Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, if I may, before I read a statement to the House, I would like to inform you and the members that we have with us today three distinguished members of other provincial legislatures: the hon. Russell Paulley of Manitoba, Minister of Labour and Civil Service; the hon. Earle Hickey of Prince Edward Island, Minister of Finance, and the hon. Allan Sullivan of Nova Scotia, the Attorney General for that province.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I reported to the House on Nov. 12 on the government’s concern over the delay occasioned by the CSAO in the contract negotiations for the operational services category. The members will recall that for reasons of its own the CSAO was intending to poll the employees on the government’s initial offer well before the parties had engaged in the normal hard bargaining process. According to more recent press reports, it now appears that the CSAO intends to use this ballot to secure a mandate to call an illegal strike. It also has been reported that the CSAO’s negotiating committee intends to recommend rejection of the government’s initial offer. If these reports are correct, Mr. Speaker, this would clearly be a loaded ballot -- a ballot which would trick employees into voting against their own interests, whichever way they voted.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That is an attempt to intimidate the employees.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The minister doesn’t know what conciliation means.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: By voting against the recommendation of the union leadership, an employee would be voting --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister has the right to read his statement.

An hon. member: He doesn’t have the right to intimidate employees.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Or to get up every day and read one of his inflammatory statements.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: State your point of order,

Mr. Lewis: This minister attempts to arrange a confrontation with the civil service using this House, and we object to it.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’ll comment on that later on. To continue: -- an employee would be voting to accept what he would know is not the employer’s best or final offer. By voting in favour of the recommendation, the employee --

Mr. Deans: Then why doesn’t the government make another offer?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- would run the risk of handing over to the bargaining committee --

Mr. Renwick: Then get to the bargaining table.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- of some 20 members the determination of whether to call an illegal strike.

Mr. Deans: Make another offer then.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: However incredible it may seem, Mr. Speaker, the newspaper reports would suggest that the CSAO is prepared --

Mr. Lewis: That is called democracy, my friend.

Mr. Renwick: The minister sounds just like Karl Mallette sounded before the TTC strike.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- to place those employees who do vote in the invidious position of having no practical alternative other than to support an illegal strike.

Mr. Lewis: The minister knows nothing about collective bargaining.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If this is indeed the strategy of an element in the leadership of the CSAO --

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): What is the minister’s strategy?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- it raises a clear question: Why would it not be to the advantage of the 19,000 employees in the operational category that they should be allowed a voice in determining their own best interest after bargaining has been allowed to run its course?

Mr. Lewis: It shows how concerned the government is.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If the leaders of the CSAO are bent on such a strategy, Mr. Speaker, they will be acting in extreme bad faith.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): It is a lot better than the government has ever done.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Under those circumstances, I would say to them that the government will not be intimidated by such provocative and reprehensible tactics.

Mr. Renwick: The minister doesn’t know what good faith means. His government never knew what it meant.

Mr. Lewis: What does the government want to do? Call an election?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say, as I have said on other occasions, that I have the greatest respect for the people who work for this province.

Mr. Martel: The government sure has a good way of showing it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I want to assure these employees that, irrespective of any such irresponsible action by the leadership of the CSAO, the government’s representatives will continue to negotiate in good faith, when that opportunity is accorded to them by the CSAO --

Mr. Renwick: One doesn’t divide the leadership from the membership. That is the oldest bargaining tactic.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- with the avowed purpose of achieving an equitable settlement as soon as possible. All that remains is for the CSAO to act responsibly --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- on behalf of its members with due regard for the interests of the citizens of the province.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, let the minister take his seat.

Mr. Deans: That was disgusting.

Mr. Renwick: What programme is the minister withdrawing today?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Are there any further statements? The Minister of Energy.

HYDRO CAPABILITY

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, in view of a recent headline on Monday, Nov. 11, I think it was, in the Toronto Sun and questions which have been properly asked here, I thought it wise to make a brief statement on Ontario Hydro’s ability to meet the winter electrical power demands in the province. This ability, of course, depends on several factors. The loss of an additional one or more of Ontario Hydro’s largest generators and a prolonged cold snap could tax the system very severely.

On the optimistic side, Hydro is hopeful that at least one, and possibly two, of the five 500,000-kw generators now shut down may be returned to service by the middle of December. Hydro’s overall capacity, including the five generators not presently in service, is 18.5 million kw. Anticipated peak demand, which comes traditionally in December, is forecast as 14.5 million kw. Hydro has been without the service of the five units, four at Nanticoke and one at Pickering, since summer. Their combined capacity is 2.5 million kw.

Just to review what has happened at Nanticoke, one of its generators suffered extensive damages during a fire and explosion last July 31. The remaining three units were shut down as a precautionary measure. Investigation revealed the fire was caused by a failure of an end ring in a generator rotor. While tests on the other three generators have turned up no defects, short-term modifications are being made to reduce the risk of similar faults developing in other units. In the longer term, new end rings will be installed in all of Nanticoke’s generators.

These modifications are being made and tested on one of the generators planned for future installation at Nanticoke by C.A. Parsons Ltd., the manufacturers of the generators, in the United Kingdom. Depending on these results, rings from the three other shut-down Nanticoke generators now in transit to England will be modified and returned to Nanticoke for installation. These modifications could make one or two generators available for service on a limited basis of 80 per cent capacity by mid-December.

During last July, Pickering’s unit No. 3 was shut down to make some modifications to the turbine and to perform annual overhaul work. In August, prior to startup, a routine check revealed leaks in one or more pressure tubes in the heat transport system. Subsequent checks have discovered additional leaks. The small amount of heavy water escaping from the tubes is recovered in a special closed collection system and cannot escape to the atmosphere. The unit is not expected to return to service for several months.

It appears that the problem occurs during long shutdowns when the tubes are cold and pressurized. Hydro operating procedures have been altered to minimize duration of these conditions. At this point I should inform you that Pickering unit No. 4 will be shut down for two days this week for routine maintenance.

The leaking tubes are all made from a special alloy called zirconium 2 1/2 per cent niobium, which is also used in Pickering unit No. 4 and will be used at the Bruce nuclear generating station. The current review includes inspection of the tubes at Bruce.

Regarding the coal situation, it would appear from this morning’s press that the coal strike in the United States, if not settled, is on its way to being settled and certainly is not going to last as long as some thought it might. But regarding the coal situation, Ontario Hydro normally stockpiles its winter needs before the shipping season closes in late November. It did so this year. It will require 3.5 million to five million tons of US coal to operate its generating facilities this winter. By the end of the shipping sea- son, Dec. 1, it will have on hand 7.5 million tons. This will more than carry it through any contingencies, such as a strike in the coal supply system.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to put a question to the Chairman of the Management Board, further to the statement that he made a few moments ago.

Would he not consider that there is substantial bad faith, since he uses the phrase himself, in the sequence of events for which he is personally responsible? Since he not only implied but stated in his own statement that the offer put to the CSAO is not the offer that he expects to be accepted, surely that is bad faith. And wouldn’t the minister agree that he is putting forward an offer which he expects to be rejected, rather than one which he expects to be accepted?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I must say not really. I think the offer was reasonable. I must say, since the hon. member is pressing the question, that we at no time concluded bargaining. We did not receive any initial reaction to that initial offer, if I might put it that way.

Mr. Lewis: They’re putting it to the membership.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, bargaining in good faith doesn’t stop there in saying yes or no --

Mr. Lewis: No, but it’s one part of the process.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- plus the fact that there was no reaction to our offer at all. We didn’t know where we stood.

Mr. Lewis: When the government finally made an offer.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: As far as that’s concerned, we are still willing to sit down at the table. There is no question about that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I’d like to ask the minister, since he himself is predicting a rejection, is he contemplating making an additional offer while there is still time before the civil servants meet in their meetings all across the province on Sunday? If he feels that it is going to be rejected, and he can make a better offer, why doesn’t he do it?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we are prepared to do that at any time, except that the negotiations stalled on that initial offer, because they wanted to take it to their membership.

Mr. Lewis: What’s wrong with that?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Doesn’t the House leader believe in democracy?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There is nothing wrong with that. But I’m saying to the hon. member that we are still willing to go to the table.

Mr. Lewis: Why does the House leader hold press conferences?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Your supplementary question?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: May I ask the minister, does he not appreciate that all that the CSAO is doing is putting to its membership the initial offer, indicating that it will continue collective bargaining and asking them whether they will grant the negotiating committee the right to call a strike on Jan. 1 if they have received no further offer from the government? What is wrong with that?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I want to say once again that we made our offer, and we left the negotiations open. The reason is that I am rather satisfied that the membership may not know the terms of our offer.

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

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A further supplementary: Since the minister and all of us are so concerned about the turn of events, particularly as described by the minister, who has simply increased the acrimony in this confrontation, why would he not see that the amendments to the Crown Employees Bargaining Act are before the House now so that at least those people who are going to be meeting, at great inconvenience to many of them, will have an opportunity to assess the offer in light of the other matters which are troubling them so seriously and which have nothing to do with the money?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already said publicly that I am now discussing that with my colleagues. I am going to bring forth a response to their brief of some weeks ago. As a matter of fact, they know very well that we are going to discuss it with them before we put it into legislative form so we know that there is a degree of acceptance.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: Given that the minister knows that this vote is going to be taken, why would he not now make what he calls his final and best offer to them in order that they could consider that rather than consider something else?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Let the negotiations carry on.

Mr. Deans: He has said he made his best offer.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would have to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared to sit down at any time. It is the CSAO leadership’s plan to carry on this way, not ours. We consider that as bargaining in bad faith.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the last supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, in view of the comment by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development -- “Why don’t we stay out of it?” --

Mr. Stokes: That’s bargaining in bad faith.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- may I put it to the minister through the Speaker: Why does the government continually bring this thing into the House and create more difficulty for itself?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Simply, Mr. Speaker, because the negotiations, leading up to the time we sat down at the table, were carried on in the media, not in the House.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): They tried to meet with the government.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: And we have certain agreements which we have lived up to.

Mr. Lewis: Make an offer.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: But I feel that this is acting in bad faith in regard to those agreements.

Mr. Bullbrook: If that was wrong, this is equally wrong.

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

Mr. Lewis: One last supplementary, if I may, to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Does he not realize that he is systematically escalating the confrontation, that he is provoking 20,000 civil servants and that he is inviting confrontation by his behaviour? Does he not see that?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think that the leader of the NDP is doing exactly that. I believe that I am doing the right thing on behalf of the people of the civil service who have come to see me and on behalf of the people of this province.

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t represent the civil service. Boy, he and Bud Drury are a couple of cheap negotiators.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: With your permission, sir, a new question to the same minister on an allied subject -- very closely allied.

Does it not concern the minister and those who so heartily pounded the desks in his support just a few minutes ago -- there they are -- that the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) statement that he will not be intimidated, the procedures that the Chairman of the Management Board is using today and previously, and the attitude of the Conservative Party, as exemplified by the people who are splitting their desks with applause, would lead objective observers to think that the government is provoking an illegal strike?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Be responsible, for a change.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, that is totally untrue. I haven’t even discussed this particular statement with the Premier, because he wasn’t available to me this morning.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No. Actually these are the same questions over and over again. Will the Leader of the Opposition carry on with his questions?

URBAN TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications if he recognizes what I hold in my hand as the statement made by the Premier of Ontario on Nov. 22, 1972, as an urban transportation policy for Ontario? Answer, yes. Is he aware that there were two answers to the transportation problems that we faced at that time? One was dial-a-bus and the other the Krauss-Maffei magnetic levitation train. Since both of those are now lying on the scrap heap, can he tell the House, the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, the mayor of Hamilton, the mayor of Ottawa -- who is still in office for a few days -- and others what the provincial alternative is for this flossy programme that was introduced two years ago and which was designed through the expenditure of $1.5 billion to $2 billion to solve those problems?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, first of all I am not going to accept any of the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that the dial-a-bus and the experimentation with magnetic levitation have gone to the scrap heap. First of all, although we have had our problems in some of the areas here in Toronto with the dial-a-bus programme, it has been working very successfully in a number of municipalities throughout this province.

Mr. Roy: The minister is on the way out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What we must remember is that there are problems of transportation, not only in Metropolitan Toronto, but in other cities -- as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated.

As far as the programme is concerned, we have continued on; and the Ontario Development Transportation Corp. has continued to develop other modes. It is obvious, I am sure, to the Leader of the Opposition and to others, that despite what has been said on many occasions, this government in the Province of Ontario is not responsible for the planning of transit systems in municipalities. The planning is carried on by the individual municipality and our contribution --

Mr. Reid: What happens when the policy diminishes?

Mr. Roy: What was the purpose of those extravaganzas?

Mr. Cassidy: The government even drew the routes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- is to be involved financially through the subsidy programme.

We have taken on the responsibility of attempting to develop new and innovative programmes to assist and to complement those programmes which are provided by each individual municipality. We will continue to try to develop new systems to help all of the municipalities.

Mr. Reid: What alternatives does this government have?

An hon. member: What has the minister got?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since we want to know the government’s alternatives, we would like to ask as a supplementary: What is the minister going to provide by way of transportation for the problems that are going to be faced in the eastern section of the city when 404 is completed and when the 107,000 new housing units are completed right on the edge of Metro in York county at the northeast angle? How is he possibly going to serve those people without the alternative of this, which has now resulted in the wasting of two full years and longer? As Minister of Transportation, he is the one with the answers.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the two years have been wasted at all. We have attempted to develop a new technology.

Mr. Lewis: Right down the drain; the whole programme is down the drain.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If the members opposite want to accept the philosophy that everything was confined to one mode, then perhaps we could be concerned in that way. But it has not been confined to one mode.

Mr. Roy: The government played it up that way.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have gone ahead and we have worked on the development of a light rail system.

Mr. Lewis: It was the minister’s emphasis.

Mr. Cassidy: He only began a year ago.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can tell the hon. members opposite that as far as, for example, the Scarborough corridor is concerned, a light rail system could be put in there within the same time frame as it had been planned to put in the magnetic levitation system -- within the same time frame.

Mr. Renwick: That is not right and the minister knows it. His information stated a time frame.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If that can be the answer for an intermediate capacity system in conjunction with Metropolitan Toronto, then by all means we will look at those that have been mentioned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that the answer?

Mr. Bullbrook: Is that the policy?

Mr. Renwick: He is unreasonable.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may: What is the minister going to do now with the $1.3 billion which he had put aside for magnetic levitation in the costing plans of this government? How is he now redistributing that money to the alternatives which may be on the board?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that money was there for the purpose of developing a transit system -- various transit systems.

Mr. Lewis: GO-Urban is what it was there for.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We called it GO-Urban at the time.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have not given up -- as I have said time and again -- we have not given up on the other modes. And if that money can be applied --

Mr. Lewis: Now the minister has changed it.

Mr. Renwick: How much money did he set aside for the other modes?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- in all of the various municipalities, that money will be made available through the subsidy programmes and the funding programmes of the Ontario government.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the minister please take his seat. There are too many interjections. There are questions being asked which we’ll allow; and the opportunity to answer those questions will also be allowed without interruption.

Has the hon. minister finished?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary.

Mr. P.G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. Givens: Since he is such a hard-nosed bargainer, Mr. Speaker, why doesn’t the minister assign all the rights, titles and interest in this agreement that he negotiated to McDonnell Douglas? Why not let them continue with the programme and he simply reserve the right to sell the Krauss-Maffei system in Canada? Why doesn’t he do that and save himself the $1.3 billion that he has put aside in the budget?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have been the jurisdiction that has started into this development of the new technology. It’s a strange question, really, because I can recall a few months ago when we announced that McDonnell Douglas was going to come into the programme with us, I was criticized by the members opposite for selling out to the Americans. Now, is that what the hon. member is suggesting -- that now we should sell out to the Americans?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister feeling better?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We do not intend to sell out to the Americans; we intend to enter into a partnership with McDonnell Douglas and carry on with the development of that particular technology.

Mr. Lewis: Ah, partnership, yes.

Mr. Givens: All the minister has is salvage rights. He has got nothing to sell.

An hon. member: We can’t afford it.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Nothing is being done.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa East with a supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary to the minister,

Mr. Speaker: Can he tell the people of Ontario, now that he has got the rest-over of Krauss-Maffei, how much it is going to cost to bring the levitation system to a successful conclusion sometime in 1978 or 1979? Can he give us an estimate of that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker. I cannot. I said yesterday, both here in the House, I believe, and certainly when discussing it with the news media, that I cannot and would not even attempt to put any particular dollar figure on it, nor would I put a time limit on it. I am not going to get caught into any time frames or into dollar expenditures.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He just gets caught into throwing away money.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have said, and I say again, we will look at it in phases and develop it in phases --

Mr. Lewis: Just scrap the whole business. Why doesn’t he save himself the aggravation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and if there is any question in our minds that there is no possibility, then of course we will reassess the whole programme, but don’t try to back me into any corner.

Mr. Lewis: Boy, he will reassess.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with a final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since there were light rail systems in revenue operation in about two dozen cities in 1969 when the ministry began on its quest for Krauss-Maffei, will the minister not agree that had Ontario embarked on light rail development at that time there could be light rail lines in construction or even in operation today in Scarborough, in Ottawa and in Hamilton, rather than the fiasco we have?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, if all of the municipalities that have been listed by the hon. member had decided at that time that that was the way they wanted to go, he well knows that that is their prerogative to go ahead and develop light rail transit within their cities. That is the municipality’s responsibility, and if they wish to put in this sort of system; then they certainly can.

Mr. Lewis: He put his money into GO-Urban.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have been developing the new technology and at the same time the light rail technology has been developed along with it. It is still available.

Mr. Lewis: And he discouraged everyone.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I agree with the member that if they had started in 1969 to put in this particular type of transit system it would be operating.

Mr. Deans: Even he doesn’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But I point out to the member that there are many many municipalities that want no part of the light rail system in their municipalities. They want something different, something that isn’t straight steel wheels on steel rails.

Mr. Cassidy: Five years lost.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board. Could I draw him back for a moment, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Ask another question in the meantime.

STUDIES ON DEATHS IN URANIUM MINES

Mr. Lewis: Let me ask the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may, harking back to a familiar subject. When he replied in the Legislature, I believe on Friday morning last, relevant to the lung-cancer-associated deaths in Elliot Lake, he said that the 1973 report was referred to the committee on occupational health. What is the committee on occupational health?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was not in the House that day when I made mention of it; it was not a report, it was an interdepartmental working document.

Mr. Lewis: No, no, the committee on occupational health.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, but the report which the member is referring to was a working document, not a report. I think it was incorporated in the final report in 1974 which was sent to his office with, I think, a dozen or so copies. The occupational health group is an interdepartmental working committee that was pulled together some time ago. I think they were pulled together in 1962 and they examined that particular working document.

Mr. Lewis: Then maybe I had better ask the minister this question: Does he know that the committee on occupational health is a standing committee of the Ontario Mining Association, which they convene, which they examine, and it has no government authority at all except a couple of people from the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the Ministry of Health; that only through the Ontario Mining Association were we able to get the names on the committee, and how come he referred reports on lung cancer deaths to a committee of the Ontario Mining Association and not to the workers?

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Why doesn’t the minister resign?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, why doesn’t he resign?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP is entirely incorrect. The committee he is referring to is the Mine Accident Prevention Association. It’s a spinoff of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, as is the Forestry Accident Prevention Association, as are 11 other safety organizations compiled under the Workmen’s Compensation Board. So to say it’s been set up like that is wrong.

Mr. Lewis: Then, by way of supplementary, can the minister explain to me how Dr. Tidey, acting director of the occupational health protection branch, when phoned by my office knew nothing of the so-called committee on occupational health, could not recall it and did not know it? When we phoned the Workmen’s Compensation Board we were referred to a Mr. Ridout of the Ontario Mining Association. When I spoke to Mr. Ridout of the Ontario Mining Association this morning, he said, yes, the committee on occupational health as he had determined it was a standing committee of the Ontario Mining Association. Can the minister explain all that to me?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can’t reply for somebody else. I can’t reply for Dr. Tidey nor for anybody else. The member is just trying to twist it to his own advantage, that is all he is doing. All he is doing is hampering the efforts of that particular committee, which has done a great job over the years.

Mr. Lewis: Well then, by way of supplementary, can I challenge the minister to table in the House the interdepartmental committee on occupational health to which he refers and demonstrate that this isn’t an adjunct of the Ontario Mining Association?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I will consider that, yes,

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. Believe me, he will consider it.

REPORT ON ELECTION EXPENSES

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Chairman of the Management Board when he intends to table the Camp commission report on election expenses in Ontario, and when will the legislation be introduced?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question; I will take it as notice. I have not yet seen the report but I will take the question as notice and give the member an answer on both those questions.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is it still the intention of the minister to have an Act governing election expenses in Ontario introduced in this Legislature, presumably either this fall or in early spring in advance of the provincial election?

Mr. Reid: As soon as Mr. Kelly finishes his business,

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Again I will have to take it as notice, but I really think so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Perhaps the minister could tell us if the report has been received. Is the government examining it?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The report does not come to my office so I can’t honestly answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

STUDY OF VINYL CHLORIDE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health: How is it that we have set poly-vinyl chloride standards of 10 parts per million in Ontario, when on Jan. 1, 1975, the United States reduces it to one part per million, and shortly after to a non-detectable level? Is it that Canadian lives are somehow less important than American?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, of course it isn’t because Canadian lives are less important than American, it is because of the problems in defining what is an acceptable level of vinyl chloride monomer in the air.

There is quite a bit of material on this. The American agency that is policing it in the States set out to set a non-detectable level. Industry pointed out that that was fine by them, but you simply couldn’t have a non-detectable level regardless of its health implications.

My job is not to determine what is possible in that sense, it is to determine what is acceptable from a health sense. I think you would agree with me on the difference. If, in fact, it had to be non-detectable, then we would have to consider whether that product was worth making in view of human lives.

I think it was generally accepted, though, in a lot of discussions in the States that in fact a non-detectable level wasn’t based upon any scientific fact, but rather a hope of the agency that set out to achieve that. Our level of 10 parts per million is based upon the current world-accepted facts, and we have done quite a bit of checking with the agencies in the world which have been investigating this and we feel that all evidence to date would indicate they are safe levels.

There is a disparity between our standards and those of the States. That doesn’t mean theirs are correct; it doesn’t mean ours are correct. I know the terrible part about all this occupational health problem is that one is never sure, but based on the facts we have, the 10 parts per million is accurate and safe.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, could the minister advise whether his cabinet colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), is monitoring the levels in the Sarnia area? Could they be made available to me if they are being made available to him?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I cannot answer for the Minister of the Environment. The levels we were just talking about, Mr. Speaker, were in-plant levels, not ambient levels.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Good: Could the minister inform the House what mechanism there is for the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) to enforce the recommendations from the Ministry of Health’s occupational safety branch, which went to him just a week or two ago on this particular subject, and whether, to the minister’s knowledge, these levels are being enforced at the present time in plants across Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Again, Mr. Speaker, those are questions I cannot answer. The Minister of Labour would have to answer both of them.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scar- borough West have further questions?

The Minister of Housing has an answer to a question which was asked previously.

SOLAR ENERGY

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, on Nov. 8, the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) asked the following questions:

“Inasmuch as millions of solar water heaters have been sold in Japan in the past two years, and inasmuch as in Northern Australia, the government now demands that all new houses have solar water heaters, is the minister doing anything to encourage the use of any kind of solar energy for new housing in Ontario?”

Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion, and it is the opinion of my ministry, that in view of the “energy crisis” of several months ago and in relation to the longer-term prospect for the continued supply of fossil fuels based on known reserves, we have been taking this into account and looking into way in which solar energy might be used to provide domestic hot water and heat in housing. Discussions have been held with a firm called Space Optics of Los Angeles. Apart from this, we are aware of a system put forward by Prof. Hooper of Toronto.

The research and development group of OHC is exploring the feasibility of solar energy with the Ministry of Energy. If we find, Mr. Speaker, an examination of the capital costs involved suggests that the economics are reasonable, consideration would be given to the installation of a system in one or two existing housing projects owned by OHC, on an experimental basis. It is likely that any system used would supplement rather than completely replace conventional systems.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

ROAD BETWEEN ATIKOKAN AND IGNACE

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The minister indicated at the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association meeting in Kenora that he would give a decision at the end of October about the road between Atikokan and Ignace. Can the minister indicate why he didn’t give such a decision and when we can expect it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, when I attended that particular meeting, I indicated that the matter concerning that particular road, along with a number of other matters that related to transportation in general in the northwestern part of Ontario, were being considered at the policy field level and that there were several other ministry programmes that had to be considered. The Legislature went into session immediately after we returned from that meeting, as the member well knows, and this particular total problem has not been dealt with by the policy field. I did say to them that as soon as it had been dealt with that there would be a very firm decision made.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister give us an indication of when it might be dealt with by the policy field?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will have to check the agenda to see when it is coming up and let the member know.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

RESTRUCTURING OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): I have a question of the Minister of Energy. When will the government’s comments finally be released on the report of the government’s committee on restructuring of public utilities so that decisions can be taken by the regional governments and enlarged municipalities such as Timmins as to the advisability of either creating a public utility system or equalizing hydro rates within the various parts of the cities?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Shortly, I would suspect, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy has an answer to a question which he might give now.

HYDRO TRANSMISSION LINE DIVERSION

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, on Nov. 7 the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) asked a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, which he referred to me.

The question was:

“In connection with the proposed transmission line from the Bruce nuclear generating station through East Garafraxa and Erin townships, why is a $9 million diversion proposed to avoid lands owned by Lloyd Lang, the reeve of Erin and warden of the county; Donald Matheson, a township councillor; Harry Hindmarsh, secretary of the Toronto Star; and the family of the member for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root)? Would the minister have any explanation for this diversion, which is so obvious on the map?”

Hydro’s initial study for the 500-kv line from Bradley Junction to a switching station in the Milton area began in 1971. At that time the emphasis was on finding the most direct route while avoiding long, diagonal property severances, apart from existing severances, across farm fields, and the removal of farm buildings, and seeking to locate along back lot lines. Minimal directional changes and avoiding the silhouetting of the line were also sought. No particular emphasis was given at that time relative to environmental factors such as the avoidance of mature woodlots, wet lands or steep slopes if these would have resulted in a significant increase in length and cost.

On this basis a preliminary route in concession 5 was identified and submitted to the government liaison committee and subsequently approved by cabinet on Jan. 11, 1972.

In the fall of 1972, during the Solandt commission hearings on the Nanticoke-Pickering line, it became clear that no route could be adequately justified unless the whole area was studied and documented, taking into account all environmental and other factors involving the public, in addition to under- taking public participation. Accordingly, an environmental assessment of the study area was initiated in January, 1973.

This second study involved the preparation of overlay maps which identified the potential impact of the lines on present and future land use, natural systems (streams, valleys, intensely vegetated areas and erosion-prone areas), agricultural practices, appearance of the landscape and natural resources (forest products, wildlife, recreational areas, and gravel and quarry operations). The maps were laid one over the other to determine those areas within which suitable alternative routings could be identified. Taking these factors into account, it was inevitable that the best route could easily be other than a straight line.

Three public meetings were held in the period March, 1973, to March, 1974, in Erin and East Garafraxa townships to discuss the study with residents, involving a total attendance of about 800 people. The study revealed that there was no single concession through Erin township suitable for a direct routing between the best alignment and the adjacent townships of East Garafraxa and Esquesing. Portions of concessions 2 to 6 were identified as suitable for further study.

At the public meeting at Erin on March 12, Hydro identified the preferred route as running in concessions 10 and 9 of East Garafraxa and in concession 2 of Erin to lot 18, then crossing at concession 4 at lot 15 and entering concession 5 at lot 9, and continuing into Esquesing township (Halton Hills), to cross the Niagara Escarpment in the Limehouse areas.

At this meeting Hydro was requested to investigate further a more easterly direct route. A routing through concession 11 of East Garafraxa and in concession 4 of Erin was therefore investigated and found to compare unfavourably with the recommended route because of wet lands and visual aesthetics. This is a judgemental factor. The decision is based on study of aerial maps, field trips and Hydro maps by the study team, who determined that the visual impact of county road crossings, the crossing of the Eramosa and Grand River valleys and the long views would be less affected by the location of the line on the recommended route. This routing would be less than the recommended one by about two miles and, with fewer directional changes, would amount to a construction cost difference of about $1.1 million.

The avoiding of areas on the basis of who owns particular tracts of land was not, and is not, a consideration in determining line routes; and no effort is made to determine who individual owners may be until such time as it is required for the acquisition of property rights.

The report covering all aspects of the 1973-1974 study is now in the printing stage and is expected to be completed on Nov. 20. This will be a summary of a more comprehensive report which will be available in mid-December.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the length of the statement, I might just remind the minister that a statement that takes’ five minutes might better be given in the part of orders of the day known as statements by the ministry.

The member for Ottawa East.

APPOINTMENT TO HEALTH DISCIPLINES BOARD

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could entitle this the first in a series of questions. I’d like to direct my first question to the Minister of Health. I wonder if the minister might advise what were the qualifications of Mr. Hugh K. N. MacKenzie for his appointment as a lay member to the Health Disciplines Board, apart from the fact that he was the minister’s PC association riding president?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: It tells us something about discipline, if not about health.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, that’s right. I am delighted to have an opportunity to offer some comments on the capability of that young gentleman.

Mr. Roy: The minister is not talking about me?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, I used the word “gentleman.”

Mr. Lewis: Touché.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can only tell the member that if he had the opportunity to meet him, the member would realize that if he were a member of his party, I would gladly have nominated him to that position. It just happens, though, that most people --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am sure!

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Will the minister take other suggestions?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): They claim the minister discriminates against people because of their politics.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That’s right.

Mr. Bounsall: Will the minister take other suggestions?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Rank discrimination!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the minister is answering his question.

Mr. Lewis: He better make the appointments while he can.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): That is what happened to Mitchell Hepburn. Remember him?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think, Mr. Speaker, I could only say that I would be pleased to give the hon. member a very thorough documentary upon his leadership capabilities in his area. From being a president of a very large communications company to being a leader in the Rotary Club, to being director of a number of local initiatives --

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Is he in the golf club too?

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- he has shown leadership in everything he has entered, including the party which I represent.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary to that, yes.

Mr. Roy: In view of the minister’s answer about his willingness to appoint people from our party to that board, would he advise which members of our party are on the board?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I don’t know the names. I can’t speak to that board but the member may know the name Laskin.

Mr. Bullbrook: I know him quite well.

Hon. Mr. Miller: If the member looks at the lists that I just appointed, he will find the name Laskin on one.

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

Mr. Lewis: What about this group over here?

EDUCATION OF MENTALLY RETARDED IN SEPARATE SCHOOL SYSTEM

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Education.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Sudbury East has the floor for this question.

Mr. Martel: Does the minister intend to meet with the trustees from the separate schools, both French and English, to discuss before passage of Bill 72 the right of separate schools to educate the mentally retarded in their systems?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I have already had meetings with the trustees of the separate school boards to talk about that particular matter.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary question: In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we met with the trustees who formed that advisory group no later than Monday of this week and they are requesting a meeting with the minister, doesn’t he think it would be advisable that he meet with them, because we didn’t get the impression he had?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sorry, which group is the member talking about?

Mr. Martel: The representatives from the Sudbury area, the separate school trustees of the province, both English and French, and the two teachers’ associations involved.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know how up to date my friend is. I suspect that perhaps he hasn’t been in Sudbury as recently as I have. I was in Sudbury yesterday and indeed met with the separate school boards, some of the retarded children’s parents and others in the afternoon.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that they have requested a hearing with representatives from the other associations being included, does the minister intend to meet with all of the groups involved? And don’t try to isolate it, if that’s what the game is.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I intend that we go into second reading of that bill very shortly and we will have a full chance to discuss it in the committee. I am sure that we will all be able to benefit from hearing what the various groups have to say about these problems in the standing committee of this House.

I have had full meetings with various groups about that particular question. The hon. member knows I discussed it during the estimates. He knows what my answers have been to those people. They know that we are looking at it in the broad context of services for the retarded, but we can’t make any change at the immediate time in the context of Bill 72.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Revenue, please.

SALES TAX ON STAMPS

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, Nov. 4, the hon. member for Waterloo North asked me a question concerning our policy as it applies to retail sales tax on first-day-of-issue stamps sold by the federal post office department throughout the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Good: They finally established one.

Hon. Mr. Meen: There is a provision in the Retail Sales Tax Act, section 5(1)(51) providing for an exemption of uncancelled Canada postage stamps valid for transportation of mail where the consideration for the sale does not exceed the face value thereof. The first issues to which the hon. member referred are cancelled stamps with a notation on the face “first day of issue.” As they are cancelled before they are acquired by the purchaser, they are subject to retail sales tax and the tax that has been charged by the post office follows the provisions of the statutes.

There are other situations where the purchaser first acquires uncancelled stamps, which are then cancelled with the words “first day of issue,” through the normal post office procedures. In these latter instances, the purchaser is acquiring uncancelled stamps at face value which are therefore exempt under the statute and tax is not collected by the post office. It is recognized that there is a difference in these circumstances, but the statute is being applied in the correct manner when the sale is directly associated with cancelled stamps.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

STUDY OF VINYL CHLORIDE

Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question I’d like to direct to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, but I am not sure it is appropriate. He might want to turn it over to his colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch).

With respect to the question of the monitoring of polyvinyl chloride levels, which interests my constituents tremendously, in view of the response of the Minister of Health that the Minister of the Environment has no responsibility other than for ambient levels, and in view of the response yesterday by the Minister of Labour to my colleague from Waterloo North, what can I do to assure my constituents in that extensive chemical valley that there is no health hazard and that monitoring is going on in-plant in my area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I thought that was very capably answered by the Minister of Health. If the hon. member thinks that more action is needed and if it is indicated, I’d be very glad to take it up with the Minister of Natural Resources in the policy field and --

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, does the member want an answer?

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I haven’t even answered the question.

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s my understanding --

Mr. Speaker: The minister hasn’t completed his answer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the minister has anything further to say, then let him answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am saying I would be very pleased to take it up at the policy field, if it is indicated more action is necessary, and report back to the hon. member, although I can assure him that he can assure his constituents that being in the hands of the ministers of this government, everything possible is being done.

Mr. Lewis: Come on. Like Elliot Lake -- the minister lied through his teeth.

An hon. member: The government will be as dishonest as it can.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, if I may: Did I then misunderstand the Minister of Health that he didn’t have the answer because the Minister of the Environment isn’t responsible for in-plant monitoring, and that the Minister of Labour is so responsible and that he didn’t have the answer, and on what do I rely in carrying this message of confidence back to my constituents?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can rely upon the answer I gave him.

Mr. Bullbrook: We will all have masks on tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

FUNCTIONS OF AMBULANCE ATTENDANTS

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. In view of the minister’s recent statement regarding the rather more restricted functions which ambulance attendants will perform in the Province of Ontario, what would he claim as being the reason for having in a pamphlet, “In an Emergency,” which is available in most emergency rooms in the majority of hospitals in the province, statements to the effect that patients or those who are injured can view ambulances as being rather like an extension of the emergency unit of a hospital, or that the training available to ambulance attendants, including that which is available at Kingston, is extensive and allows them to carry on many almost paramedic functions?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we discussed this problem at great length during my estimates debate. I would think no other issue got as much time during the estimate debates.

Mr. Deans: Is the pamphlet correct?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The pamphlet is correct when it says that in effect they are an extension of the emergency ward, because these people on the ambulances are well trained. Out of 2,500 of our drivers, 2,100 have received the training at Base Borden. That’s a short course, we admit, but it has proved to be effective.

Mr. Deans: How about the Kingston course?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The Kingston course, as we told the members clearly, turned out to be non-productive. We are replacing it with a one-year course in the community colleges that will be the entrance requirement for future people acting as ambulance attendants or drivers.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Will the minister discuss with those of his ministry who are now expressing privately their concerns about the level of ambulance service available whether or not it might not be more advisable to alter the approach at present being taken by the Ministry of Health toward ambulance attendants?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are some people privately and publicly offering comments. I have been trying to find out which of these would like to discuss these with their supervisors in the proper way. I have always encouraged, within my ministry, disagreement with policy if in fact the person believed it was incorrect. I think there’s a proper place to do that within the ministry. I think the member would agree with that if he were in my shoes. I feel that when these people disagree, they have the right to call me or tell me. I do not feel they necessarily have the right to disagree by telling the press they disagree, without bothering to tell me.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary if I may; one very short supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: If it is very short.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister now agree that there is, in fact, discontent within the ambulance service, right from the supervisory level down to the ambulance attendants, and it ought to be looked into by the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Absolutely not.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Minister of Health now give the answer to that previous question?

Hon. Mr. Miller: There were two questions, Mr. Speaker, if I have time to answer them.

Mr. Speaker: Are they very lengthy?

USE OF AMPHETAMINES BY ATHLETES

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, about a minute each, I would say.

During the question period of Nov. 13, the hon. member for Wentworth I believe it was, asked a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in my absence. I would like to answer it, with her permission.

The question related to allegations that large doses of amphetamines were being administered to certain football players prior to games.

Now for more than a year, federal authorities have placed a strict limitation upon the use of amphetamines. Only certain conditions have been approved for long-term treatment with amphetamines. These are listed -- and I don’t think I need to read them to the members. To treat other than these conditions with amphetamines, a doctor must obtain special permission from the federal authorities. Allegations that they are being improperly administered should therefore be directed to the proper regulating federal authorities for investigation. We would be glad to co-operate with the member in that case.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Is it the minister’s intention to investigate the allegations made by Dr. Fried that the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons are aware of this occurring and to take some appropriate action to make sure they are not being administered illegally or in doses which might be harmful to the players?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have the authority to do anything but I will be glad to make sure that after what you have said it is acted on in some way.

FREE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. Miller: The second question was from the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), and related to a recent price increase for certain drugs listed in the drug benefit formulary. He implied that these drugs would be delisted if the prices went up. There had been considerable fear about this and I feel, therefore, I should answer the question.

I would like to advise that my ministry has discussed these price increases with the manufacturers. They are considered to be reasonable in view of the escalating costs of raw materials involved in production and rising labour costs.

Provisions have been made to continue to cover in the formulary these drugs which have been subject to price increases. In other words, the patient will not pay more; the druggist will be covered for his increase in costs. The matter will be taken up with the pharmaceutical industry in an effort to obtain assurance that it will attempt to hold prices at levels effective at the date of publication of a formulary.

Mr. Speaker: For the final question, we might allow the member for Wellington-Dufferin to pose a question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, before the member poses that question, may I be a little irregular and change the order? The Provincial Secretary for Social Development wishes to introduce some visitors from a school before they leave.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to introduce to you and to the members of the Legislature 60 grade 8 students from St. Martin de Porres Separate School in West Hill. Will the members please join with me in welcoming them.

Mr. Roy: The provincial secretary is wearing a pretty sharp outfit.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wellington-Dufferin.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Speaker my question is related to the statement made by the Minister of Energy about the location of certain transmission lines in my area.

Mr. Roy: The minister better hang on, it is going to be a tough one.

Mr. Root: A week ago the member for York Centre --

Mr. Deans: Question, question.

Mr. Root: The question is coming. If the member would quit interrupting me, I would get to the question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, we are wasting valuable time. The hon. member may continue.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): There they are; common rowdies again.

Mr. Root: A week ago the member for York Centre made the suggestion that some $9 million was to be spent to divert a line --

An hon. member: Ah, cool it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Stokes: Give him a chance, he is a new member.

Mr. Root: I realize the member for Wentworth is prone to interrupting. He interrupts everybody.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Root: About a week ago the member for York Centre suggested that some $9 million might be spent to divert a line around some very good citizens in the township of Erin, namely the reeve and warden of the county, the deputy reeve, a Mr. Harry Hindmarsh, and my own family. Now I wasn’t aware that I was in any way related to $9 million. I was really flattered, but my question --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Let him finish.

Mr. Speaker: Will you please place the question? We gave the hon. member special consideration; would he please ask the question?

Mr. Root: My question is: There is to be a statement made on Nov. 20 probably, and maybe later in December, and there has been a suggestion that the line be built completely around Wellington county --

Mr. Deans: That’s not a question.

Mr. Lewis: Does the member want his money? Darcy, give him his money.

Mr. Stokes: He should practise asking questions at home.

Mr. Root: And that member should practise keeping his mouth shut while other people are talking. My question is --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, how about some order?

Mr. Lewis: Why should I have to split my money with Harry Hindmarsh? That’s what I want to know.

HYDRO TRANSMISSION LINE DIVERSION

Mr. Root: My question is: Is there any consideration being given to the suggestion that was made by an engineer in Erin township that instead of crossing over the valuable farm land in Wellington county the line be taken through by Owen Sound, Collingwood and come down the Essa corridor? Will that be given consideration before the final decision is made?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, consideration was given and further consideration is not being given to using the Essa corridor. The Essa corridor presented certain problems but the most specific reason for not using it was the desire by Hydro, and agreed to by the government, to preserve the Essa corridor for transmission lines which undoubtedly will be required from northern Ontario to southern Ontario in the future.

Hydro is presently, for example, looking at the possibility of generating sites on the north channel of Lake Huron in the Blind River area. That power will have to come into the grid, and the Essa corridor, so called, is probably the logical route for it to get down here to Toronto. So I would have to say to my friend from Wellington-Dufferin, no, that is not something which is presently under consideration at this moment.

Mr. Good: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The question period has long ago expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

JUDICATURE ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, there are three basic features to this bill.

First, it increases the complement of the court of appeal from nine justices of appeal to 13 justices of appeal, besides the Chief Justice.

Second, whereas at present cautions or certificates of lis pendens can only be vacated by a high court judge, the amendment permits a judge of the court in which the suit is pending to vacate the caution or certificate of lis pendens.

Third, it prohibits the taking of pictures or other visual representations at judicial proceedings or of persons attending judicial proceedings.

Section 1 of the bill increases from 10 to 14 the number of justices of appeal, which is warranted by the extremely heavy burden on the court of appeal. The criminal appeal caseload of that court has grown by 100 per cent since 1963. Between Oct. 1, 1972, and Sept. 30, 1973, the list of criminal appeals pending increased from 495 to 629. In addition, there has also been a substantial increase in the civil appeal burden over the last 10 years, although not so great as the increase in criminal matters.

Section 2 of the bill is designed to remedy a minor problem and I have already made some general reference to that.

Section 3 adds a section 68(a) to the Act to prohibit the taking of photographs or other visual records in court or of persons attending court while they are in the environs of the courtroom or building.

ELECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Election Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have another two pieces of legislation -- perhaps I might comment on all three of these bills at the same time.

STATUTES ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Statutes Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

EXECUTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Execution Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I have introduced three bills of what could be referred to as a housekeeping or administrative nature; bills to amend respectively the Election Act, the Statutes Act and the Execution Act.

The amendment to the Election Act disqualifies all judges from voting in provincial elections and is identical to the amendment made this session to the Municipal Elections Act, 1972. This amendment, made at the request of the judiciary, restores the disfranchisement of judges which has existed in Ontario at least since 1864 and which was removed by the new Election Act in 1968-1969. The disqualification from voting is designed, of course, to protect the independence and the impartiality of the judiciary, the appearance of which might be endangered, especially when judges of the Supreme Court and the county courts are called upon to adjudicate matters arising in the area of election law.

The amendment to the Statutes Act deletes the requirement contained in section 4 of that Act that the date of prorogation be endorsed on every Act. The removal of this requirement is consistent with similar legislation in all other jurisdictions in Canada and will result in savings of printing costs and reduction of the time within which the annual volume can be published.

Finally, the amendment to section 32 of the Execution Act clarifies the applicability of the section to newly created regional or district municipalities. Section 32, which likely does no more than codify what would otherwise be the common law, provides that where an area of land becomes part of a different county or judicial district, writs of execution which were effective against land at the time of the change of jurisdiction continue to be effective until their withdrawal, expiry or renewal. As newly-created regional or district municipalities are not technically annexed to an existing county or judicial district, some confusion may have arisen as to the applicability of the section. This subsection simply deems the area of land to have been annexed, obviating any difficulties of interpretation.

DOG LICENSING AND LIVE STOCK AND POULTRY PROTECTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Stewart moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Dog Licensing and Live Stock and Poultry Protection Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides that the same valuer do the valuating for livestock and poultry designated in the bill lost to dogs or lost to wolves or a cross between the dog and the wolf. We hope that it will clear up the difficulties that some farmers are experiencing in having a valuation placed on animals which may be damaged or destroyed by wolves.

MUNICIPAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the bill carries out the undertaking which the Minister of Education gave the House last week to confirm the right of teachers and others to run for municipal office without having to take leave of absence or resign from their present positions.

The amendment makes it clear that employees of school boards, and commissioners, superintendents and overseers appointed under section 393, are free to run for election to municipal council.

Municipal employees are also free to run for council provided they are not employed by the municipality where they are seeking office. Municipal employees seeking election to the council of the municipality in which they are employed must take leave of absence to run and resign if elected. In metropolitan or regional or district municipalities, municipal employees therein may not run for council in any member municipality without taking a leave of absence and resigning if elected.

In view of the approaching elections, Mr. Speaker, we will be asking the permission of the House to allow the speedy passage of this amendment.

HEALTH INSURANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Miller moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this bill has a number of technical amendments, among them the right for the general manager of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan to take immediate action based on advice given him by the medical review committee pending an appeal of that decision. It adds the regulatory authority so that the Ontario Medical Association fee schedule can be adopted by reference, and a few other very minor items.

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT

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

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, again this bill contains a number of technical amendments. It allows the medical officer of health and his agents to have police assistance for entry into premises if they require it.

It extends immunity for actions now granted to the medical officer of health to his assistant and to certain public health inspectors. It ensures that health inspections of places such as lodging houses, which currently can be done at any hour of the day, be done at reasonable times.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 32nd order. House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

On vote 803:

Mr. Chairman: Last night when we adjourned on vote 803 the member for Ottawa Centre had the floor.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I was going to carry on in the same kind of tone as last night, but as I thought about it, I thought I would speak today more in sorrow than in anger about the Housing Action Programme and about the fraudulent way in which the government has gone ahead with this particular programme and about what is emerging, which is an anti-social housing policy rather than a social housing policy.

It’s a bit like Krauss-Maffei: bold promises made by the government on so many occasions, enormous reliance placed by the government and terrific resources put into public relations by the government in order to convince people that something is being done -- in this particular case about housing -- but when you come down to it, nothing at all to back the promises. This is nothing new with this government, but I just simply hope the message gets through.

What makes me weep, however, Mr. Chairman, is the fact of the opportunities lost over the last three years. Just in looking through my files, I could see that as recently as 1971 the ministry was making housing available under the HOME plan for $15,000 or $16,000 a house, plus about $50 a month in land costs. We’ve gone so far away from that in so little time. So much of that could have been avoided had we been moving in with massive public land acquisition and other programmes that we’ve been pressing on this government for an awfully long time.

Before I come to OHAP in particular, I would just point out too that in terms of ministry promises it’s now eight years since the government promised 20,000 units a year under the HOME programme, which was a good programme eight years ago. In that period of eight years as a whole, rather than having 160,000 units we have had the pitiful total of 15,015 units under the HOME plan. It’s like a lottery. If you’re lucky, you win. If you’re not lucky in Ontario, you lose. And more and more people are finding themselves the losers in the housing field under the policies of the provincial government.

The Housing Action Programme was summarized in “Housing Ontario” which was a document put out by the ministry last May. At that time, it was stated correctly that $20 million was being allocated for the programme in fiscal 1974-1975. In fact, we now find according to the Treasurer’s estimates that only $8 million is actually anticipated to be spent during fiscal 1974-1975. Less than half of what was intended to go into the programme will be going into it, and that is a measure of the degree to which the Housing Action Programme is falling behind.

The objectives of the Housing Action Programme that were laid out in “Housing Ontario/74” began by saying that the government wished to bring in the housing production as quickly as possible significant amounts of serviced lands that would not normally be developed until the later 1970s. But what do we find? To begin with, we find that half of the units which have been announced so far after six months by the ministry were units that were already in production. This was land that was already actually in development and that could hardly be said to have been accelerated by the ministry.

We find that when the ministry’s goal was to increase rapidly the total supply of new housing, as the result of new serviced land, in fact, the more emphasis is put by the ministry on the Housing Action Programme the more we find the rate of new housing construction in the province is actually decelerating rather than accelerating. In the last month or so, the minister announced about 3,000 units under the Housing Action Programme. Perhaps I could point out to the minister that in urban Ontario, where housing starts declined last year from the 1972 figure, between January and October this year housing starts are down by 18.5 per cent, from 78,000 to 63,000.

In September, which was around the time that the minister began to get one or two OHAP agreements actually in place, the number of starts was down by 42 per cent, from 9,112 to 5,244; and in October the number of starts was down by 40.5 per cent, down to 5,265.

The minister, and certainly his deputy, knows what that means, that during the months of September and October, which are traditionally the months of heaviest new starts, the months in which builders get their shovels into the ground before the freeze-up, in order to prepare for ongoing winter construction, during those months there has been a tremendously sharp falling-off of new housing construction starts.

We don’t know what the picture will be for November, but nothing that I have seen leads me to think it is very cheerful, and as the minister probably has learned by now, December, January, February and March, for climatic reasons are, in this country, months of low construction activity in the residential market. You don’t get many units beginning then. There is no way you can rescue the situation in the last four months of the year.

So you are not bringing serviced land into the market in order to accelerate production; and you are not increasing the total supply of new housing. Then, it was said that the intention of OHAP was to increase significantly the production of new housing avail- able to families of low and moderate income. You know, if I were on a low income, I don’t know what I would do. If I had a large family, I don’t know what I would do in this province now.

The minister very kindly last night gave us some indication of the breakdown of the units which have been signed for under the Ontario Housing Action Programme. And ‘‘Housing Ontario” gave a good breakdown of the income distribution or families in this province in 1972, and it’s quite possible to update it to 1974 by increasing it by a certain factor.

Back in 1972, Mr. Chairman, 20 per cent of the families in this province had an income of less than $5,000 a year. Not a single unit for families in that low income range is being provided under the Housing Action Programme under what has been announced by the minister so far, and there is no indication, with the 6,000 or 7,000 units he has mentioned may be committed by these same developers, that any of those will be directed to people earning under $5,000.

The next income group is people earning under $8,000 a year. That was the next 20 per cent of families in the province. For people under $8,000 a year there is not a thing under the Housing Action Programme. Some of them, with the increase in wages over the last couple of years, may have in- comes of up to $9,500 or so, and there is a remote chance for a very few that, with the combination of federal and provincial assistance, they may qualify for a HOME house. However, under the figures given by the minister last night, in which he gave a price of around $28,000 for HOME housing units being made available in conjunction with the OHAP programme, it is clear that those units are directed to people in the $10,000 to $14,000 range and not to people in the bottom 40 per cent of the families in this province.

If people earning under $10,000 in the province are not low income people, I don’t know what they are. They are obviously the people who have the greatest housing need, the greatest housing problem, and there is not a thing being done under the Housing Action Programme in order to help them. If the minister can find 100 units directed to that particular group, I would welcome the knowledge. But if there are even 100 units, you have to recognize that you are talking about 40 per cent of the province, you are talking about people whose housing problems right now are, on average, much more severe than the average Ontario family.

If you are on a low income in Ontario you are more liable to be a tenant and to face very sharp rent increases because of the lack of rental control. If you are on a low income of under $10,000 a year in Ontario there is a chance that you may have a larger-than-average family, because larger families and low incomes sometimes go together. Certainly it is more difficult for the wife to work if there are more than two or three kids in the family. If you are earning under $10,000 a year you have more of a chance of living in substandard accommodation or accommodation which is in need of renovation.

All these factors conspire to make the housing picture of people on low incomes pretty desperate, but there is no response in the Housing Action Programme such as has been revealed by the ministry, either before now or in the information that was given by the minister during the course of his estimates.

Then you come to the group between $8,000 and $11,000 a year or, if you will, between $9,500 and $13,500 at today’s incomes. In terms of distribution this is the middle group, the middle 20 per cent, running between 40 and 60 per cent on the income scale. This is, I would presume, in our language in the NDP, the so-called middle income or moderate income group. I don’t know what groups the minister is talking about when he talks about $20,000 earners being on moderate incomes because that is not a moderate income by most people’s standards.

They’ll ask, if you are earning under $13,500 a year what is being made available to you under the Housing Action Programme? Out of the 3,000 units in the Housing Action Programme there are 178 units which are going to HOME and these are clearly directed to that group who are earning less than $13,500. About five per cent of the total units under the Housing Action Programme are directed to the people earning under $13,500 under HOME.

In addition, if they have the misfortune to have a family of two children of opposite sex or three children of any sex --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Most do.

Mr. Cassidy: Most do, that is right. Or four or five or six children, or 11 children, like the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski), they will find that there is simply nothing available to them -- or virtually nothing available to them.

I think that in the Metro Toronto area I was able to find 36 three-bedroom apartments in Bramalea available for families with a minimum income of $13,880; and either 18 or 36 units, also three-bedroom apartments, available for those with an income around $14,050. If you were below that income -- in other words, if you had a family with more than a couple of kids and you had an income as great as 60 per cent of the families in the province -- you wouldn’t get a darn thing out of this programme apart from those units which are made available under HOME. In Ottawa there were 120 units under construction which were available to families earning between $13,000 and $14,000 a year, a slightly better picture, but the overall picture is dismal.

The Housing Action Programme promised to bring new housing onto the market, yet of the 3,000 units that the minister has announced, 1,467 were actually under construction at the time they were brought into the Housing Action Programme. In other words, those units were not new, they were not accelerated, they were being made available to people who might not have otherwise been able to afford them because of different mortgage arrangements, but these were not new units that would not otherwise have been built.

Finally, 20 per cent of the families in the province are in the upper middle income ranges which would now run between about $13,500 and $19,000 a year, and another 20 per cent make over $19,000 a year, and for those groups, who ought to be able to cope for themselves if the market was running in any reasonable kind of way, and if this government had moved in to take control of land prices and to take control of housing prices and to ensure that housing was made available at prices that people could afford, these upper and upper middle income groups are the people who are the major beneficiaries under the programme which has been announced by the minister. Fourteen hundred units are being made available for people with incomes between $14,500 and $20,000 a year. Not only that, but almost all of the three-and four-bedroom units being announced under the Housing Action Programme are being made available to people with incomes of $14,500 a year and up.

In other words, if I can talk about this in pretty blunt terms, Mr. Chairman, if you want to have more than a couple of kids, you had better not be poor in this province. You had better not even be middle income in this province; you had bloody well better be well off, because otherwise you won’t be able to have a house where you raise those kids.

I don’t want to extrapolate too far, but the anti-social housing policy of the government very simply is going to restrict family size, to force people to make cruel decisions -- sometimes decisions which on moral grounds they cannot defend -- about the size of their families and about what they do about having additional children.

What is an ordinary Ontarian going to do? Ordinary Ontario families who are tenants and have got two or three kids right now are shut out of the programme. And I think the minister will agree that if they are shut out of the Ontario Housing Action Programme, then there is nothing being made available to them through the market system which is any better kind of a deal.

Let’s look at the headlines again and at what it is that the minister has been promising us with the Housing Action Programme. Back in October, 1973, the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself, who always gets in when there are headlines to be made but always backs out when there is a retreat to be beaten, as the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) is beating his retreat or as the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) was beating his retreat yesterday -- back in October, 1973, the leader of the NDP asked the Premier how many units would be produced under the Housing Action Programme, over and above the 100,000 to 110,000 units which we are now producing on an average basis per year. The Premier replied:

“Hopefully we could be looking at, in terms of 1974-1975, additional serviced lots of perhaps between 30,000 and 35,000 in the Metro area, hopefully around 7,000 in Ottawa and 4,000 in Hamilton. These are sort of tentative targets.”

Now, the Premier left himself a bit of room for manoeuvring, but certainly at that time, when he was seeking to seize the headlines, he indicated that major progress in new lots and new housing units would be possible under the Housing Action Programme. And for 1974-1975 he indicated there would be a total of between 40,000 and about 50,000 additional lots, many of which would have had housing starts by March, 1975.

I took the trouble to check that, if the minister wants to joust with me on it, and the full quotation in Hansard is in fact directly related to the Housing Action Programme. It is not, as the minister suggested last night, related to something entirely else.

Then on page 16 of “Housing Ontario/74,” the ministry said:

“It is estimated that OHAP will directly influence the production of 12,000 dwelling units in 1974 which might otherwise be built in 1975 or later, and upwards of 28,000 such units in 1975. This does not include dwellings made available to the Home Ownership Made Easy programme through OHAP.”

So what do we actually have? We have 3,036 units actually committed, of which 178 are for HOME and therefore shouldn’t be counted, and of which 1,467 are actually under construction and therefore again don’t really qualify to be counted as units that might otherwise be built in 1975 or later since they were being built already. That comes down to something less than 2,000 units which have actually so far been influenced by OHAP, compared to the Premier’s promises of about 40,000 or 50,000 and the promise by the government in May of 12,000 or more. It’s another example of housing by headlines.

If I can, I would like to read one of the minister’s quotes, because it is an example of the kind of fabrication and deception used by the ministry when it is trying to cover up the failures of this government in housing policy.

In May, the government says very clearly: “It is estimated that OHAP will directly influence the production of 12,000 dwelling units in 1974.” Now, housing has traditionally been calculated on the calendar year basis. When you say 1974, the wording is pretty clear, particularly since elsewhere the ministry talks about fiscal 1974-1975. For example, in the previous page in “Housing Ontario,” it refers to the allocation of funds for 1974-1975, distinguishing fiscal 1974-1975 from the year 1974.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Anyone would understand it is the same term.

Mr. Cassidy: It certainly is not.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Anyone could.

Mr. Cassidy: It certainly is not. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, where dwelling units were referred to in May, the minister in his statement on Tuesday night says: “I am still confident, Mr. Speaker, that our May target of 12,000 accelerated units and serviced lots will be met this fiscal year.” So you change the calendar year to the fiscal year, you dismiss the first three months of 1974 as never having existed and you change dwelling units into dwelling units and serviced lots.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, but I understand, as I talk with people in the ministry, that the number of starts he will actually have by March 31, 1975, is no more than about 2,000 additional starts to the 3,000 that you have now; a total of about 5,000 starts. That makes 5,000 in 15 months, compared to 12,000 that was promised earlier this year in 12 months.

Then I am told that there may be another 3,000 lots by March 31, but that only around half of these will be for people earning less than $20,000 a year; the rest will be for people earning over $20,000 a year. People in the upper 20 per cent, the top 20 per cent of income earners in this province, are having to get handouts from the government because of its disastrous failures in housing policy.

Then I am told that there may be another 4,000 lots, but don’t count on them. In other words, the chances are that they will come in 1975 and not in 1974.

I don’t propose to talk about 1975, because that’s a kind of never-never land. This ministry has to be judged on the basis of its performance now and not on the basis of the kind of figures it can trumpet and bring forward. From Stanley Randall on, we have had a succession of announcements of housing by headlines from the government, which invariably fail to be matched by performance. I have tried to go through the figures as best I can, Mr. Chairman, because of the failures in performance that we have seen so far and because of the indication that nothing better is going to come out of the ministry.

I would point out that the units that were detailed by the ministry last night are, as I understand it, all to be funded under the special mortgage financing which I believe is coming from the province at 10.25 per cent and is directed to people earning $20,000 a year or less. Now, with an average mortgage of around $30,000 or $32,000 on those 3,000 units that were mentioned by the ministry, that means that you have committed so far under the Housing Action Programme mortgage funds of about $100 million. As I understand it you have mortgage funds available for this programme for the current year of about $58 million. In other words, the completions on some of these units are going to have to be done in 1975 and there isn’t a nickel left in mortgage funds available to aid in the purchase of housing units bought under the Housing Action Programme.

That’s the situation as it stands right now. You have run out of dough. You have cut the amounts that you are dedicating to the Housing Action Programme by more than half, from $20 million to $8 million. You are misleading the House all over the place and you will shortly get up to tell us about the tens of thousands of proposals that you have for 1975.

There has been not a word by the minister or the ministry about any successful efforts at bringing down the price of the land involved.

You may talk about not having it go up, but then, as we have learned already, for a number of reasons the price of land stopped going up about six months ago, for reasons that were not related to the Housing Action Programme.

You should be able to show this House that you are bringing the cost of land down by several thousand dollars per unit in order to make housing more affordable, and I challenge the minister to provide any evidence that the government’s actions have so far brought housing prices down in that kind of measure.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, under the Housing Action Programme, I would like to point out just how costly the housing being provided is and how unrelated it is to the economic realities of the average person seeking to buy a home. A family with one or two children, and the wife at home, because the kids are under four and she believes in looking after them or she can’t find day care for them, living on an income of $13,000, who decide to buy a two-bedroom apartment in Bramalea under the Housing Action Programme will get it for about $4,200 per year in principal, interest and taxes. Then, in addition, they will have to pay a condominium charge of around $25 to $35 a month depending on the cost structure of that particular building and depending on whether they pay their heat directly or whether they pay for their heat through the condominium charge. The total cost of that housing unit for that particular family will be of the order of $4,800 to $5,000 per year.

If you look at it from the other end, the $13,000 income earned by a single breadwinner gets cut into, with about $2,000 in income tax; about $300 for OHIP; $120 for unemployment insurance; and about $125 for Canada Pension Plan. That amounts to a total of about $2,500. If he has a pension plan in his firm for example, if he works for the Ontario government -- the pension contributions will easily amount to $500 or $600 more. You take off the top of that $13,000 income about $3,000 in deductions, give or take $250 either way. If he doesn’t have a pension plan, he would be up about $500. That leaves a net income after deductions in the order of $10,000 to $10,500, out of which that person has to pay around $4,800 to $5,000 a year in overall costs -- I’m sorry, $4,500 to $4,800 a year in overall costs for the apartment.

When you look at it in net terms, this isn’t 30 per cent of income going into housing, it’s somewhere between 42 per cent and 48 per cent of net income going into housing. The poor fellow is left with about $100 a week with which to run his automobile, if he has to commute to Toronto; with which to pay for food, clothing, for entertainment, for recreation and, God forbid, for a contribution to the political party of his choice.

If you go up a bit to a family with three kids and a three-bedroom townhouse and $14,500 per year, the cost of that townhouse is going to be of the order of $5,000 per year. That’s what they are going to have to put into it, according to the ministry guidelines. They will have to pay $5,000 a year out of a net income after deductions of pension, tax, OHIP, Canada Pension, unemployment insurance, and so forth, of between $10,700 and $11,500. That is also in the order of between 42 per cent and 47 per cent of their net income going into housing.

I ask you is that what it is to live in the Province of Ontario, to put out almost half of your takehome pay in the cost of housing? Is that the best that this government can do? Is that the best as we, as a Legislature, can do for the people of Ontario, for people who are nominally in moderate or middle-income ranges? It’s a disgrace. It’s a real disgrace and it’s a sign of just what a desperate failure the government has brought about and of the lost opportunities that could so easily have been seized by this government, if it had had a commitment beginning five or 10 years ago to providing housing at reasonable cost to every family in this province, rather than this commitment to lining the pockets of developers the length and breadth of the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments to the member for Ottawa Centre. First of all, in all fairness to other members of the House, the member has been away for awhile and I guess he has missed some of the things that have happened in regard to our housing programmes for Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: I have read them all with great interest.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: When you mention that there is only $8 million for OHAP, you couldn’t have read very clearly, or you couldn’t have understood what happened in the past few weeks when we added $100 million alone for housing. We have at least $58 million for OHAP -- not $8 million.

Mr. Cassidy: No, the Treasurer (Mr. White) says $8 million specifically for OHAP. Not for mortgages, but for OHAP.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have in our housing statement, which you looked at, $20 million.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Okay. We have $20 million plus the $58 million that I mentioned for OHAP. Now, where did you get your figure of $8 million?

Mr. Cassidy: The $8 million is contained in this document of the Treasury, “Ontario’s Finances,” which gives a revised estimate at the end of October for the Ontario Housing Action Programme and says it will go down to $8 million for 1974-1975. That is as of Oct. 31, 1974.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It says March 31?

Mr. Cassidy: Oct. 31.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Oct. 31.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. Obviously somebody isn’t telling --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The obvious fact is that we are putting the money that is allocated for housing where we determine it is needed most. We, in the Ministry of Housing, have determined that there will be $20 million plus $58 million for OHAP. If more is needed we will add those funds to it.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps the minister would say $58 million was originally announced by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Handleman) and --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The $58 million was announced some while ago, as I said.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Certainly then you are not aware of what is going on when you said we only had $8 million. That is the point I am trying to bring out.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the point I was making was that the funds specifically designated under the Housing Action fund, which we are debating right now, of which $19 million was allocated for basically the acceleration of serviced lots and grants to municipalities for the Housing Action Programme, is the sum which has been reduced to $8 million, according to the estimates of the Treasurer, Mr. Chairman. As the minister says, $58 million has been allocated for mortgages to OHAP purchasers. I was pointing out just now, if the minister had been listening, that more than that has been committed and that the barrel has been scraped dry as far as additional reduced-rate mortgages to OHAP purchasers are concerned.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Since the member has the report in front of him, does he have what OMC has allocated?

Mr. Cassidy: The Ontario Mortgage Corp.’s allocation has been increased from $75 million to $105 million, indicating that part of the $58 million or part of the original $75 million allocation to the Ontario Mortgage Corp. is not now expected to be disbursed during the course of the fiscal year 1974-1975 because of the delays and difficulties the ministry is having in getting its programmes under way.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, that is absolutely incorrect.

Mr. Cassidy: You had better talk to the Treasurer, then.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am talking about your statement. We don’t experience the difficulties which you are indicating to the House.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, no?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We feel that the programme is going ahead very rapidly.

Mr. Cassidy: Speak to the Treasurer, then.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not disputing the Treasurer’s figures; I am disputing what you are saying.

Mr. Cassidy: He is a perceptive guy, the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am disputing what you are saying -- do you understand that?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All right. If you will listen for a minute, we might understand that when we say in our “Housing Ontario/74” that there was $20 million to bring into production in the fiscal year 1974-1975, we don’t talk about our estimates in the calendar year. We talk about our estimates being 1974-1975, we talk about housing units in the fiscal year of 1974-1975 and certainly we don’t cut our year off at the end of December, as you have indicated to the House previously.

Mr. Cassidy: I am just listening to the English here that has been used in that statement.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All you have to do is read the statement. I can read it to you, and the point I want to make to you is that we talk about the fiscal year at all times being the end of March 31, and it’s 12,000 dwelling units in 1974, 28,000 in 1975 -- fiscal years, in both cases. Now, the Premier first of all announced serviced lots and we are talking about serviced lots and dwelling units. We are including both, and we fully expect to reach those targets.

Mr. Cassidy: But you were talking about dwelling units exclusively on this subject, and now you are talking about both.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Either way I think we are improving. If we are talking about serviced lots in the first instance and if we can get houses on that, isn’t that an awful lot better?

Mr. Cassidy: We see neither 30,000 serviced lots nor 12,000 dwelling units. You have missed both targets on that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All I am saying to you is that we talk first of all about serviced lots --

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, you have failed.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, we haven’t.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We haven’t at all. We have every indication we’ll have the serviced lots by the end of the fiscal year.

Mr. Cassidy: Not 30,000.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There will be 12,000 in 1974-1975; 28,000 in the fiscal year 1975-1976. We have every indication that that is going to be met -- if we receive, as I mentioned before, the co-operation which we have to have from various sources. And I am talking about the federal government as being the one which is the primary concern to us at this particular time, because of the high interest rates, because of the lack of mortgage lending funds. I think this is where we have to make sure that the province has programmes which will supplement those which are inadequate at the federal level.

We are hoping that when Mr. Turner’s budget comes down next week that we will have some extra funds for Mr. Danson to apply to Ontario. We don’t know for sure whether we will or not, but we certainly expect to.

You have talked at some length about the families with under $5,000 income. Well, let me say to you that the average family income in Ontario, to my knowledge, is in the neighbourhood of $14,000. Right?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Now, when did you ever expect in any day of 1974 or 1975 that you could own a home while making $5,000 -- with the mortgage rates that we have now, with the cost of living that we have now, with the inflationary factors that keep escalating every month? It’s absolutely impossible.

So we have applied rental funds which will provide rental accommodation to a rent-geared-to-income, and through our senior citizens accommodations, to our non-profit community organizations, we have endeavoured to provide rental accommodation for those families in that income. There is absolutely no way in my opinion that you can expect homes to be built and paid for for any family that has an income of approximately $5,000. It’s a ridiculous socialist philosophy, as far as I am concerned.

Mr. Cassidy: I think the people earning that kind of money would be interested to see that statement from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, certainly I would be quite happy to have them see it, because I say to you that you are in a dream world. You don’t understand what figures add up to. You talk and talk about a philosophy, but the reality comes out in cold, cold facts. You have to have so much money to pay your debts. And if you think a family making $5,000 can have a home, can buy their food, can pay for their clothes, can provide all the niceties of life that everyone wants in this modern day, I just say it’s ridiculous. There is no way.

Mr. Cassidy: You are not doing anything else for them either, though.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The thing that we are doing, as I said, we are providing rental accommodation --

Mr. Cassidy: At a picayune rate.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- through the private enterprise system and through our own --

Mr. Cassidy: At a picayune rate.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- funds which we have provided; and through the federal funds, which we have assisting us through these programmes.

We think that there is every reason to be proud of the OHAP programme. You have not torn the programme apart in the least. As a matter of fact, you’ve only substantiated what I said last night. I went into full details for the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). There is no way that I am going to go through it again.

Mr. Cassidy: No, no, I have read them.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You have certainly not interpreted what OHAP has done for the people of Ontario correctly, and I think the people of Ontario will be delighted to see your statements.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And I intend to make sure that they understand what the socialist party of this province is trying to do for them.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They are trying to discredit a very good housing programme, and one which is being brought forth to the people at a much lesser rate --

Mr. Cassidy: We have pierced so many of your programmes over so many years -- they are headlines and nothing else.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member to say it again? I couldn’t quite hear it. Would you repeat the statement? I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear it.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes. There has been a consistent criticism by this party of government housing programmes, pointing out that they promise a lot and never deliver it. And that’s the case in the Housing Action Programme as well.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Now, let me then say to the hon. member that this province has brought forth as many units as possible. We have provided more housing units than any other jurisdiction. Housing has declined all over North America, all over Canada, in every other province --

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): We need more. The minister knows that the statement doesn’t add up to anything.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and there is absolutely no way that you are going to meet unrealistic targets unless you adjust the interest rates and unless you have the proper mortgage funds. We have asked continually that this be provided to the Province of Ontario through the federal government, and it hasn’t been done. We have asked continually that the inflationary pressures be reduced, be constrained. Instead of that, no action has been taken -- whatsoever.

Mr. Cassidy: But the government would never move in on developers, no; never take over the land, no; never bring in any kind of --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Let’s talk a minute about the developers. You have never experienced as good an agreement anywhere in Canada as we have here right now. These agreements are something to be proud of.

Mr. Cassidy: How much did it bring the price of land down, though?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Let me take the cost of the units. Let me tell you this, you can’t go anywhere in Metro Toronto and have comfortable accommodation for the prices that are in here. I will challenge the member to do that; you can’t do it. Therefore, I say that OHAP has provided housing at a reduced rate to a great many people, and we are going to continue to do it. We are going to have another announcement for you next week, and another one after that -- and we are going to continue to haunt you. We are going to taunt you every week we can. We are going to disprove every statement you make here.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister can do it; I’d welcome it; but I don’t think he can.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are going to do it, so don’t just think we’re bluffing with figures. We are coming in with figures. I want to make awfully sure that you also understand that even though houses are under construction, what is to stop the owner of that particular development from not completing the particular unit? Nothing. It is a free world; he can stop completely. We ensure that these units are brought into the market at reasonable prices, and much lower than at the market value we have on today’s market. We have stabilized the prices in the areas where OHAP has been effective. We expect to lower the prices some more.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister lives in a dream world, he really does.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member for Ottawa Centre doesn’t understand the figures --

Mr. Singer: It is a saw-off -- the minister doesn’t understand him, and he doesn’t understand the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All you have to do is take a look at this -- and the member for Downsview might agree with this, too, if he had a look at it; he might understand it -- that those figures are something which can be backed up. They are not a philosophy; they are actual facts. He has been around quite a bit, he might admit they’re pretty good prices. How many deals has he had that he could give to any of his customers at those prices?

Mr. Singer: They’re not customers, they’re clients.

Mr. Cassidy: This is incredible.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I am trying to say to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is that he just doesn’t know the programme; he just doesn’t know what we have done.

Mr. Cassidy: This is incredible.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He has criticized OHAP, which is very successful. We have provided rental accommodation to the people who have lower incomes than $8,000. We assist those earning $8,000 to $14,000 to $18,000 -- the low to medium income wage earner.

As far as we are concerned we see a great need for the municipalities, the private enterprise system, the federal government to assist every province, especially in the Province of Ontario, to make sure that we have more housing units than we had predicted. We predicted 90,000 units and we think we will meet that target. But we say that is not enough; we say there is a need for more. So there is a need for the federal government --

Mr. Cassidy: In a 15-month year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to act very quickly to meet the social needs of our people. We have put more money into housing than any other government.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the hour is moving on; I know there are some other questions. I have an answer to a question which was asked yesterday, which involved several members, so I wish to make sure that we carry on with the rest of the vote.

Mr. Cassidy: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman -- I recognize the time too and the member for St. George wants to have a word or two.

I find this entire discussion by the minister quite bizarre and unreal. He proudly states that since half of the families in the province earn less than $14,000, it’s a good thing that OHAP is coming in in order to provide three-bedroom accommodation only for families earning $14,000 or more. Anybody who is a wage earner who works in a factory, who earns the average industrial wage in Toronto of around $3.70 or $3.90 an hour, and who has a couple of kids or more and wants to get involved, simply can’t; and the minister sees nothing wrong in that, nothing wrong at all. I just find that bizarre. I would have thought that the purpose of this government’s housing policy would have been to ensure that people on low and moderate incomes did have access to housing, and I would have thought that low and moderate incomes, by definition, would both be under $14,000, if you want to cut it up, and middle incomes above $14,000.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Access to housing, I said they have.

Mr. Cassidy: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Access to housing, I said they have.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister admits that nothing -- what’s that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Be careful of your terminology.

Mr. Cassidy: The terminology of the minister is as Alice in Wonderland. If he really calls moderate incomes up to --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Ownership. The access to housing is a different thing.

Mr. Cassidy: If you want to talk access to housing, the ministry is building less than 2,000 new housing units for families under the Ontario Housing Corp. this year, and the minister knows perfectly well the amount of demand that’s being created there by the condominiumization, by people getting kicked out, by demolitions of older housing and all the rest of it. He knows perfectly well that people in low income groups of below $5,000 or below $9,000 are being pushed around in the housing market, and yet the response of the ministry is pitifully small. It is negligible. It just isn’t there.

Sure, I don’t expect that every family earning under $5,000 would be in a position to own their own home, but when you have got to be in the upper half of incomes in the province in order to afford a family home which is brought on to the market through the Ontario Housing Action Programme, and when nothing is being done if you are in the bottom half, then you have got to ask, who is it that this government serves? who is it this government looks after? and what about those people who are being left out in the cold by the Ontario government’s antisocial housing policy?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, before we let that one go, again the member was absent and again I am going to read very briefly into the record so that the member can’t send his Hansard home without any reply, because I know this is what he delights in doing.

Let’s go through the whole issue which I went through before the House only a couple of days ago, when I reported on all the programmes as they stood up to Oct. 31, 1974.

In family housing, we have 416 starts recorded and 1,716 projected by the end of this fiscal year. The target set in May was 2,000, so we are meeting the target.

Mr. Cassidy: The target was pitiful to begin with.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: A little bit over. We are a little bit over.

Mr. Cassidy: The target was pitiful in relation to need.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Senior citizen units, 3,756 starts to date, 6,015 projected for the full fiscal year. Our target was 6,000.

Mr. Cassidy: Your family housing starts would take five years to meet the Metro Toronto demand.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Integrated community housing, 428 starts to date and 2,520 projected for the full fiscal year, against a May target of 2,000. Now, 25 per cent of those units are rent supplement units. In the HOME programme, we have 1,815 starts to date, with 4,669 projected for the fiscal year of 1974. The target was 6,000, set last May. Community sponsored housing, we have 1,103 starts to date, with 2,300 projected in the fiscal year of 1974, which is 300 more than the target set last May. Rent supplement, 607 starts to date, 1,300 projected for the full fiscal year, 200 over the May target of 1,100.

Again, Mr. Chairman, as I have said before, we have directly influenced 10,125 housing starts so far. I want to say that the target set last year, last May, for the fiscal year is 19,100 starts. We will be very close to that; we might even be over that if we get the co-operation we look forward to getting. Read Hansard.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Chairman, I’ll be brief on this vote. I, for one, am very pleased that the minister is prepared to taunt the opposition with figures so long as those figures are translated into housing starts. I, for one, will welcome that particular exercise if it means that we are providing housing for people at some kind of rate which is realistic, having in mind the problems in housing at this time.

My question is, of course, who really will have the right to develop an equity in housing? From anything the minister has given to me, including his statement of last night, which I’ve had some slight opportunity to go over, I am still of the opinion that this will be restricted to the top 40 per cent of the population earning over $14,500 a year. Therefore, what we face in this province is that the less affluent will continually be forced to add to their landlord’s equity, whether that is the government as a landlord or private landlords.

I would just like to make a brief reference to one of the suggestions made by the NDP in their opening remarks for improving the present situation. Their suggestion was to lengthen mortgage amortization periods over much longer periods of time as a way to reduce the monthly carrying charges. They recognize that this, of course, would substantially increase the cost of the housing, but they felt that it would be worthwhile.

From our point of view -- and this leads into the HOME programme if you take a figure of $20,000, at 10 per cent interest amortized over 30 years, the cost is $172.54 a month; amortized over 35 years it is $168.85; and over 40 years it is $166.66. But the problem is that in extending the amortization period, the equity buildup is very slow. Finally, if you reach an amortization period of over 40 years, then at the end of 10 years the owner would probably have built up an equity of some $680, as opposed to an equity of $1,880 after 10 years over 30 years’ amortization.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on the HOME programme because it comes, I think, in two parts. First of all, there is the real fact that the people who are purchasing under the HOME programme are not really aware of what the implications are for them. It should be absolutely incumbent on the Ontario Housing Corp. to explain the situation to the prospective buyers so that they understand exactly what they are getting into through this lease arrangement.

Surely it is possible, particularly if the federal government brings in this $500 grant for down payments, for this government to match that to at least assist in the purchase rather than the rental proposition in the HOME programme. I would ask that the minister give some consideration to that suggestion.

I think it’s important to point out that a $15,000 lot, at 10 per cent interest amortized over 35 years, results in a monthly payment of $126.64. A $15,000 lot, leased at the same 10 per cent, at random results in a monthly lease of $125. The actual savings in the monthly charges in those two cases is $1.64. In the one situation however, the buyer owns his land after the 35 years and in the other situation he owns nothing. I think it’s important, Mr. Chairman, that we do proceed to have some sort of disclosure to people as to the effect of what is happening to them in this total programme.

I am not going to comment further on the answers given last night. As I indicated to the minister, the figures are just not borne out by our investigations. The minister very kindly offered to co-operate with me in checking them down at some future date, so that perhaps we could be very careful not to mislead people as to the starts as of the end of this year, which we were discussing. That was the real nub of it. Whatever may have been said about the fiscal year, we were talking about, and the report deals with starts as of Dec. 31. This is the conflict in the statements which have been made to date Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, very briefly, Mr. Chairman. I just don’t understand where the conflict is between the calendar year and the fiscal year. We’ve never at any time talked about the calendar year.

Mrs. Campbell: Dec. 31 in my book is not the end of the fiscal year but the end of the calendar year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I can understand Dec. 31 is the calendar year.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you. That’s what I thought too.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I thought so, and probably most people would in this House. In any event, when we take a look at page 15 in “Housing Ontario/74”, and it has been quoted, we are talking about the fiscal year 1974-1975. It is very plain; it is about as plain as you can make it. I don’t know why we keep questioning that point, when for everything that is happening in this House day by day, we are talking about the fiscal year. Nobody can deny that. The Treasurer’s budget is on the fiscal year, not Dec. 31.

Mrs. Campbell: We are aware of that, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’m not going to go any further than that. Surely we can make the record pretty clear that we are talking about the fiscal year rather than the calendar year.

You talked about incomes. In the summary that I gave you, doesn’t it appear evident to you that over 50 per cent of them -- 1,622 units out of the 3,033 -- are for those in income ranges under $14,500? I read that out before.

Mr. Cassidy: But those are for small families. Those are one- and two-bedroom units. That’s the problem. Are you going to have infanticide in this province?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Again, Mr. Chairman, has the member got this report or not? Can’t he read and see how many three-bedroom units there are?

Mr. Cassidy: Sure, but they are all for people earning over $14,500 a year, apart from 36 apartments, 36 townhouses and 120 in Ottawa and apart from the HOME units.

Mr. Chairman: May I draw to the attention of the hon. member that the minister was responding to the member for St George?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. I think I’ll confine my remarks to the member for St. George.

There is more hope there. I can’t seem to get through to him to provide the information for the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

But in any event the units are available for those who have incomes less than $14,500; 1,622 units as I said before. Then we have the 1,411 for those between $14,500 to $20,000. I think that is an excellent mix. We have an excellent mix also of the one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units and at excellent prices. I don’t think there is any debate on that point.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is blind.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We go into the matter of HOME, which is in the next vote. I think probably we should discuss it then.

Mrs. Campbell: I thought we had been discussing it all along.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, we are at OHAP now, the Housing Action Programme. We can go into HOME later. But I have a statement to make which is going to take some time.

Mr. Singer: Is that in reply to what the leader put forward yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I had it last night and we ran out of time.

Mr. Singer: I am very anxious to hear that.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 803 carry?

Vote 803 agreed to.

On vote 804:

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Are you ready now?

An hon. member: Go ahead.

Mr. Chairman: Item 1.

Mr. Singer: Have you got some copies of it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, but I’ll give you a copy if you wish.

Mr. Chairman: May I ask the hon. minister if the statement applies to any of the items, or is it general, applying to vote 804?

Mr. Cassidy: We would like to take the --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It applies to OHC, the allegations which were made yesterday afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and --

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, why do we start in a provocative fashion? They weren’t allegations at all, they were statements of fact and questions. There were no allegations.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We’ll come to the terminology. As a lawyer you can use whatever you wish. I want to make a statement in reply.

Mr. Bullbrook: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Does the House agree that we take vote 804 collectively?

Mrs. Campbell: Let the minister make his statement.

Mr. Chairman: Will the minister make his statement?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I promised yesterday to reply as soon as possible in these estimates to the Leader of the Opposition in regard to his remarks about the land assembly north of Oakville, or South Milton, as I’ll be referring to it from now on. I had this statement prepared last night. I was ready to give it last night; I indicated to the member for Sarnia that I did have it. We didn’t have time to deal with it.

Mr. Bullbrook: We wanted a reply immediately, but we agree that it wasn’t drawn out.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thank you. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader of the Opposition, in my opinion, in his typical fashion, is looking at the odd tree and arriving at a faulty conclusion about the whole forest. Before dealing with his specifics, let me discuss with the hon. members the strategy of assembling major blocks of land. This is a strategy employed by the private sector, by Central Mortgage and Housing Corp., by the federal-provincial partnership, and since 1964 by the Ontario Housing Corp. when it took over the role of the partnership in this province.

The opposition has on previous occasions in this Legislature criticized the government for failure to acquire substantial land holdings. I think, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate to discuss briefly the reasons for public land assembly programmes before describing the techniques used by the Ministry of Housing and its agencies for this purpose. It has been the policy of previous provincial governments to acquire substantial land banks near major urban centres. This government has continued this programme until recently. Acquisition of such land ensures participation at reasonable cost --

Mr. Singer: Now we are getting to it. Reasonable cost, that is what we were asking.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- in the future growth of these new communities or the present communities, by these means: Implementation of broad provincial land-use plans, minimizing the effects of land speculation in the more rapidly developing areas of Ontario; minimizing the loss of betterment value; ensuring housing at reasonable cost; assisting regional and municipal governments in controlling the pattern of growth and rate of development; providing a means of developing communities to a higher level of socio-economic achievement.

Lands selected for acquisition are located in areas which have been designated for urban growth under various regional economic planning aspects, or in accordance with established official plans. The location of specific sites is determined after consultation between other involved government ministries and agencies, the Ministry of Housing planning staffs and Central Mortgage and Housing Corp.

After the site has been selected it is then necessary to determine the acquisition technique. Basically, we have two choices, Mr. Chairman; to purchase it on the open market, or expropriation. It is difficult to establish a justification of need for expropriation unless and until a development programme is determined, including time frames. But while our government has on occasion expropriated strategic holdout parcels within a land assembly, it has generally followed the free market processes. There is little doubt, Mr. Chairman, that this has resulted in most cases in speedier and more economical land acquisition. The purchases have been made from willing vendors and there has been minimum complaint by the public as to the method used.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I think the Freedmans were very willing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As I have said, the techniques used by the provincial government are identical to those used both by the private sector and by the federal government, acting either on its own behalf or under a partnership arrangement with the province.

Once the acquisition technique has been determined, a real estate broker is then selected to acquire land, acting as an agent for an undisclosed purchaser. The number of real estate firms across the province having the expertise to undertake this specialized form of real estate activity is very limited, and the government has therefore only engaged real estate brokers with proven experience in land assembly techniques, staff capability for the specific acquisition, and with local knowledge. It will be understood that extreme confidentiality is required during the acquisition process and that land prices tend to escalate rapidly when the pattern of an assembly becomes evident. It is therefore vital to secure substantial acreage quickly, and a variety of techniques are employed toward this end.

As a means of determining the probable price of land to be acquired, staff surveys are first undertaken of the area, including an examination of current listings and current inquiries from all owners. We have current inquiries as to the willingness to sell and as to what their asking prices are. Real estate brokers, with their professional staff, appraise the market before a target price is determined. Initial attempts to purchase are made at low prices and close liaison is maintained with ministry staff until a minimum acquisition price is established. These prices are reviewed from time to time and the acquisition proceeds on the basis of acquiring the total lands at the average price previously determined.

Using generally this technique the province during the 1950s, under the federal-provincial partnership, secured major land assemblies in municipalities such as Scarborough, Hamilton Mountain, Ottawa, Guelph and a few others.

Mrs. Campbell: Prescott.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Since 1964, OHC has carried out some very significant land assemblies, again using this technique, throughout the Province of Ontario, either on its own account or in partnership with the federal government. Some of these are: Waterloo in 1968; Oakville south from 1968 to 1970; Brantford township in 1970; Ottawa in 1972, and early 1973; Windsor in 1972; Milton south in 1973, and Whitby north in 1973.

In all these areas the technique of identifying potential growth areas, establishing the average price that should be paid throughout the assembly based on local knowledge, employing a local real estate agent to carry out the land assembly in accordance with the principles I have previously outlined, was used at all times. These assemblies now have a total acreage of approximately 15,400 acres.

In late 1972 the corporation recognized that in the Toronto central region the inventory on long-term land was basically Malvern, and that if they were going to have any input whatsoever in housing in this area, they had to have a land strategy.

Discussions took place between the central Ontario study group and OHC in order to identify potential growth areas. It was recognized by the government and by OHC that it was necessary to make an early acquisition of considerable land for future community growth in the Toronto central region in accordance with the objectives I have previously outlined. The area identified was between

Bowmanville and Burlington.

At the same time, the federal government had made available $500 million for urban landbanking for Canada for five years. To use these funds the provincial government, through OHC, moved to identify specific areas of growth potential and received general approval from the federal government in 1973 for the use of $63 million out of the total federal government budget of $100 million for that year.

Publication of the parkway belt west study identified more specifically the South Milton site for future urban growth. This document was published on June 6, 1973. It was recognized that this document would hasten land speculation in the Oakville-Burlington area. It was recognized that because of restrictions on substantial urban growth within the present Metro boundary and, with the Toronto land market being very dynamic, it was essential that the province acquire, as quickly as possible, sufficient acreage to avoid the pattern of future land speculation. At that time land prices in the Milton area, along with other heavily urbanized areas, were escalating monthly. I repeat: They were escalating monthly.

The first priority area was in Oakville south, where the corporation wished to expand its already existing landbank of 1,300 acres. OHC very quickly found that land prices were up to $15,000 per acre. Given these prices, no further action was taken. The second priority area was South Pickering, where prices were similar; and once again no action was taken. Two other areas were identified, South Milton and Whitby north.

Now I want to deal very specifically with the South Milton area, where it was decided to assemble approximately 4,000 acres out of the 8,000 acres identified in the June 6, 1973 report. General approval was obtained by OHC from the government to acquire sufficient lands at a price not to exceed $7,000 per acre.

OHC, acting on behalf of the Province of Ontario, undertook a survey of the price of lands in the Milton area in October, 1973. The survey was carried out by a senior member of OHC who is an experienced appraiser.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): At $7,000 an acre it should be!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In addition, the corporation consulted with principals of Gibson Willoughby Ltd., who confirmed that the asking prices in the South Milton area ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 an acre.

Mr. Bullbrook: What was the date of that, please?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: October, 1973.

Mr. Bullbrook: October, 1973.

Mr. Singer: Was the senior official qualified? Was he a qualified evaluator? Does he belong to --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He is an experienced appraiser --

Mr. Singer: No, does he belong to any of those associations?

Mr. Bullbrook: Does he belong to the Appraisal Institute of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If you’ll let me finish --

Mr. Singer: Tell us his name and his qualifications.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If you’ll let me finish; fair enough?

Asking prices in the South Milton area ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 per acre and could be expected to increase. The firm of Gibson Willoughby was authorized, on behalf of the corporation, to negotiate the acquisition of up to 4,000 acres of land as quickly as possible in a prescribed geographic area south of Milton. The reasons this firm was requested to proceed as quickly as possible were that indications at that time were that prices by the summer of 1974 would further escalate.

Mr. Bullbrook: You got no appraisals -- that is the answer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: A random sampling of unlisted property indicated unwillingness to sell at prices from $4,000 to $6,000 per acre. In some instances they were not willing to sell at all.

Mr. Haggerty: Didn’t the land speculation tax lower it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As is customary in determining the prices to be paid for large-scale land assemblies, the formal appraisal mechanism was replaced by a study outlined previously of land prices prevailing in the area and consideration of future trends, as I described above. The land assembly negotiated by the firm of Gibson Willoughby Ltd., acting on behalf of an undisclosed purchaser. Initial offers to purchase were not to exceed $3,500 per acre, and it was only after very considerable effort to obtain the land in this price range that the offers were increased gradually until agreement was reached on prices within the agreed range.

The OHC staff at all times controlled the activities of the real estate broker and the acquisition progress was constantly reviewed.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on.

Mr. Bullbrook: There should be a public inquiry right now.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Let the minister finish his statement.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It should be pointed out that during the initial stages of this land assembly, Mr. Chairman, offers or options to purchase were being resold without registration. It was impossible at that time to determine, in some cases, what the vendor had actually paid for the land.

Our objective was to assemble land within target prices in a specified geographic location to stabilize prices in the area and provide for future government requirements. I say to the hon. members today that I feel that those objectives have been met.

Mr. Haggerty: At $7,000 an acre?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Now, Mr. Chairman, let’s deal with some of the very specific comments made by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the South Milton land assembly.

It is not, as he stated, that the Milton law firm of Holden, Perras, Ford and Haesler undertook the purchase on our behalf. The lands in question were purchased by the firm I mentioned before, Gibson Willoughby Ltd, and the law firm in question performed the legal work.

The reference to an OHC spokesman, Ross Howard, which he quoted from the Oakville Beaver, is a misquotation. Mr. Howard made no such statement about a city with an eventual population of one-quarter of a million.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was just quoting from the newspaper.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Howard merely reiterated, as I did in my press release of July 4, that the “lands were acquired for land banking purposes and we have no immediate plans for their development.”

The hon. Leader of the Opposition indicated a concern about the lands remaining in agricultural use. I want again to quote from my press release, where I made it very clear:

“A sad effect of the land speculation in these areas, particularly Oakville north. has been the withdrawal of land from intensive agricultural production. This has been a matter of much concern to us and we are taking steps to remedy the situation.”

Mr. Cassidy: This was happening years ago.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It went on:

“In co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Housing will make every effort to increase intensive agricultural production on the lands under their control.”

For the information of the hon. member, the experience in the OHC land assembly in south Oakville has been that agricultural production has increased substantially since the lands came under OHC control, and I have leases to bring forward, if necessary.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition mentioned that in one instance one of these companies purchased land just 31 days before the government of Ontario acquired it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thirty-two.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thirty-two, sorry.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Feb. 8 to March 12.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: While the records may reflect that date, the actual date of purchase, or the closing date, is not necessarily the date on which the company optioned the land.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right, what is the date? You tell us the date.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And it may very well have been before the final date the purchase was registered.

Mr. Bullbrook: Are you saying it was? Come on, you don’t do that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is the practice to option land.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, do you have information that it was any other date? If so, you’ve got an obligation to tell us. Now don’t again deflect “may well have been.” Let us know what you know.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is the practice to option land Mr. Chairman, for a considerable time before making the final purchase arrangements.

An hon. member: It is not.

An hon. member: Try to answer the particular question.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The hon. member also mentioned that these companies purchased seven properties.

Mr. Bullbrook: You must think we have no experience in these matters at all.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But I would like to point out that these were only seven of the 22 purchases made in that land assembly.

Mr. Singer: Is that a fair sample?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Furthermore, the hon. Leader of the Opposition referred to government purchases at grossly inflated prices.

Mr. Singer: I would say he is right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would advise that these companies received, on average, no more than any of the other owners of the land in this assembly.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on.

Mr. Bullbrook: What you are saying in effect, is two wrongs make a right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Twenty-two wrongs.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: One might suggest that maybe, in the first instance, the original owner didn’t receive enough money.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right, they all got too much.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Let the minister finish his statement.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to say there has to be a realization --

Mr. Bullbrook: You are saying they didn’t get too much because they got the same as the others. They all got too much.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to say that people should make some money in a transaction.

Mr. Bullbrook: Are you saying that any percentage profit is permissible?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If people wish to sell and buy, that’s up to them.

Mr. Bullbrook: Are you saying that 80 per cent profit is too much?

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Will you let the minister complete his statement?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That is beside the point entirely.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I want to advise that the highest price paid per acre in this land assembly was $6,000.

Mr. Bullbrook: Not by the Freedmans it wasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It was not to one of the companies referred to.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Freedmans didn’t pay $6,000 a month before. They paid $3,000.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The lowest price was $4,100 per acre. The average price paid to the companies the hon. member mentioned was $5,500 per acre. The hon. member mentioned that the corporation did not reflect good basic business acumen. I would suggest, from my earlier comments concerning land assembly, OHC was certainly using good business practices.

Mr. Bullbrook: They were not.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The hon. member for Downsview made a number of comments with respect to appraisals.

Mr. Singer: Yes, I did.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would advise that the techniques used for this land assembly, which I have just outlined, were not detailed appraisal techniques.

Mr. Singer: Yes, we gathered that.

Mr. Bullbrook: I take it we will have a copy of the study.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Now, as I mentioned yesterday --

Mr. Bullbrook: We will have a copy of the study?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- there is a relationship between the land speculation tax and the major land assemblies.

Mr. Bullbrook: It has no relationship.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Up until April 1974, the major method of the government in intervening in the housing market was done through OHC, by both direct housing development and major land assemblies. Since that date, and with the effects not only of the speculation land tax but also the housing action programme, the accelerated development of existing OHC land holdings now give us a much broader approach to the supply of affordable housing.

Mr. Bullbrook: You betcha; and don’t allow the Ontario Housing Corp. to buy another thing for you if they are going to spend that kind of money.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: One of the comments that was not made was that the corporation, by purchasing some 2,300 acres centrally located in this proposed urban area, now very effectively controls, in collaboration with the regional government, the timing and the rate of development for future residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural land use in the South Milton area.

I want to turn to the broader strategy in the Toronto central region, to point out to all of the hon. members, through you, Mr. Chairman, that our present holdings include approximately 17,000 acres in North Pickering, 2,300 acres in north Whitby, our current developed holdings in Malvern and Edgely in Metro Toronto, our 1,300 acres in south Oakville, the 2,300 acres in South Milton, our Saltfleet holdings, and finally, the recent acquisition of lands in Haldimand-Norfolk.

In my opinion these holdings will give the province a very major role in the future housing development of this province. Without the initiatives of OHC and without these lands we cannot ensure in the future land that would be developed for the low and moderate income people of this province.

I think OHC acted fairly responsibly. We have been told that the lands acquired are presently worth more money today than they were at the time of purchase.

Mr. Bullbrook: That amount isn’t in Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to make a brief comment on what the minister has said.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you. In trying to follow his justification I must point out to you that as a businessman from Prescott, a person who had the responsibility of the taxpayers’ money in that town, it seems incredible that he would try to justify this system of blanket evaluation -- and I have just been following it case by case here -- because he said Gibson Willoughby, through someone he is not prepared to identify, had indicated a professional judgement that the properties they were concerned with were worth an average of $6,000 an acre in October of 1973.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But I’d like to point out to you that Mr. and Mrs. Freedman, through Bonnydon, were able to buy at least 83 acres on Oct. 11, 1973, for just about half that. Maybe they didn’t consult Gibson Willoughby.

Mr. Bullbrook: How did they do the study?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe they used their own judgement and went out to buy the property on an entirely different basis, without the encumbrances of the sort of professional and technical advice that the minister and the taxpayers evidently have to put up with.

Surely this kind of a blanket evaluation is an irresponsible way of doing business with public funds. I submit to you that the minister wouldn’t use it for his own money, and that for him to try to defend this process is nothing short of irresponsible when we think that, as the minister says, the seven cases we picked out weren’t even the worst ones. There were 22 cases in all in that one land assembly and in some cases he paid more even than the cases we brought to your attention, Mr. Chairman. The justification for a blanket evaluation as of October, 1973, simply shows that someone who is knowledgeable in the market would never have given that evaluation in the first instance, and perhaps somebody at Gibson Willoughby figured that it wouldn’t make any difference what the government paid anyway, because they have a bottomless barrel of money with which to purchase these properties.

Let me also point out this, that the government was prepared to subvert the development rights of many owners through the imposition of green belt planning, and this is very, very close to that green belt, an area which is subject to local restrictions, since it is designated agricultural.

Yesterday the minister was shaking his finger at me saying, “You don’t know what use it was put to.” Presumably it wasn’t being opened as a gravel pit. Presumably it was not being paved over as a subdivision, as the minister may eventually do. Presumably it was not a shopping centre. He is concerned that it wasn’t in productive agriculture. I would submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) or someone else could very well bring those thousands and thousands of acres of goldenrod around this city into productive agriculture very readily indeed by changes in the tax situation, rather than resorting to the Minister of Housing paying these inflated amounts with taxpayers’ money with the kind of inadequate advice that he has attempted to justify this afternoon.

We have called for a full investigation into the administration and business procedures of Ontario Housing. The explanation that the minister has given us in no way deters us from continuing to call for such an investigation. Obviously their business practices are unwieldy. They are resorting to the kind of advice that is a part of the great real estate club that has grown up around this metropolitan area and across the province. They are not taking the hard-headed business decisions that a corporation formally separated from government was intended to take.

We on this side are really amazed at the attempt to justify the expenditure of many millions of public dollars in acquiring these lands for the purposes laid out. Their agricultural future, or at least the control on their development, was already established under local by-law, which is really directly under the control of this minister and to some extent the chief planner who is presently travelling in Arabia. I cannot see that the justification comes close to it. We really expected, after the minister would have a day to consult with his officials, that he would lay on the table for us today a property-by-property, parcel-by-parcel evaluation by competent appraisers certainly, rather than simply a letter which may be in his possession from somebody in Gibson Willoughby that he would be safe in buying this for $6,000 an acre because next year it’s going to be worth more. Twenty years from now it may be worth $20,000 an acre, but that is a very, very poor way for the public business to be conducted.

Maybe you should hire Mr. and Mrs. Freedman. They certainly seemed to know that that land was going to be increasing in value. They came in in October, 1973, and bought those properties for about $3,000 an acre and in one case less than that. Why couldn’t Ontario Housing have done that for the good of all the people of the province, if their decision was that they had to have that land? Rather than subject themselves to this kind of a purchase, they should have at least considered expropriation, if it was that important to save that parcel of land, to save it from the encroachment of goldenrod because it wasn’t being encroached by anything else.

An hon. member: They thought there was gold there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The decisions surely are insupportable and the explanation of the minister is thoroughly unacceptable. The minister was being somewhat critical about our motion to reduce his salary. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that that’s the only resource we have in these estimates to indicate that we feel that the decisions taken by the minister and his predecessors have been irresponsible in this particular area and in countless other acquisitions in every part of this province.

We can’t afford to use the valuable time and the scarce time of our research assistants, paid for by public dollars, to go out into all of these registry offices and follow up Ontario Housing in every one of their acquisitions. Certainly we were looking for some evidence that perhaps there was previous knowledge, and there is none whatsoever in these. What we are concerned with is that public dollars are being squandered by the lack of business acumen that should be a part of those people who are conducting the day-to-day business of the Ontario Housing Corp.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, before the member for Downsview gets up, the hon. Leader of the Opposition doesn’t admit to the fact that the lands were not being used for agricultural purposes. Whether it was mixed farming on idle land or whatever type of use was being made of the land, what we are saying to you is when would you ever go out and get an appraisal of each individual property for a large land assembly? Nowhere.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ask Gibson Willoughby. They will do it for you.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Nowhere.

Mr. Singer: Oh come on!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There’s nowhere, and the member for Downsview knows better than that too. If you are going to assemble a large acreage of land, you don’t have appraisers running all over the place. It’s absolutely nonsense and you know it.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, what the minister has said just boggles the mind really. This is apparently a statement of how government proceeds in a careful and business-like manner to look after the taxpayer’s dollar to achieve objectives. I am not going to argue even about your objectives. We could have a long, long debate on the reasons for land assembly. It took you an awful long time to come to the point in your lengthy statement, and you never did really come to the point. You ran circles around it, threw up barriers, set up strawmen and then proceeded to knock them down.

You complained about getting possession. You know, or somebody there should have told you, that once you expropriate you can get possession very quickly. You can argue for years about the amount of compensation, but if possession was in your mind, you could get it within a matter of weeks. All you have to do is get an order to pay money into court. You would get an order for possession, if you had an appraiser on whose appraisal estimate you could have asked for the order properly.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member is not suggesting we can use expropriation. He doesn’t mean that?

Mr. Singer: Oh, why not? Why not? Where you get recalcitrant sellers who are apparently standing in the way of what you believe is government progress or who are holding up the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario for extra profits, what do you do?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What is the member’s plan? He understands extra profits.

Mr. Singer: You cower down, you give in and you pay these exorbitant prices.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The member is a lawyer --

Mr. Singer: I was quiet while the minister was talking --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, the member wasn’t quiet.

Mr. Singer: Well, reasonably quiet. The minister is being much noisier than I was.

The minister started off by talking about an appraisal by a senior official of the department of OHC. Could he name that gentleman? Tell us what his background is, what his qualifications are, whether he is a member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada, whether he is a member of any other appraisal institute, what properties he has appraised before and the extent of his knowledge and his background? In other words, can you qualify him the way we have to qualify any appraisal witness we put into a court to justify our argument as to value? That is a normal thing. It is just a little unusual that the minister wouldn’t choose to do that if he was trying to back up his case unless the information I am asking for now really doesn’t back up that kind of an argument.

So what the minister has said is that he had one senior official whose bona fides are perhaps just a little dubious -- I don’t know, I stand to be corrected if the minister can give me the information --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will give it to the member if he sits down. Why doesn’t he sit down and I will give it to him.

Mr. Singer: -- who didn’t use -- and this is the minister’s phrase -- “the formal appraisal mechanism but who did a study.” Why couldn’t the minister do a formal appraisal -- the kind of appraisal I was talking about yesterday -- for each one of these properties? There are only 22. They are all vacant, they could have been appraised. There are all sorts of appraisers around.

As to the Pickering thing, the minister could have asked his federal friends and they could have told him about the airport -- how they have had appraisers in there. He could have asked any of the lawyers around the province who are familiar with expropriation matters and who are the appraisers. He could have gone to the Appraisal Institute of Ontario, the Appraisal Institute of Canada, and said, “Who are they?”

They are not real estate agents. Appraisal is a very fine art at which one has to work very hard if he is to understand it. But what the minister is telling us is, there was no formal appraisal mechanism. He added that he didn’t do the sort of thing I talked about in my remarks. Obviously he didn’t do this sort of thing and it is obvious he is not going to be able to stand up and say, “Here is the appraisal for property 1, 2, 3 through to 22” because he hasn’t got such appraisals. He replaced appraisal by a study.

Mr. Chairman, having gone that far and indicated what to my mind approaches criminal negligence in handling the affairs of the Province of Ontario, I think that the least the minister can do is to table that study. Having tabled the study, it apparently is going to come out and say that the average price per acre “should be” -- and it really didn’t matter what anybody paid for them -- the average price “should be.”

I gather Gibson Willoughby had instructions: “Offer one $3,500; if they’re tough, $4,000; if they’re tougher, $4,500,” and you moved up to the maximum price. It really didn’t matter what they paid for it, how long they’d owned it, but you staged it and those were your instructions to Gibson Willoughby. Throwing Gibson Willoughby in as some kind of a bolster for the minister’s very weak case is ridiculous. They are real estate agents. They are not purchasers, they are real estate agents employed by the government who were paid a commission for their work. They weren’t exercising any judgement, they were carrying out specific instructions. The only person who exercised any discretion was this unnamed senior official --

An hon. member: And the Premier.

Mr. Singer: -- who is some kind of a qualified appraiser. And then he didn’t appraise, he studied -- and he brought in a ball-park figure. What kind of sense does that make?

In the case of the property that Loring sold to Bonnydon on Oct. 11, 1973, for $265,000, how can you use a ball-park figure and pay to Bonnydon five months later $458,000, a profit of nearly 100 per cent?

How can you say Ontario Housing did a good thing? How can you stand up and say we didn’t do a property-by-property appraisal? How can you have the nerve to get up and say maybe those dates in the registry office don’t mean anything? If you know of any dates that are on the register in the registry office that give false impression, tell us.

How can you have the cheek to suggest that since we only searched seven of the 22 properties you talk about that perhaps we haven’t got all of the answers? If the other 15 that we didn’t mention show any different kind of a picture, would you tell us? That would be the kind of a defence you have to make. But you made no defence. You’ve dug yourself into a great big hole. You’ve proved conclusively that instead of using the known and accepted techniques that are used to acquire pieces of land, particularly by public bodies, as exemplified by the Ontario Expropriations Act and the federal Act, you have done it by something called a study by one man who may or may not be qualified. I think, as I say, that approaches criminal negligence. It really does; it is a waste of public money.

Mr. Chairman, what I am suggesting is that there has to be a judgement valuation made about this. I don’t trust the minister’s judgement and I don’t trust his advisers’ judgement any more. I think the time has now come where we could take this whole Milton acquisition and turn it over -- let me throw this challenge at the minister -- to Mr. Yoerger, the head of the Land Compensation Board and let him fix value for each of these properties and let him tell us whether or not the prices paid were reasonable.

Or, if you think Mr. Yoerger’s a little too close to the scene, pick any one of the federal court judges who deal with expropriation matters across Canada for the government of Canada, as they are a little more remote, and run those 22 cases before them and let the province go in and try to justify those cases. I ask you to accept that kind of a challenge.

I charge you with the gross and inordinate waste of public money with absolutely no idea of business practice. You were sold a bill of goods. Your officials don’t know what they are doing. You accepted that advice and you’re responsible for it.

The thing is ludicrous. The government stands condemned for getting into this kind of thing and then trying to fob off the issues with this statement here this afternoon, where you talked about formal appraisal mechanism being replaced by studies. What you did was open up the sewer and throw the public dollars down. There is just no excuse for it. You are going to have to do much, much better.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, let me answer, if I can, as briefly as possible. Let me share in the mutual distrust. I may have some distrust of your remarks also. Let me say this to you. Some of the things you have said have not been factual. You say we didn’t have appraisals. We had appraisals from the firm which I mentioned.

Mr. Singer: Which firm?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Gibson Willoughby.

Mr. Singer: Could I interrupt you there? Have you got the appraisal of the property by Gibson Willoughby?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Gibson Willoughby Ltd. --

Mr. Singer: Have they appraised these 22 properties?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- has the capability of having appraisals made for every property.

Mr. Singer: Have they appraised these properties?

Mr. Chairman: The minister has the floor. Would the member for Downsview take his seat please?

Mr. Singer: Have they appraised the properties?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They participated in many other properties.

Mr. Singer: I didn’t ask that. I asked if they appraised the properties?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Let me just complete my statement. I let you complete yours.

Mr. Singer: Yes, but it is a little difficult.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It was difficult to sit here and listen to you. I’m trying to say to you that there are many other properties that we tried to buy and we couldn’t buy them. They are at much higher prices. I can read out to you as to what --

Mr. Singer: Did Gibson Willoughby appraise these properties?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- the prices were. Some of them were as high as $10,000 per acre. I want to impress upon you that we had agreed that the prices that were paid were fair prices at that time. There used to be time in Ontario and other parts of Canada when prices didn’t escalate as quickly as they have in recent months. But that’s not the fault of this government. That’s the fault of the federal government. And it’s time you recognized that.

Mr. Cassidy: There it goes again. In land, you blame the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The prices went up out of range and we knew that we had to take some action, so we did. The prices are still higher today.

Mr. Singer: Did Gibson Willoughby appraise?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The man we referred to for OHC, is, to clear the record, Mr. Stan Proctor.

Mr. Singer: Before you get to OHC, did Gibson Willoughby do an appraisal?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Gibson Willoughby participated, I am told, in the price survey with OHC. Now, Gibson Willoughby --

Mr. Singer: Did they do an appraisal?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Gibson Willoughby knows how to appraise properties.

Mr. Singer: I didn’t say that. Did they do an appraisal?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am telling you --

Mr. Singer: You don’t know.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t --

Mr. Chairman: The minister has a right to reply.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- have words put in my mouth. I am telling you what they did. Gibson Willoughby participated in the price survey with Ontario Housing Corp.

Mr. Singer: Did they do an appraisal?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am also saying to you that the man for OHC was Mr. Stan Proctor. You asked for his qualifications. He has been with OHC for the last three years as director of land acquisition and management. He had federal government experience before joining OHC --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is why you are blaming the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- for six years in property acquisition and management. He is a fellow of the Real Estate Institute.

Mr. Singer: That doesn’t make him an appraiser yet.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: He is an Ontario land economist. He is a certified property manager. He has 20 years experience in the private sector. He has carried out, successfully, land assemblies in Ottawa and Brantford.

Mr. Singer: That still doesn’t make him an appraiser.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think, Mr. Chairman, this gentleman is well qualified to act on behalf of OHC in the type of assembly we did in this case. I say again, there is no need for individual appraisals to be made on large assemblies if you want to keep the matter confidential. There is absolutely no way you can.

Mr. Singer: And you certainly kept it confidential. Nobody would have guessed they were doing it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, can you tell me what technique would you use?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I can be very brief, because brevity results from complete disappointment. Yesterday I felt a twinge of disappointment that you, your deputy minister, and the officials of your ministry, were permitting the housing corporation to, in effect, hornswoggle you. What we have had now of course, is that Mr. Riggs and his people go back and write you an apologia, nine-tenths of which had nothing to do with the response to the questions put to you yesterday. The first 20 minutes you spent with the philosophy of land acquisition. We wanted to talk about this. I thought the least we would be into this afternoon was a respectable dialogue in connection with the quality of appraisals. I never thought, in my wildest imagination, that you would have the weakness or the audacity to come back and say that you didn’t do an appraisal, because as my colleague says, studies are nothing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t agree with you and your colleague, let’s get that straight.

Mr. Bullbrook: I will show you why studies do nothing. A study done by a man in your ministry, by Gibson Willoughby, told you the general value of acreage in the South Milton area was approximately $6,000, and while that very document, and that very opinion, on which you have expended millions of dollars of public funds, was being handed to you, Mr. and Mrs. Freedman in that very month were going out and buying 83 acres of land in the core of that area for $3,080. Now, how does your study hold up?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: When did they have the option? Do you know that?

Mr. Bullbrook: Subsequently, in December they go out and buy additional land, three months after your so-called study, and what do they pay? They pay $2,912 per acre.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: When was that? When did they option the land?

Mr. Bullbrook: December, 1973. When did they acquire the land? I don’t know, but you should have known -- and that’s it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: When did they option it?

Mr. Bullbrook: I put this to you, Mr. Minister --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I put it to you.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- that you can ill afford to sit over there and try to heckle when in effect you are dealing with a manifestation of ineptitude that I have never seen in seven years.

If Imperial Oil sent somebody out tomorrow and they brought back a so-called study on land acquisition to their directors, and somebody said Sun bought it yesterday for half that price, heads would roll. And the heads should start to roll with the Ontario Housing Corp. There is no justification in any fashion for the amount of money that you have paid. I don’t believe in the expropriatory powers being effected in connection with land assembly. As a matter of philosophy, I find it reprehensible. There should be a free market activity; I agree with that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Your colleague doesn’t.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am saying to you it is a matter of my personal opinion. If you start to put back to us the argument that you had to get it quickly, of course he is quite right. When you want it that quickly to save a million dollars of public funds, then you should get out there, expropriate it, and take it over right away. But what you have done is you have just absolutely buried yourself in this respect,

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You can’t expropriate.

Mr. Singer: Why not?

Mr. Bullbrook: I just said to you I don’t believe in the concept of expropriation. Forget about that. I believe in the free market attitude. I believe in a willing seller and a willing buyer. I believe in independent appraisals. I believe in your being able to justify to a court that you have spent the money properly. And you can’t do that; you can’t do it for one moment.

Mr. Cassidy: You don’t believe in landbanking either.

Mr. Bullbrook: What you have done here is you have gone to people who paid approximately $3,000 an acre, and on the basis of some pie-in-the-sky evaluation -- and that’s all it was. I ask you to table that study for us now. Let us see the foundation of the study. Is the study based on an evaluation of prices in the area? If it is, it is in the nature of an appraisal? Has he looked at comparable sales in the area? Did he know about the Freedman transaction? Let’s know about these things, the very things that you would have to do in justifying an acquisition before a court or before the Land Compensation Board. Why wasn’t that done here?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing further to add to what I have already said. I can go around and repeat the same things I said before. I don’t think it makes any difference now. I can’t convince the hon. member for Sarnia or the hon. member for Downsview, because they have their minds made up as to what should have happened.

I am saying that the lands we own are very valuable lands, and the government is going to be very proud to be able to show the people of Ontario in future years that they own these lands and that they can be developed for agricultural or other uses. I personally feel that the method that was used was a proper method.

Mr. Bullbrook: The value in future years has nothing to do with it. Again you deflect into that argument of potential value. Potential value has nothing to do with government acquiring land; it never will have, and it doesn’t in this respect.

Do you know what the Freedmans were entitled to? I will tell you exactly what a court would have given the Freedmans. The court would have given them their costs of acquisition, the costs they incurred in connection with acquiring the property, and a reasonable return on their money, having regard to the inflationary tendencies with respect to the land.

Mr. Cassidy: But you don’t believe in expropriation.

Mr. Bullbrook: No court in the world could have said to them, “You are entitled to 100 per cent profit in six months.” It hasn’t happened in Ontario -- you know it hasn’t happened in Ontario in connection with land of this nature. Prove to me one instance where land has appreciated 100 per cent in these circumstances without improvements of any kind. It hasn’t in connection with a total land mass.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the member may be an excellent lawyer; after that statement, I don’t think so.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister --

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comment would simply be that the Liberal Party doesn’t believe in landbanking. While the point they make may be valid, they are surreptitiously saying that they don’t want any government in this province to engage in landbanking --

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, come on.

Mr. Singer: Go and sit beside the minister and hold his hand.

Mr. Cassidy: -- in order to protect the housing consumers and the people who will ultimately be forced to pay the prices in the private land market. As for the government, its commitment is questionable.

I would like to ask on this particular point why the minister will not table the study. If it was a good and valid study, as he seems to be saying, and one which would stand up and would obviate the need for having detailed appraisals of every property, then the best way to prove that is to table it here in the House to make it available to members of the opposition, and then we can judge rather than simply having the member’s word for it. So will the member agree to that rather than have this argument go on back and forth?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I said that we had a participation between OHC and the firm which was employed in regard to the study of the cost of the lands. Now, I don’t know what will satisfy the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Well, table the report.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’m not really that concerned, because I am telling you that this, as far as I am concerned, is a deal which is a substantial deal, and certainly as far as the people of Ontario are affected it’s one that will be very much appreciated in the latter years of the 1970s and 1980s.

Mr. Lewis: Why don’t you table the study?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You have to understand that I have information here showing properties that we wanted to buy which we couldn’t buy because they were too high. I can table that. I have shown you figures we have on what we have bought; I’ve said they are average prices.

Mrs. Campbell: Why won’t you table the study?

Mr. Lewis: Why can’t you table the study?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I can table that. I’ll table my statement, I’ll table the documents that I have here, and that is it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let’s have the study.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: No, no.

Mr. Singer: Don’t you cut me off, sir.

Mr. Cassidy: The Liberal Party has been on the floor for 45 minutes, on this issue.

Mr. Singer: You took an hour and a half before.

Mr. Cassidy: You said I would be back.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister started by talking about the study; surely the study can be tabled in addition to these other documents. If not, can the minister say why not? Is there a written study which was prepared by the men from OHC and the people from Gibson Willoughby, and which was put before the board of OHC before a decision was made to buy these particular tracts of land? Is there some kind of written study? Or was it simply a verbal kind of an agreement between these two parties that about $6,000 seemed right for an average price?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I think a very great number of discussions have taken place on this particular acquisition. It is one which has written comments by many people and I think that we have to find out what we can assemble to bring to the House. I am quite prepared to table what I have before me --

Mr. Lewis: Boy, are you in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- which shows you the number of properties that we had bought, which shows you the number of properties we couldn’t buy, and which shows you the real reason why we bought them. I am willing to do that today.

I was asked to come in to the House and report how the acquisition was brought about by OHC. I have defended that acquisition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But you have not presented the evaluation study. We expected one for each property.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have done everything that the Leader of the Opposition asked.

An hon. member: We asked you to table the report for each property and you won t even give us a general one.

Mr. Lewis: You are hiding something. You are undermining your officials; in fact, you are ruining the reputation of OHC by refusing to table the study. You are undermining any integrity these officials have, by refusing to table it. What’s wrong with you?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the leader of the NDP just came in recently.

Mr. Lewis: I have been listening to it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are not refusing to disclose anything in this particular case.

Mr. Lewis: Then, table what you have.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I already said I would.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let’s have it.

Mr. Singer: Let’s have it, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you. The point that the minister appears to be making is that there is no specific study but that there was a series of documents which was connected with the South Milton land assembly before the first purchases were made. Naturally we will look with interest on the material he has before him, but I think that it is now incumbent on him to table all of the correspondence and the other reports and material which were available and which were prepared in connection with this land acquisition, before the land acquisition began as well as afterwards, because this is what he is saying -- that there is no particular study made. He is now sort of backing off and saying a number of things were involved.

Some very serious statements have been made in the House about the Freedman land and other land. As far as we are concerned, there is a fair way of dealing with a situation like this where the price being asked by somebody is obviously out of reach compared with his acquisition price, and that is to put it to expropriation, so that the interests of both the vendor and the public, as purchaser, are defended in setting the value at which the land will be expropriated.

Perhaps you need a new name for it in order to get away from the connections with expropriation. That technique is available and should have been used in this case, rather than let a particular set of individuals make a profit of 100 per cent in the course of a very small period of months. We would like all the documents connected with this case. I would ask the minister to agree, given his commitment to disclosure, that all those documents will come before the House in the near future.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Everything about the acquisition will be tabled that we have. I am tabling now what I thought was necessary to bring forward to the House today.

Mr. Lewis: Ah, you can’t believe that. Don’t snow us.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I was asked --

Mr. Lewis: Come on.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You weren’t here to listen to all of it.

Mr. Lewis: I have read the transcript.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t know where you have been but --

Mr. Lewis: Well, they did ask you for a valuation --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, no. They asked for the government’s position -- why the government acquires certain lands.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the commitment, Mr. Chairman, include a commitment to produce material which related to the general valuation for the area of around $6,000 per acre? Is that included in the minister’s commitment?

Mr. Singer: Have I got the floor now? Thank you very much one and all.

Mr. Cassidy: Let’s hear from the minister first.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, several of us made it abundantly clear last night that we wanted the appraisals. I listened very carefully to what the minister said in his statement. He said: “The formal appraisal mechanism was replaced by a study.” That obviously means there was no formal appraisal.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Mr. Singer: We are now asking for the tabling of the study. As the minister went on to try to explain what was done, it becomes pretty obvious there is no formal study as such.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Singer: What I suspect now is that a group of fellows sat around the table and said: “There is good old South Milton. What do you think that’s worth?”

Mr. Bullbrook: Six grand sounds pretty good.

Mr. Singer: “Yeah, six grand, not a bad price. Okay, Gibson Willoughby, here’s your schedule of what you can offer.” It is even worse than we imagine in our wildest dreams. Could we have the minutes of the meetings when it was determined what instructions would be given to Gibson Willoughby? Surely you wrote them letters, or was that also done over the phone?

Mr. Lewis: Probably.

Mr. Singer: Was it: “Hello, Bill.” “Hello, Gib. This is what you do.” Is that how it was done?

You have no records as to how you proceeded in this? We are entitled to those records. In their absence we have got to conclude either that you are totally inept or that you are hiding something. Why can’t you give us the information? You say you will table what you have. What kind of nonsense is that? Anything you have said that you have there is of no use. It is not what we are looking for. We are looking for the basis on which you determined these values. You haven’t got an appraisal. Apparently you haven’t got a study. What do you have to determine the values?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If there is nothing more on that and the minister is adamant, let’s just say that we on this side feel he is throwing up a smokescreen to protect his officials in the matter of the appraisal study. We will pursue it further when we examine the things he has put on the table.

I felt a cold hand on my throat when I heard him talk about the way his agents deal with the land holders. See if they will take this and then raise it by stages to a limit. I suppose if the hon. minister were back in Prescott buying the property next his store, on a business basis it could be done that way. But I have a feeling that when it comes to something like an important emanation of government, Ontario Hydro or Ontario Housing, there should be a precise evaluation which will bear up not only in this Legislature but in a court.

You make a formal offer and say: “We, for these reasons, have decided as a matter of high policy that we require these lands.” You had better have good enough reasons to stand up before a judicial hearing under our present expropriation laws. Not just, “Well, here is a field of goldenrod that ought to be saved,” or something like that. You have got to have good reason to buy it. You go to the owners without anything said about expropriation and say, “You know how we do business in this government. By the policy of the Premier, enunciated and well-understood, we buy land on the basis of a professional evaluation of the value of the land now. We have decided, as a matter of policy, we need the land [not, maybe we need it] and here is our offer.”

If they will not accept it at that level you should not be in a position, as an agency of government, to let them stew for a couple of weeks and go back and say: “Well, maybe we could do this or maybe we could do that.” But you will say, “As a matter of governmental decision we require these lands for good and sufficient reason. We have given you a fair, substantiated appraised price. Since you are not prepared to accept that, it must be decided by the courts. But we have decided that we will own the land and we have filed notice of expropriation.”

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am speaking for myself.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am speaking for myself. All right. That’s the way it should be done. I find it offensive that any arm of government is going to do what you say they do and say: “If they don’t settle for $3,000, offer them $3,500 or $4,000 but the limit is $6,000. But don’t tell them what that limit is. Don’t let them know.”

Mr. Lewis: That’s the way Hydro works.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: “It would be too bad if the poor person who owns the land knows that we know it’s worth $6,000, or are prepared to say that, because we want to get it for less.” I’m not talking against the land-owners, far from it. I think of all the procedures where you are successful in acquiring land for far less than it is actually worth. Let us decide, as an agency of government, what it is worth with a procedure that will stand up in court and say, “There it is.” Eventually you -- even you -- could establish a reputation so that when the government comes to buy the land its offer is a final offer, not predicated on some kind of backroom bargaining, but a fair offer. Then, when you have offered that, and that person is not prepared to accept it, you can use the power of government if you need the land for a justifiable purpose.

You say, “What would you do?” That’s what we would do.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have been reading parts of Hansard and listening to the debate in the Legislature. I’ve been in the House for 11 years. There have been many debates over the quality of appraisals in the acquisition of property by various government ministries. I can recall those debates, and measuring the appraisal methods against those of the Appraisal Institute and whether or not certain people had appropriate qualifications. I can recall major discrepancies in figures based on judgement. I can recall tempests around Hydro, and its behaviour in particular, using its own appraisal methods.

In the entire 11 years in the House I cannot remember a single instance, before this, where the acquisition of property, with a substantial amount of public money involved, was done over cocktails, or lunch, or in a private gentleman’s agreement with two parties consorting together, with expenditure of public money as a consequence. The Ministry of Housing has been defamed in the process by which it moves into the acquisition of land, more than any other ministry I can recall.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Do you have something to substantiate what you are saying?

Mr. Lewis: I do not know a single instance where we have not been able to have some appraisal, some evaluation, some study.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Do you know what you’re talking about when you’re talking about “over cocktails”?

Mr. Lewis: I am accepting the challenge --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Have you got something to substantiate that? I asked two days ago and the member for St. George --

Mr. Lewis: The member for St. George, I may say, can look after herself a hell of a lot better than you’re managing your portfolio.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And I want you to look after yourself too.

Mr. Lewis: This is really a bankrupt performance.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Not in the least.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe you’re embarrassed by it. Maybe you know things others of us don’t know. But let me tell you you can’t produce a study, you can’t produce an evaluation, you can’t produce an appraisal. This was done behind closed doors.

This was a private little conference between OHC and Gibson Willoughby and their lackeys in carrying out an acquisition of public lands without an appraisal. Have you ever, in your entire political life, heard of public funds used in that fashion? Let me tell you, if there was a serious evaluation, report, assessment, anything, you’d have it here today.

Mr. Bullbrook: And we haven’t got it.

Mr. Lewis: You had overnight to get it. You were asked for it very specifically. Don’t tell me you weren’t asked for it. The Liberal Party that spoke to it asked for it in considerable specifics, as the leader says, “lot by lot,” if they could get their hands on it. I’m just telling you my experience --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: By appraisal.

Mr. Lewis: By appraisal. Well, if it wasn’t by appraisal, give us the report that substituted for formal appraisal. There is no report -- I say that to you, I hold it up to you, and then you can whop me down.

Mr. Singer: If you have got it, show it to us.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. Humiliate us all -- show it to us. I tell you there is no report. I tell you you are deliberately misleading the House.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Lewis: All right. I tell you you are inadvertently deliberately misleading the House.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: By inadvertence.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, I concede it’s by inadvertence on your part. You are a noble man protecting his senior civil servants from the ignominy that would fall upon them if the way in which OHC conducts its affairs were revealed.

I want to tie this together with one other thing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s an operation that is a terrible mess.

Mr. Lewis: Exactly. The Ontario Housing Corp. is already in public trouble. There is a great deal of public anxiety and suspicion about the way in which the Ontario Housing Corp. conducts the business of Ontario. All of the charges have reinforced that suspicion. All of the behaviour, which now is revealed, over the last few years undermines public confidence in the Ontario Housing Corp. And now you have what amounts to a minor scandal.

I don’t know how you justify it, but I just wanted to tell you, as I sit here and listen, that in my entire period in this Legislature never can I recall the expenditure of such a large amount of public funds on a rule-of thumb decision, on the instinct, right or wrong, of some civil servant in conjunction with some real estate company. Boy, you make the public business of Ontario a farce. There is no integrity in this transaction; there is nothing but profligate self-indulgence.

An hon. member: Whew!

Mr. Lewis: You make of all of it a sham, a silliness, which has no right in the course of government practice. You can’t produce a study; you can’t produce an appraisal; you can’t produce a piece of correspondence; you can’t produce a record of a phone call. This was a quiet little matter negotiated in private, conducted in private, and you are found out. And you don’t know how to defend it.

You got another black eye for the Ontario Housing Corp. It particularly bothers some of us in this party when public corporations get clobbered by the mismanagement of your government, and you have no answers at all.

I don’t know what senior civil servants are involved in this fiasco, but you should do something about it.

In Hydro they changed the whole manner of public participation in the determination of the amount of money that would be paid for expropriation or for rights of way, because of how Hydro behaved. If Hydro was infamous, let me tell you, they don’t hold a candle to the way the Ontario Housing Corp. does business. You don’t do business; you make deals, to use your words. You make deals, and they are not in the public interest.

Mr. Chairman: Is vote 804 carried?

Mrs. Campbell: No.

Mr. Singer: Not a word of denial.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister not replying?

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

Mr. Cassidy: I just want to pursue this a bit further. I have been looking with interest at the material tabled by the minister, because surely a lesson can be drawn from this. Will the minister table the material? I will ask this and then the member for Downsview --

Mr. Lewis: He has tabled everything he is going to table.

Mr. Singer: We established that 21 times this afternoon.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister table any further material?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: He will. Okay, Mr. Chairman, the only other point I would make in relation to this, before going on to a couple of other matters, is simply that you don’t protect the public when you go out into the free market, so-called, in this kind of situation that prevailed in South Milton at that time, and buy lands -- none of which had previously changed hands for more than about $3,000 an acre -- at prices of between $5,500 and $6,000 an acre. This kind of valuation is better carried out under the techniques that exist through the Expropriations Act and land valuation tribunal, it seems to me, than leaving the public to ransom and to further augment the price that existed in this particular case.

I would just like to ask a couple of other questions which relate to vote 804, since we have about 10 or 15 minutes left in the housing debate. I will ask the questions very quickly, and the minister may be able to reply to them very quickly. First, what federal contributions, if any, have been made to the acquisition costs of North Pickering? Second, how much in federal contributions, if any, has gone to the OHC land acquisition mentioned in this particular estimate? Third, why is Ontario making no funds available for municipal land assembly? Fourth, how much public owned land, if any, does Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Slow down just a minute. Slow down.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t write in shorthand.

Mr. Cassidy: All right. I’ll ask what federal contribution has there been to the acquisition costs for North Pickering?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: None at the present time. We have been negotiating with the federal government for months trying to get some commitment from it. The federal government has held back, for reasons known only to itself, in regard to what we felt was a very firm commitment for funding the North Pickering project. I am hoping that with the new minister we might get a reasonable amount of money for the project. We may not get what we thought we were going to -- but we have had absolutely zero funds from the federal government after they had committed though previous ministers to this government that there would be funding available.

Mr. Cassidy: How much in federal contribution has the government had for OHC land acquisition, such as, for example, South Milton?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am informed it was $63 million last year.

Mr. Cassidy: So they put in the 90 per cent in that particular case, is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, that is the total. In this case I am led to understand that $8.5 million has been appropriated by the federal government toward the land acquisition.

Mr. Cassidy: Is that the full 90 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes. Okay.

We can’t go into the York Servicing scheme when there are only eight minutes left in this estimate, but if you are going to go ahead with it, if the land that is opening up for development in that area comes under public control rather than being allowed to escalate in value in private hands, what are you going to do to control land prices when they start to go up under the influence of that servicing scheme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think that is a pretty obvious answer as far as a great proportion of the land is concerned. We now have 17,000 acres in North Pickering. Some of that will certainly be serviced by the Central York servicing scheme. As a matter of fact, OHAP has contributed an amount of $31.5 million to the programme over seven years to make sure that we have servicing available for not only North Pickering, but also for the region of York.

I am trying to think of what else would be available. I guess North Whitby would be land that could be used by the same principles. We have 2,300 acres there. So we think we have achieved quite a bit by this land banking service, as I mentioned before. We have considerable acreage across the province.

Again I go back to South Milton, and we think the same thing there -- that lands are quite appropriate in the matter of land banking and the land value will not go down. The land value will be considerably more in the years to come. The land value north of Oshawa, north of Whitby, in the Durham region, no doubt will increase considerably so that we have done, through OHC, a considerable amount of land banking and I think in the best interests of everyone.

Mr. Cassidy: Again I cannot engage in that one with only five minutes left, Mr. Chairman. But I would like to see a commitment to ensure that with lands coming into development under the York servicing scheme, all or almost all will be under public control rather than in private hands. I know this government is not willing to innovate on that particular way --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That is an interesting proposal. But I noticed that your leader stated a few weeks ago that the province of Ontario should acquire blocks of land around 20 urban centres. I don’t think he stated how many acres that would involve but for 20 urban centres, you would have probably how many thousands of acres?

Mr. Cassidy: Say 150,000.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: How many?

Mr. Cassidy: One hundred and fifty thousand to 200,000.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: One hundred and fifty thousand to 200,000 acres. Where do you or the government get the money for these lands?

Mr. Cassidy: If we acquired these lands we acquire them on the credit of the province.

The question that has to be asked is, who is paying right now for the extraordinary increase in land costs? The citizens of Ontario, the taxpayers of this province, are now paying for it, because of government neglect in the Province of Ontario. Anybody, who buys a house, for which he has to pay an additional $150 a month, is paying that amount because of the neglect of the Province of Ontario. That is money they would not have to pay if there had been public land acquisition at the crucial time before the enormous increase in values we’ve had up until now.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are saying the same thing. You are agreeing with the principles that have been part of our OHC policy -- to acquire land ahead of time for future years, not wait until they are immediately needed. That’s exactly what we are doing. There is a limit to how much money we have.

Mr. Cassidy: We don’t disagree at all. The point is, the government is now gradually getting into land banking in a big way. But, it has never taken as a commitment, and as a principle, that the public, and not the private sector, should control the urban development land market, so that development land coming into production should be publicly owned. That’s a principle we put forward on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

We don’t think private profit has a place in the developmental land in and around our urban areas. That land should be in public hands. It should basically go out on lease-hold rather than on freehold. There should be techniques to ensure, for most residential developments, as well as for commercial and industrial development, the land continues to be on a non-profit basis, and, that the value of the property goes up only in relation to the increase in current construction costs, not in relation to some kind of speculative increase in land values.

This is a very innovative kind of technique. But, this would ensure housing for people in income groups under $14,000 a year who are, right now, almost shut out of government programmes unless they happen to limit themselves to only one child.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Are you saying, as a government you would maintain the major role in housing development?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You would take over all the private enterprise that we have now?

Mr. Cassidy: Land coming into development.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s something which I wouldn’t want to be associated with.

Mr. Cassidy: Of course, you are a Tory.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Where has it worked anywhere else?

Mr. Cassidy: The technique of public land ownership has worked successfully in places such as Sweden and in the city of Saskatoon in Canada, which has had public land development over the last 20 or 30 years.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Satellite towns?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: How much development do they have?

Mr. Cassidy: Saskatoon is one of the fastest-growing cities in the prairies.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: How much actual development? They haven’t anywhere near the development we are talking about with the land acreage we have now.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s fine, but if it works in Saskatoon, which is a city the size of some of our smaller cities in Ontario, with a population of about 150,000, and enabled that city to plan well, to develop plans at reasonable prices, to put lots on the market at prices that are now around $7,000 per acre, and to co-operate with developers while con- trolling the land market, if that has worked in Saskatoon, there is no reason why it couldn’t have worked in this province as well. There is no reason why it couldn’t start to work given a commitment. But that commitment doesn’t exist as far as the government is concerned. You back down all the time.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We put lots on the market for less than that in the past.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have, because we’ve had the land through OHC.

Mr. Cassidy: You put 100 or 200 on the market in the west end of Toronto and a few in Mississauga, and 600 in Glencairn over a period of time. It’s such a small amount it never really influences the market. You don’t control the market, you simply give a gift to the people who happen to be lucky enough to get those particular lots.

The minister knows perfectly well that HOME lots around the Hamilton area, where there were homes selling at $15,000 a few years ago, are now changing hands at $40,000 and $50,000. The benefit has been felt only once after that. There was no continuing benefit to people who acquired that land subsequently. You haven’t had any long-term impact on the price of land or lots in any place where there has been public land development in the province.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think we have achieved a lot by the fact we are supplementing only the private enterprise.

As long as I am part of this government, the private enterprise system will be the major one to develop everything in Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: You won’t get the housing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The government should step in only when there is a crisis --

Mr. Lawlor: There is a crisis.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- or a lack of housing, as we have now. And we are going to step in, as we have, with very effective programmes. We are certainly not going to enter any related programme such as the member was talking about whereby the government takes over all the housing needs for Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: In land.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In land? Or in buildings?

Mr. Cassidy: You can build buildings.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There is absolutely no way. This socialist philosophy may be great, as the member says, in Saskatoon. I haven’t seen it working. I have been there. I don’t know how it works so well, but I have watched some of your socialist governments and I haven’t been impressed.

Mr. Cassidy: Just a final comment, Mr. Chairman. As long as your government continues to put such reliance on the private sector, so long will you continue to fail to meet the needs of Ontarians to have decent housing at a price they can afford.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The time for estimates in the committee of supply of the whole House has expired. The chairman at this time, pursuant to the provisions of standing order 87(k), now is required to place all outstanding questions before the committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Clerk of the House: Office of the Lieutenant Governor, vote 101.

Vote 101 agreed to.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER

Clerk of the House: Office of the Premier, vote 301.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Vote 301 agreed to.

ESTIMATES, CABINET OFFICE

Clerk of the House: Cabinet Office, vote 401.

Vote 401 agreed to.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONCLUDED)

Clerk of the House: Ministry of Housing vote 804.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Do you want to stack this or do you want to vote now?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Stack it. Go ahead.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

Clerk of the House: Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, vote 1001.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of vote 1001, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Vote 1001 agreed to.

Clerk of the House: Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, vote 1002.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of vote 1002, please say “aye.”

All opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Clerk of the House: Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, vote 1003.

Vote 1003 agreed to.

Clerk of the House: Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, vote 1004.

Vote 1004 agreed to.

Clerk of the House: Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, vote 1005.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of vote 1005, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Vote 1005 agreed to.

Clerk of the House: Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, vote 1006.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of vote 1006, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Vote 1006 agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: We are pretty co-operative tonight, Mr. Chairman.

Clerk of the House: Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, vote 1007.

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute, the member for Ottawa Centre says “no.”

All those in favour, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Vote 1007 agreed to.

Clerk of the House: Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, vote 1008.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of vote 1008, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Vote 1008 agreed to.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY AND TOURISM (CONCLUDED)

Clerk of the House: Ministry of Industry and Tourism, vote 2004.

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of vote 2004, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Vote 2004 agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would certainly follow your direction; however while this is an interesting pastime, surely it is a travesty of democracy. We had agreed, under the rules, that when the time elapsed all votes would be considered carried.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Correct.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What are we doing this for?

Mr. Chairman: This is the procedure that has to be followed. I am instructed by the Clerk’s office that we have to call every vote.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Could I move that we dispense?

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee dispense with calling each vote.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We will call in the members for vote 804.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we have indicated our disapproval. If you would ask them to stop the bells.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right, we will have a vote. We have voted against this twice, one more time and we will probably --

Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.

The committee divided on vote 804 of the Ministry of Housing, and whether all votes be deemed to have been carried, which was approved on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 43, the “nays” are 26.

Mr. Chairman: I declare all the votes agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: That is not a very ringing endorsement.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): How many more by-elections we will have?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Twenty-five more by-elections.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): What is up tonight?

BUILDING CODE ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves second reading of Bill 62, An Act to provide for an Ontario Building Code.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order. Isn’t it your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to enforce the rules? It is more than 6 of the clock.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Give him a chance.

Mr. Speaker: Any further debate on this bill?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): We are going to rip him apart.

It being 6:10 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.