Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

WOMEN CROWN EMPLOYEES

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the Management Board of Cabinet has recently approved guidelines for ministries and Crown agencies on affirmative action for women Crown employees. The guidelines provide the framework of policies and procedures within which the government of Ontario will implement its commitment to improve the status of its own women employees.

The members will recall that the report, “Equal Opportunity for Women in Ontario: A Plan for Action” was published as a green paper in June, 1973. Soon afterwards, the office of the executive co-ordinator of women’s programmes was established as a key step in a series of initiatives to implement the report.

The report had emphasized the need for special measures to enhance the status of approximately 35,000 women Crown employees in the province. In April, 1974, a new branch called the women Crown employees office was established within the women’s programmes division. Its goal is to stimulate and monitor affirmative action plans to ensure equal employment opportunity for women Crown employees.

Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out that the guidelines were developed on a consultative basis by the women Crown employees office and the Civil Service Commission. Effective leadership and liaison were provided by Mrs. Ethel McLellan, who I might say is with us in the gallery this morning. She is the executive co-ordinator of women’s programmes and a member of the Civil Service Commission.

The guidelines were distributed to all ministers and deputy ministers in September, 1974. Today marks the beginning of a concerted effort to communicate the guidelines to all Crown employees in the Province of Ontario. Hon. members will appreciate that these guidelines will also be of interest to many other public and private employers and employees.

The guidelines start with a reaffirmation of the government’s policy of equal opportunity. To ensure that this policy is effective, the guidelines recognize the need for special efforts in the form of affirmative action. This concept is then elaborated into three priorities, as follows:

1. Identification and removal of unnecessary barriers resulting from traditional personnel policies and other institutional practices.

2. Establishment of realistic goals to initiate and guide future action.

3. Identification and development of special measures, such as innovative training and recruitment programmes.

Mr. Speaker, the action plan contains five steps, starting with visible, top-level support of the policy of equal employment opportunity. Policy commitment and involvement are key elements in creating a positive basis for the rest of the action steps. Secondly, it is expected that each deputy minister or Crown agency head will assign responsibility to a women’s adviser who will design, co-ordinate and implement action in his or her organization.

I am pleased to inform the members that six women’s advisers have been appointed to date, while several other ministries and Crown agencies are in the process of actively developing their own action plans. Women’s advisers have been appointed on a full-time basis in the ministries of Community and Social Services (Miss Betty Graham) and Treasury Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs (Ms. Glenna Carr). The following ministries have appointed women’s advisers on a part-time basis: Education (Miss Gladys Munnings), Environment (Mrs. Grace Blackadar), Revenue (Mrs. Jean Macdonald), and Management Board of Cabinet (Mrs. Ellen Mills).

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): There are still a few short.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the next step in the action plan is the establishment of a data base to facilitate effective and realistic planning. These facts will also act as a means against which to measure future progress. The fourth step is the identification and development of existing women employees who have the potential and desire for future promotion.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the guidelines anticipate that each ministry and Crown agency will have developed and filed a written affirmative action plan by March 31, 1975. Comprehensive documentation of long-term planning, including both short- and long-term objectives, will stimulate effective action. It will also provide a basis for periodic programme review and evaluation.

I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that if these guidelines are supported in both spirit and practice, the government of Ontario will have established a positive basis whereby equal opportunity for women can become a reality.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): No. 1 should have been the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch).

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct --

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is nothing out of order at this point.

Mr. Roy: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in relation to a headline in the Toronto Globe and Mail, stating that the Premier (Mr. Davis) saved $99 on a wager --

Mr. Speaker: Really, that is no point of order.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It’s a point of privilege.

Mr. Roy: He saved only $98. He owes me a dollar.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order!

Mr. Roy: I have got to --

Mr. Speaker: That is no point of order. Will the member take his seat?

Oral questions.

Mr. Roy: I took advantage of the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, first of all, a question of the Premier.

Following the comment of Mr. Benoit last night that --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is another ministerial statement, if you don’t mind. I didn’t notice the hon. Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been losing weight in the last few days, and I can see why you wouldn’t notice me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): It was the minister’s liquor policies that brought down Benoit.

CREDIT CARDS IN SUPERMARKETS

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members have followed with interest recent press reports concerning the introduction of credit cards in Ontario supermarkets.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): The minister is going to ban them, I hope.

Hon. Mr. Clement: My ministry has been concerned about this possibility and the increased cost it will bring to all food consumers. As well, we feel that any system that encourages the consumer to purchase more of the basic necessity of food than he or she needs is inappropriate.

I therefore, Mr. Speaker, want to go on record as strongly opposing the introduction of credit cards in supermarkets and as urging those responsible to act in the public interest by cancelling any experiments which are taking place and any further consideration of this matter. I would warn those involved that if the industry is not responsive, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to recommend to the government legislative action to preclude this practice.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): For the first time and four by-elections later, the minister is defending the consumers of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Clement: For the first time the member has noticed.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. member for Kitchener.

PREMIER’S LEADERSHIP

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, my first question is of the Premier. Following the comment of Mr. Pierre Benoit last evening that the Premier is “one hell of a leader,” could the Premier explain just what he meant?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, in that the hon. member who asked the question has certain aspirations to that position some time in 1976 in his own party, I will let him draw his own conclusions and see just how he handles that particular campaign himself.

Mr. Renwick: It is an ambivalent statement about an ambivalent Premier.

Mr. Breithaupt: I’ll certainly know what to avoid!

Mr. Lewis: Is this the new fighting style?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There hasn’t been anything to fight about.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Well, is it a supplementary?

Mr. Roy: Yes. I don’t dare the new fighting style.

Mr. Lewis: You chew ’em up, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would get indigestion.

Mr. Roy: In the light of the fourth defeat and the resounding one in Carleton East, does the Premier not feel that he has lost the confidence of the people of Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not a supplementary on the original question.

Mr. Roy: -- and does he not feel he should go to the people?

Mr. Speaker: That’s not really a supplementary. The hon. member for Kitchener.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Nor is it urgent.

LAND SPECULATION TAX

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker: In view of the recent report that the highest average selling price of housing in Ontario was $46,899, a 32 per cent increase since 1973, can the minister explain to us how he believes that his present speculation tax is working, in the light of this kind of an increase?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes, sir. The credit of Ontario and the world-wide acknowledgement of its economic progress has led to enormous inflows of capital, as the member will know. As a result, houses which averaged $44,000 in cost here last year peaked in May to $57,000. Those prices have now dropped back to something like $54,000 or $55,000.

Mr. Lewis: That’s quite an achievement.

Hon. Mr. White: So the land speculation tax and the land transfer tax have definitely been one of the causes for these decreased house prices.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Marginal, very marginal.

Hon. Mr. White: The very fact that Ontario’s prices had accelerated at such a fast rate, for reasons I’ve touched on, I think is further proof of the necessity of this legislation. I think that one will see, as the hot money flows into other parts of Canada, that they will have to take similar steps. This we await with some interest.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That’s the stuff bet on last night’s election.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: That’s what Pierre said.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, that’s the only reason he got 7,300 votes.

SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR APARTMENT SCREENS

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Following my earlier question concerning the building code and the matter of screens, particularly in apartment buildings, I am now advised that there are no regulations with respect to screens planned in the government’s new code, and that its committee apparently working on this matter has not made any recommendations. Will the minister ensure that recommendations are prepared so that when this code is brought forward to us it will contain some practical results that will avoid this kind of problem in highrise buildings?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I pointed out to the hon. member for Kitchener the other day, if the proposed regulations were silent insofar as screening was concerned and security of same, then we would have to put it in the regulations when they are ultimately passed. As the hon. member recalls, about one year ago I did file the proposed regulations in the House, to give the hon. members an opportunity to peruse them. But I will give that undertaking to the members of this House at this time.

RECYCLING OF GARBAGE

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Speaker: Following the comments of Mr. Johnny Moles, the general manager of the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, concerning recycling and the use of livestock particularly hogs, to deal with garbage sources that are otherwise being wasted, is the minister aware of his views of recycling in order not only to improve and increase the production of meat and meat products within the province, but also to avoid the waste of these resources, which otherwise are just being dumped?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker. I heard Mr. Moles’ speech yesterday and I thought it was an excellent speech. I must confess, that point confused me. I have asked for a copy of the speech so that we might review it a little more carefully. As far as I know, most of the waste food product from the restaurants and hotels, and I believe other institutions, is now being used for hog feed. It is cooked and all the rest of it, and properly handled. I am a little concerned to know where he got that information. We intend to check it out but as far as I know it is carried on. I know of several herds of swine that are now being fed on waste refuse.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Lewis: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Minister of the Environment a question but I guess it is unfair. When did the Minister of the Environment become a minister? Does he remember that?

Mr. Roy: That is a tough question.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Doesn’t the member remember?

Mr. Lewis: No. I don’t remember when he became minister at all. Does he recall when he became Minister of the Environment? That’s my opening question.

Hon. W. Newman: That’s the member’s opening question? Yes, I recall very well.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary question. Mr. Speaker: When was it?

Hon. W. Newman: I think it was around the end of February this year.

Mr. Deans: He thinks it was?

Mr. Lewis: Okay, then he is not appropriate. May I direct the question to the Premier? Can the Premier tell me why the fourth report of the mercury task force issued by the government in March, 1973, failed to include within its pages the extraordinarily important and dramatic evidence of mercury pollution and contamination in the Wabigoon-English River system, particularly that part of the report which was in the government’s possession more than a year earlier which pointed out that the levels were comparable with those found in Japan and which then documented the human consequences when that was the case? Why would the government, comprising several ministries, issue a report which deliberately suppressed that kind of data on which so much subsequently hinges?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that I am not familiar with a particular report. I would also say, with respect, that we don’t deliberately suppress material. I think the question should properly be addressed to the various ministers responsible.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): We found that out about silicosis too.

Mr. Laughren: We have evidence to the contrary.

STUDIES ON DEATHS IN URANIUM MINES

Mr. Lewis: Let me move to another question. Can the Premier explain as Premier, the man who is responsible for his associate cabinet ministers, even though he would not wish to take that responsibility, how it is that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) had in his possession in 1973 a study based on 15 years of assessment of the lung cancer deaths in Elliot Lake, which shows him that the number of deaths was 25, whereas the expected level would have been seven, meets with ministries and with the industry but not with the workers, and at no time makes the information public? Can the Premier tell me why there is this policy of deliberate suppression of information where it affects the health and safety of citizens of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is not a deliberate policy of suppression.

Mr. Martel: There certainly is.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Can the Premier in his own mind, as someone who is concerned about these things, justify this evident capacity on the part of his colleagues in the Treasury benches to reveal only what is self-serving but nothing which is important to the health of the people involved?

Mr. Roy: The Premier is going to have to fight better than that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will not be provocative this morning. I would just say to the hon. member the --

Mr. Lewis: Be provocative. The Premier was provocative last night.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- ministers of this government do not act in that fashion.

Mr. Lewis: He could throw in things like “the big pink machine” or other lyrical little asides.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Or “the big red one.”

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

ONTARIO’S TRIPLE-A FINANCIAL RATING

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the provincial Treasurer how is it that with Ontario’s triple-A rating on the Moody’s exchange the Indiana Bell Telephone Co. and Texas Power and Light have been borrowing money at an interest rate significantly below Ontario’s triple-A rating, and how is it that British Columbia with only a double-A rating is borrowing at a level only 0.02 per cent higher than Ontario or a difference of some $35,000 on a $175-million issue? Doesn’t our spectacular rating entitle us to something better than a lower standard than American companies and an equal standard with provinces of lesser rating?

Hon. Mr. White: Indeed it does and indeed it will. Our expectation of savings next year is $10.5 million on the issues we take to New York for Hydro.

Mr. Breithaupt: Before the government borrows the money?

Hon. Mr. White: In point of fact, in the years to come it will be, in the words of one of New York’s most intelligent and most famous analysts --

Mr. Martel: Spiro Agnew?

Hon. Mr. White: -- “worth a fortune to Ontario.”

Mr. Breithaupt: To him or to us?

Hon. Mr. White: Now, sir, there are a number of variables at work.

Mr. Lewis: Who is the minister speaking of, Jacob Javits?

Mr. Deans: William Buckley?

Mr. Martel: Spiro Agnew?

Hon. Mr. White: The state of a market on the day of issue is very important. We went to market about six weeks ago, I suppose, at which time the prime rate was 12 per cent, if I remember correctly. We had a coupon rate of 10 per cent, I believe, to yield 10.25. The prime rate has come down almost weekly in quarter-point steps, and I was informed yesterday that a leading American bank had reduced it once again, now to 10.75 per cent.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): That’s normal.

Hon. Mr. White: So one can’t take issues with varying terms --

Mr. Lewis: No, they’re the same terms. We have looked at the same terms.

Hon. Mr. White: -- issued on different days, and make worthwhile comparisons. What one can do --

Mr. Lewis: We have taken the yields.

Hon. Mr. White: -- is take debentures which are in the market today -- and this is something I’d be glad to attempt -- and see what they are yielding --

Mr. Lewis: Right. That’s what we did.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and that difference in yield will be significant.

Mr. Lewis: The yield is 9.9 in British Columbia and 9.88 in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: Well all right. There you are. We’re better than British Columbia.

Mr. Lewis: All right. It’s 0.02 for a triple-A rating. The Treasurer knows what his triple-A rating means.

Hon. Mr. White: We’re better than British Columbia. Thanks for pointing that out.

Mr. Lewis: By 0.02 per cent. Congratulations.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: If the Treasurer is going to save $10 million for the province next year, as he said, on Hydro borrowings, and if because of our triple-A rating we get it at one per cent less than other ratings, does that mean that in effect he intends to borrow $1 billion next year? In order to save $10 million he is going to have to borrow $1 billion.

Hon. Mr. White: No, my hon. friend has to look at the terms. He cannot look at one year; he has to look at 20 or 30 years that those stretch out over time. In point of fact, the savings are estimated by my people to range between 0.10 and 0.25 on the yield.

Mr. Shulman: How much does the government intend to borrow next year?

Hon. Mr. White: Hydro will be borrowing in Ontario and in Canada, and we will be borrowing in the United States, for their purposes only, a total of $1.2 billion.

Mr. Shulman: Holy smoke!

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

Mr. Deans: No wonder my constituents can’t afford the hydro rates.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer is leaving quite a legacy, as he is on his way out. He is really visiting infamy on these people.

Hon. Mr. White: There is not a nickel being borrowed for the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: Why is the Treasurer destroying the entire party single-handed? Has he no compassion?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: One point two billion? What an inflated Treasurer he is.

Hon. Mr. White: There is not a nickel being borrowed for the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s no piker.

Hon. Mr. White: We balance our budgets.

Mr. Shulman: He is going to produce inflation world-wide single-handed.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer thinks this is Iraq. It isn’t. It’s Ontario. What’s wrong with him?

Interjections by hon. members.

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

CREDIT CARDS IN SUPERMARKETS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a question? How does he intend to deal with the supermarket industry on the credit-card announcement? I presume not simply by his announcement today in the Legislature. Is he writing them directly with instructions that they must cancel the credit-card plans? Will he be dealing with them in his offices? How does he intend to approach them?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I’m writing today to the heads of the supermarkets involved, asking them to meet with me next week to discuss the matter and see what their intentions are.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Does the minister have an opinion as to what they should do and is he prepared to back up his opinion by legislation?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, he said so.

Mr. Singer: By legislation?

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I said so in my statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Roy: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s near Carleton East.

Mr. Roy: Very close.

CABINET VACANCY

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. In light of last night’s tremendous victory and the stunning defeat for his candidate, who does he have in mind now to be Minister without Portfolio for municipal affairs? I understand there is a vacancy there.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Does the member for Ottawa East want the job?

Mr. Roy: I’m open-minded.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The member won’t accept. He wants to stay in our party.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I’m not contemplating the member for Ottawa East because I know that he, like the member and the House leader for the official opposition, has his own personal ambitions within his own party, so certainly he is not being considered.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: In light of the statement made by his colleague, the Treasurer, that this position was important to fill because of the relations with municipalities, when can we expect that appointment to be made? There are a lot of people on that side who are eager to --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, you posed your question.

Mr. Roy: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. When is the Premier going to make the announcement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What announcement?

Mr. Roy: About the Minister without Portfolio responsible for municipal affairs. The Treasurer said it was important that the post be filled soon.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It certainly is.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the member might take his seat now.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier might remind the Liberal Party that their vote didn’t go up. He should say that when he is feeling unhappy for a moment. Remind them of that. That is how we are consoling ourselves.

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

VOTING PROCEDURES FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier, regarding the municipal elections on Dec. 2: In order that handicapped persons who are unable to reach the ballot box because of stairways at polling stations may no longer be deprived of their right to vote, has the government taken any action to allow deputy returning officers, accompanied by other election officials, to move the ballot box from its usual location in the poll to the bottom of the stairways?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, this question was answered by me a week or two ago. There is a provision enabling disabled persons to vote by proxy if access cannot easily be obtained to the ballot box. If some broadening of this provision is desirable I’d be glad to ask the municipal liaison committee to consider it. Certainly no action could be taken before these municipal elections. One has to safeguard the integrity of the ballot box however, and I wouldn’t be in a hurry to make that change of having people lifting the boxes back and forth and in and out.

Mr. Burr: Was this statement relayed to all the returning officers in the various municipalities?

Hon. Mr. White: The law is the law, and there is no provision now for deputy returning officers to carry ballot boxes here and there. There is a provision enabling a disabled person to vote by proxy and that fact is known to the returning officers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville, one supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you. Is the minister considering drive-in polling subdivisions, one in each larger municipality, so that the handicapped, rather than even leaving the car, could come along and vote right in the car and then deposit their ballot in the box?

Hon. Mr. White: I have never heard this suggestion in my life before. It may have some merit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: First good one in months.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A further supplementary? This will be the last supplementary on this.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, since federal legislation allows a deputy returning officer to take the ballot box to the car, or to the place where handicapped persons can get into the building, what’s the matter with us having the same type of legislation? If it is reliable then, why isn’t it reliable now?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I did say I’d ask the municipal liaison committee to examine the proposition. I wouldn’t want to make a move in a hurry. The honesty of the balloting process is tremendously important to all of us. July 8, using the federal rules, did not fill me with confidence. So I’m not going to do anything in a hurry.

Mr. Ruston: Doesn’t the Treasurer trust the deputy returning officers?

Mr. Breithaupt: What about Nov. 7?

Mr. Roy: What about Nov. 7?

Mr. Singer: Carleton East, is that what he is talking about?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has the answer to a question which was asked earlier.

UNCOMPLETED HOMES IN TIMMINS

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) asked me the following question:

“Is the minister aware of the number of HOME lots in Timmins where houses were promised to people by Aug. 1 by Pro Investments but the firm has not completed these houses yet? They keep delaying completion so that the people are not able to move in and have to have other housing arrangements, which is causing hardship and confusion. If the minister isn’t aware, will he make himself aware of it? What can he do about it to get these houses finished so that the people can move in?”

Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to advise the hon. member that I have looked into this question. Pro Investments received 38 lots in December, 1973, and started construction at that time. Fifteen of the 38 are uncompleted. Our inspector was there yesterday and says there has been no progress in the last two weeks. The builder claims he can’t get sub-trades.

Today, we are sending a telegram to the builder telling him if the houses are not completed within 30 days, OHC will move in and complete the work itself. We have a $92,000 mortgage holdback, underneath the Ontario Mortgage Corp. So, therefore, we will assure the people in the member’s area that this development will be completed in the near future.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

STORE HOURS

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Is the Premier aware of the communication directed to him by the Windsor chamber of commerce on Oct. 29, that requested information concerning uniformity in store hours and observance of certain holidays? And does the Premier intend to introduce legislation during this session to resolve this problem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have had several communications with respect to uniform store hours. Actually, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) has had the bulk of these representations.

As the hon. member is aware, a green paper was published and discussions were held in many areas of the province with the business community and with consumers. The government is assessing the reaction to these meetings and to the green paper.

It is, Mr. Speaker, a very difficult problem for us in that the interests and the needs vary in some parts of Ontario. I think it’s fair to state that perhaps the shopping habits in some of the urban centres are somewhat different than they might be in the recreation or holiday areas of the province where, during the summer months, at least, I think there are some unique situations created.

As far as the government is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch) is developing a position that hopefully we will have for the members of the House to consider. But I do point out, Mr. Speaker, that while we have had many representations, one of the great things about this province is sort of the unique characteristics of the various regions, and we will try to find a way that will bring some rational solution to this problem. It’s not that simple, but I do expect, Mr. Speaker, that we will have some suggestions or proposals to bring to this Legislature.

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

TRAFFIC TICKETS

Mir. Shulman: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow) has refused to reveal a list of those who have had tickets fixed by the protocol department, and in view of the fact this should be public information, will the Premier overrule his minister and have such information revealed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly discuss this with the minister. I just want to make it abundantly clear that the Premier of this province doesn’t fall within whatever section that may be, in that he has never had tickets fixed by either the Ministry of Government Services or anyone else. Of course, I should hasten --

Mr. MacDonald: That is irrelevant to the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to add I don’t think we get many, if any, tickets hopefully.

Mr. Roy: No? Why not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, we always obey the law.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

LAND FOR NEW AIRPORT

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A question of the Minister of Housing: Because of the numerous cases of extreme hardship that have been caused by the ministerial order imposed on March 2, 1972, by the then Treasurer, will the minister lift that order, forthwith, unless the federal government provides the compensation for those affected landowners?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe this particular matter is within my jurisdiction. I think this is a matter which should be settled by the federal government. I would hope the federal government would make a decision in the very near future. We have asked them repeatedly --

Mr. Roy: That doesn’t work.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to make a decision, whether or not there is going to be an airport.

Mr. Roy: That doesn’t work.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If we can define the federal government’s intentions in the near future, the Ministry of Housing will take action as indicated by their decision. But we cannot do so until we have something further from the federal government.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: In view of the fact that this is a provincial action, not a federal action --

Hon. W. Newman: Nonsense, it is a request to the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member knows it is his friends in Ottawa.

Mr. Deacon: In view of the fact this action may have been done at the request of the federal government, but it is indeed a provincial action, will the minister look after the interests of the people of this province for whom he is responsible?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We are waiting for the answer -- the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member knows full well that the action to be taken in regards to whether or not there is an airport is a federal government decision.

Mr. Deacon: I am not asking that. I am not asking about that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The action as to a ministerial order certainly was taken by the provincial government, but we had to do so to protect the people of the area in case the development goes through.

Mr. Deacon: Oh go on; the minister is not protecting them.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If the federal government would do something for a change, I would be delighted to take my ministerial order off.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Is the minister telling me that he is not in a position --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Deacon: -- to take legal action or to lift that order? Is he now, because of some binding agreement, not in a position to lift that order? Or can he do it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No; I’m not in a position to do it.

Mr. Deacon: That has a pretty hollow sound.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

DUNDAS SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment.

Given the decision of the regional council in the Hamilton-Wentworth area of two days ago to permit proceedings with the development of the Dundas sewage treatment plant, will the minister go to Hamilton and stop the development until such time as an environmental study has been undertaken into the effects on Cootes Paradise to ensure that there will not, in fact, be the detrimental effects that many people feel there will be? And if the study turns up that it will be detrimental, will he find an alternative way of dealing with the sewage in the Dundas development area?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that it was a very close vote at the regional council regarding this matter. I don’t have it here with me but I made my position very clear on what I felt should be done, I believe, in a letter in July of this year. I believe it was to the regional council, at any rate the municipality involved. I made my position quite clear at that time.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question. I don’t care what your position was in July. They have made a decision to enlarge the sewage treatment plant, and it’s obviously not in the best interests of the total environment of the area. Will he now, as Minister of the Environment, take steps to ensure that whatever damage might occur will not be allowed to happen?

Hon. W. Newman: I assure the member every plant that goes in is well thought out and well planned by our people. We do not allow any plants to go ahead unless we are satisfied the effluent will be properly taken care of.

Mr. Deans: What does that mean? Is the minister going to meet me?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

HAZARDS OF ALUMINUM ELECTRICAL WIRING

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Solicitor General:

Is the minister not concerned about the two newspaper articles written about the aluminum wiring in homes in Ontario, headlined “No Hazard Found with Well-connected Aluminum Wiring” and “Aluminum Wiring Can Be a Hazard, Hydro Confirms”? What action is contemplated by his ministry to the office of the fire marshal to ensure that homeowners who have installed this type of electrical wiring can ease their minds that action will be taken to ban any further installation of aluminum wiring until there is a guarantee that no fire hazard exists?

An hon. member: A good question.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware of that article. If the hon. member will send it over to me I’ll look into it and make sure the fire marshal comments on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

DEMAND FOR FERTILIZER

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Could I ask the minister how he responds to the federal Minister of Agriculture’s statement that he may have to curtail the supply of fertilizer to backyard gardeners? Do backyard gardens have a significant impact on our food supply?

Mr. Lewis: Did the members see the Gallup poll on Eugene Whelan? Kind of makes one feel better, doesn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen that statement which the member refers to concerning the use of fertilizer, but I do know that there are enormous quantities of fertilizer used on lawns, gardens, golf courses, cemeteries and other such things for grass production. Certainly at times when fertilizer supplies are very scarce and when they are extremely badly needed for food production throughout the world, I would think that this would be a good time for those who are in charge of those grounds to take a second look at their requirements for the next year or two.

It would appear that with the development of new fertilizer plants throughout the world -- and there is a substantial increase in the facilities being built now to produce fertilizer -- within probably two years there will be abundant sources again. But in this interval I think it would be wise for all to consider curtailing the use of fertilizer wherever it can be done. We have asked all farmers to embark on soil testing before they order fertilizer for next year’s use. It seems to me it’s just good, prudent common sense; but more important, it is making it possible for those countries of the world in great need of it to have added access to it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

SHORTAGE OF VETERINARIANS

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Is it true that there is a shortage of veterinarians across the Province of Ontario when we have farmers saying that it’s impossible to get veterinarians to take care of animals?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Does the member want the five-minute variety or -- ?

Mr. Lewis: Don’t let the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development talk into the minister’s mike.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to know about that last election poll.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, in certain areas of the province, because of the decreased livestock population in those areas, because of the advent of cash-crop farming at these wonderful prices farmers are now receiving --

Mr. Roy: Thanks to the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- there is likely to be less need for veterinarians in those areas. In areas where there are substantial livestock populations there doesn’t seem to be the same shortage.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier, if I might.

Mr. Spence: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will allow the member who asked the question a supplementary.

Mr. Spence: I am greatly concerned that they are unable to get a veterinarian when they need one.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

TORONTO WORKSHOP PRODUCTIONS

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier, if I might. In view of the very serious fire suffered by Toronto Workshop Productions this past week which prevents their putting on a very important production in the immediate future, can the government find some way to supply emergency funding to Toronto Workshop Productions to rebuild their theatre and to put on the production within the very near future? There is a total amount of about $65,000 involved. I ask the Premier the question in view of the contribution that TWP has made not only to professional theatre in Toronto but throughout the country and internationally.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think if there hasn’t been, there should be some communication from the theatre group to the Ontario Arts Council. I would be quite prepared to suggest this to them and see if the Arts Council through its endeavours could be of help to them.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, if I might, Mr. Speaker: The reason I raise it with the Premier is it is my understanding the Arts Council would not have that amount of emergency funding, its budget pretty well being planned for operational things. I would really like the Premier to look at it pretty seriously in view of the contribution they make.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP SCHOOL TAXES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, might I ask a question of the Premier again pertaining to Carleton East? The cabinet has presently a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board in relation to a tax assessment vis-à-vis the municipality and the public school board. Can the Premier advise us when the taxpayers of Carleton East can have the cabinet decision on this?

Secondly, the Premier might advise us as well, again in light of the fact of last night, that he can show the voters of Carleton East that he is not only human but that he has compassion.

Mr. Singer: He tippy-toed all the way back here this morning.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): What about the voters of Nepean?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the hon. member that we discussed this at some length with the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), I think a few days ago when the member for Ottawa East was busy in Carleton East --

Mr. Roy: That’s obvious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- looking after the needs of his constituents, of course,

Mr. Roy: Of course.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I observed on that occasion, Mr. Speaker, that the appeal was coming to cabinet and that it is rather complex in nature. I am not sure whether all the representations have come in from the various parties to the appeal to cabinet. As soon as we have the total information we will deal with it. I cannot give the member for Ottawa East a definitive date at this moment but we are anxious to get it resolved and shall do so as soon as we have the information totally available to us.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, could I ask one supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Roy: On that point, does the Premier plan to meet with the township council of Gloucester? As I understand it, he attempted to meet them on his last trip down last Monday. Is that something he tried to firm up or is that something he plans to do in the near future?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to appeals to cabinet, I think it’s quite understandable that those people who work on the documentation, and perhaps individual ministers, may speak to some of those people who have positions that are part of the appeal.

It has not been the custom of cabinet, as a whole, to talk to or interview or discuss it, shall we say, with any single party to the appeal. I think then we would be in the position of having to discuss it with every group or municipality or what have you. So that, as a result, it was not my intention, personally, to meet with the municipal council. We haven’t done this, and I think it would be perhaps unwise or improper to do so. But I am sure there have been discussions with the municipality by those people who have the responsibility for preparing the documentation for cabinet to consider.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

VOTERS’ LISTS

Mr. Lewis: Yes, a question of the Premier, which relates to the by-election, but in a totally different vein: Could I ask him, based on the experience of Stormont and Carleton East -- Carleton East in particular -- to request of the chief electoral officer in Ontario that we take a close look at this business of placing voters’ lists on assessment rolls in alphabetical order.

I want to suggest to the Premier that, in my 20-odd years of campaigning, I have never seen such an administrative shambles in an election campaign as was true of Carleton East, in terms of the apparatus, and that we may be introducing so many mechanical difficulties into an election that ultimately it is self-defeating. Voters are confused, election workers are confused and the apparatus just grinds to a halt along the way.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t speak directly, because I did not discuss it with those responsible in Carleton East, but the impression I had was that this procedure probably was confusing to a number of people. There is the assumption that because it is an alphabetical list, that this makes it easy to communicate and perhaps sort out these people, as it relates to the polls. I think there are some problems, and I would be quite delighted to discuss it with the chief electoral officer. Very fortunately, he is in a position to listen to these observations here this morning.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Premier a supplementary on that point? I think the leader of the NDP raises a valid point. In my discussions with Liberal workers and, in fact, some of the other workers, there is the great difficulty of having those lists on an alphabetical basis --

Mr. Speaker: Is this the member’s question?

Mr. Roy: Yes, I am getting there, Mr. Speaker. Would the Premier not think that we would be better off to go to the old system, by streets? On the alphabetical list it makes it exceedingly difficult even to point out who has been missed in enumerations --

Mr. Speaker: Order please; you have asked the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am quite prepared to discuss this with the chief electoral officer; who I just sensed was nodding his head in some form of, not necessarily agreement, but in recognition of, I think, the difficulty that we experience. However, I should not interpret nods in that fashion.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Windsor-Walkerville has a question.

WYETH PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Could the minister inform the House of the status of the strike at Wyeth pharmaceutical company in the city of Windsor? and also, if there is any danger that there may not be enough pharmaceuticals and drugs for distribution, and a shortage in some cases?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, that strike is in mediation and my officers are doing their best to bring the parties together. The members may be aware, of course, that this is the company that makes “the pill” -- and I have no guarantee whether there is an adequate supply of them or not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Better get them.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But, I would hope that, for the sake of everybody concerned, we might soon get them back into production -- that end of the production.

Mr. Breithaupt: Don’t let the strike go for more than a month.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend asked me the other day about the medical effects, if they had to switch from one to the other. I suppose the obvious --

Mr. Lewis: The minister should ask himself why he engaged in that little diversion.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: What diversion? Why do I mention it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: The pill. What was that all about?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the other day my friend asked me about the medical effects of it, if they had to switch from one pill to the other. And I said that I was not aware as to whether there would be any ill effects or not.

Mr. Lewis: After all, he’s the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why the Minister of Labour?

Mr. Deans: That question should have been asked of the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller).

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I asked my friend, the Minister of Health, if he would follow it up -- and he undertook to do so. Regrettably, he is not here today. But I was not going to try to answer that end of the question. I asked the Minister of Health; and I hope he will have an answer.

Interjections by hon. members.

SOLAR ENERGY

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: Inasmuch as millions of solar water heaters have been sold in Japan in the past two years, and inasmuch as in northern Australia the government now demands that all new houses have solar water heaters, is the minister doing anything to encourage the use of any kind of solar energy for new housing in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally, but my ministry may be. I will look into the question and reply to the member.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for High Park.

NAPANEE INDUSTRIES

Mr. Shulman: Yes, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of the Environment listening?

Mr. Lewis: What difference does it make whether he hears or not?

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister -- he still doesn’t hear me.

Mr. Speaker: I would try him. Would you proceed with the question.

Mr. Shulman: Yes. Is the minister aware that Napanee Industries has been forced to close after some 60 years in operation, because this ministry was so slow in paying its bills on the sewage treatment plants that were being built? And, is the minister also aware that, as recently as two weeks ago, the ODC turned down a grant to Napanee Industries, which would have allowed them to continue going until the minister paid its bill?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I know about the industry. I was not aware that it had closed down. We have the same terms of payment with every industry we deal with. We pay on delivery. We do pre-order equipment, and we don’t pay for it until we get it. If this is what the member is talking about, then I am fully aware of that.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary: Is the minister aware that, in effect, Napanee Industries was a subcontractor, and it was the ministry’s ruling, under the Public Works Creditors Payment Act, which prevented them putting a mechanics’ lien on the main contractor and collecting their money? Will the minister at least intervene with the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and let them get a grant so they can keep going?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, if there’s anything I can do to expedite matters in my department, yes. But as far as the Ministry of Industry and Tourism is concerned, the hon. member will have to ask the minister.

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

LAND OWNERSHIP DISPUTE IN OTTAWA AREA

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing. Has the minister been involved at all in the negotiations currently going on between Rideau township, the new township in Ottawa, and a certain company, in relation to the Marlborough township mess, where certain lots were conveyed contrary to the Planning Act? Has the minister been involved at all?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Not personally or directly. Indirectly I have knowledge of the affairs that were proceeded with last year; I can’t remember the exact date at this particular time. It’s my understanding, though, that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has initiated legal action to make sure that this particular action of Marlborough township is not one that will be followed in the future.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker may I ask the minister a supplementary, please? I realize there has been a court action in the High Court and that the matter is currently under appeal, but in light of the fact that the people who purchased lots did so clearly contrary to the Planning Act, according to the court, does the minister not feel that those purchasers -- and there are quite a number of them who are sitting on their properties without title to them -- are entitled to some action on the part of his government at an earlier date than has been indicated so far? Does the minister contemplate, for instance, a bill to regulate that situation in Marlborough?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m not a lawyer as is my hon. friend, but I think he would admit that I shouldn’t make any comment if there is an action before the courts. Whether or not I should do something will be determined after the court action is finished.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary: Is the minister prepared to change the legislation, or the most recent amendment to the Planning Act dealing with this matter, and allow the province to take action, instead of continuing the sloughing-off of the responsibility on to the municipal councils? The municipal councils, as he knows, won’t take any action.

Mr. Roy: These people won’t have title to their property for two years.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we have certainly taken this matter into full consideration. If we are aware that any action is being contemplated similar to what happened in Marlborough township we impose a ministerial order to make sure there is no development. In the future, if we find it’s necessary to amend the Planning Act, I’d be quite willing to do so. I feel that the province has not sloughed off its responsibility to the municipalities.

Mr. Singer: Sure it has. There are all sorts of people stuck in Whiterock.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I feel that the province has made it very clear to the municipalities that we will not validate these particular severances unless they have agreed in writing and have asked the province to do so. We did this last year in legislation.

Mr. Singer: Yes, but the legislation is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I want to table for the information of the members copies of the guidelines issued by the superintendent of insurance in connection with creditors’ group insurance, as requested.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle presented the annual report for 1973-1974 of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Health, he has asked me to table the report referred to yesterday regarding methyl mercury.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until Tuesday next, Nov. 12.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, on the motion, just to add a further point, will we then be going on with the estimates of the Ministry of Housing on Tuesday?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I will communicate with the House leaders in the course of the morning. That really wasn’t my intention, but we will work that one out.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

LAND TRANSFER TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Meen, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, again I am doing this as a courtesy for the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen). Very briefly, I can say that the amendments are being brought forth to ameliorate certain situations that existed prior to April 9 for those people who registered and are doing business in the province.

Mr. Roy: That clears it right up.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): That’s terrific. That is where “ameliorate” covers a lot of ground.

COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRES ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves first reading of bill intituled, The Community Recreation Centres Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, briefly, this is a re-enactment of the existing Community Centres Act. It will make the following main changes: increase the amount of capital grants available to municipalities for community recreation centres; broaden the classes of community recreation centres that will be eligible for financial assistance; provide for the first time for payments of grants to non-profit corporations establishing community centres in unorganized territory; and improve methods of payment of grants so that payments will be expedited.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

Mr. Leluk moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Imposing controls, eh? Amazing! The member is socially conscious.

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): Yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for a fluctuating interest rate on security deposits.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, could I interrupt proceedings?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Germa: I would like to introduce, sitting in the east gallery, 39 students from Sudbury Secondary School under the control of Mr. Kett. It was pointed out to me that this group of young people left Sudbury at 4:30 this morning to be with us now.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4

Clerk of the House: The government notice of motion No. 4, by Hon. Mr. White.

Resolved: That this House confirms the order made under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, 1973, and filed as Ontario Regulation 118/74.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Does the minister have any statement to make?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): I have an opening statement that will put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker. In moving this resolution, I should like to take a few minutes to review the importance of this step as part of our continuing programme of escarpment preservation.

The members will recall that in June, 1973, this government presented a comprehensive policy statement on the Niagara Escarpment. This statement pledged action to preserve the major natural features of the escarpment through the preparation and adoption of a master plan which would outline specific programme commitments. So that this master plan could be prepared with a significant contribution from affected municipalities and residents, we established the Niagara Escarpment Commission, with membership drawn from municipalities and residents in the area, as well as individuals representing the broader provincial interest.

The Niagara Escarpment Commission began operating late last year under the able chairmanship of Mr. George McCague, the former mayor of Alliston. The commission began a review of the Planning Act area during the winter of 1973-1974, viewing this as the first main order of business. Why a review of the planning area is considered to be of such importance by the commission will become evident if I outline briefly the role played by the planning area.

Under the terms of the Niagara Planning and Development Act, the planning area has two major functions.

First, the planning area will be the designated area covered by the escarpment commission’s master plan. It is therefore essential that the planning area be large and comprehensive enough to encompass all lands associated with the Niagara Escarpment.

Second, certain parts of the approved planning area will be designated for development control. For this reason it is necessary that the planning area be clearly defined. I will return to the development control programme in a few minutes.

Because our attention today is on the planning area it might be useful to refresh our memories with a brief outline of how the planning area has evolved. In 1967-1968 we had the Gertler report. The conduct and plannings of this report are well known to members and need not be restated here. What is important to notice is that in the course of the study Prof. Gertler was the first to delineate a prototype planning area for the escarpment.

Initially, the study area included all lands within two miles of each side of the escarpment itself. As the study progressed, many adjustments and refinements were made to this area to include recreational and environmental features of special significance. There are many examples of such changes. The headwaters of streams which flow from the escarpment were covered, as were the Niagara Peninsula fruitlands below the escarpment and some agricultural tablelands above it. Also, the entire Georgian Bay shoreline associated with the escarpment was added because of its recreational capacity.

After studying the Gertler report, the government acted on many of its suggestions and in 1972 appointed the Niagara Escarpment task force to recommend a concrete programme for escarpment use and preservation. In its report the task force recommended that the Gertler study area be expanded to include the whole of the Bruce Peninsula so as to protect its shoreline and its many good harbour sites. The task force also recommended that, in order to facilitate legal description, the entire area be “squared off” to recognize the concession, lot and municipal boundaries nearest to the study area limits. Finally, the task force recommended that this modified area become the Niagara Escarpment planning area to be used in the preparation of the master plan.

The government accepted the recommendations of the task force in its policy statement last year. However, we did ask the Niagara Escarpment Commission to give early attention to a final review of the proposed planning area before regulations were drafted to define the area formally.

During its review, the commission discussed the proposed planning area with municipalities, conservation authorities, and a number of ministries. Most of these groups expressed satisfaction with the area as set out by the task force. Three conservation authorities -- Niagara, Credit and Nottawasaga -- felt; however, that the planning area boundaries should be altered to include parts of their watersheds. In addition, the commission identified a small area near Wiarton which it believed should be included in order to monitor any expansion proposals by local quarrying operations. It was felt that any expansion could affect seriously other land uses in adjacent parts of the planning area.

In its examination of these further proposed changes in the planning area, the commission was satisfied that these would aid it in achieving its primary purpose as stated in legislation:

“To provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity substantially as a continuous natural environment, and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that natural environment.”

Accordingly, the commission recommended to the government that the Niagara Escarpment Planning Area as recommended by the task force and with the additions noted above, be formally adopted as set out in section 3 of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act.

When we received this recommendation from the commission, the changes suggested were evaluated by my staff and accepted by me. However, at the same time it was noted that a very small part of Wellington county, near Erin, had been included in the planning area. It was determined by my staff, in consultation with the staff of the commission and other ministries, that this small area -- some nine square miles -- was not essential for the preparation of an escarpment plan. Since this was the only part of Wellington county which would be within the planning area, and because its inclusion was not essential, my staff recommended that this area be excluded. I accepted this suggestion.

Finally, a regulation outlining the revised area in detail was drafted, and I signed it. It is this regulation which is now before the assembly for confirmation.

In summary, the planning area which members are being asked to confirm is the area recommended in our policy statement with three modifications:

1. An enlargement to include significant portions of the watersheds under the jurisdiction of the Niagara, Credit and Nottawasaga conservation authorities;

2. The addition of a small area near Wiarton which is very sensitive ecologically to any expanded quarrying operations; and

3. The exclusion of a very small portion of Wellington county near Erin.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few additional words about the development control programme for the Niagara Escarpment. While development control is not the subject of our debate today, this is a good opportunity to bring members up to date on this vital element of our escarpment preservation policy.

In our policy statement last year the government agreed to the institution of an experimental development control programme in selected parts of the Niagara Escarpment planning area. The features of this programme were discussed in detail during the debate leading to passage of the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, and so need not be repeated now. I should note only that development control represents an alternative to zoning as a means of controlling land use.

Under the zoning system, with which we are all familiar, once a zoning bylaw becomes law it can only be changed by a formal amendment, which is a time-consuming process. The standards established for each zone are necessarily based on the average conditions within that zone. Topography, tree cover, drainage and road access may differ widely within a zone, but the standards designed to meet average conditions must ignore these differences. Accordingly, the standards designed to meet average conditions are applied uniformly whether or not they are appropriate for a particular piece of land within the zone.

In contrast, development control employs no zones. It sets out few detailed standards in advance. Instead, it relies on general guidelines. Every development proposal is judged on its own merits. If it is found compatible with the goals, objectives and policies of the guidelines, the developer is permitted to proceed.

The development permit may be issued subject to whatever standards and conditions are considered appropriate in relation to land use, lot size, building locations, tree cover, or other factors. Unlike zoning, development requires no amendment of pre-established standards.

In the case of the escarpment, applicants for development permits and the commission will all have greater flexibility to ensure that any development is compatible with its environment. We believe that development control is particularly appropriate in parts of the escarpment area where environmental protection is our major objective and the ecological framework is both sensitive and dynamic.

After its review of the planning area, the Niagara Escarpment Commission devoted a major portion of its time to the preparation of a detailed system for the implementation of the development control programme. In doing this, the commission has concentrated on three aspects:

1. The area within the Niagara Escarpment planning area which should be designated for development control.

2. The guidelines to be used in judging the merits of development applications.

3. The procedures to be followed by both applicants and the commission in order that applicants can be dealt with fairly and quickly.

The commission has now completed its work on the development control programme and has made a series of recommendations and programme proposals to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) and me. These recommendations and proposals are now being reviewed by staff. I can report to the House that, once the regulation setting out the planning area is confirmed, the development control programme will be instituted very shortly. At that time the government will make a brief statement setting forth the area, criteria and procedures.

But to return to the main purpose of this debate, what is now required is confirmation of the Niagara Escarpment planning area so that the master plan process may proceed, and the development control programme can be initiated.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, it has been interesting to listen to the minister’s comments this morning and to review, as he went over them, the history and background of this commission.

As the minister has informed us, the motion, of course, is to complete the matter which had been initiated earlier and which required the actual delineation of the escarpment planning area to come back before the House.

We were rather interested in the actual terms of section 2 of the regulation, because therein the commission is directed, and I quote:

“(a) to carry out an investigation and survey of the environmental, physical, social and economic conditions in relation to the development of the Niagara Escarpment planning area and; (b) to prepare within a period of three years a plan based upon the results of the survey in investigations suitable for approval as the Niagara Escarpment plan.”

It is rather curious that this three-year term should come up, because that will take us approximately to 1978, or thereabouts. When one goes back to the terms of the Gertler report, the comments that were made at that point would have cost, in the ideas of Prof. Gertler, some $31 million and would have, within the eight-year term that he had set out, also brought us approximately to 1978.

We realize, of course, that the hon. Treasurer knew something had to be done in this matter. At the inaugural meeting of the escarpment commission, held just a year ago, Nov. 6, 1973, the stated goal the hon. minister gave was as follows:

“To provide for the maintenance of the Niagara Escarpment and land in its vicinity, substantially as a continuous natural environment and to ensure only such development occurs as is compatible with that environment.”

Now, I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House agree that that is certainly the proper goal. But then, as the minister continued in his remarks, we come certainly to a slight divergence of opinion. The minister spoke about the purchasing of the whole property -- why not buy up the whole place, rather than keep us in suspense? The results that the minister forecast would be the public ownership of some 1.3 million acres of land at a cost to the public treasury in excess of $3 billion, as the minister said, or almost half of Ontario’s annual budget. It’s amazing in itself, Mr. Speaker, that a year later that $3 billion is only one-third of Ontario’s annual budget, but so much for development within the province.

There are problems that we have seen because we think that the action that has been taken should have been taken much earlier. The Gertler report, setting out in detail the purchase of land and the achievements which could be obtained, developed in its three-priority term a series of actions which would be required within eight years. Those eight years, as I have said, would have taken us to the same point of time that the minister’s plan takes us, but there is a vast difference. The difference is for $30 million those eight years would have seen control over the escarpment as a fait accompli. Now we are going to see, for a price as yet unascertained, a plan which may be in place in the same length of time.

I suggest to you that the minister perhaps is close to the mark when he says that to acquire the land by purchase now would cost some $3 billion, or might have a year ago. Who knows what the astronomic cost is going to be? What we suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is that that cost could have been much, much less half a dozen years ago, if the actions that the government should have taken under the Gertler report were taken.

This is going to prove to be a very expensive project for the people of Ontario. I think everyone of us in this House believes that the project is worth while. We however regret seriously that the resulting costs, because of the delay of this government in not proceeding promptly with the Gertler report that was hailed by all, are going to be a burden on the taxpayers of Ontario. The regulation, of course, is now a formality because the planning area must be defined. What we have found is a grave amount of disappointment in the procrastination that the ministry has taken over the years since 1968 and 1969 when, five years ago, this Gertler report was before us and also when the cost of the land would obviously have been substantially less than it’s going to be now.

We regret this additional burden on the taxpayers of the province because we think it could be avoided. The motion itself is a formality and necessary before the project can proceed as the minister has called for it. The commission in its activities so far has made a start which I think we all applaud. Again the activities of Mr. McCague and his assistants have become better and better established as the planning process continues. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, as I have said earlier, we regret the delay that it has taken and we regret the increased costs which we believe could substantially have been avoided.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are two or three things I want to say about the resolution. To begin with, I want to identify what has happened because I think that anyone who may not have looked at the resolution and compared it with the map may not fully appreciate -- although I know the minister does, the other members of the House may not fully appreciate -- what has occurred in the resolution. This was the result, I know, of the hearings that were conducted by the commission and the decisions that they made as the result of representations made by a number of different bodies. I am not exactly clear why some of the changes were made. I think it would have been useful in the overall had we had some further explanation of the reasons why and the background material for the final changes that were made. There are significant differences.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would be delighted to have the experts put those details in front of a meeting of the members of the Legislature, in a standing committee or elsewhere, together with maps, if that is the desire of the members.

Mr. Breithaupt: That would be a very helpful thing, perhaps on a Wednesday morning or sometime when all members who would be interested could attend, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: I appreciate my colleague saying that. I think it would have been necessary in fact. It would have been useful to have done it prior to the time that we dealt with the resolution, because we are actually approving something that we don’t know much about. We are being asked to approve very technical guidelines and very technical, legal descriptions of properties that we really don’t know much about and we don’t know the reasons why they are included.

There are some things that come very quickly to my attention as I look at the map. The first is that in the riding I represent, the area to be within this description that will be under the control of the commission at this stage and ultimately will be under development control of some kind or another, extends eight miles back from the escarpment face. Now, we have got to ask ourselves why it goes eight miles back.

What is there in that eight miles that justifies doing this and what effect is this going to have on the properties within that area? If we take a look at the map, we will find, for example, that in Binbrook and Glanford -- they no longer exist in those names; they are now known as Glanbrook township -- the boundary takes in the town of Binbrook, which is eight miles from the escarpment face, and continues right along the escarpment and takes in Bismarck, which again is some considerable distance back from the escarpment, perhaps more than eight miles, at that point.

Mr. Breithaupt: I was in Bismarck yesterday and it is a long way away from the escarpment.

Mr. Deans: I have got some real reservations about how the commission came to the decision to put those areas within their jurisdiction. The area set out runs from Mount Hope to Silverdale, and that’s a very extensive area of control. The commission tell us, as we inquired of them, that it was something to do with the preservation of additional agricultural land. But I want to point out to you that right in the centre of this area that’s being considered for preservation purposes is a housing subdivision being built by the Ontario Housing Corp. that will house 40,000 or 50,000 people by the time it’s completed, perhaps even more. There is some inconsistency about what’s happening here, and I would dearly like to have some explanation from the officials of both the commission and the ministry as to how they came by that decision.

I would also like to know the effect that this decision will have on many of the people who are going to be in the process in the next short while of trying to acquire land for housing, because all of the housing that’s going to be built in the Hamilton area is going to be built within the area designated by this commission. All of Glanbrook and all of Stoney Creek town is where the housing is going to be built in the next two or three years, and I don’t know now how the people who own that land or who may well be in the process of attempting to get approvals for development purposes will be able to make their proposals compatible with the objectives of the commission. I think that’s something that would have to be explained to us at some point.

In addition, there are the other minor changes, that have been made all the way along. It’s worthwhile that the ministry give us the reasons for those minor changes, although they are considerably smaller in area than the one I have just mentioned.

The other point that bothers me is the procedure that we use in approving a resolution of this type. It really makes a mockery of the legislative process. We are asked by the government to approve in principle something for which no justification or explanation has been given and for which there may well be a great series of questions requiring to be asked that are not absolutely apparent at this point.

I am in the process, I suppose, of saying to the minister that if it didn’t matter much and if it could be arranged for next Wednesday morning, let’s say, perhaps we could approve this on Thursday next; and between now and then perhaps we could have the benefit of the knowledge of the ministry and the commission in order that we could vote on it sensibly. I think you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that that is an important part of any process. We would be derelict in our duties if we were to approve it, not knowing fully what it was all about.

Hon. Mr. White: If I may, I quite like the idea of having the meeting as suggested, although in fairness there have been lots of meetings, including one in Hamilton, where the information might have been elicited. Nonetheless, if we could conclude the debate today, I would be quite willing to see the vote held until next Thursday as is suggested. The reason I would like to conclude the debate today is that I will be away next Thursday, and we do want to proceed with the development control regulations upon which we are dependent for this resolution today.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreeable?

Mr. Deans: In response to that, and then the Treasurer can answer, I think we could probably proceed with the debate today, and we might make some of the points that we want to make, provided there is an understanding that if information is elicited at the meeting which justifies some further discussion with the minister that the vote, in fact, will then not go ahead until such time as the minister is present.

Hon. Mr. White: Why not have the debate today, have the show-and-tell next Wednesday morning for those members who are interested, have the vote on Thursday, providing the explanations are acceptable to those provided with the more detailed information? In the event that there are objections to the plan for which we seek approval, we will have to attend to it on my return, which is to say about two weeks from now. I would hope that the vote could proceed unless there were important substantive objections.

Mr. Speaker: Is this understood?

Mr. Deans: I am not yielding the floor other than for this point.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That’s all I want. I want to say that I don’t think we should preclude ourselves from the opportunity of carrying on further debate when the minister returns. I have no objections to that -- if there are matters of substance. We can do that, I would think, on unanimous consent. On a resolution of this land, I would think one can only, according to the existing rules, speak once. If we have unanimous consent, then I think we would be prepared to go along.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are prepared to agree to that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This is understood then?

Mr. Deans: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On this point?

Mr. Deans: On the point, that’s fine then, because I wanted then just to take a minute or two to talk about my views about it. During the initial introduction of this legislation, I did express some concerns about some aspects of the legislation, particularly about that matter called compatible development. It is my understanding from discussions that we have had with the commission that this has, in fact, become a major bone of contention. What I thought might occur, because of the difficulty in defining what compatibility really is, is occurring. There is a continuous dialogue, ranging almost to the point of being disagreement, between the commission and many of the local communities that are falling within the area designated as to what compatibility really is, how you establish it and whether or not it isn’t an inching process of the type I spoke about, whereby what may well be approved today, we find next year or the year after, something that is compatible with it but would not have been compatible with it in its raw state.

I think that that has been one of the real difficulties that the commission has faced, as I understand it. I am eager that the commission be there to talk about that because it may be that, in addition to approving this resolution dealing with these boundary lines, we may be able to get an insight into some changes that could take place to make their job easier in trying to establish the guidelines for the development or non-development or preservation, as I would prefer to see it called, of the Niagara Escarpment area. The whole argument is centred on estate residential construction. Local councillors and other people have been making representations and appearing before the commission in support of the development, because of the obvious benefits that flow from the realty tax and assessment, and other commission members who are not affiliated with local councils have been arguing that the preserving of the escarpment in the public interest means ensuring public access rather than just simply saving land in estate holdings.

The part that permits the establishment of advisory committees to the minister I think should be proceeded with. It hasn’t been, to my knowledge -- and our checking indicates that it hasn’t been. It has been for the parkway, but not for the Niagara Escarpment.

I think at this point that it would serve the minister well, and he may not face the same kind of difficulties from time to time in the House and outside, if he did establish the advisory committees along the escarpment and give the local people just a little more input. Because the local people in the area, I think, probably are much more concerned about the preservation of their own particular section of the escarpment, than they are about the overall problems. And while they do worry about the escarpment in its total from Niagara to Tobermory, they do recognize some of the finer features and the features worth preserving within the areas that they’re more familiar with.

I would urge the minister to proceed immediately with the establishment of those advisory committees as he has done on the parkway, in an effort to make sure that there is the kind of real, local grassroots input into the final decisions that are made with regard to the development controls.

The development controls are really the meat of the thing. The establishment of the boundary, important as that may be, will not have as much consequence or effect as the development controls as they’re brought in. I think that it’s in that area that we have to be much more careful about both the beneficial and detrimental effects of anything that’s done here.

As I say, I have questions and, therefore, I’m not going to be perhaps as harsh on this as I might have been, given that the minister is quite prepared to have a meeting, and the meeting will make available to all of us the information that we might want. And that he has agreed to stand down the vote until after the meeting is held.

So with just those remarks, I’m eager that we proceed. There’s no question that this should have been done a long time ago. There’s no question that the delays that have taken place and the upsets and concerns that are felt by many people as a result of the delays have not been beneficial to the overall planning of the escarpment.

I had it brought to my attention -- and I confess that I have been unable to pinpoint the source but I share it with you nevertheless -- that there is a conflict developing between the OHAP programme on the one hand and the preservation of the escarpment on the other. Quite obviously, the Minister of Housing is listening although I’m not eager that he enter the debate.

But I’ve been informed that there are now conflicts arising; that certain developers who hold land that would fall within the escarpment area are quite prepared to get into the OHAP programme if they’ll get permission to develop their escarpment land. I warn now that that would be detrimental to the preservation of the escarpment. I urge the ministers to talk together very seriously about the areas that may well be considered by some developers as prime and lucrative for development today, that they were quite prepared to hold on to forever and forever, up until they found out the escarpment land was going to be frozen.

I don’t think that we should permit any further development on the escarpment. I think that it’s gone far enough. I know in my area -- I know in the area of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith) -- that much of the valuable land in the escarpment has been developed. We are in the process now in Hamilton of a major battle over the putting of an expressway through and over the escarpment. And there will be tremendous pressures exerted in the next very short period of time by a number of people. I suspect they will include the minister’s colleague from the Ministry of Housing. He will want to know how he’s supposed to move all of those very nice residents who are going to live in this 40,000- or 50,000-person community that’s going to be developed on Saltfleet mountain; how they’re going to be moved from there by road down into the industrial areas of the city of Hamilton and its environs.

I know that there’s going to be a major conflict develop, and if there are not strict regulations governing the uses to which any escarpment land can be put we are going to be faced with its gradual desecration because of that one clause that says you will allow compatible development. I say to you again, compatible with what? Compatible with its original state, or compatible with what you have just recently allowed?

I would like to go to the meeting on Wednesday. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I would support the principle of this resolution and, indeed, I think the Niagara Escarpment Commission is to be commended for the way they have established themselves and undertaken their responsibilities.

On several occasions I have had the opportunity of communicating to the Niagara Escarpment Commission by letter or in person my concern over that portion of the escarpment directly affecting my constituency of Hamilton Mountain, a very highly developed 10-mile portion of the escarpment lying within the municipality of Hamilton. What concerns me -- I should really say what disappoints me -- is the fact that the Hamilton region conservation authority and the city of Hamilton have not come forward with a resolution to the commission asking that lands within their jurisdiction fall under the development control of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

The hon. member for Wentworth has mentioned that most of the escarpment face is already developed. However, I think the fact that there are still a precious few acres left makes it that much more important that everything possible be done to preserve them.

Last year there was a meeting of the Ontario Municipal Board resulting from a decision of the Hamilton planning board that severed an open parcel of land into six residential building lots, next to what is commonly known as Sam Lawrence Park atop the Hamilton Jolley cut, on prime escarpment land. My heart bled, Mr. Speaker, when I discovered there was nothing the escarpment commission could do to block that development. The city of Hamilton is eager for development, as the mayor has mentioned on many occasions -- it seems to be almost “development at any cost.” Here are open lands, triple-star escarpment lands, that rank with the part of the escarpment at Niagara Falls, I would say, in importance and scenic beauty and wonder.

The hon. member for Wentworth has similarly mentioned that the matter of accesses or highways up and down the escarpment in the city of Hamilton is also of concern to many people. We visit some of the highrise office developments and apartments in the lower city and look south and see our mountain and what has happened to it -- the open-face cuts, the steel cribbing of retaining walls, and the scars left by many of these new accesses. We are going to have to come to grips when the next ones are built, particularly Highway 21, to ensure compatible development. I would say that we should be looking toward the matter of tunnelling under the mountain rather than open-cut accesses.

There are still some other very few portions -- I am thinking of the A. V. Young estate at Garth St. and Fennell Ave. on Hamilton Mountain, adjacent to the Chedoke gorge, a scenic wonder and one of the natural beauty spots on the escarpment. Undoubtedly some day a developer is going to come along and want to place something on those lands, which are right on the very edge of the escarpment.

Farther west are the Alarco properties, which also present a similar ticklish problem. Unless these can come under the control of the Niagara Escarpment Commission I am fearful as to the possible protection of these escarpment lands.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): We are all fearful.

Mr. J. R. Smith: They have to be designated for development control under the protection of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, or else the community and the people of this province really have no one to fall back on.

That is all I would like to say, Mr. Speaker. I hope that somebody can come forward from Hamilton to see that this is done.

Mr. Lawlor: Hear, hear! Good for you. Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t want to pre-empt the minister, but I do have a very few words to say.

Sometimes in this House it is a little fatuous simply to rehearse history, but in the case of the Niagara Escarpment it is not. The record of your government, not of you personally -- but you know it is the portion of a relatively new Treasurer, a man who assumes the vast responsibilities for municipal affairs and planning that he does, to assume the mantle with all the sins, fallacies, stupidities and ineptitudes of those who went before him -- and not to perpetuate them, of course. But he has had his portion in perpetuation, too.

When Gertler, the professor from Waterloo University -- Wilfrid Laurier now, bless his soul -- was first appointed to this particular thing in 1967-1968, way back when, he submitted a report in which he said the whole situation was critical, that the whole escarpment stood in the balance on the brink.

He said it was being covered by various forms of recreational clubs, by various forms of development in terms of industry, and by residential subdivisions, spotting themselves around the Forks of the Credit and all the way up the escarpment.

He said: “Boys, you really have to go to work quickly. You’ve got a very limited time in which to work.” And what did the government do? They sat on it. They suppressed the report. It didn’t come into our hands until almost 18 months or two years later. That was one of the most venal acts that this government has committed vis-à-vis our natural resources and vis-à-vis the recreational potential of this province into future generations. It vas vicious and we consider it a piece of real skulduggery.

The government permitted that so that its friends could continue to make incursions upon the escarpment, to rape it, to riddle it with various forms of development and to destroy both its natural beauty and its future potential for all of the people of this province into next few generations. It seemed to me an act of deliberation carried out covertly.

The history of recent date is that it’s 18 months again between the publication in the Ontario Gazette and the first announcement of this matter in June, 1973. Well, it’s not quite 18 months, but it’s well over a year again in coming before us. The Treasurer finally is giving himself some kind of control, some kind of fortitude, some kind of way of moving into the situation. At the present time there are basically no controls. It’s left to the local municipalities, and incursions can continue to be made. The Treasurer has to get down to his designated area, which I understand is 40 per cent of the total escarpment space being delineated in the legislation before us today. Once he gets to that -- and only God in heaven knows at what future point in history that marvelous event will take place -- then he imposes his controls. He begs for a week? Well, we ask for the time in order to take a vote with respect to the matter so that he can get on with it.

Hon. Mr. White: Hoist with his own petard.

Mr. Lawlor: The Treasurer could have brought in this legislation last March. It was all set up. Where has he been? What’s been happening? What form of ineptitude is he personally subject to? I can’t blame him for what his predecessors did, although that was woeful enough, but he shouldn’t go adding his smidgens to the dung heap of contemporary Conservative policy with respect to recreational lands. We’d like some explanation from the Treasurer on that particular point as to how this has happened.

Another area I wish to bring to his attention is what I understand, and what my colleague understood, with respect to the Ontario Housing Corp. situation. I understand that great pressures are being brought to bear from all quarters by quarry operators and by pit developers. They’re the ones who scarify the escarpment. I’m not claiming that a certain amount of gravel and aggregate material need not come from the escarpment, but they have expanded their operations of recent date with the Treasurer’s consent and in cahoots with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman). The Treasurer seems to have very little regard for the preservation of the escarpment in this regard.

Can the Treasurer tell us, when he gets on his feet, what other permissions have been granted, either with respect to the extension of existing operations or with respect to the development of new ones, since his legislation went into effect? I think there are very few new ones, but I believe that the other ones go on apace and that their effect on the total escarpment is very deleterious indeed and must be severely controlled. Nor do you make adequate legislation forfending against the preservation of the escarpment as it stands. The minister suggests several points. I hope he rises, as is his wont, and bows his head in shame over the long period taken to develop a policy. He should admit by beating on his breast in front of all this assembly, mea culpa, that in this particular area, in a grotesque form, which is very hard to put your finger on in other areas, which just hangs out, as the scars on the escarpment obviously hang out -- in this area the minister has been thoroughly derelict and thoroughly retrograde with respect to his responsibilities to the people all around us.

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

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): I wanted to speak to the minister with reference to the need for the production of aggregate to meet the significant increasing demands as this prosperous province goes forward. So much depends on the production of aggregate -- having it as close to the point where it is needed as is possible.

Mr. Deans: As is acceptable.

Mr. Kennedy: Pardon?

Mr. Deans: As is acceptable, not possible. It is possible to have it very close, but it may not be acceptable.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Kennedy: No, you can only get aggregate where it is.

Mr. Lawlor: I think the word ought to be compatible.

Mr. Kennedy: All right, compatible might be a better word. I didn’t know the NDP were all in a hair-splitting mood this morning. They are spreading rock this morning.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peel South has the floor.

Mr. Lawlor: Beauty first, aggregate afterwards -- not the other way round.

Mr. Kennedy: I don’t have a clear understanding of the relationship between control by the municipalities and the escarpment commission. Evidently, as I understand it, the municipalities have a lot to say about this and they issue the permits.

Now, one of my questions: Is this, in the case of lands designated escarpment, superseded by the commission?

I suppose the best thing is to have the best of both worlds, because without doubt it is going to increase the cost of construction, roadbuilding, all these needs. It seems to me that we can mine the aggregate where it is as economically and as compatible as possible, restore these sites, and it will be perhaps very, very invisible that the material has ever been removed.

We can give a lot of for-instances. There is a possibility of utilizing these places when they run out as recreational areas, as artificial lakes and this type of thing. I understand, Mr. Minister, there are about 14 sites where aggregate was removed in the city of Toronto -- and I would defy a person, unless he has good historical knowledge, of finding any of these. So I believe that we can have the best of both worlds. We can meet our needs, which are vital, and still restore it.

Mr. Lawlor: Has the member seen the unsightly, the really dreadful condition of many sites that have been left?

Mr. Kennedy: Oh sure, oh sure. And there is no reason why they can’t be restored in some fashion or other -- brought back to be reasonably acceptable to the public.

Mr. Lawlor: No reason in the world.

Mr. Kennedy: I know the position of the environmentalists. I understand this and I sympathize with them.

Mr. Lawlor: They will have to be done out of the public purse now, because they left with the loot as usual.

Mr. Kennedy: Of course, I don’t know how you can undo, in those instances, what has been done. If they’ve absconded with their loot and we can’t track them down, maybe it has got to be a public project.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): You can’t restore the Parthenon with papier mache.

Mr. Kennedy: Okay, let’s turn that into an asset. This is a question that concerns me.

We’ve got to work between economic needs and yet meet the very legitimate desires we all have to preserve the environment. Mr. Minister, I’d like to hear the position of the commission on that point.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member who wishes to speak or take part in the debate before the minister?

Mr. Deans: No, it is understood that this is not necessarily the last word.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. White: I never have the last word.

Mr. Deans: But your wife isn’t here.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I am so very sorry that the intemperate and ill-advised remarks of the member for Lakeshore have driven from this chamber several hundred schoolchildren who were here at the beginning of his remarks, because I had hoped to be able to say to them we are putting in place one of the largest plans I suppose ever undertaken in the history of mankind.

Mr. Deans: But they weren’t young enough to believe us.

Mr. Lawlor: It is the Treasurer Cheops building the pyramids.

Hon. Mr. White: We are putting in place a plan that stretches from Tobermory right down to Niagara Falls, and this will preserve forever all of the advantages of 1.3 million acres of land --

Mr. Deans: I don’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. White: -- which will continue to be a unique heritage for the youngsters who were here earlier, the youngsters who are indeed still behind me, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Mr. Singer: The Treasurer thought of it all himself.

Hon. Mr. White: We are making no apologies for this. I have no doubt that when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is padding around the countryside he’s complaining once again about this great reform measure of the great Premier of this province (Mr. Davis). I have no doubt that he is attacking and undermining this measure, as he does with every other progressive measure which we bring in here.

Mr. Singer: Isn’t that awful? He never learns. It’s too little and too late.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: My hon. friend says it’s too little and too late.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: What would he have said if we had plunged into Gertler without adequate public communication, without adequate public participation and without an open democratic planning process? One can imagine the ranting and raving that would emanate from the NDP benches had we proceeded on that basis.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, come on! If the government had adopted the Gertler report earlier it would have saved hundreds of thousands.

Hon. Mr. White: What did we do? I’ll tell you what we did, Mr. Speaker. We took the Gertler report and we improved it by a factor of two, because we expanded the area very greatly. We came up with a better solution through the hard work of the task force and then we went beyond that. We appointed a commission of citizens drawn from every part of the area, from the four counties and the four regions.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, the government played with them as long as it could.

Hon. Mr. White: We put a principal office in the escarpment vicinity with two sub-offices. The commission itself has mounted a campaign to involve the public to the best of its ability. They have had meetings along the length and breadth of the escarpment itself, one in Hamilton which my hon. friend apparently wasn’t able to go to. When they had a meeting here I went to it, Mr. Speaker, and enjoyed it.

Mr. Deans: I’m sure he did. I happen to be much busier than he is.

Hon. Mr. White: They had a visual presentation which explained it. There was nothing but huzzas from conservation, environmental and ecological devotees in that room that night in the St. Lawrence Hall -- a very suitable place it was too for this great new conservation measure.

Mr. Foulds: Nothing but what?

Hon. Mr. White: They have initiated a variety of other means of communicating, including a regular periodical which they are publishing.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the length of time which has elapsed since the Gertler report was received and the implementation of these plans has been more than offset by the improvements in the plan and the acceptance of the plan, and this has involved hundreds and hundreds of people.

Mr. Lawlor: The green-eyed cow is out of the barn. This is going to cost $100 million to pick up. What a mess the Treasurer has made of it.

Hon. Mr. White: We’ve made no mess of it. The entire NDP benches would have some kind of paroxysm if we hadn’t had the public participation which indeed we have had. And that, if I may divert for just a moment, typifies the open public planning process to which this government is dedicated.

Mr. Singer: Oh come on! The Treasurer is breaking our hearts.

Hon. Mr. White: Reference has been made to the meeting with MPPs. This idea of a resolution is rather new in this context. It’s imbedded, I do believe, in the Ontario Planning Development Act, the Parkway Belt West Act and the Niagara Escarpment Act.

Mr. Singer: It was my amendment.

Hon. Mr. White: This is just the second time, as I recall, that we have had occasion to debate a resolution like this. I’m so sorry it didn’t occur to me to have an audio-visual presentation to interested MPPs prior to the resolution, because they are quite right. Members are crippled, as their own remarks today have proven, in not having all of the information available to them. This will be set to right and hopefully will be done as a matter of practice in years to come.

Mr. Foulds: Widescreen production.

Hon. Mr. White: Reference has been made to the compatibility. This becomes a matter for judgement, although there will be guidelines as part of the development control procedure. There will be guidelines provided for it. It may be that some reference can be made to that on the meeting next week if the chairman of the commission is there.

There is, as I said during the debate on the bill itself, a wide spectrum of public opinion on what constitutes an appropriate degree of development. There are those in this province who would knock the escarpment down from Niagara Falls to Tobermory, if they could dig gravel or rocks and sell it for a profit, and there are people who would say, “Stop the world, stop everything, don’t put a foot on the Niagara Peninsula, get off the grass, go home to Toronto.”

We are trying to strike a happy balance. We want that degree of development which will enhance the Niagara Escarpment, and which will add to the total enjoyment of all of our people. We do not want to do anything that will diminish the enjoyment of the eight million people in this province now or in the years to come. So how are we going to do it? We are going to do it by putting together the wisest group of citizens we can find and we are going to let them make these determinations. I am quick to point out that it will not be made by the staff as such. It will be made by a group of wise -- may we call them jurists? -- who will bring their best subjective judgement to bear on each proposal that comes before them.

Claims were made that this will conflict with OHAP.

Mr. Deans: It does.

Hon. Mr. White: On the contrary. The commission is acknowledged to be in control of the areas delineated, and it is agreed that OHAP itself will have to conform to their requirements and have to receive permission from the commission as it exercises its responsibilities.

My friend from Lakeshore suggested that some of these delays have been to enable me to do favours for my friends. Now this --

Mr. Lawlor: I didn’t say that about you personally. I said that the failure to move quickly at an earlier time had that effect, when Gertler’s report was suppressed.

Hon. Mr. White: I wasn’t involved at that time. In point of fact, knowing quite a lot about the --

Mr. Lawlor: I say that the minister is now responsible for the malfeasance of his colleagues.

Hon. Mr. White: -- activities of this government, I can assure my hon. friend that that would not have been the reason for the delay.

Mr. Lawlor: I am not very much reassured.

Hon. Mr. White: Since I myself was not involved, and since the allegation apparently is not directed to me, that’s about all I can say.

The question has been put, Mr. Speaker, about extensions to existing pits. I am not aware of any such extensions. I am aware that the municipalities, as my hon. friend has suggested, and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, have been somewhat concerned at the inability to open wayside pits for roadbuilding and other public services, pointing out the greatly increased costs of hauling gravel for many, many miles into that road system.

I did sit down with the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes), and the chairman of the Niagara Escarpment Commissions and the officials from our two ministries and the commission itself, and we did agree that the commission should retain all of the existing powers which it has, and which have been used so conservatively. It was agreed that there would not be a blanket injunction against pits. It was agreed that each proposition from a municipality or a ministry would be examined and that a contract, or an agreement, whatever the term may be, would be entered into respecting the duration of the use, the extent of the use, and the shape in which the pit must be returned before such permission would be granted by the commission.

I think if any criticism has come on the commission, it has been not because they have been lenient in regard to pit extensions -- as I say, I am not aware of any personally -- but because they have been very, very strict indeed. I think this strictness can be continued and the necessary supplies of aggregate obtained through the arrangement which has been arrived at and which the commission accepted without, I can tell the House, any pressure from me.

The matter of aggregate supplies in general is going to be a more and more important problem as time goes by. My ministry now is exploring ways in which certain of these mining reserves located on the periphery of expanding cities might be exploited before houses or shops or factories were to be placed on them. It’s perfectly true that if one puts, let’s say, a subdivision on top of 50 ft. of gravel, that gravel is lost forever, whereas as the very distinguished member for Peel South says, if we are able to remove the gravel and save the top soil, then we can have both the aggregate and later the park or the subdivision of whatever is desirable, so we are giving some thought to that, I think perhaps for the first time.

An hon. member: Good thinking.

Hon. Mr. White: At any rate, we are working on that currently. Mr. Speaker, this was debated in principle last spring. We have now had an opportunity to review some of the advantages of this great new undertaking. I won’t be here next Wednesday or Thursday because I am visiting near Tel Aviv.

Mr. Singer: The minister is going, too, eh?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Everybody is going.

Hon. Mr. White: So I would only hope that the meeting might go ahead in a constructive way and that the vote might take place on Thursday, unless there are compelling reasons not to, in order to enable the commission itself to conclude the development control aspects which we have talked about and which are contingent upon this resolution being passed.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): He should spend more time in Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: Is he going to make the desert bloom?

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, 50 years from now when I am rocking on my verandah with my old friend Lawlor and a glass of white wine in my hand, I will say “Do you remember Nov. 8, Patrick? Do you remember the day we saved 1,300,000 acres of land for the youngsters in this gallery and their grandchildren in perpetuity?”

Mr. Singer: They are walking out on the Treasurer.

Mr. Lawlor: “And the day we blew it by spot development?”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White moves the adjournment of the debate subject to the understanding which was reached earlier. Shall this motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

An hon. member: Shall we vote that the Treasurer not come back?

Mr. Roy: The Treasurer will be saying, “Nov. 7 -- the beginning of the end.”

Clerk of the House: The 29th order. House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (CONTINUED)

On vote 2702:

Mr. Chairman: Vote 2702, item 2. The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to say to the minister a few words pertaining to the question of curriculum development, and about the question of French-language education, especially for our English-speaking students, and then the question of French schools for our French-speaking minorities in this province.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): You can read my answers from yesterday. I said it all yesterday.

Mr. Roy: Just hang on; you and I have a little dialogue. What I want to say to the minister --

Hon. Mr. Wells: I hope you have read my answers from yesterday.

Mr. Roy: I was in Carleton East; I had no time. I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You were elected to work here.

Mr. Roy: I guess you should have bad feelings about that.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. May we return to the estimates?

Mr. Roy: It was nice to see you here, because we haven’t seen you here very often in the past.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am here all the time.

Mr. Roy: First of all, I want to be nice to the minister to congratulate you about certain things that have gone on, since we had our last discussion on your estimates, on the question of teachers and on the question of education in this province.

What I want to say to the minister, and I wish that this would be conveyed to the Premier (Mr. Davis), concerns the minister’s response, and I have had occasion to read some columns by Mr. Webster in the newspaper about your feelings about French education in this province. I want to congratulate you, along with members of your government, on your restraint or your sense of fair play and understanding in relation to Bill 22 in Quebec.

To my knowledge there has only been one minister who has made what I consider to be gratuitous comments pertaining to that bill. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the bill affects the question of education in Quebec, and certainly there is a question of a backlash in this province. The only member is the member for Ottawa South, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) who made the gratuitous comment one day that companies were moving out of Quebec and coming in here.

I will leave it on that point, and say to the minister and to his leader, I thought your restraint and your understanding in these circumstances is to be congratulated, because if there’s anything we don’t need in this province it is to try and stir up a backlash against something like this, especially by people who very often haven’t even taken the time to read Bill 22 and to see what Bill 22 says. I’ll say this to the minister, the minorities in this province would very gladly live with a Bill 22 in Ontario here, because under that bill there are guarantees which are not given in this province.

In closing on this point, just on the question of Bill 22, I want to say to you that your restraint and your approach, and the response to the Province of Quebec, as compared, for instance, to Hatfield, who is presently involved in the election in New Brunswick -- I thought he got into something that he shouldn’t have by asking the Prime Minister of this country to appeal the decision of Bill 22, without having read the bill. I think your approach helps Confederation here; it helps the understanding between the linguistic groups in this province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am happy to hear you say this.

Mr. Roy: As you know, I call them as I see them. I felt that your restraint and that of the Premier of this province, was admirable; not wanting to get involved in something which really is hard to discuss on a logical basis, because people get worked up, people are making decisions based not on logic very often but on tradition and on things that really have no place in a country and the Confederation like we have here.

If I may move on to the question of French-language education, I am aware of the commission that has looked into this question of French-language education and I am aware of some of its recommendations. I would like to ask the minister when he intends to start implementing some of the recommendations.

What I do want to criticize the minister and the government for is having gone into the question of another commission, of having put this matter off when in early 1972 Tom Symons, the man who looked into the question of French-language education in this province, had an eloquent paragraph on French-language education for English-speaking students. And, Mr. Chairman, what he said, was, I thought, a telling indictment on our approach to this subject in this province. He said we were trying to teach French like it was a dead language or Latin. Second, we were using teachers who had no experience in this field; or, in fact, English-speaking teachers trying to teach French. As much enthusiasm as they might have had, they were just not capable of doing it.

And he says that in spite of this, the element of co-operation in this province is still something that’s really fantastic. Because, really, why the students were not turned off any more than they were is something that is extremely surprising.

And so Symons said this in 1972. It took you nearly a full year after asking -- and I’ve repeated this in the House on many occasions -- “What are you doing to implement some of his recommendations?” You set up a commission. Now, the commission has looked into this problem and has come up with some recommendations. Of course, the question is: When can we see some of these recommendations adopted?

Now, I fully realize that you can’t go holus-bolus. There’s a question of politics involved in this; there’s a question of the possible. I agree with your point of view, for instance, when you state that if we start making the French language compulsory across this province, you’re going to have a backlash, because people are going to say we’re trying to force it down their throats.

What I do criticize you for is not having taken the initiative to make it more palatable for the English-speaking students. Because I think every student in this province, Mr. Chairman, should be given an opportunity of learning a second language. And I could never understand -- I can’t to this day understand -- why there’s ill feeling about this particular subject.

You go to Europe and everybody in Europe seems to be able to talk two or three different languages, and he’s proud of doing so. It’s communication.

For instance, the Queen and the people of importance that we look up to in this province, naturally speak the two official languages. And yet here in this province -- not only in this province; I come from the west and I know something of the backlash there -- when you offer people a second language, they seem to think you’re trying to force it down their throats. Instead of grasping an opportunity to accept a second language, they seem to rebel against it. Maybe we should be offering them a second language other than French, I don’t know. But I get the feeling you would get the same backlash with another language.

The steps that we must take, Mr. Chairman, are those of incentive. And I wonder why the minister didn’t offer incentives quite some time ago, for instance, to school boards and say: “If you teach the second language at such and such a grade, then you get extra grants.” You make it palatable in that fashion. It seems to me that should have been done some time ago.

We’ve known the problem. What I don’t forgive you for and what I criticize you for is having waited -- again, having set up another commission which was going to tell us something we all knew. Anyone with a bit of common sense knows that the teaching of French to English-speaking students in this province was not adequate, and that the results were poor indeed.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, this was compounded by the government’s approach when they said all subjects were optional, including English, including Canadian history, including some of these major subjects. This was unforgivable. I think this ministry should be severely criticized for having taken that approach, because we saw it. We heard the teachers talking about it, we heard the parents talking about it -- that it was not working. And that is not the way, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, to encourage students to take on a second language.

I’m saying, Mr. Chairman, that this province and this government have not done enough to encourage the learning, the teaching and -- if I may say the French word -- the épanouissement of French-language education in this province. It may well be that in some areas of this province you want to encourage the teaching of another language. A language, for instance, like Italian in some areas. But we haven’t done so. We haven’t given incentives. We haven’t really worked on the question of historical culture of individuals -- in fact, the reverse has happened.

And so, my question to the minister is: When can we expect to see the type of approach I’m suggesting to you? If you make it compulsory, I’ve got a feeling that it will not get across, that people will rebel against it. But try it on the incentive basis, as I was suggesting. In fact, I think, that’s something that you mentioned to Norm Webster and on which he wrote, about being very careful to do the possible; that you can’t start laying down the law on this. But you haven’t done it. And you’ve known that the problem has existed since the time that you’ve been minister. I suggest to you that you’ve shown something that was less than initiative or enthusiasm in this field. I’m saying to you that we’ve got to remedy here the problem of the last 75 years, because it is getting crucial.

I was talking earlier about Bill 22. The purpose of Bill 22 in my opinion, was something that really cut the feet from under the separatists. The best argument against the separatists is to see that the minorities in this province, because this is a key province, are really able to live and are able to grow in their own culture and that their culture remain strong in this province.

The separatist argument, Mr. Chairman, is extremely simple. It says that French-Canadians cannot live and cannot operate outside the Province of Quebec. The best evidence that they can is Ontario, but if we don’t encourage our minorities, if we don’t allow our English-speaking students to learn a second language or the French culture until they are fully assimilated or they become a pocket just in the Ottawa area, then we have lost the battle, and the separatists are right.

I think there is a duty on the key province, Mr. Chairman, to look at that question. I suggest to you that the minister should get on to doing something now, as we have been suggesting for the last three years.

The other problem I am a little concerned about is the question of the French-language schools and the French-speaking students. We have gone a long way. We have established a whole series of schools across the province since 1968. In some areas there is no problem. There was a spirit of co-operation, for instance, in Ottawa, in the Sudbury area and other areas of the north, but we have done the easy places. What we have done in a spirit of co-operation is now over. You know as well as I do that the crunch comes when you try to do the same thing in areas where there is a small less vocal group, in the area of Toronto or London or Windsor. We have had problems even in areas such as Cornwall, Elliot Lake, Sturgeon Falls and other areas of this province.

I feel that this is where the minister again has lacked leadership in this field. Symons had proposed certain alternatives on how to go about implementing this. When school boards and French-language commissions were at loggerheads we have had divided communities. It is unforgivable, for instance, in a community like Cornwall, which has been able to exist in peace and harmony and understanding between these two cultural groups, that we let a situation like that deteriorate to a point where even now --

Hon. Mr. Wells: We didn’t.

Mr. Roy: You did because you waited. You knew that the problem was coming and you waited until the bitter end before you sent Symons down there. You should have looked at that situation before. You have other examples of where it is happening in other areas of this province right now.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What about local autonomy in schools?

Mr. Roy: Local autonomy, yes, but when you see that on school boards you have certain radicals who have no understanding at all, then it is up to this province and you, as Minister of Education, to give leadership in this field. That is where you have failed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You can’t have them both.

Mr. Roy: There was the situation in Sturgeon Falls. Had it not been for the 1971 election, I suppose we would still be having a problem there. The 1971 election was coming along and that’s when Symons went there. Sometimes you are playing politics with that issue.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Never. The only person who plays politics with it is you.

Mr. Roy: I don’t play politics with the issue, because I am suggesting understanding and I am suggesting that you have lacked leadership.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am suggesting understanding. You lack understanding.

Mr. Roy: You lack leadership in this field and I have told you that before. You have now set up what is called the Languages of Instruction Commission, the commission that is supposed to decide when you have a problem between a French-language commission and a school board. I told you at the time when you set up this commission that you should give this commission decision-making powers. You said, “No, they don’t need decision-making powers. We are going to have important people on this, people with status, and these people are going to be able to mediate the situation.”

Well, what happens? In the first conflict that you had since the commission has come up, the commission has suggested an alternative and the school board has turned it down. You have the problem in your lap again. That is why we suggested it, because the minute it falls in your lap you seem to fall asleep. You let it drag and the problem festers and so on.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What would you do?

Mr. Roy: What would I do? I would have given that commission, as I suggested to you in the debate, the right to make a decision on behalf of the government.

Hon. Mr. Wells: And what would you do in this particular case?

Mr. Roy: In this case, the commission would have made a decision and then the decision is implemented with the assistance of your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What would you do?

Mr. Roy: I told you. I don’t know how often I have to tell you. I’ve got difficulty getting through to you. I said this commission should have decision-making powers. That’s what I said.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But in this instance, after the vote in Essex, would you force the board to build the school?

Mr. Roy: If you had given the commission the right to make a decision --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Would you force the board?

Mr. Roy: Just hang on. You’ll get a chance to reply to this.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh no. Just answer the question.

Mr. Roy: I’ve answered your question. I said to you a year ago, when you set up this commission --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): You’re wasting your time. He already answered it last night.

Mr. Roy: That’s okay. You use up plenty of time in this House.

Mr. Foulds: Not on these estimates, we haven’t. We did have an agreement.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We’ve only got eight hours.

Mr. Roy: Only eight hours?

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): We’ve got 10 hours in all.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I told the minister when he set up this commission that the fact that they were only going to have power to mediate was not good enough. In fact, Symons had suggested that they have decision-making powers. That’s why you’ve got the problem in your lap again. All you did was just set up another level where the decision could be stalled -- it’s stalled in the commission, it’s stalled in your lap and it’s stalled in cabinet.

I’m suggesting to you that you bring in legislation giving decision-making power to the commission. You’ve got capable individuals on the commission. You’ve got people with a certain amount of understanding. Why not allow them to make a decision on a question like that, instead of you, because it gets to be a political hot potato when it’s in your hands?

Hon. Mr. Wells: They made the decision.

Mr. Roy: Yes, but it’s not binding.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s all I’m asking: Would you make that decision?

Mr. Roy: You bet I would. I told you that a year ago in the debates, didn’t I? I told you a year ago I would do it. So I’m suggesting to you --

Hon. Mr. Wells: All I want you to say is that you would make it binding on the Essex school board.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I would. I’m not saying anything new. I said it at the time of the debate.

But you’re having other problems. I think you’re going to have problems in Windsor and other areas of the province. I don’t have a list here -- don’t you have a problem in London right now? I was reading in June about a problem in London.

What is happening is you’re making it exceedingly difficult for a minority that is not all that vocal to get a school it is entitled to. When you get a school board with what I call the far right red-necks -- and I have as much distaste for them, I suppose, as I have for the red-necks who are separatists -- when you have some of these people on it, you’ve got to make a decision for them, because these people, by stalling a decision and by taking the position they have, are really splitting up the community.

I would like to have your comments on this. Why didn’t you give the commission binding powers? Secondly, what are your thoughts about French-language education for English-speaking students in this province?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply at length, but we do have a time constraint on the programme.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Come on, tell us.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We talked quite considerably about this matter last night, and my friends from the other party and your colleagues all talked about it. I gave a lot of answers, and all I’m getting to say is that this government is dedicated to the principle of a French-language school system in this province and the teaching of French as a second language.

My friends and I thank him for his remarks about Bill 22, commended us for our restraint in that particular area. I hope that he will exercise the same kind of restraint in this whole question --

Mr. Roy: I have. I have.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- realizing that the same kind of things that would pertain to Bill 22, say, pertain to this whole problem in this province. Nobody has done more in any province in Canada than this government, and I read last night a quote from Keith Spicer, who said: “Pretty dramatic progress has been made during the past 10 years with bilingualism in Ontario.”

Mr. Roy: You’re right, but you have got so much more to do.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He said: “The climate has become much more civilized. Progress in other provinces, however, has been less dramatic.” The increase in our French-language educational system has been dramatic -- from 11,000 to 28,000 students. We are making progress. The Languages of Instruction Commission has been set up. They’re dealing with a number of problems. They’re trying to bring understanding and mediation to play. My friend knows why we didn’t make their decisions binding on boards. This type of thing is not just relevant in the French-language area, but it strikes at a very basic principle of whether you should have another body, an non-elected outside body, having an ultimate decision to override an elected body and cause them, in some cases, to have to raise taxes and spend money. It’s a very basic principle and it’s one which you cannot move on quickly.

I think I gave assurances in this House that we would try the Languages of Instruction Commission as it is and give it a chance to work for a year or so. Then we can review the situation and see if changes are needed, and if changes are needed, I’ll be the first one to come here and suggest it. But, as I say, the kind of change that would be necessary involves a very basic principle, and that is, a non-elected body making a decision that overrides the decision of the local school board.

Mr. Roy: You did it when you passed the legislation in 1968 for French-language schools. I mean you have got to do it too.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, no we haven’t. You could have in all kinds of cases. We talked about it last night, about the cases of schools that have been closed by school boards. After much discussion and many meetings a school board decides to close a school. Should that decision be appealed to another body who could come along and say: “We’ve listened to both sides and we don’t think that school should be closed”?

Mr. Roy: That is not the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is the same thing, because you are upsetting the decision of a local board.

Mr. Roy: You are taking a commission, which is making a decision consistent with the policy of your government toward bilingualism; that is what you are doing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, but all I’m asking my friend to exercise is a little restraint, realizing --

Mr. Roy: I have.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- I think, that if people all over this province exercised restraint and understanding we can make even greater progress. We’ve made great progress now, but you can’t get some of these things through brute force.

Mr. Roy: I told you that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that the long-term health of a society in any community is going to come about through solving these problems through mediation and working together. That’s what we have to work toward. I explained what was happening in the Essex situation and I’m very confident that the proper resolution of that problem will come about.

My friend asked about incentives. Of course the complete Gillin report is being studied. A few years ago this government embarked on a programme, a curriculum guideline and an admonition to school boards to offer French to English students in the elementary schools. Many, many schools -- in fact, I guess 95 per cent of the schools of this province -- have programmes teaching French as a second-language as a subject.

The problem was -- and again we went into this last night -- it either wasn’t being done properly or it wasn’t being done well. That’s the reason the Gillin commission was set up.

Mr. Roy: We have known that for 50 years.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No you haven’t known it for 50 years.

Mr. Roy: We have. Look at the results of our students. That is obvious.

Hon. Mr. Wells: You haven’t known it. Ontario didn’t embark upon this programme until about five or six years ago.

Mr. Roy: We have been trying to teach French for 50 years.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh no, we have had French as an academic subject in the secondary schools. We haven’t had the kind of programme that was put into the elementary schools. It was put into the elementary schools five or six years ago and school boards energetically and enthusiastically accepted it -- perhaps with too much enthusiasm, since the programmes were not probably as good as they could have been. They were all well meaning and they had teachers teaching them, but there is a shortage of good teachers in this area. That’s why the Gillin commission came along, because we said “Look, it is obviously not being done well enough. Let’s find out ways that it can be done.”

As your friend from St. George (Mrs. Campbell) said, immersion programmes is another area that needs to be moved ahead with, and not just 20 minutes a day for those students who want them. Boards are doing it now, but we’ve got to encourage more of that, I spoke about what I thought should be done in that area last night.

In your own particular area we are funding massive research projects into ways that we can enrich the programme and develop immersion programmes and so forth. We’ve got $2 million from the federal government for the last two years which has been given to the four boards in the capital area. This year the feds decided they would give up half the amount. I couldn’t persuade them to give us the full $2 million for the third year of the programme, but we’re matching that for the Ottawa area. So really, my friend is getting some extra grants in his area that nobody else in the province is getting to help develop programmes in this particular area.

Mr. Roy: Because it is pilot; that is just leadership that is coming.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s pilot, it is a leadership, but there is still $2 million to the four school boards down there that no one else in the province is getting.

Mr. Roy: What better area to experiment in?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Out of the research connected with those particular projects will come guidelines for other boards and guidelines for us as to what kind of incentives, financial or otherwise, need to be offered to boards across this province to move ahead in these particular areas. The research reports from the Ottawa projects will be very important also. They will be helpful to other boards. So I think, rather than going into it in any greater detail, I just want to say that I appreciate your comments but I think that you don’t realize the great strides that we have made in this area. I’m not saying that we are going to rest on our laurels; I’m just saying, as I said in my opening remarks yesterday, that we are dedicated to progress in this area -- this is in this particular area of French teaching French to anglophones and in our French-language school system; that is, the school system for francophones -- because we feel that Ontario as Quebec’s neighbour has to move ahead in this area and that through moving ahead we do something for Canadian unity.

Mr. Roy: Can I just make one comment, Mr. Chairman, to the minister? The first point I want to make to you is that I thought I had shown restraint in this field. I’ve suggested ways which, in my opinion can improve it. I’ve said to you repeatedly that you are not moving fast enough, and really I think that you are not. As much respect as I have for the Gillin commission, I don’t think it’s news to anyone in this province that there has been something lacking in the question of French-language education for English-speaking students. We’ve known that. Symons said something should be done about it right now, but you waited a year even before naming the commission. Am I being a radical for saying that? Well, what were you doing then in the period of a year?

Hon. Mr. Wells: You are missing the point -- the Gillin commission wasn’t to tell us that, it was to tell us how we could improve the programmes. The Gillin commission is an expert body, not a body of laymen. It’s really a body of people all of whom are experts in the teaching of French as a second language or francophone educators. We all agreed that it was necessary and that we wanted to teach French as a second language, but we wanted to examine what’s wrong with the programme and how it can be improved. And that’s what they have done.

Mr. Roy: Well, why did it take you a year to set it up? That’s what I don’t understand. Tom Symons said in his report --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Tom Symons offered a small paragraph about setting up a study group about bilingual education.

Mr. Roy: Right. It took you a year.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In the interval I was very concerned and busy with implementing all the rest of his recommendations -- which have been implemented.

Mr. Roy: Well, it took you a while to do that as well. I am convinced that the approach taken by myself and this party is certainly not a radical one, because we feel that radical approaches only tend to cause radical reactions at the other end. But surely one must take a responsible approach, and I am saying to you that you vacillated far too long on some of the recommendations of Symons, for instance, in his report and you took too long when he suggested that something should be looked into on the question of French-language education for English-speaking students. I quite appreciate that it was necessary to find out how you could improve his recommendations through the Gillin commission. The thing I don’t forgive you for is having waited a year. If that is being a radical, so be it.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 2 carry?

Mr. Deans: No. Last night when you said that very same thing I got to my feet, and now at last I’ve got the floor. I’m only going to be a few minutes.

Mr. Roy: Sorry about that.

Mr. Deans: No, it is quite all right. I enjoyed listening to you, in fact.

I don’t speak French. I wish I did, and because I wish I did I wish that my children would learn it. I wish somehow or other that we could separate out the teaching of French from politics. I wish we could get away from the divisiveness that always seems to flow into the discussion when we talk about the need to teach a second language, French in particular, because right away all of the inbred -- maybe not inbred -- but right away all of the concerns, I suppose some of them perhaps legitimate, of a great many people rise to the surface and you create a lot of problems.

I’m not sure how it can be done, but I wish somehow or other we could get it out of the political arena and make the teaching of French, as a language rather than as a subject, a much more routine thing within the educational system, because I am convinced that aside from what it would do for national unity, which is obviously important, its value in terms of education is just absolutely top-notch.

Mr. Roy: You should go to Europe.

Mr. Deans: As I was saying to my colleague, I’ve often wondered how you teach French. I took a total-immersion French course once; I failed miserably. I have trouble enough with English, let alone French. I am going to take another one, but I was just thinking about it -- maybe what you’ve got to do is teach history in French, starting in the kindergartens.

Anyway. I want to talk about another matter. That wasn’t what I rose to speak about but it is of concern to me. I want to just go back for five minutes to the community-school discussion that was being conducted last evening. I want to put to the minister a situation that is arising in Hamilton that I think is of tremendous value and to ask him for his consideration of it.

As he is probably aware, both of the boards -- the separate school board and the public school board -- have endorsed a concept in Hamilton to develop one community school to serve both boards. It’s in an area that is fairly evenly split with regard to supporters of the two boards. My wife being interested in this, and being on the public board, raised the matter. And to our surprise, I have got to confess, we discovered that there was a lot of support for this in both boards, and that each board unanimously agreed that they should proceed with it.

But it is going to create problems; there is no doubt about it. As it’s developed in the community sense, as we involve the other agencies in the development of this community school, and as we try to involve both boards in making sure that what they consider to be their unique form of education is maintained while using the same facility and taking advantage of facilities that are common, there will be difficulties that will arise over the interpretations of educational grants, over the interpretations of what is allowed within the Act.

The one thing that comes most quickly to mind is, of course, that the public board would be allowed to have shop apparatus -- technical type machinery and the like -- for educational purposes at the senior elementary level, while there is no provision within the separate board for a similar thing to be made available. That is my understanding, and it may be wrong. But anyway, there are going to be complex things occur which will require a bending of the law.

I think that this is a very worthwhile project. I think it’s a tremendous step forward. Just the very fact that they are prepared to try it is very valuable to the entire community.

One other matter that will no doubt arise will be the ownership of the land; how the land will be vested to ensure that there is joint access to it. It may require a new law to be drafted in order that some separate body can be set up in which the land will be vested, in order that the boards will have access without feeling, somehow or other, one subservient to the other.

What I am really saying to you is this, very briefly, that I urge you and the ministry to monitor the debate in Hamilton very closely, to take part in it wherever you can, to be prepared to make adjustments in the normal procedures wherever that is required, to change the law, even if only by special legislation governing this particular project -- if need be -- in order that we can see clearly whether or not this concept that is supported so widely throughout the community will work. Because if it will work, it offers a tremendous range of opportunities for co-operation and for enlarging the system in its totality, recognizing again the two streams of education.

It may, in fact, do what I said about the teaching of the French language. It may somehow or other take the whole matter of this educational squabble, which inevitably occurs, out of the political arena and take it into community where they can involve themselves directly in the development of something that will meet their aims and objectives.

I think it’s a tremendous project and I think it has a fantastic potential. I really do urge you, as the debate carries on, that you take part in it and that you try to find ways to accommodate it within the ministry’s guidelines so that it can, in fact, reach fruition and we can see that school and see it work. And maybe it’s a new era, the dawning of a new era; I hope it is.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We’ll watch it very closely. I am not familiar with the project, but it sounds like a prime and excellent example of sharing of school facilities, joint development, joint use -- and in a total community school sense that both boards will enjoy. And, certainly, I can only endorse the whole project if both the Hamilton boards are able to carry this through.

Mr. Deans: It will require a lot of co-operation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As my friend knows, we have had a lot of discussion with Hamilton boards about both the Hamilton and the Hamilton-Wentworth separate schools boards sharing facilities and using classroom spaces -- and they all haven’t had as happy endings as, perhaps, this one will have.

Mr. Chairman: The member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. In the matter of this vote, is there any money available for the production of decent resource material for the teaching of Canadian history? I asked about it the last time we had the estimates; I am still asking. Is there anywhere here money available to assist the talented people of this province in producing decent resource material?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Of course it is not the function of the ministry to produce the learning materials.

Mrs. Campbell: You are going to have to, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We assume that the publishers and the various people like OISE and so forth will develop the materials. Once we set the curriculum guidelines, which we do, and indicate the kind of things that should be taught, then the people who develop the material usually come along. This could be part of the much larger problem, which is the whole question about the development of Canadian textbooks and Canadian learning materials.

We have money in this budget, $500,000, for a learning materials development fund which we said we would talk about with the publishers of this province, the book publishers particularly, and to this particular point in time, we are stymied in our discussions. We have had discussions with them. They want specific designated grants to school boards given for books so that they can then buy the books, whereas we have said we don’t do that any more. We give one general grant and the school board decides what their priorities are and how much they will spend on each area. Discussions are still going on.

But there is money in here for a learning materials development fund which could be used to develop materials along the lines of those the member has mentioned. We have given some assurances to publishers that we will try to work out some ground rules for this with them. The whole project stands at the discussion stage only at the minute.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, all I wanted to point out is that I am sure the minister is aware of the fact that the pressures on school boards and on individual schools to cut back have almost necessitated their purchasing American books for the schools, because they are cheaper. This is one of the ways in which we are thwarting the development of our children’s knowledge of this nation and of their heritage. I would be very happy if the minister could keep us posted on any development to help to encourage this trend.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be most happy to keep you posted. I just don’t want to let that go by that they are buying American books because I don’t think that’s quite right. Ninety-two per cent of the books on Circular 14, which are the textbooks for use in the school, are Canadian. They are Canadian-authored and Canadian-produced. I would suspect in the area of history and Canadian studies there are no textbooks being used that are American.

Mrs. Campbell: I don’t think they are using anything at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think there are books available. In fact, I am sure there are books available. I often hear this idea that there is a lot of American books being bought, but yet when you go around the schools you find this just isn’t so -- not in the textbook field. In the other area of resource books, schools are free to buy whatever they wish. They don’t have to be on Circular 14 or anything. In the area of Canadian studies and Canadian history, I can’t think there are any American books available that would be useful to a school.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s what I mean. They can’t use anything at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are books available and the publishers, I am sure, are working on others, particularly since the advent of our new policy of having two credits in Canadian studies. There is a whole new raft of activity going on in this particular area.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): What I was going to ask the minister was why it is that in the public and separate school system the Act prevents that system from educating the educably mentally retarded. It seems to me that, unless this becomes a two-way street, one inevitably continues the type of problem that we are always confronted with, and that’s the exchange facilities and so on. I am a great believer in the concept that there has to be a good deal more sharing. I can recall when I was teaching that I had pretty well convinced the public school staff and my own staff that we should try to get our two boards together to develop a shop in the small community I taught in. Unfortunately, when we took it to both school boards it was shot down. I think there has to be greater effort made.

The same thing applies, of course, to special education for these kids. In the Sudbury area, the separate school system is by far the larger of the two systems, and yet the separate school system cannot educate that group. They can purchase the service, providing it’s offered by the board of education. You are never going to get the type of co-operation that is necessary when one side feels that the deck is stacked, if I can use that term. It just doesn’t work; nowhere do you get co-operation if one side feels that it is being discriminated against.

I would like to ask the minister whether the ministry intends to remove that bit of discrimination. Of course, there is another bit of discrimination that has always bothered me. When the hon. member now the Minister for Energy (Mr. McKeough), was Minister of Municipal Affairs, one night in committee he was agreeable to remove that other problem that really caused heartache in my part of the world, because there are many mixed marriages in northern Ontario; probably more so than here, I don’t know. I have never looked at the statistics.

In Ontario, if the husband is the Catholic, his taxes can be directed to the separate school and his children can be educated in the separate school. If the wife is the Catholic in the marriage, they can’t direct their taxes to the separate school. That is straight -- I don’t want to use a term that is offensive to anyone -- that’s out of character. This is the 20th century. Surely to God we should be able to have, in Ontario, a minor amendment -- which is permissive, first of all, and merely permissive -- which allows that in the event of a mixed marriage, if the wife is the Catholic and the husband is the non-Catholic, they can send their children to the separate school.

I know there are gimmicks to get around it and I don’t like the gimmicks. I had a constituent phone a week ago and he said to me: “Look, I am not going to put down that I’m a Catholic. I don’t care if my kids go to separate school, but I will not say I’m a Catholic.” I don’t blame him; I don’t blame him one jot. On the other hand, you could say, “Well, she could rent the house.” That’s a lot of nonsense too. Why is it impossible -- and people have been asking this -- that there be permissive legislation where there are mixed marriages, which allows either one of the spouses to support the separate school or the public school, whichever system they want their children to attend? It works in reverse, so why the discrimination?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, in the matter of the education of the retarded, there is not discrimination; that is not the proper term to use at all. You have to study the history that has happened over the past few years.

The education of the retarded was carried on in the community by the associations for the retarded until not so many years ago, and they developed their own schools. Then, through meetings with the government and various arrangements, financial help was given to those schools run by the association for the retarded as their schools for all the retarded in the community. As a further step forward, a few years ago it was decided to bring those schools into the whole school system and recognize a whole new principle -- not discrimination, but a very wide open, compassionate view of this whole problem. At that time, the decision was made to bring them in because of the cost of the programmes, because most of the schools didn’t have many students anyway, and because they had been organized especially to take care of the number of students that were in them in each community.

The decision to move them into the public school system in those particular communities was not made with any thought of discriminating against anyone, but merely with the major and uppermost thought in everyone’s minds of continuing to provide their programmes and to provide even better programmes for those retarded children. That’s really the situation we’re in now. We do recognize that those programmes are costly and we provide 1 1/2 times the secondary school ceiling for the retarded students in the system.

In the last year or two, the Roman Catholic separate school boards have asked if they couldn’t become part of that programme and offer their own courses. I explained to them what had happened and that up until now we haven’t made any change. But I’ve told them we’re willing to look at it. We’ll have to look at it in the light of our whole approach to children with learning difficulties in terms of special education, education of the retarded and so on. The whole programme is being looked upon as one that schools should offer for all children in the community.

There’s been a changing emphasis in the past few years. No longer is it just educable, but educable and trainable in the retarded and in all the other areas where children have other handicaps. This all will be looked at in due course. I’m sure the best thing will be done to be sure that the education of these people is carried on properly. That’s the main thing that we want to be sure happens.

In the other situation, I haven’t got all the legal documents here. This thing has been tied up in different court cases. We have to accept the basic premise that you cannot support the separate school system if you are not a Roman Catholic. That’s a basic premise, and no one wants to change that. In other words, even though the separate school system will accept non-Roman Catholics as students, they can then charge them; but their parents cannot assign their taxes to support the separate school system, even if their children go there. That was one of the basic assumptions that came even before Confederation -- in the Scott Act, I believe -- and I don’t think the separate school people want us to change that.

Mr. Martel: No one is asking them to do that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The problem then is, what if the husband is not a Roman Catholic and the wife is a Roman Catholic? How can you get around her assigning some support to the school system? At the present time, I gather it’s not been able to be solved. I’m not sure that it can be solved by a simple amendment because there may be some other principles in law tied up in that. I’m not a lawyer, and that’s the only explanation I’ve had given to me.

Mr. Martel: That’s the trouble, though. But let me go back to the first point: I agree with the minister. My only point in connection with all of these exchange programmes is that I see a great possibility in the teaching system of sharing special teachers, particularly in outlying areas where you see the specialists criss-crossing each other, rather than going into designated schools.

I have the hope that some day, instead of running an art teacher or a specialist from Capreol to Levack to serve the two separate schools there, one teacher from the public schools system might handle the community of Capreol and go into both schools, and the same in reverse in Levack. My concern is, though, that that will never occur as long as one side feels it’s working from a disadvantage. That’s why I raised the matter of the separate schools and the educable retarded, because they see that in terms of being at a disadvantage. I would hate to see us, as widespread, try to duplicate it. The same with the deaf. And as the minister knows, I have written frequently on the school for the deaf in the Sudbury area. I would hate to see us start a whole variety of very costly programmes, which is a duplication in many instances.

But I think until the day comes that they feel totally equal, a feeling of sharing and co-operation doesn’t have a chance. Because you can’t work from a disadvantage all the time, or think you are doing so. It might just be in the mind -- it might not be there at all -- but nonetheless.

The second point: I have been talking to minister after minister about this situation with respect to the husband, and I get the same answer. I want to know: What studies have been done and what actions have been taken by the government of Ontario to determine what, in fact, they have to do to allow, in the event of a mixed marriage, if the husband happens to be the non-Catholic, and they want the children to be educated in the separate school, to make that permissive legislation? What have you really done over the years? I have raised this with minister after minister -- your predecessor in that position and from municipal affairs. What have you done in a tangible way to see what has to be done in order to make that change possible?

Hon. Mr. Wells: As I understand it, the studies that have been done show that the way that this can be accomplished is for the wife to lease the property. It is a very simple procedure that can be carried out, and it then doesn’t violate some of the other premises in law that might be violated if you accepted the other premise. That’s the only thing I have been told every time I have asked about this question. It is being done and it can be done very simply that way, and it achieves the purpose that most people need.

Mr. Martel: But it leaves a resentment there.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Surely it is not beyond the scope of the lawmakers in the province that where both parties mutually agree to direct their taxes to the separate school system one of them, the wife or the husband, being a Roman Catholic, therefore there is a Catholic family involved, surely it’s not technically or legally impossible that the taxes be directed to the separate school system? I just don’t see the legal bar that is involved there. I don’t see the principles of law that your --

Hon. Mr. Wells: The principle of law that you get into here, as I understand it, is the principle of a non-Roman Catholic being a separate school supporter; that starts to come in and cloud the issue. As I say, I don’t know all the legal points involved in this, but once you change that around and if the household is then supporting the separate schools, with a non-Roman Catholic person there -- and I imagine it must have something to do in law where if the husband is considered head of the household, or something for this purpose; I don’t know --

Mr. Foulds: Maybe that is something for the Law Reform Commission.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right, maybe that’s something in the whole business of family law that they are looking at. But I gather that that’s the principle that comes in and muddies it. In various court cases they have always found to the contrary; that if the husband isn’t a Roman Catholic, he can’t then support the separate school system. As I say, no one wants to breach that other principle, which is that non-Roman Catholics be supporters of the separate school system, least of all the Roman Catholics themselves, because that destroys the whole idea of the school system. It becomes an open system that anybody can support.

I will look into it further. I will be happy to look into it further for the hon. member. It is one of those things that has, of course, come up from time to time.

Mr. B. Newman: I don’t want to be long at all, Mr. Chairman, but I wanted to mention to the minister that it is just recently that you changed the legislation that prevented a non-Catholic supporter from being a board of education trustee. You can recall the situation in Windsor where an individual who was not a separate school supporter was a trustee on the separate school board. I think, using that same idea, you can come along and adjust legislation to permit it -- just as the member for Sudbury East is asking.

Hon. Mr. Wells: What you’re suggesting, though, reinforces what I said. I was, frankly, rather amazed that a non-Roman Catholic could be elected a trustee of the Roman Catholic separate school board.

Mr. B. Newman: He is not a non-Roman Catholic school supporter. The man can still be a Roman Catholic.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, yes, but in the one particular case I think he wasn’t even a Roman Catholic. In fact, he didn’t even have to be a supporter, did he? No, as a matter of fact, the person who I was thinking of was a public school supporter who was elected as a trustee on the Catholic separate school board.

Mr. B. Newman: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 2 carry?

Items 2 and 3 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 4 carried?

Mr. Foulds: No.

Mr. Chairman: Okay; then we’ll rise.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report. Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I think that just for the record I will inform the House that on Tuesday we will proceed further with the Ministry of Education until the termination of the time allotted, followed by the Ministry of Housing and then the balance of the estimates at the conclusion of that period of time.

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

Motion agreed to.

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