role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 18, 1975

30th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L017 - Tue 18 Nov 1975 / Mar 18 nov 1975

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT AMENDMENTS

PCB CONTROL

OIL AND GAS PRICES

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

TOBACCO AUCTION

EGG MARKETING BOARD QUOTAS

GRIFFITH ISLAND HUNTING LODGE

FALCONBRIDGE LAYOFFS

CANADIAN WESTINGHOUSE

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

OLYMPIC GAMES

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

KITCHENER COURTHOUSE

INCO/FALCONBRIDGE BUSINESS POLICIES

NAPPAN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT

HOME PROGRAMME

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce 50 grade 10 students from Guelph Collegiate Vocational Institute along with their teachers, Mr. Ross Harding and Mr. Arthur Barnes.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the House the Adult Day School from Dundas St. West in the city of Toronto, in my riding. They are accompanied by Sister Mary Alexander, Chris Fraser, Gerry Fink and Sonia Ernest. They are 50 adults attending this very important class and I’ve assured them that they will have the pleasure of observing our very well disciplined question period. Would you please welcome them?

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce 50 students from Lawfield public School in Hamilton, with Mrs. Becker, their teacher, and with my son, who, in the tradition of this House, will no doubt have a seat here someday.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I introduce to the House grade 13 students from Winston Churchill Collegiate in that thriving, beautiful borough of Scarborough. Would you welcome them, please?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. In the Toronto Sun this morning there is a story headlined, “Hunting Lodge Raided.” I noted in the story that I am listed as one of the illustrious members of this particular exclusive private hunting lodge. I would like to draw to your attention and to the attention of the Sun reporter --

Mr. Roy: You say you can’t afford it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- that I am not a member of that lodge. I am not a hunter. I will accept the adjective “illustrious” but the rest is not correct.

Mr. Martel: You have got the right class.

Mr. Speaker: Let the record stand corrected.

Statements by the ministry.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT AMENDMENTS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, two of the major problems facing all Canadians today are the energy crisis and the soaring number of deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents. Our consumption of motor fuels has reached a staggering 3.8 billion gal. annually, while over 1,200 people die in motor vehicle accidents every 12 months. It annually costs an estimated $90 million in direct OHIP charges alone for medical treatment for the injured.

In light of these disturbing figures and in an effort to achieve sizable savings in lives, dollars and fuel, we propose to take two significant steps. Firstly, we propose to amend the regulation of the Highway Traffic Act, reducing the 70-miles-per-hour limit on Ontario’s 662 miles of freeways to 60 miles per hour for automobiles and commercial vehicles. At the same time, 60-miles-per-hour highways considered part of the King’s highway system will be reduced to 50 miles per hour. In addition, any King’s highway now designated as 55 miles per hour will be reduced to 50 for all vehicle traffic. We shall be asking the municipalities to take similar action.

Secondly, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) later this afternoon will introduce an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act to require the mandatory use of seatbelts in all motor vehicles which are equipped with them. Exemptions will be provided for such situations as children under two years of age; persons holding a physician’s certificate stating the reason they are unable to wear a seatbelt, and persons required by the nature of their work to enter and leave their vehicles frequently.

Section 147(2) of the Act is to be amended to exempt owners of motor vehicles from liability in respect of the wearing of seatbelts when they are not driving the motor vehicles.

I must add that by definition the term seatbelt is legally taken to include the so-called shoulder harness if it is part of the equipment installed in the vehicle.

The lower speed limits, at least on the freeways and the entire King’s Highway system, will go into effect just as soon as an order in council can be passed and arrangements can be made by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to alter the signs. The new legislation will apply to all drivers using Ontario highways, whether they come from out of the province or out of the country. It will become law, effective Jan. 1, assuming passage by all members of this House, on New Year’s Day, 1976.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this resolution. It only took a year to convince the government of this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

PCB CONTROL

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, in Ontario we have been aware of the hazardous propensities --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- of polychlorinated biphenyls, commonly known as PCBs, since the late 1960s and my ministry has already taken active measures to control and to eliminate eventually this hazardous contaminant from industrial use.

Today I am serving notice to industry operating in Ontario that it should begin its search for alternative, harmless materials to replace PCBs in products. As Minister of the Environment, I can no longer permit this environmental hazard to continue when substitute materials are available. Through the co-operation of national and international agencies concerned with environmental protection, there is no reason why we can’t eliminate the use and importation of PCBs in Ontario as soon as possible.

PCBs are a class of man-made chemicals which are resistant to chemical change, stable under heat, non-flammable, non-corrosive to metals, low in volatility, low in water solubility and high in electrical resistance. Because of these properties, PCBs were used from the mid-1930s until about 1970 in three general types of industrial application:

1. Open-end applications, such as paints, specialty inks, paper coatings end plastics.

2. Nominally closed applications, such as the working fluid in hydraulic or heat transfer systems.

3. Closed electrical systems, as the insulating fluid in certain kinds of transformers and capacitors.

In 1970, through the inspection procedures and influence of my ministry, the use of PCBs in Ontario was limited to closed systems only and their use in open applications and in hydraulic and heat systems was restricted.

In the late 1960s it was discovered that one of the industrial virtues of PCBs, their resistance to chemical change, led to persistence in the environment. Further developments were bio-magnification and accumulation in the food chains of fish and wildlife. Because of these factors, evidence has accumulated which indicates that these compounds are a hazard to certain species of wildlife with real implications of adverse health effects on humans. The Ministry of Health is monitoring international research on health effects to provide Ontario with the most current information on which we can base government action.

We know that past usage has resulted in the existence of PCBs in various levels of trace concentration in the environment and it is likely to be a considerable time before control actions provide measurable improvement. We also know that the potential toxicity of PCBs is well established and that reproductive failure and mortality in herring gulls around Lake Ontario have been attributed to PCBs. It is an insidious product. Consideration of the possible long-term effects is important.

It’s the things we don’t know -- and can only suspect and investigate -- which concern us. Before the cutback in use of PCBs, before the world was aware of a problem, transformers and capacitors, filled with PCBs, and adhesives, upholstery, inks and a host of other products containing trace levels of these chemicals, were used and disposed of in incinerators and landfill sites. We have unconfirmed reports that some PCBs are still entering the environment from these and other sources. On top of all this, there is some concern that PCBs from sources around the world are migrating throughout the global environment via both water and air.

However, I assure the members that my ministry is seeking answers in these unknown areas, and that we have taken these steps in dealing with the known situation:

First of all, we established a task force in 1970 which has reviewed sources of PCBs to determine control measures.

Second, extensive monitoring has been undertaken to determine the occurrence, distribution and concentrations of these substances in the environment.

Third, industrial plants using PCRs have been inspected and control facilities improved to eliminate discharges to the environment.

PCBs are not manufactured in Canada. Monsanto Industrial Chemicals Co., a US firm, is the only North American producer of these chemicals. The company agreed to sell only to electrical transformer and capacitor manufacturers and to large users of this equipment, such as Ontario Hydro, restricting uses of PCBs to enclosed systems with no discharge to the environment. The ministry has inspected and monitored all former and current Monsanto customers to ensure that their control systems are satisfactory. The few deficient systems we found have been cleaned up.

I wish to add that the staff of my ministry are consistently checking all known sources of PCBs to ensure that control measures are effective. All PCB users now return scrap or waste to Monsanto for disposal or ship it to the Chemtrol disposal facility in Lewiston, New York. Ontario Hydro stockpiles equipment at the Kipling Ave. depot for subsequent disposal at the Chemtrol facility. I have asked the staff of my ministry to keep watch on these disposal sites to ensure that equipment is being properly safeguarded in the disposal process.

[2:15]

This is not just a matter of abatement at the provincial level for Ontario sources but a matter of international concern. The International Joint Commission has recommended the development of standards and remedial measures. Recently, the Great Lakes basin commission recommended banning the industrial use of polychlorinated biphenyls. The eight states and 12 federal agencies represented are asking the US Congress to approve this ban and pass a bill to classify PCBs as prohibited hazardous substances.

In Ontario and throughout the world there is a huge capital investment in essential equipment-controlled, closed systems such as transformers and capacitors which employ PCBs. Replacing this equipment with new and larger units, using less hazardous substances, will take time and require the expenditure of large sums. This, however, is not my concern as Minister of the Environment. My concern is that in Ontario and in Canada industry stop using PCBs as soon as possible and that other harmless materials be substituted.

Our investigations into the distribution of PCBs in the environment are continuing. Some 350 samples of sediments, lake waters, water life, sewage treatment plant, power plant and industrial effluents and rain water have been taken for PCB analysis.

We have given first priority in analysis to fish samples taken by the Ministry of Natural Resources and an announcement was made recently by the Ministry of Health on the elevated levels found in cohoe salmon taken in the Credit River this year. Approximately 50 per cent of the current samples showed levels of PCBs in excess of the existing US guideline of five parts per million for human consumption. Yesterday the Department of National Health and Welfare announced a temporary guideline of two parts per million for PCBs in fish.

We are working as closely as possible with federal agencies at both technical and ministerial levels on all matters associated with this industrial compound. Environment Canada is going to regulate PCBs under the federal Environmental Contaminants Act. This Act has had its third reading and is now before the standing committee of the Senate. I look forward to early proclamation of that Act as a step toward the elimination of PC’Bs from industrial usage in this country. However, I must emphasize that a necessary complementary step must be further federal action to control the importation of these compounds from any source.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. Lewis: A question if I may, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Energy. How does he explain the apparent behaviour, as documented in the press today, of British Petroleum as a major oil company in its clear violation of the limits which he imposed when the price freeze on the sale of gasoline was removed? What does he intend to do about the discrepancies all around Metropolitan Toronto and apparently throughout southern Ontario as a result of BPs behaviour at least?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, my deputy minister is at present trying to contact the vice-president of BP in Ontario, Mr. Mitchell. I understand the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) will be contacting the president of BP Canada Ltd. which, as you know, is 70 per cent owned by the government of England. That’s Mr. Derek Mitchell.

Mr. Lewis: Would you like us to contact Harold for you? We would be pleased to try.

Can I ask the minister how is it that in the pricing of gasoline in Ontario, representatives of oil companies -- I have the price notifications in my hand -- can arbitrarily jack up prices eight and nine cents a gallon when the minister has put a limit on it and then, in a matter of minutes, change the price listings on the form lowering them by two or three cents? What is there that is so capricious and wilful about pricing in the oil industry -- at gasoline pumps and in home heating fuel -- that he will allow these companies to get away with this kind of consumer gouging without passing legislation to restrict it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think the government’s position on this is very well known and very clear.

Mr. Martel: We don’t believe you.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We indicated to all of the companies the government’s feelings about prices after the expiration of the freeze; namely, 5.4 cents on motor gasoline and 4.8 cents on home heating oil. What has not been determined -- and this is why my deputy is trying to contact the president of the company for Canada -- it is to determine whether the material that you have -- and I have copies of that same material -- results from a directive from the head office of the company. If it is, and they are clearly in violation of the government’s guidelines --

Mr. Lewis: What would you do?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- then if they will not roll it back, we will then have to take some action.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary question: Would the minister not agree that one can’t blame the company for taking those actions since there is no regulation or law which prohibits it, and that the minister must move -- whatever BP does in response to his inquiries -- by legislation or by empowering the Ontario Energy Board, to have continuing regulation of these prices?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Once again, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- or whatever it is; southwestern Ontario -- is prepared to forget about the fact that we have a royal commission; that the commissioner will complete his work within the next three or four months and that we will have his findings on that.

Mrs. Campbell: So are the oil companies.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We are not prepared to move on that question until we have the findings and his recommendations.

Mr. Nixon: You will have to move.

Mr. Bullbrook: Let them gouge until February, is that it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member asks, should we do it because BP may be breaking the spirit of the government’s guidelines?

Mr. Nixon: It doesn’t matter what their response is.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We want to determine, first of all, if this is because of the activities of somebody lower down the totem pole, if you will, in the field, or whether it has come from Montreal. If it has come from Montreal, then we can do something about it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: It is probably the Prime Minister.

Mr. Breithaupt: They don’t return your call.

Mr. Nixon: This is a nationalized company now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wilson Heights, with a supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Has the minister received from his own officials --

Mr. Nixon: Those of the economy --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We may be a little out of order here. Perhaps ye better have the member for Wentworth first.

Mr. Deans: I would like to ask the minister whether he intends to pursue the statement that came out of Montreal today, as reported in the press, that they can raise it whatever they like, there is no regulation in the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Singer: That’s right.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s true.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Again, until we have some indication from the more senior people; namely, the president of the company --

Mr. Deans: Come on, he doesn’t raise the prices and you know it!

Mr. Lewis: It is just carte blanche as far as you are concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have indicated today and on previous days that we will do what we can to, first of all, encourage thorn to live within our guidelines. If that can’t be done --

Mr. Nixon: Oh baloney.

Mr. Samis: Oh, come on.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- I know that all you over there have this great penchant for regulation of anything and everything -- that if they will not live within the guidelines then we will have to act through legislation.

Mr. Deans: How do you return the money to the consumers who have been gouged in the meantime?

Mr. Martel: Sinclair was right.

Mr. Lewis: You are in trouble with these oil prices again.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will have a final supplementary on this question from the member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: Has the minister received from his own officials or from the law officers of the Crown, or sought from either of those civil servants, an opinion as to whether or not the actions by this company are in breach of the combines legislation as contained in the Criminal Code? If he hasn’t received the opinion yet, is he now seeking such an opinion?

Mr. Renwick: That will certainly help the consumer in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have asked my staff to give me an opinion on that.

Mr. Lewis: Does it not bother the minister that prices are set in this fashion -- raised a cent and down a cent arbitrarily by representatives -- when each cent across the board represents $45 million more out of the pockets of the consumers of Ontario? Does he not think he should now have legislation indicating in a tough regulatory way what he will do with any company which violates his guidelines by 1/10 of one cent?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think that the position of this government and its concern about petroleum prices is well known, going back as long as I have been in the Ministry of Energy, and our position that we took --

Mr. Roy: You wouldn’t hazard an opinion yourself, would you?

Mr. Lewis: Does it not bother you?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Yes. I would like to ask the Minister of Energy --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I would like to finish my answer, Mr. Speaker. Because of the babbling over there I couldn’t finish it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Fighting Dennis.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact of the matter is that we lead the fight in this country --

Mr. Good: When are you going to grow up?

Mr. Lewis: Nonsense, nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We lead the fight in this country to try to stop petroleum product increases.

Mr. Good: You people set the way.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact of the matter is that it was the federal government with the support of the producing provinces -- including, I remind members, two NDP provinces -- which forced the increase in the basic cost of crude oil which has resulted in these petroleum product price increases.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is not nonsense, it is fact.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s the sort of question which becomes argumentative and requires practically the same answer. Does the member have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Only argumentative in the reply. May I ask the minister, as part of his leading the fight or the war or whatever it is on behalf of the consumers of Ontario, did he realize, subsequent to the estimates committee discussion of his ministry, yesterday afternoon, that a survey of the prices in northern Ontario conducted yesterday -- which we confirmed again this morning -- shows that the regular gas price at Goganda is today 88.9; at Hornepayne 92.9; at Gogama 92.3; at Keewatin 91.9; at Marathon 94.3; ranging upwards to 99.9 cents a gallon for unleaded?

An hon. member: For unleaded?

Mr. Lewis: For unleaded. Does the minister not think (

a) this nefarious scheme achieved by the government of Ontario to take money from consumers of the north should be examined town by town to see if his limits were exceeded; and (

b) special protection by way of a freeze must be given to northern Ontario since he will do nothing apparently until the winter is over?

Mr. MacDonald: One member of the cabinet is acclaiming that.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: What will the minister do about this split in the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in committee that I do not think that --

Mr. Foulds: You don’t think, that’s the problem.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of an expression told to me by one of the students when I was a teacher at Don Mills junior High School. Sarcasm is not wit, it is merely the babbling of a diseased mind. That student had a rather good point six or seven years ago.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the minister will not respond to the question --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any question which asks “Do you think” and “Do you not think” is really not asking for information. It is offering suggestions and debating. We are allowing the minister to answer this but if we had fewer interjections we could get on with the normal question period.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in committee that I could not in all good conscience recommend --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- I could not in all good conscience recommend a freeze for one part of the province and not the other. As I have said -- and I repeat it again -- I do not rule out the possibility of a complete freeze for the whole of the province again if we are not able to get the complete co-operation of the companies.

Mr. Breithaupt: While the minister is reviewing the exceptional price differentials between northern and southern Ontario, would he review as well the clear differential which exists between those service stations servicing 401 with their captive market and the rates in adjoining communities?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the hon. member would take the time to read Hansard of estimates committee or if he would look at Hansard toward the end of the last parliament, before July 18, he would find very clear references to the fact that I, and the government, have asked the commissioner to look at price differentials --

Mr. Shore: What is happening tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- particularly between northern and southern Ontario but, for that matter, the whole of the province.

Mr. Breithaupt: Further supplementary, can the minister advise us what the commissioner has done in those three months?

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: If members wait until they are called, they would be in the right order. The member for Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the member for Kitchener had a supplementary which I heard.

Mr. Speaker: The member did have a supplementary?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, it is going to come as a surprise to you but you are running this House.

An hon. member: Are you the Speaker?

[2:30]

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister explain or tell us why he cannot at this time indicate a government policy that would equalize prices of gasoline between north and south --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: -- which would treat all motorists in the province equally?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It becomes a debate when there’s a series of questions which get into the whole field of the pricing of oil or whatever it might be. It’s the same as a debate that takes place in the estimates committee, and this is not the function of question period. I would remind you again, the debate shouldn’t be carried on at this time. It should be a question for information, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why don’t you rule that way once in a while?

Mr. Speaker: If you have a question based on the original answer, that’s fine. It had to do with pricing in northern Ontario; it was not a general policy question whatsoever. That is not the sort of question that is suitable as a supplementary. Now the member for Kitchener. Is his a proper supplementary?

Mr. Breithaupt: I did not ask for a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re wasting time but I’ll hear the member for Port Arthur on his point of order.

Mr. Foulds: It has always been my understanding that a question beginning with the word “why” was in fact an interrogative. It has always been my understanding, with great respect, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Singer: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: -- that it was our job to find out the policy of the government.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is debating. The questions are supposed to be for information.

Mr. Boy: Hasn’t your leader told you that yet?

Mr. Speaker: Secondly, the supplementaries, if any, are supposed to be related to the answer that was given. “Why” starts an interrogative question; that’s true, but it needn’t necessarily be related to the original question. Just because it’s got a “why” in front of it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in order. New, please, we’re wasting time.

Mr. Foulds: With great respect, it happens to be a matter of great importance.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Speaker has the floor.

Mr. Singer: That’s right. Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The original question by the Leader of the Opposition, as I recall it, and it was some time ago now, had to do with the pricing in northern Ontario. Asking a question on the general policy of the government is not supplementary to that question really. It’s a new question.

Mr. Bullbrook: You are absolutely right.

Mr. Foulds: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the question was specifically about equalization of prices between north and south which relates to the --

Mr. Roy: Your point of order is not debatable.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Now you’re debating with the Speaker.

An hon. member: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: It had to do with “is the government going to have a general policy?” I remember the question very clearly.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Speaker is on his feet. Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member knows he’s supposed to sit down when the Speaker is speaking.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is one point of order to deal with now. Does the hon. minister have a point of order?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think it might assist, Mr. Speaker, if I pointed out that the question was answered in estimates committee yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Martel: That was a nothing answer.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a further supplementary to the original question or can we get on with new questions? The Leader of the Opposition.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Lewis: One short question to the Minister of Education: What substance is there to the rumour about the parties in the Metropolitan Toronto teachers’ dispute coming back to the bargaining table; and how is that being effected?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am happy to tell my friend and the House that there are definitely clear signs that the talks will be resuming. I expect that there will be some announcement about this in the next day or so.

Mr. Deans: Next day or so?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have been talking to both Mr. Shime, the chairman of the Education Relations Commission, and the chairmen of both negotiating teams. I think we’d all like to see faster action with them all talking again, but I think I can assure the House that action is going on and things are happening that will see talks beginning very shortly.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Are these initiatives being taken by Mr. Dickie or the school board and teachers?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Dickie is not involved in these initiatives.

Mr. Nixon: Not?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not.

TOBACCO AUCTION

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if he is prepared to meet with the officials of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Marketing Board and the representatives of the buyers, as the sale of the $200-million tobacco crop is now at a standstill since auction barns were closed yesterday?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the Farm Products Marketing Board has been asked by the growers to try to arrange a meeting with the manufacturers’ council. We have talked to some of the manufacturers’ council and we would anticipate, hopefully, to be able to arrange a meeting this week to deal with the matter.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that instead of trying to arrange a meeting with the manufacturers he, as minister, would be well within his rights if he asked or instructed the representatives of the two sides to attend him in his office because it appears that since the manufacturers have raised the price of cigarettes -- they tell me by six cents a package -- and are now giving a lower price to the farmers, there is something irreconcilable in the marketing procedures as seen by the manufacturers and the Minister of Agriculture and Food has a prime responsibility to set this straight?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the growers have a price which they’ve agreed upon. The bids for tobacco at this point in time are less than the agreed-upon overall average price for the season. Yesterday, the growers closed down the sales and as a result of that, remembering that we have a Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board, they have requested us to see if we can arrange a meeting with the manufacturers’ council through our Farm Products Marketing Board, which we are in the process of trying to arrange right now.

I think if the growers want further meetings or if the marketing board does, I’d be glad to listen to them at any time. They’ve asked for this meeting at this point in time. We are trying to set this meeting up to get this matter back on the tracks.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, if you’ll permit, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister believe this agreement between the growers and the manufacturers for an average 95 cents per pound minimum is binding on the manufacturers? Is it possible that we in this Legislature should take some action to make it binding?

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t have any reason at this point in time to feel that the tobacco manufacturing council will not live up to its part of the bargain in the negotiations it had with the tobacco marketing board.

Mr. Moffatt: Would the minister undertake to provide information for the House which would indicate the kind of guarantees he has from the tobacco council which would be passed along to those growers so they will be assured that there will be no crisis in that industry if those barns are being closed?

Hon. W. Newman: As I said we were trying to get the Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board and the manufacturers’ council together to discuss this matter. I think they’ve requested our Farm Products Marketing Board to arrange this meeting and I anticipate they will have a meeting this week. I do not intend to interfere at this point in time until they’ve had a chance to discuss this matter and have tried to work it out.

Mr. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food on the same subject. How could the minister say there is no indication that the manufacturers -- that is, the buyers -- are not living up to their agreement when they refuse to pay the 95 cents per pound and, as a matter of fact, are a full 10 cents below that? They refuse to raise their bids up to anywhere near that agreed level and the auction barns are closed. Is the minister further aware that every day those barns are closed means a potential loss of millions of dollars to the farmers concerned and this must be a matter of direct concern to the minister?

Hon. W. Newman: It is very much of direct concern to me and that’s why I’ve been talking to the marketing board about this particular matter. That’s why the growers marketing board is very much concerned; that’s why they closed it down. They were bidding, I believe, 86 cents and I believe the price set was 94 cents. That’s why they closed it down because they were not bidding np to the full 94 cents.

This is the first round they’re on now. We’re hopeful, when they get into the second round, which will probably be next week, that matters can be sorted out. The Farm Products Marketing Board is arranging a meeting this week with both sides to try to resolve the matter. I’m fully aware of the growers’ concerns in this matter.

Mr. Roy: I think you will have to call Gene Whelan in.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, sure, he’d --

EGG MARKETING BOARD QUOTAS

Mr. Nixon: I have another question of the same minister. What action is he going to take now that it has apparently been made public that inspectors under the jurisdiction of the Egg Marketing Board have indicated that some members of the board are breaking the regulations which they are enforcing among their competitive colleagues in the egg production business in Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: I read the Globe and Mail this morning, too, and it was brought to my attention. I’d like to point out two or three things. First, it was our own inspectors -- the board’s own inspectors -- who discovered that some of the directors may be -- may be, I say -- in violation of quota. Of course, I’ve not personally seen the report. The report was to be released today. It was released yesterday by one of the members of the board and thus it was in the paper this morning. I have asked for a copy of it and I want to see the facts and figures as they are before I make a final determination.

This morning I met with the Farm Products Marketing Board again to discuss this matter and I’ve asked them to arrange a meeting with the Egg Producers’ Marketing Board as soon as possible. Hopefully again, that meeting will be held this week. Of course, today as members know, the semi-annual meeting of the egg producers is being held here in Toronto and there will be about 200 or 250 egg producers there I have some of my staff at that meeting monitoring the meeting as it goes on today.

Of course, once the Farm Products Marketing people have met with the Egg Producers’ Marketing Board, I will review and assess the results of the meeting, and the facts, and the report, and at that point in time I will take any action that is necessary.

Mr. Nixon: Since this group operates under the authority granted by this House, has the minister consulted with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) as to what specific steps should be taken, if, in fact, the members of the board are taking this liberty with the authority granted by this House?

Hon. W. Newman: The Egg Producers’ Marketing Board has a certain authority to ask the Farm Products Marketing Board for the right of seizure, if it wishes to ask for that at this point in time. That’s why I want to see all the facts because it’s been alleged in the paper that six of the 13 members of the board are over quota. In one case -- I’ll only give you a small example -- in a flock of 10,000 hens he has something like 50 some hens over.

It’s over, but as you know hens do die each day and they are replaced and it’s not quite that easy to keep within the one or two they are supposed to, So once I get all the facts before me and I have talked to the Farm Products Marketing Board, we will have a full report and I will take any necessary action that needs to be done.

GRIFFITH ISLAND HUNTING LODGE

Mr. Nixon: A question of the Premier: Did it concern him as much as it did the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) and the rest of us -- the stories associated with this little enclave on Griffith Island in Georgian Bay?

Has he made any inquiries as to how these people could get away with flouting the game and fish laws; how they could, in fact, be serving intoxicating beverages without having a club licence; how, in fact, they could have armed guards around the island so that casual boaters could not land on it; and how, in fact, there could be members of the Premier’s own party -- in fact, former cabinet colleagues -- who are members and regular visitors there? Can he report upon these matters to the House, and if nut, will he look into it and give us a report?

Mr. Breithaupt: A full report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot. I would leave this matter totally to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), who I know understands the problem and I’m sure would be delighted to give any answers to the House.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Has the Premier ever visited Griffith Island, or have any of his colleagues visited Griffith Island, to his knowledge?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for my colleagues. I must say, knowing perhaps this question came from a Mr. Greer through the leader of the Liberal Party, as often happens, I would just like to inform him, through you, that yes, I have been there for dinner on one occasion. I have never hunted at Griffith Island. In fact I have never hunted anywhere.

Mr. Nixon: But the Premier didn’t take a drink or anything like that? Did he catch a fish?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t hunted anywhere. I haven’t even caught a fish, and I haven’t hunted. However, I have been there. I will not speak for my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: Any other questions of urgent public importance?

Mr. Nixon: I gather you have not been asked either, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was a very good meal.

Mr. Lewis: Those moose antlers the Minister of National Resources was carrying on Monday morning are at the airport.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of Opposition would be quiet for a moment, I’d be very happy to answer the questions raised by three of his colleagues last week.

Mr. Lewis: I am listening intently; intently.

FALCONBRIDGE LAYOFFS

Hon. B. Stephenson: The question was regarding the layoff of 438 workers from Falconbridge Nickel Mines and it was imputed that perhaps there had been bad faith bargaining on the part of the company in the recent negotiations. The ministry has inquired into this matter. At the present time there is no evidence of any lack of good faith on the part of the company in its negotiations.

Mr. Lewis: No, is that right? What an inquiry I

Hon. B. Stephenson: The reason for the layoff of 438 workers is a combination of gear-up time and a down-turn in the market during the period of the strike. The numbers laid off constitute less than 10 per cent of the total complement of the company --

Mr. Lewis: That’s all?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and therefore the company has complied totally with the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Deans: Can the minister indicate whether the proposed layoffs were ever discussed at the bargaining table prior to the agreement being reached?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I am informed that they were never discussed,

Mr. Lewis: Oh, but that is good-faith bargaining. Very good faith bargaining. Quite an inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Germa: Could I ask the minister to assure the Reuse that the surplus inventories causing the present layoffs were not as a result of the company deliberately building excess inventories in order to meet negotiations?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have no such knowledge, but certainly if there is, in fact, any feeling on the part of the union that bad faith was involved they are at perfect liberty to use the resources of the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Lewis: There’s a $50 fine you know.

[2:45]

CANADIAN WESTINGHOUSE

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Premier. Regardless of the historical legal position that’s involved, is the Premier concerned about the current situation which affects 2,300 workers of Westinghouse Canada? Does he feel it appropriate that an American company, in the process of a sale of its American operation, should be able to sell Canadian rights without consideration for the Canadian economy or employees? Does he intend to make representation to Ottawa or, for that matter, representation to the United States? Does he intend to change any laws? Does he intend to take any action to try to preserve the jobs of 2,300 people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ll answer the first part of the question. Yes, I am concerned. The balance of the question should be directed to the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Deans: I would like to redirect the question in order that I might get the answer.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised in this House about one week ago, and it was answered -- but I’ll repeat the answer to clarify the situation. I have been in touch with the minister of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for Canada, Mr. Jamieson, and we have discussed the problem. He and his colleagues at the federal level are in discussions with White Corp. and, indeed, with Westinghouse Canada. It relates to who owns the rights to the trademarks. There is some confusion, there is no doubt about it.

Mr. Lewis: That’s quite a price to pay.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It might be quite a price to pay, Mr. Speaker, but the fact remains that the trademarks have never belonged to Westinghouse Canada Ltd. They have always been owned by the parent company and, under special arrangements, have been given out for use by their various companies throughout the world. At this very moment the argument relates as to who can have the rights to the trademark. White Corp. at the time that they completed the deal with the American Westinghouse Corp., also took over the world rights for the trademark.

We have been in contact with Mr. Jamieson. He is continuing with his negotiations. It’s in his interest to see that the Westinghouse manufacturing trademarks stay with the Canadian company to give us some hold on that particular industry in this country.

Mr. Renwick: There are compulsory licensing arrangements, and the minister knows it.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question: Does the minister recognize that there is a major lawsuit currently being lodged in the US to block the sale to GSW? Is he prepared either to take some legislative action --

Mr. Speaker: One question.

Mr. Deans: -- here or to recommend legislative action in Ottawa to do away with this kind of nonsense and damaging effect?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member asked one question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, let us first of all correct the statement. The lawsuit does not relate to whether GSW -- General Steel Wares -- should take over the Westinghouse Canada operation.

Mr. Deans: That is the effect of it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It relates, Mr. Speaker, singularly and solely to who has the right to the trademark in Canada -- the Westinghouse circle with the “W” in it. That’s really what it relates to and not whether GSW will eventually become the owner of Westinghouse assets. The trademark is the thing in point. Mr. Jamieson is reviewing it. Our people from our ministry have been in discussion with him. Indeed, there have been others in the industry who have been working with him to try to find a solution to the problem.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

An hon. member: Betty Furness is involved in it.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, Mr. Speaker, that question should be directed to the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have not yet seen a draft agreement. I think we saw a brief outline of one and the officials are meeting in Ottawa today and tomorrow. Presumably they will be looking at a model agreement; I think that is what they’re calling it. The ministers will not see it until a week from tomorrow when there is a meeting of the Ministers of Finance.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of a supplementary, does the Treasurer think it would be possible for us, as members of the Legislature, to have some information in connection with the draft agreement by, say, 10 days?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew South.

Mr. Roy: Oh, the parliamentary assistant is here, is he?

OLYMPIC GAMES

Mr. Yakabuski: Is the Premier aware that since the government of the Province of Quebec has taken over the financial affairs of the 1976 Olympics, there is a growing concern that the taxpayers of this province, and perhaps the other provinces of Canada, will get hooked to bail out the Olympics?

Mr. Singer: Is that a question?

Mr. Cassidy: It’s just a kind of specious statement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m aware of the decision of the government of Quebec to take over some aspects of the administration of the development of the Olympic site. I can’t see how this, certainly from our standpoint, can have an impact on the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario because I think the Prime Minister of Canada has said -- and I’m sure he will not change his mind -- that it is not the intention of the federal government to become financially involved.

Mr. Roy: Not like some people we know?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Ottawa East comes first.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary on that: I take it from the Premier’s answer that he doesn’t agree with the mayor of Toronto who made a speech in Montreal --

Mr. Speaker: Your question? Or is that an interrogatory statement?

Mr. Boy: My God, you are touchy with the people on this side, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He is not running against the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: My question simply is this: The Premier doesn’t agree with his Conservative colleague, the mayor of Toronto, who made a speech in Montreal saying that all taxpayers in Ontario -- or in Canada for that matter -- should contribute to the Olympics?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I saw a headline attributed to the mayor of the city of Toronto; I did not see his speech nor have I had communication with him. It may come as a bit of a shock to the hon. member but those of us who do support the same political parties don’t always have the same point of view.

Mr. Roy: We know that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That should come as less of a shock to you in that party than any other party in this province.

Mr. Roy: The Premier should not emphasize the obvious.

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Ferrier: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Labour. Will the minister intervene with the Abitibi Paper Co., on behalf of the members of the Canadian Paperworkers’ Union in Iroquois Falls and elsewhere in the province, to suggest that Abitibi pay the outstanding holiday pay in accordance with the expired collective agreement?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if the request made by my hon. colleague is within the purview of the Employment Standards Act, I would certainly so intervene.

Mr. Ferrier: Supplementary: If the request is not within the purview of the Employment Standards Act, will the minister still consider intervening to suggest that, as good corporate citizens, maybe Ahitibi should take this move and pay this holiday pay to these workers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, I should most seriously consider this matter.

Mr. Reid: On the same subject, as the minister knows this continuing pulp and paper strike in northern Ontario is very serious. Can she report to the House anything new, any new developments? Can she also indicate at the same time whether any other mills in Canada have been before the Anti-Inflation Board in Ottawa and if that board has made any decision as to the effect of agreements in the pulp and paper industry?

Mr. Speaker: For the information of certain members that is an original question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would agree with my colleague that this is a most serious strike. Unfortunately, I can report no new major development this week; we are still hopeful that there may be one this week.

There has been one settlement in the paper industry in Canada, in New Brunswick with the K.C. Irving plant. The settlement was above the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines and there is agreement between both parties to take that settlement to the board for clarification and consideration of the matter. To my knowledge this has not come before the board as yet and therefore we have no ruling by the board as yet.

Mr. Reid: May I ask by way of supplementary: Does the minister feel that decision by the board will affect settlements in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would think that if we did have a ruling by the Anti-Inflation Board it could provide a stimulus to the resumption of negotiations in the Province of Ontario.

KITCHENER COURTHOUSE

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last, the hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) asked a question concerning the new Kitchener courthouse. I would remind the hors, member that this project is one of five announced last July by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in his supplementary budget speech designed to stimulate employment in Ontario. I might add that the leaseback system has been utilized at this time because of the government policy of controlling new capital expenditure wherever possible.

The Kitchener project was advertised for tenders, with a closing date of Oct. 7, 1975. The following are the names of the bidders and their annual rental bids: Van Rots Construction Co. Ltd., $749,000; Bramalea Consolidated Developments Ltd., $785,856; Manufacturers Life Insurance Co., $802,284; Olympia and York Developments, $828,000; Major Holdings and Developments Ltd., $858,000; Ball Brothers Ltd., $894,000; and Ownix Developments Ltd., $1,024,760.

The low bidder, Van Bots Construction Co. Ltd., was awarded the contract on Nov. 6, 1975. Upon expiry of the 25-year lease, the building will become the property of the province. Van Bots Construction Co. Ltd. is an Ontario firm, as are all of the other bidders.

If, as the hon. member suggests, local contractors think the building could have been obtained at a lower cost, then I think this viewpoint should have been reflected in their bids.

INCO/FALCONBRIDGE BUSINESS POLICIES

Mr.

Laughren: A question of the Premier: In view of the fact that International Nickel and Falconbridge Nickel Mines never have taken the Sudbury community into their confidence; in view of the recently announced layoffs, and particularly in view of the fact that two years ago Falconbridge Nickel Mines, while at a meeting with my colleagues from the Sudbury area and with municipal and regional officials as well as a federal member of Parliament, announced their long-term plans were their business, not ours, will the Premier reconsider his statement of Friday and appoint a select committee to look into the long-term plans for extraction and processing of ores in the Sudbury area and elsewhere?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: I wonder if the Premier realizes how terribly difficult it is for a community that lives always with a boom and bust economy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This should be a question of information, not what the Premier wonders about things.

Mr. Laughren: This is a reasonable supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Ask a direct question.

Mr. Laughren: I am trying to. Does the Premier understand how difficult it is for a community that lives with boom and bust and uncertainty to make long-term plans for the people of the community? Does he not realize that the government has a responsibility to require the private sector to be more cooperative? Why won’t he do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the implications of a major industry in a community, particularly when it is the prime industry of that community. There are several others in the Province of Ontario: the situation is not confined to Sudbury. I was asked by, I believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) or one of his colleagues whether or not the government would consider appointing a select committee. I don’t think that that is a reasonable approach to it. Certainly I would encourage any discussion between the companies and the communities to resolve these problems, but I am saying that I don’t believe a select committee is the way to go about it.

Mr. Laughren: They tell us it is none of our business. How can we talk to them when they have that attitude?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary on this.

Mr. Martel: In view of the fact that mining is solely within the purview of the government of Ontario, surely to God it is time the government moved --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is debating the question. The hon. member has been around long enough to know that is debating an answer or a question.

Mr. Martel: You are not faced with 900 layoffs.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is debating the issue.

Mr. Lewis: How is it you move in on northern members every time?

Interjections.

An hon. member: Oh, that is not right.

Mr. Yakabuski: That is below the belt.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have a true supplementary?

Mr. Martel: I am asking the Premier, in view of the fact that the province has the sole right over mining, is it not time that the province took some leadership to head off the boom and bust economy in Sudbury?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a question of information.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do your job and we’ll back you up, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: You won’t have anything there after the next election.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

[3:00]

NAPPAN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Good: A question of the Minister of Housing: Now that the minister has had time to review the background material relating to Nappan island and especially the reports of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Trent Valley Conservation Authority and the local municipalities which utterly oppose this development on Nappan Island, is the minister prepared to forward this material to the OMB so that body may look at the environmental considerations in dealing with Nappan Island when it hears the zoning change application; which is next Monday, making this a matter of urgent public importance?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member did supply me with some information. There was more information to be gathered; and I have started to gather that information. The people in the ministry are now putting all the file together and I will have a direct answer for the hon. member in ample time before the hearing on Monday.

Mr. Good: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister assure the House at this time that he will not only look at the information but will review the draft plan approval which was given by the former Minister of Housing, and which to all concerned was in complete disregard of all reports relating to that area? Is he satisfied that he can, in fact, refer this to the OMB in conjunction with the other hearing?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that’s part of what Tm attempting to do as a result of the inquiry made to me by the hon. member. I have asked to have the draft plan brought back so it can be properly reviewed and we can make a decision, just as he suggested.

HOME PROGRAMME

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has the answer to a question asked previously.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Nov. 13 the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) asked about the increased price of HOME plan lots in a resale situation, referring to initial cost of $65-a-month to the projected cost of between $200 and $250-a-month for the lot the house is located on.

Members will recall that the original HOME plan fixed the lot price for a period of 50 years, and a second or third purchaser could buy a HOME plan house and make the same monthly land payments as the original buyer. Unfortunately, this created windfall profits for those who chose to sell the land after the obligatory first five years of the lease were up; and it also led to under-the-table deals as principals sought to circumvent the programme’s safeguards.

This resulted in a revision of the programme in June, 1973, which provided for the second purchaser to take over the land lease payments at the market value of the land when the property changed hands. Effective Aug. 8 of this year, the lease provisions of the programme were dropped. The HOME plan is now a freehold programme which means resales are at full market value.

With its low down payments and generous mortgage provisions, the HOME plan is of great assistance to families who normally could not afford to buy on the open market. I would tend to agree with the hon. member that the greatest benefit is certainly derived by the first purchaser of the HOME plan house and property.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Can the minister indicate whether it might not be better to have the resale back to the programme rather than allowing them on the free market? Then the people who need the homes will benefit from them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the question is very difficult to answer. There are two ways we’re trying to do this. If you want to retain the general public ownership of the homes and the property, what the hon. member is suggesting is probably correct; but if we do want to place these homes in the hands of people in the lower and the moderate income area so they can purchase them --

Mr. Deans: Right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and own them, then I think we have to allow them to own them. Certainly they should be free to compete in the marketplace as any other homeowner can.

An hon. member: They should profit on their houses the way the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) did.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, a point of order, the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the remark made by the Leader of the Opposition that you were discriminating against northern members. I want to say that I find that remark totally irresponsible and beneath the dignity of the Leader of the Opposition. As a member from the north, I want to say to you that I uphold the job you’re doing as long as you continue to do it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am with the hon. member all the way on that one.

Mr. Bullbrook: It was at best a juvenile remark.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get back to our business.

Presenting reports.

Hon. W. Newman presented the annual report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975.

Hon. Mr. Parrott presented the financial report of Queen’s University and Sir Wilfrid Laurier University for the year ending April 30, 1975; and of the Ontario College of Art for the year ending May 31, 1975.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry presented the sixth annual report of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this is the bill, referred to in the earlier statement today by the Premier (Mr. Davis), that will require the mandatory use of seatbelts in automobiles.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Mr. MacDonald moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to provide for Freedom of Information.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill can be simply stated. As things stand now, all government documents are secret unless there happens to be good reason, in the view of the government, to make them public. This bill is predicated on the assumption that everything should be freely available to the public unless there happens to be good reason for it being kept secret. A statutory obligation to make all government documents, with legitimate exceptions, freely available to the public is a necessary and healthy corrective to the instinctive reaction of those in authority to withhold information that might prove embarrassing.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Motian agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, this legislation was introduced in the last session. The purpose of it, of course, is that when individuals are arrested tinder the Mental Health Act this amendment in fact would force a judge or justices of the peace to have the individual examined by at least one psychiatrist within a reasonable period of time.

Hon. J. B. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the answer to written question No. 11 from the hon. member for Wellington South.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The seventh order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 20,

An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect to Residential Premises.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONTINUED)

Mr. McClellan: I’d like just briefly to conclude the remarks that I had started to make, I believe last Thursday. I spoke at that time of the remarkable achievement of the minister in managing to exempt somewhere between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of landlords, and to exclude between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of tenants in this province by virtue of the elimination of fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes, single-attached and single-detached dwellings and rooming houses from the Act. The minister was heard to mutter repentance during the discussion and we look forward to amendments coming forward which will correct those serious omissions.

Today I want to speak briefly about the principle of the bill. The principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. The principle of this bill is socialism. The very heart awl soul of this bill is socialism; the very nub and kernel of this bill is socialism; the very essence of the being of this bill is socialism: because what this bill does is remove residential housing from the forces --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Keep that up and the Leader of the Opposition is going to have a leadership convention.

Mr. McClellan: -- of the so-called free market, and bring residential housing under the control of the state in the name of social justice. And that, Mr. Speaker, is socialism.

Mr. Lewis: He is winning them over, and he hadn’t realized it.

Mr. McClellan: What this bill does is establish the principle that housing in this province is a social utility under the regulation of the state; and that, Mr. Speaker, is socialism.

Interjection.

Mr. Samis: You old free enterpriser.

Mr. McClellan: This bill is a socialistic bill in all aspects and in all respects, and the truly glorious thing is that in a few short minutes, no a few short hours, all three parties in this House are going to vote for this piece of socialistic legislation.

Mr. Lewis: And the Minister of Housing is choking. He choked in cabinet; he choked his way out of cabinet.

Mr. McClellan: And all those who are girding their loins for a holy crusade against socialism in the not too distant future are going to vote for this socialistic piece of legislation, along with us.

Mr. Foulds: Did they realize they are a part of the socialist hordes?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Does the Leader of the Opposition have a leadership convention coming? I hope so, he’s in trouble.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all --

Mr. McClellan: The anguish this bill has generated across the floor end beside us in the ranks of the third party was evidenced in the remarks of the member, I think for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) who rose to debate the rent control bill and gave instead a hymn of praise to the free enterprise system. What kind of confusion, what kind of schizophrenia is this, that a member would be forced --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Need the member ask?

Mr. McClellan: -- to speak his innermost confusion in such a manner?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the member learns very rapidly.

Mr. Nixon: How can the Premier say that when he’s had four positions on rent review and he may change them all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellwoods has the floor.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier and his government have had four positions this week.

Mr. McClellan: I do not want to be too hard on the Minister of Housing for his incredible exemptions. He is, after all --

Mr. Lewis: A socialist.

Mr. McClellan: -- a recent convert to socialism. It was unlike St. Paul, whose conversion was not sudden and dramatic and glorious. Instead, it was reluctant and hesitant; it was filled with apostasy from the very first moment.

Mr. Lewis: It was desperate.

Mr. McClellan: He entered upon the socialist path with such hesitance and mincing steps that he wandered instead onto the garden path.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I like the member. We’re going to get along fine.

Mr. McClellan: I want to assure the minister that we will rescue him from the garden path onto which he has stumbled; we will lead him back to the socialist path and he will thank us for it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member from Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Lewis: A copy of that goes to every house in the Soo.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Through what postal system?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sweeney: I would like to draw to the attention of some members of this House that the title of this Act is to provide for the review of rents in respect of residential premises, not the control.

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on.

[3:15]

Mr. Sweeney: This party will support rent review. This is a temporary aberration. It is not --

Mr. Samis: Right on!

An hon. member: Go ahead; the member is getting to them.

Mr. Sweeney: It is not perceived by this party as a socialist document, far from it.

Mr. Foulds: That’s because the member’s perception is rather dim.

An hon. member: The member is getting close.

Mr. Sweeney: It seems to me that over the last several days of debate on this, we have gone a long way toward creating an iniquitous division by suggesting that every single landlord in this province is somehow responsible for the social problems with respect to housing accommodation and rentals.

I, for one, would like to have it on the record that that is not so. May I draw the attention of the House to the following figures in my particular community: In the past 10 years rental accommodation of all types has increased between 35 per cent and 50 per cent. That is 10 years, Mr. Speaker. In the same period wages have increased 100 per cent; food has increased 87 per cent; the cost of living has increased 69 per cent.

I am not suggesting there are not some landlords -- I don’t know what the percentage is -- in this province who are unscrupulous, who do gouge. I think there has been sufficient evidence brought to the attention of this House, and that is why a piece of review legislation is necessary; but I do want it on the record that there are some decent, law-abiding, good corporate citizens in this province who are also landlords, and I think that should be noted.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Samis: He’s right in the middle of the whole thing.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity to take

part in this debate. The debate has centred around a rather interesting division on the basis of principle. The body Conservative, which normally does not interfere with the business community, introduces a bill which clearly displays symptoms of withdrawal.

Although I appreciate the government’s reversal -- in fact it should be noted it is not really reversal but rather revolving form of policy -- I make note of the fact that the Conservatives remain capitalist, but compromising, in this Legislature; the Liberals capitalists, but confused; and the New Democrats socialist in a democratic and fair way.

Mr. Sweeney: It is the member’s perception that’s confused.

Mr. Samis: That’s hardly original.

Mr. Warner: In the discussion which took place last week, there was some note made of principle and of the deficiencies of this bill. I am sure the minister is wondering precisely what is missing.

I think what is missing is a statement of principle that shelter is a basic right of human beings in our province. It is around that basic principle that one must put all of the trimmings that are needed to guarantee that shelter will remain as a basic right, without costing all of us so dearly beyond our means. That’s where the bill comes up short.

We have heard about the exemptions. There are far too many of them, that’s obvious. I don’t understand why the government cannot come to grips with the very basic fact that shelter is a necessity, it is a right, and that it should be protected.

Quite frankly, I was somewhat confused by the Conservatives” opinion that those who are able to pay high rents should not be protected. Surely a bill that is going to provide protection should provide protection for all. I have no qualms about providing protection for those who are paying in excess of $500 a month. Surely those people, even though they can afford that amount, should be afforded protection by the government.

The arguments that were heard from the Liberal Party and from the Conservatives were that this bill -- and particularly if we went to total controls -- would dry up the market as far as production is concerned. I submit those statements were made in a vacuum, because had the government looked closely, at the province --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is the member going to vote for it?

Mr. Warner: -- of Quebec, and examined --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Look at Toronto.

Mr. Warner: -- their policies --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Look at Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: That is because of men and Falconbridge are getting away with what they want. I am going to speak on it in a moment, stick around.

Mr. Warner: The minister should take a look at the legislation in Quebec. I specifically use that because they have been dealing with rent controls for 22 years. It’s an experiment of a length of time and of a nature which should reveal any inadequacies.

Interjection.

Mr. Warner: They don’t have the housing problem we have in Ontario. They don’t have the skyrocketing rents we have here.

Interjection.

Mr. Warner: Their controls have worked.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Warner: Thank you. If the government is really that concerned about the market drying up, then perhaps it will lead its support, finally, to the building of co-op houses. If the owner of an apartment building is so totally convinced that he cannot exist on a guaranteed return on his dollars, such as this bill proposes, then maybe he should get out of the market; maybe the building should be turned over to co-op housing and let the rents drop.

Perhaps the hon. minister is not aware that in the city of Toronto, for example, in fact in Scarborough, a new building was constructed just a month ago in which projected rents for a two-bedroom apartment are $150-a-month instead of the market value of $250-a-month because it is a co-op building. If the government were to put some money into co-op housing that would certainly help.

If after all of that, those owners are still complaining they can’t get along with their guaranteed return, at their low interest, then -- and all of us know that the gouging that has taken place has normally been on the older buildings, where the mortgages were 3½ to 6½ per cent -- if they’re still not satisfied with that guaranteed return, perhaps they should relinquish it to the government and let the government run it for the use of the people. Let’s bring down the rents once and for all.

We have the basis of some good legislation and I am sure that in committee the proper amendments can be made. I urge the hon. minister to consider very seriously the roll-back date. The experiences of the people in this province show that the increases in rent began at the beginning of 1974, that the plot was hatched during January and February of 1974 and it came to fruition during April, May and June of 1974. The excessive rents were then invoked through to the end of 1974. Yet the government insists they can only roll back to July of 1975.

I think the government owes us an answer on that, because that roll-back date, as far as I am concerned, is just not acceptable. I am also concerned about the percentage. It’s obviously an arbitrary figure. I would like the hon. minister to explain the percentage of eight per cent, which is the figure used.

We have before us now the most comprehensive study ever conducted in this country on housing, commissioned for Mr. Jaffray and completed on over 5,000 rental units in the Province of British Columbia. The results of that survey indicated that the average increase in cost to the owner-landlord was in the neighbourhood of six per cent, including property taxes; property tax increase was at 2.9 per cent.

All of that is public record now, so I would like some explanation why the percentage used here is the arbitrary figure of eight per cent? In fact, I would ask the hon. minister if he could explain why we are not considering beyond 1975, looking at the cost factor as opposed to the percentage guideline? Why aren’t we simply opening the books of the owners and looking at the cost factor?

It is possible, and I would concede this to the hon. minister, it is possible that in some isolated circumstances the costs would be greater than the eight per cent; in which case simply opening the books and operating on the revealed cost factor would relieve that and the owner could get his just reward.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: With the tenants’ association reading the books and all that? Could we see the member’s?

Mr. Warner: I am saying for public viewing, that’s all.

Continuing on through the bill -- and I hope the minister will bear with me, I’m simply going through it part by part because I found the document quite interesting -- as a new member I was quite intrigued by the wording in clause 4 of

section 10, appearing on page 8: “Members of the board shall hold office during pleasure.” I don’t know if that means it’s a fun job or not, but it’s very interesting wording.

It doesn’t talk in the bill about justification; about requiring any justification on the part of the landlord. I think that can only come about by opening the books and having their contents public knowledge.

I am also concerned about the technical, mechanical aspects of this bill. In subsection 9 of

section 4, on page 5, it talks about common dates for hearings. There is no reference -- although I agree it could be set by regulation -- that wherever possible the meetings to discuss the rent increases should be held within the building or the building complex in order to save time and money. There was no mention of this. Perhaps that could be considered for regulations.

section 10, subsection 1, where the residential premises rent review board is established, there seems to be no specification as to a balance between the representations of corporate interests and the tenants’ interests, and I would hope the minister could supply some sort of balance there in absolute numbers.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Mr. Warner: Another rather curious point which needs explanation is, there was an arbitrary figure of four used in

section 12(c): “situate in a residential building that contains four or fewer residential premises.” Why four? My suggestion, if the minister wants to pick an arbitrary figure, would be three, provided that one of them is the owner-landlord. Because what the minister is doing is opening it up to those landlords who own, in fact, 50 or 60 smaller buildings. There are landlords in this city who own anywhere up to 100 duplexes and that opens it up to them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But this isn’t the only city in the world. This is only one small city.

Mr. Warner: In conclusion, I must admit that I am happier with the presentation of this bill than with the presentation of that other piece of social legislation which was introduced on Sunday store closings. That particular bill, of course, would only meet one’s expectations if one expected nothing from the government.

There is still a tremendous amount of vagueness about this bill. There are far too many loopholes; there are far too many things which can be set by regulations and which are not set not here.

As a final point, I would ask that the minister look very seriously at

section 15, on the last page of the bill, where it talks about penalties. Again there is a maximum set and no minimum. I would suggest very strongly that be reconsidered and we look at a minimum penalty. There is no reason why it can’t be put onto a sliding scale with reference to the size of the structure we are dealing with, so as to make it fair to the landlord, but there certainly should be some sort of minimum fine if the landlord doesn’t come up to standards.

[3:30]

In conclusion, I commend the government for some action. I am still very saddened that it has not put in, as a principle of this, that housing is a basic right for all individuals iii this province. Until that day comes we will not see a totally comprehensive bill regarding the control of rents for tenants in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: I wish the Minister of Environment (Mr. Ken) had not left the House. I felt by his interjections that he was about to participate in the debate. He indicated that he felt that under this law thousands of landlords would be going broke. I believe that was his interjection. Probably one or two landlords at the Burlington Golf Club indicated their apprehension in this regard. I was hoping he would participate in the debate in this connection but evidently he’s not going to.

Mr. Martel: A few on Griffith island.

Mr. Nixon: There are one or two things which may not be that productive but I feel I should draw them to members’ attention. The Premier (Mr. Davis), who has also left the House, indicated by his interjection that he felt the Liberal Party had been vacillating on its position in this regard. Nothing could be further from the truth and I want to bring to members’ attention the important role played by my colleague, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) in the formation of public policy in this regard.

I’m sure members are aware that her private legislation having to do with rent review has been before this House for almost two years, during the time when the NDP were, let’s say, dealing with their mentors in the city council of Toronto, to try to get square with them, and, of course, more latterly when the Premier himself was taking a variety of positions. No one associated with the last campaign could be anything but amused at his difficulty in achieving some sort of policy. He had at least four separate and distinct positions, all of them completely unacceptable, before his Minister of Housing got up and introduced the legislation now before us.

As a matter of fact, the minister himself -- who is here and I appreciate that -- indicated as he was being sworn in as Minister of Housing that rent review would delay the construction of housing in the province and that he would have to consider that very carefully. I don’t know who set him straight; presumably the Premier had made up his mind by then and we have the bill before us.

It is interesting but I can predict there will be a time when the Conservatives will be blaming other political parties for the legislation before us -- just like yesterday when we were talking about the unfortunate teachers’ strike. He was indicating that he had nothing to do with it or was putting the blame elsewhere for the fact that the teachers were out on strike.

I think it is important that when we discuss this legislation we make sure our attitudes are well understood. I believe this is important legislation. I believe the rent review aspects of it are going to be with us permanently and, frankly, I think the control aspects are going to be with us permanently.

As one of my colleagues has already pointed out we have had rent control in other jurisdictions, not all of them socialist. The State of New York has permitted it to be applied in the city of New York and they’ve never been able to get out of it. I think that is unfortunate.

The review aspects certainly are important and ones which certainly both of the opposition parties were stressing. It wasn’t during the election campaign that the NDP were talking about controls.

As a matter of fact, if anybody in the NDP thinks they’ve got a corner on social legislation, they are misinformed. Socialist legislation is what they were putting forward in their programme during the election campaign -- at least it was in the printed programme -- but I didn’t hear them talking about it much. They said they wanted to expropriate all the developable land around all the cities. They wanted to expropriate the whole of the mining industry. That is socialism. That’s what they should be pushing because certainly this sort of legislation is no different from --

Mr. Martel: Why didn’t you come north?

Mr. Nixon: -- the egg marketing legislation which has been put forward by Tories and Liberals. It is ineffectual. It’s no different from any other legislation which is necessary and, believe me, we in the Liberal Party believe this is necessary.

We have been consistent for two years in putting this before the government and not just by the loose applications of rhetoric which is so much a part of the socialists -- the second party who are trying harder and harder and making less and less progress. It really isn’t that at all.

Mr. Martel: Where do you sit now?

Mr. Nixon: But we have pot it forward by legislation which has been discussed by this House in the last two years. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to be sore that you were aware of the facts in the matter and would not be swept away by the costs of rhetoric immediately to your left and to my right.

I was quite impressed as a matter of fact that the legislation did settle on the eight per cent lid. The federal legislation for wage and price controls establishes this eight per cent for wages and it allows another two per cent for productivity, which evidently everybody is going to get because we are such a productive nation and another two per cent for a number of causes that the Anti-Inflation Board might get around to dealing with some time in the next six months. This is an area of serious delay which concerns me.

The fact that the minister brought forward the eight per cent lid is an indication that he is not without some influence in the cabinet or that there is somebody over there with a political perspicacity which is appropriate. Even though the NDP have already given notice that they think that’s too high and they are going to move to reduce it, nobody is going to take them very seriously. In fact, we are not prepared to support an amendment which is going to reduce that percentage.

Mr. Cassidy: Who is in bed with whom right now?

Mr. Nixon: I feel that it’s necessary in case there’s some doubt in the minds of the party to my right, that these positions should be known. I am sure if the lid had been set at four, they would have wanted to reduce it to one. If in fact it had been frozen solid, then the old phrase --

Mr. Martel: You will change it by tomorrow again.

Mr. Nixon: -- roll back would have been out, because there is really no way to satisfy a party which is trying harder, and that is the basis of their interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: We made our decision clear and we are sticking to it.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, but when did you make your decision? You weren’t even talking about rent controls. You were talking about rent review and you know it.

As far as we are concerned on this side, the part of the bill that does concern us is the exclusions which have been put before you, Mr. Speaker, by members, not only of this side but which I have seen discussed in the electronic media by the Minister of Housing. I believe he now feels that he has made a mistake with these extensive exclusions, but surely there has to be an inclusion of public housing in this regard.

This whole concept of rent-geared-to income being something that is aside from rent control is unacceptable. The minister knows full well from his experience as mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, as all of us as members of this House have experienced, that the increase in rents in the rent-geared-to income in public housing area is something that does require the sorts of controls that we are talking about. I would hope the minister would reconsider this exclusion as he has reconsidered some of the other exclusions.

I heard him indicate on TV that he might bring forward an amendment which would remove the present exclusion under the terms of the bill which would apply to accommodation in houses or apartment buildings of four or fewer units. Certainly I think this is a matter which must concern us because many communities have rental accommodation of that type almost to the exclusion of the kind of high-rise cliff-dwelling facilities that one finds here in Metropolitan Toronto. I have even had a letter complaining about the $500-a-month exclusion.

I know that there’s a number of people in the party to my right who may be concerned with that as individuals, but even they are not prepared to bring that forward as one of the list of complaints that they are trying so valiantly to wave as a red flag. That’s the colour that they seem to like.

Mr. Cassidy: No, we defended the rich valiantly. We defended rich and poor alike.

Mr. Ferrier: Did that letter come from South Dumfries?

Mr. Nixon: I think we are prepared to maintain that exclusion but I would hope that the others would be removed by the committee. We give notice to you, Mr. Speaker, and to anybody else who might be interested that we are prepared either to put forward ourselves or support amendments of that type.

It concerns me that that noted Liberal, Barnett Danson, Secretary of State for Urban Affairs, indicated quite clearly that he felt a review procedure should not be a part of provincial legislation, that it would tend to frighten developers away from building because they would feel that they faced a morass of red tape, but that some kind of a ceiling exclusively would be sufficient as long as those people who went forward with their investment would be exempt for four or five years following. I don’t agree with them, of course, because I believe that it is a misunderstanding on the part of anybody --

Mr. Martel: No flexibility, no flexibility.

Mr. Nixon: -- who is not prepared to support the review concept. When we’re talking about review, we’re not talking about the rent payable by an individual, but the rent payable on a dwelling unit. Surely this is the sort of procedure which is going to be with us, not just for a period of months or a couple of years, but permanently. Anyone who thinks that this sort of legislation is going to be sloughed off with the resurgence of the free enterprise system is, of course, in error.

As a matter of fact, I personally would like to see some provision where rent controls would be removed from those communities where there was a vacancy rate of something between three and four per cent. But it appears --

Mr. Laughren: Twenty and 30.

Mr. Nixon: -- frankly, from the experience in other jurisdictions, socialist and otherwise, that once the tender hands of the bureaucrats --

Mr. Martel: This bothers you, doesn’t it?

Mr. Nixon: -- get on these matters, it’s very difficult for them --

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: -- to release their grasp. I would suggest, that whether the present minister continues in his responsibility or not, that rent review with teeth in it, that is roll-back powers as far as rental payments are concerned, will be with us on a permanent basis.

I regret it, but it seems that with the growth of the communities, particularly urban communities, that this is a responsibility which this House must accept and which we must examine very carefully in its administration by whatever facilities are set up by the government of the day. I am also prepared to predict that while the free enterprise system must be given encouragement to invest in housing --

Mr. Germa: Subsidize it. Yes, that’s the free enterprise --

Mr. Nixon: Well, we are now and you know that. That’s the first time I heard your voice today. I thought you would get involved in that Sudbury exchange. We are subsidizing --

Mr. Germa: That’s free enterprise.

Mr. Nixon: -- the building of houses now in a very big way. But it seems to me that the private sector had many years of opportunity to use this wide variety of programmes in which public funds were available to them. We have still come to the position now where this House is required to take the steps that we are discussing. So that while we must rely on the private sector, there is no doubt in my mind that one of the realities that the Treasurer (Mr.

McKeough) will face this coming year and forever in the future, is a growing responsibility to use public funds and more public initiative to meet the housing problems that have assumed crisis proportions in the last few weeks, few months, few years. It appears that the solution is not as simple as some politicians and some developers have said. But we must be sure that these Draconian solutions are not going to be -- It is important that we recognize that all communities do not have the same problems.

In the city of Brantford, for example, it is possible to go out and buy a single-family dwelling now for a price of about $36,000. I am told that there are those available on that basis right now, if anybody wants to move into that charming city with all sorts of jobs available. So the problems differ from one part of the province to the other.

I reject the comments made by some that this is socialist legislation. I consider it to be important social legislation. I call to your attention again that we have supported this concept consistently for the last two years. I say again, a good deal of the credit for the development of public acceptance of this concept must go with my colleague, the member for St. George, who will be active in the committee offering amendments on behalf of my party.

Mr. Martel: People from Toronto didn’t believe you.

Mr. Nixon: More of them voted for us than voted for you.

Mr. Martel: People in Toronto didn’t believe you.

Mr. Gaunt: We get more votes in Toronto than you did. Oh, yes we did.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s all right. We know how that happened.

Mr. Nixon: Most of the seats are empty.

Mr. Roy: Elie, in 1971 you were talking percentages.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon member for Etobicoke has the floor.

[3:45]

Mr. Philip: If I might have a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, after the oratorical sonorosity of the last speaker.

Mr. Nixon: Take as long as you want and try to be sonorous. Otherwise we won’t listen.

Mr. Philip: No doubt the hon. member for St. George managed to summarize their position with greater brevity, and perhaps if the last speaker had listened to her he wouldn’t have needed to give his long and ponderous speech in the first place.

Mr. Sweeney: Where were you when the guy in front of you spoke?

Mr. Nixon: Another typical tight halo that goes with the NDP.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if we could get to the principle of the bill?

An hon. member: They’ll never learn.

Mr. Philip: I am concerned about two exceptions in the bill. In my riding many small manufacturers and service industries are feeling the pinch. The cost of renting space is skyrocketing at a pace that makes it extremely hard for them to be competitive with industries in other parts of the province, and indeed in other provinces. I find that more and more of the businessmen in my community are coming to me with the problem of how to remain competitive if something is not done regarding the rental space of industrial and retail operations.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They do what they have been doing all along -- they raise their prices.

Mr. Philip: They raise their prices and then they are not competitive; that’s the problem.

The other problem that I am concerned about is the Ontario Housing units being excluded. Over the years we have constantly been labelling these people; we have been setting them apart as people who are somehow different. The implication of this singling out is more serious, I would suggest, than are the dollars and cents issues involved.

Many of the Conservative Party members I have talked to are concerned about the whole process of labelling through management training. Many of them who have undergone programmes will tell you that people live up to the kinds of expectations and self-images that other people give them. Yet what we are constantly trying to do with people who are so-called poor is to tell them they are a part of this society. Here we have taken a group of them, labelled them as something that is somehow different and put them once more in a ghetto -- once more set aside from the rest of society. I think it should be reconsidered.

Mr. Good: The matter of doing something regarding the rental situation in Ontario, I think, has been brought about basically by two conditions: First, the peculiar rental situation in Metropolitan Toronto and, second, the general inflationary conditions that have affected all prices and wages across Canada and particularly in Ontario.

I think it is significant that we must be dealing with the rental situation in Ontario at a time when anti-inflation legislation is being put in place all across Canada. I think we must look at this legislation, because the bill deals with increases made during the period July 29, 1975, to Aug. 1, 1977.

I think we should all work towards that end, in spite of the position of the federal NDP. They feel the anti-inflation legislation and the programmes put into place federally will do something toward containing the high cost of living in Ontario as it relates not only to other commodities but also to rent.

Some will argue -- and I must agree -- that in many parts of Ontario this legislation will not be necessary, and could do more harm than good.

I would like to elaborate a little on the words of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) as to the situation in our own area. We have a free marketplace in rental units. When students leave the university at the end of May we have a 10 per cent vacancy rate through June, July and August in the twin cities. People can move at will and find the best accommodation. True, the situation does get tight when the university students come back in the fall. Only in those conditions have I heard of any cases of rent gouging.

Here you have a small minority, a small group of people who want to take advantage of a particular situation. Therefore I feel strongly that legislation to deal with particular and specific cases such as that is most important. However, contrasting the situation in my own area is the situation in Metro. I would like to review a few of the figures in the “twin cities” area.

Last June, there was a 10.4 per cent vacancy rate in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, while the survey of December, 1974, showed that there was a 7.5 per cent vacancy rate. I have listed before me various apartment buildings and I would like to just give a few of the increases that have occurred.

The increases in high-rise have been somewhat lower than those in the solid walk-up; in other words, the rent variation seems to be less in the higher rental units than those in the lower rental units. In the period from 1966 to 1975, rent increases in various apartment buildings have varied from a low of 10 per cent to a high of 40 per cent over a 10-year period. There must be added to those figures an across-the-board increase of about $20 that was put in last fall.

We find that at Surrey Place, a rather distinguished apartment building in Kitchener, the rents were $160 for one bedroom and $180 for two bedrooms. They will have attached to that a $20 increase, which would bring them beyond the limits of this bill. Even at that, the rental increases with the additional $20 over the past 10 years would have been only 41 per cent and 38 per cent, respectively, on the one- and two-bedroom apartments.

So, we see that many landlords in our area, by applying an eight per cent annual increase, will be able to raise rents more than they have during the past four-, five- or 10-year period.

I think our position on rent review, which would have dealt with unconscionable increases, or complaints from landlords, would have been more practical than any separate and straight freeze.

That is a situation where the marketplace has been free and where it has kept rents down. Contrasting with that, look at the report of the Metropolitan Toronto Social Planning Council. They show explicitly that the rent increases in Metro are not related to return on investment, they are related to the ability of certain landlords to get larger rents because there just isn’t the rental accommodation.

In 1968, there were 30,000 dwelling unit starts in Metropolitan Toronto. This number decreased and in 1972 was down to 21,000; in 1973 down to 29,000; in 1974 down to 16,000. In 1975, the predicted number of dwelling starts in Metropolitan Toronto is down to 9,000 units.

That is where the Minister of Housing’s problem is. It has been the lack of direction of this government to move some of these 50,000 or 60,000 people a year who come into Metropolitan Toronto, to create incentives in other parts of this province so that people don’t flock to Metropolitan Toronto. This was what was promised in 1971 when the government brought in the Toronto-Centred Region Plan.

This government was to disperse the population of Toronto, start growth in other centres where it was needed and bring vitality to industrial areas of the province other than Metro. But we still have the 50,000 or 69,000 people a year trying to crowd into Metropolitan Toronto. Government statistics show that the dwelling starts have gone down and the population has increased. There is such a tight rental situation that there is no free market.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How do you make people move?

Mr. Good: There is no free market, The government hasn’t done anything to encourage people. It doesn’t make people move.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How do you do that? You have all the easy answers.

Mr. Roy: Through incentives, taxes and so on.

Mr. Good: Carry out some of the promises that were made back in 1972 when the government introduced the Toronto-Centred Region Plan.

Mr. Laughren: The member for Waterloo North wouldn’t interfere with the free-enterprise system, would he?

Mr. Good: This government has failed in its responsibility --

Mr. Riddell: People will move where the jobs are.

Mr. Good: -- because this government has faded in its responsibility to do something about the conditions --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How do you do it?

Mr. Roy: They’ve done it in other areas. You start with a provincial plan.

Mr. Good: -- because this government has refused to do something --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How do you do it?

Mr. Good: -- about the problems of Metropolitan Toronto and everyone moving in. You end up with a Band-Aid solution to a problem which should never have existed. There are in my view, some inequities in the bill being imposed upon the province when it really should have been designed for Metropolitan Toronto and other municipalities where it was required or wanted or needed. Certainly, the matter of the freeze from last July until the end of the year, allowing an eight per cent increase, is not going to solve the problems that have arisen by unconscionable increases.

I would sooner see what has happened up to now dealt with on a review basis where people who have had terrific increases could complain. I think the

section which would allow the put-through of additional costs in the bill, if used properly, could be adequate where increased costs can be justified.

One apartment owner has shown me how his costs have increased; he has had to refinance a seven per cent mortgage on a 10-year term, and one can only imagine that the refinancing of a seven per cent mortgage is going to require at least an additional five or 5½ percentage points of interest to be paid. That’s got to reflect on the rents alone close to the eight per cent increase; when you add that to the price increase of fuel oil for this winter of 4.5 cents a gallon, there is no equity, there is no fairness in the method of dealing with increases from last July until this December. The minister must know this.

It’s a brave move. You say, “Let everybody, whether it’s right or not, come under this one umbrella.” There will be more equity starting Jan. 1, and I dare say that the rollback of the starting date is not the solution. You are just going to create more inequities to try and catch a few other rent gougers. That’s not the solution.

The approach up until the end of this year, in my view, is very poor. It’s a Band-Aid solution, it’s typical of the way this government reacts to crises. They did it with the farm tax rebate. Rather than figure out what the real inequities were in the taxation system relating to farmers they suddenly said: “Give them a quarter of their taxes back.” The next year they said, “Give them half their taxes back.” And up to now, no one’s even interested in figuring out what is a fair and equitable solution to the problem.

This government reacts suddenly with Band-Aid solutions which are neither thought out nor fair in their application.

I think that the matters spoken on previously are of great concern. The matter of fairness is non-existent when it comes to the past few months up to the end of this year. The old wartime prices and trade board controls were fairer than this legislation. And I was a renter in the services at that time. It was great, because many landlords would go down and say: “What is a fair market value for my suite or my apartment?” And the board would measure up the square footage, look at the cost of construction and everything else, and set the rent. And in many cases the rents were larger than was being charged where the rent was unusually low; in other cases they were rolled back in those areas.

Even though we wouldn’t want that situation in peacetime, people adhered to it, and there was, at least, equity in it. In many instances there is no equity in this.

We can’t leave out units under four. Look at the townhouse situation. Will they be considered as single units and be exempt from it? Many large builders had rows and rows of townhouses which are perhaps, according to this, going to be excluded. I don’t think that should be the intent. If you want to really do an anti-inflation job, limit the increases to eight per cent according to federal guidelines -- and that’s how I think we have to look on this legislation -- that part of it at least -- as anti-inflation legislation.

[4:00]

I don’t think the minister can limit triplexes and fourplexes just because they have those units. It will distort the whole picture. The big builders don’t usually build that type of unit; they build high-rise. In our area it takes a year and a half to fill a high-rise after it’s built. I can show you one, two, three which I know of in the Waterloo area which have been renting for a year now and I don’t think they are more than three-quarters filled. It takes time to fill those units.

I think to bring some equity in the minister will have to look at some of these peculiar situations in which he has to make it fair and equitable to all landlords so everyone is competing on an equal basis. I think it could well have an effect on future building. I am not too concerned about that because I have heard people complain before but they go ahead and live with it.

I remember when we passed the old Landlord and Tenant Act back in 1969 the landlords were all going to go out of business then. Well, they didn’t. Mind you, housing starts went down in Metro. I think they can live with the new regulations if they are fair and equitable.

I support this bill. I think it is going to make people realize that we have to live within the federal anti-inflation guidelines. The people over here in the NDP think they have a corner on everything which is good and reasonable. They are so tied up with their own rhetoric and their own emotionalism on these issues.

Mr. Cassidy: You are finding that third party status awfully hard to bear.

Mr. Roy: It is just a temporary situation, Mike.

Mr. Good: They can’t even see the validity in this. I don’t suppose there is one of them over there who has ever embarked on a business venture for which they have had to borrow money or raise money by mortgage and things like that to try to make a deal and to make things go.

Mr. Cassidy: Of course, there are.

Mr. Good: They are so enthralled with any legislation which will bring control to government --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They are all teachers and preachers.

Mr. Good: That’s about it. Or union holler guys.

Mr. Ferrier: Your customers never talk back to you.

Mr. Good: We support the legislation. I hope some of the inequities will be cleared up in committee.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, my heart bleeds for the people who have just been talked about by my hon. friend from Kitchener.

One thing I think this legislation ignores completely and, perhaps, must ignore if we are going to move ahead with any system of rent controls, is the capital gains situation over the past dozen years in the whole apartment field. I was talking to an apartment developer not too long ago and he admitted to me that he had built a building for a certain amount of money, $1 million or so. It was now worth twice that, at least $2 million.

This original rent was based upon the $1 million valuation but now he is able to go into the market and raise another mortgage for $800,000 or so and that is incorporated into the rent structure of that same building. With the $800,000 he is now building another building and he is incorporating --

Mr. Warner: Milk the tenants.

Mr. Young: -- that $800,000 into the rent structure of the new building; in other words, twice.

Mr. Good: Terrible inflation and your people oppose the anti-inflation guidelines. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Mr. Young: All I am saying is that over the years --

Mr. Good: You are opposing the legislation.

Mr. Laughren: Because it is discriminatory legislation, that’s why.

Mr. Warner: Milking the tenants.

Mr. Young: All I am saying is that over the years inflation has been very kind to the landlords and has been a little tough on the tenants.

Mr. Good: What’s your house at? Has it gone up or down in the last 10 years?

Mr. Young: I am not concerned that we try to roll values back to 10 years ago; I don’t think that is possible.

I think we have to keep in mind, when we shed the tears, that that increase in value, that inflation, has been very kind to the man who built some years ago; it’s not so kind to the fellow who is building now, I agree. It’s very kind to the man who built some years ago and who, over the last 10 years or so, likely has written off the capital he put first into that building. He is still charging rents based on today’s values. I think this is a thing we have to look at and something we have to recognize.

Other members here have talked about the drying up of the market and the member quoted figures about the drying up of the market. Sure, we have seen a drop in the construction of new rental units. That’s true. If you go to a garage and the mechanic says, “I’ve got your car fixed” -- he has ground the valves -- and you try it out and say to him, “Somehow or other the car doesn’t work very well,” if he hasn’t put in new sparkplugs when they were obviously worn out, then you’re trying to drive that car which had a valve job, while ignoring the sparkplug problem.

When it comes to building, to rent control, to apartments, rent control by itself is a futile gesture unless we also embark on an overall programme of planning for production of housing. This is the thing, I think, the minister must realize.

Mr. Roy: Now you are starting to see the light.

Mr. Young: I read the other night in the Toronto Star an

article by that great socialist Jack McArthur entitled, “Housing crisis: Economists say controls cause it.”

Mr. Martel: It’s right on.

Mr. Young: Right on.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Okay, I am not arguing.

Interjections.

Mr. Young: Among other things, he talks about the drop of housing construction and he blames rent controls for it. He’s saying to the minister that he has to recognize that if he is going to put this bill into effect, then he’s going iii see a diminution of building.

He quotes Sweden as part of this picture. He quotes a certain writer as saying:

“The gradual abolition of rent control since 1958 ... has meant a gradual reduction in the housing shortage ... replaced by a surplus.”

This is the old argument that’s always trotted out, that in countries like Sweden rent controls were tried and housing diminished. Then gradually controls were abolished and now there was a surplus of housing. A surplus is something new for Sweden because it used to be that the figures showed a very great shortage.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: All the Swedes left that socialist country. They are in Australia now. They left. They couldn’t afford the taxes.

Mr. Young: Oh, is that so? For some reason the population has gone up in Sweden. Maybe there’s been a lot of activity there at home. In any case, the population has increased.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You haven’t checked lately what’s happening in Sweden.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Yorkview has the floor. Order, please.

Mr. Young: It used to be, Mr. Speaker, that when youngsters in Sweden got to be 16 they registered for housing, because by the time they were married and needed housing they might be in line by that time. The housing shortage was very desperate.

Interjections.

Mr. Young: McArthur says they’ve now turned it into a surplus because they have abolished rent control. What he doesn’t say is that since the early 50s and before, the Swedes have very carefully prepared building of housing. They had had careful planning ahead for five, 10 and 15 years. They have had economic and planning controls. They have gone ahead with the whole idea that in so many years’ time, they’re going to have enough houses for their people. They deliberately set out to do that.

Within the planning structure about one-third of their housing is built for the well-to-do, those people over the $500 rent. They leave that to the private sector as long as they build within the plan, for it’s a social and economic plan within which they must build and they must observe the guidelines. About a third is co-operative housing, housing in which the government plays a major role in financing and direction. The other third is public housing built by public authority and financed by public authority.

In other words, this kind of planning over the years has resulted in their ability now to gradually reduce and eliminate the controls on rents. This is a lesson, I think, all of us have to learn, that there shouldn’t be rent control without planning for the future -- without looking ahead and outlining what we want in the way of housing for the people in Ontario 10 and 15 years from now and then deliberately setting up the machinery to build those houses.

Our trouble has been that while we talk about rent control, we pathetically are leaving the construction and planning of housing, in too large a measure, to what we call private enterprise. No country in the world has succeeded in building housing for its people when it left it entirely to the private market to do it. It has had to enter this field constructively, with long-term plans to do the job.

I am saying that the rent control legislation -- good as it may be now -- without the other plan is like trying to fix a motor which needs a new sparkplug by simply grinding the valves. You can’t do one without the other and hope to succeed.

I want to add my plea to other members who have spoken here on this bill in respect to Ontario Housing -- I think I have in my riding more Ontario Housing units than any other single member in this province. I know the argument is that Ontario Housing is already controlled in that it is pegged to something like 25 per cent of the income of a person, so we say he is going to be protected. With the federal wage control -- those wages likely can’t go up more than eight per cent to 10 per cent over the next year or two or whatever. Then, within that protection, we say they are protected.

But, the fact is that these people want to feel that they are part of the total community; they want to feel that protection of a rent controller, even though it may not be as important to them -- and I admit it -- as it is to many others outside the Ontario Housing field. But I think they should come under this umbrella, that they should feel secure that the rent control provisions apply to them as well.

There are a couple of things I want to mention to the minister too. I ran into two instances the other day which rather disturbed me -- they are amply illustrative of what is happening in this field.

First of all, I had a tenant speak to me about an increase in his rent from $190 to $235. But there was a stipulation in that, that if he paid on time he would get a $10 discount. In other words, the landlord was establishing a base rate of $235 when he should have been talking of $225. So, that when the minister’s rent review comes into effect his base rate is now $235 not the actual $225 which in the ordinary course of events is paid by the tenant on time.

The second one was a lease which I have in my hands where the landlord, up to this year, has been looking after the repairs to the various amenities which he provides and which he owns and which should be his.

But, in the new lease it says that this person is to pay a certain amount of money -- $361 per month, up by about 35 per cent from his former lease -- but, it also writes in these words: “The tenant agrees to pay for following services applicable to the rented premises: electricity [that is understandable]; other repairs to washer, dryer, and furnace.” The tenants must now keep the furnace, the washer and dryer in repair. This is an expense he did not have before and is a smart way on the part of the landlord to raise the rent. This is the effect of it.

I also had another complaint where a chap forgot his key and asked the superintendent of the building to come up and open his door. That’s perhaps an inconvenience to the superintendent, but it was the regulation in that building -- and I have found since that it is also the regulation of many others -- that the tenant had to pay $5 for that service. It took the superintendent, I suppose, 10 minutes to open the door, and for the forgetfulness there was the penalty of $5 levied against the tenant. Perhaps it’s a no bigger fee than the proverbial plumber gets, or the TV repairman, but it’s another smart way by which the landlord is able to raise the levy on his rents.

[4:15]

I think that is about all that I wanted to say today. I think these are important things which must be taken into account by the minister, particularly the fact that along with this legislation must inevitably go the long-term planning, which I hope he is undertaking, to build housing and not leave it entirely to the private sector of the economy, He himself must give leadership and this government must give leadership to see that massive homebuilding is undertaken and that the people of Ontario are properly housed within the foreseeable future.

Mr. Sargent: I know that the minister himself is against this legislation, but I understand he rapes very easily and he’s going along with the government’s need to acquiesce to the needs of the day. I, too, am against gouging.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s the Lone Ranger.

Mr. Sargent: Pardon?

Mr. Hodgson: What was that big deal that was announced this morning on the radio?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is the Lone Ranger. Who are you?

Mr. Sargent: John, are you in favour of this bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would return to the principle, and the other hon. members give him the courtesy to listen?

Mr. Roy: He is being interrupted by the minister.

Mr. Ferrier: Don’t let them intimidate you, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: We have in our area a gouging of 20 to 30 per cent increases in rent. We have landlords posting notices to tenants --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And that’s just in the hotel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Room rent.

Mr. Sargent: -- that they will get a $20 penalty if they are one day late paying their rent.

Mr. Martel: That isn’t even for the room.

Mr. Sargent: I am also against, and I decry the fact, not only that hundreds of thousands of our young couples coming into the home market today will never own their own homes --

Mr. Martel: That’s the mortgage rates charged by Ottawa.

Mr. Sargent: Right on, Elie. But they will never even have an apartment because, with this legislation, I firmly believe that there is no incentive for the private sector to build apartments.

Mr. Roy: That’s right, isn’t it?

Mr. Sargent: I happen to know. I had approval myself to build 240 apartments on land I owned; I had approval for the complete go-ahead to build apartments. When I went to the financing of it I found out that at the current price of money at 12 percent, if I built 240 apartments to rent at $200 a month I would be losing money. It would be all for nought.

This is a fact, and I tell you that there will never be any more apartments built in the private sector from here on in. There is not an apartment project on in this whole city by the private sector because, realistically, it’s a dead end street. You cannot get by on it.

Mr. Martel: You should fire Trudeau who allows the mortgage rates --

Mr. Sargent: I’ll get back to you.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: You ran in the election against him, and you didn’t make out too well, Elie.

Mr. Martel: We did wel