Hansard Transcript 1974-Apr-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The first one is it is my understanding that tradition says that every backbench member of the House who wishes may participate in the Throne debate. It has now been indicated this morning that some of the members may not be allowed time to participate.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Indicated by whom?

Mr. Speaker: There has been no such tradition established, nor is there anything in standing orders to that effect; nor does custom in this chamber indicate so.

Mr. Shulman: Is it not in May, sir? Is it your ruling that everyone does not have to be given an opportunity to participate?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t think that a ruling is necessary. I am just confirming the facts to the hon. member.

Mr. Shulman: Sir, is it not possible to extend the hours of the House to allow those members who wish to participate time to do so?

Mr. Speaker: It is beyond my control.

Mr. Shulman: In whose control is it, sir?

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Why doesn’t the member attend the sessions once in a while?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: Do I have any comment from the House leader? Will he make any comment on this?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Ask me a question during question period.

Mr. Shulman: The second matter, sir, is that I believe it is a privilege of the members of this House to receive correspondence and communication from members of the public who are incarcerated in our prisons without those persons being punished for so doing. Back on June 27, 1973, one Daniel Brenner, an inmate of Guelph Reformatory, wrote me a letter complaining about the medical facilities in that institution, which I subsequently raised in the House.

As a result of that letter, many months later -- in fact last week after he had been transferred up to Burwash -- he applied for permission to transfer to Camp Bison, which is a portion of Burwash where people may take classes. He was refused.

As his record was clean, he asked why he had been refused and they then produced a copy of my letter, the letter which he had sent to me in June, 1973, and said that as a result of this letter they didn’t like his attitude. Sir, he is being punished for communicating with his MPP, and surely this is a breach of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: I presume the hon. member is complaining of the suggested procedure wherein they had taken a copy of his confidential letter and certain consequences resulted.

Mr. Shulman: One can’t punish a man for that.

Mr. Speaker: I believe perhaps the hon. member does have some grounds for complaint, but certainly I do not, in any way, see where this is a parliamentary privilege extended to members of the Legislature and not extended to members of the public generally.

The hon. member may have some cause for complaint. He has put his point across on the floor of the chamber. I do not believe it is anything that would constitute parliamentary privilege. However, he’s made his point.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): He must keep in mind that at the moment it is only an allegation.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

MINAKI LODGE

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, on Feb. 7, I announced that an agreement had been reached with the owner of Minaki Lodge for the voluntary transfer of ownership of Minaki Lodge Resorts Ltd. and its associated companies to the Northern Ontario Development Corp.

At that time, I made it very clear the government of Ontario is prepared to assure that Minaki flourishes, not only for its own sake but for the good of northwestern Ontario. I pointed out that the name of the game is not just the creation of an improved and important facility at Minaki, but also it is the building of new opportunity in northwestern Ontario.

It is the government’s firm conviction that an expanded and improved facility at Minaki can act as a magnet to draw additional people into northwestern Ontario and that this facility will complement others which are located in this important area of our province.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I am pleased to announce that a knowledgeable board of directors has taken office to direct the affairs of Minaki. This board will develop policies aimed at providing a facility designed to attract Canadian and international visitors to northwestern Ontario.

The seven-member board is sitting in the Speaker’s gallery this morning and will be holding meetings throughout the day here in Toronto. The board of directors consists of: Mr. Tom Spence, an experienced motel operator of Dryden; Edwin Fahlgren, manager of a Red Lake mining company; Ben Ratuski, a Keewatin businessman known for wild rice; Brian O’Brian, owner of a Thunder Bay real estate company and president of the associated Chambers of Commerce, northeastern and northwestern Ontario; David Caswell, a well-known northern Ontario hotel operator; Rolland Doucette, a Perth restaurateur; and the seventh is Fred Boyer, executive director of the division of tourism in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism.

This board, Mr. Speaker, has been given the dual responsibility of appointing expert management and preparing the physical concept of the Minaki Lodge to emerge in the near future. I have every reason to believe that through these actions we shall produce a facility that will be of real benefit to Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that Minaki Lodge is now in the hands of Canadians. It is the intention of the government of Ontario to get the affairs of Minaki Lodge back into excellent condition and then to take the necessary steps to put this superb resource in the hands of the Canadian private sector.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

CORPORATION INCOME TAX PAID BY OIL COMPANIES TO PROVINCE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier a question if I can have his attention for a moment. Does he agree with the statement made by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) yesterday that it is not within the minister’s competence or power to reveal the tax returns submitted to him by public corporations in this province? His answer was in response to the leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) who was requesting specific information in this regard.

Would the Premier not agree that these matters are a matter of public record and, particularly since the situation is going to have to be made public, he should instruct his Minister of Revenue to make public this information without any further delay?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is presuming on my knowledge of the law. This is something I would have to discuss with the minister and perhaps even with the Attorney General (Mr. Welch).

Quite frankly, I don’t know what the statues provide with respect to disclosure of tax information. If the statutes provide that it can’t be disclosed, obviously we must be bound by the statutes. If the statutes do not so provide, of course, I think the minister would consider it.

I cannot give the Leader of the Opposition the legal opinion here this morning because I haven’t had an opportunity to check the statutes myself. Quite frankly, even if I had, I think I would want to get some advice from the chief law officer of the Crown in any event.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): That’s a good, tough question though.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’m glad the Treasurer is here; I have a question or two for him, since this is the first time he has been in for a question period for a number of days. Will he just stay for a little while?

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): The member is lucky he was away.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He was here yesterday.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier would simply state, as a matter of principle, that if the law does not forbid it -- and no one here knows of any such law or regulation -- and if it is just the reluctance of the Minister of Revenue, as it appeared yesterday, that he will correct that reluctance and see that the public information is provided without delay.

Hon. Mr. White: Hard-hitting “Bob Nixon” is on the warpath, by George.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I hear the Treasurer is getting out of politics. I hear he can’t stand the heat. I hear that he and Ward Cornell are going to move to London and see what they can stir up.

An hon. member: There’s no challenge here.

Hon. Mr. White: I can’t stand looking over there any longer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Liberals have been out of politics for years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have almost forgotten the question; I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition can remember what he asked and then maybe I can answer it. I have a feeling my answer is the same as it was to the first question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would put it to the Premier, if his exuberant friend can contain himself for a moment --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Has he been up all night?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Will he instruct the Minister of Revenue to give this information if in fact it is just his reluctance rather than any regulation which prohibits it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Revenue, being one of those very capable men on this side of this House, doesn’t need any instructions from me --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, that’s two -- the Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If it is proper to release this information, I am sure he will do so. But, as I said a few moments ago, it depends on what the statutes provide.

RESTORATION OF OLD FORT WILLIAM

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the question I have for the Treasurer is not of such great importance, I would direct my next question to the Minister of Natural Resources, who seems to be in the news again concerning the government policy with regard to the construction of Old Fort William.

Is he prepared to appear before the public accounts committee to justify once again the charges in the Globe and Mail by Gerald McAuliffe that substantial contracts have been let without tender, even though the statement has been made through other members of the ministry, that wherever possible, tendering procedures will be used? Is he prepared to explain as well why the basic contract was let without tender to National Heritage and Pigott Project Management, without even the requirement of a performance bond, although they in turn require 100 per cent performance bonds from the subcontractors who are doing the work for them?

Basically, is the minister prepared to appear before the committee on public accounts to justify what appears to be a policy that flies in the face of the stated policy of the administration?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, if I may explain one little point regarding the article that appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning -- and I might say it is the third one -- as I read it this morning, it reminded me, I suppose, of sausage -- some bad sausage.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Bad sausage?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The casing was good but the stuffing was terrible, and I think my friend will have to agree with that. Just one point, though: I was shocked that this session is now into its third or fourth week and this is the first question that the opposition members have directed to me in connection with what will be the most fantastic tourist attraction in northwestern Ontario. This will be a milestone in the development of tourist attractions. Don’t ever forget it.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It should be at what it cost at public expense.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I might say further that I am in Thunder Bay at least once a week. My telephone lines and my mail communications to northwestern Ontario are excellent --

Mr. Renwick: That doesn’t excuse the way in which the contract was let, and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and I might say that to this day I have not received a phone call of complaint or a --

Mr. Renwick: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- letter of complaint. The news media are supporting our project up there. And all of northwestern Ontario is excited about this particular development --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister received a question this morning. What about the fact that no tenders were let?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s deal with the question of the expenditure of public funds. Let’s deal with the improper use of public funds.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Answer the question! The minister can’t get away with that; he doesn’t have the talent.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: We will try it in the public accounts committee where the minister won’t be able to make his propaganda statements.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I haven’t received a complaint from northwestern Ontario about the construction of Old Fort William -- not one complaint -- and I am there looking for it all the time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have over here.

An hon. member: What’s so special about the member?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The former Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Auld) explained it very well with regard to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and I don’t think there is any need for me to delve into that further. But I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that with regard to the calling of tenders and specifically the placing of performance bonds --

Mr. Sargent: What a bunch of clowns!

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- this is not a requirement within the contract itself, and many of the contracts that were called --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why isn’t it? Surely it should be.

Mr. Renwick: It is required by public accounts.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- were all subcontracts awarded by the contractor himself, and they are not necessary --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Then the minister is to blame.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I tell the member that dealing with such picayune things as birch bark, as cedar bark --

Mr. Renwick: As public funds, such picayune things as public funds.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): But 10 times as big!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- for all picayune little contracts, it is not necessary to ask for a performance bond. But I would be prepared to look into it further.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Tories trust Tories when they are handling public Treasury.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I asked the minister if he would agree to appear before the public accounts committee, where this must be gone into in detail; will he give his undertaking so to do?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, if I get a request from the public accounts committee, certainly I’ll be glad to appear.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: How can the minister justify, simply by referring to what his colleague said in answer to a question some months ago, saying that it is not necessary to call tenders? Surely if the government is going to spend public money in the most effective and fair way it is necessary to call tenders?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just explained that, Mr. Speaker. Many of the contracts called were subcontracts by the contractor himself. It’s not necessary for them to place performance bonds for contracts which may be --

Mr. Renwick: But the major contract is and the accounting for it is.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- for $1,000 to $2,000 and are very small and picayune in nature.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): A supplementary: Is the minister not aware, in view of his answer to the first question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, that he has received complaints from northwestern Ontario and there has been on the order paper since the first week of this session a detailed question on Old Fort William? If the minister had the courage to answer that detailed question, he might in fact clear up a lot of the misunderstanding surrounding Old Fort William, instead of giving these vague wishy-washy answers.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr., Speaker, those questions placed on the order paper will be answered in due course.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, in view of the minister’s answer: Is he not aware that I am surprised he hasn’t had time to answer it in three weeks, if he thinks nobody has asked him questions on this matter for three weeks?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have to point out to you that the member for Port Arthur is the only one who has raised any question about the development of Old Fort William. I am surprised, if he is a true northwestern Ontarian, that he should be against a development of that magnitude.

Mr. Breithaupt: No one is against it!

An hon. member: Sure he is.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): He doesn’t want it at all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s what we asked, that’s what we want.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Surely he is not representing his people as they would want him to represent them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is a weak defence by the minister.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not aware that if the government spent the amount of money it is spending on Old Fort William on genuine secondary industrial development in northwestern Ontario, it would have a much stronger economic infrastructure than with the Disneyland tourist trade it is now building?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Let the member take it up in public accounts and stop wasting question time.

Mr. Foulds: That is the Tories for you!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): He doesn’t like tourists.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would ask the member for Port Arthur to inform himself on what the tourist industry means to northwestern Ontario. If he would do a little bit of background research and find out what it really means --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He doesn’t like tourism. He and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa) want hot-dog stands. What has the NDP got against tourism?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- and the employment it provides; the dollars and the traffic it will generate will be fantastic, beyond his wildest dreams.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Without smokestacks.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He should bring himself up to date on those plans.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): He doesn’t know a boathouse from a dog kennel.

Mr. Foulds: I would ask the minister himself what it means to labour in industry and the sweat shop industry itself?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition on a new question.

RESTRUCTURING OF RENFREW COUNTY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask a question of the Treasurer, since he is so anxious to participate in the debate this morning. In his capacity as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, he does have some responsibility for the municipalities to some extent; how did he reply to the mayor of the town of Renfrew who complained that the Treasurer has established an inadequate base for the committee to look into the restructuring of Renfrew county, in that the terms of reference were going to be established by two people, not elected, from only one community in the area? Has he amended his position on the basis for that examination into a possible restructuring, or is he just going to let it go and bull it through as is his custom?

Hon. Mr. White: I think the mayor’s letter has reached the Leader of the Opposition before it reached me. At any rate, I haven’t seen it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is addressed to the minister and is dated March 26.

Hon. Mr. White: I haven’t seen it yet.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t he read his mail? Isn’t he ever in his office?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. White: I have been working on the budget.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Come on!

Mr. Bullbrook: There is the hard-hitting Treasurer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: As the minister has not read his mail, and the letter must have been on his desk probably for five days, can he undertake to the House that he will review the establishment of the committee which is to set up the terms of reference for the restructuring of Renfrew county to see that it is distributed more widely across the communities of the county and to give an answer to the mayor who says in his third paragraph: “Since you have chosen not to answer two previous communications on this matter”, probably the man, in some desperation, is communicating with somebody else?

Hon. Mr. White: I’ll certainly read the letter and I’ll certainly reply to it. Whether I can meet the substance of his request, I cannot tell at the moment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And really, essentially, the Treasurer doesn’t give a damn.

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

OIL PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Energy if he had any part to play in what appears to be a substantial mistake in the establishment of the base price of the oil from Alberta, or if he is prepared to say the blame lies entirely elsewhere? Were his statisticians involved in the computations which we read about, leading to a fairly serious error involving an extra $30 million at least in the costing of this oil?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What about the 99 cents a gallon on oil?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): No.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I didn’t hear the answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The answer was no.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister having his statisticians look into this matter to see if, in fact, it will have a direct effect on the consumers in this province, who seem to have their prices dictated by the agreement of the Premiers, based on, in this case, inadequate information?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, since the meeting of a week ago last Wednesday we have been having our statisticians and others examine all aspects of the matter, including the differences between the wellhead price and the Edmonton price and transportation costs. I’m not entirely clear as to the references to the differences between synthetic crude and other oil, for example, as contained in this morning’s paper. We are looking into that.

We are, of course, looking into the matter of the other increase of one or two cents requested by the companies and we are assured by Ottawa they are looking into all these matters and hope to come to a resolution.

I should also point out one inaccuracy, if I may Mr. Speaker, in what the Leader of the Opposition has said. He implied that this was an agreement reached by the Premiers of the provinces --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Why wasn’t the minister at that meeting?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He is overlooking the fact that the agreement in effect was -- and I don’t think it’s too strong a word -- dictated by the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Breithaupt: He would have a small part to play.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree with the Premier, who stated after the agreement was completed that he had accepted -- I wish I could remember the exact words -- but with some equanimity and that it was the best he could get?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With reluctance. Does the member want me to repeat what I said?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Sure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just so there is no misunderstanding, I said that I was pleased there had been an agreement reached so that there wouldn’t be a confrontation, that with reluctance we accepted the $6.50 price, which was the price suggested by the Prime Minister of Canada --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There was an agreement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but if we didn’t reach agreement they would impose the price by legislation. Ontario preferred a $6 price, and still would; some sister provinces preferred $8, and some were somewhere in between. Ontario would still like to have had $6, but the Prime Minister of Canada made it abundantly clear -- and I understand the position he had to take, because he had to have it solved -- when he said: “Gentlemen, we agree or it’s $6.50 tomorrow afternoon by way of legislation.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: The Premier then, in clarification of what the Minister for Energy has said, did not really feel the decision was imposed upon him and that he accepted it under circumstances somewhat different than the minister describes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that one can use whatever interpretation one may want to use.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Try to get it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was an offer he couldn’t refuse.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The first minister of this country, who had to make a determination because April 1 was coming, said, very politely but very firmly: “If we can reach an agreement, fine. If we can’t, it’s $6.50 by legislation;” I think he said “tomorrow afternoon.” It’s as simple as that. One can use whatever interpretation one wants.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sounds like “The Godfather.”

Mr. Bullbrook: Supplementary of the Premier, if I may: Notwithstanding whether the agreement was reciprocal or imposed, may we properly assume from the response given by the Minister of Energy that the first ministers of all the provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada, on behalf of the people whom they represent, have entered into an agreement in connection with the base rate without taking into consideration the wellhead price of synthetic crude?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the member for Sarnia that we were discussing the price per barrel of oil coming into the sister provinces of Canada; and we were discussing a price -- and there was whatever terminology one might wish to use -- a price of $6.50 plus transportation.

Mr. Bullbrook: I take it the answer is yes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. There was no mention --

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of final supplementary, is the Premier saying in effect that he did or did not take into consideration in his base rate agreement the wellhead price of synthetic crude? If he did, would he please tell us he did? If he didn’t, why didn’t he? And who advises the Premier in connection with these things?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that neither the first minister nor any Premier there distinguished between synthetic or non-synthetic crude. It’s as simple as that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, if I might just add to this, I think the member is suggesting that the Premier was not properly advised. May we say that it would have been much easier --

Mr. Sargent: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: How can he do it?

Mr. Speaker: The original question was directed to the hon. minister and the hon. members directed it to the Premier after. The hon. Minister of Energy has every right to complete his answer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member has suggested that proper advice was not given to the Premier of this province, and I think we can say that we were not able to give him all the advice which we would like to have given him because of the fact that from the January meetings the government of Canada did not consult with the other provinces. They entered into certain bilateral discussions, which Ontario was not necessarily part of. We didn’t know what was going to be put on the table because of the secrecy surrounding the federal government’s plans.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: This government entered into an agreement and didn’t know what the contents were.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Has the hon. Leader of the Opposition further questions? The hon. member for Wentworth on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Members opposite are just patsies for Ottawa.

Mr. Bullbrook: Can you imagine signing that agreement, Mr. Speaker, and not knowing what was in it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Wentworth.

TORONTO REAL ESTATE BOARD PROPERTY SALES NEWS BLACKOUT

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This family squabbling is getting a bit much.

I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations if he believes that the recent action of the Toronto Real Estate Board, where it decided not to publish the sales figures for property sales in Metropolitan Toronto --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I can’t tell whether the question is in order or not.

An hon. member: It is out of date but it is in order.

Mr. Deans: Yes, it is out of date. I am asking the minister whether he feels that action is in the public interest or whether he feels that it is simply an attempt by the real estate board to hide the rapidly rising prices of housing in Metropolitan Toronto.

Doesn’t the minister think it might be in the public interest for his ministry to take over and to publish such figures on a monthly or weekly basis in selected areas of the Province of Ontario to ensure that the public is aware of the kinds of escalating prices that are taking place?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I read with interest the matter to which the hon. member refers. I was also somewhat ironically amused to note that it was the subject of a press release, which of course would have the effect of drawing all sorts of attention to it. It might well be in the public interest that this information be made available. I haven’t considered it yet, Mr. Speaker. I was somewhat surprised when I read the announcement myself.

Mr. Deans: By way of supplementary question, can we anticipate that the minister might be making a statement with regard to the possibility of his ministry assuming some role in the field and making sure that the public of Ontario is made aware of the kinds of price increases, not only the rate of increase but the justification for the increases that are occurring in the Province of Ontario in the housing field?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by my staff that the board reversed the decision, apparently this morning, and is now going to release those figures.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member who asked the original should have the first supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Regardless of the decision by the Toronto Real Estate Board to release the figures, does the minister not feel that it is a public responsibility and that it should apply not simply to Toronto but to other centres in the province that are feeling the effects of increased prices for housing? Does he not feel that it might be in the interest of bringing down the price of housing if he were to undertake the responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I do feel that it is in the public interest to make as much information available to the public as is possible. I would like to point out to the hon. member that this is an independent association and I, per se, have no jurisdiction over it. But I do think it is in the public interest that the public be advised of the trends, not only in real estate but other commodities over which we have some interest or some control.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a supplementary having to do with the other commodities. I was wondering, if the minister believes this information should be public, as others obviously do, would he include, in a housing price index in that we might develop something like that, a reference to the apartment rates, particularly in the Metropolitan areas and the urban areas of the province? The predictions are that the vacancy rates are now at one per cent and are going to be zero in the fall. I think the public should be kept informed as to how these rates are changing as well.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) made a statement touching on this subject yesterday. I just can’t recall his entire statement as to whether this information was going to be looked into or not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He said he didn’t think the shortage was as substantial as indicated.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary? The hon. member for Wentworth.

RENT INCREASES

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the same minister another question related to a similar field. Does the minister feel that information in the following statement: “When increases occur, most customers want to know what the extra dollars are buying. The answer is unfortunately next to nothing,” is sufficient justification for increasing apartment rentals by 10 to 15 to 20 per cent right across Metro Toronto and in other metropolitan centres?

Hon. Mr. Clement: What’s the question?

Mr. Deans: I am asking the minister whether he feels that the following statement is sufficient justification for the recent increases in rental; I will read it to him again: “When increases occur, most customers want to know what the extra dollars are buying. The answer is unfortunately next to nothing.”

That’s the justification being given for rent increases right across the province and I am asking the minister whether he feels that’s sufficient justification for the kinds of rent increases that we are seeing in the province.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware who made that statement and I really have no comment to pass other than that it seems to be somewhat innocuous. I don’t even know who made the comment or under what circumstances.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question, may I ask the question of the minister, then, in another way. Recognizing the rapidly increasing rental costs in the Province of Ontario, does the minister feel that it is now time to demand that those who are renting provided adequate justification for rental increases in order to ensure that there is not the kind of -- and I use the word again -- gouging that takes place as a result of a decrease in the numbers of rental units available?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, if you had rent control you could legislate for that very thing. We have no rent control in this province at this time and I couldn’t legislate and make it mandatory, with any sanctions applied if the person didn’t obey it, that every landlord is under an obligation in this province to give a breakdown on any cost increase. I don’t know under what legislation I could make that mandatory.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister just replied that he has no plans for rent control at this time. Are plans being undertaken by the ministry for rent control at some future date?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have no such plans, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): A supplementary: Is the minister familiar with the rent regulation legislation of the Province of Quebec, both the new legislation and that which has been in force for the last 20 years? What studies of that programme has the ministry got to see whether it would apply in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I have heard of the rent programme in Quebec. I should point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that the Landlord and Tenant Act is under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. I really have more than a passing interest in it as a tenant, but other than that I have no legislative authority behind me relating to tenancies and the rentals of properties within this province.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, a final supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: There have been a reasonable number of supplementaries.

The hon. member for Wentworth, a new question?

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Is the minister in a position to indicate whether the ministry intends at some point to proceed with the recommendations of the select committee investigating community use of schools, in order to allow the Hamilton board to make some reasonable and rational determination as to what schools might be closed, or what schools can be used? And can the minister say whether or not the ministry is prepared, at some point in the near future, to fund to any degree other than for direct educational use of school buildings?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): That is all under consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: Well, a supplementary question: Doesn’t the minister understand that the situation he is creating in Hamilton, both by demanding that there will be an integration of the separate and public schools, and secondly by insisting there be a closing down because of his financial arrangements, is going to put the board in a position of not having facilities for community use within the next two years, unless there is a clear indication from the government as to its intent?

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend, Mr. Speaker, has got that all twisted around.

Mr. Deans: No, I have not.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The minister isn’t forcing anybody into anything, but I will just tell him what’s happened. For two years this ministry has asked if the separate school board and the public school board in the Hamilton-Wentworth area can’t get together and share accommodation.

I have sat patiently at many meetings and I have looked at what’s there. There are vacant classrooms in schools and there are other school boards who want classrooms. I think the two parties working together in co-operation should be able to solve their problems. They haven’t, unfortunately, to the discredit of both of them.

Although I think both of them have tried very hard, they haven’t been able to come up with any solution. It is not because of fault on our part. All we have done is to say they should get together and try to work out their problem and share accommodation.

I must tell the hon. member I met with the separate school board last night. They indicated to me their very real concern that they had to move ahead because in good faith they tried to make some accommodation with the public school board and to come to some conclusion. Everything that had been suggested has been turned down to date and hasn’t been accepted.

Based on my meeting last night, as I said, I am looking at that. We are going to have to make some special determinations on what is going to be done in the Hamilton area in order to solve some of the problems of those boards. I am not sure that it relates at all to the report of the select committee on utilization of school facilities, because as I understand it that’s an interim report and that committee is going to bring in further reports which may modify some of the things that they have indicated in their earlier reports.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister been approached by anyone, from either a school board or from the community where the sharing of facilities has been undertaken, I believe in the Toronto area, complaining that where the public facilities have become redundant by population changes it is often the low quality facilities that are declared redundant, and that the separate school supporters feel that they are being put into, let’s say lower quality facilities because of the minister’s policy that does not permit them to build on their own? Has he heard that complaint?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have heard that complaint, but I would just point out to the hon. member that there is no law that says they have to accept those facilities.

Mr. Deans: The ministry won’t let them build their own.

Hon. Mr. Wells: All we have done is said to them to start taking a look at these facilities and see if they can be of any use to them. In places where they have taken them, they have done so on their own free volition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I might remind the hon. members that yesterday 35 minutes of the question period was taken by the two leaders of the opposition. Today two-thirds of the time has already passed. There has been no opportunity for the ministers to give replies to previous questions or for any of the backbenchers to ask questions. I think the hon. leaders should perhaps control the number of questions they ask. Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition with a supplementary.

An hon. member: They are suppressing their backbenchers.

Mr. Kennedy: Ours too.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Leader of the Opposition did have a supplementary, I am sorry I interrupted him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will probably get the information privately from the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Wentworth have further questions? If not, the hon. Minister of Energy has the response to a previous question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, I am so glad he came this morning.

WIND ENERGY SEMINAR

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) has asked on two occasions whether we plan to send observers or participants to a conference on wind energy at Sherbrooke University, I think in May or June.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. That decision has been made. Let me just say that we follow with interest the interest of a number of people in wind energy. We don’t think that its day has arrived; we think it is some distance in the future.

I ran across this item this morning; actually it came from British Columbia. It gives us some idea, if I can put it this way, of how far out the situation is at this moment.

In a 10 mile per hour wind, which is probably about average for most parts of the east coast of Vancouver Island, and I understand it is about the same here, an efficient 50-ft diameter windmill can generate about 12 kilowatts of electric power. To equal the power of a single 600 megawatt nuclear station -- and I should point out that for example the Clark Keith station in Windsor is about half that size -- would require about 50,000 very large windmills -- when the wind is blowing.

Mr. Breithaupt: One might get rid of the whole province that way.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): What’s stopping him?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): I don’t know how the minister can provide statistics on wind if he can’t figure out the price of gas.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: To avoid interfering with each other’s wind, if I can put it that way, they would have to be spaced out at least 300 ft from each other and the installation would then cover 160 square miles of land with at least 2,800 miles of transmission cable.

We will continue to follow closely developments in wind energy, but I think we would have to say at this moment it does not present a practical solution to the energy problems of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have a supplementary? The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Has the minister, by any chance, read my speech from last week directed entirely to him?

Mr. Singer: Does little else.

Mr. Deans: He read it last night.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have not seen a text of the member’s speech -- perhaps he would be good enough to send it to me and I would enjoy looking at it over the weekend -- but I have seen press reports of it, yes.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: If I may answer the minister, it appears in Hansard --

Mr. Speaker: This is a question period. There is no answer by the hon. member. This is a question period.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member may not --

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: Would the minister be kind enough to consult Hansard of March 25 and March 28, in which this subject is dealt with at considerable length?

Mr. Sargent: Good for you!

Mr. Burr: Another supplementary: Does the minister not realize that the statement he has made this morning shows how greatly in need he and his advisers are of going to the seminar and finding out what has been devised in the last couple of years?

As another supplementary, does the minister not realize that the people who are going to be at the seminar have said they could devise a system in four years that would give the equivalent energy of the nuclear plant that he is going to take 11 years to build at Goderich?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I accept; and I will read the member’s speech of March 25 with a great deal of interest. I undertake to do that over the weekend. I frankly admit that I am not an expert on this subject. I have found out enough about the conference in May that I understand, by reputation, some of the world’s leading wind experts are to be there and --

Mr. Breithaupt: Then the minister should be there.

Mr. Foulds: Why hasn’t he been invited?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- on that basis I assume that whether we send anybody from the ministry or not, there will be representation there from this House.

Mr. Speaker: There have been enough supplementaries. The hon. member had three supplementaries. The hon. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has the answer to a question asked previously.

VEHICLES ON CONSIGNMENT

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) asked the following question some days ago:

Does the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act allow the registrar to issue a directive prohibiting a dealer to place on his premises a vehicle on consignment?

I’m advised that the registrar, under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, recently ordered a dealer to remove approximately 40 vehicles from his premises. These were the property of two other dealers who were also registered under the same Act. His authority for so doing is that under section 3, subsection 3 of the Act, it clearly states:

A registered motor vehicle dealer shall not carry on business in a name other than the name in which he is registered or invite the public to deal at a place other than that authorized by the registration.

Two-thirds of the vehicles on this lot were in the name of another dealer registration and therefore should not be offered for sale from a place other than the dealer’s premises.

Further to this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that the principle of dealers offering vehicles that they do not own to the public is very questionable where a previously undisclosed lien may arise and the purchaser may lose possession of a vehicle that he has, in fact, purchased in good faith.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

FREIGHT RATES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier, since the Minister of Transportation and Communications is not here. In view of the fact that every trucking company in Ontario sets it own freight rates, how long do we have to wait for this government, and this new minister, to correct this scandalous situation? This is an important part of our economy and has much to do with the high cost of living in my part of the province and the rest of the province. Why can’t we have the Highway Transport Board get down to it and demand that these rates be reviewed on behalf of the people this year?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Doesn’t the member believe in competition?

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): There is no competition when you have restricted leases.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to discuss this matter with the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary: We’ve had this type of response from the former minister (Mr. Carton), and I’m fed up with you fellows saying you’re going to lock into it. A further supplementary --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is that not so?

Mr. Sargent: That’s all right. The backbenchers are talking, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say that I’m fed up with --

Mr. Speaker: Well where is the question? What is the supplementary?

Mr. Sargent: The question is, how long is the Premier going to allow former Minister of Highways Charlie MacNaughton, a director of Laidlaw’s, and John Robarts, to sit with their brief cases before the Highway Transport Board on behalf of trucking companies? Where are the ethics involved in this deal? Where are the ethics there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I won’t get into a discussion of ethics here this morning, because the member and I might get into some discussion where perhaps he might assume that he should himself question his own.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier to say what he means by that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: The buck doesn’t stop here; it stops in --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: And the Premier should know that himself.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: Of all people, he tells me that!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: The Moog and Davis --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I want to ask something too!

Interjections by hon. members.

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

Mr. Lawlor: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

In light of the public revelations made last year on the Windsor race track and the race fixing done there, has the minister under consideration revising the investigative procedures utilized by that commission, which are highly questionable, and the basis upon which they penalize individuals?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I wouldn’t want the hon. member to think I was speaking too loudly for him, so perhaps if he could read lips I could give him the answer.

The investigative processes conducted by the Ontario Racing Commission are, I might suggest, being improved upon almost constantly. I am aware that some of the practices, because of the nature of the industry, might lead some as learned in the law as is the hon. member to question them as to their validity.

I should point out that the Racing Commission has already conducted hearings in public, which is contrary to the policy that prevailed up to some short time ago --

Mr. Lawlor: Which is a great improvement.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and I think one of the advantages of having these matters dealt with in public is that people such as the hon. member and I can have an opportunity to look into these investigations and know what is going on in the hearings, and in that way the general improvement will be beneficial to all.

I’m very much in favour of such matters, except under certain circumstances, being dealt with in public so there can be the public scrutiny I think is in the best interests of justice, and I hope to see constant improvement in that particular area.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since they have their own investigative staff, as the minister knows, and they don’t use the regular police apparatus, doesn’t the minister, as a lawyer, find somewhat questionable the laying of some nebulous concept called “specifications”, which are in effect really criminal charges, and the way in which they are bandied by the commission?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I should point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, that while they do use their own investigative resources, they do under certain circumstances work very closely with police forces both within and without of this province. As the hon. member knows, a number of participants of the racing industry who are racing in this province are in fact moving back and forth across the international border. I am advised that they utilize these resources that are available in the United States in certain instances, as well as resources here in the form of other police forces, particularly the Ontario Provincial Police in certain circumstances.

Mr. Lawlor: What about investigation?

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

FEDERAL BANK LEGISLATION

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): I would like to ask the Treasurer what his position is with respect to the impending federal legislation to amend the Bank Act, which will enable provinces to buy into new and existing banks, and which may enable new banks to be established by letters patent? I consider this very far-reaching legislation. Does the Treasurer intend to encourage its passage or to discourage its

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, some parts of Canada think they have not been as well served by the chartered banks as their economic needs warrant. What the facts of the matter are I am not entirely sure, because the banks in their turn provide statistical evidence to indicate that they are lending more money into those parts or the country than moneys placed on deposit from there. They conclude that they are providing extra special stimulus to those parts of the country where economic development has been somewhat slower than here in Ontario.

At any rate, at the urging of those parts of Canada and particularly western Canada, the federal government has decided to enable provinces to own up to 25 per cent of a chartered bank. I have no particular objection to that, but I think we in Ontario will not have to utilize that federal legislation because I do believe we are well served by the large banks which have, I think, about 4,000 branches across this province.

We received requests from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to do what we could to increase the supply and lower the cost of farm credit. The Minister of Agriculture and Food and I have been meeting with the chartered banking association and we have had a very sympathetic response from them. It seems to me that, in preference to our starting our own bank or purchasing part of an existing bank, our cause is best served by going to the chartered banks, when we have requests of this kind, and eliciting their special co-operation in these extraordinary needs of one kind or another. That is our position at the present time.

Mr. Givens: A supplementary: Well, is the Treasurer --

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired; we have exceeded the time actually.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Shulman: But, sir, on a point of privilege. I rose earlier today on a question of the privileges of the backbench members to participate in this debate. I asked for response from the minister responsible; he said ask it in the question period. But because the backbench members have so few chances to ask questions in this House, I didn’t get a chance to ask him.

Now surely it is a privilege of the members of this House to participate in the debates, and surely the government should answer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member made the rules.

Mr. Shulman: Oh yes, I made the rules!

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the hon. member that --

Mr. Shulman: They agree with me.

Mr. Speaker: -- the question period has developed that we rely upon the leaders of the two opposition parties to regulate their number of questions. I try to limit the number of supplementary questions without being too restrictive.

As I did announce today, the time taken yesterday by the leaders of the two parties was quite excessive; it left practically no time. I brought it to the attention --

Mr. Shulman: No difference today. It’s no different any day.

Mr. Speaker: Oh yes, it’s quite different some days. I brought it to the attention of the House today and both members did co-operate. Now I regret that the hon. member for High Park did not have an opportunity, but I assure him that it was not his turn. I recognize the hon. members in turn. Perhaps he might direct that question in the next question period.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: His are better questions, too, that is the pity.

Mr. Speaker: Before proceeding I should announce to the hon. members that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor will be in the chamber just before adjournment time at 1 o’clock to give royal assent to certain bills. I have also been asked to inform the hon. members that His Honour extends a cordial invitation to all members to visit with him in his chambers at the adjournment hour of this House.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

LAKE OF THE WOODS DISTRICT HOSPITAL

Mr. Maeck moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting Lake of the Woods District Hospital.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

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

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the time that has elapsed since I adjourned this debate we have entered into a very historic day in this Legislature, for today marks the final official visit of a man who has accomplished something that very few in their lifetime can. That is, by his own personal magnitude, his own dedication to office and his constant example of standing for the very things which are the finest in this province; he has surpassed the institution.

Sir, it was a couple of weeks ago when this Legislature tendered a dinner to His Honour. On that occasion, a journalist questioned me particularly along the lines of “do we need that kind of symbol any more in Canadian society?” Of course, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that had he known a little more about the parliamentary system he would have realized we do need that office if our system is to continue.

Beyond that, it seems to me that His Honour over the years has not only brought great dignity to his office, he has been an example to the people of this province. Mr. Speaker, I don’t think any member of this assembly, present at his dinner, was not touched by his final remarks. His Honour talked about the great love he has for this province and how he had travelled this province. I would like to point out that His Honour, in the finest sense of the word, is this province because to me he symbolizes all of the things that are great and all of the opportunities that are available to people in Ontario.

Sir, this is indeed an historic day and I don’t think it should be marked with sadness. I think the last thing His Honour would like is for people to feel at all sad that he has completed his assignment for he has completed it so marvellously and, indeed, he has been a great inspiration not only to the senior portion of our population because he has not allowed the infirmities which come with advancing years to interfere with his duties, he has also been a great source of inspiration to young people in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I have deviated a bit from the normal speech in the Throne Speech debate because, with the way the schedule reads, I will be the last speaker representing the government party on this day of His Honour’s last official visit to the chamber.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise with you a matter of privilege and I would hope, when I am done with the matter of privilege, we shall have another historic day in this chamber.

The matter of privilege that I wish to raise with you concerns the denial to me by an arbitrary ruling upon your part, with great respect, which denies me my full privilege as a member to communicate with my constituents. The nature of your ruling, sir, also denies me the basic privilege of immunity from lawsuit --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is the hon. member for Scarborough Centre challenging the ruling of the Chair? Is this a device by which he is going to challenge the ruling of the Chair? If so, I ask you to rule if the hon. member is in order or out of order.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the privilege has to be considered --

Mr. Speaker: No. Order, please. I have no idea whatsoever what the hon. member is going to refer to. Certainly it is highly unusual, to say the very least, to raise what is termed a matter of privilege during the Throne debate. It is quite correct that any hon. member may speak about any matter he wishes to speak about during his Throne debate as long as he stays within the confines of parliamentary procedure. Now, it seems to me that to raise a point of privilege in this manner -- as the hon. member knows the Speaker has no opportunity to respond -- as part of the Throne debate, I would think is out of order.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to challenge you, sir, but I would like to give an explanation. The matter of privilege which I wish to raise concerns the Throne debate and that is why I bring it up when it is my turn to speak in the Throne debate. It is my only opportunity to raise the matter of privilege concerning the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Renwick: No it isn’t. No it isn’t.

Mr. Speaker: Privilege, as referred to in connection with what the hon. member is saying, refers to parliamentary privilege conferred upon members of Parliament. Now the privileges referred to consist of certain rights conferred upon members of Legislatures and of the House of Commons or any parliament, which are not conferred upon any member of the public. Anything that falls within the ambit of that description is a point of privilege.

There have been many, many hon. members over the past years who have attempted to rise on a point of privilege when, in fact, it was not a point of privilege at all. It might have been properly construed as a point of order.

It occurred to me that there were certain matters that perhaps could be raised and should be raised and I therefore did make a ruling at one time, not too long ago, that where an hon. member does have something to bring up in the chamber, by way of explanation or further indication to clarify certain matters, if he consulted with the Speaker’s office this would be permitted. But certainly during the Throne debate it is improper to raise a point of privilege.

Mr. Drea: Then with great respect, sir, may I ask the question of when I would be allowed to raise a question of privilege regarding the Throne Speech?

Mr. Speaker: Not at this particular time.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The member knows the rules.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Before the orders of the day.

Mr. Drea: The member for High Park has great luck with that.

Interjection by an hon. member.

An hon. member: Don’t use the word privilege.

Mr. Drea: I am getting some advice, Mr. Speaker, but I don’t want to try to circumvent your ruling. I am not that type of person. I will bring it up at the proper time. I am not not going to play games. I respect your ruling. I don’t agree with it, but I am not going to play games and try to circumvent it by dropping the word or the expression privilege.

Mr. Renwick: Very good.

Mr. Drea: But perhaps, sir, I might have the opportunity to consult with the Clerk and get an idea of when one can raise the question of privilege concerning one’s participation in the Throne Speech debate, if indeed it can’t be raised at that time.

Mr. Renwick: Is the member going to consult him now?

Mr. Drea: I must say to my friend from High Park, we haven’t done very well. That’s three strikes today, two on him and one on me. Mr. Speaker, to return to the matter of the Throne Speech --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Why don’t the two of them start a football league?

Mr. Drea: Well he has the money and I suppose I have the mouth. We might do very well.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Well, the member was honest there.

Mr. Drea: If he had as much luck in speculating with football talent as he does with commodities, why we might get to be a rather famous duo.

Mr. Renwick: Famous passing team.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the public reaction to the Throne Speech has been that it is rather a marking time event; that it is a kind of a pause before a rather significant Speech from the Throne to be delivered next year, because it will form the basis of an election platform for this party.

I would sincerely wish, Mr. Speaker, that the editorialists who pontificate this view would read the Throne Speech in its entirety and that they would go back into the history of this government. This government did not commence in the spring of 1971 after the leadership convention when the member for Peel North (Mr. Davis) became Premier of this province. Where this government has its origins is when George Drew took power in this province in the 1940s.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at Throne Speech after Throne Speech you will see that this party and this government has constantly been building.

In the time of George Drew we were overseeing the transformation of a society from an all-out war effort and a recovery from a depression into the beginnings of modern urban and industrial Ontario. And the Throne Speeches and the action of that government reflected that overview; and that policy was carried on as well by Mr. Kennedy during his brief tenure.

In Mr. Frost’s time, it was the supervision of the overseeing of the transformation of Ontario from a largely rural to a largely urban society. In Mr. Robarts’ time, it was overseeing the change from an occupationally-oriented society into a very technologically-oriented society. We could see that in the development of the universities, of the vocational high schools and the community colleges and in the great emphasis upon the need for education in our society.

Again, when we come to the present Premier we see the overseeing of the transformation of a burgeoning, pioneering, expanding society into one that is going to be aware of the limited amount of resources, of the problems of population movements and mobility, of the particular problems of the elderly in our society, of the particular problems of younger people having to face a society that literally changes every two or three years instead of after a couple of generations.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Throne Speech of 1974 is not one that is marking time. Rather, sir, it is a new plateau, for it boldly states the pledge of this government that we are not only prepared to meet the challenges of urban Ontario, substantial as they may be, but that we are going to roll back the last undeveloped frontier of this province, the north.

I suggest to you, sir, there has been no more ambitious programme announced by any government in this country than those programmes announced in the Throne Speech of this year, for we are taking dead aim on the housing issue. Despite the fact that the federal government has bungled housing for more than two decades through the inability of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. and its ancillaries to come to grips with the basic nature of the economic problem, we are saying in effect, “Forget about that, we are going to assume responsibility for preserving the Canadian dream.” This is the right of young men and women, of middle-aged men and women and of older men and women, to save their money and to buy a home and to have it as their own.

I suggest to you, sir, that the day that people in this province cannot buy a home, then our society is in rather deep and rather permanent trouble, and the buck has stopped --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Tell it to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) don’t tell us.

Mr. Drea: -- in this Throne Speech; the buck has stopped. The Minister of Housing has stated it on at least a half a dozen occasions since then -- and the member’s only problem is he can’t come to grips with the fact the minister is speaking with a great amount of realism. And I am glad --

Mr. B. Newman: We have heard that now for 15 years from the member’s side of the House.

Mr. Drea: -- that the Housing Minister in his action programme has said the government of Ontario isn’t going to build all of the houses, that there is a responsibility for private industry in this field. I think it would be a disaster if we were to take over all housing in this province. We don’t want a communalized society; we don’t want your house to be determined by a faceless person Mr. Speaker. We want to let you have the opportunity to buy the kind of a home you like and the kind of a home you can afford and to bee able to seek alternatives, if you don’t like the particular model that’s there.

Mr. Haggerty: The member is not answering the problem.

Mr. Drea: It would be very easy for the government to take over the whole housing industry. Heaven help us if it did! People would be living in tents within two years.

Mr. Lawlor: They are going to be in any event.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like also to say that although it is not a radical programme, we have come to grips with the last major health cost item for the senior citizens of this province, and that is the announcement that we are going into the provision of prescription drugs for senior citizens under the normal health insurance programmes.

Mr. Singer: So much for housing.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, we will become the first jurisdiction to do this on this continent. I think that is a remarkable achievement of a government in a society that supposedly is oriented toward the young, the efficient and the successful.

Mr. Haggerty: It is 30 years too late.

Mr. Drea: Thirty years too late? Thirty years ago when this party took power in this province there was a lackadaisical, do-nothing, stumblebum government.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It has not improved since.

Mr. Drea: It took us a long time even to correct the nonsense that had gone on. I suggest to the members that we have brought in drug care for senior citizens. Members opposite have had a party in Ottawa that has dominated the Ottawa scene over those 30 years and I have yet to see it do one single thing in the way of drugs for senior citizens. So don’t point the finger at us.

Mr. Haggerty: Tell us about it. Where does this government get the money from? The federal government.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Where does the federal government get the money from? From Ontario.

Mr. Drea: That is a government that can give $80 million for LIP and other screwball projects. Then members opposite ask us where do we get the money from. The money that they put in Ottawa into weirdo stuff could provide prescription drugs for every senior citizen in Canada in every province as a matter of right, and don’t forget it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Tell that to the immigrant groups and Injured Workmen’s Consultants.

Mr. Haggerty: Tell them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr. Drea: I will be perfectly glad to tell anybody. I will also tell them about the amount of money that went into the Church of Satan. That has to be a remarkable achievement by any government.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: If there is that little control over a programme of that magnitude, then, sir, I don’t really think that I want to have any part of it, and I think that as a responsible legislator I have every right to criticize it.

Mr. Speaker, we have come to grips with the housing problem. We are not going to solve it overnight: we would be less than truthful if we said we were. But we have embarked on the long crusade to meet the challenge of the rather expensive dwellings in the urban areas. Now for years there has been a suggestion that we regulate the movement of people so that they would not all come to Toronto or the suburbs, or so that they would not all go to Kitchener-Waterloo or to Hamilton, but they would go some place where there is supposedly a scarcity of population.

Mr. Speaker, that is a most impractical programme. I do not wish to be associated with any type of programme that tells a person where he must live. If we are going to have a society in Canada and in Ontario that we can be proud of, we have to meet the challenge rather than impose restrictions and hope that we can avoid the challenge. That is precisely what our new housing action programme is going to do.

Mr. Renwick: What about the --

Mr. Drea: Again in the field of aging, Mr. Speaker, we do not treat the health cost programmes for the senior citizens as a matter of charity. I am very proud of the Davis government because we have stopped punishing thrift. If you had saved for your old age or if you have a pension above and beyond the guaranteed annual supplement, we don’t suggest to you that you are different from any other senior citizen and make you pay your premiums. We provide premium-free assistance to everyone over 65, because it isn’t charity. It is a dividend to those people in appreciation of the contribution they have made to the establishment, the development, prosperity and the opportunities that this province enjoys. We have now brought about the final health care programme which will remove the economic sting from the health problems which do occur more regularly with the senior members of our society.

When I was first elected to this chamber people suggested I was a great advocate of consumerism. When I told them what this government intended to do in the field of consumerism, people tended to believe that it was such an imposing programme it would have to be introduced over a decade.

In this Throne Speech, there is the unmistakable hand of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement).

Mr. Renwick: Where?

Mr. Drea: We are not only going to deal with the very difficult problem of a Business Practices Act which will drive the crooks, the shysters and the fly-by-nights out of business, we are also going to deal with the very difficult problem of warranties and guarantees. It’s difficult because of the split jurisdiction and the international trade ramifications of our province.

Mr. Renwick: That has nothing to do with split jurisdiction. It’s whether or not this government is prepared to protect the consumers in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: This government protects consumers better than any other province does.

Mr. Renwick: We are sick and tired of the split jurisdiction.

Mr. Lawlor: The member himself has said it on innumerable occasions that we have left it too long.

Mr. Renwick: We have heard him describe the problems and say that the consumer ministry --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

An hon. member: This is getting into a debate.

Mr. Drea: I have never said those words.

What I have said -- and the member was there, if he was paying attention at that early hour of the morning -- was that for practical purposes -- it was said some time ago -- there was no real meaningful consumer protection in Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: How can he say that’s pretty good?

Mr. Renwick: That’s what we said.

Mr. Drea: That is not what they said. They said I accused the minister of having a ministry which was in a shambles. If they’re going to quote me, let them please quote me correctly.

Mr. Renwick: As one goes through his statement it’s the same thing.

Mr. Drea: That is not --

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): They’re hard of hearing over there. They can’t hear what the member says.

Mr. Drea: There’s a wide difference and I would suggest the member has won many a law case on such a wide difference as that.

Mr. Lawlor: No meaningful consideration.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s not quibble. Let’s get to the specifics.

Mr. Drea: However, Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in this province --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Another tacky job.

Mr. Drea: -- for accepting a criticism like mine and not going off and sulking about it but going out and doing something about it.

Mr. Renwick: There is no jurisdictional problem.

Mr. Drea: There is a jurisdictional problem in this province dealing with warranties and guarantees. Any practising solicitor, surely, should recognize that.

Mr. Renwick: There is no problem dealing with warranties and guarantees as part of the contracts-

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member is out of order.

Mr. Drea: May I suggest he talk to some of his federal colleagues because they keep bringing it up?

Mr. Speaker, to come back to the practical realities of the proposed new legislation on warranties and guarantees, I think it is a mark of this government and of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that we are going to return honesty to the marketplace in an extremely meaningful way.

Mr. Sargent: That’s in the green paper.

Mr. Drea: We are going to balance the scales. We are going to make sure that the consumer --

Mr. Singer: Meaningful dishonesty.

Mr. Drea: -- is protected against the sophistication and complexities of the TV promoter; against the complexities of modem advertising; and against the complexities of a nation which is so dependent upon international consumer trade that we have, for years, been willing to accept the American style of guarantee or the American style of warranty. I suggest that the amount of attention paid by our Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to this problem in its green paper is indicative of the fact that it means business and we are now in a position where this legislation will be coming in in this session.

In the field of transportation, not only in southern Ontario but in northern Ontario, this government is determined to open up this province so its residents may enjoy, to the maximum, the full opportunities for economic and social development.

I suggest to you, sir, the road building programme in the north, the feasibility study for the road to Moosonee, the new extension of the Ontario Northland Railway which will be built from Moosonee to deep water --

Mr. Sargent: How was that tendered?

Mr. Reilly: We have a great government.

Mr. Drea: I’m glad the member mentioned that without tender. Could I suggest he read the Globe and Mail this morning? It holds the tendering practices of our Ministry of Transportation and Communications out as a model to any government operation anywhere on the continent. The member for Grey-Bruce’s problem is that he only reads what he wants to read. In fact, I wonder if he can read at all.

Mr. Sargent: The government has one thing that works. There is only one thing and that’s why he is talking about it.

Mr. Drea: I wasn’t talking about it. I accept that as normal. The member is the one who raised it. If he is going to read a newspaper, he had better read all nine columns of it. He gets into an awful lot of trouble sticking with the two columns on the left.

Mr. Sargent: The member was through two hours ago. Why didn’t he stop?

Mr. Drea: I have always taken the position that if I can bring out the beast in the member for Grey-Bruce for public display, it is worth the effort.

Mr. Sargent: Anybody over there can do that.

Mr. Drea: Well, anyone may be able to do it. I realize that, but somehow I do with a bit more clarity and acerbity than the norm.

Mr. Speaker, the transportation programmes of this province are indeed indicative of this new plateau, for we do intend to roll back the artificial frontier that has been the far north of northern Ontario, the area beyond Cochrane, the area beyond the northernmost of the east-west railroads, the northernmost of the Trans-Canada Highway routes. There is an abundance of resources in those areas.

Mr. Sargent: Does the member know that one trucker has all the rights up there? He has complete rights to the north country.

Mr. Drea: One trucker?

Mr. Sargent: One trucker.

Mr. Drea: He must be a good one.

Mr. Sargent: Yes, he has got an in for him.

Mr. Haggerty: No tendering.

Mr. Drea: Would that trucking company be Star Transfer?

Mr. Sargent: Which one?

Mr. Drea: Star Transfer.

Mr. Singer: No.

Mr. Drea: In the north we happen to own a truck line which is a subsidiary of the Ontario Northland, but I would hardly expect the member to know that.

Mr. Root: I don’t think he knows what trucks there are on the highway up there?

Mr. Sargent: What’s that?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough Centre is the only one with the floor.

Mr. Drea: It is all right, Mr. Speaker. I’m enjoying it.

Mr. Sargent: That’s free enterprise!

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Drea: On behalf of my colleague over there, I’m trying to give him an hour and the member is ruthlessly interrupting me. I don’t want to get into a conflict of interest between these two fellows, because that’s something else. But if he would allow me to finish, the member for Downsview will be next. Thanks.

Mr. Singer: Thank you, I am in no rush. Let the member take as much time as he wants.

Mr. Drea: Okay.

Mr. Sargent: And then he will hear some sense.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, again and hopefully for the final time, to return to the transportation programmes of this government. Transportation and the opening of new routes in the north, albeit that they are the more conventional type of transportation, either rail or road, are just as significant to the development of the economic and social goals of this province as is our concern with rapid transit lines in the urban areas.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the decision to go north, both in terms of road from Cochrane and in terms of rail from Moosonee, will be regarded in the future years as as much a landmark as that of the Premier of this province some two years ago in cancelling the Spadina Expressway and in introducing the era of rapid transit in this province. That is already considered a hallmark in the social development in this province.

Mr. Singer: Hallmark in backward steps.

Mr. Drea: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the contents of this Throne Speech with regard to transportation, particularly those of the north, will be as much a hallmark in years to come.

Mr. Sargent: Is the member going to reopen Spadina?

Mr. Drea: Am I going to reopen Spadina? I have no use for the Spadina Expressway and neither does any thinking person. With gasoline going to 75 and 80 cents a gallon, thanks to that magnificent federal Liberal planning, I don’t think any thinking person is concerned about the Spadina Expressway these days. As a matter of fact, I presume they are kind of grateful to us for saving them from about a $250 million blunder.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the member going to have his government review the fuel taxes on bus systems --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. B. Newman: -- to enable municipal bus systems to operate a little more efficiently?

Mr. Speaker: Order please, will the member for Scarborough Centre please continue his address.

Mr. Drea: I am dutifully trying. Would the member write? I didn’t get it. I want to finish. Would he write it, then I’d be very glad to take it up with the minister.

Mr. B. Newman: I would prefer the member to answer concerning --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Well, if the member would -- you know, the members all sit over there and snicker, and now they want me to answer questions in my speech. If they want me to answer questions, I would humbly suggest to them that they send me a note. I would be very glad to reply.

Mr. Sargent: Do it in question period. Okay?

Mr. B. Newman: Okay, I’ll send him a note.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): The place is getting so bad, he could wait forever.

Mr. J. P. MacBeth (York West): Put in a good word for the minister.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, on a final note, I would like to discuss some remarks that were made in this House yesterday. I was in the unfortunate position of sitting in the chair as your replacement, Mr. Speaker, so I could not interject or correct the records at that particular time, so I am going to bring it up today.

Mr., Speaker, yesterday the allegation was made that a minister of the Crown reflected the professional do-gooder attitude of people who apparently go out and knock on a few doors and collect a couple of dollars, or many dollars, on behalf of various charitable causes -- I think that the one which was particularly mentioned yesterday was that of the cancer campaign -- and that somehow, by doing that, that allowed people like the particular minister of the Crown who was mentioned to abrogate their other responsibilities in society.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a dreadful canard. I would like to suggest to you that there are many tens of thousands of women and men in this province who go out and solicit funds on behalf of their churches, on behalf of the Salvation Army, on behalf of the cancer fund, on behalf of the heart fund, on behalf of a great many things. Rather than being professional do-gooders, Mr. Speaker, those men and women are the people who are the finest and the best in their communities and they represent everything that the people of Ontario stand for. And I say that to you with deep respect, sir.

I want to dissociate myself from the type of thinking that tries to project the view that the women who are standing out in downtown Toronto and other centres today -- with the temperature just above freeing -- selling daffodils on behalf of cancer research, are some kind of professional do-gooders. I want to dissociate myself from that, sir. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that those women are the finest in this province and rather than being the object of snide remarks with a nasal twang, they should get the very enthusiastic desk thumping of the members of this chamber.

I am fed up to death with the idea that unless you believe in some kind of a massive, collective, expensive and very often wasteful and bureaucratic solution to individual problems, then you are somewhat less than a thinking person. And, Mr. Speaker, just to ensure that those people who do go out and do that kind of work -- and it is difficult -- just to ensure that they know where they stand with the responsible members of this Legislature, I am very glad that the desk thumping came from both sides of the House when I made those remarks.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are a great many members of this House who have knocked on doors and solicited funds for research, or for churches, or for school projects, or for a great number of other things. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I was rather amazed yesterday that those remarks were accepted as ordinary statements of fact. Because certainly to me they strike at the very fibre of our society, and to let them go on unchallenged would be a disservice to very many thousands of extremely fine people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, as I’ve listened to portions of this debate I’ve been very interested to hear the remarks of various members and particularly the compliments that they have addressed to new cabinet appointees. One notorious omission, I thought, was any reference to five hon. members who have recently left the ministry.

Mr. Shulman: We have mixed feelings on some of them.

Mr. Singer: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that someone at least should have a word or two to say about the hon. member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko), the hon. member for Armourdale (Mr. Carton), the hon. member for York Mills (Mr. Bales), and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Apps). I think I left one out -- the hon. member for Carleton East (Mr. Lawrence).

Perhaps these words coming from me are not inappropriate because I’ve sat in this House since 1959, a longer period than all of those five members except the member for Bellwoods who came in, if my memory serves me correctly, in 1951.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and without dealing with each one of these hon. gentlemen individually, they have served their community and this province in an outstanding manner. I felt very badly, personally, that after the many years of service each one of them has given, their departure from the ministry was done in such a cold, abrupt and apparently unfeeling way.

If there is anyone who should know about politics and the feelings of politicians, it’s the people who serve from time to time in this Legislature. While I was in frequent disagreement with these gentlemen from time to time on points of policy I have no hesitation whatsoever in saying here in the Legislature, where it should have been said by someone else, that the Province of Ontario owes a great debt to the unselfish service that each one of these five gentlemen has given.

I feel very badly that, when the time came and the decision was made by the Premier, the press release given out couldn’t have been expanded by a few pages at least and a paragraph or a sentence or two devoted to the past service of each one of these gentlemen.

I think it’s inappropriate. I think it’s unfeeling but perhaps it is a measure of this government and its new approach.

Mr. Renwick: Of course it is. It is the night of the long knives.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, there is more significance in the departure of these particular gentlemen and the future of COGP. We all know about COGP. It was hailed as the new businesslike approach to running government. Where did the advice come from? It came from the leaders of the business world, the heads of big and successful companies, who sat down and said “We are going to tell you how to run the government as a business.”

They really felt the politicians were useless appendages. I can recall one evening in the members lounge downstairs, talking to one of these fellows who didn’t quite agree with some of the views we were putting forward. Finally an argument developed and he went storming out the door and snarled over his shoulder, “You political yahoos who waste your time getting elected when we are the people who know how to run the business of the province.” That I think, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately was the attitude that permeated the recommendations of COGP -- the elected people really are dumb. We are the political yahoos who waste our time coming here and the intelligent people, the successful businessmen, should be running the Province of Ontario.

One of the great ideas they came forward with was the establishment of policy secretariats. And with great flag-waving and drum-thumping we had a group of ministers, some called them superministers, who were provincial policy secretaries. There was one who looked after justice; there was one who looked after social services; there was one who looked after treasury and intergovernmental affairs; and there was a fourth one who looked after natural resources. These people were going to sit and think. They were going to come out with ideas and they had a variety of ministries to whom these ideas should be fed.

One secretary had eight portfolios to which he was to give ideas. Another one had six; another one five; I have forgotten the exact breakdown. Well, it was fascinating. It was fascinating to watch how it worked in TEIGA when the present Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) was the provincial Treasurer and grabbed unto himself the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. He seemed to be roaming the field and he was dictating policy to himself and to the government and to the people of the Province of Ontario and, I suppose, advising other ministries and thinking and so on.

It became very difficult in the justice field particularly, and Mr. Lawrence, the one-time member for the riding of St. George, couldn’t stand it any more and took himself from here and went to another place. I don’t really blame him because he was caught in a useless job. He was given no responsibility, really. He had no decisions to make. He had very little to say.

The hon. member for Carleton East tried very hard to make his job work but it just didn’t seem to fit together and he has now departed. So the story goes throughout all these secretariats. With the departure of these five ministers it was interesting to see what happened to the secretariats.

In Justice I guess someone has now decided that the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) can think as well as do, so he is the Provincial Secretary for Justice as well as being the Attorney General. It is fascinating to look at the estimates that were tabled; the Provincial Secretary for Justice is asking for some $400,000 this year and in addition the Attorney General’s estimates are asking for a very substantial sum of money. I wonder why? I wonder why the Attorney General wants that money or why he wanted the $350,000 he was voted last year because there is only one minister, not two any more.

There used to be a deputy minister. That was another of the tragedies. Randall Dick who, to my mind at least, was one of the most able civil servants we have around Queen’s Park was also hived off in a corner for two or three years doing nothing. The government has shown a little intelligence at least in now giving him responsibility as a deputy minister in an operating department and I think that is all to the good. But there is no deputy minister in the secretariat for Justice. We haven’t got a minister and we haven’t got a deputy minister and what the $400,000 is for, Mr. Speaker, escapes me completely.

Why is it not time now for the government to admit that this major COGP recommendation has been an abysmal failure? That the secretariats have gone the way of the foredrawn buggy and that we take out even the small amounts asked for in the estimates and let’s get down to business.

What other secretariats appear to have been continued? I am not quite sure whether the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. White) is a secretary or just the minister in TEIGA. If he is a secretary some of his thinking doesn’t seem to project very well for the benefit of the people of Ontario but surely he has a full plate looking after the responsibilities assigned to him. There’s Justice and there’s the TEIGA.

Then it’s fascinating to note that the hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) is now a provincial secretary. I watched his first performance as secretary the day he made that interesting statement about where the pipeline was going to go. It was as though suddenly the hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick had done little else but worry about locations of pipelines. Some of us know him reasonably well, and when he wants to make a speech about something he knows something about, he doesn’t stumble through four or five pages of written text, and he did stumble. Then when the questions came, he couldn’t answer them and he had to point to the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough). The member for Chatham-Kent, who obviously was the author of that great piece of policy, had to come in and take up the breach.

Well, what’s happened to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick? I suppose it was a nice way of easing him out of the picture, giving him a title and preserving a ministerial salary. What he has to do escapes the notice of anyone who sits in this Legislature at all. It’s rather a pity, because he has certain talents that the government has used in the past. It’s a pity to see him hived off.

Now I come to the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch), and I think she’s a fine lady. I think her presence in this House adds a great deal to our proceedings. But I think again, if the idea of COGP was meaningful at all, the appointment of people as secretaries involved the selection amongst the Tory members of people who had had substantial and varied experience in senior positions in government.

In saying what I am saying, I am not being critical of the hon. member. I just wonder about the basis on which her appointment was made when her experience in this House certainly has been very limited and her apparent knowledge of the various departments which have come under this secretariat is again very very limited. I think she has a very important role to play in the affairs of this Legislature and in the affairs of the Conservative Party, but I wonder again if this is not just another passing off. I would predict that the hon. member has a very bright future in politics, but if she is going to be put in the secretariat and really have no responsibility, then what is the use? In effect, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is the system of secretariats has been abandoned, and I think it’s time that the Premier gave it an honest burial.

Let me turn to my next point. I want to talk about Ontario housing at some length.

Mr. Renwick: If it’s of any solace to the member for Downsview, I am inclined to agree with him.

Mr. Singer: Thank you, sir. I am making progress. The hon. member for Riverdale and I are in agreement. I want to talk about Ontario housing. I had hoped that I could have attacked the minister. He isn’t here, so we are going to have to expect maybe that he will read this in Hansard or someone in his department might want to tell him about some of my remarks.

The affairs of housing, notwithstanding the remarks of the last speaker, in the history of this province have been very, very sad. They have been very very badly handled. The government in the time I have been here has run through some five ministers, Macaulay, Randall, the present Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman), the now Attorney General and now the new member who is the Minister for Housing (Mr. Handleman). That portfolio seemed to attract to it people who would be able to produce on the eve of an election elaborate plans for new building, which usually got substantial newspaper coverage -- full pages. I can remember Macaulay building all sorts of high-rise buildings down on the lakefront in the east end of Toronto. He only built them in the newspapers, but it sounded good at election-time. And, of course, we had Stan Randall.

Mr. Breithaupt: Harbour City.

Mr. Singer: Stan was a great fellow, yes.

Mr. Renwick: And Malvern.

Mr. Singer: Malvern -- oh, I am going to say a word or two. Stan was a great fellow. He was used to selling refrigerators to Eskimos and he thought that was the way you could build houses. It really didn’t matter whether you built houses as long as you made a speech about building houses.

And then we had the hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick whose standard approach was to dare anybody to criticize him and he would snarl back and that was that end of the housing.

Well, the Attorney General, when he was Minister of Housing, really didn’t have sufficient length of time to have a go at it, so he didn’t do very much. And now we have the new minister and the new minister is great at making speeches. In one of the Toronto newspapers today there is a story on page 2 that is headed: “ALL TALK AND NO ACTION FROM HANDLEMAN.” I think that is appropriate.

In another Toronto newspaper there was an editorial headed: “HOW TO SAY BOO TO A SPECULATOR.” There were comments on the remarks of the hon. minister, saying it is all very fine to make speeches. The last two paragraphs read like this -- referring to the minister’s comments in relation to speculation in land:

Speculation in land or anything else, come to that, is perfectly legal. Is the minister warning that what is legal may not be moral and that new regulations are going to be brought down to give effect to that view? If not, surely he should desist.

Surely we are past the point where a species of ritual, Calvinist imprecation does any good. What is needed from the Housing Minister is not a verbal flailing in the temple but a cogently designed series of measures to take the profit out of speculation. If that is what he believes is necessary he -- and it might be added, Welch, Davis and all ...

And I say well said to the editorial writer, because it is long, long past that we are going to build houses by the magnificent speeches of the Macaulays, the Randalls, the Grossmans, the Welches, or the newest incumbent in that office.

The housing situation in the Province of Ontario is a disgrace. It is absolutely beyond understanding as to why most of the wage earners in this province are unable to buy a house. There have been all sorts of suggested solutions. My leader, when he first entered this debate, devoted a considerable section of his speech to methods that might be used. Many of my colleagues have spoken frequently time after time here and outside and been reported amply in the press about the problems of housing.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, in the byelection in St. George I was at a meeting held in an apartment house to meet the now member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). Circulars had been distributed through the apartment house and it was anticipated that maybe 15 or 20 people would show up. Instead, 100 people came; they wanted to hear what she had to say -- and the topic of the evening was housing.

I remember particularly one gentleman who lived in that apartment building, a nice apartment building in downtown Toronto. He was a young man, good looking, well spoken. He said: “I have a good job; I earn $15,000 a year. I like my bosses and they like me; I expect I am going to stay with them for my working life. But I am married and I don’t want to live in an apartment for the rest of my life. What are you politicians going to do to help me.”

That, Mr. Speaker, is the tragedy that exists in our housing situation in this province today.

There was a report that came across my desk from A. E. LePage yesterday, and they do a pretty good statistical analysis. What was the average sale price of houses in Metropolitan Toronto in the year 1973? I think $44,000 was the average selling price of a house.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that someone earning $10,000, $12,000, $15,000, $18,000, $20,000, $25,000 a year, just can’t afford to go and buy a house at $44,000. Where are the people of Ontario going to live and how are they going to be able to afford it? And what are we going to get from the government, other than the speeches of the Macaulays and the Randalls and the Grossmans and the Handlemans? You don’t build houses with speeches, Mr. Speaker, and that’s all we’re getting.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that bothers me is that with this great selection of gentlemen who have been given the responsibility for housing -- with Ontario Housing Corp. and now with the Ministry of Housing -- there is something radically, radically wrong with the way Ontario Housing Corp. has been run in the past and the way in which the ministry is being run now.

Mr. Speaker, you may recall that when the hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick was the minister, I mentioned in this House that certain information had come to my attention which indicated that perhaps there was something unusual and suspicious and possibly very, very wrong about methods that had been used for purchasing land. Because I didn’t want to make any accusations addressed against any particular person until I had evidence -- and I won’t make an accusation until I do have evidence -- I asked for an opportunity to look at the minutes of the Ontario Housing Corp. dealing with land purchases over a fixed period. I asked over the telephone and was refused by the general manager of Ontario Housing Corp.

I wrote to the minister and the minister said: “No, those are private records. You can’t see them.” Mind you, Mr. Speaker, this is public business. We are spending a lot of public money and one would think than an elected representative of the public should be entitled to examine the records of public business. But the correspondence is here, and I can read it in length if it interests anybody today.

The minister said: “No, I’m not going to let you look at the minutes of Ontario Housing Corp. I’m not going to let you try to determine whether or not the information that you have received is correct and the suggestions of bad practice are correct. If you think you have some information about a particular individual, tell me and I’ll look it up and I’ll tell you if you’re right.”

Well, I had run into a brick wall, Mr. Speaker, so I gave up on that one, but I never really forgot about it. It passed off, and we noticed no particular change either in land purchase arrangements or methods, and we noticed no particular apology from the ministry. No new systems were announced and they carried on as they wanted to. That was one incident. There have been a series of other incidents.

I had some of our staff look at the number of times that my colleagues and I had been at Ontario Housing Corp. about a variety of matters. There was the improper disposal of OHC building materials. You may remember that one, Mr. Speaker. We asked about it and we got fobbed off with a nothing answer. Nothing really was ever done about it. There was the question of gifts, and I’m going to deal a little longer with gifts.

Mr. Speaker, here are photostats of the many, many times in the last three or four years that we have been trying to bring some public light to the affairs of what goes on in Ontario Housing. We’ve had no answers from any of the ministers. All we have are the Macaulays, and the Randalls and the whole series of them getting up and building houses in newspapers, but as for the actual building of houses on land, there is none of that.

Mr. Speaker, there is another very disturbing incident that happened quite recently. It turned up sort of as a side effect of the inquiry conducted by His Honour Judge Waisberg in the royal commission on certain sectors of the building industry. His terms of reference were quite specific, that he should inquire into questions of violence, possible corruption, and so forth in the building industry.

During the course of that inquiry, Mr. A. E. Shepherd, QC, who is well known to many members of this House, who was counsel to the commission, appeared before His Honour Judge Waisberg on Dec. 20, 1973, and delivered a very fascinating statement.

The statement is here and I have it from the original transcript. I’m not going to read it in detail but it is here and if anybody wants to see it I have it. It said in effect that there were gifts, substantial gifts, in dollars and other favours given by certain unnamed persons to senior officials of the Ontario Housing Corp. and it appeared that those senior officials were in a position to make decisions about which pieces of land Ontario Housing Corp. purchased.

Obviously what Mr. Shepherd was getting at was that it was about time a careful look was taken at this to see whether or not the giving of these gifts did, in fact, wrongly direct the efforts of Ontario Housing in purchasing certain lands. Were certain people given favours? Were they given larger prices than they might have been entitled to and so on?

One of the things Mr. Shepherd said was, to give an example:

We found evidence of a gift of $2,000 in a gift certificate made at one time by one who is a principal in a company dealing with OHC to one of the employees of that corporation, whose duties required him to share in the process of decision-making affecting the fate of the application by the developers, including a company with which the donor is associated.

One would have thought that this would be a matter of great concern to the government. Mr. Shepherd and His Honour discussed this at some length and Mr. Shepherd suggested that the police be called in and the police were called in. Mr. Shepherd, I understand, made available to the police the information which the commission’s investigators had turned up.

The House was still in session I think, wasn’t it, on Dec. 20? Did we go on after Dec. 20 or did we stop? I tried then and I tried in the House when it came back early in March to elicit information from the Attorney General as to what was happening. The only reply I’ve been able to get up to this moment, Mr. Speaker, is that the matter is under investigation.

I don’t know how long it takes to investigate this kind of charge -- it is not one of suggestion -- because one must presume that Mr. Shepherd, who is a very competent lawyer, would not likely go before a judge, who is conducting a royal commission on instructions from the government of Ontario, and make these charges unless he was pretty sure of the evidence he had available to him.

That was on Dec. 20 and this is April 5. How long, Mr. Speaker, does this kind of investigation go on? There were questions raised both by the judge and Mr. Shepherd as to what should be done and the matter was left that the police investigations would go on. The commissioner is quoted as saying:

The police investigations, I should say, should continue without being impeded in any way by our own investigations.

Mr. Sheperd: That is correct.

And what is your suggestion and recommendation? [that’s the commissioner].

Mr. Shepherd: I think the proper course, Mr. Commissioner, at this point in time is to allow the police to deal promptly and vigorously with the matter which is, of course, very much within their field and then, in light of the result of police investigation, for you, sir, to reassess the position which would be appropriate to adopt.

Mr. Speaker, what has happened is the police investigations, insofar as I’ve been able to ascertain, have not led to the laying of any charges as yet. You know, sir, that it is an offence for a civil servant to receive gifts and it is written in our statutes. There have been no charges as yet laid.

It seems, if I read the papers correctly, that this royal commission has about concluded its public hearings, and that the commissioner, on the advice of Mr. Shepherd and Mr. MacRae, who was with Mr. Shepherd, is preparing his report -- I am guessing about that; I don’t know. But the whole incident to which Mr. Shepherd devoted 15 or 18 pages of transcript on the morning of Dec. 20 seems to have faded into the woodwork.

Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong in Ontario Housing. I know it and many members of this House know it. And Mr. Shepherd certainly spoke about it in a clear and unmistakable way before a judge of the county court of the Province of Ontario. What is happening? Not a thing -- that’s what is happening. And we are back again to the problem of how we can build houses. Well, we are not building houses because we haven’t even got a department that seems to be operating on an even keel. We haven’t got a department that is prepared to let members of the Legislature or members of the public know what’s going on. And I, for one, frankly am getting sick and tired of listening to the speeches of Macaulay, Randall, Grossman, Welch and Handleman that don’t produce any houses.

Mr. B. Newman: Housing by headlines.

Mr. Singer: In 1954, the Malvern land assembly was done; that is 20 years ago, Mr. Speaker. For 20 years that land -- some 1,700 acres -- has been in public ownership, and there are a handful of houses on it today. What are we getting? We are getting speeches about how it’s a bad thing to speculate, but we are not getting any laws. We are getting speeches about how we need serviced land, and if I heard somebody correctly this morning, perhaps there should be more services, but surely it’s the responsibility of the municipality.

We are getting new statutes such as the parkway green belt statute, which draws an artificial line around the periphery of Metropolitan Toronto, stops services from going across it and stops development. We are getting freezes imposed arbitrarily, months ago; and metes and bounds descriptions are not available, so people don’t even know where the limits are.

We are getting speeches about how we are going to speed up the process. Now, Mr. Speaker, you sat on a municipal council; you know a little bit about the process. I wonder if the present Minister of Housing or the present Treasurer or any one of them knows anything about how the process works at all?

And what is the speeding-up going to mean? I am familiar with one application that I think was commenced in May, 1973. The application was in one of the boroughs here in Metropolitan Toronto. It involves a request by the owner to turn the land, which had a specific use, into a use for row houses. It was no great problem, because a battle had been hotly fought by the ratepayers about the land immediately abutting it. The Municipal Board had a lengthy hearing and said of the land immediately next door: “Yes, that land can be used for such-and-such a purpose and the density is so-and-so.”

On this other piece of property, right next door to it, where they wanted an exactly similar use, the process has taken already the better part of a year. There hasn’t been one single objection by any ratepayer, by any member of any planning staff, by any member of any council. It is just the paperwork.

On this piece of land, when it is rezoned, there will be some 69 housing units. But the paperwork that is supposedly going to be speeded up by the ministry, has taken over a year already -- and there have been no objections.

Mr. Speaker, surely it’s about time that someone who begins to talk about speeding up the process began to, from a position of some knowledge. Maybe the person who is going to do that should understand what goes on in municipal councils and municipal planning boards. The bigger these municipalities get the more steps seem to be invented for review and review and review and review and review. If the government really believes that there is a way of speeding up the process, for goodness sake, come in here and tell us. Come in here and give us some directions. Come in here and give us some statutes.

Mr. Shulman: We will. We will.

Mr. Singer: We have a new minister over there. Things will change immediately. That’s the way you are going to build houses, Mr. Speaker, not with the speeches of the Macaulays, the Randalls, the Grossmans, the Welchs and the Handlemans.

Mr. B. Newman: And the Robarts.

Mr. Singer: Yes, the Premiers have gotten into it. The Davises and the Robarts and the Leslie Frosts didn’t build houses either, and their spokesmen certainly weren’t able to build houses.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this has been said so many times it probably isn’t worthy of repetition, but it has been said so many times, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps we’ll try it just once more. The reason that housing costs are escalating is because there is a shortage of serviced lots. And the reason there is a shortage of serviced lots is because of the various statutes, the various government procedures and the lack of sureness and the lack of money.

The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) has said, and so many of us have said so many times, put in the services. Let the government of Ontario put in the services. You are not going to have houses unless you have water, Mr. Speaker. You are not going to have houses unless you have sewers. You are not going to have houses unless you have roads. And if the installation of those services is going to be made dependent upon the actions of the developers and the hindrances and the hurdles put in front of development by government, then the process has to grind to a halt, as it is now doing.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, there must be some way within the fertile imaginations of all the people who occupy the treasury benches that they could devise a system whereby the government is going to be able to finance the installation of services. Once we have serviced land available then we can put houses on it. Then the plea of the gentleman I talked about a little earlier -- the gentleman who was earning $15,000 and was happy with his job and was happy with his employers and was happy with his future except that he couldn’t buy a house -- will be answered, and then maybe we can get to the point where we are going to be able to do something about providing housing for the people, who are entitled to live in houses.

And then, Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come to have a very serious look about the say-noers, not the do-gooders, but the people who say no to anything that is new.

Somebody suggested yesterday that the projections of zero vacancies in apartments was perhaps self-serving and was being instigated by those who presently own apartments so that they can raise rents. One of my colleagues suggested that in his riding there were lots of apartments going up, but what is in fact happening, Mr. Speaker, certainly in this metropolitan area, is that the ability to deal with a piece of land and erect on it buildings for multiple use has almost ceased. But there are more people who want to have apartments, there are more people who want to have houses, and really the lid is on. So it’s not unnatural and it’s not self-seeking to suggest that we are heading very quickly to a zero vacancy rate, that we are heading for a dramatic increase in rents.

With all of the other factors that are affecting the cost of living, we are not in the glorious never-never land that the member for Scarborough Centre was talking about, but we are in a time of great difficulty in this province and our people just aren’t able to afford any longer the cost of food and the cost of housing and the cost of many other things.

And what are we getting, Mr. Speaker, from the government? We get more Handleman speeches. I don’t particularly fault the new Minister of Housing. He is a new boy and he has what is probably one of the toughest portfolios in government, but he is in character with what has happened before. He is completely in character with Macaulay, Randall, Grossman and Welch. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the time has come to stop saying “in the fullness of time.” They used the phrase yesterday, “in the aggregate we will build some houses.” I don’t know what year “aggregate” is, but he was going to build some “in the aggregate.” “Wait until my legislation comes in,” he says. That is no help to anybody who finds himself in this very difficult position.

Mr. Speaker, to sum up very briefly on the housing thing, we have no policy. We have no minister who knows how to go about establishing a policy. We have the history of Ontario Housing functioning itself which, to say the least, is not a good history. We have the remarks of Mr. Shepherd made before the royal commission. They don’t seem to be clearing up the department and they certainly aren’t building houses. The time has come to do something about this and that time is right now.

The next thing, Mr. Speaker, that I want to make a few remarks about is the question of no-fault insurance. This matter has had a great deal of publicity in recent months. In fact, I suppose, publicity began to attach to this problem when the Premier on Thursday, Nov. 1, 1973, spoke at the Insurance Institute of Ontario awards dinner. I have a text of his press release. On page 7 he said this:

I think it is plain from my remarks that some form of so-called no-fault automobile insurance is coming to Ontario, and it is our hope that it will be run by private enterprise.

Fascinatingly, the Premier wasn’t too sure at all what he had said, but that is an exact quote from his remarks.

In the House on March 7, I asked him this question:

Mr. Singer: I have a question of the Premier. In view of the Premier’s statement not too long ago that we could expect new no-fault automobile insurance laws in Ontario, and in view of the recent publicity given to a proposal along these lines by the insurance industry, is that the kind of new law that the Premier had in mind?

And my question goes on. The Premier’s reply was:

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend ... [I had asked for a select committee, which I am going to suggest again today.] ... I don’t really recall saying that we are going to have a new no-fault insurance programme. I do recall speaking to a group of insurance people.

I don’t know which Premier you believe, Mr. Speaker. Is it the one who said on Nov. 1, “I think it is plain that some form of so-called no-fault insurance is coming to Ontario,” or the Premier who spoke here on March 7 and who said, “I don’t really recall saying we are going to have a new no-fault insurance programme”?

I don’t know that this is of great moment, but I would think that the Premier, of all people, should be able to remember what he said and should at least be consistent. When he has made that kind of positive statement which attracted a great deal of media attention, he should remember what he had in mind. I have been trying to elicit since that time, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): No-fault if necessary, but not necessarily no-fault.

Mr. Singer: Well, I guess that what it means -- maybe yesterday, yes, and tomorrow, no. But what it does mean I don’t know. I have been trying to elicit information from the Premier and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The history of this whole thing has a fascinating ring. There is a group called the IBC, the Insurance Bureau of Canada. They are the successors to what used to be called the All-Canada Insurance Associates. They are an association of insurers. It became apparent that the Premier’s remarks on Nov. 1 were a setup for the introduction or the announcement of a plan put forward by IBC. What puzzles me throughout this whole story is the way in which the Premier was either using this or was being used, and how the details took so long to unfold.

In any event Mr. Speaker, a plan was put forward by the IBC, a form of no-fault, which seemed to be just great, depending on who you listened to. Certainly its advocates touted it. Certainly people from several insurance companies thought it was a wonderful idea.

Then one day, Mr. Speaker, there was a meeting of a group of lawyers, the Advocates’ Society, when they discussed the IBC plan, at great length and bitterly, and then some of the glow came off the great announcement. The IBC plan suggested that there would be a quicker loss settlement; that there would be reasonable settlement to those who were at fault; that there would be more dollars back in claims because of a reduction in investigative and court costs because there would be fewer fraudulent and inflated claims; and that public uncertainty would be removed and they would know exactly what they would be getting. Those were some of the strong points in the IBC programme.

The criticisms ran along these lines: The IBC programme removed compensation for non-economic loss, and non-economic joss is damage for pain and suffering, damage for loss of life and a couple of other points. It is dealt with in more detail in the report of the Law Reform Commission that we saw for the first time yesterday. The questions that were raised, particularly by members of the legal profession, were that the public was not really prepared, in their opinion, to accept the taking away of items of damage, compensable items such as pain and suffering, loss of life expectancy and that sort of thing. The criticisms, as I say, were lengthy and quite bitter and the discussions again went forward.

Then, Mr. Speaker, while this presentation was being made -- and this is why I wonder very seriously about who initiated it, what kind of power and influence existed to brine it forward as far as it came -- there came into my possession something that’s called a model bill, which was going to set up this scheme, the IBC scheme. And while I have no real knowledge as to who drafted it, I have seen enough bills in my term of service in this Legislature to say that the bill was drafted by someone who knew his way about drafting -- and drafting is a very fine art -- and who knew it sufficiently well to set up the bill in a form that we often see as ministers introduce bills into this House. I have no way of knowing who the draftsman was, but the job of draftsmanship is of such expertise that I wonder if it didn’t come from one of the government offices.

What I am trying to figure out, Mr. Speaker, is where and why the IBC plan got such great impetus. Well, after the meeting -- and the IBC plan too was hopefully going to come into being on Jan. 1 1975; they even had a time schedule -- they ran into the criticisms of the lawyers, of the insurance agents, of the brokers, of many, many members of the public and that cooled off.

Then, fascinatingly, Allstate, who had been a part of the IBC setup originally, withdrew from IBC because of this particular proposal and gave publicity to their specific objections to the IBC plan.

There are many, many things wrong, Mr. Speaker, with our present system of insurance. Some members of this House will recall -- the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan), who was here a little earlier, will certainly recall because he chaired it -- that one of the best select committees we have ever had, in my opinion, in this House was the committee to deal with automobile insurance which sat in 1961, 1962 and 1963. That committee brought forward a series of recommendations to which the committee was able to agree unanimously, which was supported by the All Canada insurance group, which was supported by the lawyers, which was supported by everyone who came in contact with it except one gentleman, Irwin Haskett, who happened at that time to be the Minister of Highways or the Minister of Transport. Somehow it became his responsibility as to whether or not we were going to have the system of fault that the committee recommended along with a great number of other recommendations.

It took about seven years, and really the departure of Mr. Haskett from this Legislature, for the recommendations of the committee to be implemented in full and they brought about a very considerably improved system of automobile insurance. I said the recommendations were implemented in full; they weren’t implemented in full but the substantial majority of them were.

The time obviously has come, because of all of this talk about insurance, to have another look at it. Mr. Speaker, the government or the then minister commissioned a group, David McWilliams and Thomas Bell -- were there only two? I thought there was a group -- to study insurance claims and it was called the minister’s committee on insurance claims.

They brought forward a report which they dated August 25, 1972, and they made it available to the present Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Winkler) who was then the Minister of Financial and Commercial Affairs. By the time it came forward I think the present minister had the responsibility, and rather than make this report available to us, the members of the Legislature -- and I think it is a good report -- we were told about its recommendations.

Mr. McWilliams is a very capable man and he pulled no punches at all when he wrote about this report. Thomas A. Bell, who is well known again to many members of this Legislature, joined in the report. We saw the recommendations and it took three months -- more, about six months -- of battling in the House to be able to get hold of the report; and there it is. There are 300-odd pages in this report dealing with recommendations made by McWilliams and Bell about how the system of automobile insurance can be improved. Nothing has been done, Mr. Speaker. Not a thing has been done to implement any of these recommendations at all.

Mr. Stokes: They didn’t even tighten up on the adjusters.

Mr. Singer: Not a thing. Well, that’s one report. There is a stack of documents, Mr. Speaker -- it runs now about 2 ft high -- about what might or might not be done. That’s the second one.

There is available, and it has been put in the hands of the minister, the transcript of the hearings of the Advocates’ Society to which I referred earlier, which took place on Friday, Feb. 8. The minister has a copy of that volume and it is available for reading.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the latest document which was tabled in this House yesterday. That is the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission on motor vehicle accident compensation. It is a radical report; it is a very different report. The report admits that the system the Law Reform Commission is putting forward does not exist in any common law jurisdiction. They are a very efficient group and their research was done well; they talk about New Zealand law, and law in the other provinces of Canada, and English law, and law in various jurisdictions in the United States.

What, in essence, they are now recommending is that the whole system of motor vehicle accident compensation be taken out of the courts completely. That there be no right to go to court if you’re injured in an automobile accident, but that if you are injured you will be given payments in accordance with a fixed scale. That there will no longer be damages for pain and suffering. That there will no longer be questions of who was at fault. That everyone who was injured should be compensated and they should be compensated for their financial loss and their financial loss only.

The report makes very, very interesting reading. I think the time has come now to have a discussion in this Legislature, or by a committee of this Legislature, along with members of the public, to see which way we are going to go in this. Whether or not the Ontario Law Reform Commission idea that we deal with motor vehicle accident compensation in the same method that we deal with workmen’s compensation is a good idea or not, certainly remains to be seen. I have very substantial reservations about a number of the recommendations in the report.

The Ontario Law Reform Commission hedges on whether or not its new plan, if it comes into being, should be done by a public body -- by the government -- or be done by a private body -- the insurance companies. 1 think that kind of thing deserves a very thorough examination and some kind of a decision from the government of the people of Ontario.

What is obvious immediately, Mr. Speaker, is that all of the things that have been discussed in the present concern about automobile insurance, certainly has to indicate to any alert person that there is something wrong with the system of insurance. Why does the Law Reform Commission write a volume like that and make these suggestions if it hasn’t concluded there’s something wrong? And the Advocates Society and the minister’s committee on insurance claims and many other people. Well, there are things wrong, Mr. Speaker; there’s no question in the world there are many, many things wrong.

The concept of gross negligence goes back into the dark ages. If a gratuitous passenger is injured in an automobile, to get at his own driver -- and it’s really not his own driver, it’s his own driver’s insurer -- he has to be able to establish his own driver was not ordinarily negligent but was grossly negligent. Why we continue to have that concept in the Province of Ontario nobody has been able to explain.

The president of the Treasury Board said two years ago when he had the responsibility: “We’ll take it out.” Well, it’s still there. The select committee that I talked about in 1961, 1962, 1963, said: “Take it out.” But it’s still there. It’s unfair. It’s unreasonable. It’s illogical. But the concept of gross negligence still remains as a part of Ontario law.

Liability periods. I don’t know why the lawyers are so happy to see, or somebody keeps being so happy to see limitation periods put into statutes. Limitation periods can often work very, very serious hardships. Let me tell you about a case that I’m involved in as a solicitor.

I’m acting for a passenger, a gratuitous passenger, who was very seriously injured in an automobile accident. He initiated proceedings within the one-year period. Out of that one accident, seven lawsuits have grown up; they’re about to be tried fairly soon. The argument is going to revolve around gross negligence, ordinary negligence and that sort of thing.

There were three people in the front seat of the car, the driver and two passengers. The two passengers were very, very seriously injured; the second passenger didn’t realize that he was stuck within the limitation period and he didn’t seek legal advice until one week after the limitation period had expired. He was told, as he had to be told, that he was out of luck. If he had a valid claim he no longer was in a position to assert it.

Mind you, Mr. Speaker, that accident had given rise to five different lawsuits. The courts are about to determine who was at fault and how much is going to be paid and to whom. One gentleman who was involved in the accident, who was seriously injured and who wasn’t aware of the limitation period, is just cut right out of the picture completely.

Does that make any sense? It doesn’t to me. Surely the time has come to do something about the limitation period.

These suggestions I’m making now are things that can be done immediately, but there is a long-term view and a long-term approach to what we should do about automobile insurance.

The question of insurance company subrogation in property claims is a technical thing; but it is a nuisance, it is ridiculous and I think it should be eliminated.

On the question of rate control, Mr. Speaker, you are probably aware that section 367 of the Insurance Act, which has been on the statute books for over 30 years and gives power to the government of Ontario to control insurance rates, remains still unproclaimed today. You may be aware as well that committees of this Legislature, including the select committee I’ve talked about, strongly recommended that it be proclaimed.

You may be aware, sir, that many members in this House have indicated from time to time that the government surely has some responsibility to look into, to inquire about and to have something to do with and about insurance rates and the various inequities that they produce.

There is no point in giving a long list of these inequities at the moment. The fact is that we have an unproclaimed section of the Insurance Act, section 367, which is still unproclaimed after 30 years on our statute books, and we don’t have an adequate staff in the department of insurance that can intelligently examine and comment upon insurance rates.

In this time of rapidly increasing costs and runaway inflation, Mr. Speaker, surely the government should be turning its attention to things which it can control. Surely we are entitled to hear the opinions of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) and of his officials, based on adequate research, and the opinions of actuaries and so on as to whether or not the insurance rates that people in Ontario pay are reasonable and fair, or whether or not they add substantially to insurance company profits.

When we get the old saw that the underwriting costs balance off the premium profits, when we get no explanation as to why these people stay in business if they are losing money every year, when we get no explanation as to why the companies don’t add in their investment income as part of their overall financial position and why they don’t add in interest on prepaid premiums, the time has come that the government of Ontario should begin to have an authoritative opinion and exercise some control over insurance rates in this province.

On the question of who is responsible for the mechanical condition of the vehicle, I think there should be a simple statutory provision to make the owner responsible.

The question of compulsory insurance is a small thing in view of the percentage of people in Ontario who remain uninsured, but there are still about 70,000 people in Ontario who we allow to drive on the roads uninsured. Why should anybody be allowed to drive on the roads and not be insured? Why shouldn’t automobile insurance be compulsory? Why can’t we do some of those things right now?

Then there’s the whole question of dealing with claims: Speed, cost, delay, harassment, adjusters, repair services -- all of these things have got to come under government review and government control. Why can’t we do it now? Why can’t we establish all-industry drive-in claim centres similar to those in government-run insurance provinces so that vehicle damage can be quickly appraised and settled? What would be hard about that?

Well, those are a few suggestions about what might be done immediately, Mr. Speaker. This is a problem that is going to be ever with us, and if the government continues to just get reports and to turn its back on suggestions, well it’s just causing more grief and more difficulty for the people of Ontario. There is a strong segment of the population of Ontario which believes that the government should run all the automobile insurance. The industry is finally beginning to flex its muscles. There are legal critics, like James Chalmers McRuer, former Chief Justice of the High Court, who say: “Take all automobile litigation out of the courts.” There’s an argument against that.

Mr. Speaker, the message I am trying to get through to government is this, let us in this session of this Legislature have some of the changes that are obvious, some of the changes that McWilliams put forward, some of the suggestions that I made today. That can be done within the present knowledge of the government. It can be done and no one is going to object to it. But then, Mr. Speaker, the time has come to really get to grips with this situation.

If we can establish select committees on drainage and on snowmobiles and on the use of schools, surely we could establish a select committee on automobile insurance? Surely then we could begin to get some feeling from all sorts of people -- the public, insurance people, the bosses who run and own the companies, the adjusters, the agents, and then there is the Legislature -- about which direction we might move in.

Those people are available to us. McWilliams is available to us and the Law Reform Commission is available to us and the lawyers certainly are not going to be backward about coming forward in this. There is a suggestion that the lawyers have a vested interest in the continuing of negligence actions before the courts -- and perhaps there is some validity in that suggestion -- and that the lawyers are going to fight very hard to prevent the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission being carried out in their entirety.

But the lawyers really aren’t the only test in this. What I am urging the government to do is, now that we have more reports than we know what to do with, we start a meaningful public inquiry that hopefully is going to chart our course for the next six or eight or 10 or a dozen years in the future.

That’s all I wanted to say about automobile insurance.

Mr. Lawlor: That was very good.

Mr. Singer: Pardon?

Mr. Lawlor: That was very good.

Mr. Singer: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, do I understand His Honour is coming in?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Singer: What time? Do you want me to move the adjournment of the debate now? I have another topic.

Mr. Speaker: Not quite yet.

Mr. Singer: All right. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a while about inflation. I suppose I have become more and more incensed about what is happening in this province as I sit and listen to the fatuous statements that come from the treasury benches, particularly the ones dealing with gasoline, fuel oil increases and so on.

An hon. member: Name them.

Mr. Singer: I couldn’t help but think, Mr. Speaker, when I saw the Prime Minister of Canada and the 10 other smiling gnomes emerge from the conference room in Ottawa saying: “Look what good little boys we are. We are only going to raise your gas prices 10 cents a gallon. Aren’t you lucky? It might have been 20”; that somewhere along the line we have all gone crazy.

We get the Premier, Mr. Speaker, and we get the hon. Minister of Energy standing up and saying, “Hurray, hurray, hurray, we are wonderful.” And the Premier, in one moment of great magnanimity said: “Even Pierre Trudeau wasn’t bad that day.” And I thought, what else did we need in Canada and in Ontario to make it a great place to live other than Davis saying that Trudeau wasn’t bad that day.

But what happened to the people by reason of these decisions? Fuel oil has gone up 10 cents -- well, we are not quite sure. The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough) wasn’t really able to give us any figures. He was great on windmills this morning, but pretty bad on gasoline prices. Gasoline prices affect a few more people than the windmills that he was talking about, and yet we got very little information.

There was an incident here in the House the other evening, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Scarborough East -- Scarborough West?

Mr. Stokes: West.

Mr. Singer: Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) -- had addressed a question at question period to the Premier. The member was dissatisfied with the Premier’s answer and resorted to the procedure available under the rules to arrange a debate on Tuesday evening at the hour of 10:30. The Premier wasn’t able to come back and join in that debate, and apparently somebody suggested or directed that the member for Chatham-Kent come here.

I thought the member for Scarborough West made a very reasonable, logical and intelligent presentation at the hour of 10:30 on that point. What shocked me, Mr. Speaker, was the reply from the member for Chatham-Kent. First of all, he complained about having to come from the theatre to this place to indulge in the debate. I thought it was just too bad that his valuable theatre time should be taken up to participate in the affairs of the Legislature of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Shulman: Well, they are somewhat superfluous,

Mr. Singer: He got caught up with a little heckling as a result of that intelligent opening remark. The barracking got fairly heavy and he quit in midstream. Well, it’s obvious that he had no answer.

But surely, Mr. Speaker, we can begin to hear somewhere and from somebody what kind of effect these agreements and plans and raises and prices are going to have on the people of Ontario.

It isn’t enough to hear speeches like those we’ve heard -- the one that preceded mine this morning: “Ontario is great and if only those guys in Ottawa would do something the world would be fine.” Or the Premier throwing his hands up the other day and saying: “Inflation is world-wide. If that isn’t good enough for you, it’s all Ottawa’s fault. If you are talking about price and wage controls, I don’t believe in it. If you are going to see what we are going to do, wait -- you will see it in the budget.”

Well, we’ve seen many budgets, and the last one sticks in my mind. The Treasurer told us to put on our sweaters and to turn down the thermostats and the world would be fine. That didn’t help very many people.

Mr. Shulman: Just the beginning of it,

Mr. Singer: I talked about housing prices earlier this morning. Rent is going up. Fuel oil is going up. Everything is going up. I’ve got some figures here. The latest figures from Statistics Canada show in one year, from February, 1973, to February, 1974, dairy products have increased by seven per cent; these aren’t just the other day’s headlines, either. Butter went up six cents a pound just the other day.

Ice cream, skim milk, cereal and bakery products have increased 20.5 per cent; beef, 25.2 per cent; pork, 13.1 per cent; miscellaneous meats, 23.7 per cent; poultry, 34.5 per cent; fish, 33.7 per cent; eggs, 26.2 per cent; fresh fruit, 26.9 per cent; canned fruit, 15.8 per cent; fresh vegetables, 7.4 per cent; canned vegetables, 13.7 per cent; frozen food, 10.1 per cent; miscellaneous groceries, 8.2 per cent; sugar, 71.6 per cent; honey, 47.4 per cent; peanut butter, 29 per cent; food away from home, restaurant meals and so on, 17.2 per cent.

Wiatt a terrible, terrible tale, Mr. Speaker. What are we getting? We are getting the Minister of Energy smiling all his way out of the theatre and grumbling up here. We are getting the Premier saying “it’s intentional,” or “those guys in Ottawa are picking on us.” He says: “Wait for the budget. There will be good news in the budget.” I don’t believe it. I don’t believe it.

I don’t know, Mr. Speaker, if you have wandered through a supermarket in recent weeks -- but do it. Do it perhaps over this weekend. No? Well, look at the faces of the women who have gone to do their week’s shopping -- good, ordinary Ontario residents who have gone to the store to do their shopping, and notice the look of horror on their faces as they go from bin to bin and look at the newest price tags. They know how much money they have in their pocket and they are wondering, “How am I ever going to be able to buy food to feed my husband and my children next week?”

What are we getting? We are getting the smiling gnomes emerging from Ottawa. And I don’t apologize for or excuse the federal people any more than I apologize for or excuse the provincial people, because Ottawa is not doing anything to control inflation -- nor is Queen’s Park. But I am sent here by my voters to talk at Queen’s Park and I think that there are things that can be done here within the Province of Ontario that are going to begin to control this and give some of the people of Ontario some kind of a break.

Let’s look at the kind of profits that are originating in corporations who seem to be able to sell food products, oil products, furniture products, department store products -- whatever it is, corporate profits go up and up and up.

There doesn’t seem to me to be any valid reason why we can’t look most seriously at the usefulness of writeoffs, the usefulness of depletion reserves, the usefulness of the corporate tax arm that we have, and no longer be frightened about the kind of threats that are being hurled at us.

It isn’t enough for a Minister of Housing to say, “Maybe it is not nice for people to make lots of money on land, and if you don’t stop we might do something about it.” Why don’t we do something about profits on land?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): They’re the biggest profiteers.

Mr. Singer: Why don’t we do something about the inordinate profits that the oil companies are making? Gulf Oil’s profits went up by 360 per cent. Here comes the Premier now. What is he going to do about the profits of these companies? What is he going to do about the cost of living? What is he going to do about runaway inflation?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Elect Bob Stanfield.

Mr. Singer: Well, I don’t think that is even within the Premier’s power --

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it is not.

Mr. Singer: -- because he is going to be so busy looking behind him to try to hold a few seats over there at the next election. He has enough work to do without worrying about Bob Stanfield.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, the Liberal Party in this province will lose, without any question whatsoever.

Mr. Singer: I am sorry that the Premier has only come back now, because I did have some choice remarks for him; and I gather the arrival of the Premier has nothing to do with my remarks, that he has come to see His Honour.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I hate to --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Well, I would commend to the Premier, for his weekend reading the instant copy of Hansard, because some of the things I have said may strike a harmonious chord --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Singer: -- and maybe we can get some laws that are going to help the people of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There have been things -- like libraries; we always agreed on that.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have talked for a considerable period of time. I have come to the conclusion of the remarks that I thought I should put before the House at this time. I hope that the government will do something about some of the suggestions I have put forward.

But beyond doubt the most serious problems facing the people of the Province of Ontario are the cost of living and inflation. Unless we come to grips with these kinds of problems -- and I am not a soothsayer -- I think somebody is going to arrive on the political scene, whether they be of the far left or the far right, who is going to promise ridiculous and untoward solutions. And the people are going to be so fed up with the fatuous speeches and the do-nothing promises that somewhere along the line we are going to get a kind of government that will take over the political system and not bother to consult any more.

If the democratic system is worth preserving, it is time that the Premier and his colleagues paid a little real attention to the major problem that faces the people of Ontario; and that is, how are they going to live on their present income. How are they going to buy houses, food, gas and whatever else they need? Unless we can do something about that, we are all in big trouble -- the democratic process is in big trouble.

It isn’t enough to hear some of the things we have been hearing. We want some action. We have been here a month now, just a month, and there hasn’t been one important statute yet brought forward by government. Speeches galore, but not one important statute. The government has a responsibility and a duty to do something for the people of Ontario --

Mr. Lawlor: A waste of time.

Mr. Singer: -- and we haven’t seen it yet.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member for Downsview would like to move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Singer moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor awaits without to give assent to certain bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the legislative assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. W. Ross Macdonald (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the legislative assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said legislative assembly. I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

The Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 1, An Act to amend the University Expropriation Powers Act.

Bill 13, the Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1974.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to say that an agreement has been reached to sit on Monday morning at 10 o’clock. We will break for the lunch hour at 12, and reconvene for orders at 2 p.m. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we terminate the general debate possibly by 9 or 9:30 Monday evening, giving the windup speakers a half hour each before the votes are called. I think we can allow that to remain somewhat fluid to take care of whoever happens to have the floor at that particular time.

I would hope that is agreeable to my colleagues across the floor.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House leader has made this suggestion. It will be certainly useful, by an earlier sitting on Monday, to allow additional members to enter the debate and perhaps if we also decide to sit through the supper hour at that time there may be another six or eight speakers who will get this opportunity.

I think it is fair to suggest at this point that there may be some useful exchange that could occur if the rules committee were to meet to discuss the participation of members in the various debates. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware of course, it is the right of every speaker who enters the debate to speak for as long a time as he or she may choose. I think, though, that we have had five of our colleagues who have used up a goodly portion of time, as is their right, and it may be that some consideration could be given to the members of the House coming to some agreement as to the length of speeches within the Throne Speech and budget debates; that is, of course, with the exceptions of the leadoff speeches and the windup speeches of the respective parties.

I think we would serve ourselves well if we gave some consideration to that point, as well as perhaps using the occasional Wednesday, if the occasion did come up, to carry on with Throne Speech debate earlier in the usual month that passes between the opening of the House and the presentation of the budget.

With those comments, which perhaps may be of use to consider in the future, I certainly thank and commend the government House leader for accommodating the opposition in this matter, and I hope that all those who wish to enter the debate will get the opportunity to do so.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, certainly if we find ourselves confronted with the situation, at 6 p.m. on Monday, that there are sufficient speakers remaining who desire to speak, we will sit through the dinner hour.

I would also just say that historically in the Ontario Legislature it apparently has not been traditional to place time constraints or limitations on the speakers. However, it does have some appeal, in that a larger number of members would be accommodated and we will have a look at that as this session progresses.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

April 5, 1974

POINTS OF PRIVILEGE

MINAKI LODGE

CORPORATION INCOME TAX PAID BY OIL COMPANIES TO PROVINCE

RESTORATION OF OLD FORT WILLIAM

RESTRUCTURING OF RENFREW COUNTY

OIL PRICES

TORONTO REAL ESTATE BOARD PROPERTY SALES NEWS BLACKOUT

RENT INCREASES

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOLS

WIND ENERGY SEMINAR

VEHICLES ON CONSIGNMENT

FREIGHT RATES

ONTARIO RACING COMMISSION

FEDERAL BANK LEGISLATION

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

LAKE OF THE WOODS DISTRICT HOSPITAL

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

ROYAL ASSENT