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

April 15, 1975

29th Parliament, 5th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

LIQUOR LEGISLATION

FIRE SAFETY ON LICENSED PREMISES

ENTERTAINMENT IN LICENSED PREMISES

CONDITIONS AT DON JAIL

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

EMERGENCY QUARTERS FOR CABINET

MINISTER’S STATEMENT ABOUT EQUAL PAY

PROTECTION FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

ONTARIO HYDRO POLICY

ONTARIO HYDRO POLICY ON AGRICULTURAL SUPERVISORS

LAWYERS’ TRUST FUNDS

HURON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

RENT CONTROLS

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

HAMILTON AREA HOME PROGRAMMES STANDARDS

HALTON REGIONAL COUNCIL OHAP LOAN

EFFLUENT AT INCO PLANT

ODC LENDING POLICY

OMERS PENSION BENEFITS

HAZARDS IN KITCHENER AREA PLANTS

LIQUOR CONTROL ACT

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

ATHLETICS CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECLAMATION COMMISSION ACT

ONTARIO HOME BUYERS GRANT ACT

ONTARIO LOAN ACT

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Legislature, 30 grade 12 students from the Barrie District Central Collegiate Institute and give them a very hearty welcome.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take the time to introduce a class of students from a little place in northern Ontario called MacDuff. There is a pulp operation up there and a hamlet with about 150 people living there. I have students from there today, grades 7 and 8, with their chaperones, their two teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Pierre Lacombe, and Mrs. Morin. I’d like the House to welcome them at this time.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I’d like the House to welcome a group of students from the G. B. Warren Junior High School in Yorkview with their teachers who are here today. They have been here since 10 o’clock this morning and are enjoying their visit to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sure the hon. members will also join me in welcoming to the Speaker’s gallery this afternoon the hon. Gerard Amerongen, QC, MLA, the Speaker of the legislative assembly of the Province of Alberta, and Mrs. Amerongen.

Speaker Amerongen was in Ottawa, along with other Speakers from across Canada, to attend the annual Speakers’ conference last weekend. I am delighted that he and Mrs. Amerongen were able to spend some time visiting Toronto and our Legislature this afternoon. Thank you.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): We’ll give them a good show.

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): In the west gallery I would like the hon. members to welcome six Rotarians from the Philippines who are being hosted by the Rotary Club of Burlington.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

LIQUOR LEGISLATION

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing for first reading two important pieces of legislation -- a new Liquor Control Act and a new Liquor Licence Act. Both will replace existing legislation.

Mr. S. Lewis: (Scarborough West): An announcement a day.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Further, within a few days we will begin distribution of a suggested code of administrative procedures under the Liquor Licence Act of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the review of liquor laws in Ontario was carried out over a two-year period and involved consultation with many groups and individuals. Their concerns ranged from the economics of sunning a licensed establishment to the impact of alcohol consumption on provincial health and social programmes.

In our review, it became clear to us that the issues are much broader than most people anticipated. As part of our deliberations, we have had to look at the quality of life the people of Ontario want and how the use and abuse of alcohol can have an impact on it. Most people recognize that moderate consumption of alcohol is socially acceptable. But alcohol abuse results in significant economic and social cost.

The provincial government is responsible for coping with the excesses and the problems associated with alcohol abuse. These problems increase as alcohol consumption rises, a relationship which appears to be applicable world-wide.

Mr. Lewis: We could have a royal commission to investigate it.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We could appoint the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston) as the chairman.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I won’t send over that picture of the leader of the NDP and his orgy in Ottawa, but he’ll be seeing it --

Mr. Lewis: I had an orgy in Ottawa? I want the picture.

Mr. Roy: That was a good advertisement for Labatt’s.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will send the picture over to the member.

Therefore, we decided that much is right with the way liquor is sold in this province. We have rejected foreign drinking standards. There is nothing particularly desirable, for instance, about drinking customs which fill one in every two French hospital beds with alcohol-related disease.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Is that a slur on the Frenchmen?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would like to review for the House some of the major decisions reflected in the two Acts.

First, the distribution of alcohol will remain the sole responsibility of the Ontario government. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario may take justifiable pride in its efficiency and the selection of products it provides. More than 530 stores now offer 1,975 different products, and its quality control and testing standards are second to none.

Distribution and sales will continue to be managed by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. All other regulatory activities will be transferred to the Liquor Licence Board operating under the new Liquor Licence Act.

There will be an appeal procedure from all decisions of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to a newly created appeal tribunal, with a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Ontario on matters of law. This policy follows the McRuer report and provides protection against arbitrary or inconsistent decisions.

The liquor licence policies will be codified under the Liquor Licence Act. This will ensure that licensees and applicants are fully aware of their responsibilities to conform to this written code. Failure to do so will imperil their privilege of obtaining or holding a licence to dispense liquor.

There will also be a number of recommendations involving special-occasion permits in the suggested code. The fact that special-occasion permits are now being issued at an annual rate of 170,000 suggests further clarification of the guidelines.

Two permanent advisory committees to the minister will be established to help monitor continuing changes in social attitudes and ensure that we remain responsive to all viewpoints on alcohol consumption.

Mr. Lewis: They are running amuck with committees.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: One committee will deal with special-occasion permits and --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Providing jobs for the back-benches.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- the other with concerns on overall liquor policy.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Is the government trying to create an Ontario senate?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will be looking for detailed study and comments from the public, the industry and members of this House, before this legislation is finalized.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) be the chairman?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Changes in the organizational structure and administrative procedures of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, many of which have already been implemented, will improve the manner in which applications, inquiries, and recommendations are handled. In addition, we plan to decentralize the function of approving and issuing special-occasion permits.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Your friendly local liquor office.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Another proposed change will mean one public hearing for new licence applicants. Under the new Acts, the community can become more directly involved. Citizens will be able to express their views at these hearings in much the same way as they are now involved in determining questions of community growth. Responsibility for advertising new applications will be assumed by the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, one area of change which I am sure will be of interest to all members is clarification of the duties of inspectors. In addition to a clearly defined inspection role, they will assume as one of their primary functions the role of advising and counselling licensees and new applicants. We are also working with municipal jurisdictions and other ministries to eliminate duplication of inspection.

Another area I should also mention is communication. Efforts are already under way to improve the way the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario communicates with licensees and the public. Future changes in legislation, regulation or procedure will be communicated to licensees in writing. Work has also begun on a number of brochures to help new applicants and to inform licensees as to how they can maintain the high standards the Ontario government demands.

Mr. Lewis: The Ontario government’s summer employment programme.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I have talked about change, and indeed many changes are taking place. Improvements have already been initiated. I now look forward to receiving the advice and counsel of all members of this House on the proposed legislation. In addition, I welcome submissions from the public and the industry as we continue our studies.

Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank those people who participated over the past two years with my predecessor, the Attorney General (Mr. Clement), in the preparation of the new legislation and the suggested code. Some of them are in the gallery today and I know that they look on this as a culmination of long, hard, but most rewarding work.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The leader of the Opposition.

FIRE SAFETY ON LICENSED PREMISES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister who just spoke if he took into consideration in forming the bill, the recommendations of the inquest into the fire in Paris, Ont., which resulted in the death of, I believe, five men in a hotel there. Is he changing the requirements for fire inspections so it is clear that the responsibility in no way lies with the Liquor Licence Board or the Liquor Control Board or any of its emanations, but is a municipal responsibility under the jurisdiction of the fire marshal?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at the present time, there is a policy of the Liquor Licence Board that all licensed premises must conform to the fire marshal’s requirements and in order to enforce that, it has been the responsibility of the liquor licence inspectors under the authority of the fire marshal to establish whether or not those standards have in fact been met.

In the new suggested code, which will be distributed within a couple of days, we are leaving the code silent on the issue because we do feel, and I think most members of the House will agree, that fire prevention and fire protection should be under the sole jurisdiction of the Solicitor General and the fire marshal’s department.

There will be a problem, of course, because at the present time the fire marshal simply does not have the resources either in manpower or funds to carry out a complete fire prevention function. There will be a transitional period during which there will probably be more than just the liquor licence inspector involved in this very very important work.

ENTERTAINMENT IN LICENSED PREMISES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I may, can the minister tell the House what decision was made about the chairman of the liquor commission’s control over the suitability or otherwise of entertainment in licensed premises?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, again in the suggested code for administrative procedure, it will be silent on the issue.

Mr. Deans: Will he be silent on the issue? That is the question.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would hope that members of the public and the industry will make suggestions --

Mr. Lewis: It is a pretty imaginative code.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- because we are concerned about the possibility of entertainment standards being very low in licensed premises and particularly that minors may be exposed to certain standards of entertainment without knowing what they are going to be exposed to.

Mr. Foulds: Sort of like violence on television.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would like to see licensed premises at least announce to people exactly the kind of entertainment they are about to show --

Mr. Roy: I think we should have a royal commission on that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- so that people can be forewarned before they enter licensed premises and therefore can avoid anything which may be distasteful to them personally, because now they have no way of knowing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We should leave that to the police.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park, a supplementary.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Yes. I am afraid I don’t understand. When the minister says the code is silent, does that mean it is for the present time, inasmuch as he will instruct Mr. Mackey to keep out of that field?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at the present time there is no regulation which would require Mr. Mackey not to use his judgement or that of the members of the board in determining whether or not a licence should continue to be in force.

Mr. Shulman: Silent only where it’s important.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Deans: The code can’t be silent if it will help him make those decisions.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary of the minister about his statement today about the code. Will there be anything in the code dealing with the discrimination by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario against women, who can work only part-time in self-serve stores and cannot work at all in other stores? How are they expected to earn a living?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the code, of course, is designed to govern the manufacture, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol beverages and therefore it, too, will be silent on the issue my hon. friend raises.

Mr. Shulman: A very silent code.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Silent indeed.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Surely the minister recognizes that if the code is silent on the board’s right to dictate what is or what is not an appropriate level of entertainment, he has granted the board that right and since Mr. Mackey has abused that right in the past, why does the minister invite him to abuse it in the future?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t quite follow the member. One doesn’t give power by being silent on an issue.

Mr. Lewis: One doesn’t remove it by being silent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: it is exactly how the minister did it before.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The code, when it is finally passed -- which it hasn’t been and we are waiting for a feedback from the public -- will not at the present time, as it is being distributed, say whether or not the board will have any jurisdiction over entertainment standards.

Mr. Lewis: So they will continue to exercise it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, they won’t. They cannot exercise a right which has not been given to them.

Mr. Shulman: it is not in the code now but they exercise it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They will continue under the present regulations until they are replaced by the new Act and the new regulations.

Mr. Shulman: Why doesn’t the minister do that now if it’s not in the present law?

Mr. Lewis: The minister said he would leave it to his good judgement.

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

Order, please.

The Leader of the Opposition.

CONDITIONS AT DON JAIL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Attorney General if he has read the report of the grand jury which brings to public attention the fact that conditions in the Don Jail are such that they recommend it be evacuated until it be cleaned up? I ask the minister in the absence of his colleagues, has he read it and is the government considering a course of action?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): No, Mr. Speaker, I have not read that particular document.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, surely the Attorney General should not have to read yet another complaint about the Don Jail to recognize that it is old, tired and useless and should be replaced. Can the minister tell us when the Don Jail is going to be replaced so that we won’t continue to be embarrassed by reports of grand juries such as this one?

Mr. Roy: It’s even in better shape than the member for Scarborough Centre.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the members as to the age and the physical condition of the Don Jail. There is a matter of physical implications to be considered; I personally would support a replacement of the Don Jail. I haven’t had the opportunity to visit it since I was a law student and it seemed rather ancient at that time which, as members know, wouldn’t be many years ago.

Mr. Singer: Yes, even as far back as that time.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It has aged even more rapidly.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would support it, but again the overall matter of physical priority is being dealt with by the Ministry of Correctional Services. I can’t give any estimate at this time as to when it may be replaced. Perhaps when my colleague, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter) is in the House, he might have some better views on it.

Mr. Singer: The Provincial Secretary for Justice is supposed to know all about the operations of these things.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD BARGAINING LEGISLATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Provincial Secretary for --

Mr. Breithaupt: The social secretary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you very much; the social secretary? Can the minister inform the House when we might expect the long-promised legislation dealing with teacher-board negotiations now that the situation in Ottawa has apparently been settled? Is it now appropriate that the government move by way of introduction of this legislation, and can she tell us, as a matter of policy, if we can expect it at this session?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge it still is a matter under consideration by the policy field.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can the minister tell us if there has been a commitment on the part of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) for herself as policy secretary that the bill will not be introduced until there has been consultation with the trustees and the teachers’ organizations concerned?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the member direct that question to the Minister of Education. I have made no such commitment.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: However, the minister would, I take it, be prepared to concede that the bill in its present draft form, ready for submission to the Legislature, gives to the teaching profession the right to strike? That is no longer a quietly-held confidence; she can now admit that?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That information will be revealed in due course. Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: It was about to be revealed at this point. You pre-empted a revelation.

EMERGENCY QUARTERS FOR CABINET

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If I have a moment, I would like to ask the Attorney General, the Provincial Secretary for Justice, if he can assure us that the famous bunker up at Camp Borden, which is prepared to receive the minister and his colleagues in the event of atomic war, is going to be dispensed with? Is that closed down? We saw a picture of it in the paper the other day. Is there really a fuehrer bunker np there ready to receive the powers of government in the event that it’s necessary?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I think the are all up there today.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I haven’t seen the bunker, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Clement: If the Leader of the Opposition insists, I would be glad to go up and have a look at it. I am glad he is concerned about my physical safety; I really didn’t think he cared.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I do, I do.

Mr. Breithaupt: We just want to know where to drop them, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Don’t worry. The members have dropped a few in the past and they didn’t do much good.

Mr. Lewis: In the event of attack, the leaders of the opposition parties would also be invited, would they?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have not personally been up to that particular piece of construction but if the members would like me to, I would undertake to go up there and come back and report to the House as to what I see.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a supplementary, I wonder if the minister can explain, since he is not sure whether or not it is going to be kept open, are there arrangements made so that a selected group of Conservative backbenchers can be saved so that the future of the universe can be assured?

Mr. Breithaupt: We don’t want to endanger the species.

Mr. Roy: For posterity purposes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Is the member advising, perhaps, a task force on procreation of Tories, is that it? In which case, I will take the question as notice.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West with his questions.

MINISTER’S STATEMENT ABOUT EQUAL PAY

Mr. Lewis: If I can direct a question to the Minister of Labour, who is expecting it, I am sure, Mr. Speaker: What caused him to lose possession of his faculties last night and say on a public platform that society is not sold, the public is not ready to accept the concept of equal pay for equal work and therefore he wasn’t prepared to embody it to the full extent in legislation?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly surprised at the question. I do have trouble when it gets to dealing with the women, I am afraid, sir.

Mr. Cassidy: He sure does.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I did get into some trouble yesterday and I think maybe it’s time I turned to the Bible.

Mr. Lewis: I know the minister has prepared his answer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is that going to save him?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think I have to find something to say. I am thinking of the New Testament, sir, where --

Mr. Lewis: Is that the Old Testament or the New?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- there is the parable about the workers going into the field and you will recall that they went in at different hours.

An hon. member: It was a vineyard.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s right, it was the vineyard. I am not as familiar with the Bible as I should be. They received different rates of wages, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Foulds: The same rates of pay.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That may be a pretty old parable --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, order.

An hon. member: They have more clergymen over there. The minister can’t win.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, it may be somewhat of an outdated philosophy but at the same time it’s the point I am trying to make in regard to what many of the outspoken women of this province would like us to enact in legislation -- that is, the words “equal pay for work of equal value.” I have tried to explain, perhaps not very successfully, the difficulty of enacting those words.

Our legislation, as embodied in

section 33 of the Employment Standards Act, and I won’t take the House’s time to read it, is as advanced as any that one will find in any of the western jurisdictions. It is good legislation and it does make a comparison as far as women being assured of the same pay as men in a particular spot.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Not even in the government.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The trouble is that if we put into legislation equal pay for work of equal value, then what are we going to compare it with? I use the phrase that there is no legislation here that assures two men, working under similar circumstances under the same employment, will get equal pay for work of equal value.

Mr. Lewis: Even the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Winkler) did it for the civil servants.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Well, we should have it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Maybe there should be, but I’m not so sure that we all want to be put in that box. Who, for instance, is going to determine what equal value is?

Mr. Lewis: Some independent assessment.

Mr. Breithaupt: Look around.

Mr. Lewis: I can see the minister is embarrassed by last night, but he’s overdoing it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, it’s nonsense. One can determine value. The minister is becoming more discriminatory as he goes along.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I said, who would be the one to determine my value to the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Bullbrook: And what did your wife say?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: She looked at me with a rather jaundiced eye, sir, and indicated that my value wasn’t too high to the province. That’s the sort of thing I say one is into if he is going to --

Mr. Bullbrook: Who asked this question?

Mr. Lewis: I’m sorry, I did.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- enact equal pay for work of equal value. One has to categorize all of these jobs and somebody has to determine the value of the work produced.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is just digging it deeper and deeper and deeper.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is the kind of thing that I say would be impossible to administer, and that’s what I meant when I said the province isn’t ready for it at this time.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Doesn’t the minister understand that when he says the legislation now in effect does as much as society is prepared to accept, and when he provides that kind of answer in this House, what he is saying is that he will doom women in Ontario to unequal pay for equal work as a matter of government policy?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what he is doing.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I say there’s good legislation there and we are anxious to have it put to the test. We feel it is adequate to do the job that we want it to do, sir.

Mr. Lewis: Put to the test!

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Does the minister not realize, though, that it is not that society is not ready to accept it, but that he is unwilling to administer it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That of course, sir, is not the case.

Mr. Foulds: That’s exactly what the minister has just said.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this ministry does, in fact, classify many jobs across this province, why is it so difficult for him to conduct a job evaluation in other areas? Why is it that he and his own government consistently have women serving in virtually the same, if you like, classifications with different titles at different rates of pay?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as far as the government is concerned, that is under active review at the present time --

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, come on!

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- and that will be adjusted, if adjustments are warranted. In industry there’s no great problem. Through union agreements, these things are done all the time. But if one looks at the many non-unionized sectors across this province, and I refer to any general office, it would just be a nightmarish job with the bureaucracy that would be required. I say it’s a good theory, but one would need so many people to administer this --

Mrs. Campbell: Try it now.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- to go across the province and determine the value of one job as against another job in private industry and private offices.

Mr. Martel: It’s unbelievable.

Mr. Lewis: Do it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bounsall: Get them used to the idea.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

PROTECTION FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS

Mr. Lewis: I have another question of the Minister of Labour. What prompted his earlier spasm of irrationality, when he said publicly that civil servants don’t need the same collective bargaining rights as others in the province because they can turn to individual members of the Legislature who are, as it were, their employers to defend them? Does the minister really believe that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is going back quite a way when he brings that statement up.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all. It is part of this statement, the same kind of stuff.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I suggested, I think sometime last summer, that people who work in the public sector had certain protections -- just the very fact that they were working for the public -- that people in the private sector did not have, and that if there were injustices they could be brought up, as my friend has indicated he is bringing up one now, and some have suggested today that they are bringing up injustices. They have this sort of recourse.

Mr. Speaker, I think there are many employment positions across this province that don’t necessarily carry with them the right to withhold their services, and we have indicated some in the police services, in the fire services, in the hospital services, and that, I think, is a reasonable thing. There are ways that those people have their rights to fairness protected, and I think one of those ways is through this House; because these people work I for this I House and the people in the province.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Who protects them from members like the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot)?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have further questions? No? I think we should get on with new questions.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the original question? We have been veering off and wasting too much time on supplementary questions.

Mr. Roy: Well I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the time is wasted over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: The questions weren’t long.

Mr. Speaker: There has been too much time on questions which weren’t really supplementary to a question. I will allow the member this final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: My question of the minister subsequent to his statement is this, Mr. Speaker: Is he prepared, as Minister of Labour, to issue a directive to all departments that they not dissuade any public servant from complaining to his member of the Legislature, where, in fact, in the liquor board area some public servants are told by their superiors not to complain to their members of the Legislature --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That supplementary question is far away from the minister’s statement which he reportedly made last night about women’s employment. The hon. minister? The member may ask that as a new question later.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Lewis: I don’t understand your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I will explain my ruling. The original question had to do with the minister statement about employment or equal wages for women -- I am shortening that -- and this is entirely different.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Lewis: I asked a separate question on the matter of civil servants. It was a quite separate question.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an answer for it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I gather it was whether somebody working for the civil service had the right I to go to his member. To my mind, yes. The members of this House are open to anybody to go to from time to time and I think a lot of them do.

Mr. Roy: Without being fired?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Nobody stops them.

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

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Minister of Health, is he aware that in Elliot Lake, by virtue of overtime work permits, a large number of men have now worked underground equivalent to 3.5 working-level months’ exposure to radiation in the first three months of this year, so that they are almost at the maximum, and yet continue to work underground under terribly hazardous circumstances, much more hazardous than dust? Since Natural Resources has cut off the overtime, will the minister have them removed from underground?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I don’t normally enter into the order to remove a given person. In fact, I just spent some time today with a delegation from Elliot Lake discussing some of those very principles with them. I was surprised to find that even the wives of the workers at Elliot Lake who visited us today did not want compulsory removal of men from the working place, but rather advice given to them on their state of health and what the risks were.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the minister would, of course, appreciate that they don’t want compulsory removal because there is no job to go to and therefore no income. So, when men are exposed to radiation above the level set down in the law, can the minister not see to it that they are removed from danger?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into that.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy has answers to questions asked previously.

ONTARIO HYDRO POLICY

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago the hon. member for Huron (Mr. Riddell) posed the following supplementary question:

“Why is Ontario Hydro being permitted to do away with the marketing division sales section, a group whose job has been to provide heat loss calculations for buildings and to specify insulation requirements, and what is going on in connection with phasing out the programme of Ontario Hydro?”

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that Ontario Hydro has not done away with this programme. However, the insulation inspections are being done at a reduced rate. Hydro is attempting to transfer this activity to municipal hydro representatives and to other segments of the building industry such as contractors, local building inspectors, and so on, where it properly belongs.

Although Hydro is now charging $20 for a heat loss calculation, their actual cost is about $45. They have trained people to do these calculations and the $20 charge is an incentive to have other people take on the responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, one of the main reasons for the reduction in the marketing programme is to avoid any public image of Hydro promoting the use of electrical energy.

ONTARIO HYDRO POLICY ON AGRICULTURAL SUPERVISORS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on the same day, I believe, the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Spence) posed this question:

“What is the policy of Ontario Hydro in regard to the agriculture supervisors across the Province of Ontario? I am told that last year there were 13 and now there are six. Is it the policy of Ontario Hydro to do away with these agriculture supervisors? This is a great concern.”

Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro’s marketing policy and objectives have changed in recent years, and it has replaced its former sales activities with a significant conservation effort. This is in accord with the wishes of this government, my ministry and the many conservation and environmental groups and, we think, with the wishes of the public as a whole. Obviously this has meant that staff in many locations, who were hired originally for direct sales activities are surplus now to Hydro’s needs and are being redeployed to carry out work in other functions.

This does not mean that Hydro has stopped assisting the farmer, who will continue to have at his disposal the assistance of an electrical safety inspector, an electrical applications specialist or other customer service staff through Hydro’s local area offices.

When the question was originally raised on March 18, the concern expressed was that Hydro had reduced its “agriculture supervisors” from 13 to six. Currently there are seven applications specialists in Ontario Hydro who are assigned directly to meeting the requirements of the agricultural industry, a reduction from the 11 who were originally assigned to this work.

Mr. Martel: This is a ministerial statement. It is not an answer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: At the same time, however, I should state that the agricultural community has available, through Hydro local area offices, the assistance of electrical inspectors and other customer service staff whose numbers have in no way been reduced and who will continue to provide the essential services required by the individual customer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

LAWYERS’ TRUST FUNDS

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Can the Attorney General indicate what interest rate is paid on the trust funds held by lawyers, the money that goes into the legal aid plan?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the rate being paid at the present time is three per cent on the minimum monthly balance.

Mr. Reid: Can the Attorney General indicate why it is not the same rate as a bank would ordinarily pay to a depositor? Why is it only three per cent?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the banks compute the interest on the minimum monthly balance at three per cent and remit quarter-yearly to the law foundation. That is a net sum. The banks, I am advised, had to set up a specialized system for this because their ordinary current accounts, which they maintain each and every month, are based on the half-yearly minimum balance.

The rate paid here is the same rate that is paid, I think, in Manitoba. I have some figures here, which I would be pleased to show to the hon. member, but I believe it’s the same rate that’s paid in Manitoba. In Saskatchewan the rate varies between 2½ per cent and three per cent. In British Columbia, each law firm negotiates its own rate of interest.

If the banks paid the five per cent or six per cent rate that is paid on a current account, if I may use the phrase, then there would be deducted the administrative charges of the bank for each cheque written on that account. Presumably the more cheques, the greater the charge, and in fact the trust account of a particular firm could end up earning nothing if it happened to be a particularly busy trust account.

Therefore, the Law Society, in negotiating the rate on behalf of the law foundation, agreed with the banks to a flat charge of three per cent, as I indicated, with no charge on the number of cheques written being levied against either the firm writing cheques on that account or against the interest accrued on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Reid: One final supplementary, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Is the minister satisfied, when we consider the size of Ontario and the number of law firms, that the law firms are contributing their share to the legal aid plan, and that the banks particularly are not ripping off the public in this respect on something like $14 million, I believe?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I certainly cannot suggest that the banks are ripping off the public. I should indicate to the House that the trust accounts of firms fluctuate tremendously, even in a small law firm operated by one or two practitioners. It may vary from a relatively few thousand dollars per month and on a particular transaction could have any amount on deposit -- $100,000, $200,000 or $300,000.

But I can assure the member, having had a trust account in my practice, that those large amounts are not left lying around by a client in a lawyer’s trust account, for the simple reason that the client will keep it in his own account to earn interest until it is required for the completion of the proposed transaction. It will be merely an in-and-out-again type of thing. It may be in there, in many instances, for only a few minutes. Accordingly the Law Society while negotiating these rates left it open, as I understand it, to review them annually to see if the amount is in fact correct.

I have the report here with me. If the hon. member would like to peruse it at his leisure I’ll send it over with a page and he can see the amounts that were in fact generated between April 1 last year and Dec. 31, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

HURON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Education, if I can get his attention: Has the minister yet met with the delegation from Huron County Board of Education with regard to the total rejection by his ministry of its capital expense programme?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Is that Huron or Bruce county?

Mr. Foulds: Huron.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Huron? I’ve had conversations with the chairman of the Huron County Board of Education.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What led the ministry to the total rejection of their budget for renovations? Surely this is contrary to the minister’s stated policy of equalization of educational opportunities throughout Ontario when he is discriminating against the rural board here.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, there is no attempt in our capital programme to discriminate. I’d have to find out. Indeed, I believe that in last year’s programme there were things for the Huron county board.

As I told my friend the other day, this year there was about $293 million worth of requests -- obviously more than we’ve ever had in the great days of the 1960s when enrolment was increasing. We just don’t have that kind of money available within our budget. We have a much, much more limited amount, away down near the $100 million mark, so obviously everything that’s been requested couldn’t be accommodated.

On a priority basis we’ve tried to first accommodate requests where new pupil spaces had to be built and then as many renovations and additions of general purpose rooms and resource centres as could be accommodated. If I look at Huron I may find that they got some last year and some other board is getting some this year.

I have had an informal meeting with the chairman of the Huron County Board of Education three or four weeks ago; I haven’t met in any formal way with the board. But as I said with Bruce, we are always willing to take a look and listen to what the board has to say about the rejection of their programme. The plain and simple fact is there just isn’t enough money to accommodate all the needs -- all the requests, I should say.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew South.

RENT CONTROLS

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): What again? Two days in a row?

Mr. Yakabuski: In view of the fact that the leader of the New Democratic Party has advocated rent controls during his Throne Speech address and at other times, I’m wondering if the minister is aware of the disastrous effects rent control has had in socialist Britain, as per the editorial in this morning’s Globe and Mail?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Speech.

Mr. Martel: Did the member send it to the minister?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I’m well aware of the editorial that the hon. member is referring to. I’ve also said in this House many times that this party does not support rent controls and will not support rent controls at this time or in the future, because we believe supply is the answer.

An hon. member: That’s why this government is going out of power.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister said he might be forced into it. He warned the industry more than once.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the editorial very clearly substantiates what I’ve been saying for months in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth has a supplementary?

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Doesn’t the minister recognize that in his recently announced apartment building programme in Toronto he has in fact imposed rent controls on those apartments? How does he pretend to deal with the spiralling rent increases when there are very few apartments being built in the private sector and none by the government in most sectors of the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wentworth has again misinterpreted the facts. We have not imposed rent controls on our limited dividend programme.

Mr. Deans: The government certainly has.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It does not have a rent control --

Mr. Deans: It does. The minister doesn’t even understand his own measure.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- per se, because the rent control that we have is a rent stabilization in the limited dividend programme --

Mr. Deans: What does the minister call that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and I have said this to the member time after time.

Mr. Deans: What does the minister call rent stabilization?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Examine the programme and understand what it does. It allows a rent escalation according to the inflation factor, which may come from year to year.

Mr. Deans: Is that not rent control?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Now, the private sector is the one that will provide enough rental accommodation. It’s not up to the government to provide all the housing accommodation throughout Ontario.

Mr. Deans: The government hardly provides any of it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Nor in my opinion should the government in any part of Canada provide all of the housing accommodation. The socialist party may think that, but we don’t.

Mr. Deans: Well we will.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Did the member for Etobicoke have a supplementary to this question?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Etobicoke with a supplementary.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, if he is not in favour of rent controls, would he at this time come out in favour of rent review boards for places such as Toronto and large centres?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t hear all of the question. Can I ask the hon. member --

Mr. Braithwaite: Is the minister in favour of rent review boards?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.

Mr. Braithwaite: Why isn’t he?

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

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have stated why many times before, and if the hon. member was here he would know.

Mr. Lewis: Not even rental review?

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

Mr. Lewis: The Housing minister is a dinosaur that predates the testament.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Ottawa East with his question.

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General, if I can get his attention. It pertains to the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) statement yesterday about a royal commission into violence in films and on television. Would the minister, who is a lawyer, advise why the government would grandstand in the area of television where it has no jurisdiction and not do anything about an area where it does have jurisdiction. For instance, there are comic books, magazines, pocket books advocating violence, and kids read them every day? Why would the minister limit his inquiry simply to television and films when he has jurisdiction in the publishing field?

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier grandstands and now the member is grandstanding.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I don’t agree with the member’s remarks that the Premier was grandstanding. I think the Premier made it very apparent in his statement yesterday that he was not being exhaustive in the context of his remarks. He did not want to be restrictive, and in fact my understanding is that the guidelines of the royal commission --

Mr. Roy: That is not what the statement said.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- the objectives of it will be as broad as are required to allow the commissioner, in the conduct of her inquiry, to look into all matters pertaining to the questions of violence.

Mr. Roy: Would that include types of publications where the government does have jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think that would have to be a matter determined by the commissioner, whether she felt it pertinent. I cannot answer for her, but if she felt it to be pertinent and relevant to the issue, I would feel somewhat confident that she would insist on the objectives of her royal inquiry being broad enough to encompass that type of material.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister indicate how many charges have been laid against violence on the hockey rinks in Ontario, either professional sport or amateur?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Professional or amateur?

Mr. Reid: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ll take the question as notice. I cannot give the members the exact number, but there are some investigations going on right now. I believe there have been some charges laid. But I will take his question as notice and get back to the member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

HAMILTON AREA HOME PROGRAMMES STANDARDS

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

Given that I have provided the Ministry of Housing during the course of the last two years with at least 100, and perhaps more, cases where the HOME programme houses were either not completed to standard or required repairs after the owner moved in, and which were not completed expeditiously; and given that last week an inspection showed structural defects in at least one, perhaps in other homes, built by Valport; and given that there have been a great many problems with Settlement Corp., will the Minister of Housing order a re-examination of all of the homes built in the Hamilton area in the last two years?

And particularly will he inquire with regard to structural matters within the houses to ensure that people are not going to be faced with major repair costs in the very near future?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member brought this matter to my attention I said -- if I remember correctly -- that if there were defects such as he mentioned, they would be corrected by OHC. Since then I have received additional information. I will have to refer to it, since there are quite a few details I can’t remember offhand.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would take this down, on March 27, OHC made a pre-occupancy inspection which at that time indicated to us that the unit was not ready for the new owner and it was assessed accordingly. A further inspection was held on April 3. Some of these deficiencies have been corrected but not all, and it is still not ready. Another inspection was held on April 9. There was a meeting on April 11 which was held between OHC and the builder. The builder agreed that the house should not have been offered until it was ready and that it would be brought up to HOME standards before it would be occupied by the new owner.

This builder, Mr. Speaker, I think I should bring to the attention of the hon. member, has built many homes for the Ontario government, for OHC, and for the last several years his building has been all right. In this case, it’s definitely not up to standard and be was told so. It will not happen again, I can assure the member.

Mr. Deans: I have a supplementary question. This is only one house. Quite obviously, if the builder can build one house like this, be can build many houses like this. I want to ask the minister whether he will put a sufficient number of inspectors, in the first place, in the area to conduct an inspection in a proper way and, secondly, whether he will reinspect all of the properties built by this builder to determine whether this is one isolated incident or whether it’s a practice of his not to comply with regulations.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have already told my staff to make sure that this particular builder is very closely watched in the future. I would be happy to give further inspections if any other deficiencies are brought to my attention, but they have not been to this particular time. If the member knows of any, I would appreciate receiving them. I don’t believe there are further deficiencies now existing.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

HALTON REGIONAL COUNCIL OHAP LOAN

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Can the Minister of Housing explain the difficulty that occurred in the Halton regional council in connection with an $8.8 million OHAP loan? Why was it necessary to rush it through so that many members of council weren’t aware of the details? What was the urgency and why wasn’t it done within the fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the difficulty was as far as the council was concerned. Certainly they have been after assistance in regard to improving their sewage plant capacity. It has been under capacity, as I have stated in the House. I think the member’s leader brought the question to my attention and I said at that time we wanted to improve the facility. We gave housing grants for the very definite reason that we want to build more homes in that particular area. We have proposals before us right now which will allow us to do so, once we have improved this sewage capacity for the entire area. As to the council’s confusion, if there was any, there shouldn’t have been.

Mr. Singer: Can the minister explain why he got caught in the jam of having to spend his money so quickly that he didn’t have time to explain to council what the agreement involved?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we’re never really anxious to spend money too quickly but I think every member of this House knows that members have been after me from all sides to try to get housing built. I do my best to ensure that we do. If I have the money, which to me it is quite sensible to spend in regard to a sewage facility capacity, I should do so as quickly as possible and at the request of the council.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Was it too fast for the member for Downsview?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has just left his chair. If I could get his attention, I have a question.

Mr. Speaker: He may be back. We’ll give you an opportunity in a few minutes.

Mr. Martel: He is on his way now.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He was getting into the Premier’s chair. He liked that pretty well.

Mr. Cassidy: He will never make it.

EFFLUENT AT INCO PLANT

Mr. Martel: Can the Minister of the Environment indicate whether the studies conducted by his staff in the Copper Cliff area indicate that Inco is in any way responsible for the fog conditions which resulted in so many accidents in the past couple of years?

Mr. Laughren: He should answer his letters too.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have reason to believe that there is some reaction from the effluent being dumped into the stream. We are working on this, as I think I have indicated to the member before. We hope to have the matter corrected by this fall at the latest.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Minister of Industry and Tourism have the answer to a question?

ODC LENDING POLICY

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Huron asked why J. F. Farm Machinery Ltd. of Exeter was turned down by the Ontario Development Corp. for a loan for a capital project. The facts are as follows:

During 1969, the company inquired respecting a forgivable loan but was informed that it was not eligible. In 1970, the terms of reference relating to forgivable loans were changed and the company then made an application, which was approved, for $90,000 on Jan. 10, 1973.

It has, sir, from that date been given a forgiveness of $9,000 on Nov. 5, 1973, and again on Dec. 1, 1974. At that time the employment was 95 and it had predicted that it would reach a maximum of 41.

On Sept. 12, 1973, the company was granted an export support loan in the amount of $250,000 with an interest rate of 6.5 per cent.

On Oct. 25, 1974, the company requested that the export support loan be increased to $400,000 from the $250,000. The company was advised that the request would be subject to our current rate of interest -- 8.5 per cent interest. The company did not pursue the application with us and on March 21 the company repaid in full its export support loan that was outstanding at that time, from the receipts it had received from the orders.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario Development Corp. has served its role well in assisting this company when it was unable to obtain financing from other sources. Later, it was able to withdraw when the company was strong enough to obtain financing from the private sector. I am completely mystified as to why the member for Huron would not check his facts out before he brought this question to the House. However, my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), informs me that this is par for the course.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I don’t read comic books like the Liberal Party.

Mr. Riddell: Is the minister aware that the ODC extended assistance to Kongskilde in Exeter, whereby they built two buildings for Kongskilde and they leased the buildings and J. F. Farm Machinery Ltd. asked for the same assistance and the minister’s official, Mr. Burton, told the president of J. F. Farm Machinery Ltd. that they would not extend that assistance to J. F. Farm Machinery because they didn’t want to encourage competition in a field where they had already extended assistance.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I really didn’t get the significance of the question, but let me make it very clear to the member --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Make it perfectly clear.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, to the Liberal leader likely everything is very clear in a very mystified sort of a way.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Running scared.

Mr. Roy: We have heard that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Okay, we are not reading comic books on this side. There are no jokes.

Mr. Speaker: We are wasting valuable time. Does the minister have a short answer?

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is very rattled, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not as rattled as the member for Ottawa Centre was with the settlement of the Ottawa school teachers yesterday, that’s for sure.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Huron very clearly indicated that there was a verbal inquiry made on a very general basis. There was not, as he indicated yesterday, an application related to the specific case that he is quoting at the moment When the application is made, then it will be reviewed by the board at ODC and a decision made. The question was generally an inquiry of our office.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. No. The time has really expired, but the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville was on his feet before.

Mr. Riddell: Why would he make an application when the minister’s official told him there was no sense in it?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I’ll allow the member for Windsor-Walkerville to pose his question.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about the industrial park in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the provincial Treasurer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. members give their colleague an opportunity to ask his question?

The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Now the hon. member.

OMERS PENSION BENEFITS

Mr. B. Newman: A question of the provincial Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. Is he looking into or will he look into amendments to the OMERS legislation that will permit municipal employees to buy back in pension benefits for war service, just in the same fashion as is given to provincial employees today?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The members will buy back in.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): That, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, is a matter which is in front of the government as a whole in terms of a number of pension plans. I don’t believe any final decision has been made by the government. The decision to do such a thing, of course, would be made by the board of OMERS and recommended to the government for legislation. It would not be initiated by us.

Mr. Roy: How come they didn’t keep the minister in Ottawa?

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired, but the minister --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me tell the member for Ottawa East, they would not --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister of Labour indicated he had given some wrong information in an answer yesterday and he would like the opportunity to correct it, so I think we should allow him that opportunity.

An hon. member: We’ll be here all day.

Interjections by hon. members.

HAZARDS IN KITCHENER AREA PLANTS

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House’s indulgence and I apologize to the members. I indicated there were 195 safety complaints from labour unions in the Kitchener area. I have given ourselves too much credit for overwork. That figure referred to the whole province and not just the Kitchener area.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

LIQUOR CONTROL ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves first reading of bill intituled, the Liquor Control Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the bill continues the Liquor Control Board to perform the present functions of the Liquor Control Board concerned with the marketing of liquor by manufacturers and the operation of government stores.

LIQUOR LICENCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves first reading of bill intituled, the Liquor Licence Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, this bill re-establishes the Liquor Licence Board to perform all the licensing functions, including those now performed by the Liquor Control Board. The principal changes are: (1) provision is made for licensing procedures and for hearings, review and appeals; and (2) the offences are revised and simplified.

Mr. Shulman: The minister should be embarrassed.

MENTAL HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced in the last session. The purpose of the legislation, of course, is to protect individuals who are arrested or confined under the Mental Health Act and to permit these individuals, within a period of 24 or 48 hours the right to have a hearing and to be examined by a psychiatrist. This would prevent individuals who are picked up under the present Mental Health Act from going for a period of time -- sometimes nine weeks at a time -- without getting an adequate hearing.

PUBLIC HOSPITALS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Public Hospitals Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, this bill was presented in the last session as well. It would amend the Public Hospitals Act to prevent incessant appeals by hospital boards which are making appeals at public expense, for instance in the case of Dr. Schiller. This legislation would provide that they would be limited to an appeal to the court of appeal and that pending the court of appeal decision to the decision of the appeal board would remain in force so that an individual like Dr. Schiller could continue to practice in that hospital pending the appeal.

I have another piece of legislation here, Mr. Speaker, that I consider the cornerstone of Liberal policy.

Mr. Foulds: Their leader is away. Are they sure it’s policy?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: That woke them up over there.

Mr. Roy: Look at the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett). We should send him back to Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Let’s get on with the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

ONTARIO BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to establish the Ontario Bill of Rights.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: The Ontario Bill of Rights from the Liberal Party?

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: It begins with the incarceration of the Japanese Canadians and ends with the War Measures Act.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, this legislation was presented in the last session and it’s very unfortunate that the government did not see fit to adopt this legislation.

Mr. Foulds: It would prevent Ontario from coming under the War Measures Act.

Mr. Roy: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Bill of Rights is limited only to federal legislation and has no application whatsoever to provincial legislation.

Mr. Bullbrook: I sometimes wonder if it has any application to federal legislation.

Mr. Roy: It has been limited. In any event, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation would be to create what is called an Ontario Bill of Rights under which the fundamental rights and freedom of individuals in this province would be protected from any legislation passed by this Legislature. Of course, many other provinces have this type of legislation and we would encourage the government to adopt this type of legislation.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Braithwaite moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: It’s

an act to provide that all tenants vote Liberal.

Mr. Braithwaite: They will anyway.

Mr. Lewis: Under the bill of rights, previously passed.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, the amendment provides for mandatory landlord and tenant review boards in municipalities with populations over 150,000 persons. These boards would have the power to determine the amount of rents and to order tenants removed from premises for non-payment of rent and for wilful damage to the premises.

Also, Mr. Speaker, this bill is introduced to bring once more to the attention of the government the sad plight that most renters in Metropolitan Toronto are facing in view of the unconscionable rent raises they’re having to pay.

PUBLIC HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Braithwaite moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Public Health Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the marking of dates on perishable food packages which will, without the use of a code or guide, clearly indicate the date the food was packaged, together with the expiry date.

ATHLETICS CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Braithwaite moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Athletics Control Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to prohibit the practice whereby senior house leagues require individual leagues to submit personal information on members.

The bill would also prohibit the selling of the names of league members to companies who wish to compile mailing lists.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is introduced to draw to the attention of this House the fact that the Metropolitan Toronto house league, and a hockey league in my particular riding, known as St. Benedicts, are having difficulties with reference to the furnishing of names and the sale or the possible rental of these names to commercial outlets.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Braithwaite moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for noise control regulations on a province-wide basis rather than by by-laws passed by individual municipalities. This bill is introduced to draw to the attention of the House the problem that municipalities such as Etobicoke and Mississauga have with reference to noise emanating from sources outside of the municipalities -- in this particular case, Malton Airport.

ONTARIO WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECLAMATION COMMISSION ACT

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to establish the Ontario Waste Disposal and Reclamation Commission.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been introduced before. It proposes to establish a utility similar to the former Hydro commission to provide solid waste disposal and reclamation services, including incineration and landfill throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

ONTARIO HOME BUYERS GRANT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves second reading of Bill 28,

An Act to provide for the Payment of Grants to First Time Home Buyers.

Ms. Speaker: The member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, in view of the problems of housing in this province at this time, we are in a Position on this side to support almost any measure that might ease some of the burdens. We do resent, however, and I believe the people of Ontario will resent the fact that such needed help is introduced temporarily, in effect to cover an election period, in view of the fact that the house must have been purchased or built prior to Dec. 31, 1975.

For practical purposes, it is difficult to ascertain how much help this really will be, but if there is one person benefited I suppose we are in the position that we can do none other than to support the principle.

We are aware of one case in particular where up to one month ago one builder had 1,000 units unsold on the market. We believe similar situations exist in other areas because of high prices and high carrying charges. At the moment, therefore, we do have some housing in some areas and we certainly have people who wish to buy. We hope that this grant, picayune in a sense as it is, may assist to fit them together.

We are interested in knowing why the Treasurer of this province (Mr. McKeough) should seem to give preference to those who are from out of the province, because if one reads the principles of this bill --

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): The Treasurer had better listen to this.

Mrs. Campbell: -- it seems clear that one could have owned a home outside of Ontario and still qualify under this programme if that person moved into Ontario. We would like the Treasurer to explain that apparent preference for those who are not now citizens of Ontario, since this government has laid to the door of those coming into this province a great deal of the responsibility for the lack of housing. That, of course, is only one area in which they have tried to lay responsibility for failure.

We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, as to what will happen at the end of this year. We are interested to know why, in the light of all of the prognostications, this particular programme should effectively end as of the end of this year as to the period of purchase. Surely this programme ought to be tested and evaluated before being terminated unless, of course, the government really believes that someone will wave a magic wand -- and it won’t be the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) -- and, miraculously we will have no housing problem after the end of December. We suggest that no time limit should be set, and certainly not before the programme is even implemented and any assessment possible.

We have another serious reservation about the programme. We are concerned lest this encourage conversion to condominium ownership, especially in the Metro area, which will impose an additional hardship on tenants already beset by unconscionably high rents.

I suppose that could be rather academic in view of the time-frame; nevertheless we express this concern. We are curious as to whether the government has equated the provision of this grant with the refunding of the sales tax on building materials. I would be interested to know if there is any relationship between the amount of the grant and the sales tax collected on a moderate-cost home?

We are pleased that some relief is forthcoming to home buyers. We are distressed that it will be terminated on Dec. 31. We certainly urge the monitoring of the situation in condominiums and we most precisely want to. know, in conclusion, why the citizens of Ontario should be prejudiced as against those citizens who may have owned homes in other parts of Canada or other parts of the world, but who may qualify on moving into this province, as we read the legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, the Tories are going to try and simplify the debate on the hustings about this particular measure by saying, “Okay, who voted for the $1,000 and who voted against the $1,000?” That’s the kind of way in which the Conservatives have handled housing policy. They’ve dealt with a very severe crisis in this province over the last few years in a simplistic fashion. I wish that we could have a better level of discussion of this bill and of the housing policy of the government in general.

We consider the grant that’s proposed in this bill to be an exceedingly modest contribution to the housing problem. I have to say that we are going to support it. We do so limply and without any particular great enthusiasm. We do it, however, because we don’t feel that we can expect anything better from the government. We will get a string of announcements as long as one’s arm from the Minister of Housing. If this were a sunny, warm climate without any precipitation it might be that the paper on which those announcements were printed could be used for shelter. However, our climate is not that way and at least this is a concrete policy.

However, it has many, many defects and I wish that the minister would acknowledge that it’s simply a piece of election candy which does not provide any real substance in solving housing problems, whether for the particular target group or for the population of the province as a whole.

The first defect in the scheme is, very simply, that one needs to be rich or almost rich in order to afford to benefit from this particular scheme. Since housing prices are averaging around $46,000 in the province as a whole, and since they average something over $55,000 to $58,000 in Metro Toronto right now, since the monthly cost of purchasing housing is running around $400 per month or more at current interest rates and with modest downpayments, it is clear that the vast bulk of Ontario families are simply shut out from this particular scheme entirely.

The member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), who may have some hankering to go there himself, points out that this is going to benefit certain scions of the rich who will buy their first home, having just emerged from finishing school or from their world tour or from a couple of years working the way up in dad’s firm. Then they will pay $80,000 or $100,000 for a pleasant house up in Willowdale or on the fringes of Rockcliffe or some other part of the province. They will benefit.

They’ll take the $1,000 and go down to Nassau for a couple of weeks for an end-of-season vacation, and by God if they won’t get $250 for air fare for the next two winters running in order that they can repeat that particular kind of experience.

The minister’s policies are selective and discriminatory in favour of just that kind of person. Working class people need not apply. Many middle class people need not apply either. Right now I remind the minister in the House that the average industrial wage in Ontario in January this year was $10,149. It had risen from $7,673 in 1971. Back in 1971, somebody on the average industrial wage couldn’t quite buy a house but at least they might have some hopes. Now it is completely out of reach.

The basic home -- if we can call it that -- the basic $40,000 house in Metro, if we can find one, is going to cost $376 per month including taxes and it is going to require an income of $18,000 per annum if we assume that a person can save $5,000 and if we have them paying 25 per cent of their income for the house. That is not a working income. The median family income of the province right now is $5,000 less than one needs in order to afford a house. It’s running at about $13,000 per annum.

People who earn $18,000 or $20,000 or $25,000 per annum basically own homes as well; 80 per cent of them approximately, have their own homes. What have we got then? We have a kind of quixotic policy which may benefit a few but which escapes the needs of most of the people for whom it is designed to appeal.

It will, perhaps, help developers unload their unsold houses. It may help some appliance dealers because people will wind up buying a house they had intended to buy anyway and will then find themselves with $1,000 cheque from the minister, conveniently delivered a few days before the election. They may go out and spend it on a fancy dishwasher or a $700 refrigerator or something like that. It cannot effectively increase the supply of homes between now and the time the programme runs out. The programme is going to run for all of about -- is it eight or nine months?

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Eight and a half.

Mr. Cassidy: Eight and a half months. During that period of time, the major constraints on the supply of housing are going to be mortgage rates which are so high that most people can’t buy homes; the supply of serviced land; the time it takes to build new housing. Very few units, if any, will be begun, as a result of this particular scheme.

In certain cases, it will be impossible to put up new houses and to let people have title to them by the end of the year. I think, for example, of highrise condominiums for which the time between inception and completion is generally longer than the 8½ months. If a developer had said on April 9, that is, last week, “I will build in order to allow the purchasers of this condominium to take advantage of this grant,” the chances that he could have actually had units ready for people to move into by the end of the year are very slight indeed.

If somebody moves into a condominium which was commenced in March or February or January, there is possibly a chance that those units will be completed by the end of the year. It cannot be argued that the minister’s programmes will have gone to create one single new unit in that particular condominium since the planning for it was already well under way at the time the bill and the programme came in.

The bill does nothing for tenants. The budget does nothing for tenants, nothing at all. The Minister of Housing clearly is completely insensitive, doesn’t understand the problems and is unwilling to do anything at all. He is wrapped in his own 19th century ideology and is not aware of the suffering that is taking place out there. I challenge the minister when he comes to reply in this particular debate to tell me what his bill is going to do for a lady who called my home yesterday.

This is the mother of a former babysitter of ours who happened to call. She lives in a highrise apartment and is facing a $44 rent increase for her two-bedroom apartment in June or the beginning of July. That is an increase of about 20 per cent. It will bring her rent to about $220 a month for a modest two-bedroom apartment.

Over the course of the last couple of years her daughter, our former babysitter, was killed in a car accident. Her husband has died of illness. The woman herself is now suffering from multiple sclerosis and she has a 13-year-old daughter who is still living with her. She is attempting to live on the pension her husband was able to leave her. She is damned and determined that she won’t move into rent-geared-to-income housing because she says she has not got to that pass yet, and now she is facing a $44 rent increase.

There is no money in that family to pay $400 a month in order to afford a new house or even a used house. That is probably as much as this woman’s total income from her pension. There is no way in which that particular family can benefit from this programme or any of the programmes that are being proposed by the government. This is not an isolated case. It is a case which could be repeated hundreds and thousands of times across the province.

The next thing is that the proposal that the minister has brought in is quite likely to have an absolutely perverse effect where it could even lead to the point where these purchasers are worse off than if the programme had not been introduced at all. Certain ones might be a bit better off because the $1,000 could help them to meet their downpayment. Mr. Speaker, if you bring 55,000 people in with an extra $1,000 jingling around in their jeans and if you take the current supply situation in the housing market, then you have added demand without providing extra supply and, as the minister knows, there is a very strong tendency that that will lead to higher prices.

The government has presided, without acting effectively at all, over a doubling of housing prices in the province over the last four years, that is, since the last election. In 1971, the price of a house in Toronto was averaging around $31,000.

In 1974, it was averaging about $50,000, $53,000 or $54,000. Just in the three months from the time that this minister took over and began to consider what kind of candy he would offer in his budget, the price of a house in Metro has gone up by far more than the total amount of these particular grants. The average in Metro was $52,800 in 1974. In January, 1975, it was up by $2,000 to $54,806. In February, it was up by another $1,700 to $56,500. In March, it was up by another $1,700 to $58,200. In April, the selling season has just begun.

The prices are increasing every month by an amount which is greater than the value of the grant which the minister is proposing to provide. Not only that, but if one looks in the minister’s budget itself and looks at the statistics -- I think I can find them here -- on the housing sector, back in page A21, they show graphically that the housing crisis that was reflected in starts last year will be reflected both in starts and in completions this year.

Last year, oddly enough, despite the drastic drop in starts, completions were up in urban Ontario from 83,000 to 88,000 units. That meant that the supply situation last year was not appreciably worsened. However, starts last year in urban Ontario were down from 93,000 to 72,000 -- down by 21,000 starts. That will be reflected in completions this year.

Nothing that the minister has proposed is going to have any effect on that at all. In fact, an even more drastic decline in housing starts in Ontario over the first three months of this year will mean that those completions are not going to recover until some time, at the earliest, in the spring of 1976.

There is no way with the programmes that the government is proposing now that it’s going to come around. Therefore we’re going to have more dollars chasing a sharply reduced supply of housing, with the inevitable results. I ask the minister to tell us how the grants are going to cure that particular kind of situation.

I said at the beginning that we’re going to support this particular bill. I said it at the beginning at the urging of my colleagues, because they pointed out that if I didn’t, I might well convince us that we would vote against it by the end of this speech.

It is a cynical election move which will have no long-term benefit because of the fact that this particular measure is only provided for a period of eight months. If there is any real commitment by the government to the plight of people buying a home for the first time, then clearly this should be a measure which should be in place on a permanent basis. We find it doubly cynical that in the same budget, where sales tax reductions and homeowner grants are provided for only eight months, the candy that is provided to big business should extend until some time well until the end of 1977.

We intend to propose that the home buyers be treated at least as generously as industry. We would make the grant permanent. For now, we will propose that it go on until the end of 1977.

I think that this measure is cynical as well, Mr. Speaker, because the people from Detroit who advised the government have told them: “Look, go heavy on violence, go heavy on small business and go out to those home buyers who are getting frustrated; they’re always potential Tories [more homeowners are Tory than tenants for a number of reasons]. Pander to what people want.” And I’m afraid to say that is precisely what the government is doing.

The minister estimates that 55,000 first-time home buyers will benefit during the course of this particular year. If you go back to 1973 and 1974, to any typical year, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the number of first-time home buyers in an average year is probably considerably higher than the 55,000 that are estimated for the coming year.

After all, if our housing starts are running at a rate of 100,000 per year -- and the people who buy a home who had already owned one don’t count because they leave a house that has to be sold -- then one has to assume that something like 100,000 people per annum are first-time home buyers. This year it is estimated there will be only 55,000.

Then one has to ask: “How many of those 55,000 people would have already bought?” The answer again is obvious. The number of people is limited to those who could afford $400 to $600 per month in carrying charges on a home or have a father who is a vice-president of the Robert Simpson Co., a minister in the Conservative government, or someone else who can afford to lay some money down for them to buy a first home. Most of those 55,000 buyers would have bought already.

In terms of social policy, in other words, this is not a particularly effective use of $55 million. We support it only because we can’t see anything better coming from the government. But it’s quite possible that no more than 5,000 first-time home buyers in fact will become buyers because of that extra $1,000, and even many of those will simply be accelerating their purchases from the spring of 1976 until just before Christmas, 1975.

What really breaks my heart is that out there, Mr. Speaker, there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of couples, people with one or two kids, families who have been saving up for 10 or 15 years to try to get a home of their own but they’re always just a bit too short. Or perhaps they now regret the fact that at a time when they might have been able to afford it, their priorities were elsewhere and they thought they would put it off for a year or two, with the result that they lost the one chance in a lifetime when they might have found a home of their own.

For every family that benefits from this programme there will probably be 10 or 20 families across the province who would like to be home buyers, who sympathize with this programme but won’t understand why it’s not benefiting them.

The member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) was pointing out to us today that many of those people are already getting cynical because of what they see. They see that rich people benefit; they don’t benefit. A few people who are now paying 35 per cent or 40 per cent of their income for homes they brought in March or April see that if your timing is politically adept for the Conservative government’s re-election, then you benefit; and if you happen to be busting your wallet in order to get a home of your own, then you don’t benefit either.

Mr. Speaker, because of the way it’s drafted the bill is going to create some fairly severe problems, firstly for people who have just bought, and for apartment dwellers who are shut out because they are into a one- or two-year lease and can’t break it. I would like to know what the minister is going to do about those problems.

There’s also the cynical treatment of co-operatives because co-operatives are said to be encouraged by this particular measure. This comes after a year in which the provincial secretary responsible for housing has been one of the leading proponents of the anti-co-operative housing movement in the province, in that she has been actively working against co-operative and non-profit housing in her particular riding with the full support of the government of which she is a member. Nevertheless, the government says that cooperatives will be encouraged by this particular measure.

If it takes more than a year to get a condominium under way, Mr. Speaker, it obviously takes even longer to get a group of people together in order to form a co-operative, find land, thread through the red tape that has been erected by the various levels of government and eventually get a project on the ground. No new co-operative which is born or conceived after April 8, 1975, will benefit in any way from this particular measure.

There are problems with condominiums that are proposed by this measure, Mr. Speaker. On the one hand, I have had calls from people who maybe want to evade the purpose of the Act -- I am not sure -- but who are occupying a condominium unit under an option agreement which in certain cases is a binding agreement of purchase and in certain other cases is not. Where the option is not binding but there is a clear intention to purchase and they have been in for several months, I am not sure personally whether the minister intends that these people benefit from the homeowner grant or not, and I think that he should make that clear.

Even more serious though, there will be some condominium purchasers between now and the end of the year who were duped by clever sales tactics into assuming that they will benefit to the tune of $1,500, who will move in before the end of the year, but who will be in a condominium where title is not registered until 1976 and the way in which the bill is drafted right now, they will not benefit. I see that the officials may have already considered that --

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): There is an amendment.

Mr. Cassidy: There is an amendment on that particular measure, okay. I am glad to see that that one has been tackled.

I believe that the matter of fraternity houses with revolving purchasers can also be handled, and I am sure that the minister will have a statement or an amendment on that particular thing as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is the centrepiece of the government’s housing policy in this particular budget; the centrepiece -- $55 million in home purchasers’ grants. I can see the ads now. I would like to know what the allocations to the Ministry of Housing are just to advertise this particular programme. I would like to know what the advertising

schedule of that programme is and how it has been integrated with the other government advertising programmes leading up to the 1975 election, because clearly it is going to be used for that particular purpose. The Tories are coat-tailing themselves on the public purse in trying to get themselves re-elected.

When you look through the budget in general, Mr. Speaker, you find that there is no indication of any measures to stop the runaway rent increases that we are experiencing right now. There are no proposals to stop rent speculators. The money that is being put in for land acquisition is away down. There are no proposals to lower interest rates.

We find that last year the government’s target of 30,000 assisted housing starts was missed by about 50 per cent. The government only got half of what it said its target was going to be. We find that last year when they talked about 100,000 housing starts, only 85,000 were achieved, that during the last fiscal year -- that is 1974-1975 -- the total of housing starts was even less. The record is getting worse and worse, quarter by quarter.

We find the government lashing out at the federal government for its inaction and yet refusing to come in and use the very ample credit of the Province of Ontario in order to fill the gap that it charges the federal government with creating. We find the government equally bitterly and viciously lashing out at the municipalities and always trying to pass the buck from its own responsibilities, despite the fact that the Province of Ontario, the provincial government, holds the keys to housing policy and successful fulfilment of a housing programme in the Province of Ontario.

We are confronted with yet another series of announcements in the budget -- 10,000 public housing units, other programmes and so on -- which are just as incredible as the programmes that have been announced in the past. We are just as sceptical about them because the record, Mr. Speaker, has led us to believe conclusively that you have to cut back any announcements that the government makes about housing. They never fulfil what they promise to deliver. They never even spend the money that they budget for housing.

They are down by 100 million bucks over the last three years on funds which have been allocated for housing, and if that’s the case, then what on earth do we have the right to expect of the programmes that are announced in this particular budget?

That particular double dealing was added to in the budget itself where mortgage money for the OMC, which will go to $208 million in 1975-1976, will in fact be $35 million less money than had been promised for this current fiscal year by the government during the series of announcements made by the Minister of Housing during the latter months of 1974. Merely to repeat last year’s allocation and to provide the additional funding that was promised but not spent last October would require a budget of $233 million for 1975-1976. But the budget figure does not even provide enough funding to honour last year’s commitments.

Mr. Speaker, that’s about it. The house purchase benefit will benefit those who can afford to buy and to close in the next nine months. It’s absolutely useless for the majority of low and middle income earners who have been priced right out of the market. And the Treasurer isn’t doing anything to get them back in.

By the time these grants start to flow, the value of houses or the prices charged for houses will have gone up right across the province by more than the $1,000 value of the grant or even by more than the $1,500 value of the grant over three years. There is nothing to accommodate the problem that most families earning less than $15,000 a year cannot afford $400 or $500 per month in order to have housing.

We will propose, during the course of the committee stage of this bill, Mr. Speaker, that the time limit which was put in to make this a piece of election bait be extended to be comparable with the concessions made to industry. We may even make that indefinite.

We also want to propose, in order to prevent people using this on $80,000 mansions and other such types of property that there be limits set on the value of the homes which can be bought with this particular grant. We’ve considered the alternatives -- whether it should be the limits set for the federal $500 grant or the limits set for the assisted homeownership purchase programme. We believe that if there is going to be this amount of money going in, it should encourage and permit first-hand home buyers to buy modest priced homes and there should be a substantial incentive to the development industry to price homes closer to what those admittedly middle-income families can afford.

We would, therefore, propose that the regulations which would be set by the minister would limit that to the figures set under OHAP; that is, ranging from about $42,000 maximum in most of the province to a ceiling of about $48,000 here in Toronto. I find those figures are ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. I can’t find better ones because of the insane kind of situation in the housing market which has been created by the Tories.

Ineffectual as it may be, cynical as it may be, we will rather grudgingly support this particular programme on the part of the government but we will move in committee stage to try to make it an effective, if marginal, contribution to the housing market. We will continue to press for a comprehensive housing policy which ensures that every Ontario resident, regardless of income, achieves the right to decent housing at an affordable cost. God bring the day when that will be the policy of the government of Ontario rather than the cynical kind of election baiting which is all we’re getting from them right now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no doubt the government has a very great bent for bringing forth policies with great sex appeal politically, and passing them forward not knowing what their real implications and their real worth actually will be in the long run. There’s no way anyone in their right mind could oppose the idea of putting money into the hands of home-buyers. It’s something needed and overdue.

I did a little research, Mr. Speaker, since this was introduced in the budget and I have found some startling things which just don’t add up to the picture the minister has painted regarding this particular programme.

When the Treasurer was on TV following the budget, he admitted there was a great glut of homes on the market at the present time and that this particular measure would take these homes off the market. Then he was questioned, “What have you done for apartment owners?” After a little humming and hawing and thinking it suddenly dawned on him that that’s going to move people out of apartments to pick up this supposed glut of homes that is now on the market; there will be vacancies in apartments for tenants, so that should keep rents at a particular level.

Mr. Speaker, surely he must know that that is a lot of nonsense. There isn’t the glut of homes that people are able to purchase, or can afford to purchase, on the market in the Province of Ontario. I checked in my own riding and I find that the only homes for sale that have been on the market for any length of time are overpriced rowhousing, townhousing and condominiums, The low-priced single-family units are snapped up as quickly as they can be bought.

I asked for a few examples of what type of housing really is there as a backlog. So I was handed one slip from the Multiple Listing Service and it is a townhousing type of unit selling for $44,900. This is one of the better deals in that it has a $6,500 second mortgage which is interest free for the first three years. They really must be pushing to try to unload these overpriced houses if they are offering a second mortgage of $6,500 interest free for the first three years. So after a downpayment of $4,500, with an interest-free second mortgage of $6,500, one would still be faced with a first mortgage of $34,000.

Mr. Speaker, a mortgage of $34,000 at 11 per cent requires monthly payments of principal and interest of about $330. When one adds on taxes we are talking payments in the neighbourhood of $400 a month. The problem is not that people can’t manage the downpayment on a house -- they can save the few thousand dollars that are required for the downpayment -- that is only part of the problem. The major problem is who can afford the carrying charges of mortgages at their present rates and the size of mortgage that is required?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Right on.

Mr. Good: So figuring it out, taking about somewhere between 25 and 30 per cent of income -- and this varies depending on who one gets his or her mortgage from -- but taking say 27 per cent, there is no way that a person can afford a house unless he or she is making somewhere around $18,000 a year. The people who need housing are in earning ranges which are considerably less than that. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who really wants a house and is making $18,000 a year in today’s market could have a house. If it was his or her top priority in life to own a house I see no reason why he or she couldn’t have a house.

The $1,000 grant from the government is going to do one of two things for anyone who is trying to get into one of these overpriced units: It can reduce his downpayment by $1,000 or it can reduce his monthly payments by $10. The two realtors I spoke to said: “If you have a prospective buyer and he can’t afford the $400-a-month payment, there is no way he can afford $390 a month,” and that is all the $1,000 is going to do.

So I don’t think we are going to move the type of home which is today the backlog that the Treasurer has spoken of. These are houses in the middle and upper price range and a $10 reduction in monthly payments, or the $1,000 reduction in downpayment, isn’t going to take those homes off the market. If those developers have seen fit to build, on speculation, homes in the medium and upper price range, I would say let the normal process of buyer and seller take its normal course and if they get stuck with them for a while let them be stuck with them.

What we need is a programme that is going to put housing in the hands of the people on lower incomes and I agree that the $55 million could have been used in another manner which would have been more equitable and fair.

I think we will see abuses come into the system, as we did with the simplistic approach that the government first developed in its farm tax reduction scheme.

The first time they introduced it they said everybody living on the farm or in the rural area with over 10 acres would get 25 per cent of their property tax reduced. So the fellow who built a $100,000 home in the rural area on 15 or 20 acres of land got 25 per cent of his municipal taxes refunded. This thing was abused for two or three years, Mr. Speaker, simply because all this government looks at is a headline-grabbing, eye-appealing approach to policy; policy by headline. They’ve been doing it for as long as I’ve been down here.

Granted, Mr. Speaker, this programme does have great political sex appeal. We don’t doubt that. But in my own riding it doesn’t seem to have gone over so big, judging by the calls I’ve had. I must confess I’ve had only about a half a dozen calls and letters on it and of that half dozen -- I received one letter today, a copy of which went to the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- these people are simply disgusted. They say: “I strongly object to the $15,000 being given to first-time home buyers.”

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): It’s $1,500.

Mr. Good: Fifteen hundred, I’m sorry; $1,500 being sent to home buyers.

They go on to explain their objections. They had to skimp and save to get their downpayment, and now they’re going to have to pay for other people. Well, maybe or maybe not that is a valid objection. In two other phone calls I had, the people were quite incensed because they had purchased just a week or two before the April 8 deadline on which the policy was announced. They feel it should be retroactive to this fiscal year. Well the government fiscal year starts April 1, so at least it should go back to April 1, if that would be any advantage; maybe it wouldn’t.

I don’t think it’s going to create one new housing unit in my area. I don’t know about the Toronto area. I understand there are quite a few houses on the market. I also understand they’re in the price range where a person on average wages just can’t afford to buy them.

With a little more forethought and a little more detailed analysis, perhaps that $55 million could have been used in a manner which would have been more beneficial to those people who are really in the bind. There’s no possible way they can ever get into a house.

I’m all for home ownership. I’m all for people owning their own property. I think it’s the only hedge you can have against inflation. I come from a community where not many years ago, 87 per cent of the people lived in houses that they were buying. That has been distorted greatly in the last 10 or 15 years because of the advent of the high-rise apartment. I believe that home ownership gives a family a great deal of stability and I’m all for it. But I don’t think this particular programme has had that much thought go into it, other than its political implications.

Along with the whole budget, people are wrapping this up into one bundle and saying it’s nothing more than electioneering with public money.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: I have a few points on the legislation. The scarifying of the same has been done adequately by my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre. There are several points which I want to peruse or muse about, or go over with the minister. Why 55,000 homes -- is that the idea? Where does that figure come from? How is it arrived at?

I would point out to the minister that the gift tax is being monumentally increased from $2,000 to $5,000. A rich man gives a $5,000 gift, and so forth, and the government adds $1,000 to it. Not many people have rich fathers who are in a position to give $5,000. It’s another element in the overall picture of not benefiting. On the contrary, it is giving positive and extra emphasis or weight to certain elements in the population who really don’t need all the government’s beneficence and handouts. The failure in the legislation is that it is not restricted to those who might very well use it and could.

We would abjure, or request that the minister be clear on the dates that are effective here. A good number of the public, from telephone calls received -- and I’m sure the minister has got them in abundance in his office, too -- haven’t been thoroughly informed about the transaction. Even if entered into prior to April 8, if it closes, if there’s a transfer of title or possession subsequent to that date and up until midnight of Dec. 31 of this year, they qualify. I don’t think it’s clear enough yet. Certain lawyers have asked me about it.

They think that if a transaction was entered into prior to that date then the matter is out the window. The transaction has to be entered into, in other words, subsequent to April 8, which is not the point and intent of this bill. In handling it that way, there is equity, and there is a sense of fairness written into the thing. It falls within a certain period; there is not that arbitrary deadline, that is true.

Well I don’t think the man whose deal actually closed on April 7 should wring his hands. I mean that was set up. It would have been nice, but I don’t think one will get that sense of chagrin or bitterness in the way that this is set up. But please give it a little publicity so that the thing will be made clear.

I’m also a little bemused to wonder what’s going to happen to real estate transactions, say around Dec. 20. I can imagine quite well somebody buying a house on Dec. 31, insisting that it close the next day. I suspect there will be ballooning and pressure mounting towards the end of the year as this legislation comes to a close.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Law offices are mainly closed after Christmas to New Year’s.

Mr. Lawlor: We are going to send it into committee anyhow and I can get that answer without my hearing aid. We want to point out to the minister too, that when the government passes legislation of this kind for industry, conferring benefits upon them by way of subsidy or largess, it doesn’t quite handle it the same way as it does for ordinary people. The production machinery stuff that we’ve been handling here in the past few days, for instance, goes on until 1977. It’s constantly extended, and it’s anticipated that it will be extended. It has been extended from 1968 right clean through.

The flexibilities involved there and the open-handedness in that regard are quite diametrically opposed to the toughness of these measures, although I suspect that possibly as part of the government’s campaign tactics Dec. 31 may not become all that arbitrary. Doesn’t the Treasurer agree? Isn’t that in the back of the government’s mind as an extra move?

I have certainly some misgivings about this. I was speaking last night as I came home, to a real estate salesman on the street. I said: “What impact has the $1,500 or $1,000 in the first-year situation going to have?” He said: “Oh, Lawlor, we’ve already picked that up into the price.” Unless the Treasurer is prepared to bring in some kind of controls, some way in which to place a lid over that, he can’t open Pandora’s box over here. He defeats his own purposes, cuts into the revenues of the province by $55 million and doesn’t achieve what he seeks to achieve at all.

It’s all siphoned off and the gravy is slurped up by those whom even the Treasurer didn’t intend would be the beneficiaries of these particular measures.

The Treasurer does it constantly because he is so purblind about setting up some kind of alternative fixed figures. He has the whole apparatus under the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) to inspect, allocate, set prices for property, determine tax for land transfer tax and land speculation tax measures. There is a whole new department operating in these areas which he could very well, as Treasurer, utilize in this particular regard to set a price which will not be exceeded and which will ensure that all the benefits are not incorporated into different lands than what was the original intention of this legislation.

It’s pussyfooting. But even if it is pussyfooting, miniature and a slight thread that can hardly be seen even in the brightest sunlight, we feel it’s a move in the right direction and we are kind of forced, more or less against the grain, to support it.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other hon. member who wishes to take

part in the debate? The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few comments or Bill 28,

An Act to provide for the Payment of Grants to First Time Home Buyers. I do support the bill in principle but with some reservations. No doubt a grant of some $1,500 will induce many individuals of family status to purchase a home for the first time. Not realizing that this purchase will be one of the most important financial investments the purchaser will be faced with in the period of his lifetime, I’m afraid many of them will not really know the cost involved and whether or not they can afford it. Other members have mentioned that the announcement is nothing but a vote-getting programme.

I can agree with them on that principle, that is what it is for -- just something to go to the public with sometime this year, within the nine-month period, with the hope this will gain additional support for the Conservative government.

My main concern, Mr. Speaker, is the cost involved to induce these individuals to go out and buy homes. I was interested in a brief presented to our caucus last week -- it was a submission to the Ontario government -- on the employment and housing crisis and it was presented by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. It was a very well documented brief and well put together. I was interested in page seven of the brief and perhaps I should read it into the record.

“By 1973 the average Metro home had gone up to $40,000; so assuming a $30,000 mortgage and with the new interest rate of 10 per cent, a 25-year mortgage would require a monthly payment of $268. That is a whopping increase of 320 per cent over 1961.”

I don’t believe wages have increased that much.

“By March, 1975, with Multiple Listing Services’ average home prices at $58,000, a $50,000 mortgage would be typical; with an interest of 12 per cent, a 25-year mortgage would require monthly payments of $515.95. In other words, if one is to keep to the recommended maximum of 25 per cent of income for shelter an annual income of $25,000 would be required to buy the average home listed by MLS in Metro Toronto. With residential and second mortgage interest rates running from 14 to 16 per cent the whole issue of financing housing has gone beyond reason.

“Put simply, since 1961 an increase in interest rates of 85 per cent has raised interest charges by 1,000 per cent over the life of a 25-year mortgage.”

I am concerned when we deal with the Ontario Housing Corp., particularly with a proposed development in the town of Fort Erie. I raised the matter last Dec. 18 with the Minister of Housing over the involvement of Ontario Housing.

They moved into the town of Fort Erie to establish Ontario Housing. They set a price on lots of some $10,000. Of course when you mention $10,000 to the Legislature here perhaps in some areas that’s peanuts compared to what they have to pay for a lot in Toronto. In particular it’s mentioned here that the average income in Ontario today is around $10,000. That may apply in some municipalities. It doesn’t apply in all municipalities throughout Ontario and $10,000 a lot, particularly in the town of Fort Erie, is out of the reach of the average wage earner in that municipality.

When I mentioned about the programme I had figured it out at 4½ or five homes built on an acre of land. The developer would be making a profit of almost $25,000 -- that’s clear -- after all the services have been put in. In the overall picture, looking at 200 homes, there was $1 million in profit which would go to the developer at the expense of the taxpayers of the Province of Ontario, through the Ontario Housing Corp. Again, I say if the involvement of the government is to get into building houses, it must put them on the market at a price the average wage earner in Ontario can afford.

I was concerned particularly about the interest that would be involved in the purchase of a home in that area. I suppose we are looking at $30,000 or $35,000 at 10 per cent to 12 per cent. I suppose we are talking about, in the first year, $3,500 on it and it would run roughly at about $285 to $300 a month to purchase a home in that area. No individual in that area without an income of $25,000 is going to come in under that scheme.

In various election campaigns, we have laughed at one of the political parties, Social Credit, and in particular at one of their main planks, which is to lower the interest rate to about six per cent. When it is mentioned, it raises a few eyebrows and produces a heckle from the crowd or the other candidates on the platform. But I think it makes sense when they say that the interest rate should be around the level of six per cent or seven per cent.

I think we must take a look at the usurious rate of interest in the Province of Ontario and perhaps throughout Canada. I was interested in the comments of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) when he mentioned in the House this afternoon, that certain companies got loans through ODC at 6½ per cent, while the highest is about eight per cent. I believe that’s reasonable.

An hon. member: There are some at zero.

Mr. Haggerty: But for some reason the Ontario Ministry of Housing can’t come through with an interest rate of six per cent or eight per cent. One must conclude that the ministry is in bed with the developers.

Looking at the interest when one has to go out and buy a home through Ontario Housing, on a 40- or 50-year term that interest will bury him for sure. He’ll take it with him to his grave. There are many municipalities, today where there are a number of new homes waiting for buyers, but the buyers cannot afford the interest. Certainly the programme is good for nine months, but all the Treasurer has actually done is to remove the sales tax for that period of nine months.

The Liberal policy in the past, and it probably will be this time, is that the sales tax should be removed on home building. I see the minister has got a little smile on his face, but it is true.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am just delighted that we’ve come that close to hearing the Liberal policy.

Mr. Haggerty: The federal government has moved in that direction and reduced it from 12 per cent to five per cent --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That represents a step forward. It has made the whole day worthwhile.

Mr. Haggerty: -- but not for a period of nine months. If one looks at the resolution presented by the Liberal Party following the last provincial budget, one would see that it was suggested there that the sales tax should be removed from home construction in the Province of Ontario.

If the government is serious about what it wants to do to provide housing in Ontario for the average wage earner, then it should remove the sales tax and, above all, it should lower the interest rate. If they can do it through the ODC loans to businessmen, surely they can find some accommodation for the home buyer in Ontario to bring the interest rate within his means and capabilities in providing a home for his family.

The bill itself, you might say is just a headline hunter. The government obviously hopes it’s going to pick up a few votes from those persons who are going to be able to qualify under the programme -- and how many will be able to qualify, I don’t know. I suppose that when they read the information that is on the application form, they’re going to have second thoughts. They’ll probably soon realize they’ve got to invest $40,000 to pick up $1,000 this year, $250 the next year and $250 the following year. I don’t know if the government is going to be able to fool them or not.

If the government is serious enough and wants to provide homes for the people of the Province of Ontario, then it should lower the interest rate. The government can do it; it has done it in other provincial programmes to assist industry and the like. Surely if the government can find money for that, it can find it for the home builders in Ontario. And, after all, if a person goes out and buys a home in Ontario, he’s going to be buying furniture, appliances and so on; this is what is going to keep industry going, and they’re going to get some benefit out of it.

I think the government’s whole housing programme is going to fail because people today just don’t have the money to be able to go out and buy a home. They’re fortunate enough to even have the downpayment, without having a mortgage for 40 or 50 years; and as mentioned in the brief that was presented to the cabinet, they mention 25 years. I think that 25-year club has gone. I think the present condition is 50 years under the Ontario Housing Corp. I think if the government wants to do something it should lower the interest rate.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, Bill 28 is, of course, part of the government party’s election gimmickry. It is allegedly designed to stimulate house building, but because the first-time owner may buy an existing house there is no assurance that any new housing is going to result.

It is almost impossible for a young couple to initiate the construction of a new house in the time period allowed. The young couple would have to find a lot, go through the legalities required to secure title, then find a contractor who could guarantee to have the house finished by Dec. 31. That is a rather tall order, involving some possibility that the deadline might arrive before title is obtained or possession taken.