “None of your business.”

I suggest it is our business. It is our business to take care of and protect those individuals in the province who have no economic power of their own and no power to protect themselves. There are a great many people across this province who are frankly being gouged on a day to day basis by unscrupulous landlords. That doesn’t say that every landlord is unscrupulous, not by any stretch of the imagination. There are any number of good landlords across the province who don’t take more than the economic rent would dictate. But the fact of the matter is that in many areas the cost of the accommodation bears no relationship to the actual cost of operating and amortizing the building.

What has happened is that the practice has developed over the years where the cost of the accommodation is related directly to the cost of other accommodation in the area. As new apartments are built, and as the amortization of the new apartments requires a considerably larger amount of money from the tenants, the rent of every single apartment in that immediate area rises to the level of the highest, rather than the level of the lowest having any real bearing on what can fairly be charged.

I can say I’ve probably had more complaints over the last seven years about the lack of justification for rental increases than I have about any other single thing. I think that probably people have reached a point of frustration. They’ve come to the conclusion that the government is not about to provide them with any meaningful protection.

I don’t understand for the life of me how we can afford to sit back and allow people to be taken by unscrupulous profiteering in the provision of accommodation. It is happening in housing, and the Minister of Housing is doing little if anything to come to grips with it. It has been happening for years in apartments.

In spite of the fact that members of this Legislature have risen, year after year after year, and asked for review tribunals with the power to establish what is a fair and economic rent, and to say to the landlord, “that’s what you can charge,” nothing has occurred in this Legislature. It is evidence of the government’s complacency. It’s evidence of the government’s hard-hearted attitude towards people who must rent. You are going to find if you wait just a few more years that because of the exorbitant price increases in the housing market, increasingly you are going to have a much larger proportion of the total population living in rental accommodation. And the more people there are living in rental accommodation, the more you are going to see the kind of rent gouging that we and others in the House have been talking about.

I was interested in the comments of the member for St. George; I am always interested in her comments. I thought they were a bit nitpicky today, but that’s okay.

The member for Peterborough, who isn’t here, unfortunately, was mentioning that you can’t impose rent controls without controls in other areas. He doesn’t seem to be able to differentiate between the provision of a necessity and the provision of a luxury. There should be controls in some other areas, and we have spoken about the need for those, too. Some control has to be exercised over the cost of the basic commodities required in order to sustain life. It is time that there was some government say in what it is going to cost people to eat, and to provide themselves with shelter in this province, right across Canada.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with a government saying that it’s going to stand up on behalf of the consumer for a change, and make sure that some absentee landlord, perhaps residing in Germany or Switzerland or down in the US some place, isn’t going to be able to come into Canada, and into Toronto and Ontario, and take out of this economy just whatever he happens to think he would like to, rather than what is justified and what is just.

So I think that what the member for Ottawa Centre has suggested makes a lot of good sense. It may need a little tightening up here and there, but then no bill that comes into the Legislature doesn’t require a bit of debate and a few changes in order to make it compatible with the desires and wishes of the majority. The fact of the matter is that the intent of the legislation is to come to grips with a problem this government should have solved 10 years ago.

Unless this government is prepared to take steps to make sure that what we see happening around us every single day -- rent increases that are totally unjustified -- and take the steps necessary to come to grips with them, we are going to find people paying 60 and 70 per cent of their incomes just to provide accommodation for themselves and their families. We can’t afford it. We just can’t afford it.

Unless this government does this, it’s going to be faced some day with the prospect of having to provide rent supplements for people up to and including middle-income earners.

Mrs. Campbell: Upper.

Mr. Deans: Upper middle-income, perhaps. We have so many people in the Province of Ontario, the elderly, on the one hand, for whom there is no adequate Ontario Housing accommodation across the province, and who are being taken at every single turn at every month of the year for far more of their meagre incomes than they can afford.

We have young families living in rental accommodation who can’t save to buy a house because their rental accommodation costs are so exorbitantly high. We have single people who can’t find accommodation that they can afford anywhere across the province, people who are on disability pensions and who are receiving allotments and allowances from the government because of their infirmities. This government has failed miserably to respond to those needs.

The government can solve the problem in one of two ways or it can do it both ways. It can either build the accommodation and make it available at a cost that people can afford, on a rent-geared-to-income, and I suggest that should be done in any event, but until that is done, the government is going to have to take steps to control the rents that people are having to pay today. I say to the government that it must pass some form of legislation along this line until it is able, as a government, to come to grips with the shortage in the housing marketplace. This is not a shortage of accommodation, but a shortage of accommodation people can afford.

This government has a responsibility. The responsibility is to provide an alternative market for people who are presently being taken day in and day out by unscrupulous land developers, home builders and apartment owners. And until such time as that occurs, the government has an indictment that, frankly, I wouldn’t want to live with.

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

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in this debate. It may startle the member who introduced the bill, the member for Ottawa Centre, to know I’m not totally out of sympathy with the objectives he has here.

Mr. Deans: Not totally?

Mr. Kennedy: Not totally, no. The problem is recognized and I commend him for bringing this forward. I think we’ve had a good 50 minutes; I hope we can say it’s a good 60 as presumably, I am the windup speaker.

I was interested to hear him express the thought that the position of his provincial party was that it was in favour of rent control. I am curious as to how this reflects or is compatible with the views of his national leader who said that controls won’t work. This is what I understand from listening to the radio.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): He said rent control is a provincial matter.

Mr. Kennedy: No, he said controls won’t work.

Mr. Renwick: Rent control is within the jurisdiction of this Legislature.

Mr. Kennedy: I didn’t say it wasn’t; I’m just saying what he said and I wonder how it relates.

Mr. Renwick: The member shouldn’t spoil his argument by making such silly remarks.

Mr. Kennedy: It’s not a silly remark. This is what he said.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman Management Board of Cabinet ): It’s not so silly.

Mr. Kennedy: Controls don’t know any boundaries.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Of course they do! We already exercise controls.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Come on.

Mr. Kennedy: No, this is what he said.

Mr. Deans: We already exercise controls in a number of areas.

Mr. Kennedy: One can’t isolate one province with one set of controls on one issue.

Mr. Renwick: We can legislate rent control in the Province of Ontario for the good of the people of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Kennedy: As in Quebec?

Mr. Renwick: Let’s move on to the member’s second argument.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Who was their leader talking for?

Mr. Kennedy: As in Quebec?

Mr. Cassidy: Quebec has done it for 20 years.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Kennedy: I was very interested to hear those remarks. I didn’t know it had been such a glorious success in Quebec and I’m not arguing; perhaps it has. I do know this --

Mr. Renwick: It has also been very successful in the city of New York.

Mr. Kennedy: In Quebec the demand for housing is much lower than around here and, I think, most parts of Ontario and the supply is greater. A house there, roughly comparable with one here, is perhaps half the price. This is changing now. It’s rising in Quebec --

Mr. Deans: That is another problem.

Mr. Kennedy: -- and presumably rental accommodation rides along about the same as to availability and price and so on; I don’t know.

Mr. Deans: Maybe if the government had done something about that we wouldn’t be faced with this either.

Mr. Kennedy: I don’t think the member is really comparing apples and apples but it is an interesting point he raised.

The member for Wentworth mentioned the Ottawa bill of five, six or seven years ago, which came into the House advocating rent control. I got the journal and brought that out because it is quite an interesting bill. I recall it very well and it was rejected by the House.

Mr. Deans: No, it was rejected by the Tory party.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right. In committee.

Mr. Kennedy: All right; don’t split hairs. It wasn’t instituted.

Mr. Deans: It was not rejected by the House. It was rejected by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Kennedy: All right. It was rejected in private bills committee.

Mr. Deans: By the Conservative members.

Mr. Renwick: By the Conservative members.

Mr. Kennedy: Okay. Rejected is rejected. It wasn’t accepted.

Mr. Deans: By the Conservative members.

Mr. Renwick: Not by the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Kennedy: One of the things that concerns me about this -- and the member for St. George mentioned it -- was the huge bureaucracy which would be needed to administer any such plan. This is contained in the Ottawa bill. There are two or three pages about the powers which would be granted to this tribunal.

Mr. Renwick: The member is a fine one to talk about bureaucracies being huge.

Mr. Kennedy: I’m never in favour of them. We have them.

Mr. Renwick: Why does he just talk about bureaucracies?

Mr. Kennedy: In the explanatory notes, the member mentions the network of rent regulation officers located in major cities around the province, which is indicative; and this would be true -- the wrangling over rental levels. Obviously we’d need appeals and it would just be an ongoing process which might inflame the situation.

Mr. Deans: So we will do nothing because you would rather do nothing than do something.

Mr. Kennedy: But obviously you would have a lot of it, Mr. Speaker. The other thing was mentioned in --

Mr. Cassidy: Just a point --

Mr. Kennedy: -- about the fourth paragraph here. You mention a dispute over rent. Say there is a dispute over rent. This would be all right where there is a very small building with perhaps a few units, but some in my area -- and in my area more than half the people live in rental accommodation --

Mr. Cassidy: That is why the member should support the bill.

Mr. Kennedy: -- there are huge apartment buildings of 350 units.

Mr. Renwick: No wonder he doesn’t really believe in it, but he needs support.

Mr. Kennedy: And you have there a rent structure where, I presume, there are three or four categories of apartment and therefore three or four categories of rent. How can one person get into a dispute with the landlord? It has got to be sort of communal effort to suppress them.

Mr. Cassidy: They have the security to do that under this bill.

Mr. Kennedy: As through, tenants’ associations perhaps. I am not opposed to this.

Mr. Cassidy: They would have the security to do that under the bill.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, they have the clout by themselves. Another thing I am very much in sympathy with the tenant on is this. I believe that tenants particularly those of modest means, get locked into their apartment unit because it is an expense to go out and locate another apartment if they are finding the rent unduly burdensome, or for any other reason. It is a fair effort to do this. I am of the opinion that landlords are not unaware of this, and if they come in with insufficient, or no greater notice than is required, and just tell the tenant, “Sorry, your rent is going up to such and such a figure next month,” the tenants in many cases are being treated unfairly. They throw up their hands and accept this, and I believe that landlords trade on this. I have heard this type of discussion and it is --

Mr. Deans: What does the member suggest we should do about it?

Mr. Kennedy: Turf ‘em out.

Mr. Cassidy: The landlords?

Mr. Kennedy: Yes. I have no sympathy whatever for a landlord who does that.

Mr. Deans: How does he propose we do that? How does he propose we turf them out of their own building?

Mr. Kennedy: I will tell the member what I think. He mentioned rents going up from $130 to $240. I know an instance of a widow whose rent has gone from $115 to $155 over 10 years. I don’t think over 10 years that is an undue increase. I think that is fairly modest. And there are quite a lot of cases like this. But then I hear the horror stories from the other side and I have documentation here which I won’t take the trouble to read --

Mr. Deans: It is not trouble.

Mr. Kennedy: -- on rent in relation to income. There is an article here in the Financial Post. Here is one in the Star. You can find statistics that go either way all over the place, Mr. Speaker. I really don’t know who is right, where there are areas of gouging, how significant they are.

Mr. Renwick: What about the member’s riding?

Mr. Kennedy: -- but to stand up and say that all landlords are rascals and buccaneers --

Mr. Deans: Who said that? The member is the only member to do so. I specifically said that they weren’t.

Mr. Kennedy: This is the general impression that is loose.

Mr. Renwick: Does the member have any examples of exorbitant rent increases in his riding?

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, I have some.

Mr. Renwick: I want that to be clear.

Mr. Kennedy: From $200 to $250, I am told, on very short notice --

Mr. Cassidy: That is the situation this will curb.

Mr. Kennedy: -- and I have no sympathy with that either. And this is one thing --

Mr. Cassidy: This bill wouldn’t harm the legitimate landlord. He would continue to deal with tenants as formerly.

Mr. Kennedy: This is right. There is another thing. It is so very simple to find out what the return on investment is with apartments. I am a former appraiser -- and will perhaps be doing it again some time. When you are calculating an estimate of value for an apartment, you use the income technique. You get all the cost factors that go into the thing -- the operating costs and so on; interest on investment, the whole bit; vacancy rate, which is way down now; and then, of course, the yield.

Mr. Speaker: The time is 6 o’clock.

Mr. Kennedy: Then you capitalize this into value. I see no problem, or very little problem, in determining just what these profits are. I would like to see some organization like the Comay task force or some such body inquire into this and see just what is going on, because one cannot tell from the literature we read and from listening to emotional people or emotional authors or writers in news articles.

Mr. Speaker, I haven’t time to say more.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have permission to revert to motions?

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreed by the House?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that Mr. Deans be substituted for Mr. Renwick on the standing private bills committee for the consideration of Bill Pr 20, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Deans: With considerable reluctance.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the House leader made the addition that the substitution be reversed after the completion of that bill alone, then it would save him having to return later on.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think the motion is quite clear and specifies the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

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