Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, am.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

RESOURCE TAXATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to put a question to the Treasurer which would give him an opportunity to give us a report on his conference with the Minister of Finance and the other treasurers in Ottawa. Most specifically, what action is he going to take on our Mining Tax Act which has been before the Legislature now for many mouths? Is he going to leave it on the order paper until the new year, at which time the first ministers’ meeting with Mr. Trudeau probably can further pursue this matter of sharing tax revenues from our resource industry?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): As the hon. member knows, the Province of Alberta, the Province of Saskatchewan and to a lesser extent, the Province of British Columbia were vehemently opposed to the non-deductibility feature of the Nov. 18 budget. On the other hand, the federal government took a very strong position that the changes in the deductibility of exploration costs and so on had been evidence of their goodwill and had lessened the impact of the other federal changes. So the federal government were equally adamant that they should not have to compromise their position further.

Ontario and, I think it is fair to say, Quebec took a middle view; namely that while the provinces under the constitution had undeniable rights, explicit and implicit, in the natural resources field to the revenues flowing from those rights, the federal government likewise had rights under the constitution to tax without constraint and to assure the peace, order and good government of the country.

Therefore, Ontario certainly -- and I think I could say Quebec and perhaps the other provinces too -- took the middle ground that compromise had to be found, and that that compromise had to come sooner rather than later, our fear being that the delay might not only adversely affect the industries directly concerned but have some spillover effect on other industries.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Is the Treasurer making a speech?

Hon. Mr. White: Insofar as the Ontario mining tax is concerned, it would parallel the federal approach by making mining taxes non-deductible for provincial corporation tax purposes. On the other hand, the royalties would continue to be deductible for Ontario corporation income tax purposes. Once again, we’ve taken the moderate and sensible route.

I would be glad to proceed with the mining tax, but I can’t guarantee that this can be fitted into the schedule next week. When one considers that I’ll certainly be taking one bill into a standing committee and, if it can be arranged, perhaps taking the Ontario Land Corp. bill into a standing committee, and I’ve got half a dozen other bills on the order paper, I certainly couldn’t guarantee that we’ll be debating the mining tax next week. That’s yet to be seen.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the mining industry has indicated over many months that if the federal government continues to tax resource profits at the level they are taxing, and the Province of Ontario continues to tax at the level envisaged and actually being taxed under the powers of that bill which has not yet passed into law, that it is going to come into a problem where it cannot finance further development and exploration. Whether that’s true or not, is the government giving any consideration to changing the provisions of that bill as in fact it was forced to change the provisions of the land speculation tax?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The government should graduate the tax more steeply. That would be the best change.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): The opposition parties are not in agreement on this, I can see.

Mr. Lewis: No, we are not in agreement on it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Although I’m not sure just where they are.

Hon. Mr. White: The very considerable increase in the mining tax itself --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the member could be quiet so we could hear the answer?

An hon. member: Good idea.

Mr. Deans: Let the Treasurer carry on with his speech. It is a pressing question.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s have the answer to the question.

Hon. Mr. White: Thank you. The very substantial increases in rates and in revenues from the mining industry are apparent to everyone and will in fact increase our revenues from $75 million to $225 million. What is overlooked is the fact that the mining companies can earn very considerable processing allowances by putting additional plant in place and now, for the first time, earn a further allowance if they get into the manufacturing industry.

Mr. Lewis: I should say.

Hon. Mr. White: This will, I say to the members opposite, induce an enormous investment over time in the secondary manufacturing industry in northern Ontario, which we have striven for, for years, with limited success.

Mr. Lewis: Sure.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Oh yes, we have striven for this.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): This will change northern Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: We have heard those things before.

Hon. Mr. White: And put in place, I do believe, some --

Mr. Renwick: Why don’t we debate the bill one of these days?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The minister is answering the question.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s debate the bill.

Hon. Mr. White: Pardon?

Mr. Renwick: Get the bill before the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: At least we know where we are.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: What was the question again?

Hon. Mr. Davis: At least we know where the member is.

Mr. Renwick: There is an item on the order paper called the Mining Tax Amendment Act.

Mr. Speaker: The minister was answering a question.

Mr. Renwick: When that comes up we can deal with it. Let’s not have the minister debate it today, when there is no adequate opportunity to reply.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister was responding to a question. Any further questions?

The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the minister was interrupted by the interjection from the hon. member. What I wanted to know was, are we going to debate the bill before the Christmas recess?

Mr. Renwick: He answered that a few minutes ago.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, he said maybe we would. I was quite interested in what he had to say about this. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would permit the minister to finish his answer, or is it finished?

Hon. Mr. White: There’s no way of telling. I’m committed to about three days in a standing committee and I’ve got about six items on the order paper. Now, whether we finish the Mining Tax Amendment Act next week or not, I really don’t know.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Finish it? Is he going to start it?

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the Treasurer call that item first?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Since the government is so concerned about the infrastructure in northern Ontario, which it has promised for 30 years and never produced, and since it is so important that it has this additional revenue, why doesn’t the Treasurer give that bill priority? Let’s debate its contents before we adjourn and not leave it over into 1975 again.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: It sits and sits forever and the government doesn’t get the revenue.

Mr. Renwick: Why don’t they let us set the priorities?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that is a good idea. I have a list right here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Mining Tax Act amendment is legislation we want to debate before the recess.

An hon. member: I’m getting tired of doing that.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In the absence of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) -- who may, in fact, be attending a very interesting meeting indeed -- has the Premier anything to say about the continuation of the negotiations with the Civil Service Association? I understand there was supposed to be some statement made today.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If memory serves me correctly --

Mr. Lewis: It always does.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it serves me correctly on occasion.

Mr. Renwick: It serves the Premier very well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I believe the Chairman of Management Board informed the hon. member Monday that there were meetings as of Friday morning, so I think one can assume that there are meetings going on at this precise moment. Quite obviously there will be no statement until those meetings have been concluded.

AGGREGATE PERMIT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment what the justification was for issuing a permit to Dufferin Construction to open a pit in South Dumfries township, in Brant county, which will have the power to remove another million tons of aggregate a year from that particular area? Is he not aware that the opening of that pit will mean that the town of Paris is completely surrounded by these tremendous mining operations and, in fact, this is going to have a substantial impact on the quality of life in that particular town?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be more properly directed to the Minister of Natural Resources. The Pits and Quarries Act comes under his ministry.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Did not the Ministry of the Environment give approval to at least the environmental aspects of the removal? It was this certificate that was at least as significant as any other that permitted the procedure to go ahead.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we don’t issue permits for taking out aggregate. We issue certificates of approval for landfill sites and other matters, but not taking out aggregate.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like then to ask the Minister of Natural Resources the same question. Since the environmental problem associated with the opening up of yet another pit is one of the more substantial ones, can he assure the House that there will not be an opening of a pit there under circumstances that would interfere with the environmental aspects of the community of Paris?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of this particular application, but I would point out to the hon. member that if it is a new pit then it must comply with all sections of the Act, particularly section 6 of the Act, and further, that the municipality would have the veto power. They would have to have the approval of the local municipality before issuing a licence for a quarry or a gravel pit in that particular area.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Am I to understand the minister correctly when he says that he is not aware of the application by Dufferin to open this enormous pit in South Dumfries township? He has certainly approved it -- and within the last few days -- under the Pits and Quarries Act. I thought that perhaps he would be aware of it since there were, I believe, approximately nine or 10 specific conditions for the removal of the gravel. But the environmental aspects seem to me to be somewhat --

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- less than of concern to either minister. The question: Is he not aware of the approval he has granted on that application?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the approval was granted, but I haven’t the exact details with me at the present time. We issue a number of quarry licences each week. To be on top of each one is practically impossible.

FEDERAL RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Has he received any further information as to the application of the federal programme for rental assistance that would, in fact, mean that the money is going to be of assistance to those people renting facilities and not simply lost in the uncontrolled increase of rents as we have experienced them over the last few weeks? Has he any further information to report on it?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I have no direct information except what I have read in the Toronto news media. It is indicated that the funds will be available to new housing only for next year, and would apply only to condominiums. I have to say at this time that I am not very enamoured with the programme -- I had hoped it would be a much wider programme than that. But I want to speak with Mr. Danson myself. I haven’t had that opportunity yet, although I understand he has been speaking in Toronto this morning.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: I would say that it is regrettable that there hasn’t been consultation between the two ministers. Presumably the programme across Canada should involve the Ministers of Housing, or people with that responsibility, in all jurisdictions. Is the minister aware, or would he find out, whether the basis of the government is that the money is not payable unless there is an agreement whereby it is passed on to those people who are to be assisted by the public dollars, and not simply lost as the rents rise uncontrollably?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have already given instructions to have a letter ready for my signature to Mr. Danson to ask him for an early meeting, or at least to reply to me with the full details of the programme.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Did the minister hear Barney Danson talking about him this morning on CBC radio? He should get the tape.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t have the pleasure.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, well, he should get it.

May I ask the minister if he can insist -- because I think Mr. Danson is utterly irresponsible -- that Ontario --

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): Be kind!

Interjections by hon. members,

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister to insist with Mr. Danson, that Ontario be party to the negotiated agreements with the landlords and developers that fix the rents -- it becomes a form of rent control, in this instance -- for the 10- to 15-year period to which the subsidy would apply, and that Ontario get involved that way before the programme is put in place in this province?

Mr. Renwick: Absolutely essential.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’ll endeavour to ensure that we have the full co-operation of the federal government. I have written Mr. Danson on other matters some while ago, and to this date have not received a reply. I am hopeful that we will not have too long a delay but, in any event, if my letter doesn’t receive an answer I will phone him directly.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, no!

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask a question, if I may, Mr. Speaker, of the Treasurer. Has he been in communication with his former chief economist, the present president of York University, about a programme to provide some special facilities to assist the universities if in fact they have to enter the borrowing market independently to maintain the quality of education that they establish? Is the Treasurer aware of the proposal from Mr. Macdonald for such a loan function?

Hon. Mr. White: I have had a brief telephone conversation with Mr. Macdonald. This is one of the items which was mentioned in passing. Without fully understanding the ramifications, I thought the suggestion was interesting enough that it should be pursued with the Minister of Colleges and Universities, and that’s the way it stands.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister then indicate that he would not favour the universities going independently into public commitments for loans to carry on post-secondary education, but that if they bad to borrow he would favour it being under the aegis of the government?

Hon. Mr. White: This is a matter that really should be commented on by my colleague, but I do observe that when enrolment falls or stabilizes, all kinds of demands are made because of what universities contend are diseconomies of scale. If there is validity in that argument, surely there are likewise economies of scale. So the gross increase -- not per student, but rather in total -- of something like 16 per cent should enable the universities to provide a high level of service without going into debt. It is my hope that this will be achieved.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if I might direct a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities since the Treasurer has indicated he should answer. Perhaps both ministers could be involved if that’s possible. Has the Minister of Colleges and Universities anything to add to that particular answer and is he contemplating asking the Treasurer to co-operate in some sort of a loan fund to tide the universities over the problems that they are facing with the grants that have been announced?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the House should know that the universities presently have, according to their statement of 1973-1974, total assets in the neighbourhood of $200 million. Of this, I am informed, that some $90 million is unencumbered, if I can put it that way. It is not in endowments for specific purposes.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Cash on hand?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does he mean assets, collateral for loans, like buildings?

Hon. Mr. Auld: One of the things I have suggested to the universities and one of the things we are discussing with the Treasurer is a consortium approach within the university community. It would seem to me if these assets are there, for instance, operating surpluses, capital reserves and so on, that that would be the place to look rather than the public market at this point in time. However,

I realize that it’s not quite as simple as putting it just that way.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that this may be true of some of the universities, what about those smaller universities which have already used up their reserve funds and are indeed going to operate at a deficit? What does the minister see as the solution to their problems?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t make it clear. What I am suggesting is that the universities themselves, as a group, help each other out.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister suggesting that the universities, as a group, cash in their endowments in order to get over this particular year? What does he intend should happen after that? Do they keep on doing this?

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows I didn’t say that. I said there is about $90 million that is not encumbered and that is now in endowments specified for certain things.

Mr. Cassidy: There are unencumbered endowments they may use; is that right?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: If I might just -- I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. member proceeds, I recognize his colleague, the member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After the beginning of the question period, about 80 students from C. W. Jefferys secondary school in Yorkview, along with their teachers, arrived in the gallery. I am sure the House would like to join with me in welcoming these people to the House today.

An hon. member: Is the member for Downsview not in yet?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Surely one of them lives in Downsview, just one of them.

Mr. Breithaupt: If one did, the member would know him.

Mr. Lewis: There is someone wearing a “Save us from Davis” button up there.

OIL PRICES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, now that the Premier of Alberta has decided to give to the struggling and penurious oil companies $8.50 a barrel at the wellhead, causing the price to consumers in Ontario to rise by probably six cents a gallon in the spring, what is he going to do, as Premier of Ontario to intervene at this point on behalf of the consumers of this province, in order to prevent a price increase which is as illegitimate on this occasion as it was in the past?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, of course the judgment being exercised by the leader of the New Democratic Party as to whether or not it is legitimate in total or otherwise is a very personal one. I have only read the press reports so far. Premier Lougheed’s observation that they would be refunding to the oil companies that percentage of their tax that was not deductible from the federal tax, is an indication that they would be seeking an increase in price some time after the present agreement or understanding expires. I would expect prior to that there would be a meeting of the first ministers of this country to see what potential solutions there are for us.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that to comment in advance of that discussion or meeting taking place at this moment wouldn’t serve any useful purpose. Quite obviously none of us in this province are anxious to see an increase in the price of oil, whether it’s from Alberta or from the OPEC nations, although I understand from the press that too is being considered as of Jan. 1 -- which once again will have some effect on the economy of this country. I don’t think we can ignore that fact. But I think at this moment, Mr. Speaker, this province is going on the assumption that the agreement stands until the spring.

There was, according to my recollection, an understanding that prior to any determination as to future price increases, there would be a further meeting of first ministers, and I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that this is the course that events will take.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Recalling, however unpleasant it may be, the misconception which flowed from the last meeting of first ministers, where the Premier indicated in the House that the increase the oil companies imposed exceeded the increase he assumed had been agreed upon at the meeting of first ministers, can he give to the House a guarantee that either the Ontario Energy Board or some independent group will require the oil companies to come before it, before any increase is allowed at the pump in Ontario, in order that it not be unreasonable and illegitimate?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give that guarantee at this precise moment.

Mr. Lewis: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m the last one to protect the oil companies, but in fairness I think it wasn’t the oil companies, it was the Province of Alberta that arrived at the $6.50 per barrel price.

Mr. Lewis: But it translated into an amount.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But the leader of the NDP said the oil companies set it.

Mr. Lewis: They did.

Mr. Deans: Yes they did. They just spoke to Lougheed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m saying that the government had some involvement in that.

Mr. Deans: They all used Lougheed like they are using the Premier now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it not understood that the first ministers are meeting in January, and that this would certainly be a part of the agenda?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we anticipate there may be a meeting of first ministers in January. At our last discussion there was some question whether this would be discussed in January or February, or at a later meeting in March. The understanding goes beyond that particular tentative scheduled meeting of first ministers, so I can’t say at this moment whether the question of oil pricing will necessarily be on the agenda at that meeting. I don’t know.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But a meeting is scheduled for January?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There hasn’t been a final date set, as I understand it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to pursue, it either separately or by way of supplementary. Surely, the Premier recognizes that what we’re talking about is an amount in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars from the citizens of Ontario. It’s $45 million; every cent transferred directly to the oil companies.

Mr. Deans: Right.

Mr. Lewis: And surely the Premier can’t again allow them to do to the consumers of Ontario what they did on the last occasion?

Question: Why does the Premier bring Ontario Hydro and the gas companies before the Energy Board to justify price increases, but leave the oil companies in Ontario to have a field day at our expense?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to get into a philosophical discussion as to the differences --

Mr. Renwick: There is nothing philosophical about it.

Mr. Lewis: It is dollars and cents.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is some difference between Ontario Hydro, which is a monopoly, public in nature, in this province --

Mr. Lewis: What about Consumers’ Gas? What about Union Gas?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and in many respects the gas industry, which is regulated in terms of competition.

Mr. Renwick: And the Premier is suggesting the oil companies are competing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am saying to the members opposite that there is some distinction between that and the companies that provide gasoline to the consumers of this province.

Mr. Deans: There is no difference in price.

Mr. Cassidy: No difference at all.

Mr. Lewis: They’re competing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly there’s competition. But I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we’re just as concerned about price as the hon. member. It goes beyond the price just of gasoline --

Mr. Lewis: They are clobbering everyone.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The total cost to this province, of a dollar per barrel increase, is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, as it relates to the total economy.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We know that. Some days I wonder whether the leader of the NDP does.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Since the Premier will recall that the increases were almost the same to a fraction of a cent -- two-tenths of a cent was the difference from the April agreement -- does he know, therefore, that there is no real competition; it is a monopolistic practice? And if it costs the consumers of Ontario that much money, how is it that the Premier is always unwilling to intervene to protect the consumers of Ontario when the oil companies are involved? Why does this government always back away from that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we don’t back away from it. We also have some concern -- which I know is not shared by the hon. member -- about availability or supply. I know that’s of no concern to him, whatsoever.

Mr. Lewis: They hold a gun to the Premier’s head.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the member’s party would totally nationalize the oil industry; he knows it and we know it.

Mr. Lewis: Ontario can’t do that, so don’t bring in a red herring.

Mr. Renwick: We haven’t got any oil in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the hon. member that there is some relevance at this moment in having sufficient money for investment in oil exploration --

Mr. Cassidy: They have to justify it publicly. If that is the case, let them justify it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will say this for the Province of Alberta: It is in our interest as much as theirs. If there isn’t exploration and if there isn’t the involvement of private capital in the further development of the tar sands or in further exploration in the Province of Alberta, the consumers in the Province of Ontario will be the losers. We need this kind of involvement --

Mr. Renwick: The Premier knows as well as anybody that governments are going to have to develop the tar sands.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the hon. member that it is great to sit back and talk about the oil companies and about wanting to regulate them --

Mr. Lewis: Whose oil is it?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- without some acknowledgement that we need this kind of investment if we are going to continue to get the supply. That has to be recognized as part of any discussion.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, certainly I understand the exploration aspect -- maybe this government will put some money into Syncrude; we will wait and see -- but has Ontario made any evaluation of the additional quarter of a billion dollars or better we pay to the oil companies to determine what percentage of it goes into exploration or development and what percentage simply goes into retained earnings? Why does the government allow them to take that much money from Ontario without scrupulously examining their books and investment practices?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) may or may not have more specific details, but I can only make the general observation that until yesterday, when the Premier of Alberta took a certain step that I am sure was rather difficult for him --

Mr. Lewis: Difficult?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- there is no question -- and all hon. members have seen it, they have all read it -- that the amount of investment in oil and gas exploration in the Province of Alberta had been substantially reduced in the last four or five months --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. It’s the old oil cartel play, the power play.

Mr. Renwick: That’s the way they do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I am saying to the hon. member that we should be as concerned as others about that, because we are the prime consumers.

Mr. Lewis: Sure, and this government will allow them to export it from Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s have fewer interruptions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One could take a look at the books and all the rest of it, but the fact remains that the oil and gas industry in the past six months had been substantially reducing its investment in exploration in one of our sister provinces --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: Because they were negotiating for more money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- so it is great for the members of that party to sit back and say: “Tax them more or refuse them an increase in prices.”

Mr. Lewis: Well, who has allowed them -- a new question, by way of supplementary: Who has been exporting --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is developing into a full-fledged debate, and it is meant to be a question-and-answer period. Will the hon. member proceed with his further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. You are right.

Mr. Deans: During that six-month period when they cut back, they were negotiating. That’s the reason they cut back. Good Lord, doesn’t the Premier understand that?

Mr. Renwick: He doesn’t.

Mr. Deans: They were holding back their investment in order to get more money.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member for Scarborough West proceed with his questions?

Mr. Lewis: It would be interesting to recall who has been exporting energy and creating this problem. Liberal and Tory governments have been exporting our energy for God knows how long and now we can’t buy it back.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who has been exporting?

Mr. Cassidy: The government doesn’t react in the same way when there is a strike by the corporations, does it?

Mr. Lewis: Another sellout to the oil companies is imminent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We haven’t been exporting.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Scarborough West proceed with his questions?

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Treasurer -- one question. Could I have read properly -- I mean, is it conceivable -- that the minister went to a dominion-provincial conference of treasurers and admitted publicly that he would incur a budget deficit in the next fiscal year? Since this is the first time in his life that the minister has admitted to a budgetary deficit of substance, in what amount does he anticipate that deficit to be?

Mr. Deans: Is that less cash in than goes out?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, the ministers of finance are all optimistic about the performance of the economy next year.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): They all work on cash in and cash out.

Hon. Mr. White: The federal minister is expecting between three per cent and four per cent real growth. We ourselves are estimating about 3.5 per cent real growth.

Mr. Singer: Now you see it, now you don’t.

Hon. Mr. White: At the same time, we recognize that unemployment is likely to increase fractionally in this province from something under 4 per cent to 4.5 per cent.

In the last two years we have been turning up very substantial surpluses to dampen inflation, and we have reduced our outstanding public debt in the last year and a half by $594 million.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): By borrowing from our pension funds.

Hon. Mr. White: I think it would be a great mistake --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surplus of $900 million?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: -- to attempt another such cash surplus if unemployment is increasing. Therefore, my conclusion at the moment -- that is to say, Dec. 13, the day of the eclipse --

Mr. Deans: Friday. It is a bad day.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer’s eclipse -- his own eclipse.

Hon. Mr. White: -- is that we should not budget for another large surplus next year. Given the existing situation, I would have to recommend that we budget for a balanced budget, that is, the same amount of cash going out as cash coming in.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: The old shell game.

Mr. Breithaupt: Back to teaching Economics 20.

Hon. Mr. White: Some day the members opposite will understand it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: In the other hand, if, because of international business conditions, the economy here and across Canada worsens -- I hope and pray it won’t -- then we should have to contemplate a budgetary deficit. This will not be known for some months.

Mr. Deans: He should be doing something in addition to hoping and praying.

Mr. Lewis: As a supplementary, on the basis of the cash in -- cash out, inflow -- outflow, entry -- exit analysis of finances which the Treasurer makes, does he not recognize that by his statement in Ottawa he will be increasing the provincial debt by 41 per cent next year, to an amount significantly in excess of $1 billion?

Mr. Singer: The Treasurer doesn’t need to explain that again.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sesame St. economics.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, if we had both sides of our balance sheet on a true cash basis we would be turning up a profit this year. We had anticipated a profit this year of $336 million.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on, we can’t believe that. That is not credible.

Hon. Mr. White: Because costs have run ahead faster than the increase in revenue, we now anticipate a profit of $208 million. If we had both sides of the balance sheet on a true accrual basis, we would have a profit of more than $500 million.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: I am not going to be deterred from doing the right thing for the people of this province by definitional difficulties and by the misleading representations made when members of the opposition take a figure halfway down a profit and income statement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Misreading? If he has such a surplus, reduce taxes.

Mr. Singer: Redefining the words profit and loss, deficit and surplus.

Mr. Lewis: Definition? It is a cerebral catharsis, that is what it is. It is not a definition.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: With respect, the leaders have taken over 30 minutes of the 45-minute question period already. Is this a supplementary?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary as well. Are you going to cut them off, did you say?

Mr. Speaker: No, I didn’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The leaders are monopolizing it. Give the other fellows a chance.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the innovations being introduced by the Treasurer to public finance, has he considered an offer from Real Caouette to be a consultant to the Social Credit Party?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: At $10 a time?

Hon. Mr. White: Well now, sir, to the best of my knowledge there is only one book on this subject, “Alternate Methods of Government Capital Accounting,” by John White, M.A.

Mr. Lewis: It had to be reduced, I take it, to microfilm?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is a bestseller.

Hon. Mr. White: And since it is the only book on the subject that I know of, it has to be the best book in the world on the subject. There is, I am glad to say, a copy in the legislative library.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): They can’t even give it away.

Mr. Deans: Two copies have been sold.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is an economics colouring book.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If, in fact, we have this profit, does the Treasurer have to go down and make those quotation marks with his fingers every time he refers to it, and if we have that kind of profit, why the devil doesn’t the government reduce taxes instead of looking for an increase in taxes?

Isn’t it also true that the so-called profit is based on the deposits in the Province of Ontario Savings Office that are transferred by his order to the consolidated revenue fund, and on all of the moneys in all of the pension funds which are transferred by the Treasurer’s order to the consolidated revenue fund? How can he expect the people to believe that he can expect a profit -- and wiggle his fingers?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, this is not a time for speeches.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: No, I expect them to believe me because I have never in my life misled them, and I have got 16 years to back that up, and because Moody’s has given Ontario a triple-A rating; the only province in this country to have that.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I suppose when it is preposterous, it is almost believable.

Mr. Breithaupt: He should be selling Syncrude oil.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Waterloo North.

SALES TAX ON VEHICLE TRANSFERS

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Revenue: What internal controls does he have to make sure that his ministry receives all sales tax money that is paid to licence issuers when vehicles are transferred from one owner to another and the sales tax is paid in a licensing office? Does he have any mechanism to ensure that that money is forwarded?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Well, sir, we have the audit department of the ministry which, on a cyclical basis in various areas of the commercial community, does check out these matters. I think perhaps there may be more detail I can get the hon. member in that particular area of activity and I will look into it.

Mr. Good: As a supplementary, would the minister check to see if it is possible that moneys paid by cash rather than cheque into licensing transfer agencies could, in fact, never reach the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Sir, I suppose anything is possible, but the audit procedure is intended to catch this kind of thing, of course. But I’ll check into that.

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

ORGANIZED CRIME IN ONTARIO

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Inasmuch as an emergency is developing in the battle for control of organized crime in this province, and that yesterday the sixth person in a period of some seven months was either bombed or assassinated -- I’m referring to, first, Bluestein, Chomski’s partner Donnelly, Chomski himself yesterday, Frank D’Angelo, John Camillieri and Albert Bellaten Jr. -- will the minister take steps to assign extra police officers from the OPP, or from whatever forces are available, to attack this particular battle? Because we are going to have a continued series of assassinations. And is the minister giving special surveillance to other Magaddino lieutenants, specifically Iannuzzelli and Reinhart, to make sure they don’t follow the same unhappy route?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, our police investigation up until now doesn’t necessarily reveal any connection between these particular incidents to which the hon. member refers. For example, the latest one is a matter of the victim being a bookmaker involved in gambling and bookmaking. I’m sure the hon. member knows why there would be violence in a situation such as that.

I know that the hon. member has made allegations that since the death of Magaddino there is this movement to control the so-called tentacles of organized crime in Ontario by some other organization or “family.” As I say our police investigation, at least up to now, hasn’t indicated any great connection between all these incidents; of course, they are all being investigated.

The intelligence branch of the OPP has been beefed up -- and this was done in the last 18 or 24 months. We have more men involved in this type of investigation and of course, it will continue. If there is any connection as alleged by the hon. member, of course, extraordinary steps would have to be taken.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: Does the minister think it’s coincidence that Chomski’s partner was murdered within a few months of Chomski being blown up?

An hon. member: Does the member?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to make any suppositions, or answer a question of that kind. There could be some coincidence to it; there is no question about that. Our concern is that there is an increase in gambling and bookmaking in the province, to some extent. Now, whether this is the result of the death of, shall we say, a very important criminal figure in the United States is the question that we are trying to answer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

RENT INCREASES FOR GAINS RECIPIENTS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Could the minister explain to me what Ontario Housing Corp. has in mind when it raises the rent of a tenant who lives at Lawrence Heights from $38 a month to $48 a month -- that raise will become effective on Jan. 1, 1975 -- apparently because be is going to have an extra magnificent income from GAINS of $6 a month. And then they throw in the payment of his hydro bill, which leaves him with a net loss, because of this great GAINS scheme, of 50 cents a month. Could the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, there has been more than one instance in this regard, whereby the rent increases are related to the actual income, and the GAINS programme has been increased from what it was originally announced. So, I think it’s in order to also increase rents to a limited degree.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Does the minister properly understand that the benefit of GAINS to this particular individual is taken away completely and immediately, by Ontario Housing Corp.? In fact, they take away more even than the man is going to get -- he loses 50 cents a month -- and his only source of income really is his old age pension?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I understood what the hon. member said. I’m not aware of that particular situation. I’ll investigate it and talk to the member directly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment regarding transboundary air pollution in the Windsor-Detroit area. Could the minister give the House a report on his discussions with the federal Minister of the Environment a couple of weeks ago on the question of a reciprocal agreement between Canada and the United States as a means of reducing transboundary air pollution between Canada and the United States in general and between Ontario and Michigan and Windsor and Detroit in particular, as promised in the estimates of Oct. 24?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member’s question, I did meet with Mme. Sauve, I believe about 10 days ago. This was on our agenda and we discussed it at some length. As the member knows, we have, not an agreement but an understanding between the state of Michigan and the Province of Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: We talked to Mme. Sauve and asked her through her good offices to have Mr. Trudeau put this on the agenda when they were discussing matters when he met with Mr. Ford. She assured me that that was on the agenda and that they would be discussing the transboundary air pollution problem and how the IJC should be monitoring it.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Could the minister get a report from her about whether this discussion between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada actually did take place and what the result was?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that she knows of my concerns, as I expressed them to her, and that she will be sending these on. If I do not hear from her within a reasonable length of time, I will certainly be in touch with her.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister referred specifically to Michigan and Ontario. Would these conversations include Minnesota also where we have a problem in the Fort Frances area from pollution from International Falls, Minn.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of the problem the member is faced with there from the other side. When the plant was shutting down to put in abatement equipment we asked them to completely shut down their operations. We sent wires to the appropriate environmental people there. We sent wires to Ottawa. I must say the government of Canada did also support us to some degree on that, because of the tremendous amount of problems we were having on our side. We also sent up our mobile monitor to keep an eye on it because they were to shut down, I believe, when they put in the new equipment. At least, we wanted them to shut down when they put in their new equipment, which I believe was in November.

Mr. Reid: Is there further surveillance?

Hon. W. Newman: We are keeping an eye on it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker.

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

UNITED SENIOR CITIZENS’ BRIEF

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services relating to the United Senior Citizens of Ontario brief. Has the minister received it and has he made any reply to the United Senior Citizens brief specifically in regard to their OHIP cards, their identification cards and their admittance to conservation authority areas?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t received a brief from the senior citizens recently. The hon. member referred to OHIP. OHIP comes under the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Reid: The minister hasn’t received a brief?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker.

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

MINING CROWN CORPORATION

Mr. Ferrier: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. What has happened to the Crown corporation for exploration, development and possible investment in mines that he announced he was going to set up at a meeting of the Man and Resources conference in March? Is he proceeding with that idea, and is he going to introduce legislation to set that up?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This matter is being thoroughly discussed within the ministry and then it will go forward to the resources development policy field. I can’t give any indication at this point in time of the exact timing as to when we will move forward.

Mr. Ferrier: Supplementary. The minister hasn’t backed away from that idea?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, we have not.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired. I will recognize the hon. member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker, through you to the members of the House, I would like to welcome 25 students from Huron Heights Secondary School in Newmarket along with their teacher in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Leluk, on behalf of Mr. Hamilton from the standing social development committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

“Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

“Bill 72, the Education Act, 1974.”

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

Mr. Renwick: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Nobody to call orders today?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Are you going to call the orders today? What’ll we do today?

Clerk of the House: The eighth order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 133, An Act to establish the Ontario Land Corp.

ONTARIO LAND CORP. ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill?

Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to speak on it.

Mr. Speaker, on this bill I rise to support the position taken by my leader and to wonder aloud, and hope that the minister can bring us some of the answers, as to why we want or need another shield to remove dealings with land one step further away from a supervision of the Legislature.

Unfortunately, the province’s history of dealing with land has not been a happy one. I notice that when the minister in this bill asks that there be set up the Ontario Land Corp., he provides for a board of directors, and for minutes to be kept undoubtedly; and the minutes will be just as available to us are the minutes of the Ontario Housing Corp.

This is going to be just another barrier to members of the Legislature and members of the public trying to find out what, in fact, is going on in dealing with land.

Surely, the government should have learned its lesson by now and set out a unified system of buying land, selling land and expropriating land.

It should be in the charge of one minister and it should be part of a government department and the details of the functioning of that department should be subject to the usual reviews.

It should be subject to review by this Legislature; the responsible minister should answer questions; the estimates should be passed in the Legislature and the civil servants appear during estimates; and there shouldn’t be the same kind of secrecy and mysticism that presently surrounds so much of the land dealings this government has indulged in.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is it necessary at this time for an additional barrier that is going to remove once again the whole question of land dealing? Mr. Speaker, when you look at this Act you see, well item 6 -- oath of secrecy and so on -- you can see just how far the government wants to hide from proper review what, in fact, is going on.

In my comments on the budget debate I read into the record an exchange of letters I had with the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) when he was the responsible minister for housing. I was endeavouring to get some information and access to the minutes of the Ontario Housing Corp. I haven’t had any success in that. And I doubt very much that if this land corporation is set up and there is a minute book, that we are going to be able to see what is in the minutes of the operations of that corporation -- even after the transaction is completed. I have talked in recent days with the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow) about methods by which evaluations are made, and he makes a point that while negotiations are still going on, perhaps the amount of such valuation should not be public knowledge. I can go along with that, but it would seem to me that after the event, Mr. Speaker, there is not only a right to opposition members to examine these documents but there’s a duty upon the government to bring them forward. If we have the Ontario Land Corp., again we are going to be that much more prohibited in doing this.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the conflict of interest sections here and I think they are very interesting; but all this, again, is going to be done behind closed doors. If one of these directors of the land corporation has a conflict of interest, he would be required by this statute to stand up and declare it and refrain from voting. Now, where’s that recorded? That is going to be recorded in the minutes and no one else gets to know about it. I say this is wrong.

There has been the suggestion -- and this is one of the reasons I have been trying to find out what’s gone on in Ontario Housing Corp. -- that in many dealings that Ontario Housing Corp. had in land a number of directors from time to time got up and said: “I have an interest in that, I refrain from voting.” It has happened so many times that some people have wondered whether or not this might not go by rote.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) has seen fit in recent months to lay down certain rules regarding conflict of interest and property holdings and assets and so on insofar as cabinet ministers are concerned. Now we can review that here in this Legislature, but these conflict of interest sections that are put in in relation to the Ontario Land Corp. really are meaningless, because everything is going to be done behind closed doors. I am not suggesting that any of the directors are dishonest, but if there are declarations of conflict of interest and they are only recorded in a secret document, how in any way is the public going to get to know what in fact they are, or if they take place, or when they take place, or whether or not a particular director has any business being on that board or not?

The Premier said quite clearly: “I don’t want anybody in my cabinet who is going to have conflicts.” He made that abundantly clear and it has had an effect, I think. But what the government is doing is allowing a secret declaration of a conflict of interest in a corporation that could affect hundreds of millions of dollars of the public money to be hidden in the minute book. Does that make any sense? I suggest it doesn’t.

I thought those points were of sufficient importance, Mr. Speaker, to add them to the remarks already made. We object very strenuously to continued delegation of power and continued setting-up of new agencies of the Crown whose activities are going to be almost impossible to review. They are going to be surrounded by a careful minister who is going to guard all of their workings. The ability of the Legislature to find out what is going on is very limited, and I would think that this minister, rather than dream up new schemes for new agencies to handle millions of dollars and not be subject to review, would be very anxious to bring in a scheme by this government which would establish a pattern for dealing with land which would be done through the hands of a responsible minister who would be answerable in the House at all times for all his actions. So for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to take part in this debate?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I might just speak very briefly on it.

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

Mr. Ruston: I think of the parts of this bill where it gives the land corporation power to buy land and develop it into residential areas and so forth, but the thing that bothers me is that we have had so many restrictions in the last few years and such problems to get zoning approved and official plans approved that much of the development that could have been done is being held up in approvals here.

I just think of my own case in my own area, where I had a call from a town solicitor yesterday. They got word from the Ministry of Housing that they’d have to change all their zoning bylaws, proposed zoning bylaws and official plan. Actually the official plan has never been approved and has been in Toronto for two years. They can’t get zoning bylaws approved until the official plan is approved. And now subdivision agreements and so forth, where involving many acres of land all ready to be developed, are being held up.

The clerk of a municipality calls me and says they’ve been working on these diligently for three or four years thinking they’re doing everything properly. A municipal lawyer, who I feel is one of the best municipal lawyers in Ontario, also calls me and says he’s frustrated by decisions of people in the Ministry of Housing, in the London division, and that they just can’t get things going so the builders can go ahead and make homes available.

I don’t know that this is really going to help any. I think I’m maybe off the track a little as far as speaking on this bill goes, but I can’t see that having a land corporation with the power to go in and buy property is going to help us do that I don’t think it’s going to build any new houses for us.

I just think, Mr. Speaker, that this isn’t going to solve it. We have a proposal by the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) down in western Ontario where he was going to have 800 homes built around what was known as the Cedar Springs Hospital. There was no town and no services there whatsoever, except a sewer service that was built large enough to handle more than what the hospital needs. We have many adjoining towns in the area that could take this development, rather than building a new development just out in a new area completely. Adjoining towns have churches, schools and many business facilities that could handle this. I just think we’re heading off in the wrong direction. All we need is quick approval of good plans for subdivisions and so forth. That would solve our housing needs in a hurry.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further debate? The hon. minister.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I’m going to accept the request of the opposition members that this bill should go into a standing committee.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That is very welcome.

Hon. Mr. White: Hopefully for a day or two, or whatever it takes next week.

Mr. Cassidy: We will try our best to be co-operative.

Hon. Mr. White: This will give an opportunity for questions and answers and the presence of members of the public, and an opportunity, indeed, for members of the public to ask questions and provide criticism or suggestions in a way that wouldn’t be possible if we were to confine our activities to this chamber.

For that reason, sir, I think I won’t get into some of the detailed questions that have been put to me, but rather leave those for the standing committee. What I would like to do here today is to describe the function, structure and reporting relationships of the corporation being proposed in this bill and deal with some of the broader criticisms which have been offered by the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Legislature.

I think many of the misapprehensions which have been voiced by the Leader of the Opposition and others, including members of the development industry, are based on misinformation. It’s perfectly true when I mentioned this new agency of government in the budget it was my thought that it would be a stronger structure and that it would have bolder objectives. I myself and my colleagues concluded, after some weeks and months of rumination and with the advantage of criticisms that had been offered from a wide variety of sources including members of the Legislature, that we would be wise to originate the Ontario Land Corp. in a conservative fashion.

This was mentioned by the House leader in a speech he gave recently and which has been quoted by a couple of members here. From the four models which had been described, the government chose a conservative model. What was that conservative model? Very briefly this: That there shall be a corporation responsible to the House through the Treasurer which would have a financing responsibility only and no operating responsibilities.

So there will be a board, if the Legislature passes this legislation, consisting of a dozen men and women, with a very small staff -- 10 or 20 or 30 perhaps -- who will go to market, without an Ontario guarantee. I heard time and time again in this House that we were empowering this board of directors to use the credit of Ontario -- the Leader of the Opposition said it half a dozen times and other members said it too -- thereby vesting them with this enormous power via the undoubted triple-A credit of the province. Well, sir, this is not a fact.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would the minister permit a question? It is true, however, that all of the land that will be transferred to them can be used for collateral for raising funds for their own purposes on the aims set out by the bill. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, hopefully when this corporation is put in place they will take over a number of pieces of property, including two in Haldimand-Norfolk, the North Pickering site and perhaps others. This will be their start-up capital, if you wish Mr. Speaker.

They will give an IOU to the government for the cost of those properties, which will amount, I suppose -- if North Pickering is included, as I expect it will be -- to a couple of hundred million dollars. Then the corporation will go to market soon afterwards and raise moneys which will then be used to redeem the IOU to the government.

The point I am making is that they won’t have the guarantee of the Province of Ontario, and I would like to deal with that for a moment or two. We do guarantee Ontario Hydro’s borrowings in Canada and we do borrow in the name of the Province of Ontario for Hydro’s needs in the New York market and in European markets. Now sir, this is the way it is and this is the way it is going to be. We have no way of altering those circumstances even if we wish to do so.

I was determined, therefore, when the Ontario Land Corp. was originated, that we shouldn’t provide a guarantee which would lock us in forever, quite frankly. I saw the Ontario Land Corp. going to market without such a guarantee and thereby subjecting its operations to the full force of market opinion. So while it may be necessary to pay a fraction more in interest rates to the lenders, these additional costs will be devolved to the property owners and property renters and will not be a charge against the taxpayers of this province. I think that is the way it should be.

If the increment becomes too large it will be a clear, steady signal to members of the government, members of the Legislature and members of the public, that the operation is floundering and that a new board should be appointed or that the board should appoint new officers to the corporation or that same other action should be taken in order to regain the efficiency, and thereby the confidence, of the investors who acquire these obligations.

So for these several reasons, I think we are very wise in not providing a guarantee and not proposing to borrow on account of this corporation’s activities.

The Ontario Land Corp., as I said, will have no operating responsibilities. There will be created a project corporation for a new city site in Haldimand-Norfolk. And this is the second misunderstanding; that corporation will not report to the Ontario Land Corp., it will report to an operating ministry, in this example the Ministry of Housing. If a large industrial parksite were acquired, the board of directors of that project corporation would report to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

Sir, another misapprehension is that this is going to le done in some secretive fashion out of sight of the public. On the contrary, these project corporations themselves will be established by statute. That was one of the important questions raised the other day. The board of directors of the new project corporation for the new city in Haldimand-Norfolk will have the responsibility of hiring a staff or seconding staff from the public service. In this way, we hope to have the innovative qualities and the entrepreneurial talents of the private sector in a way that frankly isn’t often the case when it comes to the public service as a whole.

I have an enormous respect for public servants, but their temperament and talents are rather different, I think one would have to say, from entrepreneurs in the private sector. So we hope through the aegis of these corporations to have the best of both worlds -- the steady good advice of the public servants by secondment and the enormous vigour, imagination and derring-do of entrepreneurs.

The project corporations will, perhaps through consultants and perhaps on occasion or in part through their own staff, create over a period of 18 months or thereabouts a plan for the new city site or at some later date perhaps a plan for an industrial park, and will be responsible for putting in the big pipes and the big roads. What I am determined they should not do is get into the microplanning or microservicing.

So when the new city in Haldimand-Norfolk is commenced, the project corporation will put on the broad plan, delineating, let’s say, the commercial section where some light industry might go and where the residential areas are going to be, and then they will by tender invite proposals from the private sector for the creation of the housing, the shops, the churches and so on that will be needed in that new community. Then it will be the function, as always in this society, for the development industry to put in the small pipes and the small streets and design the various neighbourhoods and sections of the community.

In this way, sir, I think we can move the construction ahead very much faster because, frankly, I think that if the project corporation itself, with the assistance of a ministry, were to embark upon the detailed planning, that could go on for years and years.

So I think, first, that we can do it more speedily using the system I am suggesting, and secondly, it fully engages the resources of the private sector, as has been the case in the past, which will once again utilize their imagination to design the new neighbourhoods and suchlike.

This brings, to my mind at any rate, the second of the advantages of this approach, namely, that we will thereby develop a heterogeneous community, not a Brasilia, as was mentioned the other day, but a community of which there are different styles, scales, approaches and artistic points of view, perhaps, and thereby over time create cities like London, Ont., Belleville and other places, where a diversity of architectural styles and other heterogeneous characteristics make for a vigorous, stimulating atmosphere.

I remember reading an excellent speech 10 or 12 years ago by Claude Bissell, dealing with the architecture on the University of Toronto campus. We at that time did believe that Western was the very best thing around because all the buildings were the same, more or less, and I was beguiled as a young man by that argument advanced by the board of governors and others.

I read this striking article by Dr. Bissell, however, and came to the conclusion that the University of Toronto campus, which reflected architectural preferences in every decade since the beginning of that great institution, created in toto a very stimulating environment for learning. The older I get the more I realize that the approach on the University of Toronto campus is better than the homogeneous approach that was taken at Western which has since been modified to some extent, I must say.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Treasonous comments.

Hon. Mr. White: The heterogeneity which will result in the approach we are taking in the new cities will be infinitely better than the stereotyped modes which one sees in Brasilia and certain other such government endeavours.

Mr. Cassidy: The Treasurer’s opinion of the capacity of the private sector is just a shade too high. I appreciate the argument. These cities took decades to build not years.

Hon. Mr. White: The Leader of the Opposition has taken rather an extreme stand on my powers. I don’t understand it. I don’t understand it internally, for instance and I’ll detail that for a moment. The acquisition of the Cayuga site was approved by the cabinet co-ordinating committee, the Policy and Priorities Board, the Management Board of Cabinet and cabinet itself. What powers have I, therefore, arrogated to myself, when all of these matters had the concurrence of my colleagues? Externally, I have gone time and time again to the local level of government and said, “Please, tell me what you want,” and nine times out of 10 I’ve been able to acquiesce.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Treasurer said they wanted another site.

Hon. Mr. White: Most recently -- a week ago today -- I went to the regional council of Haldimand-Norfolk and said: “How would you like us to proceed?” I had given them four options and two more were offered, so now there are six options in front of us. Whichever of the options suits them suits me. I do believe that we should not use the Ontario Planning and Development Act. So here once again I’m not using the powers provided to me by the Legislature. I think we should proceed via the regional official plan. Once again, we are subjecting ourselves to the wishes of the people in the area.

The project corporation itself is going to include some number of people from the area, regional councillors, area councillors and others. A couple of proposals have come forward from the regional council and from the Nanticoke council suggesting a larger number of local councillors and residents on this board. I had suggested 50-50 and they are proposing larger numbers. If they want larger numbers, so be it. I have no objection to that.

We further proposed to have the planning committee -- all elected persons, nine members I do believe -- of the regional council as an advisory council to the new project corporation. One of the members of that committee suggested perhaps the Cayuga site should go ahead before the Townsend site. If that’s their wish, so be it. I have no deep-seated preference. I had gone on assumption -- perhaps incorrect -- that the first site acquired should be the first site developed. If the regional councillors and their own electors have a different order of priorities, I’m quite prepared to accept those. I feel very confident my colleagues in cabinet will, too.

Mr. Cassidy: This is the part of the speech that I waited for.

Hon. Mr. White: Internally and externally, one can see the charges about the enormous power of the Treasurer, the present incumbent, whose incumbency will be short-lived as members here know, are completely unfair, and I think this only distracts from the important substance set out in this bill. I think it is not helpful.

In a moment of passion, I may point out what I see to be the momentary deficiencies of the Leader of the Opposition. But I couldn’t in all honesty in a setting like this accuse him of any personal deficiencies, except of course for lack of ability.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is holding the Treasurer back from that this morning? It never held him back before.

Hon. Mr. White: At any rate to heap imagined ambitions for power on me, when I have declared that I’m sacrificing what little power I have to return to the bosom of my family in the foreseeable future -- is something that is a little bit difficult to substantiate, I do believe.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, the Treasurer is winding down.

Hon. Mr. White: The Leader of the Opposition said it was an important bill -- and indeed it is an important bill; because it provides a very innovative agency to further the planning objectives of this province.

I don’t think it’s irrational when some number of people here in the city of Toronto say: “No, we don’t want to have eight million people in this agglomeration.” Incidentally, that’s the forecast for the year 2000, if nothing is done.

I don’t think it’s irrational if the people in Oakville say: “No, stop; we don’t want to be twice as large or 10 times as large. We like the style and scale we have right now.”

I don’t think it’s irrational when, in London, Ont., citizens come to me, as indeed they are doing with increasing frequency, and say: “We don’t want London to be 500,000 or a million -- we like it 200,000 or 300,000 people.”

If that is not irrational, and if we have no control over two variables -- namely, the birthrate and immigration -- then we have to find an alternative.

If Oakville wants to stay at the size it is, we can’t drive people out of the province to other places. We can’t incarcerate them on some faraway island. What we have to do is invent an alternative -- and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the only alternative is a new city.

The new city will have the advantage further of protecting good farmlands, which would otherwise be engulfed on the outskirts of Oakville or the outskirts of London, Ont., because, not surprisingly, our forefathers located the communities in the most fertile valleys of this province.

So we propose to accommodate the increasing population -- over which, as I have said, we have no control -- in a systematic way by creating attractive new communities on something less than prime farmlands.

If I may divert for just a minute, the lands acquired in Cayuga, which are shown as class 2 on the map, are now described by officials in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food as ranging between a poor class 2 and class 5. And they assure me that there are no lands in this recently acquired acreage which should be kept in food production for perpetuity.

As I think I may have mentioned in this House on one occasion, establishing a new city site on these inferior lands will enable us to siphon off growth from the very good farmlands northeast of Dunnville, and the unique soft food lands which lie somewhat farther to the northeast. I hope that the Cayuga site, as it develops, will take some of the development pressures off the peninsula, as indeed I expect that the Townsend site, when it develops --

Mr. Cassidy: It is a very belated response.

Hon. Mr. White: -- will take some of the stress off of the Hamilton area.

Mr. Cassidy: Those are very belated responses to the problems of the fruitland. The government has frittered away 20 years.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, better late than never.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I don’t think it will. I share his --

Mr. Cassidy: To say it’s better late than never will --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: Insofar as the other principal division of responsibility in this new endeavour is concerned, if the people in central southwestern Ontario are becoming more and more concerned about overpopulation and overconcentration, while at the same time people in eastern and northern Ontario are concerned about underdevelopment, surely these two concerns can be remedied at one and the same time.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. White: Namely, by putting in place in eastern, northeastern and northwestern Ontario industrial parks supplemented by other government measures. There are the development corporations -- the ODC, the NODC, the EODC and so on -- to make it more attractive for industry to move into the underdeveloped parts of the province.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes. Yes.

Hon. Mr. White: This bill will enable the government to put together a large industrial park and will enable the government to lend money into the municipalities for the creation of a hierarchy of provincial-municipal industrial parks. One wouldn’t contemplate aggressive seeking of new enterprises for the large industrial park until the provincial-municipal industrial parks had reached the size and provided the employment desired by the people of the communities affected.

There will be occasions, perhaps, where a monumental work like a steel company could not be accommodated on the periphery of Carleton Place, for instance, because they need water and they need access to shipping facilities because there are certain pollution ingredients that have to be attended to on the shores of a Great Lake. With that qualification, however, I would not see one of the large provincial industrial parks aggressively seeking business in competition with the communities in the area.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister permit a question, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. White: Surely.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps having made that statement, the minister could comment specifically on the provincial involvement in the Spencerville land assembly and whether the intentions are specifically for that land.

Hon. Mr. White: I will be doing that, sir, but I cannot comment on that subject today.

Mr. Cassidy: We are voting on something that may relate to that.

Hon. Mr. White: The Leader of the Opposition sad that we are sequestering the most developable land. I am sorry -- I just don’t remember that reference. Perhaps I’ll let that go for the standing committee.

Oh yes, sequestering the most developable land I On the contrary, the private sector is not going to acquire land in northeastern Ontario for a large industrial park. a matter of fact, at one of the many, many meetings I have had, where there were a couple of hundred investment people, I said: “If you are opposed to our going into the industrial park business, leaving that for the private sector, let me hear you say so. Is there anybody in this room that will take that on? If so, please tell me now or later.” Of course not.

Of course the private sector can’t put together thousands of acres in northeastern Ontario for a very long-term development. It’s beyond the range. The risk is too great for the private sector, and if the private sector can’t do it, once again the public sector is called upon to do it. This is the history of Canada, going back to the very earliest days of this country. So once again we are called upon to do it, to provide the economic stimulation which is desired directly by the people of northern and eastern Ontario and which is indirectly desired by people in central and southwestern Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, we have got enough socialism for the corporate sector.

Hon. Mr. White: Reference has been made to the acquisitions by the Ontario Housing Corp. in Brantford and Kitchener and elsewhere.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Those 18,000 acres.

Hon. Mr. White: I think quite frankly that the Ontario Housing Corp. should provide housing, period, and that every nickel available to it from provincial funds and from CMHC should be dedicated to that cause, and I think that in itself will become a challenge, which is diluted now when they have the dual responsibility of providing housing and getting into occasional developments. I think one of the advantages of the Ontario Housing Corp. land assembly and development, which is not their function and which perhaps they haven’t done perfectly in the past, and I think it meets the objection voiced yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.

Reference has been made to the Ontario plan, and I am a little confused by these comments because I am told that we should have had it a long time ago, and I am told by other members that I am doing it far too quickly. Well, I am not doing it too quickly. This regional planning branch has been in place for years and they have done a lot of studies in different quadrants of the province. They have been part of my direct responsibility for a couple of years and I have said to them from time to time: “Come on -- let’s get going.” I finally said to them very strongly, I think it was last May: “I am not going to wait any longer; I’ve got to have an official plan, however rudimentary it may be, next fall.” I got that undertaking from them and I hope to have it by the end of the fall.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You’ve got a couple of days --

Mr. Cassidy: Eight days to go.

Hon. Mr. White: Or shortly thereafter. Now, this Ontario plan will be the first rudimentary plan. I am not going to apologize for that, either, because it will be an important discussion document enabling people in every part of this province to say: “Hey, this can be improved upon.”

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Treasurer blaming his planners?

Hon. Mr. White: No, I am not blaming them.

Mr. Cassidy: It is the political motivation of the government that is at fault.

Hon. Mr. White: But they are a little bit concerned that their professional expertise and integrity will be imperilled if it isn’t made crystal clear that this is not their final perfect document. That’s what I am saying here today.

Mr. Cassidy: But the government was obsessed with Toronto and brought the TCR out four years ago and wouldn’t do anything else.

Hon. Mr. White: There have been a lot of things done in keeping with that report -- transportation and many other things.

Mr. Cassidy: But all focused in Toronto.

Hon. Mr. White: The Leader of the Opposition asked that we remove the growth pressure from central Ontario and made particular reference, I do believe, to agriculture, I must say that once again this provides the government with an instrument to accomplish that objective in a way that, frankly, will not be the case if this bill isn’t passed. Time and time again I heard the hon. member say this was an intrusion into the private sector and that this would in some way impair free enterprise in this province.

I want to say again to you, Mr. Speaker, that the socialists’ complaints are right. We have backed away from an operating responsibility for the OLC and we have backed away from a full-fledged development function for the project corporations, so that we will be engaging the talents and resources of the private sector, which will be called upon to put in the streets and the pipes and the neighbourhoods in various sections of these new communities. When one sees the forecast of population increase and recognizes in the next 25 years we are going to have to provide housing for 10 million people at a maximum, eight million people at a minimum, we can see that we are more or less going to have to double the housing stock in this province.

The resources of the private sector of the development industry and the construction industry will be fully engaged for the next 25 years in meeting these objectives. The fact that we are now compelled by circumstances which I have touched upon to add to their efforts to accommodate our people, to avoid overconcentration of population and to safeguard prime food lands should not in any way lead to their opposition to these measures. I know the NDP don’t like to hear me say this because they would have us go into a much bolder form of public enterprise. However, observing other jurisdictions, including Sweden which is heralded by the socialists as the paradise state of the world, the last time I heard about housing in Sweden one had to wait 16 years to get a flat.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about the BC Land Corp.?

Hon. Mr. White: That’s how full blown socialized housing works.

Mr. Cassidy: Why doesn’t the Treasurer answer the questions raised in this Legislature rather than going off at a tangent?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, it was the member or one of his colleagues who mentioned Sweden, it wasn’t me.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: I mentioned the innovations of conservative government in Sweden.

Hon. Mr. White: The member introduced it, not I.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Carried.

Hon. Mr. White: Oh, no, this is going to take a long time. Take a little break.

Some mention was made of the fact that Ontario would become the largest landowner; I think was the phrase of the Leader of the Opposition. Is it known to the members of this Legislature that there are 412,000 square miles in this province of which only 42,000 are privately owned? In other words, whether one likes it or not --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s not land.

Hon. Mr. White: -- the Province of Ontario owns 90 per cent of the territory in Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Crown used to own the whole thing.

Hon. Mr. White: This includes good land close to the cities and bad land far out from Hudson Bay. The idea of opposing us on the basis of this complete departure from previous practice is complete and absolute nonsense.

Mr. Deans: A lot of useless information.

Mr. Breithaupt: It certainly convinced me.

Hon. Mr. White: Our Minister of Government Services is buying and selling land all the time and indeed is a very large landowner and landlord. It is said that there isn’t sufficient control by this Legislature on behalf of the public. I tell you, sir, that this is completely incorrect. The acquisitions have to be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. They do not use Ontario’s credit so they are subjected to the full force of the marketplace and the investors.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They have got their own credit. They don’t have to go to the consolidated revenue fund.

Hon. Mr. White: The project corporations report to the minister who is responsible for their activities and subject to questioning in this House. The Provincial Auditor appoints the auditor and comments on his reports, no doubt. The annual report of the Ontario Land Corp. will be laid before the Legislature. The financial statements will be laid before the House. The accounts will be subject to the scrutiny, as I say, and the report by the Provincial Auditor. The control and direction by a minister who reports to the House is built right into the bill, explicitly.

Mr. Sheppard of the London Free Press was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition as saying that the conventional powers of a municipality would be withheld by the project corporation “until the land corporation decided” that there should be an evolution toward a more democratic structure. That is not to be decided by the project corporation, I can tell you. This will be the decision of a provincial-municipal partnership.

When the city site is first developed there will be half a dozen people there. As the population increases it will be possible to evolve a full-fledged municipal operation. Frankly, the details of this are as yet undecided and will be decided in co-operation with the regions and municipalities affected. In other words, what may be appropriate in North Pickering, involving as it does three area municipalities and three regional municipalities, may be quite different from the needs and wishes of Haldimand-Norfolk.

Once again, I have to say that I don’t propose to crunch all of these new endeavours into a single mould. I would like to see a heterogeneous approach taken, and whatever suits the area concerned is going to suit me -- with one qualification. If we originate a new city so that Oakville won’t be over-expanded, or so that the people in Brantford can control their own destinies with respect to size, then we cannot have the surrounding municipalities to the new city say: “No, you can’t have any people here.” So that’s the only qualification that I have to introduce.

I did mention, I think, Mr. Speaker, that I propose to use the regional official plan in Haldimand-Norfolk, certainly, and probably elsewhere and not the Ontario Planning and Development Act. So when the Leader of the Opposition says I’m usurping the planning function of the region, he apparently is not aware of that determination.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The official plan designates both these areas as agricultural.

Hon. Mr. White: There was some ranting and raving about 10 new towns by the year 2000.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ranting and raving! What is the Treasurer talking about? He’s criticizing himself -- he was ranting and raving.

Hon. Mr. White: Listen, when a reporter says to me: “What do you think might happen?” I don’t know what’s going to happen. We have three city sites now; maybe we’ll have 10 by the end of the century. I don’t know if we’re going to have three or 300 -- I haven’t the faintest idea. To pull some number out of the air and whip me with it I think isn’t particularly clever.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The number was pulled out of the air by none other than the Treasurer!

Hon. Mr. White: Well, I mentioned different numbers depending on my mood and I’m not going to be criticized for any of them, because they are not predictions, as such.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: According to the London Free Press there will be 10 new cities by the year 2000. That’s typical of the announcements the Treasurer makes.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, why doesn’t the Leader of the Opposition guess, then? We’ll have at least three, that I can guarantee. Beyond that I can’t say.

The hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) said: “Well, this is quite a comedown.” The Leader of the Opposition says: “This is a terrible monster.” And the hon. member for Riverdale says: “This is a puny little 98-lb. weakling.” I’ve got news for the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Riverdale is more right than he is.

Mr. Breithaupt: A 98-lb. monster.

Hon. Mr. White: We have removed from the potential corporation all operational responsibilities. They will not be servicing and developing land, as I had at one time thought, and there are a number of other things that they will not be doing as, once again, we take a conservative approach to the solution of pressing public requirements.

The project corporations which will be receiving moneys from the OLC for the acquisition of land, will be established by statute, as I have said; and such statutes have been drafted already. They will be special Act corporations; they will report directly to the minister involved.

There is a provision in one of the sections -- section 13 of subsection 2 -- for an interlocking board of directors. My thought was that as the OLC lends substantial sums of money into a project corporation, one of the directors of OLC should be on the board of the project corporation to maintain a liaison, and as a further safeguard for the bondholders of the OLC.

Well, the member for Ottawa Centre -- what a remarkable chap he is -- plunged in once again with a torrent of words signifying nothing. I thought when I saw him in Ottawa on Wednesday sitting quietly for one day, I thought that that remarkable control on Wednesday would be shattered into complete uncontrol on Thursday -- and I was right -- because the hon. member for Ottawa Centre heaped a lot of words, covering a wide waterfront, and wasn’t helpful at all. He is certainly no businessman.

Mr. Cassidy: How can the Treasurer say such cruel things, when we said we would support the bill?

Hon. Mr. White: He said there wasn’t enough planning -- and I have tried to deal with that. He said it was contradictory -- and I have forgotten why. He asked rhetorical questions.

Oh yes, here is something he did say or inquire about that must be dealt with. He said they are not in any plan; that is to say, the new city sites that we have singled out. Well, in fact, it is perfectly consistent with every planning document published here in the last 20 years. It is certainly very much in keeping with recent planning statements; and certainly will be in keeping with the COLUC report. It certainly will be in keeping with the Ontario plan, because essentially the objective of the plan is to move development out of the over-developing parts of this province and beyond zone 2 -- and these sites are beyond zone 2.

Mr. Cassidy: But they are not either in the east or north -- they are away down in the southwest.

Hon. Mr. White: The southwestern development is something that is going to happen and which, as a matter of fact, is quite welcome by me. It was only a few years ago that the NDP were parading themselves through Haldimand-Norfolk talking about rural slums and so on. The Globe and Mad featured those vicious attacks on that glorious part of Ontario. And, by the way, the NDP crippled themselves indefinitely for going after the characteristics of Haldimand-Norfolk.

The fact of the matter is that incomes were less than average and amenities were less than average. Those disadvantages were more than offset by certain lifestyle characteristics, which were very much liked by the people there and by me. However, now there is going to be accelerating economic development. Through the aegis of good planning and good planning tools in the regional government, and now with the assistance of these new city project corporations, we are able to have the best of both worlds.

Mr. Cassidy: No, it is overkill on a monumental scale; and that was the Treasurer’s goal.

Hon. Mr. White: We are able to protect the Lynn Creek, we are able to protect the Grand River, we are able to protect the forest stands along Lake Erie, we were able to have all those natural amenities -- and also high living standards.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: High living is great.

Hon. Mr. White: Yes sir, that’s right. A question was asked about selling land for low cost. We see this as a break-even proposition. I would expect, although the decision couldn’t be made without having advice from the responsible boards of directors, that the commercial areas would be sold at a profit, the middle and upper income neighbourhood sold at cost, and the less prepossessing, more modest residential areas sold at less than cost, that subsidy being provided by the profits on the commercial and industrial sales. But, as I say, this is a notion of my own at the moment which hasn’t been considered rigorously and which has not been decided upon.

The question was asked: What will the effect be on Ontario Hydro borrowings? I think it will not have any significant effect. The hope and expectation is that the new syndicate which will be formed following a proposal call will be using instruments quite different from those of Ontario Hydro and will tap an entirely different market -- by which I mean a retail market -- in a way, frankly, that Hydro does not, because nearly all of Hydro’s sales are going into institutional holdings and large private holdings.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The one the Treasurer is advertising today isn’t quite as attractive as the one he advertised in New York six weeks ago.

Hon. Mr. White: I’m sorry -- I missed that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the borrowing on behalf of Hydro -- the Americans can’t afford it.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, interest rates do change. I’ll give the member a separate little talk on that one day.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Make the offer here when they are high -- don’t offer us eight per cent and the Americans 10.25 per cent.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): It is 9.97.

Mr. Singer: That’s on the ones that mature in 2000.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Conservatives may not be the government then.

Hon. Mr. White: The criticism was offered that I’ve given only a month to Haldimand-Norfolk to express their preference with respect to the priority development of the Townsend site or the Cayuga site. There is a desperate need to get more housing in place in that part of Ontario. When one sees the increase -- and perhaps we’ll deal with this in the standing committee -- in the number of workers on the several industrial sites and the multiplier results when one includes storekeepers and doctors and barbers and so on --

Mr. Cassidy: Stelco came and told the government when they needed the housing.

Hon. Mr. White: -- there is going to be a very large population increase. These people must have some place to stay. If all of the burden is thrown on the existing municipalities, frankly, those small towns and villages stand in danger of being completely ruined. If we are going to have housing started there 30 months from now, we can’t spend 12 months deciding on which of these sites to go ahead with first.

Mr. Cassidy: Did Stelco tell the government?

Hon. Mr. White: Does the opposition really think that taking six months is going to enable a regional council to come up with a better answer than doing it in four weeks? Not on your life. These people know the territory the same way you know your own backyard. And they will, to some extent intuitively and to some extent intellectually, decide on the merits of proceeding with the Townsend site first or the Cayuga site.

Mr. Cassidy: Did Stelco say to get the housing in place in 2½ years? Was it Stelco’s orders?

Hon. Mr. White: Spending a lot more time isn’t going to give a better answer.

Quite a lot was said about the possibility of conflict of interest. The member for Ottawa Centre, the member for Downsview and perhaps others have asked about this. Section 5 provides that such conflicts must be disclosed and section 5(1) requires that he not vote.

The members of the board of directors for OLC must be men and women who have financial experience or development experience or some other such skill. At least, some number of them will have to do so, although I am glad enough to see members of the public, whether they be housewives of clergymen, putting in some kind of lay opinion. We must have some number of people with very definite, developed skills. These men and women will have business connections, almost by definition.

The trick becomes to get the expertise we need on to that board while avoiding any conflict. If we apply the same rule to these members of the board as we impose upon cabinet ministers, we are going to come up with a board which doesn’t have the capability of running this important operation.

So what we have done is said -- well, let me deal with this for a minute, as my hon. friend from Downsview is shaking his head. It would be unthinkable to put the vice-president of an investment house on this board. It would be unthinkable to have the president of the development corporation on this board. The conflict would be so close, so obvious, so continuing that that would be unthinkable.

Mr. Cassidy: But it is permitted in the Act.

Hon. Mr. White: Is it unthinkable, though, to get the retired president of a chartered bank who has an enormity of experience and wisdom to offer and who is himself on the board of Canada Packers, for instance? One can envisage in such a situation there being a conflict. But if we exclude experienced men and women like that we are going to end up with a funny-looking board. I’ll tell you who they are going to be -- the Michael Cassidys of the world, 12 of them.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Oh, no! What a horrible thought.

Hon. Mr. White: See what happens?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, God. It is even worse than I thought.

Hon. Mr. White: And they will be right straight down the drain -- a failure on day one.

Mr. Singer: The Treasurer just proved our point. The government doesn’t need a board.

Hon. Mr. White: So under section 5(1) we are going to require that any conflict be revealed and the person withhold and not participate. This is the requirement for municipal councillors and other elected persons.

Mr. Singer: The government has used it to the most illogical and absurd end.

Mr. Cassidy: It is crazy to have a director of Cadillac on this committee.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Singer: Yes, but they do it publicly. Municipal councillors do it publicly, it is recorded in the minutes and the minutes can be looked at by any ratepayer.

Hon. Mr. White: This, sir, is an all-too-brief summary of the structure, function, reporting relationship and objectives of the Ontario Land Corp. and the special project corporations which will be offered to the Legislature in its wake. I see it as a very innovative change in the instrumentation and the operation of the province.

I think it will enable us to meet the changing objectives of society. It will enable us to accommodate the people in Halton who don’t want to grow quickly forever, presumably, and in places like Brantford and Brant and London, Ont. It will enable us over time to evolve better systems for protecting our prime food lands for the use of our own people and humanity around the world. It will enable us to put in place significant economic developments which will, I have no doubt, induce additional outside industrial development in eastern, northeastern, and northwestern Ontario,

At the same time it limits the powers of the corporation, thereby meeting, in fact, the objections of the Leader of the Opposition. It does require in a variety of ways complete disclosure and reporting to this Legislature both in the inception of the project corporations and as they develop and as they report through one of three responsible ministers in this parliamentary system.

So I think, notwithstanding the very serious criticism of the socialists who say it doesn’t go far enough, that we have invented a mechanism to accomplish several objectives which were coming to the forefront, as far as the priorities of our people are concerned, and at the same time fully protect the citizenry, through this Legislature, against the abuse of the powers of this new agency.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the debate having been concluded, the Liberals will join us now in supporting this important new legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 133.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may raise a point on this, I don’t think the bell can be heard on the fourth floor where the labour group is meeting and I wonder if someone could be sent?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think that could be arranged.

The House divided on the motion for second reading of Bill 133, which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Allan Auld Beckett Belanger Bernier Birch Bounsall Brunelle Burr Carruthers Cassidy Clement Davis Deans Downer Evans Ewen Ferrier Gilbertson Handleman Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Hodgson (York North) Irvine Kennedy Kerr Laughren Leluk Lewis MacBeth MacDonald Maeck Martel McIlveen McNeil Meen Morningstar Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Parrott Reilly Renwick Root Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Timbrell Turner Wardle White Yakabuski Yaremko Young -- 55.

Braithwaite Breithaupt Campbell Deacon Good Haggerty Nixon (Brant) Reid Sargent Singer Spence Worton -- 12.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 55, the “nays” 12.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Committee, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, the request was put to me to send this to the standing committee. I’m quite agreeable to doing that. The appropriate standing committee, I’m told by my officials and others, is the standing committee on the administration of justice. I’m likewise told by the deputy clerk that that committee has three bills in front of it, so if there is no objection from members of the House, this could go to the standing committee on resources development.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Is that sitting also?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a point of order, to which committee, then, does the Workmen’s Compensation Board go, which we have been promised? Presumably it would be the natural resources committee, because that is the secretariat.

An hon. member: Resources development committee.

Mr. Lewis: Resources development committee, I’m sorry. What is happening here is that we are pushing the Workmen’s Compensation Board into 1975, which we prefer not to do.

Mrs. Campbell: It is really bad for the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s do it in social development, then.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for perhaps another committee to be seized with this responsibility? Perhaps it could go to the administration of justice committee, if there was some desire to have three committees going at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: I presume the minister will clarify that as soon as possible.

Hon. Mr. White: I have no preference in the matter and I don’t know what the workload is for the committees. Could this matter be left to the Clerk in consultation with the members of the committees?

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps it should go where it belongs.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to be the consensus that it go to the justice committee.

Agreed.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 164, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, it would appear there are a number of minor matters being dealt with in this housekeeping bill. We have received it and have been in contact with the officials in Metropolitan Toronto and they find the bill to be, of course, to their satisfaction. I presume the various things that are being attended to are as a result of earlier consultations with those authorities.

The matter set out initially -- dealing with how tie votes or acclamations should be attended to -- is something which appears to be able to resolve that problem, if it should come up in future elections.

We were interested in section 5, which allows the pension benefits which have been in existence for the Metropolitan Toronto police force since 1963 to be granted to widows of members of the force who died or retired prior to that date and who are presently in receipt of no pension benefits. This seems to be a useful addition and one which will regularize the circumstances so that these pensions can be awarded and continued to persons who are certainly worthy of receiving them.

One thing that was of interest to us was with respect to the items in section 7 allowing the Metropolitan council to have no limitation on the power to make various charitable donations and various grants to organizations and individuals within Metropolitan Toronto’s jurisdiction. We think that the lack of a ceiling here is surely a responsible thing and that the municipal council -- Metro council in this case -- will have to make its decision as to how funds are dealt with and that that should certainly be within their discretion. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the bill contains a number of other minor amendments with which we certainly do not quarrel, and we will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that I have a great deal to add to what has already been said by the hon. member who has just spoken. Certainly this is a matter of housekeeping. This bill and the following bills tidy up certain matters which needed tidying up.

The thrust of this is in some measure, at least, bringing back to the regional government certain powers they should have and which we in this group have always maintained that once regional governments were established should be handed back to them. Certainly I think the minister is on the right track when, as regional governments are formed, they are given the powers to really operate their own business.

I know that the minister had a look at the situation in Yugoslavia a year or so ago and I think he was very interested, as many of us were who saw that, in the tremendous power that the municipalities had in that particular country. I don’t think either one of us would be willing to see that kind of power transfer in Ontario, but it was a remarkable demonstration of how municipalities do operate. I understand they abolished their Municipal Act back in the early 1960s and the municipalities really have all the power of taxation and other powers which we seem to have provincially and federally here. The flow of money goes upward instead of downward. I was intrigued, as many people were, to see just how that works out.

While I think we can go some distance in that direction here, certainly I wouldn’t advocate that we go where they have gone.

The interesting thing, I think, is the difference in staffs. For example, the state of Croatia had a number of staffs in that state, which I suppose wouldn’t equal the staffs in any average department here in this Province of Ontario. So the major staff would be at the municipal level and then dwindling, smaller ones on the way up. This is an experiment that’s going on in the world, and I think this is a healthy thing that’s happening here in Ontario where we do get many of these powers back where they ought to be, at the basic government organization.

The section giving the municipality power to pay the widows of former policemen I think is good and one we think should have been done some time ago. There are, I understand, about 100 widows who will be affected here. They will now be authorized to receive about half of their husband’s pension at the time of death. I would hope that something might be done by Metro to augment this a bit, because some of these pensions would be pretty small. However, they will be welcome and certainly they will be a great deal of help.

I think that’s all we have to say about this bill, and certainly these remarks would hold for the other bills as well. I don’t think we need to go too far on those. There may be some items in the others which we want to comment on, but fundamentally this is what we want to say about this one and we support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, there would seem to be unanimous approval for this legislation.

I would just like to comment very briefly on the knowledgeable comments of the member for Yorkview. I was intrigued, as he was, by the radical decentralization of government power and structure in Yugoslavia. I think the federal government there, if I remember correctly, has 8,000 employees. Here in Canada we have something like 250,000 at the federal level. That doesn’t include the army, if I remember correctly.

The municipal group which went there a couple of years ago was likewise intrigued and entranced; and to some extent envious, I do believe.

Mr. Young: Particularly Streetsville.

Hon. Mr. White: We are attempting to move in that direction. Quite frankly, we couldn’t go as far as they have gone in Yugoslavia. It would be completely unworkable. I do believe in Yugoslavia, this radical decentralization is only possible because of the external control of the party and more particularly of Marshal Tito. When the municipalities got a little bit frisky two-and-a-half years ago, he sent them a 56-page letter telling them, in effect: “Behave yourselves.”

We are trying to move to a more decentralized system here in Ontario, giving more power and resources to the municipal level, while of course avoiding the perils which the Yugoslavian system would invite in the absence of that external discipline.

I have some small misgivings about the power to make unlimited grants, but because it is in keeping with the general policy of the government to decentralize this authority and because it’s a power that Metropolitan Toronto want to have for themselves, and because there’s no evidence to date that this will be used irresponsibly, we have decided to provide them with such powers.

My fear, quite frankly, is that self-proclaimed community spokesmen will come forward and in some fashion bludgeon the councillors into a substantial grant which in that way becomes to some extent self-perpetuating, but once again I have to say that the councillors are responsible and they must be alive to this possibility and must exercise some control on their level, rather than expecting us to do so by statute.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 164. Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 164, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act,

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. White moves second reading of Bill 173, The Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments on all of the many details presented in this bill. I would presume that most of the amendments required here are things that either have been forgotten in the drafting of the bills or have been asked for as amendments by the regional municipalities.

There is a long list of municipalities affected. Many of the amendments affect all or some of the municipalities. There are a few things which are worthy of a little note, in that the regional councils are now given permission to appoint acting chairmen as the case is required. They can now join whatever municipal associations and organizations they see fit as regional governments to join. They can send employees away to courses or universities and pay their expenses.

The provision whereby the OMB may hold hearings regarding the financing of sewer and waterworks before the details of that funding have been figured out, is a little puzzling to me in that after the bearing has been held and the application is approved in whole or part, the board may then direct the method by which the funding shall be provided.

Why is this necessary? Maybe the hon. minister can inform me. I would have thought that in those instances the method of funding would have been figured out as part of the agreement before the, municipality entered into the project or would be part of the whole process of figuring out how it was going to do this, how much is going to be charged as a user’s charge, how much as a lot levy, how much as a frontage charge, a connection charge and how much would go on the general tax rate? What the reason for this is, I’m not sure, and perhaps the minister can tell me.

The provision where Ottawa-Carleton can now have their water supply and distribution on a regional basis means that they will be in the same position as most of the regional governments. There are pros and cons to regional water supply and distribution. We find in our own region, Mr. Speaker, where the supply is on a regional basis and the distribution is on an area government basis, differences come between the area and region regarding restrictions. Some area governments that had never had restrictions on water before now find because they get their water from the region there are restrictions.

The rationalization of rates by the region at the wholesale level to the area government has been accepted. The area governments found it very difficult to accept the former debenture debts of the former municipalities on a rationalized basis to be paid for by the region. This has now had to be accepted. The rationalization of rates within a region should certainly make it easier for smaller municipalities to get water supply. I’m certainly in accord with that provision of a regional water supply and distribution system, it’s going to make it more practical to bring the rate down. That is another whole matter in itself as to how water supply and distribution is financed in the Province of Ontario.

I see they’re bringing the interest charge in the York region up to standard 12 per cent on back payments due by the area governments on the regional levy. But in all matters contained in here, Mr. Speaker, I would presume that most things have been asked for by the region and I don’t see anything that controversial.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My comments will also be brief on the bill, which is technical and basically a housekeeping bill. I would say that we would welcome the decision that removes the tutelage of the province on the power of regional councils to give grants to institutions, associations or persons engaged in works that are for the general advantage of the inhabitants of that particular regional area. Obviously the real limit on any moneys that may be given out is the political system and the regard that people have to have for their budgets, particularly now, with a very tight budgetary year which is coming ahead for the next couple of years. But it didn’t make sense to have the limits and there were, as I recall, some inconsistencies that existed as between the limits that applied in the various regional bills.

The power of an area municipality to make a loan to the owner to pay for a connection where it has been ordered by a regional council. Again, this is housekeeping and was something which caused some problems in the Ottawa-Carleton region and, I presume, in other parts of the province as well.

Questions about the supply and distribution of water in the Ottawa-Carleton regional area: I would presume -- and the minister can perhaps comment on this -- that the new sections here don’t basically change anything but that it is simply a matter of bringing the Model T legislation that was enacted in Ottawa-Carleton back in 1968 into line with the more elaborate legislation which has been enacted in the other more recent regional bills.

My understanding of the way Ottawa-Carleton has been engaged in water supply, and the fact that the existing Ottawa-Carleton bill says specifically that after the beginning of 1969 no area municipality had any powers under any Act for the supply or distribution of water, indicates to me that there is no real change being made but that it is a matter more of technicalities, or of something to do with the financing. The minister could possibly explain that.

Perhaps I can just add that there is one lacuna here which is causing us enormous aggravation in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I would ask the minister to comment on this and to consider very seriously the point that I want to make.

The original Regional Municipality of Waterloo Act, as do all of that generation of regional municipal bills that we have seen in the course of this parliament from 1971 on, states that for the purposes of the particular Act the regional corporation shall be deemed to be a county and no area municipality shall be deemed to be a municipality -- and that’s for the purposes of the Day Nurseries Act, the General Welfare Assistance Act, and the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act. In Ottawa-Carleton we happen to be stuck with an earlier model of legislation on that particular section, and that is causing difficulties.

The Ottawa-Carleton bill, which has never been amended, states:

“On and after Jan. 1, 1969, the regional corporation shall be deemed to be a city for the purposes of the Homemakers and Nurses Services Act and the Day Nurseries Act and no area municipality shall be deemed to be a municipality for the purposes of such Acts.”

So far so good. But the hooker is in section 86(2) of the Ottawa-Carleton bill, which says:

“Notwithstanding subsection 1, the regional council shall not provide services under the Acts mentioned in subsection 1 except in those area municipalities requesting such services, and such municipalities shall pay the cost thereof in the manner determined by the regional council.”

What that means is simply that the regional municipality provides daycare services and homemaker services, but it must do so only after a formal request by resolution from an area municipality, and after that area municipality has agreed to pick up the municipal share of the cost of that particular service.

The consequence of that in the case of day care, which is what I know in particular, is that there are exceptional burdens put upon the day nurseries that have been established in the city of Ottawa, which has, in conjunction with the region, embarked on a somewhat active daycare programme over the last four years or so. Kids whose families live in municipalities in the region that do not subscribe to day care, have not agreed to have it and don’t consider it necessary, are victims of antediluvian attitudes or whatever.

At any rate, some of those outlying municipalities have refused to come in and to take their responsibilities in day care. Gradually they are coming in, but it is taking an awful lot of time and an awful lot of effort and some of the programmes which have been brought in as well in the outlying municipalities have been of the nature of part day care, which is suitable for educational purposes but not suitable for people with working parents where they need full day care in order that the mother can work.

We also have a situation where a family which has a child in a subsidized daycare place in the city of Ottawa may lose that daycare facility because the family happens to seek cheaper housing in Vanier or some other municipality within the region; and given the close proximity of these municipalities people make their housing choices without realizing they are going into another municipality. In some cases it has been possible to provide private support, through the United Appeal or other such means, for those kids. But nevertheless that surely was not the intention, as has been indicated by the fact that in every other regional municipality day care has been made a full responsibility of the region and the costs are shared throughout the region and not borne by each area municipality.

It is an enormously unwieldy system in Ottawa-Carleton as well because it is very hard to say from where the initiative must come. Does it come from the regional municipality? Its daycare people have had difficulty enough keeping up with the demand and, dare I say it, have run into some difficulties at the political level, from councillors coming from outlying municipalities on the regional executive, who were unwilling to authorize additional staff for daycare organization. They clearly haven’t got the resources to go and whip up support for day care in municipalities that haven’t said by resolution they want it.

On the other hand if an area municipality says it wants it then its people, the people concerned with day care in that area municipality, have got to first win a vote on their local council and get budgetary support and so on, and then they have to go up to the region and get the region to accept it as well. It’s a two-step process which has also proved very difficult.

So I would just ask the minister whether he would consider an amendment even now which would strike out subsection 2 of section 86 of the Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act and put Ottawa-Carleton on the same basis as every other regional municipality in the province. It’s a problem that the municipality itself has had great difficulty in resolving, and I think one hold stroke from a minister who likes to pride himself on his bold strokes would be very welcome. Apart from that, I have no other comments on the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Any other comments on this bill? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, as the hon. members have pointed out, these are largely housekeeping amendments. So far as I know, the Ottawa-Carleton change with respect to water and sewage is not a substantive change. Insofar as section 86, subsection 2 is concerned, this suggestion or request is in front of us and it is being considered by the government. Management Board of Cabinet is studying the financial implications for the area and regional municipalities and no doubt for our own ministry, and I couldn’t accept an amendment until that analysis has been provided to me.

I have two more minor amendments -- one rather lengthy -- to propose, sir, and for that reason would like to see this bill go to the committee of the whole House.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: I understand this bill is to be referred to committee of the whole House, at the request of the minister.

Agreed.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister consult with his colleagues about section 86(2) over the weekend, and possibly the amendment might be brought in next week? It seems discriminatory that whatever the financial implications, Ottawa-Carleton be dealt with differently than the other regions --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is not really a point of order.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, I realize that.

Mr. Speaker: The minister, I am sure, will take that into account.

Hon. Mr. White: Now, sir, if I may change hats and be House leader for a moment, I am informed that the legislation for next week will be as follows: Bill 173, which we’ve been debating here today; Bill 174, Bill 81, Bill 175, Bill 170, Bill 161, Bill 177, Bill 178 and Bill 176.

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

Motion agreed to.

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