Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could I draw to your attention that I don’t believe there is a quorum?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): That is not the member’s usual role.

Mr. Singer: I know it isn’t, but I just thought --

Mr. Speaker: Now we have a quorum. Orders of the day.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Let’s have a question period.

Mr. Speaker: We are on second reading of Bill 137. The member for Windsor-Walkerville has the floor.

COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTRES ACT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the outset, I would like to thank you for calling it 6 o’clock at the time you did. It does give me the opportunity to keep my comments all together.

I first want to commend the minister for the introduction of this bill, but at the same time bring certain points to his attention so he realizes that in spite of introducing something that may be good he is going directly against recommendations that have been made by other committees of the Legislature, one being the select committee on youth and the second the select committee on the utilization of educational facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the principle of the bill, which is to set up more facilities to enable our youth, the disadvantaged, the disabled and senior citizens of our community to have a greater use of facilities. However, in the provision of the facilities, the minister goes contrary in the use of the name – the Community Recreation Centres Act -- to one of the recommendations of the select committee on the use of schools. That committee has found in their studies that there should really be no distinction between recreation and education. It is a different type of education. The minister is sort of isolating education now; he is putting it up on a pedestal.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): No.

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, he is. He calls it the Community Recreation Centres Act. He is doing it by the name in itself. A “Community Centres Act” would be all right, as then it takes care of everything, but if he wants recreation, why doesn’t he put in “Education and Recreational Centres”? In his centres it is not going to be solely recreation, as is understood in the eyes of the general community. When we talk about recreation, one in which a person expends a lot of energy and as a result gets the pleasure out of partaking in a thing, we don’t too often look upon it as being one of the crafts or one of the arts or being involved in drama or simply sitting at a table and engaging in conversation and communication with a friend or a neighbour.

For example, recommendation 13 of the report on the use of schools makes mention that there is a need to break down the separation of activities into distinctly recreational or educational. It recommends that arts, sports and other recreational activities should be totally integrated into the schooling pro- cess, it would be easier to integrate them right into a school.

I understand that one can’t come along and simply use schools as recreational centres, because quite often the school is used for other purposes at given hours and the community would not have access to it. But by separating the school from the community, so to speak, or from the recreational centre, one is separating the two. Education and recreation are really the same thing. It is just a different definition and a different interpretation of what one wishes to place on recreation.

I would have preferred the bill to stay just as it was before, as the Community Centres Act. I know that by putting in the word “recreation,” it has a little more appeal to some segments of our community. They immediately look upon it, Mr. Speaker, that you can get a little physical exercise or you can get some of your 5BX or 10BX or you can jog or you can partake in quilting, in drama, in arts or in crafts -- you name it. So, once again, this is isolating schools from community centres. The community centres in most instances really should be the school rather than a separate facility. As I said earlier, that isn’t always good enough because there are certain newly developed areas in a community where there is no school, but there is a fairly substantial community. One wants people to be able to get together, to build up community spirit, and as a result, one has to construct that facility. Wouldn’t it have been better to add that facility, wherever possible, to a school so it could get, so to speak, a 24-hour a day use?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We can do this through joint agreement.

Mr. B. Newman: The ministry can do that but it isn’t generally done. It is very seldom done that way. I can look upon my own community. We established a beautiful community centre, a real credit to the community. But it is isolated in one area of the community.

Were it attached to a school -- and it’s not always practical as I said, because one can’t necessarily get the property -- it would have been far more usable. A greater portion of the community could have used the thing. I’m using my own community for example. That may not necessarily be true in all communities.

As I mentioned to you, Mr. Speaker, recommendation 13 on the use of schools certainly does make one point there. When we get into the bill itself, I hope that section 2 of the bill does permit the development of nature schools and other specialized types of facilities, so that the people in education in the community can develop additional educational, information or simply community centres well beyond their own community.

Sections 2 and 5 have it that the council of the municipality may prescribe fees. Talking of fees, the committee set up to study the use of schools had that proposition always presented to them, that the charge for the use of facilities was generally too great to enable those who needed the facilities the most to take advantage of their use. The fees were generally too high. There were all kinds of insurance clauses they had to have included in a contract. As a result, those who needed the facilities most were sort of turned away from the use of the facilities. We found that in practically every major city we visited. They over-price or out-price the use of the facility, so that they were beyond the financial ability of many to use.

I can recall one instance where a group wanted to practise various musical instruments. I think it may have been an orchestra. They couldn’t afford to go into a school. They had to go into a public hall or a private facility, simply because they were out-priced as far as the use of the facility was concerned. I hope that setting fees does not deter those needing and wanting the use of the facilities from using them.

For example, report No. 2 of select committee on the utilization of educational facilities makes a recommendation that I think the minister should possibly study very carefully and if possible implement.

This is recommendation No. 3 on page 3 of the report: “School boards should discontinue the practice of charging rental or user fees for non-profit programmes or activities taking place in school facilities.” Now we are simply transferring that proposition to community recreational facilities if it is at all possible. I know it’s the responsibility of the municipality and not the ministry to designate fees, but we do hope that municipalities pay attention to this type of recommendation and charge, if they must charge, a really minimal fee.

Charging the fee makes it a real handicap for the one-parent family, the disadvantaged, the handicapped, those on family benefits, and the senior citizens in many instances. I don’t say it deprives them, but it doesn’t encourage them to use facilities to the extent they probably could, should or would like to use them. If it is a non-profit programme that someone wishes to get into the community centre, there should be no fee, if at all possible; and if a fee must be charged, a very minimal amount.

Mr. Speaker, the location of a community centre today has to be generally away from the built-up areas. I hope that communities try to take advantage of surplus schools for community and recreational centres, rather than building new facilities. I know all of them can’t be used. I know many of them. especially if they are elementary schools, don’t have lunchrooms, don’t have auditoriums -- the large spaces that you would require to conduct certain types of activities.

We visited community colleges throughout the province, and we found in many of them that the auditoriums that were built for hundreds of thousands of dollars were used only once or twice a week, rather than being used almost around the clock and maybe even being used as community centres by the people living in the neighbourhood.

I hope the suggestion I make to the minister is followed up before community centres are actually built or developed in some areas. I know they are willing to co-operate. But I think he should make it known to them that he would appreciate their co-operation and that maybe they should be part of a sparkplug so that their facilities become community facilities, so that the community college facilities really become community recreational centres at the same time.

We don’t mean to interfere with programmes that may be carried on in those centres. But in many of the community colleges, there must be times when they are not using the facilities and they should be used by the community.

One of the things that does disturb me a bit is that community centres generally have to be built out of the community, rather than in the core of the city, although it’s in the core that there are social problems and where this type of gathering together of people in a common bond is needed to develop more of a sociable atmosphere so people are able to communicate with one another to lessen and diminish a lot of the social problems. These centres generally are built out in areas that are a little more affluent, generally because the area is there around which to build. I know the area eventually may be built up and the centre might be sort of in the heart of a little community, but I hope we don’t forget the cores of cities so that those people living there are given exactly the same opportunities as would be given to the suburban areas of our many municipalities.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like community centres attached to or adjacent to schools, if at all possible, so that they can be used by both groups. And if they can’t be located there, they should be placed in park areas. I hesitate to say that, because putting another building in a park deprives the people of that amount of open space in which to enjoy outdoor recreation. But I think that when they are put in a park area, they do serve a dual purpose.

Mr. Speaker, under section 5 of the Act, mention is made of the composition of the committees. These committees should be decided by the communities themselves. If they want a community recreational centre, no one should impose upon a community who should form the committee for that centre. I can understand that perhaps there should be input from this ministry, as well as the Ministry of Education, the recreation department or city council, but we have to remember always that if these are going to be truly community recreational centres, the community must be involved. The community must be on the committee and the programmes must be decided by the community in co-operation with other levels of government or other governmental bodies. However, we should not forget that it’s the community that wants certain programmes and we should see that their wishes predominate, providing they are within certain limits. We just can’t come along and say that they should do almost anything imaginable.

Now that I have made these few comments, I know the chairman of the committee on the utilization of educational facilities will partake in this debate and give us his pearls of wisdom, and we’ll have another member of the Legislature who will attempt to impress upon the minister the need for community involvement throughout in community centres.

Under section 5(7) of the bill, Mr. Speaker, there is the right to sell refreshments. I hope that whoever operates the concessions in these community centres does a heck of a lot better than they do in some of the centres on Highway 401. Mr. Speaker, you travel on Highway 401, and so do I. I try to come all the way from Windsor to Toronto, without stopping, simply because when you stop at some of the centres, occasionally you wonder whether you are going to be able to make it to Toronto, so you are better off to just keep on going and go hungry.

I’m not saying these dining spots on Highway 401 are not up to par at all times, but too often I have found they were not of a standard that I would have hoped to see, nor is the price range such that the family with four or five little tots which may go into the community centre could afford to pay. We won’t want things to be overpriced so that the poor or the single-parent family with three or four children can’t even afford to buy youngsters a glass of milk or a hot dog or any of the other refreshments that are being sold an that community centre.

Mr. Speaker, on section 6 of the bill, which makes grants to municipalities, we are pleased to see that the minister has increased the amount of the total cost, whichever is the lesser; to $75,000 or 25 per cent or such greater amount as the regulations prescribe. Mr. Speaker, that wouldn’t be good enough if that were an educational facility, and really a community recreational centre is an educational facility; although a different style of education as I made mention earlier. The grants from this ministry should at least be as great as the grants to an educational facility.

Also, the community centre does alleviate a lot of the social problems, or it can alleviate some of the social problems in a community. The grant to a community for welfare is 80 per cent of the cost. The government should likewise be providing 80 per cent of the cost here. After all, the centre is alleviating the ministry of a lot of expenses that may be involved as a result of youngsters in the community not being able to get the use of some of the facilities in the community.

Now with the community centre I know there are going to be such things as legal aid. There will be legal aid clinics there; and likewise members of the community and social services organizations in the community will be coming down to meet with parents and advise them of benefits to which they may be entitled.

They do it now, Mr. Speaker. The downtown community action centre in the city of Windsor, which is developed around a housing project, which is sort of a similar thing to what is being done here, does everything one can think of in an attempt to minimize the social problems of those living in the housing project.

This is a worthwhile project, and I would think that community recreational centres are going to have programmes such as this during hours when there may not necessarily be as much activity in the centre. I can see them starting at 9 o’clock in the morning and working right through until the wee hours or the late hours of the evening. I can see them being involved in assisting the residents in the area in the filling out of income tax forms, in the filling out of other types of documents or other types of papers, and in being a general overall asset to the community around. The community centre will develop a real community spirit.

If members could get to the city of Windsor and see what has happened around the Holy Rosary Educational and Community Centre, they would see what can happen in other community centres if we allow the community to run the centres. If the minister is going to impose things on them, the same thing happens as with he and I, we don’t like others telling us what we must do. We want them to decide what they want in that community, after which they need assistance from the balance of the community so they can implement what they are interested in providing to that community through the centre.

If they are to put in a swimming pool as an adjunct to a community centre, or to have it as a community centre, they are not going to do it for under $300,000; so if the minister is going to give only $75,000 to a thing like that it isn’t going to be sufficient. The community has too much of an additional tab to pick up.

I think that $75,000, even though we appreciate that amount, could have been put up a little higher so that the less affluent areas in the province have the same advantage as the more affluent. We shouldn’t be discriminating against northern Ontario as opposed to southern Ontario; the big community as opposed to a small community. We should treat them all alike; and we can treat them all alike by providing this additional type of assistance to them.

As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, if the province pays 80 per cent for community and social services work when it comes to welfare and other types of benefits, it can do exactly the same thing with this. After all, 80 per cent of this only costs us 30 per cent; the community pays 20, we pay 30, the federal government pays 50.

The next item that I wanted to talk on is item 7. When the plans are finally drawn up they are going to be presented to the minister for approval. There should be input from the community as to what it wants and the type of community centre it wants. Not only should there be input from them as to the physical nature of it, not only should there be input as to the programme there, but there should be complete input from the community.

To come along and have architects or those in public administration think that they are the only ones who can design a building and then impose this upon the community, I think is wrong. In today’s society we have to involve the community right from the word “go” up until the time the community centre is completed. I would like to see the community involved in every stage of it, even in the approval.

Mind you, the architects, the designers, and so forth, may be able to point out to the community that certain recommendations or suggestions that it is making are not feasible, and I think when we do involve the community right then and there they will accept that. They are not going to try to impose in the construction of the centre something that is just pie in the sky and can’t be physically completed.

Report No. 1 on the community use of schools makes certain recommendations that I think the minister should take into consideration when plans are being submitted.

I would read recommendation 23:

“The Minister of Community and Social Services should update and revise the Community Centres Act so as to encourage and support innovative design and integrated planning in the provision and operation of all community facilities.”

This is what I have been talking about, but get community involvement in the development of the facility. Also, there are two other items there that the minister should keep in mind, and they are that in the construction of the facilities they should, wherever possible, be on a ground level, and the doors and the entrances to the community facility should be such that we do not deprive or handicap those who are now physically handicapped from getting into the facility.

Recommendation 24 is: “The government of Ontario should ensure access for the physically handicapped to all community facilities through the adoption of the National Building Code supplement No. 5.” A very worthwhile suggestion. Why handicap those who are handicapped now? Why not make it as easy as possible for them?

In fact, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, it would be nice to use these community centres places as polling subdivisions, and then the handicapped could go right in without having to climb upstairs to an individual’s living room or downstairs into a basement. We wouldn’t have to worry about having mobile polling booths where the polling booth would go throughout the community. The individuals could come into a facility like this, and the doors would be wide enough so that those who are in wheelchairs would have no difficulty getting in.

In developing doors of this type I think we are going to have a special problem. Quite often, as has been mentioned to us, the individual who is handicapped can get in the washroom doors, but can’t get out because of the way the doors swing, or else he can’t get in. So there are a lot of things like this that the architects and the planners are going to have to take into consideration.

Recommendation 25 is such, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Ontario should provide special funds to school boards and municipalities for the adaptation of all existing community facilities to make them accessible to the physically handicapped. I think the minister should make funds available to present community recreational facilities now so they could be structurally changed so that the physically handicapped could make full use of the -- that is those that are now community centres and those which our physically handicapped have difficulty in using.

Mr. Speaker, to complete my remarks I would like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that we will have the centre. The government has paid 25 per cent of the cost of construction but none of the operational costs; these latter are going to be a complete burden on the community. I would drive a Cadillac if I could afford one-

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What does he mean, if he could afford one?

Mr. B. Newman: No, I wouldn’t; I would drive a Chrysler, because it’s a good Windsor-made car -- if I could afford one.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Yes, watch that.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for

Resources Development): Not while the member is in politics.

Mr. B. Newman: Well I drive a nice Windsor-made product, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As long as it is not called a Cadillac.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the provincial secretary is being provocative there.

I hope the minister will consider operational grants. This eliminates or reduces many of the social problems in the community. They should be treated the same way as the individual that may be on family service benefits or on welfare who has to get assistance from the community. Pick up 80 per cent of the tab; let the municipality only pay 20 per cent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Durham for just a brief moment.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Speaker, this time I would like to draw the attention of the members of the House to a large group in the east gallery representing the Progressive Conservative Party of the town of Port Hope in the riding of Durham. I would ask the members to give them their usual cordial reception.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are here to be sure they get that garbage train going.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): That train with all the garbage.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The garbage they send to the opposition.

Mr. Deans: A few years ago they were fighting. What happened?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Well austerity has set in -- inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments with respect to the bill. Like my colleague the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes), while we appreciate the fact that the bill increases the amount from $25,000 to $75,000 for community centres, what in fact the government has done by not including some type of scale is to just force smaller municipalities with inadequate tax bases to try and raise more money in order to get the full benefits of the bill. That really isn’t going to help anyone.

It seems to me the ministry might have used a little imagination and taken some cutoff points. For example, as my colleague pointed out, a municipality of 2,000 might be entitled to a bigger slice of the pie than one of 3,000 so that in fact those municipalities could really derive the maximum benefit.

What in fact the ministry has done is allowed the wealthy municipalities to get a greater cut, because they in fact are already moving ahead and building community centres which are valued at $300,000 plus. It is based on the amount of money you spend.

We know that these smaller municipalities, and I am sure there are many in the south and in the eastern part of the province, don’t have large tax bases to work from and are relatively limited in population. The only way they can make maximum use of the new legislation is if they debenture that much higher, borrow that much higher, or are successful in canvassing for that much money. Otherwise they can’t make maximum use of grants under the bill.

It was always my understanding, as we debated this in the estimates and so on, that we were going to find a way of assisting these smaller communities to have the facilities so they could enjoy the same amenities as the larger communities. But this isn’t going to do it; it is just going to put them further in the hole.

Hopefully under section 12 (b) -- which states, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations “prescribing classes of grants and the manner of computing the amounts of such grants” -- hopefully when the regulations emerge under that section the minister could consider providing extra funding for smaller municipalities based on something other than their spending $300,000. Otherwise, I just don’t think we are doing what we want to do.

I know what the intent is. I have discussed this with the minister on many occasions. I know what the intent is, but the way the legislation reads that is simply not going to work out. I would hope that the minister, before the regulations come out or before we finalize this bill, would be in a position to indicate specifically what he is going to do.

There are several other things in the bill that bother me. One is a point of clarification. I can’t understand why the minister intends to have this Act come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. Why isn’t it the usual type of bill where when it gets royal assent it then comes into force?

At the present time there are quite a number of community centres under way. I know in my own riding there are three presently under way. They are going to miss the boat unless the bill comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

The minister could bring this in six months from now which could be too late for those municipalities in the process of building now and which will be coming to the ministry, once it has forms available. The ministry doesn’t have forms for application for such grants as yet. In fact, it doesn’t even have forms available for the old grants.

Somebody under the gallery shakes his head, but several municipalities in the past week have contacted me saying they can’t get forms for the old grants even. I will name them before I am through, but I think that is an error. I would hope as well that the minister would change that section 14 and let’s have it come into force the day it receives royal assent rather than some designated day off in the future.

If I were political by nature I would say I suspect the minister of setting it up for the eve of the next election, but not being that way I wouldn’t make the suggestion.

I also want a clarification of the bill with respect to municipalities which presently are building arenas. I have, as I say, three being built in my own riding and there are several complications. In his notes today, which he read earlier, the minister indicated they had to get prior approval. These are under way at the present time. Will they qualify?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Martel: My goodness, the minister is optimistic. Will they qualify? Hopefully they will.

Secondly, will they qualify in view of the fact they are using winter works projects? In other words, the labour costs are now being met by the federal government in my municipality, almost $200,000 worth of work. They haven’t got prior approval, based on what the minister read today of their plans. So will they be eligible for the provincial grant of $75,000; partially because they are getting some assistance from the federal government; and, secondly because they haven’t had prior approval from this ministry?

I think that some of the problems in the bill are the mechanisms which are laid out. The people who have spent a good deal of time planning and working these through so that they come through in winter are, in fact, going to lose the benefits from the provincial programme which is presently before us: (a) if the minister doesn’t change section 14; (b) if he doesn’t accept the approvals they’ve already received, in the sense that their building has been approved for federal grants which were worked through the province anyway; and (c) if he’s not going to provide funding because they’ve received a winter works grant for labour purposes. I think these points have to be clarified before the bill goes through.

Finally, I’d like to ask what happens -- this is presently occurring and I’ve written the minister a number of letters about it -- where unorganized municipalities, in fact in conjunction with an organized municipality, want to work together for the establishment of a community centre. What type of funding is allowed should they want to build it in an unorganized community, or vice versa? How does the funding work its way back to the organized municipality? More important, how does it work its way to the unorganized municipality?

Let’s say there are four or five of them together which want to build. It’s fine if it’s by a school board, but let’s say it’s three or four unorganized municipalities building in conjunction with an organized municipality. How is that going to work, or is it possible to do that so they can enjoy the community centre?

As the minister knows, coming from northern Ontario, we have a host of unorganized municipalities and I can think of a number of places where this problem is going to arise. How do we do the funding? It’s not spelled out. I don’t think it was spelled out carefully in the minister’s earlier comments either. I don’t say that to be unfair, but I would hope the minister could indicate this to us, since he’s ruled out that school boards can only go into unorganized municipalities and that in organized municipalities it’s the municipality itself. What’s the formula? How do we work them together when he has ruled the school board out of the organized municipality, and it’s an organized municipality along with an unorganized one that’s trying to get together to create a community centre? The two things just don’t jibe.

Maybe the minister can set me straight on how it’s going to happen. I’ve read the bill a number of times and I just don’t see how it can be done, since he has ruled out the school boards in the organized community. Is it possible for them to work from their position in an unorganized municipality in conjunction with the council to bring the community centre into being?

The other thing I would ask about -- and it was also mentioned by my colleague this afternoon -- is we’re having a bit of a fiasco now in one of the communities in my riding. There was no tendering on who would handle concessions in the community centres. In this instance, of course, the mayor’s family is handling the concession. It didn’t go to tender and needless to say, it’s causing a lot of resentment. I don’t think it’s all that serious but it’s just the principle that it should have to go to tender.

In fact, should municipalities be allowed to build arenas without the building going to tender? We have that happening in Valley East at the present time. The arena is now built, but it was never tendered for when the arrangements were made. I understand the ratepayers’ association has written the OMB and the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) to have it investigated.

How in the world does that happen, that one can purchase the shell of a building in an organized municipality without it ever going to tender? Surely there’s something wrong with that. I won’t spell out the other details involved, because that’s not my intention here tonight. I want to talk about arenas. But somewhere there must be some way of preventing that sort of thing from occurring. I don’t know if this is the proper legislation, or if it is something under one of the municipal Acts. But this was done within the last -- well, the minister’s colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), was in my riding in August to open it. None of us was aware at the time that it hadn’t gone to tender.

Mrs. Campbell: Good Tory policy.

Mr. Martel: That was great. I happen to have missed the opening, by chance. But I think that has to be looked into, too; that can’t occur in future. With those few remarks I’ll await the minister’s response.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I have a few observations to make.

One of the things which disturbs me about this Act is simply this: At a time of inflation, at a time when we are all trying to find ways and means for proceeding in the most economic fashion possible, we find in this particular bill the exclusion of the kind of thing that the city of Toronto and the board of education worked out so successfully over the years.

I know that the minister is going to tell me that they can still continue this type of negotiation under the Schools Administration Act. When is this government going to understand that by the time municipalities and boards of education cull through all the mass of legislation to find out how best to proceed, they usually wind up -- certainly in the city, to date -- quite discouraged about looking to any of the legislation; quite often, of course, by reason of the previous level of grants? The city really didn’t take too much advantage of the provisions, I think the minister will agree, because they were rather meaningless in those days.

Surely, it is to the advantage of the taxpayers of this province that we can establish locally, with the local government and the school board, the kind of facility which will have maximum use; the kind of facility that will not require demolition of housing for two particular uses, when all of it could be accomplished in the one area.

I cannot understand why, when the minister brings this forward, there isn’t a real thrust in that direction, and why we have to look to some other legislation if we wish to make the best and most economic use of the tax dollars.

The minister in his statement said: “The proposed change will facilitate continued community planning at the local level, while enabling controlled planning and avoiding any duplication.” I suggest to the minister, with the greatest respect, that I think this invites the kind of duplication that we don’t want to see. It may well be that, by looking back at the Schools Administration Act and trying to balance the advantages, which is what local government has to do, it may be preferable for the school to go ahead on its own, for example.

As far as the city of Toronto is concerned, it took us many, many years to get to the point where we were really having good, solid agreements -- where the planning of the facility was all integrated for the best use of the total community, or the total area; rather than having two separate groups trying to find alternatives.

I would like to say a word about the matter of fees. I happen to have served on the special parks committee reviewing fees for recreational facilities in the city of Toronto. We found, surprisingly enough, that actually it was costing the city money to charge the fees that we were charging, particularly for ice rinks, hockey rinks and swimming pools. By the time we put on staff to collect and to supervise the whole operation, we were losing money. Actually we were much better off when we removed the fees.

I suppose I shouldn’t actually think only in terms of Toronto; it may well be that in smaller areas, smaller places, they would like to have the right to charge a fee. I would like the minister to direct his answer to that particular situation. I can only speak for our experience in the city of Toronto.

It seems to me that when we start getting into this matter of concessions, you really can get into an awful lot of problems. I suppose that we cannot really have a proper community centre without that revision.

I wonder, again, whether it might not be advisable to trust the local people more than we do in this particular bill. They have the right to prescribe the fees and the right to sell refreshments in the centre. They may fix, I take it, both the prices and the contract for refreshments on a year-to-year basis, or on a period not to exceed 10 years.

I would think that the minister could trust the local people a little more than that, to try to let them work out their own negotiations and their own deals in the area of refreshments. In my experience, they supervise those contracts very closely. Sometimes they need a little longer period than the year-to-year type of arrangement in order to get a good deal for their taxpayers, but they usually have some form of escape clause. I really don’t understand why we can’t trust them a little more than we do.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I join with others in commending the minister in that he has increased the participation of the provincial government and has brought the grant within some more meaningful kind of position in light of present costs.

But it does seem to me that perhaps, again, the minister might look at this sort of operation as one which could be combined with the information centre, for instance, that we need so badly in so many areas and aren’t able to get -- and that is also within his ministry and that is also fundable. Surely, if we could stop segregating all of these things into neat little packages and have a broader overview of the kind of facility that could be most useful -- having regard to the local needs and wants -- we could provide much better service at much less costs.

Once we get into a rigid kind of situation, such as this is, then it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we really find ourselves wasting tax dollars rather than securing them and ensuring that they are used for the total purpose for which they are intended. I would hope the minister would give us the benefit of his thinking on those aspects of this bill as I see it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hadn’t intended to speak on the bill, but one aspect of it made me --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): The member doesn’t have to.

Mr. Deans: No, I suppose I don’t. You don’t really ever have to do anything around here -- as I notice from certain people who don’t do very much.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You have to listen.

Mr. Roy: Where is the member looking?

Mrs. Campbell: I beg the member’s pardon.

Mr. Deans: As I say, I have noticed certain people don’t do very much.

Mrs. Campbell: Well, just don’t let the member direct his gaze over here.

Mr. Deans: No, no, I wasn’t. To tell you the truth, Mr. Speaker, my gaze didn’t even extend that far.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I will vouch for that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: I was looking down; I was talking to the member for Ottawa East – or Ottawa West, or Ottawa something.

Mr. Roy: He was? I will get my House leader to talk to him.

Mr. Deans: Okay.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Would the member for Wentworth speak on the principle of the bill?

Mr. Deans: I was only talking to him, not about him, because he was the one who interjected.

I was kind of curious about something I don’t quite understand. Well, let me go back. I happen to think that education and recreation are very much intertwined, and I think that as major centres develop educationally, they will likely develop recreational facilities alongside the educational facilities. I think that that has become the pattern.

I think that municipalities have very much wanted to attach whatever recreational facilities they have been prepared to spend money on to the existing educational facilities or to new educational facilities. I know in one instance in particular, as a result of some negotiation which is currently taking place between the public and separate school boards in Hamilton, there is the likelihood that they could come to an agreement to develop a community school and that community school would have health and recreational facilities attached to it.

The question I have for the minister is, would the municipality be eligible for the grant for the portions of the building which were in fact really a municipal responsibility and built primarily for recreational purposes? What we see happening is the development of a school which will be open year-round. The classrooms will be used in the daytime for educational purposes; there will be attachments to that for health purposes; and there will be, in addition to that, library and normal recreational facilities for the community at large, the community being a smaller portion of the municipality.

Obviously the municipality could build a separate building, and it could apply for, and likely obtain, the grant. But under the present restriction that the minister has outlined on page 3 of his statement, it would appear that if this were to be a primarily educational facility, even although there was an agreement between the municipality and the local board or boards, they wouldn’t qualify for assistance under this Act. And if they don’t qualify for assistance under this Act, they don’t qualify for assistance, as I see it.

I think if we are going to have the development of recreational facilities -- let me give you an example of something. In the late township of Saltfleet, now the town of Stoney Creek, they built a swimming pool on to the existing school. They could well have developed the gymnasium so that both were compatible for recreational purposes for the entire community. If they had done that the total complex would really have been a community recreational facility, but for the purposes of vesting it, it would still have been an educational facility because it was on educational property. Under this Act my view of it, according to what the minister has said, would be that they wouldn’t qualify for anything under the Act.

I would really like to know more about that. I view the whole educational process; we build schools all over the place, and they tend to sit empty from 5 o’clock at night until 9 o’clock in the morning -- at least most of the public schools do.

If we were to encourage, by way of grant and by way of directive from the province, that the use to which these could be put could be well a community use in the times when they are not required for educational purposes -- that being much of the summer and a fair portion of the winter -- they would be able to develop facilities throughout many communities that would better meet the needs for recreational purposes.

I suppose I’m really asking why the government has decided that boards of education, for the purposes of this programme, will not be eligible, other than in unorganized territories. I think we are going backwards. I think we should be emphasizing that existing buildings and existing facilities should be upgraded, redeveloped -- whatever we like to call it -- to meet existing needs.

The cost is minuscule compared to the cost of developing brand new facilities, and we already have much of the hardware available to us. Certainly, a lot of the power plant is there, a lot of the land is already purchased, and much of the building, in itself, is already sufficient to meet the needs -- perhaps needing only some minor or, maybe, in some instances, major changes in renovation.

I am curious to hear from the minister whether or not it would be possible for a joint venture between the municipality and local boards which would make partial use of existing facilities, would develop new facilities in conjunction, and would permit the municipality to take advantage of that which was, without expending the great sums of money it may need to build something new which may be unnecessary much of the year.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.

Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deans: The member has already introduced them.

Mr. Carruthers: I did introduce them.

Mr. Deans: He has already done that.

Mr. Carruthers: Listen, I don’t speak very often.

Mr. Deans: He certainly doesn’t.

Mr. Carruthers: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the minister for what I consider to be a very progressive piece of legislation. I think the fact that the opposition has voiced very little opposition to the legislation is a real indication that the legislation is very positive and very progressive.

Mr. Deans: It’s funny, the member doesn’t always say that. When we voice opposition, the member doesn’t conclude that it is because the legislation is no good.

Mr. Carruthers: I was just saying that the opposition was very weak. I expected there would be a considerable degree of opposition to this bill. The only opposition has been from the school administration point of view and from the point of view or the member for Windsor-Walkerville that, of course, it’s too little -- it should be $80,000 instead of the $75,000 increase. I say to the members that this will be greatly appreciated; and in no area will it be more greatly appreciated than in the town of Port Hope.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why is it the member is the only Tory in all those empty seats? What brings him in here tonight?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Are those his constituents?

Mr. Carruthers: The member wasn’t here when I introduced them.

Mr. Cassidy: The first time he has spoken in three years.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Durham may proceed.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is just a lone island in a big blue sea.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Carruthers: There is a major project being considered in the town of Port Hope which will involve the Community Centres Act. I assure the House, the fact that this amount has now been increased from $25,000 to $75,000 will be very well received. I commend the minister very highly.

I believe it was a major step, and a very progressive step, when the Act was included in the minister’s portfolio, when it became part of his administration. The members will note that the number of projects has more than tripled since his ministry took over.

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Good government.

Mr. Carruthers: Good government is right, good government.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): That is called Parkinson’s law.

Mr. Roy: And the member has two people who agreed with him.

Mr. Carruthers: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Roy: Just rip into that.

Mr. Carruthers: I was interested in the remarks made with respect to the planning. Many of the remarks, I believe, certainly would be taken for granted by the ministry. These will be carried out at the local level; the planning, to a great extent, always has been and always will be at the local level.

Mr. B. Newman: Sure didn’t agree with the select committee.

Mr. Carruthers: The local people have a major voice in developing these projects.

Mr. Roy: Does the minister agree with the member?

Mr. Carruthers: We’ve got a very responsible minister.

Mr. Shulman: We have just begun.

Mr. Carruthers: Having made those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat that the fact there was very little opposition from the members on the opposite side is an indication that this is good legislation and it will be well received throughout the province.

Mr. Cassidy: That was a fine final speech.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I shouldn’t object to that kind of a handout.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I just want to have a couple of items verified by the minister when he is replying. Regarding the agreements involving more than one municipality in building an arena, an agriculture hall or a recreation centre, I wonder if the grants will still be available for more than one municipality. I would also like to know if the amounts of those grants depend on the total cost. That’s about all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak?

The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I just want one matter clarified. I notice that section 14 says the bill will come into effect on the proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor. Does the minister have any idea as to when that date will be?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak before the hon. minister replies?

The hon. member for Peel South.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): I just want to ask a question that I believe was raised in a similar context by the member for Sudbury East; it has to do with the retroactivity of this bill. I believe many municipalities have projects under way now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if they are eligible subsequent to a contract award or when the eligibility would be determined in terms of time.

The other thing is that when this goes into effect, presumably it then will fit in with the fiscal planning of the municipalities, whose fiscal year-end is Dec. 31. Presumably once the formative period is over, this will all fall into place. But right now there are questions about situations where a base contract has been let for a project. One we have is Glen Forest. It is completed and in use. It was opened two or three weeks ago. I’m not sure if there are ancillary things, such as certain grading and paving around it, that might be done subsequently or whether it’s a complete package. In addition, a swimming pool is to be added at some later time, and I understand that this additional facility would be eligible for a grant.

With respect to retroactivity or startup time, I ask whether there is some discretion so that upon application, such a request could be examined with a possibility of additional funds being provided.

The other thing is that there are different kinds of recreational facilities, as we have heard tonight. We have them at each end of the scale. We have skating rinks for the young people -- and they are greatly needed. But, at the other end, a recreation centre has been opened for senior citizens in my area; and they, of course, have entirely different activities. There haven’t been any grants in the past, as I understand it, even under the existing legislation, although I understand the government pays part of the operating costs. Presumably if a senior citizens’ recreation centre was to be established, it would be just as eligible as a hockey rink. But again, do they get a contribution toward operating costs, but not community centres, rinks, all the meeting halls and so on? I would like some clarification of that, Mr. Speaker, if I could.

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

Mr. Shulman: I have just one question, Mr. Speaker, about the draft regulations that have been prepared for the bill. I don’t understand this regulation 11(3), which eliminates Port Hope from the provisions of the bill. Could the minister explain that to me?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak before the minister replies?

Mr. Carruthers: I am moving an amendment.

Mr. Kennedy: That was cleared away.

An hon. member: He’s got it in for Port Hope.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Algoma.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about the maple syrup.

An hon. member: Those are not the member’s people here, are they?

Mr. Deans: Who is he introducing?

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on Bill 137, the Community Recreation Centres Act.

Mr. Deans: No, no, that’s last year.

Mr. Gilbertson: We are still in 1974 and that’s what it says on the bill here.

Mr. Carruthers: Go ahead, Bernt.

Mr. Gilbertson: I notice on the back of this bill here, “Explanatory Notes.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Read those, buddy.

Mr. Deans: They have those on every bill; every bill has them.

Mr. Gilbertson: In section 2 of the bill here, this is interesting to me, because when I first became a member in the Legislature I had constituents from several small municipalities --

Mr. Roy: Good for him.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- neither one of them was big enough to endeavour to get some type of recreation centre or community centre.

Mr. Deans: What -- the constituents or the municipalities?

Mr. Gilbertson: But through the efforts of the member for Algoma --

Mr. Martel: And who might that be?

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Hear, hear! Another victory.

Mr. Roy: The former member, soon to be.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- we managed to get the ministry to bring in this particular legislation that would enable several municipalities to go together and build a central community centre.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s like the big school he built; that $5 million school he built in the middle of the field there.

Mr. Ruston: And the building of the new bridge.

Mr. Shulman: They built the bridge but there is no road leading to it.

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition is rather rude. You would think they would know enough that they would be quiet when the member for Algoma is on his feet.

Mr. Parrott: I agree.

Mr. Deans: To interrupt the maiden speech.

Mr. Gilbertson: Except they could applaud from time to time.

Mr. Parrott: That’s right.

Mr. Shulman: He didn’t give us free maple syrup this year.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are showing the people in the gallery why they are in the opposition.

Mr. Gilbertson: I might say to the members of the House --

Mr. Carruthers: The member for Ottawa Centre is really listening.

Mr. Ruston: Only empty seats on the other side.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- that through the effort that was put forth at that time, the Minister of Agriculture at the time -- this was under the Department of Agriculture -- brought in a bill that enabled several municipalities to join together and pool their funds so that they could build a good community centre.

I thought that was very good of the minister at that time, and I felt it was an accomplishment. If the hon. members wanted to, they could go way back into Hansard and see when this was brought in, and the efforts that were made.

Mr. Speaker: How would the member like to speak to the principle of Bill 137?

Mr. Deans: How could he? He doesn’t know what it is.

An hon. member: I don’t know why he should; who else did?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All the whips are going to speak tonight. Who is the next assistant deputy whip? He is going to speak next.

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, when I travel up north of Sault Ste. Marie, I meet youngsters carrying their hockey sticks and hitchhiking, trying to get into Sault Ste. Marie so they can practise hockey, because there isn’t any --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member should do something to help with that; there are no school buses to help. A million dollars worth of school buses sitting in the barnyard.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- type of recreation centre up north of Sault Ste. Marie, where there is quite a populated area. I am sure that with this new legislation now, once they get organized up there, there are several municipalities, several little hamlets that I feel will be able to pool their funds and be able to build a decent, good recreation centre somewhere up north of Sault Ste. Marie to take care of that populated area and also east of Sault Ste. Marie. I was interested when the member for Sudbury East mentioned that this particular bill wouldn’t help the small municipalities. There are still provisions for this. They can still group their resources and build a central recreation centre. I am very pleased about that and I feel that I want to commend the minister on this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): Very good.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Any other member before the minister replies?

The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I appreciate the fact that the minister has introduced this bill.

Up in the village of Shelburne, the Canadian National Old Time Fiddlers’ Contest is held every year. The present arena will accommodate only some 5,000 people and there were 10,000 people in Shelburne last year. For several years the Rotary Club that sponsors that function has come to me, and also the editor of the local paper -- who incidentally is the father of Tom Claridge who is here in the press gallery -- and said: “We need a lot of money to enlarge this arena or build a new one so that we can accommodate the thousands of people who come to Shelburne to take part in that Canadian National Old

Time Fiddlers’ Contest.” It is so important that the CBC broadcasts the finals. I think tripling the amount of grants is just another evidence of the Progressive Conservative policies that this government pursues.

Mr. Shulman: Fiddling while the by-elections are burning.

Mr. Root: Incidentally, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan), the member for Welland and I are just winding up 23 years of service in this House tonight.

Mr. Roy: Good for them!

Mr. Root: We have seen many changes and this is another progressive change.

I think, as I read the bill, the neighbouring municipalities could join with municipalities like Shelburne and probably put up the type of facility that they had hoped to have, so they can accommodate the thousands of people from all over North America, and all over Canada who take part in that great function. I know that the people of Shelburne are going to be very pleased with this legislation. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Mr. Roy: After the next election, the member will need a very small arena.

Mr. Speaker: Any other member? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and I wish to commend the members for their very constructive comments.

Mr. Shulman: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: First, I may deal with the member for Waterloo North. As the hon. members know, we have no restrictions for population. It is quite true that two years ago, I believe, it was mentioned in the budget that municipalities with a population of 25,000 or over would not be eligible. Well, that was never implemented. It is quite true there were some delays but all municipalities that did apply for a grant under the Community Centres Act did receive their grants.

The hon. member also mentioned about the pre-approval system. Pre-approval is not required. We do require approval of the plans and I think there are some very good reasons for that. They don’t have to be an elaborate construction plan; a sketch will do. The reason for this is for safety, and I think the hon. members will agree with this. We have heard in the past of some very tragic instances of where arenas have collapsed. I think it is desirable that we do have safeguards, especially for large buildings.

Mr. Shulman: How can a sketch safeguard you? The minister said he only wanted a sketch. A sketch isn’t good enough.

Mr. Kennedy: There are sketches and sketches.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We don’t require drawings -- just elaborate enough to provide the idea. A small municipality, for instance, which is only building a small community centre worth, say, $25,000 doesn’t need any elaborate plans but if it’s a major building, an arena with swimming pool and so forth worth millions of dollars, then we do believe that there should be some very elaborate plans.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay raised some very good points. He himself, the hon. member for Sudbury East and myself and many other members, have many large areas and many unorganized communities and also small communities that are organized, where, it’s quite true, many have difficulty in raising the 75 per cent. I would like to mention, however, that in this present bill under section 9(a) it is at the discretion of the minister to give increases to Indian bands, for example, and also under 9(b) to school boards and non-profit organizations in unorganized areas. So as far as the unorganized areas and the Indian bands are concerned, there is provision in the Act at the discretion of the minister to provide increased funding where there is dire need.

However, there are many organized municipalities which have small populations and which also may have a very low industrial or commercial assessment base.

Mr. Martel: Or none.

Mr. Gilbertson: That’s what brought the bill in in the first place.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: There are a few comments I would like to make. One is that it is possible -- it has been done under the existing Act -- that service clubs like the Lions’ Club, the Kinsmen Club and others can donate money and labour, and the donation of both money and labour is calculated in the funding.

Also in the regulations, as the hon. member for Sudbury East mentioned -- it is a good point, and I have mentioned it to my staff -- we should try to devise some sort of a formula, some sort of a system, whereby again municipalities which have a low-income base should receive higher funding. We will certainly give serious consideration to this, and this can be done through the regulations.

I also would like to mention that many municipalities are taking advantage of winter works programmes, LIP grants and so forth. So there are various ways of trying to help those municipalities who need additional assistance.

The use of the centre was mentioned by the hon. member for Thunder Bay. There again, I would like to mention that in the Act we tried to be as flexible as possible and to provide multiple use of these buildings. There are no restrictions on the kind of recreational activity that can be carried on -- dances, bingo, whatever are the wishes of the people in that community. These buildings are for their use -- cultural, recreational, educational, multiple use. Our wishes are to let the local people decide; they know best what they would like to have.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister permit licensing under the Liquor Control Act?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, if they have a dance and the weather is cool and they believe that they should have refreshments, that is up to the local wishes.

Mr. B. Newman: Why should the weather have anything to do with it?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, when it is damp --

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): It is damp if you have a licence.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville raised several points. I am in agreement with much of what he has said, but I do believe that his interpretation of the Act and mine are not quite on the same wavelength. In my understanding of this Act there are provisions for doing those very things -- the multiple use, the community use of these community centres.

Mr. B. Newman: Why doesn’t the ministry fasten them on to schools, where possible?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will agree that we should not be in a position to dictate to local municipalities, school boards, non-profit organizations, Indian bands -- the people themselves who will be using these facilities. We can certainly consult and advise.

Mr. B. Newman: It is not dictating at all; it is recommending and suggesting.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Suggesting certainly. And we are entirely in agreement with building those facilities near schools and in schools. The member also mentioned near parks. Community involvement is certainly one of our main requisites.

He mentioned the setting of fees. Again, this is done by the committee of management, and the committee of management again is at the discretion of the local municipality or the school board. We agree that there should be no fees, or very minimal fees, but again I do not believe that we, the government, should dictate to the local school board or municipality --

Mr. B. Newman: And the minister doesn’t agree with the select committee’s recommendation. Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: What I am saying is that in this legislation the management committees are permissive. If, for instance, it is a joint agreement with a municipality and the school board, I believe it should be left to the discretion of the local municipality and the school board to determine whether they wish to charge any fees and, if they do, what they should be.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister aware that many community groups can’t get facilities because they can’t afford them because of the high charges?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, we are aware of that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we are emphasizing more and more in all our government programmes the community use of facilities.

Mr. B. Newman: But he still doesn’t agree with the select committee recommendations?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I’ve looked at the committee recommendations. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we’re really debating the principle on the second reading of this bill, and this bill, I think, is in line with much of what the hon. member was suggesting regarding location. The hon. member mentioned that they should be located as much as possible near municipal parks and so forth to serve a dual purpose. Again we agreed.

The hon. member mentioned section 5, the appointment of a committee of management. Again the Act says “may” -- it’s strictly at their discretion.

He referred to section 5(7), the power of a committee to let the right to sell refreshments. Again this as at their discretion.

He suggested two or three times that we should be funding these recreational facilities at 80 per cent, and he used the example that we’re funding general welfare at 80 per cent. May I remind the hon. member that when we do fund welfare at 80 per cent we obtain from the federal government, under the Canada Assistance Plan, 50 per cent of the amount that the province gives. However, in the capital grants for recreational facilities we do not obtain any assistance.

Hopefully, though, the recreation commands very high importance today. Next week there is a three-day conference in Halifax of all the recreational ministers across Canada. There will be representatives from the federal government. At the last conference it was decided that recreation should be a social service -- the same as health is a social service, the same as education is recognized as important -- and that therefore the federal, provincial and municipal governments should be funding it more. That’s why, in this Act, we have raised it substantially. Certainly, we would like to raise it more and that’s why, through the regulations, we can do this in the future. But in this present case we’re raising it. We’re tripling the amount of money we’ve been giving in the past year -- this is a substantial increase.

Mr. B. Newman: But if the minister recognizes it as a social service, why doesn’t he show his recognition by facts? It’s never been debated before.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are, Mr. Speaker. We will be spending, in the coming fiscal year --

Mr. B. Newman: Twenty-five per cent.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- of April 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976, about three times more than we are presently spending in this current fiscal year.

Mr. B. Newman: That doesn’t prove anything.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That is a substantial increase.

Mr. B. Newman: That doesn’t prove anything -- three times more.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let the hon. minister have a chance to finish his remarks.

An hon. member: Throw him out.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We have other recreational programmes that will be announced at some later date.

Now, Mr. Speaker, where was I? Section 7: plans to be submitted. The hon. member said that communities should be involved, and we certainly agree that the local communities know best what they want. If it’s a small facility a sketch will do so that we can provide assistance in helping them to plan as good a facility as possible, and if it’s a large one then the fire and safety regulations certainly should be considered, so we’re entirely in agreement.

The hon. member mentioned the operating grants. Quite true; there is no provision in this bill. This is strictly funding for capital. However, in the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act, which will be forthcoming, there will be provision for assistance for operating grants for recreational committees. So this will be dealt with under some other Act.

The hon. member for Sudbury East brought up several matters. I refer to the matter, which the hon. member for Thunder Bay also brought up, of more assistance to municipalities which have a low industrial or commercial base. He also referred to section 14, as did the hon. member for Peel South and some of the other members, including the hon. member for Huron-Bruce. Section 14 says: “This Act comes into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor.”

Mr. Speaker, most of these programmes are planned several months ahead of time. Municipalities -- and they are the main ones which will be planning these projects -- will have their new councils elected on Dec. 2. Early in the new year the new councils will be planning their programmes for the calendar year of 1975.

As we have in the past we will be writing to all the municipal clerks in all the municipalities to indicate our new programme and as we did last year we will indicate that applications should be submitted in that three-month period from Jan. 1 to March 31. So therefore this Act will apply to facilities that will be built in the calendar year 1975.

The hon. member will appreciate that if we try to provide assistance for facilities that are presently under construction then we would have quite a large number of municipalities which would ask for increased funding and we would have to have practically a retroactive --

Mr. Martel: Some of them have not made application yet.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Fine, Mr. Speaker, fine. There is no problem then.

If they have not made application, they should make application, as I indicated, during that three-month period from Jan. 1, 1975 to March 31, and those applications will be considered.

Mr. Martel: But they are under construction; they haven’t made application, they’ve --

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, if they’ve made application then they are being funded under the existing Act.

Mr. Martel: They haven’t filled in the applications and they are building them.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, all the clerks and all the municipalities are fully aware of our existing programme.

Tendering: The hon. member asked if the municipality is required to tender. In the majority of cases the municipalities are paying 75 per cent of the cost of the facility, therefore we have faith in the local municipality, we believe it is up to the discretion of the local municipality.

Mrs. Campbell: But not in the letting of these centres. It’s crazy! It doesn’t make sense!

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: An organized municipality can establish a centre in an adjacent unorganized area. I think the member also asked if two or three unorganized areas can get together. They certainly can. They can get together the same as two or three organized municipalities can and form a corporation and they will be eligible for grants. A school board in an unorganized area can also join with a municipality. So there is flexibility in the Act to try to meet local conditions.

The hon. member for St. George as well as other members raised the question about the joint agreements. In the Act we specify that where there is a joint agreement between an organized municipality and a school board it should be done under the Schools Administration Act, section 7(a) or 7(e). The reason for that, as I indicated in my opening remarks, is to prevent duplication.

Mrs. Campbell: But how does it prevent duplication?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The grant is given to the municipality; however, it is under the Schools Administration Act.

Mr. B. Newman: How does the minister prevent duplication?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It is my understanding that the legal people recommended this to avoid duplication.

Mrs. Campbell: Well, how? Mr. Speaker, would the minister find out how it does it? Because truly I am concerned; I really cannot see how this prevents duplication. It seems to me that it encourages it. I may certainly be quite wrong, but I’d like to be convinced.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I think it is on page 6. It is in the Act now. This is the Act that was passed in 1972, or rather an amendment to the Act whereby school boards can do this. The grants are given to the municipalities and it’s a joint agreement.

Mrs. Campbell: On page 4, with respect --

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I’ll get a copy of the Act; my solicitor has a copy of the Act.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, I’m sorry. I thought the minister meant his statement.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The legal provisions were already in the Schools Administration Act in 1972 and to put the same provisions in this new bill would have been a duplication. So, Mr. Speaker, we don’t feel that there is any administrative problem in this area at all. This will be well known, it will be indicated to the municipalities and we don’t think there is any problem at all.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I wish we could get the municipalities’ opinion on that, because I think it would not bear out what the minister says, with respect.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, certainly we have an open mind on these things, and if this is going to create a problem, certainly we’re willing to change this. But I’m advised that there is no problem and to have left it in the Act would have made duplications and would have created problems.

The hon. member mentioned the charging of fees. Again, as I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, this is left to the discretion of the local municipality and the school board. As to the hon. member for Wentworth, I am in entire agreement with the point he was making, that if part of a school could be used for a recreational facility and an agreement was entered into by the municipality and that school board, that should be used. Funding is provided for that so there is no problem there. The intent of the Act is to make use of joint agreements and to utilize existing facilities as much as possible. However, as I indicated, the grant is paid to the municipality and not to the school board.

I wish to commend the hon. member for Durham for his very constructive remarks, as well as the hon. member for Algoma, and my colleague behind me, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin. I appreciated their remarks. I think I replied to the hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

My colleague from Peel South referred to senior citizens. At present, under the Elderly Persons Centres Act, there is capital funding at 30 per cent for a facility to be built and also for operating grants, but in this Act here it’s strictly capital grants. However, I indicated earlier that under the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act, which will be forthcoming, there will be assistance for operating grants for recreational facilities which will certainly include senior citizens.

It will include all classes. Mr. Speaker, I may have omitted some of the queries of some of the members, and if I have, I would be pleased to try and answer them.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ACT

Mr. Parrott, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Auld, moves second reading of Bill 68, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, 1971.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I understand the principle of the bill is simply to enable the Ontario College of Art to operate under the Ontario Universities’ Capital Aid Corp.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. B. Newman: I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, is that Bill 68 that you are referring to?

Mr. Cassidy: Well, which bill does he want?

Mr. Parrott: I want Bill 68.

Mr. Cassidy: Bill 68?

Mr. Parrott: Bill 68.

Mr. Cassidy: What?

Mr. Parrott: An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the House leader, we had understood that Bill 135 was coming forward. Bill 68 is a bill of fairly major principle and we were not given any advance warning that it was coming up. If you want to put the routine one through, fine, but the --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is my understanding that the House leader said that the hon. members should be prepared to discuss any bill on the order paper.

Mr. Cassidy: Wrong!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I wasn’t here when he said that; that is my understanding.

Mr. Speaker: I note that both bills are named the same; they are both to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act. Are we on the right one?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Call Bill 68. That’s what we are discussing.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the government House leader, we were given to understand by our House leader that Bill 135 was coming forward and that after that we would be moving to budget debate. Certainly there was no indication on our side that we had second reading of a bill of substance, such as Bill 68. It is in itself technical, but it provides the opportunity to discuss a number of matters relating to higher education. These are particularly important at this time, in view of the new university council’s importance in university financing, as outlined in the recent statements of the minister.

I would point out as well, Mr. Speaker, that the minister himself is not present for a major discussion of his ministry involved in that bill. I realize that the parliamentary assistant is present, but --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that is the minister’s prerogative. He has a parliamentary assistant who is prepared to carry this bill, at least for tonight. I think the hon. member is making a point which isn’t valid at all. The order has been called for Bill 68. I don’t know why the hon. members aren’t prepared to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker: Bill 68 is the right one, is it?

Mr. Cassidy: The minister does it every time, doesn’t he?

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask that we get a little bit of order and fairness in this. When my leader left he advised me that his understanding was that we would be dealing with Bill 135, which has to deal with the Art Gallery of Ontario, the Royal Ontario Museum and the Ontario College of Art. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are not going to find ourselves becoming very abrasive about the way in which the business of this House is ordered or not ordered --

Mr. Cassidy: Exactly.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs. Campbell: -- then the government should at least let the opposition have some idea of what is to be called. I think, in fairness, the minister was not aware of the situation and that this was the bill we were told would be called following the community recreation centres bill. I would ask that the minister take that into consideration and not place us in a position where we would be expected to argue major philosophy at this hour, without the minister here. The minister has a right not to be here -- but we, too, would have those present from our party who are very concerned about the bill.

Mr. Speaker: May we hear from the parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Cassidy: Is there a quorum in the House, Mr. Speaker? I asked the Speaker whether there was a quorum in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Clerk see if there is a quorum, please.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, no, we are just short of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Clerk of the House: We have a quorum, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think there’s been a misunderstanding. Apparently, the House leader did refer to Bill 135. It was an error on his part. Both Bill 135 and Bill 68 have the same titles. Apparently in transmitting the information, he gave the wrong number of the bill. With your permission, sir, I will call order No. 2.

Clerk of the House: The second order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: Before we start on that, the speaker who was last participating in this debate was the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent). He had indicated he was not finished. He has communicated with his leader this evening from a far distant point, I might say, and it’s impossible for him to be here. Do we have permission for him to complete his remarks at a later date?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the member for Kent, who was in the same position, is here tonight and he would like to complete his remarks.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, it was on Nov. 1 that I adjourned the budget debate. I must say thanks to you for giving me an opportunity again to complete this debate.

Since I first started this budget debate, there have been some changes. Mr. Speaker, I won’t go through them all. We have had a by-election in Carleton East and I wouldn’t want that to go by without refreshing the memory of the hon. members of this Legislature. The good people of Carleton East chose our Liberal candidate to represent them in this House. I now wish to extend my congratulations to the member (Mr. P. Taylor), though he isn’t here tonight. I can say, Mr. Speaker, he will add greatly to the debates of this House and I must say that he will prove himself to be an outstanding member.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention the very serious difficulties which have been experienced by the commercial fishermen in Lake Erie. Because of the current fish harvest, which is very light, the situation is such that many of our fishermen feel the only solution is for the government of this province to give some assistance to them to carry them through this difficult period. A year ago, the fish-packing plant at the village of Erieau was handling between 500 to 600 boxes of perch fish daily. At the present time, it is receiving only 50 to 60 boxes of perch daily. Many of these local residents rely on the fishing industry for a livelihood and the poor fish harvest is causing them real hardship in that community.

Apparently, there are several factors which have contributed to the poor harvest. There has been a problem with the enforcement of the size limit of the 8-in. perch due to the shortage of personnel in the Ministry of Natural Resources. Also, the commercial fishermen consider that the ban on the big mesh gear in the waters of Kent and Essex counties has allowed the number of junk fish to increase. If this lake isn’t fished commercially, there are frequently large buildups of coarse fish which can upset the natural balance of fish in the lake.

With respect to the possibility of financial assistance for the fishermen, I must point out that many of them are still repaying loans given to them by the Ontario Development Corp. during the mercury scare, and these repayments are causing a very difficult financial struggle. Many of them have to mortgage their boats and make these monthly payments on their loan as well as pay the back interest. On a 15-boat fleet at Erieau, fewer than six boats are bothering to set out their nets at the present time.

There is great concern, because it’s almost impossible to know when a large catch of perch is likely to appear again. The big question is, of course, how long the commercial fishermen can hold out with little or no income to keep them going. Many boat owners have lost their crews to factories and other jobs where there is an assured, steady income. Other boat owners are giving consideration to fishing in other lakes in the Province of Ontario, provided they can purchase the appropriate licences.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago I asked that consideration be given to the possibility of compensation for retailers because of the work involved in collecting the provincial sales tax. The Retail Merchants Association of

Canada, which has been traditionally the spokesman for the independent retailers in this province, requested the Ontario government in the year of 1973 to provide some compensation to the vendors under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

However, the retailers continue to act as unpaid tax collectors for the government of the Province of Ontario, although in virtually every other province in Canada compensation is paid for this service. In British Columbia the payment starts at three per cent; in Quebec and New Brunswick, two per cent. The government has recognized the principle of compensation in regard to motor vehicle, hunting and fishing licences but continues to refuse to do so in the field of the retail sales tax.

Retailers continue to take much of the blame from customers for the imposition of this tax, and also have a considerable amount of extra work in collecting this tax, as well as the possibility of being liable for a penalty for late returns. The small retailers, particularly those who have no bookkeepers, suffer the most from this serious situation.

Mr. Speaker, since I made the first part of my speech some days ago, the situation has worsened in the beef industry and I feel I must refer to this matter again at this time. Obviously something is seriously wrong when the processors in Ontario are forced to throw away their products rather than sell them, while at the same time consumers continue to pay high prices for beef.

In the past, the usual pattern has been that when the consumer prices are low, the farmers suffer financially, and when the farmer is receiving a decent return for his investment, prices are generally higher to the consumer. However, this is not the pat- tern in the beef industry today.

Farmers are currently being paid less for their cattle, while the consumers are paying considerably more for their beef. Falling cattle prices and soaring grain prices are causing the plight of the farmers across the Province of Ontario. Today, corn is $3.50 a bushel. Hay last year was $25 a ton and today hay is selling at $55 a ton. In fact, it is more economical today for the farmer to sell his corn than feed it to his cattle. And, of course, Mr. Speaker, he is selling his cattle. Recently farmers have been receiving the following prices for their cattle: At the Kitchener stockyards last week, top beef was 50 cents to 55 cents a pound, and cutters and canners 12 cents to 22 cents a pound. At the Waterloo stockyards last week, top-quality steers sold at 50 cents to 54 cents a pound, and canners 14 cents and 15 cents a pound. Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Nov. 7, Toronto stockyards: A1 and A2 steers, 53 cents to 55 cents a pound, and canners from 10 cents to 16 cents a pound. So you can see, Mr. Speaker, this is a serious situation for farmers in the beef industry.

I referred earlier to the government’s tendency -- perhaps “habit” is a better word -- to ignore warnings and advice. I would just like to refer to their announced intention in the Speech from the Throne to carry out another feasibility study on a possible road link to James Bay through Moosonee. Mr. Speaker, at no time do I want to take anything away from northern Ontario, but I’ve heard this twice in Throne speeches in this House since I became a member some 12 or 14 years ago.

The possibility of port facilities on James Bay has been discussed in great detail in the past in this Legislature. One of the hon. members who knew the area very well at that time pointed out that very soon, after the commencement of work on such facilities, the workers would run into great difficulties with quicksand. He reckoned that the faster they dug it out, the faster it would run in. And so many workmen would be necessary to handle the quicksand that we would never have a problem with unemployment in Canada again. Obviously the proposed road link would be essential to transport the armies of workmen to the construction site at James Bay.

Perhaps we could draw a parallel between this possible situation and the tremendous increase of staff in the office of the Premier (Mr. Davis). When you build an unstable foundation, you need an army of people to keep this situation under control. However, it is obvious that even the Premier’s army has been unable to cope with the quicksand into which this government has blundered, when cabinet ministers talk about panic and things getting out of control.

Since the last provincial election the long story of government spending and government bungling seems to be never-ending. Much has been brought to the attention of this House and the taxpayers of the province, and doubtless there is still much more to be brought to the light of day. The famous, or I should say the infamous, blue machine is going to have to work overtime if it is to make any attempt to whitewash the record of this government prior to the next provincial election.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): What about the red machine?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Yes.

Mr. Spence: We haven’t got it working yet.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): The little red wagon.

Mr. Spence: We’re just getting it oiled up.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: That will be true.

Mr. G. Dixon (Dovercourt): That is true.

Mr. Spence: Like many people, I was very impressed during the last campaign with the effectiveness of this renowned Goliath in the public relations field. But I no longer believe that the people of Ontario will forget the questionable activities of cabinet ministers, the extravagance and ineptitude of government in almost every area.

Nor do I think they will forget the facts brought to the public’s attention by the committee on the Workmen’s Compensation Board, the controversy over the $44-million office building being built on University Ave. for Ontario Hydro, or the many other extravagant actions of the government and the Premier which have given rise to much discussion in this Legislature and in the homes and meeting places across the Province of Ontario.

There is no question, of course Mr. Speaker, that the recent by-election results in Carleton East and Stormont are an indication of the electorate’s disillusionment with the present provincial government. Obviously the Premier and his colleagues will be doing everything possible to repair their political fences in the months ahead. Doubtless we shall be bombarded with information that “Premier Davis is doing things for people” or some other similar slogan.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: That will be true.

Mr. Spence: That will be right. Is that right?

Mr. G. Nixon: That is true.

Mr. Spence: I am aware that the people of Ontario have learned and learned well that whatever this government may do for the people, it is the people who pay. They have learned that this government cares little for the views expressed in this Legislature and in this province. They have learned that this government promises one thing and does another more frequently than any other government in history. Is that right?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The charge was we don’t change them often enough.

Mr. Spence: They have learned that this government changes its policies and its cabinet ministers as often as some people change their shirts.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Spence: They have learned that the people of Ontario can be sure of only one thing, and that is they cannot be sure of anything at all as long as these fellows continue in power.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wellington-Dufferin.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): This is an historic occasion, Mr. Speaker, that he speaks twice in a day; it really is.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): He says something, which is more than the member who just spoke does.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Speaker, as there has been a reference to my remarks, I want to correct one thing. I said tonight we were ending 23 years of service -- the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Allan) and the member for Welland (Mr. Morningstar). It’s tomorrow night. I wouldn’t want to mislead the House for one night. We will start our 24th year on Saturday.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments during the budget debate regarding some matters that I think should receive consideration. I also want to make some comments about the budget statement itself and the lead-off speeches by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt), speaking for the Liberal Party, and the hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), speaking for the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, the policy that is being pursued by the insurance companies has caused me considerable concern for some time. I now feel free to speak about this matter since my own family have grown up and are on their own.

Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that no one should be penalized until they have been charged, tried and convicted. Yet we find that here in the Province of Ontario we require young drivers to take training and pass a test before they are issued with a driving licence. Having met the requirements and received a licence, they go out to buy insurance for their automobile and find immediately they are penalized, having committed no offence.

The insurance rates are much higher for young people, particularly young men, than they are for the general public. I know scores of young people who have committed no offence against the Highway Traffic Act and yet they have paid an excessive premium for many years.

Now it seems to me this is a matter that should be looked into and perhaps brought to the attention of the insurance companies. I feel the people who are irresponsible are the ones who should pay the high premiums.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): They don’t usually have the money.

Mr. Root: The young people who are careful, responsible drivers should not be penalized. I think if we recognized that principle we would encourage our young people to be careful drivers.

I hope that the hon. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement), along with his staff, will give some thought to this situation which I think deserves investigation. I realize that if young people are to start out with insurance at normal rates, people who commit offences will probably have to pay an even higher rate. I think that is only fair, and it will encourage young people to be careful drivers.

I know we are all concerned about the slaughter that takes place on our highways. We know that it is recognized that alcohol is involved in almost half of the fatal accidents on our highway system. There also has been thought and suggestion that perhaps the wearing of seatbelts should be compulsory. While I am not opposed to people wearing seatbelts, I wonder whether it would be any easier to enforce the compulsory wearing of seatbelts than it would be to enforce total prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

Perhaps the seatbelts would have the effect of stopping some young girls from literally reading the signs that are on our highways. When you are coming to certain intersections, there are signs saying, “Squeeze to the left.” Perhaps the seatbelts would stop that left-squeezing and might make it easier for the young man to maintain control of his car. That is in a little lighter vein.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): It certainly is in a lighter vein.

Mr. Root: Referring to the budget, I thought the budget introduced by the hon. provincial Treasurer (Mr. White) was one of the finest budgets we have had introduced in the province for many years. It is a budget that proposes to reduce the public debt by some $449 million, leaving the lending agencies free to invest their money in other areas, such as Hydro, municipal debentures and private financing.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The hon. member is not taken in by that budget, is he? He is a wise old owl.

Mr. Root: Among the other items of particular interest to me was the guaranteed income for some 311,000 elderly people, and blind people and disabled, guaranteeing $50 per week for single persons and $100 per week for married couples in this program; and I believe that has been increased. Free prescription drugs to needy pensioners, I am sure, will solve a great problem for many of our needy pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that our municipalities will appreciate the fact that there will be an increase of some $239 million in direct transfer to local governments, bringing the provincial contribution to local government financing to approximately 48 per cent. I am sure that the rural municipalities will appreciate the fact that the province will allocate a special amount of $17 million to assist the smaller municipalities in the rural areas in financing their needs for roads.

Mr. Lawlor: What on earth are they going to do next year?

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, those of us who come from rural Ontario are aware that the traffic volume is increasing on our rural roads and that the value of the dollar to maintain and construct roads is going down. This extra money on the rural roads will help us to maintain our good rural road system.

I am sure that raising the basic exemption for succession duty from $100,000 to $150,000 will meet with general approval.

Mr. Lawlor: A completely purblind policy. We get no money out of death duties at all.

Mr. Root: Another highlight in the budget was the removal of sales tax from a list of certain household and personal hygiene items --

Mr. Lawlor: How can taxes hurt us after will die?

Mr. McIlveen: We can always tell when it hurts over there, because he starts to holler.

Mr. Lawlor: That is when it hurts the least.

Mr. Root: -- when purchased from retail stores for home consumption, and for the purchase of shoes up to $30 a pair. This will take care of the situation that developed when some of the children had larger feet than those of the average child.

Mr. McIlveen: How’s the member’s brother- in-law?

Mr. Lawlor: We won’t even notice the pain.

Mr. Root: I am sure that our people will appreciate the fact that it would require less than six months of the provincial revenue to wipe out the public debt if we were to use all of our revenue for that purpose. In other words, the finances of the province are on a sound basis. We in Ontario have remained strong and prosperous because we have lived for some 30 years under sound Progressive Conservative policies --

An hon. member: And we’ll be around for another 30 years.

Mr. Lawlor: There’s nothing like hoodwinking themselves.

Mr. Root: -- policies that create the climate for people to manage their own affairs and expect a reasonable return on their investment, their hours of labour or their professional service.

This policy of creating a climate for people to run their own affairs has been pursued since the days when Sir John A. Macdonald, the founder of the Conservative Party and the first Premier of Canada, against tremendous opposition, the same as we have here today, built a railway across the continent and made it possible for the people to move in and develop this great nation of which we are all so justly proud.

Mr. Lawlor: Using federal government money. What is the hon. member talking about?

Mr. Root: The Conservative government here in Ontario has preserved the same policy, developing sources of energy, hydro-electric power, fossil-fired generators and now nuclear development-

Mr. Lawlor: Socialism pure and simple.

Mr. Root: -- giving us the energy to turn the wheels of industry and providing the job opportunities for the millions of new people who have come to establish their homes here in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Great province. Is there any place you’d rather be?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: Has the member got any more examples of free enterprise?

Mr. Root: Yes, you could take a look at Saskatchewan where they haven’t had free enterprise; the people are getting out of there. That has probably aggravated our housing problem; they are coming down here for jobs and to get a home.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right.

Mr. Lawlor: Down with OHC!

Mr. Cassidy: Down with Hydro!

Mr. Root: Transportation arteries have been financed --

Mr. Lawlor: It is holding up everything.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Root: Transportation arteries have been financed and built all over the province and are being extended into all areas of the province; not only road transportation, but air transportation. We have provided the educational facilities that have made it possible for our young people to receive advanced education that it was not possible to achieve under the system we inherited after nine years of Liberal government.

It is true that our educational system has cost and is costing us a lot of money. There is no reasonable way that could be avoided.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Look what it produces.

Mr. Root: When I ran my first election at the time the Conservative Party took power, we had something between 600,000 and 700,000 pupils in our three levels of education. The last time I checked it was over 2,200,000. That made it necessary to build many new schools, colleges and universities. These schools, colleges and universities had to be staffed, and no longer could you expect teachers to teach under the low salaries they received in the 1930s when we had another party in power.

I know of many public school teachers who taught school at $500 and $600 a year; and high school teachers who started teaching at less than $3,000.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which party was in power?

Mr. Root: The Liberals.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, the Liberals.

Mr. Root: All of that has been changed, and as a result we find the vast majority of our population have moved into a reasonably high income bracket and are contributing tremendous amounts of money to personal income tax --

An hon. member: We have the highest tax in the world.

Mr. Root: -- retail sales tax, gasoline and fuel tax, tobacco tax, and vehicle registration fees and liquor control board profits. The few items that I’ve mentioned, it is estimated, will bring in possibly over $4 billion worth of revenue in the next fiscal year.

In other words, what I’m saying is that our educational system, while it has been costly, has paid off. We have moved our people into an income bracket where they can have a good living and contribute substantial amounts of money to the Treasury in the ways that I have mentioned, and in other ways. If you add in the corporation and mining taxes, we would be talking about an estimated $4,746,000,000.

I’m sure that everyone will be pleased to know that additional revenue will be raised from the profits of our corporations and mining tax resources. All these revenues are associated with the prosperous, progressive economy that has been brought about under the sound policies that have been pursued by the Conservative government.

Mr. G. Nixon: Give us more of the truth.

Mr. Root: All of our main sources of revenue are related to prosperity. I would just interject this: I’m sure that Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Turner are very happy that Ontario has prospered as it has prospered under this government, or they would be left with only half of their revenue.

An hon. member: They would be dead without us. They’re dead anyway.

Mr. Lawlor: Those interjections are completely irrelevant.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are only two members of the NDP present.

Mr. Cassidy: My brothers are with us in spirit.

Mr. Root: That revenue will help them to subsidize the provinces which haven’t had the good fortune to live under Conservative government for 30 years.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at the budget and realize what it means to the future of this province, I’m surprised that the opposition parties had the temerity to get up in the House and move amendments.

Mr. Lawlor: Good for you.

Mr. Root: I want to say something about the speeches that were made, first by the hon. member for Kitchener speaking for the Liberal Party.

I came into the House and heard the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Apps) challenge a figure that he gave regarding the population of Kingston. The members will find the remarks on page 1083. I took the trouble to read through his speech. I found some more unfounded statements on page 1073.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Shame.

Mr. Root: He was making reference to moneys that certain members of the Legislature received for services in connection with the government. I noted his reference to what I was paid for the days when I sat as a member on the Environmental Hearing Board. The figure that he used is not a statement of fact. At no time was I ever paid the amount that he put in the statement.

An hon. member: Oh, well, that’s the way they all are.

Mr. Root: That’s the second time the member for Kitchener has inserted in 3,000 copies of Hansard wrong statements regarding the amount of money --

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, come off it. The member for Wellington-Dufferin did fairly well for himself.

Mr. Root: -- that I have been paid for the service I rendered on the Water Resources Commission and on the Environmental Hearing Board.

Mr. Cassidy: How much was he paid then?

Mr. Root: The statement that he used in the past --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is on the record.

Mr. Root: -- as broadcast by the news media is a complete distortion of the facts. I brought it to the attention of the House that it was not a statement of fact and I thought he would probably have had the courtesy to get up and apologize. However, he did not do that.

Mr. Cassidy: He cannot apologize until he knows the facts.

Mr. Root: I am not going to say the hon. member is not an honourable member, but I am going to say that he had better get a better research staff, or stay out of his law office and do his own research and write his own speeches --

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Root: -- because the people who are writing the speeches that he reads, or providing him with the material that goes into the speeches, are really destroying the credibility of everything he says.

Mr. Cassidy: Put the facts on the record.

Mr. Root: I have drawn attention two or three times to instances when this member has made statements that had no relation to facts, according to the member for Kingston and the Islands and according to the records as far as I am personally concerned. Having said that, in no way can I support his amendment to the budget statement, because I’m not sure whether any of the statements that he used were carefully researched and are facts, or whether they are off the top of the head of some irresponsible person providing him with figures without adequate research and destroying the member’s credibility.

Mr. Cassidy: We want to know how much the member was paid.

Mr. Root: I notice when the hon. member was referring to the amounts of money paid to members for services rendered, in addition to their pay as members of the Legislature, he failed to mention the extra money paid to himself as chairman of the public accounts committee and to the fact that his leader is paid more than cabinet ministers are paid. The leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) receives extra money, plus car, and opposition members as well as government members are paid for the time they serve on select committees.

Mr. Cassidy: They are worth it too, especially the leader of the NDP.

Mr. Root: It seems to me, if the member was putting into Hansard what members are paid for their services, to be fair he should have put in what the opposition members are paid as well as government members.

Mr. Cassidy: But the member could set a precedent by saying how much he was paid.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, if the member reads Hansard, he will find what I was paid. I put it in Hansard. If he would read Hansard a bit instead of yakking all the time, without knowing what he is talking about --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s all I wanted to know.

Mr. Root: -- he would probably be able to keep his seat in the House instead of walking out.

Mr. Speaker, I looked at the speech of the hon. member for York South, a man who I had always felt perhaps did his research more efficiently than the financial critic for the Liberal Party. However, I noticed in his address, speaking for the NDP, he was interrupted some 36 times by members of his own party. This seems to indicate to me they didn’t have confidence in his ability to present the views of that party.

Mr. Cassidy: Not at all. We give the same treatment to both sides.

Mr. Lawlor: I take it we were supporting him.

Mr. Root: I think we can only come to the conclusion again that even the members of his own party did not have confidence in all of the things he was saying.

Mr. Lawlor: It was plaudits, my friend.

An hon. member: They stabbed him in the back a long time ago.

Mr. Root: I am only referring to the interjections where the name of a member was tied to them. There were other interjections that may have come from his party.

Mr. Lawlor: This is my 36th interjection to the member’s speech.

Mr. Cassidy: And he hasn’t said anything yet.

Mr. Root: I suppose some of these interjections which were from his own party came from people who perhaps feel they should receive more recognition. In going over the results in the last provincial election, I find there is only one member of the NDP in the front row who received a clear majority, and that is the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes). Other members in the second row did receive majority votes, namely the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr), the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel).

I note the member for High Park has said he is fed up and is going to get out of politics. I’m afraid he made a mistake when he joined that party. I suppose he is very unhappy, having won a clear majority in his own riding, to sit behind people who couldn’t get half the votes in the ridings they represent.

I might say for the benefit of people who are very satisfied with the results of the by- elections that not one of the members who won those by-elections got half the votes in the riding. They got in on a split vote.

Mr. Cassidy: The member got a majority and look at how much he contributes to this House.

Mr. Root: I’ve had a majority in my last three elections. In 1963, if I’d had another 130 votes I’d have had twice as many votes as all the combined opposition.

An hon. member: How many votes is he going to get in the next?

Mr. Lawlor: That just proves something about majorities; that’s all.

An hon. member: He’ll be running like the wild goose.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): What kind of smart crack is that?

Mr. Root: In the last election, I took more votes than the three men who were running against me.

Mr. Lawlor: This is the weirdest argument I have ever heard.

Mr. Root: I know that type of majority is not really known in the NDP. They don’t seem to be able to get the majority of people until they get in the corner. That’s how they get in, on split votes.

Mr. Cassidy: But we do bloody well for the voters we got.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Root: I have often wondered, as I watched the member for Sudbury East pile up the majority that he piled up in that riding, why his party doesn’t make him the leader. He seems to have a lot to say, interjecting and commenting on various matters. I suppose he is very uneasy having to sit and listen to people attempting to lead his party, who couldn’t get half the votes in their own ridings. However, Mr. Speaker, that is just an aside.

Let me conclude my remarks by saying that, having read the budget address and the addresses of the hon. member for Kitchener and the hon. member for York South, there is no way I can see how any responsible, reasonable person can vote other than to support the budget presented by the hon. provincial Treasurer. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Would the House leader adjourn the debate?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Does somebody else want to move the adjournment? There may be some speakers here. If not, I will adjourn the debate.

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

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Before I move the adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning we will deal with legislation in this order: First item 24, Bill 137; second, order No. 35, Bill 152; third, order No. 21, Bill 134.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.