The House met at 8 o’clock, p.m.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you and the members to join with me in welcoming some 55 students and seven adults from the J. W. Walker Public School in Fort Frances from the riding of Rainy River. They’ve travelled some 1,200 miles by bus to be with us this evening to attend the Legislature and see the other sights that Toronto has to offer. I would ask you to join with me in welcoming them tonight.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If there’s a quorum in the House tonight I don’t see an NDP member sitting in the chamber.
Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): That is a good observation.
Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We have a quorum.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: I see a quorum.
Mr. Speaker: If there is not a quorum, call in the members.
Mr. Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.
Mr. Speaker: We have a quorum.
MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves second reading of Bill 39, An Act to amend the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing.
Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I will just make a few comments on this bill. I don’t understand it, to be quite frank with you. I went right through from 1970 through to 1974 and I can’t find any reference to section 6d, so I find it very difficult to refer to the section that’s being amended. Maybe that’s because I just don’t know where to look, but I did have the legislative counsel looking with me, and the Clerk and everybody else, yet we still didn’t find it. I find it quite difficult to understand, if you can’t refer back to a consolidated Act -- which I don’t have and couldn’t obtain.
But I presume that the main principle of the bill is moving community development services from this ministry over into the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. An explanatory note clarifies that community services will continue to be a function of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I would like to ask the minister what he means by community services that will continue to be a function of his ministry. Perhaps if he could explain that to me on second reading, then we would understand what the two basic principles of the bill are.
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, this bill is mainly for clarification and it complements Bill 38, An Act to amend the Ministry of Culture and Recreation Act. It transfers to the new Ministry of Culture and Recreation the various community development services, such as the office of community consultation, the citizenship bureau, the community information centres. These programmes are all under the new ministry.
With reference to the questions from the hon. member for Nipissing, Mr. Speaker, this Act clarifies that community services such as the meals on wheels programme and community services to the mentally retarded will continue to be under our existing Act, the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act. So really all this does is to complement Bill 38. Normally this Act would have been introduced subsequent to Bill 38.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Why not?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Why not? It’s a good question -- why not? Pourquoi pas? The reason is because I was away at that time. I believe I was in Ottawa when that other bill was introduced so it happens to be introduced about two weeks or maybe three weeks later. All it does is clarify and complement the Ministry of Culture and Recreation Act.
Mr. Reid: Could I ask the minister if this also includes the Indian community branch?
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, the new Ministry of Culture and Recreation has taken over all those programmes that were under our community division which includes the Indian community secretariat.
Mr. Reid: May I ask the minister if he considers that a good idea? Can he tell us how often this particular branch of government has been transferred from one branch to the other? This makes about four, I believe, in the last four years.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It’s a good question, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Indian community secretariat could go under various ministries. As the hon. member knows, being from northwestern Ontario, it could well go, for instance, under my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier). Many of the programmes with native people --
Mr. Reid: That will probably be next.
Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- and it could have remained under our ministry, but since all of the community programmes under the community services division were transferred to the new ministry and since the native culture is certainly one of the very important cultures of our Canadian fabric, it was felt that it should go to this new Ministry of Culture and Recreation.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 39.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
THIRD BEADING
The following bill was given third reading upon motion:
Bill 39, An Act to amend the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.
MORTGAGE BROKERS AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Handleman moves second reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Mortgage Brokers Act.
Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief comments on Bill 76, An Act to amend the Mortgage Brokers Act.
On perusing this amendment, which states, in the explanatory note, that it will regulate the raising of mortgage money and the sale of mortgages in Ontario, if the real estate property is located outside of Ontario, I feel that this appears to be a reproduction of a certain section of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, which has been in effect for a number of years.
I can certainly support this amendment as I am sure there are a lot of people in Ontario who need this type of protection. It may actually be a small minority at this time but I am quite sure, as the minister has said on previous occasions, that higher interest rates appeal to many people. I believe that, because they do not have full knowledge of those distant subdivisions, this would be of assistance in protecting the money which they are investing.
I notice that a subdivision is stated to be a lot or a number of lots, five or more, and I just wonder why that figure contained in the Act has to be five or more. I don’t see really why it couldn’t be two or more, just because another Act defines a subdivision as five or more lots.
Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): That’s a pretty good reason right there.
Mr. Edighoffer: But the legislation, I believe, would be ample protection simply because of the requirement of filing a prospectus with the registering of the mortgage transaction and the sending of a copy of the prospectus to the lender or assignee. Of course, if the lender or assignee has acknowledged in writing that he or she has received and read the prospectus, this should be ample protection.
I noted in section 2, subsection 18, that a certificate of acceptance expires 12 months after it is issued, then the procedure outlined in the bill must again be carried out. I hope that this updating of information is ample; I am wondering if six months might be better.
Also, section 2, subsection 19 deals strictly with advertising. Is advertising control a federal or a provincial responsibility? In this House last year, I believe, there were a couple of pieces of legislation that dealt with the control of advertising. Naturally this might be helpful to investors because often faraway fields look much greener.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention section 2, subsection 2, which reads:
“Sections 12 to 19 apply to mortgage transactions on the security of lots or units in a subdivision outside Ontario, where the mortgagor or assignor is the owner of an interest in five or more such lots or units, or has been the owner of such an interest at any time in the preceding five years.”
I wonder why the minister wishes to make this amendment retroactive; and why did he choose a five-year period? Does this mean the minister has been aware this protection has been needed for some time and just got around to introducing this legislation? Or has the ministry received a great number of complaints over that time period?
I feel, Mr. Speaker, this amendment is really complementary to other legislation, and because of the need to protect the amateur investor I do not hesitate to support this amendment to Bill 76.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: For many years past, the ministry here has had some supervision over foreign lands. As a matter of fact, some of the plums in the ministry go to those officials -- and perhaps the minister himself on occasion -- who traipse off to foreign parts, choosing their time very carefully. I suspect, to, let’s say Madeira one weekend, the Balearic Islands the next, Tierra del Fuego in the early fall. I hear it’s quite lovely there.
Mr. Maeck: Where has he parked his car?
Mr. Lawlor: And various portions of the civilized and uncivilized earth.
Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): I think he wants to travel.
Mr. Lawlor: In other words, Mr. Speaker, they have a department or a little unit that has to do with foreign real estate being sold in Ontario. One of the most notorious examples, of course, are the swamps of Florida. They go down there periodically, not only to catch --
Mr. Turner: Does the member remember when he got there?
Mr. Lawlor: -- the tetanus qualities, but to see that what the snake oil merchants from Florida bring up here to sell really exists. They went off to Las Vegas and the deserts around that part --
Mr. Maeck: I go there quite often.
Mr. Lawlor: -- which were advertised in every newspaper in the Province of Ontario, and found over a period of years it was a good idea to know if it was a Sahara -- parched earth with no prospect of any green thing ever growing there -- instead of being redolent with beautiful qualities supposedly strewn all over that landscape: Palm trees, peach trees, various forms of banana in one’s garden, along with oases blooming in every basement.
Mr. Turner: Sounds like Bloor St.
Mr. Lawlor: That’s what they do; that is one of the things they do. As I say, I know of a trip to Spain that one of the people went on. It’s not unusual; it’s perfectly all right.
Mr. Maeck: That’s very important.
Mr. Lawlor: A number of retired people in this province do want to leave and live in sunnier climates, perhaps, and they go to Spain and other places. It’s quite a feat to do flamenco dancing at 85.
Mr. Turner: Tell us about it.
Mr. Lawlor: The better-greased Ontarian, apparently -- greased in more ways than one -- manages to do that kind of thing.
This particular piece of legislation is extending that basic principle, when people owning property in foreign climes want to put a mortgage on it. They don’t want to sell at this time; they simply want to put a mortgage on it and get Ontario money for that purpose. First of all, the minister, as the chairman of the committee on corporation law studying these things for the past couple of years, knows we could perfectly well seek to design it so that we keep as much of the money as possible for mortgage purposes here at home and not financing foreign soils.
Mr. Maeck: Right.
Mr. Lawlor: That would be one; up to now there’s been a loophole in this particular regard. They’re going to require, in line with the Securities Act, that a prospectus be filed and approved, which at least gives the full facts. At the present time, this money can be raised on a most fraudulent and deceptive basis. Unless full disclosure is made, which is the principle of securities law, then some people in this province, and a good many, could get very badly beaten and milked indeed. That is the basis and the background.
It’s interesting to read the definition of a subdivision. Subdivision means improved or unimproved land anywhere, either divided or proposed to be divided. I take it that on anything less than a subdivision, or anything less than this five-lot concept, the individual in Tanganyika can come here and raise his $50,000 to place on that land, if anybody is foolish enough in Ontario to want to lend that money in that place that’s outside the legislation. There must be some history behind this. There must be some kind of a crunch situation where some of these purveyors have appeared in Ontario asking for substantial mortgage money to cover subdivisions or proposed subdivisions elsewhere in the world.
The cost of getting a prospectus is simply enormous. I suppose the ministry is thinking that it’s not worth anybody’s trouble -- certainly not worth the trouble of the ministry -- unless there are at least five lots involved in this proposed development to go through all the ramifications and pitfalls of a prospectus.
The interesting thing is that the minister was shrewd enough to throw in condominium units along with that. Particularly in the case of Florida and California, where condominiums are the big thing, that is a beneficial thing; particularly again if money is being exported from this province by way of solicitation for such moneys in the province.
Section 2(2) says: “Sections 12 to 19”, and that’s the bulk of the legislation, “apply to mortgage transactions on the security of lots or units in a subdivision outside Ontario, where the mortgagor or assignor is the owner of an interest in five or more such lots or units or has been the owner of such an interest at any time in the preceding five years.”
Again five and five, are these arbitrary figures taken out of the air? I can only see 4½.
Mr. Maeck: There must be more than that.
Mr. Lawlor: Section 12 then goes on to say: “No person shall enter into or negotiate a mortgage transaction in respect of a lot or unit of land in a subdivision located outside Ontario unless” -- he does a whole number of things, and apart from the prospectus requirement obtains an acknowledgment.
Mr. Maeck: Make a note of that Mr. Speaker, it is important.
Mr. Lawlor: My question would have to do with whether it’s the minister’s intention also to send his emissaries, his various Mercurys to these places, if there are solicitations in Ontario? Or does he consider the mere fact of the solicitation in this province sufficient, if one has a prospectus? Does the ministry look behind to the basis and validity of the security involved, so-called, in terms of the land upon which the mortgage will rely; or are they leaving it wholly up to the potential mortgagee coming out of this province? In other words, does the ministry intend to extend its protection with respect to this sort of transaction as far as it does with respect to the real estate end of the thing?
Is the minister going to send this into committee or does he think we should?
Mr. Haggerty: Divide.
Mr. Maeck: There is no point in it; the member might as well just let it go through right now.
Mr. Lawlor: Listen, if the member had his way, we wouldn’t talk about anything.
Mr. Turner: Oh yes we would. We would talk about the member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Maeck: I want to talk about where he parked his car.
Mr. Lawlor: I can’t remember. I think that’s all I wish to say about this legislation.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak on this bill before the minister replies? The member for Rainy River.
Mr. Reid: I just have one question. It may have been asked by one of the two previous speakers, but obviously something must have arisen for the minister to bring this legislation in. Did somebody in Ontario get stung or lose a lot of money or anything of that sort; or is this just to protect the public in case something might happen in the future?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think I might reply to the hon. member for Rainy River first. First of all, I would like to say that nobody in Ontario, to the best of our knowledge, has been stung, simply because our officials have been on top of the situation, have warned all the mortgage brokers in Ontario to beware of this kind of investment and as a result have prevented it.
What really draws it to a head is the fact that, in Quebec, several thousand small investors have lost their life savings by investing in mortgages on foreign land, and in Florida, as the member for Lakeshore mentioned. Just by coincidence, the chief assistant to the Florida State Attorney is a grandson of Louis St. Laurent and goes by the same name. He is quite interested in the situation. There are some mail fraud scandals involving Florida land and mortgages on Florida land.
I’m quite pleased that both the member for Perth and the member for Lakeshore appear to support the legislation. They’re both quite correct in the assumption that the amendments parallel the provisions of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act on land. There has been a loophole in the legislation, because while there was a prospectus required for the sale of land, there was no prospectus required for the sale of mortgages on the same land. It’s quite easy to transfer title by reason of a foreclosure on a mortgage, so that the sale of land could have been conducted in an indirect way while it could not have been done directly under the present legislation.
The five lots is an arbitrary figure. It has worked quite well in the land legislation. It’s felt that to make it any less would put unnecessary red tape in the way of small individual transactions. Certainly with regard to the member for Lakeshore talking about the 1,000-acre swamp, we would expect that anybody who is trying to raise large sums of mortgage money would be dealing with sophisticated investors who are well able to protect themselves.
It’s our view that the 12-month period the member for Perth raised should be sufficient. We don’t think the land is likely to change in 12 months. We think the prospectus will describe situations that won’t change very rapidly. He questioned the control on advertising. I might point out that the advertising of land in foreign countries is now controlled. If one sees land advertised in some of these exotic places that the member for Lakeshore appears to have visited, he’ll see in the advertisement --
Mr. Lawlor: The minister’s people spend most of their time in the Dodecanese Islands in the Aegean Sea as far as I’m concerned.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: In order to comment on that I would have to have my atlas in front of me, so I’m not able to do so. Members will notice in the advertising that there is in Ontario an approval number. This is one way that any investor in land abroad can know that this land has been inspected by an Ontario inspector.
Mr. Lawlor: I haven’t been there either.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: With regard to the retroactivity, I want to point out that it is not retroactive and it does not apply to any mortgages that may have been entered into prior to the enactment of the legislation.
The five-year period is really to enable us to define who is a developer and who is not. For example, a man may have owned five lots or 10 lots and be left with two very bad lots which he is unable to mortgage in his home jurisdiction. He has held onto those for two, three or four years simply because he hasn’t been able to get rid of them or finance them. If we don’t cover that then we may find that Canadians are investing in the worst possible type of security, notwithstanding the fact there is a disclosure.
I would like to speak for a moment on what the member for Lakeshore talked about as plums. I want him to know that it’s not the minister’s prerogative to inspect foreign land. We do have a very competent staff doing that. They send a postcard from time to time so we know where they are.
Mr. Lawlor: Is the minister taking this as a personal slight?
Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, I’m taking this as a personal invitation; and perhaps the member, who I understand is an expert in land, might sometime find some spot in Zaire or some other such place and we can go there together. I do want him to know that the provisions in the prospectus on mortgages will be the same as it is for land, and that is that they must disclose exactly what the land is. It seems to me that he might wish me to inspect some quicksand in some far-off country to --
Mr. Lawlor: I wouldn’t wish that on the minister.
Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- ensure that it is, in fact, quicksand.
But he was correct. He pointed out that there is a loophole in the legislation, as I previously said, and I want him to know that the administration of this Act will be combined with the land inspection. There will be some small additional burden on our existing staff, but they have performed very competently.
We have been very fortunate in Ontario that we have not been subjected to the kinds of fraudulent activities that some of our sister jurisdictions in Canada have met with in the past year or so. So the passage of this legislation, as I say, is moving very quickly. The Toronto Star had an article on it on May 5. We introduced this bill for first reading on May 15 and I hope we will have third reading here on May 27.
Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful for the kind comments of the members opposite, and I trust that we will have the approval of all members of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is for second reading of Bill 76.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Agreed.
THIRD READING
The following bill was given third reading upon motion:
Bill 76, An Act to amend the Mortgage Brokers Act.
CITY OF THOROLD ACT
Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 81, An Act to erect the Town of Thorold into a City Municipality.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a rather unusual request for a municipality to apply to the Legislature to be changed from a town to a city. Years ago when municipalities reached a population of 10,000, they could apply for city status. I believe that figure was then raised to 15,000.
In those days the advantage was that when a municipality became a city they could withdraw from the county municipal set-up. Usually it was considered to be a tax saving to the people not to have to contribute to the county set-up and they retained their taxes within the municipality and paid very little else except a few suburban road payments.
In the regional municipality, I just don’t fathom the advantages of being called a town or a city, because the levy to the region is based either on the equalized assessment or the equalized weighted assessment, regardless of what the status is of that municipality. It is done as it is laid out in the regional bill. Upon investigation, the best I can find out is that the town of Thorold simply wants to become a city. The most recent population figure I have is 14,624.
Mr. Haggerty: Right on.
Mr. Good: To go through the Municipal Board procedures they would have to have 15,000, which would not make them eligible.
Now I understand there’s a centennial celebration coming up in Thorold, and it was their wish to become a city before this centennial celebration. I suppose if the people of Thorold want to be a city when they are 100 years old, I suppose it behooves the Legislature to pass such legislation and grant their wishes.
As nearly as I can figure out, that’s about all there is to this bill. They want it and I am sure the member for Welland (Mr. Morningstar), in whose riding Thorold is, would be here to give more detailed explanation, but I don’t see him here at the moment.
We in this party would not stand in the way of the town of Thorold from becoming a city, even though they don’t have the population required under the Municipal Act. I question, myself, what the benefits might be other than the prestige involved in being a city.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: God bless Thorold. If it wishes to be a city, let it be a city. I think that they may come, in time’s future, to regret the move. Being a town has its own quiet motivations and internal spirit. I was a city once and became a megalopolis, and look what happened.
Mr. Turner: Yes, look.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: You can no longer be a one-horse town, can you, Pat?
Mr. Lawlor: That’s right.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.
Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question I want to ask the parliamentary assistant is, what advantage is there in being elevated from a town to a city? Are there any special tax concessions involved?
When I think of the municipality of Thorold moving in the direction of a city, it provides them with the possibility of being in existence for the next 100 years. You have the pressure of the city of St. Catharines, the pressure of the city of Welland, and the pressure of the city of Niagara Falls, all coming together on that little municipality. The word “annexation” is still in the Municipal Act.
I was just wondering if perhaps this isn’t one way to indicate to the government that they want to protect the municipality’s identity as the city of Thorold. Perhaps if you remove the word annexation from the Municipal Act, this would provide some protection to the other municipalities within the region. This makes it about the sixth --
Mr. Good: Fifth.
An hon. member: Fifth.
Mr. Haggerty: Fifth city in the Niagara region and it’s a possibility that there are seven others that remain there as townships. I think there are two townships and --
Mr. Good: Five more towns.
Mr. Haggerty: -- five towns. I understand there is a possibility that the town of Fort Erie will make application either to the Ontario Municipal Board or to the government to be elevated from a town to a city. Being a taxpayer in that municipality I’d like to know what advantages there are for the ratepayers of that community in being classed as a city, if there are any advantages at all.
Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak before the parliamentary assistant speaks?
The hon. member for Brantford.
Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member for Waterloo North gave the historical background on this request from the town of Thorold. It is my understanding that they are preparing to celebrate their centennial and, since their population is 14,624 and the magic number is 15,000, they have come this route in order to achieve city status.
The question was raised as to why the member for Welland was not here to speak to this bill. It was his hope and his intent to be here, but he informed me this afternoon of a death in his family, therefore he was not able to be here this evening.
I believe the hon. member for Welland South asked about the advantages. I believe that there are no advantages, grant-wise, because of the fact that they are in the region. As you will notice, this bill indicates they are taking on all the previous responsibilities and obligations into their new status of city, if the Legislature grants it. I think, purely and simply, it’s in connection with their centennial. They wish to have this city status at this time, so that it can be described as a city on July 1 of this year.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Agreed.
THIRD READING
The following bill was given third reading upon motion:
Bill 81, An Act to erect the Town of Thorold into a City Municipality.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned to the other members in the House that I would probably call item No. 12, recognizing that the minister is with his estimates before a committee outside of the House and also recognizing that this is a housekeeping matter and relatively unimportant, certainly not controversial. If it is to be controversial I would withdraw it, but at the moment I would appreciate it if item 12 were called.
Mr. Lawlor: What graciousness. It doesn’t become the minister.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: In the interim I think that the whip of our party has some special matter to bring to the attention of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peel South.
Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Thank you. I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. members that there are representatives of the Littoral Society of Toronto here. The Littoral Society, if members are not aware of the terminology, are those underwater photographers and explorers --
Mr. Lawlor: They came to the right place.
Mr. Kennedy: -- who work on our waterways and lakes --
Mr. Lawlor: I hope they have got their aqualungs with them.
Mr. Kennedy: -- from the high water mark to a depth of 300 ft.
Mr. Lawlor: Yes, well that is right. It’s the ecstasy of the deep.
Mr. Kennedy: I am sure the hon. members will join me in welcoming them, under the leadership of Mr. John Cassan, in the west gallery.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex South.
Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think the members gathered here tonight will also wish to welcome a group of students who have just arrived from the most southerly riding of the Province of Ontario, that is Essex South, from the village of Ruthven, and I am sure they will be interested in seeing the passage of the next bill.
Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, before this item is called, could we have a few minutes to get our critic of that ministry here into the House? He is down in committee.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: The parliamentary assistant will carry the bill.
Mr. Good: I am talking about our own people who are knowledgeable about the bill, who are down in committee with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld) at the present time.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: I have said it is relatively unimportant housekeeping. If there is objection, I will withdraw it.
Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): We would just like him to be here.
Mr. Speaker: Send out for him and bring him in. Perhaps the NDP critic would like to speak on this meantime.
Mr. Lawlor: Not on the bill but on the House leader -- he’s a new man. The courtesy -- the sense that we might want to say something over here some time and be part of the establishment -- this courtesy quite takes my breath away tonight. It’s unbelievable. He’s going to withdraw it if we object.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, to hear the member for Lakeshore say that he and his party want to be part of the establishment throws me right off of my chair. I must tell you that. However, if it is his desire and that of the members of the Liberal Party -- I might state it is not the custom for the people in the galleries to applaud when their member speaks.
Mr. Speaker: Well, they know they have a good member and they are happy to applaud for him.
Mr. Reid: Will the member strenuously object?
Mr. Speaker: Are there any more announcements before we proceed with second reading of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Amendment Act?
Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, there isn’t, Mr. Speaker, but I certainly join with the member in welcoming his group, regardless of their activity, and I know his popularity back home.
In regard to the member for Lakeshore, I might say that the people in the west gallery aren’t in over their depth as he is, but then that is a different question. We are here for two different purposes. I am only trying to waste a little time, so he doesn’t have to worry.
Mr. Lawlor: Let’s deal with the bill.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: He can carry on if he wishes.
Mr. Lawlor: Let’s deal with the bill.
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the member for Lakeshore would like to rise on a point of privilege at this time.
Mr. Lawlor: Personal privilege; perfectly right. For a man who is always coming up for the third time, and I hope the last, he’s hardly in a position to say anything. This legislation -- are we on to the bill?
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, it has been called.
Mr. Lawlor: Is the House leader going to answer to all the questions I ask?
Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, I am not; the member who is going to answer is right beside the member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: Oh, how did he get here?
Hon. Mr. Winkler: He’s been here all evening unlike the rest of the member for Lakeshore’s party.
Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): If the member for Lakeshore wouldn’t turn his back to me all the time he would realize that I was here.
Mr. Lawlor: The member has nothing to boast about, though I don’t think I am going to call a quorum call tonight in a hurry.
Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, we would appreciate this bill being carried over, because our critic is tied up with the estimates right now.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is fine. I will move that the debate be adjourned. The next order will be No. 1.
Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
BUDGET DEBATE
Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): I take great pleasure in rising at this time to make a few comments on the highlights of the 1975 budget presented by the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough).
I believe, Mr. Speaker, this is a responsible budget and one that commends itself to the large majority of the people of this province. Despite inflation and sharp increases in prices on all commodities and services, the Treasurer has managed to come up with proposals which when implemented will provide great benefits to our economy, including the manufacturing sector, the retailers and the people generally of this province.
This budget has something for all members of the community -- pensioners, senior citizens, middle income groups --
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Sure did.
Mr. Wardle: -- young people and those in the lower wage earning category.
Mr. Lawlor: They did their best to cover the waterfront.
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, it is most important that the people of this province have faith in the economy --
Mr. Lawlor: I am losing mine rapidly.
Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Right on.
Mr. Wardle: -- and do what is within their power to strengthen it so that it may be an instrument in bringing about an even better life for the people of Ontario. How fortunate we are when we look out on the world today to be residents of this province and to have the opportunities open to us and the privileges and benefits we enjoy. We have become accustomed to having in Ontario a high standard of living and almost full employment. It must then come as a shock to some people when they realize that the good life may not go on forever.
Mr. Lawlor: Not with the Tories.
Mr. Wardle: And we are approaching a point, if we have not already reached it, when certain belt-tightening fiscally as a province, and the practice of economy in personal lifestyle, may be increasingly necessary.
Mr. Lawlor: When is this government going to start?
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, at least 25 per cent of the goods manufactured in this province are for export. It is imperative that our industry in Ontario maintain a competitive position in order not only to hold the export markets we have at the present time, but to be aggressive in seeking and expanding our markets overseas. In this budget the government has taken steps to help manufacturing in Ontario by removing the sales tax on the purchase of machinery. This was effective as of April 8, 1975, and to continue to Dec. 31, 1977. Over the full term of the exemption Ontario industries will enjoy $400 million in cost savings.
Mr. Lawlor: Big giveaway programme.
Mr. Wardle: This measure will improve the competitiveness of export-oriented industries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point this out: The NDP are against this sort of a programme.
Mr. Lawlor: We sure are.
Mr. Wardle: But, Mr. Speaker, let us examine carefully what this programme is. A firm must first make the decision to spend their own surplus capital or raise additional funds to purchase machinery in the first place.
Mr. Lawlor: Why doesn’t the government put it into housing?
Mr. Wardle: I am sure that any manufacturer who makes the decision to purchase necessary equipment is showing by this very action, putting his own money on the line --
Mr. Lawlor: He can do it without that. If he is going to expand, he is going to expand.
Mr. Wardle: -- that he has faith in the future prospects of his company and the product which he sells.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member has the floor.
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, the NDP can heckle, but we need a strong manufacturing sector in Ontario in order to provide the very jobs which they are talking about.
Mr. G. Nixon: Right on.
Mr. Lawlor: They’re going to have to have better than that.
Mr. Wardle: We have to have, in Ontario, industry that is making profit.
Mr. Lawlor: Give to the well-to-do; give them more.
Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor.
Mr. Wardle: We know, Mr. Speaker, the socialists don’t like the word profit. But under the free enterprise system, no firm can stay in business unless it is making a profit. And so when this government says we are going to help the manufacturing sector --
Mr. Lawlor: They are going to give them a bigger profit.
Mr. Wardle: -- in order to provide jobs.
Mr. Lawlor: How much profit do they want?
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, I commend this programme; this government commends this programme, and the only people who are against this programme are the socialists.
Mr. Lawlor: The only ones with any common sense. It’s a giveaway programme.
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, this government recognizes the importance of private industry in providing employment for our growing population.
Mr. Lawlor: A giveaway programme.
Mr. Wardle: This government has confidence in the private sector; we are confident they will play their part in stabilizing our economy and have a share in providing a solid base for our economy in the future.
When we think of the business sector, I think too often we think of big business; however, we should recognize the importance of small business to this province. When I think of small business I am thinking of firms employing 25 people or less --
Mr. Lawlor: The government is not giving them $410 million. It is big business it is giving it to.
Mr. Wardle: -- or individual family businesses where probably only three or four people are engaged. This could be a small corner store in my riding of Beaches-Woodbine in the city of Toronto, or a general store at one of the many crossroads of Ontario.
In this budget, Ontario will double the maximum small business credit from $3,000 to $6,000 annually.
While I mention the matter of small businesses in Ontario, I wish to thank the Treasurer for an action which he has taken that I and other members of this House -- including members of other parties -- have brought up on a number of occasions; that is allowing vendors, as of July 1 next, to keep three per cent of the Ontario sales tax they have collected, up to a maximum of $500 per year.
Mr. Lawlor: He will change that the day after the election.
Mr. Wardle: I know that many small merchants spend a fair amount of their time calculating this tax and remitting this money to the Ministry of Revenue. This action by the Treasurer will at least give them some compensation for their efforts in collecting the provincial tax.
Mr. Lawlor: The member voted to knock it out two years ago.
Mr. Wardle: Another improvement in the budget designed to help small businesses and family farms in Ontario is a proposal making improvements on succession duties and gift tax legislation effective April 8 last.
Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Can’t take it with you.
Mr. Wardle: I know this will go a long way in allowing families to continue to operate a small business which members of the family have worked on and built up often over a long period of years -- two or three generations, Mr. Speaker, in many cases. It is unfortunate that a family must give up a business or sell all or part of the assets in order to pay succession duties on an estate.
In this budget, for all estates the basic $150,000 allowance will be increased to $250,000. The present forgiveness period for family farms will be shortened from 25 years to 10 years; and the succession duty payable in respect of assets of small family businesses will also be forgiven over 10 years. The basic exemption for gift tax will be raised from $2,000 per recipient, and an aggregate of $10,000 in any one year, to $5,000 per recipient and a total of $25,000 in any one year.
Mr. Lawlor: How many $10,000 gifts does the member expect?
Mr. Wardle: The once-in-a-lifetime special exemption for farmers under the Gift Tax will be raised from $50,000 to $75,000; and this provision will extend to small businesses as well.
Transfers between spouses will continue to be tax exempt. These initiatives ensure that all taxable estates in Ontario will enjoy the benefit of tax savings. Mr. Speaker, this is very important to people in this particular situation.
Mr. Lawlor: And wealth will descend from generation to generation.
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, many members of this Legislature will recall the days when the two large department stores --
Mr. Lawlor: All for the well-to-do; $250,000. What a ripoff.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the member give courtesy to the member for Beaches-Woodbine?
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind interruptions so much, but my time will be extended by having to reply.
Mr. Lawlor: He takes my breath away, Mr. Speaker. I have never heard a more provocative speech in this House.
Mr. Wardle: I know many members of this Legislature will recall the days when the two large department stores in this province --
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Lawlor: A little courtesy, please.
Mr. Wardle: When the two large retail establishments in this province did business not only in the metropolitan area but by catalogues throughout the province. The remaining purchases made by people of this province were made at smaller stores in the cities and towns, and in general stores in the rural areas.
In the days before the car was so popular, people shopped usually in their home town or village and only occasionally went to the city to make purchases that were not available at home. This meant the small towns and villages prospered. They provided a friendly, personal type of service and extended credit to their customers until such time as the harvest was in or the spring came and customers were able to pay their bills.
However, Mr. Speaker, we should reflect for a moment on the situation prevailing today. We have large shopping complexes, and even larger ones planned, with plazas around most of our smaller towns in Ontario. These plazas provide extensive free parking and are certainly in competition with merchants and store operators who try to maintain themselves on main streets and who lack parking facilities for their customers.
When I mention the riding of Beaches-Woodbine, we think of the merchants in strip areas along Queen St., Kingston Rd., Gerrard St. and Danforth Ave., and the problems they are having with no parking facilities and the competition they face from large shopping plazas around and in the city of Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I make this request to the Treasurer and to this government, that they give even more attention to the plight of the small businessman here in the Province of Ontario. An owner of a store in a strip area in the city of Toronto or on a main street in a small Ontario town is often faced with increases in municipal taxation, the necessity of paying at least a minimum wage to obtain employees and, as I say, huge competition from the plazas round about that town.
In addition, he may have a store with inadequate facilities, a building or an interior of a store that needs excessive rehabilitation. He has the necessity of improving the front part of his building and providing parking facilities in order that his customers can park somewhere close to where he is doing business.
It would seem to me the government should accept the suggestion I have made on at least two occasions, that there should be a special committee or a conference set up, including small merchants, municipal people and provincial officials, to go into the whole matter of the plight of the small businessman in the Province of Ontario.
The large, complex shopping plazas are not offering the personal service that is offered by the small merchant. The small merchant built up his business by waiting on the customer and doing his best to serve the customer’s needs, but the attitude of the large retailer is one where the customer usually does not receive personal service and friendly clerks are hard to find.
Mr. Lawlor: I’m back.
Mr. Wardle: Also to keep down expenses, there appear to be very few clerks available to wait on customers.
The trend today in the retail business throughout Ontario is so apparent. The large merchandising chains are getting a larger and larger share of the retail trade and many small merchants are having great difficulty as they face this strong competition.
Many of these large retail chains are staying open on Sundays and I’m very much afraid that this trend of Sunday openings will continue unless action is taken by the government. The small retailer operates his business with the help of his wife or a member of his family, and it’s just not possible for them to work seven days a week. They are not in a position to hire help and pay the minimum wage. Unless action is taken soon, the fate of many small merchants in Ontario will be sealed. At the present time, small merchants face an uncertain future.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): The government has been procrastinating for two years over that.
Mr. Wardle: The people of Ontario today, Mr. Speaker, are finding great difficulty in stretching their incomes as they see the purchasing power of their dollar fade as inflation rises.
The federal Minister of Agriculture tells us that a Canadian pays less of his income on food than people in most other countries in the world. I think we all are agreed the farmer in Ontario must have sufficient income, not only to get back the investment he has made in his operation from year to year, but also to show a profit. What farmer or businessman could operate on the basis where the farmer puts, say, $10,000 out at the beginning of the year on seed, fertilizers and equipment and the other things that are needed to operate a farm, and then finds at the end of the season his income is about the same, or maybe less and maybe just slightly more than his original investment?
Mr. Haggerty: We’ve got to change agriculture, that is what we will have to do.
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, no wonder men leave the farm to work in automotive and other manufacturing plants where they can put in a 40-hour week and have, each payday, a definite amount of money in order to support their families. I believe the rest of society has an obligation to assure the farm community their efforts are appreciated and necessary to the economy of this province. The best appreciation we can show is to assure the farmer that, like his fellow workers in industry, he will be able to obtain and retain a decent standard of living.
Recognizing the fact that many families in Ontario require some assistance, and as a stimulus to the economy, the Treasurer has reduced from seven to five per cent the retail sales tax in this province. The tax savings on a new car, for instance, will average around $100; on appliances and furnishings for a new household comparable amounts will be saved.
Mr. Good: Just until after the election and then we’ll have it back.
Mr. Wardle: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this reduction of tax will be in effect only until Dec. 31, 1975. But the direct benefit to the consumer will amount to $230 million this year.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, no person in business or in the consuming public appreciates the necessity of a sales tax on the original price of a product. However, should all sales taxes be withdrawn, the money to carry on government services of all kinds would be greatly reduced.
Many years ago I recall the words of the hon. Charles A. Dunning, then federal Minister of Finance, when he first announced a federal government sales tax. At that time, Mr. Speaker, it was two per cent. I recall reading that the hon. minister at that time said this tax was a temporary measure, and when economic conditions permitted the two per cent tax would be withdrawn. However, over the years this sales tax has gradually increased so that now, as you know, it is 12 per cent.
This 12 per cent sales tax is levied not only on all manufactured goods in Ontario, and of course in Canada, but is imposed on all imports into this country.
Those in business know, Mr. Speaker, that when the 12 per cent is charged, if an item, for instance, is sold for $1, the tax of 12 per cent makes that item $1.12. We know that in the retail business many people take a mark-up of, say, 50 per cent. This means that 12 per cent then becomes 18 per cent. This type of tax has a tendency to increase as the goods move along until finally it reaches the retail price.
It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that if the federal government is interested in helping the consumer at this point, it could reduce this federal sales tax, which brings billions of dollars each year into the federal treasury. On the basis I have mentioned about marking up products, if the federal government reduced this sales tax by two per cent it would be an immediate three per cent reduction in the return to the government, but a three per cent increase in the spending power of the consumer.
On another subject, Mr. Speaker, we recall that not too many years ago many people in this province looked to their retirement years with fear and apprehension. I recall that many people wondered what would happen to them when they finally retired; how would they get along on their reduced income? Many were bringing up families on low incomes and it was impossible to put money aside for their retirement years.
Quite often a visit to the hospital would put a severe drain on their finances. Many people put off necessary medical care because they could not pay the bills. Drugs are also a necessity, but many people have had to forego the purchase of drugs because of the strain this would put on their budget. Often a man retired on a less than adequate income; upward adjustments in pensions were slow to come; many had to depend on families and private charities in order to get by.
Mr. Speaker, what a change in conditions for these senior people today. Because of the strong leadership of this government, the guaranteed annual income programme has been brought into effect. For senior citizens this budget now provides for a guaranteed annual income of $240 a month for a single person and $480 per month for a married couple, effective May 1, 1975. This guaranteed annual income programme gives Ontario’s pension recipients the highest guaranteed income in Canada.
In addition, as of Aug. 1, 1975, all Ontario residents over 65 years of age, regardless of income, will be eligible for free prescription drugs. With the inclusion of an additional 375,000 pensioners, this programme will now benefit over one million people, or one out of every eight people in the province. These benefits apply to those currently receiving old age security; without any further action on their part they will receive their drug cards in the mail. Many senior citizens I know who are under doctors’ care have been required to spend a fair part of their monthly income on necessary prescription drugs. They will now receive these prescription drugs free of cost and will have the money formerly spent on drugs available for rent or other necessary expenses.
I know the people in Beaches-Woodbine riding are very happy and appreciate the Progressive Conservative government’s concern for their situation, not only in the past and the present but what will be done for them in the future.
This budget provides a provincial income tax cut of some $11 million. This will be of benefit to some 450,000 low income taxpayers. This is an extension of Ontario tax credit refunds for 1975, which will automatically increase for these 450,000 individuals.
In addition, they will be eligible for full health insurance premium assistance in 1976. Time does not permit details of this programme to be given at this time; however, the budget document gives an example: A family head, with a spouse and two children, earning $8,275 in 1975, will pay provincial income tax of $191; this tax liability will be exactly matched by an Ontario tax credit of $191, resulting in no tax being paid to the province.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the fact that with the cost of housing at the present high levels, many people in this province will find it extremely difficult to buy a home of their own in the near future. However, it seems now that the housing prices are beginning to stabilize and some people who have never owned a home are becoming interested in making a first-time purchase. To help these first-time buyers and to strengthen the construction industry, the government is making a grant of $1,500 available over a two-year period to people who purchase a home between now and Dec. 31, 1975. This grant will cover both new and used homes and can be used either to reduce the mortgage payments or to purchase furnishings.
A number of people, especially younger couples, have spoken to me on this. They are very pleased with this part of the budget. They are now looking for homes where up to now they had put the matter off for a year or so.
Mr. Speaker, in this budget the government is taking another step in the matter of pollution control. The amount of $3.5 million has been allotted to encourage industrial firms to invest in pollution control equipment. The sales tax equivalent abatement on qualifying equipment will continue for an additional year. A two-year extension of the fast writeoff on environmental protection equipment will be implemented to parallel the federal extension. I think this is most important, Mr. Speaker, especially in urban areas where factories have existed for many years alongside homes and where the pollution from the factories has been of concern to the residents.
I recall, Mr. Speaker, years ago, when you approached a small town, and saw smoke rising from a smokestack, you would think of jobs and prosperity. Now when they see that same thing they think of pollution. Many parts of the city of Toronto have factories close to where people live because, in those days, of course, people liked to live and work close together. I am sure that many workers would prefer to live close to where they work. It would cut down on automobile trips in and out of the city. But it is most important that these factories have pollution control equipment so that living close to them will not be a burden or a health problem to the residents.
The province is trying, by these means, to help these people stay in business where they are and provide jobs where they are in the city of Toronto. Our experience in Toronto is that when a factory closes down and moves to the suburbs, many people are unable to follow because they do not have cars. They do not have the means to get out to their new jobs. I think we should be doing everything we can to encourage people to keep their employment opportunities in the city of Toronto and, at the same time, make the work of those factories compatible with a residential area.
I would also like to comment, Mr. Speaker, on another problem in our area, the Ashbridges Bay sewage disposal plant, which has been a matter of concern for many years. Since last November the provincial government has supplied to regional municipalities 15 per cent of the cost of any improvement to works or water supplies. The provincial government also made the equipment and materials sales tax exempt. The federal government, under the National Housing Act, has made money available for Metro and regional municipalities who improve their facilities for pollution control. They will supply a loan of two-thirds of the cost with a forgiveness rate of 25 per cent of the cost. This means that the federal government pays one-sixth of the cost of the improvements and also makes the equipment federal sales tax exempt. The metropolitan government then receives an approximate subsidy, from federal and provincial governments, of 33 per cent.
In the particular case of the Ashbridges Bay plant, where the total cost in modifications for pollution control is $10.5 million, Metro would have an actual cost of approximately $7 million. I hope that, through the co-operation of the federal, provincial, Metro and city of Toronto governments, the longstanding problems at the Ashbridges Bay plant will finally be solved.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I wouldn’t count on it.
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, I realize how important it is, especially in this period of inflation, to put restraints on government spending at all levels. However, this message has not got through to the federal government in Ottawa. Spend, spend, spend seems to be their attitude. As new programmes are brought into being, and departments of government continue to expand, the personnel and their payrolls expand.
Mr. Shulman: What about the Treasurer of Ontario?
Mr. Wardle: Huge amounts of money are flowing into Ottawa and the federal government certainly takes a good slice of the extra earnings made in the recent large wage settlements.
Mr. Turner: Right on.
Mr. Shulman: Our deficit in Ontario is as big as theirs. It is $1.5 billion in Ontario this year.
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, every time there is a settlement, and we talk of the workers getting 20, 30 and 40 per cent, think of the large slice the federal government takes out of those new earnings of the worker into the federal treasury in Ottawa.
The people of this province have a government that is restricting its own expenditure growth by enforcing a four-part plan of restraint.
Mr. Shulman: Where? When? They are not building.
Mr. Wardle: 1. Ministries will be required to absorb within their 1975-1976 estimates all in-year cost increases resulting solely from inflation.
2. All programmes are being reviewed to eliminate those which have outlived their usefulness.
3. Provincial building projects have been postponed, wherever feasible, except in the highest priority areas of housing and environment.
Mr. Shulman: Where votes are coming in.
Mr. Wardle: 4. Ministries have reviewed their civil service complement to achieve an overall reduction for the government of 2.5 per cent. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, growth in the Ontario public service has been substantially more restrained than in the federal public service.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Oh, baloney! How many has this government got on the payroll?
Interjections by hon members.
Mr. Wardle: The spending intentions outlined in the budget result in an increase in budgetary expenditures for 1975-1976 of 16.8 per cent.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The chair is having difficulty hearing the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Talk louder.
Mr. Shulman: I am just trying to correct the errors he’s making. I wouldn’t want him to make an error for Hansard.
Mr. Wardle: The spending intentions outlined in the budget result in an increase in budgetary expenditure for 1975-1976 of 16.8 per cent, an overall increase in budgetary plus non-budgetary expenditures of only 12.2 per cent, to which revenue-sharing commitment the province will increase its transfer payments to local governments and agencies by $380 million for a growth rate of 16.3 per cent.
Unconditional grants under provincial government programmes will be directed mainly towards per capita grants for policing costs and special assistance to northern Ontario municipalities. I know, Mr. Speaker, the increased per capita grants to the Metropolitan Toronto council will more than make up for the cost of operating two-man cars in the evenings in Metropolitan Toronto.
This additional assistance to municipalities this year will help to keep lower than otherwise the municipal tax in the city of Toronto and other municipalities throughout Ontario. I don’t think the municipalities of Ontario, including the city and metropolitan governments, realize or are prepared to acknowledge the assistance made by this government in controlling their tax rate. Without this increase in grants, the tax in the city of Toronto, Metro, and throughout Ontario would be that much higher. I wish to make a special point of --
Mr. G. Nixon: Does the member for High Park buy that?
Mr. Shulman: He’s right.
Mr. G. Nixon: He’s right on.
Mr. Wardle: -- the great assistance we are giving the municipalities to keep their tax rate at a reasonable level.
Mr. Shulman: That’s true.
Mr. G. Nixon: Good thinking.
Mr. Wardle: The people of Ontario have generally accepted the Wintario lottery, now being operated by the Ontario Lottery Corp. In the beginning, some would-be purchasers were unable to buy tickets, but this problem has now been overcome. The expected $40 million to $50 million profit will be going for very useful purposes, such as culture and recreation.
I know that the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch), is receiving many suggestions as to how this money should be spent. I’m sure this will be spent in a way that will bring the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people. At least, I hope it will be spent in this way. I’m sure that if people could see benefits happening right in their own community this would be an additional incentive to buy tickets. Even if they are not a winner, I’m sure that they would feel like a winner when they see projects that they themselves could partake in and enjoy.
In keeping with the spirit of how the money should be spent, I’d like to make one suggestion. Time does not permit me making more than one suggestion, as to how we should dispose at least of some of this money from the lottery. While I’m not a tennis player, I feel that one of the fastest growing sports in Canada right now is the game of tennis.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Build a new court in our area.
Mr. Wardle: Anyone that’s close to the game knows that the facilities in Metropolitan Toronto are just not sufficient for all the people who like to play the game of tennis. A proposal came up recently from an area in my riding, from Kew Beach Lawn Tennis Club. They have a very fine club in Kew Gardens, a public park.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: A great history.
Mr. Wardle: Tennis is played about three or four months of the year. Recently there has been a proposal that over the tennis courts could be erected -- I think it’s called a plastic bubble or a plastic roof --
Mr. Shulman: With a picture of the Premier (Mr. Davis) on it.
Mr. Wardle: -- in order that the tennis season could be extended. The club had mentioned this to me and I said I would write to the Minister of Culture and Recreation, which I’ve done, suggesting that this could well be a project that could receive consideration.
Mr. Shulman: Make a larger dome over the whole Kew Beach.
Mr. Wardle: We could, except it would be rather expensive. I’ve made this suggestion to the hon. minister, and I hope that this could come about. But I just mention this is a community effort that would commend itself to the people of my area.
We also have in Beaches-Woodbine riding, Mr. Speaker, several baseball and softball clubs, such as the Cecil Morris Little League, the Beaches Major Fastball League, which has been operating over 50 years, and an inter-church softball league.
We also have hockey teams playing at the Ted Reeve Arena and we have a fine organization called the Beaches Lacrosse League. It has a splendid programme for boys and girls -- and we have girls playing lacrosse, Mr. Speaker. They put a lot of effort into it and they provide some fine entertainment for the parents and other people who go down to see them play.
We have other organizations, such as floor hockey teams, basketball teams, track and field and badminton teams.
I would like to see these groups and other amateur groups, assisted through the profits from the lottery. I think this could happen in every little town and village throughout Ontario. The money could be spent at the community level so people could see that the profits from the lottery were going into things that could be appreciated by the local people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in the matter of cultural activities, I believe that some of the profits could go to setting up craft classes for people of all ages; to financial help towards bus trips for senior citizens; and also to help school boards in setting up cultural programmes in the schools. Many schools in the city of Toronto and Metro now have vacant rooms. I think craft classes and similar community programmes could be set up in co-operation with the school boards and the city parks and recreation departments.
Mr. Speaker, I have received -- as I presume all the members have -- letters regarding proposals by participating churches advocating that the provincial government should share on a dollar-per-dollar basis in order that a programme of aid and assistance may be provided for Third World countries. We in Canada are certainly fortunate, very fortunate, when we see the problems that face other people in the world today. Our country is at peace. Most Canadians are working at useful employment. Most Canadians have enough food. Most Canadians have educational opportunities. Most Canadians share in a standard of living that is among the highest in the world.
I’m sure that our influence in the world is proportionately much greater than our population. We have a great productive capacity and a land on which more food could be grown. We do have, I believe, a moral responsibility to provide help to those people in other countries who are in need. How are those needs to be met by those countries in the west, and also those countries in the east which have, through geography and natural resources and hard work, raised their own standard of living?
The United Nations has suggested that a figure of seven per cent of a nation’s production should be devoted to foreign aid assistance of one kind or another. I understand that Canada as a country makes a contribution of 5.8 per cent, and this places us sixth among the nations who are providing assistance.
This proposal is to provide additional help at the provincial level. If such assistance is to be given properly, my suggestion is that it be provided in the way of foodstuffs from Ontario agriculture, clothing from Ontario factories, and technical assistance. I think most thoughtful people realize that technical assistance is of great importance.
Many nations, crowded though they are, still have a good deal of agricultural land available. Some spend more on arms and military equipment than they do on the production of their own agriculture. Agriculture to feed their own people often is of lower priority than arms and military equipment. Mr. Speaker, this is to be regretted. Agriculture is most important, I believe, if hunger is to be combated on a world basis. The receiving nations should set up priorities that would ensure that the aid given would not be on a short-term emergency basis but that continuing aid would be provided, resulting in the raising of the standard of living of the poorer members of that society -- aid that would be given to the people who require that aid in the receiving country and not funnelled off into the black market or the hands of profiteers.
Technical help and machinery for better food production in the poorer nations of the world would, I am sure, commend itself to the people of this province. Our people must be assured, however, that the aid given was not funnelled off to others but, as I say, to those who require it.
I know the problems we have in Canada of transporting our grain by railway through the Prairies to the ports of exit and then by ship, often halfway or more around the world, and the cost that this entails. These shipments are held up at times through strikes and lack of equipment. If foreign aid is considered a high priority, these internal problems should be solved.
I hope that the discussions between the provincial government and the people concerned with foreign aid will develop a pilot project that will involve the people of this province in helping those countries of the world who show by their actions that they are prepared to help themselves.
While this is not directly concerned with the present budget in Ontario, I think the implications of what I am about to say relate directly to the economy of this province. I am very concerned about those who are unemployed in the Province of Ontario. This situation is a result of the slowdown in car and truck manufacturing and in the production of electrical appliances and many other consumer goods.
While demand has fallen off in these areas, I understand that savings deposits of Canadians are increasing steadily. It would appear that rather than buy consumer goods that are not urgently required or the buying of stocks and bonds, people are placing their money in savings deposits.
The trend of business today is also a factor in many men and women losing their jobs. Many large department and chain stores are relying more and more on customers serving themselves, and clerks are no longer needed. This trend, of course, is now becoming apparent in many service industries.
A number of service stations, for instance, have gone on a sell-serve basis.
One man who worked in a service station near my area told me that he and three others were laid off when the service station where he had worked for many years became a self-service station. Imagine, Mr. Speaker: A service station becomes a self-serve station and four men are laid off. Driving up to a service station and having an attendant serve gas, check the oil and battery and clean your windshield may soon be a thing of the past. Personally, I am passing up all the self-service stations.
Mr. G. Nixon: Is he?
Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, I think that at least 90 per cent of the work force today probably were not working during the Depression years. About 90 per cent would be a fair figure --
Mr. Lawlor: Seventy-five per cent weren’t even born.
Mr. Wardle: In those days anyone who had a secure job with a government at any level or who was in the teaching profession, was considered most fortunate. Other workers were subject to layoff and a cut back in wages -- and in those years there were no unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Lawlor: How long ago does the government House leader think the Depression was? Or is he still depressed?
Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The member for Lakeshore is not as old as he looks.
Mr. Wardle: There was also no welfare system as we know it today. I am sure that no one would wish to return to times like those. Unemployment insurance and welfare have eased the stress of unemployment but these payments are made possible because other people are working, some at secure lifetime jobs where they will never be unemployed or laid off and others at uncertain jobs and having deducted from each pay income tax, unemployment insurance and pension contributions. It would seem to me that rather than have people on unemployment insurance for long periods of time, they should be offered retraining courses as soon as possible, especially when it appears their skills are no longer in demand or will not be in demand in the future.
Mr. Speaker, my observation leads me to believe that many young people are unemployed, and this is a great concern to me. Many are merely drifting along from one job to another or on unemployment insurance, with no real opportunity to obtain a good-paying job. A number of them have dropped out of school, some only going to grades 9 and 10, and they have no skill to offer on the job market. I think a concentrated effort should be made to offer these young people retraining programmes. They should be given the opportunity to acquire a particular skill that is in demand. I believe more intensive help should be available to these young people.
At the other end of the scale, Mr. Speaker, we find a number of older people who have retired at the automatic age of 65 because of pension plans, company policy, etc. These people could still offer many years of valuable service to an employer. It seems that many people work steadily to the age of 65, and then suddenly find themselves retired with no definite plan as to their future activities. I heard of one plan recently where a person would start to plan for his retirement at the age of 60, planning to retire at 70. At the age of 61, they would work for 10 months of the year, taking an extra month’s holiday. At 62, they worked eight months of the year, or whatever, finally getting down to retiring at the age of 70, but the retirement would be on a gradual basis. During that time, or when they retired, they could take up other part-time employment if they wished; they could do volunteer work in the community -- and there is always lots to do on a volunteer basis in the community -- they could do consultative work, travel, or whatever they wished.
Mr. Speaker, in my final remarks, I wish to bring to the attention of this House the situation that now, and in the future, could adversely affect the riding of Beaches-Woodbine in the east end of the city of Toronto. From time to time, suggestions are made that the Island Airport in Toronto should become more active with intercity flights using STOL aircraft. Rumours also keep appearing that the new landfill area called the eastern headland has also been under consideration as a new airport location.
I think, Mr. Speaker, the people of the city of Toronto would expect that the Island Airport would continue the way it is as a place for private aircraft, but not in intensive use for a city-to-city type of operation; and I will tell you why.
Mr. Shulman: The House leader is shaking his head sadly.
Mr. Wardle: Several years ago, when I was an alderman in the city of Toronto on Metro council, I took a leading part in protesting any consideration of the eastern headland as a site for an airport.
Members of the House will probably know that in recent years the eastern headland was built out into the lake at the foot of Leslie St. -- not in my riding but the next riding of Riverdale, but it has an effect on our riding. The fill came from demolished buildings, sidewalks and other sources.
The thought was that this was going to be a recreational area, a public park with beaches, a place of quiet enjoyment. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, the effect if an airport is built at the end of that headland out into the lake; the disruption caused by planes landing and taking off over what will be adjacent to that, a residential area? But even more important, think of the traffic going up that narrow piece of land to and from the airport, and the chaos; there could be no way of having a recreation area or a public park and an airport in that location. The recreational area would be destroyed; because recreation, parks and airports do not provide the best conditions for the full and effective use of any of the three facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make that point, it is especially important to people of Beaches-Woodbine, that on the eastern headland we do not want an airport. I hope those in the provincial government who have any influence on the decision in this matter will bear these remarks in mind. I want the people of Beaches-Woodbine, the people of the area, to know my feelings.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Treasurer for bringing in this budget, which I know commends itself to all sections of the community. It is a budget designed to stimulate the economy; a budget which will raise the quality of life for all our people and a budget which will make the Province of Ontario an even better place in which to live, to work and raise a family.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Lawlor: The member has driven them all out of the House.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, based on the fact there are no other members prepared to participate in the budget debate, that on the advice of the member for Rainy River, I am prepared to adjourn the House.
Mr. Shulman: Let’s have a quorum call first.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Before I do, I must move the adjournment of the debate. I would say that on Thursday, as I said earlier today, we will conclude the consideration of Bill 80, item 14 on today’s order paper, and then proceed with the estimates. I believe we are still with the Ministry of the Solicitor General.
Mr. Lawlor: No, they are finished.
Hon. Mr. Winkler: Finished? We will start with the Attorney General. There may of necessity be a change in the committee consideration of estimates, in which case, if that is so, I will inform the House leaders tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 9:40 o’clock, p.m.