Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

ACUPUNCTURE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health what action he is going to take about this acupuncture business, since he said last September that the acupuncture quacks were invading the province, and now there is evidence that they are here and apparently no action has been taken?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to confirm the quotations in a Toronto paper today allegedly made by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I believe it was the deputy registrar, Mr. Donald Aiken, who was said to say that I had asked him not to do anything. Now I don’t know whether he said that to the press or not, but I can assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that that is not the position of my ministry.

As a matter of fact, we have been doing our best to get the college to carry out the enrolment of those people whom they consider to be qualified to practice on reference by a physician.

Fair progress was being made in that direction in the sense that after some jurisdictional discussion as to whether it was our duty to do this or theirs, they have formed a committee and, I understand, have drawn up the necessary requirements for a lay acupuncturist before he can be acknowledged as capable to perform. They are at the point of getting these into action right now. I’m told, in fact, that the letter was on its way to me as of yesterday outlining these requirements.

So the college does have the right to prosecute anyone who is performing a medical act that is in any way illegal. Their statement that they didn’t have the manpower to do this, if it’s true, would bother me and I think it would bother the other members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: The minister says that they can’t do anything that is illegal. It’s up to him and up to us to make it clear what is legal and what is not. Why not?

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that in defining acupuncture as a medical act it is automatically illegal to be practised by any person not recognized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since this minister’s statement in September expressed concern about this, what is he doing about it?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That’s a very good question.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is a very good question.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Now answer it.

Mr. Deans: How about a very good answer?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I have been pressing the college on a very regular basis to do what I understood their role to be, and that was, in fact, to recognize people to whom physicians could refer a patient. There was a division, as you know. Some physicians say no one but a physician should perform acupuncture. However, the college has not taken that position. They have to recognize the people who could perform it and they are in the process of doing it right now.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Wentworth have a question?

Mr. Deans: Why is it the college hasn’t acted, prior to this time, in regard to the hygienic matters that were raised in the paper? What is it about the college that it’s unable to establish some sort of standards for the clinic itself, aside from whether or not the reference was made to Dr. Kim -- or Mr. Kim -- by a physician or otherwise? What is the minister doing to investigate that aspect of it? If he’s operating in the Province of Ontario without the proper hygienic controls then why is it allowed?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we get into the very fundamental argument each time these questions arise as to whether self-governing bodies are self-governing or not.

Mr. Deans: They are as long as they do the job.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I agree with the member completely. The implication here is that they only have that right if they do the job.

Mr. Deans: And they are not doing the job.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That would be my concern about the statement allegedly made by them today when they said they didn’t have the manpower. I say they must have the manpower if they want the right to be self-governing.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions? The Leader of the Opposition.

LAND PURCHASES IN HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Treasurer concerning his announcement yesterday about the new town policy and the acquisition of land in the Haldimand end of the region. What about the comment that has been made by the planning people in the area that it’s downwind from Nanticoke and maybe is not the most beautiful pastoral setting beside the Grand River that ever was thought of?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Sir, it is actually downwind of Lake Erie. When there are winds from the west-by-southwest -- as we expressed it in the navy -- it is still beyond the very large area set aside for industrial pollution minimization. In other words, when one looks at the “Threshold for Change” report one sees that this city site is well beyond that boundary line.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Wouldn’t it be prudent on the part of the chief planner for the province to consult with some of the local planners when a decision of this magnitude is made rather than just say it’s possible we’ll have a new town site and comment that they didn’t seem very interested in it? Surely it’s the responsibility of the chief planner to see that the planning function works at the local level, rather than simply having come from his own brow, full blown, the concept he enunciated yesterday.

Hon. Mr. White: In fairness, Mr. Speaker, this idea didn’t leap full blown from my brow. This came from a very expensive and extensive study called “Threshold for Change.” This is one of the city sites singled out and commented on as appropriate by those professionals. There was no way of consulting a large number of people in the area while protecting the interests of Mr. and Mrs. Ontario Taxpayer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just one further supplementary. With specific reference to those properties, was it brought to the Treasurer’s attention when he returned from his travels that some of those properties are being, I guess, leased back to the farmers, with the responsibility lying with the farmers to pay municipal taxes? They are going to have an extra burden, since the tax bills on the property came to the owner of the property, that’s the Ontario government, and by the time they got back to the farmers -- if they are, in fact, back at all -- there is a penalty, I believe, of 1 1/2 per cent per month. Has the Treasurer got the information on that? If there are penalties, is the Treasurer prepared to pay them on behalf of the people who work the property?

Hon. Mr. White: The Minister of Government Services is informed about this.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A point of order. The question was raised two or three weeks ago with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) and it was directed to the Treasurer. Why don’t we know about this?

Mr. Speaker: A question can be redirected to the appropriate minister, now if he wishes. Does the member wish an answer to this?

Hon. Mr. White: The Minister of Government Services has an answer for the member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh yes.

LAND PURCHASES IN HALDIMAND-NORFOLK

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, the tax bills for the land in the first acquisition, the Haldimand-Norfolk land that was purchased last spring, I am advised arrived at our offices on Nov. 14, with a due date of Nov. 15.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But in any case, the decision has been made that the tax bills will be paid, and are in the process of being paid now by my ministry, if they have not already done so. As part of the leasing arrangement of leasing the land to the farmers, the taxes for the particular farm will be added to the lease arrangement and will be paid back to the government on that basis. But we are paying the taxes to the municipality in one block.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the ministry paying a penalty?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m not sure of that at the moment; but, as I say, I was advised that the tax bills arrived -- and we are not quite that quick to get them all paid in one day.

Mr. Speaker: Any further supplementaries.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Deacon: Has the minister instructed his planners not to use any of the class 1 and class 2 agricultural land in any of the city developments along Lake Erie?

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, there is no class 1 land.

Mr. Deacon: Is there any class 2?

Hon. Mr. White: And while some proposals are marked class 2, I am assured by my distinguished colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), that it will be unwise to try to keep that heavy Haldimand clay in these two sites in perpetuity. There are half a dozen --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There will be one --

Hon. Mr. White: Just a minute. My, the member is twitchy this morning, what’s the matter?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are wondering what the Treasurer is doing with his tie there.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Did it fall in the soup this morning?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Are things a little foggy this morning?

Hon. Mr. White: No. The soils in the Cayuga site are heavy Haldimand clay.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Some of the best alfalfa in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. White: I wondered at one time -- and had a number of conversations with the Minister of Agriculture about whether we could single out good farm lands to be kept in food production in perpetuity, while increasing the density on the remaining lands; the supposition being that having the higher densities surrounded by growing crops would make the higher densities more tolerable.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food and his officials have studied these lands and say that there are no lands in that city site which are worth preserving in that fashion. There are some very good farm lands just to the northeast of Dunnville and, by putting population density into the Cayuga site, we will be able to preserve those very good farm lands northeast of Dunnville.

Insofar as the Jarvis site is concerned, there are half a dozen first class farms on the periphery which will be kept in food production in perpetuity by way of a green belt.

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

FIRE SAFETY ON LICENSED PREMISES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the minister in charge of the Liquor Licence Board if he is aware that his inspectors are responsible for fire safety in all licensed premises? Is he further aware that the inspectors are not required to inform the local fire departments, fire chiefs or fire inspection services, but keep these responsibilities for inspection and requiring improvements to be made entirely independent from local fire services? Does he believe that to be the way the operation should be working? Or does he agree with the resolution put forward by the city of Brantford complaining about this independence and the fact that there isn’t this clear flow of information?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware that some time ago, for purposes known at that time, under the Hotel Fire Safety Act, liquor licence inspectors were acting as agents, I presume on behalf of the fire marshal, to complete inspections in licensed premises. I personally believe in these instances it would be in the best interests of all if another agency completed those inspections, be it the local fire department or be it inspectors from the fire marshal’s office, because I find my liquor inspectors in the difficult position of perhaps checking into a room on the third floor that may well not comply with the requirements of the Hotel Fire Safety Act, and I really wonder what concern it has to my board for our interest in the licensed premises downstairs.

I don’t want this construed as my saying we don’t care if there is a fire trap upstairs; of course, we do. Where there are technical breaches of the Act in terms of rooms for accommodation on several floors up, I fail to see how that really ties in with the responsibilities imposed upon the Liquor Licence Board. I have made my views known. I think the Leader of the Opposition will find that there will be a change within a matter of days. I don’t see that as the role of the liquor inspector.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I agree. Supplementary: Might we expect these long-bruited amendments within a matter of days?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I would like to see them within a matter of days. I can’t give that undertaking because it is not my legislation. A meeting was conducted in my office earlier this morning with the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board, who is concerned about his inspectors being in this position and I hope to discuss it with my colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), within the next day or two.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would it be no part of the legislation dealing with the LLBO that has been mentioned by the minister and others so frequently?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, it does not form part of that. I don’t see it as our responsibility. There may be others who will argue with me on it, but I don’t see that as the role of the liquor inspectors.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary then.

Mr. Laughren: In his discussions with Mr. Mackey this morning, did the minister discuss the possibility of delaying implementation of the regulations under Bill 146, I believe, which would put a lot of the student pubs in the province out of commission?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, that has no relation to the question that was asked originally.

Mr. Laughren: Well, he talked to Mr. Mackey.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

STUDENT PUBS

Mr. Deans: Since my colleague has asked the question, let me put the same question to the minister. What is wrong with Mackey that he does this? Does the minister realize the tremendous cost that will be involved, not to talk about the fact that one pub, say at the University of Toronto, wouldn’t be sufficient to meet the needs and that it will just simply be pushing people out into the streets and perhaps even causing problems?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’d like to make a comment on that, if I might, Mr. Speaker. A year ago last June this House, under Bill 146, provided for the establishment of canteens on university campuses and/or community colleges. Many of these institutions, for one reason or another, have not seen fit to make application to have premises licensed as canteens under that legislation. Some of these operations are conducted five and six nights per week.

The Liquor Licence Board has encouraged these institutions and the operators of the student pubs to make application. It is much cheaper. There are many advantages to them. If they have six special occasion permits a week, it costs them $90. They can have an annual licence for $10. It saves paper handling down here. When there is a postal strike and these applications are held up in the mail, great difficulty and inconvenience arise to all parties.

A student publication very learnedly pointed out in an article I read some two or three weeks ago that there will only be one per campus. I think there are 11 now at Carleton and I don’t know how many at the University of Toronto. It said, “Don’t blame Mr. Mackey, the chairman of the board; blame Clement, because he directed Mackey to do this.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Very wise.

Mr. Deans: They know who to blame.

Hon. Mr. Clement: But it’s very contradictory, and I told some students this at a university two weeks ago. Nobody has ever spoken to me about it, and no one has ever spoken to the chairman about it. Whereupon it came to my attention that a certain group of students were given a small grant by a cheque to come down to see us. They cashed the cheque but never came near us. They reported back, “We can’t do anything with those guys in Toronto.”

Mr. Deans: They must have been Tories.

Mr. Ruston: They never got out of the pub.

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, the intention of the legislation -- my gosh, I introduced it myself; why would I tell them not to issue licences? -- the intention of the legislation is to assist. I don’t think it’s a big issue. We are going to invite those who seem to have difficulty in understanding it to meet with us next week in an effort to accommodate them.

Mr. Deans: At whose expense?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Send them a voucher.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I don’t know how they’ll handle the voucher for the trip this time, but I’ll leave that up to their very fertile imaginations.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? A supplementary?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I’d like to ask the minister when he is going to bring in the general legislation that will deal with these matters. He has been talking about it for quite a while. What is holding that up?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It will be brought in this session, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We can deal with it the week before Christmas.

An hon. member: A very appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary; the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): At the risk of having it said that there is a conflict of interest -- and the minister knows my views on this matter; I’ve talked to him privately about it -- it doesn’t affect me, but I want to tell him, sir, that he is ruining the hotel industry in the Province of Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please The original question --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): What is the question?

Mr. Sargent: -- by the proliferation of these licences to colleges and universities.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the member have a question?

Mr. Sargent: That’s it.

Mr. MacDonald: The question is, is the minister ruining the hotel industry?

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary. The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Can the minister assure us that there is no problem in the legislation with the licensing of the pubs on student campuses where the student council has been running it and it is an incorporated entity, that in fact the licence can go to them rather than requiring that they go through or to a university administration official?

Mr. Laughren: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I would direct the hon. member’s attention to the specific legislation which says that the application must be completed by the administrator of the institution or his delegated authority. The rationale when that was incorporated in the Act a year ago June was that in the main these are publicly supported and financed institutions; and since individual students come and go and there are personnel changes within that group, there is less likely to have that kind of transient turnover with an administrator of the institution. Where the difficulty has arisen, I think, is that the student groups and/or the institutions have felt that if the administrator applies for it, then the operation of it should be vested in the administrator or his delegated authority and the profits, if any, generated from the operation should remain with the institution.

I want to put myself on record here, right now, as saying that I am not concerned, nor is the board, as to the operation of it insofar as who does it. We want somebody to whom we can look who is reasonable, namely the administrator or his delegated authority; and insofar as any profits are concerned, that is none of my business.

That, I think, is the nub of the difficulty that has kept a lot of student groups from going forward on this basis and being licensed in these particular establishments. As I said earlier, the legislation is there to help them, to get rid of the paper work -- and it will help them financially too.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Wentworth have any further questions?

Mr. C. J. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands): A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I said the last supplementary was the final supplementary. You can ask a question in just a moment.

Mr. Apps: May I ask a question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are not finished over here yet. We’ll get to the hon. member in a moment.

The member for Wentworth has a new question?

ADVERTISING TO LOW-INCOME GROUPS

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations a question in regard to advertising. Does the minister think it appropriate that firms should direct their advertising to persons in the following way: “On mothers’ allowance? -- New on the job? -- In Ontario Housing? -- Have been refused by any other rent-or-own company before?” Does he think that that kind of advertising is useful in the Province of Ontario, or does he think that maybe some action could be taken to have companies stop directing advertising to low income groups in that way?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t seen the ad to which the hon. member refers. It might be that it pertains to a particular service or a particular product that might appeal to someone in a particular economic or social group, so I really have no comment to offer. Perhaps I might read it and comment to the member after the House rises later today.

LOTTERY FOR HAMILTON H.O.M.E. LOTS

Mr. Deans: I only want to ask one further question. Can I ask the Minister of Housing whether he has completed his inquiries into the recently-run lottery in the Hamilton area?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): I am sorry, I didn’t hear the question.

Mr. Deans: Has the minister completed his inquiries into the recently-run lottery in the Hamilton area?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. I have undertaken with the hon. member to investigate this more fully and to consider his suggestion that we might have a standing committee to consider it.

Mr. Deans: Might I ask, by way of a supplementary question, whether the minister would be prepared to make available the list of people whose names were drawn and the master list of all of the names that were drawn, over and above those that did in fact qualify?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if that list is available, I would be happy to provide it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Kingston and the Islands with his question.

STUDENT PUBS

Mr. Apps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, will the colleges or universities where it is not practical to have licensed facilities still be able to get special occasion permits for some of their functions?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would think so, Mr. Speaker. The legislation, referred to as Bill 146 in 1973, as I interpret it is not mandatory. This is not the only avenue open. In those outlets on campus that are being run rather regularly, I would think, for a number of reasons I touched on earlier, it is in their best interests. I would encourage them to do it just to save the paperwork and inconvenience; because I can tell the members that when we had a recent mail strike a number of these applications were delayed in the mail and I can tell you who got the calls about them, Mr. Speaker, and I would just as soon not bother the next time around. So I don’t look at the legislation as being mandatory. It is there to assist and for the convenience of the people.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

DENIAL OF HOSPITAL PRIVILEGES

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Health. Is the minister concerned at all with the rights and privileges of Dr. William Manax, characterized in the Toronto Star yesterday as “a renowned transplant surgeon,” who has been denied privileges at Victoria Hospital in London, and who stated this morning on CBC that as a result of lacking an FRCS fellowship he is now going to have to return to the United States?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned and I took the time yesterday to learn a fair amount about the situation. I find it difficult to discuss an individual’s qualifications, or lack of qualifications, lest the information given to me be incorrect. However, it is the duty of a hospital board and its medical advisory committee to ensure that a person being admitted to practice as a specialist meets their requirements and, assuming that he meets their requirements on a technical basis, that in fact they also have a need for that person within their organization. I understand the hospital board has made a decision in the negative. This gentleman does have the right to appeal that decision to the hospital appeal board.

Mr. Bullbrook: Recognizing that the doctor himself has said that the matter would likely end up in the Supreme Court of Canada if he took that viewpoint -- the same situation which obtained in the case of our friend Dr. Schiller, if the minister will recall -- premising that there are surgeons permitted to practice such surgery in London without an FRCS certificate, and recognizing that there is a type of operation named after this man, doesn’t the minister think it would serve the public of not only London but Ontario and perhaps Canada, to have him remain and provide his services to our people?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it’s easy to generalize like that and yet --

Mr. Deacon: Generalize?

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- of all the members in this House, the member for Sarnia is one who has the greatest respect for law. I have heard him talk on this basis a number of times while I have been here and I have always respected that point of view.

Mr. Deans: Does that mean there are some with less respect?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, I don’t want to throw any bouquets the wrong way.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Keep to the question please.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The fact remains that if the member could suggest to me how we could give both parties to a dispute the opportunity to have a decision reviewed and to speed the processes up any faster, I would be delighted to find ways of making it easier and faster for the due process to be effected. We have three steps in the process right now, as members know. The first is the hospital appeal board and the next two, unfortunately, are the courts.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister knows what happened to Dr. Schiller.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I know what happened to Dr. Schiller. Dr. Schiller had one decision made by the hospital appeal board and a reverse decision made by the courts. Does that imply the system is wrong?

Mr. Bullbrook: No, it doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Miller: That’s what I’m trying to say. If the member can suggest to me how we can have a system that ensures either party fair play, that cuts out any of those steps and still protects a person in law, I’m delighted to look at them.

Mr. Bullbrook: One final supplementary, if I may: Recognizing the integrity of purpose on the part of the minister and without interfering in the due process, could the minister possibly concern himself personally in this matter, having regard to the qualifications of this man?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’ve already made certain inquiries into those qualifications. I want to make sure the information I have is correct.

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

CARBON MONOXIDE LEVELS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Inasmuch as the permissible level for carbon monoxide in places of work is 50 parts per million in Ontario and in the United States the occupational safety and health administration is proposing a standard of 35 parts per million, will the minister consider reducing the level in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am very willing to review the levels in Ontario in the event that the level in the States is more meaningful. The problem the member is speaking of is one that we constantly face, as he knows, in occupational health hazards. Arbitrary criteria are set in the hope that they’re adequate. Experience shows they either are or are not. If the United States experience indicates it is correct in reducing it, I would be pleased to see us follow suit.

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

CABLE TELEVISION RATES

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I would like to ask the minister the present status of the CRTC hearings with respect to cable television. I know that a brief went forward from his ministry, but was there a verbal presentation? I would also like to know if we are having approval of one flat rate in all cable TV areas and what the status is with respect to this added facility that goes with the converter. What is the present situation?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to the recent CRTC hearings that were held here in Toronto, on Nov. 25. This dealt with applications made by a number of cable companies for increased rates. That is the regular procedure. I cannot tell him what the status is. The CRTC have held their hearings and they will in their good time eventually make their findings known.

The other part of the member’s question I think was dealing with one of the applications which was to require all customers of the particular applicant to have a converter attached to their sets, that it would be a requirement and they would not have an alternative. If they had the service, they would require this converter, which was going to result in a considerable increase in the monthly rate. The province through myself and my ministry made a representation to the CRTC objecting to this. Although this was received, I cannot tell the member what the decision was. At this time, they have not made any decision on the hearing.

Mr. Kennedy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I could: So we’re interested in protecting the consumer with respect to the converter. What about the rate increases? I read in the paper that they were to go to $8. Are there going to be representations in that respect?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right; keep at it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that $8 fee was the one that related to the company that made application to have the converter as a part of the overall basic service. This is the one we objected to most strenuously. We did enter an objection on the general increases that were being requested, but primarily on that particular case.

If I can take a moment of the time, Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that what is occurring here is one applicant was saying that the basic 12 channels now received by his customers were going to be increased by the addition of this converter box on the set, and that the customer who had a contract for the basic service was going to be forced to have this converter on his set or he would have a blank screen. We objected to this, saying that the decision as to whether or not to accept this increased service and increased fee should be a decision made by the customer. In particular, where the company has a monopoly situation they should not be able to go in and make this arbitrary decision as to what service their customers would get.

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Our time is running short and I think we have had enough supplementaries on this.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I think the hon. member should be heard.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

CEMA PROGRAMME

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Owing to the fact that there has been very little publicity given to the outcome of the meeting of the provincial Ministry of Agriculture and the federal Minister of Agriculture regarding the CEMA programme, I am wondering if the minister would comment on any proposals that were made and endorsed by the minister regarding the structure of the agency, the pricing policy across provincial boundaries, and the allocation and policing of quotas.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Yes, I would be very glad to, Mr. Speaker. Do you want me to do that in answer to a question or would you prefer to let me make a comment before the orders of the day?

Mr. Speaker: If it is fairly lengthy I would suggest before the orders of the day.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have no hesitancy about doing it but I think it would take a little bit of time now. I will be guided by your advice.

Mr. Speaker: I think that would be the better action.

The member for Sudbury.

GOVERNMENT USE OF TRAVEL AGENCY

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Treasurer. When people in his ministry are called upon to travel, why is it insisted upon that their travel arrangements be made with a particular designated travel agency, and was this agency selected by tender?

Hon. Mr. White: I don’t know about that, sir. The arrangements were made before I came along, but I will be glad to get the answer. I do know that when I was the Minister of Industry and Tourism we were using a half a dozen agencies. The amount of business was not very large, the service we got was not very good, and so we did have a selection process and we did select one or two of those agencies.

Mr. Sargent: A division of Gulf Canada.

Hon. Mr. White: If there is any suggestion that the present agency for my ministry has been given some kind of preference, I can assure this House that isn’t so.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Germa: In cases where large groups travel, such as to the PMLC meeting in Sudbury recently, is the minister not aware that if he booked direct through Air Canada, rather than going through the booking agent, he would get a discount to the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. White: No, I am not aware of that. I am perfectly sure that we are getting the best prices that are going.

Mr. Speaker: The Ministry of Housing has an answer to a question.

OHC LAND PURCHASES IN OTTAWA AREA

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) asked me on Nov. 26 the following question:

“Would the minister give the House the information pertaining to a number of transactions by Ontario Housing in the Ottawa area, more specifically a purchase of 1.3 acres on Donald St. by Thomas Assaly Corp. Ltd., purchased in July for $105,000 and then sold in March, eight months later, for $273,000 to Ontario Housing? Would the minister advise why a similar 1.3 acres in Vanier, called the Green Valley Lumber, on Montreal Rd., was then purchased for half a million dollars, which is approximately twice the price the city of Vanier is paying for land in that area?”

A similar question was asked by the member for Carleton East (Mr. P. Taylor). I would like to reply to both questions at this particular time.

At the outset I should say that the site referred to on Donald St. was not purchased as an individual property, but rather as part of a total development package which included the construction of 241 senior-citizen units. The project, which has recently been completed, was one of 26 proposals submitted to the Ontario Housing Corp. in response to a public competitive call for proposals which closed in December, 1971. Under the call-for-proposal method of development, which was in effect at that time but has since been replaced by the tender call approach, proposals were invited from builders for the development of projects based on their designs and often on their sites. Under this old technique, the prime consideration was the total price offered rather than the separate and individual values of the land and building. It was the total package price that counted.

The proposals which were received in response to this call were reviewed by OHC in consultation with representatives of the city of Ottawa, the local housing authority and Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. in terms of price, design and the suitability of the locations of the sites offered. The prices of the proposals submitted ranged from $10,535 to $14,283 a unit, including the land. The one on Donald St. which was submitted by Assaly under the name of LLK Construction Ltd., was offered at a price of $10,950, including land at $1,140. In accordance with OHC practice, its senior appraiser evaluated the proposal. His estimate of value, which I am tabling today, indicates that Assaly’s package price for land and buildings, in comparison to other submissions, represents good value. His assessment of the value of the land at $1,100 is approximately equivalent to the $1,140 land component put forward by Assaly.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister produce the files so we can judge it; and not have to take his word for it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As in the case of other proposals submitted, modifications in design were required. In the case of the Donald St. project it was necessary for Assaly to --

Mr. Sargent: Keep the lid on. That’s all the minister has got to do; keep the lid on.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- reduce the number of units from 251 to 241 and to negotiate with the owners of adjoining lands to provide access to Donald St., as well as to acquire additional land for a vehicular turning circle to meet the planning requirements of the city.

Following the resolution of these planning requirements and other necessary changes to the design, an increase in price from $10,950 to $11,650 was granted in October, 1972, to reflect the changes made.

I would like to point out that this increase related to the cost of the building only, and was supported by the senior appraiser’s evaluation. The cost of the land remained the same. I should also add that the revised price has remained firm throughout the entire two years of the construction period, a period of rapidly increasing construction costs, not only in Ottawa but all over Ontario. I say again, Mr. Speaker, the land price remained constant even though additional land was added.

On the question of the cost of the Donald St. site, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that Assaly optioned the property in the fall of 1971. This was the time Assaly’s purchase price was established. It was not until March, 1973, about 1½ years later, that the site was conveyed to OHC.

Mr. Singer: When did they agree to buy it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In summary, I would say that the project submitted by Assaly Corp. was a highly competitive one. There were five contracts awarded under this call far proposals for about 1,100 units; at unit prices, including land, ranging from $11,500 to $12,300. Assaly’s per unit price was $11,650. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this compares very favourably in that it was the second lowest contract price. Further, it was accepted by GMHC, which carries out its own appraisals before extending federal financing.

Turning to the acquisition of the former Green Valley Lumber property in Vanier, the price paid was $510,000. Initially the vendor, whose family owned the property for about 48 years, asked a price of $625,000. This was reduced to $510,000 after lengthy negotiations.

I am very pleased to say that the agreed price was substantially less than the value determined at that time by F. Lavoie, of Titley Inc., and F. Petry, two local, independent appraisers with the accreditation of the Appraisal Institute of Canada and an intimate knowledge of market conditions in the Ottawa-Vanier area. Both of these professionals valued the property at $560,000. Ontario Housing Corp.’s senior appraiser, who has similar accreditation, valued the property in the range of $478,800 to $532,000.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the appraised values were determined in accordance with the present commercial zoning of the site. During the period of negotiations OHC staff, as well as one of the independent appraisers, discussed the prospects of changing the zoning to residential use. It was clear from these discussions that the municipality would support such a change.

There has been the suggestion that Ontario Housing Corp. paid twice as much for this property as the city of Vanier is paying for sites in the area. One of the sites referred to may be a property purchased by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton for the proposed Vanier arterial route. While this property was acquired at a substantially lower price, Mr. Speaker, we must be very mindful of the varying factors affecting value. I understand that the site for the arterial route is located in an industrial-commercial area --

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A matter of privilege.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have to take the strongest objection to this practice by the ministry, on behalf of myself and the member for Ottawa East who posed the original questions in connection with this issue. The minister has had this information for some time. He comes into the House and takes up to six minutes of the time for the question period --

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker will look after the length of the answer.

Mr. P. Taylor: -- and he expects us to be shorthand experts to take down all these statistics and information and to respond in kind, and we all know that the rules of this House do not provide us with an opportunity to respond in kind.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Read Hansard, Give him a course --

Mr. Sargent: The minister knows he is right. That’s why.

Mr. Ruston: It shows how bright they are.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): He’d better go back to Ottawa.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Two comments. No. 1: With an answer of that length, I suggest that the minister or any minister should read it before the orders of the day during statements by the ministry.

Mr. Ruston: It shows how bright they are.

Mr. Speaker: No. 2 is that the information will be on record for anyone to study. If the minister will continue, I’ll see how much time we will add to the question period.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It will be ready this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Yes?

Mr. P. Taylor: The point you have made just now, sir, is that the information the minister is reading into the record now will be on the record for later study. The point that is at issue here sir, is that the minister is making a statement to which, because of its nature, it is virtually impossible for us to respond now and in kind. He had that information at least an hour ago; he could have sent us a copy of it before he made the statement in the House.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker can’t control that. But certainly there will be an opportunity at a later time to ask whatever questions seem to arise from this.

Mr. Sargent: It is all a big put-up.

Mr. Bullbrook: He is definitely the next Speaker of the Parliament; we are looking to him.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): The member for Sarnia should run himself.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a further question?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, if I could carry on with the answer, there are only a few more sentences.

I understand that the site for the arterial route is located in an industrial-commercial area, two blocks north of Montreal Rd. The Green Valley Lumber property is located on Montreal Rd. and therefore has a significantly greater value. I might add that one of the independent appraisers was aware of the price paid by the municipality and took this and other sale transactions into account in arriving at his evaluation.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll be happy to do as you suggested, if I have lengthy answers in the future, and make them as statements to the House. But the members must remember that they asked me to reply as quickly as possible. I was not in the House yesterday. This morning was my first chance to answer. If this is the practice you wish to continue with, fair enough.

Mr. Speaker: There will be six minutes added to the question period.

The member for Waterloo North.

NOISE REGULATIONS

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Recognizing his avowed promise to release his model noise bylaw by the end of November, and since this is the last sitting day of the Legislature before the end of November, I presume we are going to have an announcement on it today. Will the minister be making an announcement today?

The second part of my question is, is the minister still determined to scuttle his original plans of having provincial noise regulations in effect all across the province and policed by this ministry?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in regard to the noise bylaw, I did indicate in the estimates it would be ready by the end of November. I understand that the model bylaw we are talking about will be ready by Nov. 30 --

Mr. Good: Today is Nov. 30.

Hon. W. Newman: No, it is not Nov. 30. As a matter of fact I’ve asked for it to be on my desk today. I anticipate that I will probably table the noise bylaw and make a statement on it early next week.

As for the member’s second point, yes, I did say in my estimates, and I continue to say, that we do have staff in the ministry still doing testing in some of the areas dealing with some of the noise problems in this province, but we will not be going out on a province-wide basis with staff to do testing and enforcement work at this point in time. We will be using the staff we have now to do the job by offering technical assistance to the municipalities throughout this province on their noise bylaws; and as the member knows, some of them want different things in their noise bylaws, depending on whether they are in a rural area or maybe in Metropolitan Toronto. We will be offering technical assistance on those bylaws.

Mr. Good: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Good: Why is the minister not producing regulations under the Environmental Protection Act which have been promised for three years in the matter of noise and now sloughing it off to the municipalities to do as they see fit? The ministry has been promising them for three years.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the member is not very consistent. We are saying now, in effect, that we are letting the municipalities do it. We are offering them technical assistance. The member is always saying we are taking things away from the municipalities. This time we are giving it back to them.

Mr. Good: Oh come on! The minister has had the authority for three years under the Act.

Hon. W. Newman: Let the member get his mind clear on exactly what he wants.

Mr. Sargent: What is the minister doing now?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES’ SALARIES

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: What further things is he doing now, perhaps in concert with the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) to ease the situation or have the situation resolved between the public health nurses and the medical officers of health in their dispute over salary since the time -- I think it was last summer -- when he indicated to the medical officers of health that the province would be making funds available for salary increases and asking them to submit new budgets in detail if the salary increases required such and so on? The situation still continues in which the medical officers of health have refused to give those salary increases to the public health nurses. What advice would the minister have for the nurses in this situation, and what is he doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the only other chemical engineer in the House, may I point out that we can’t have it both ways. We can’t have local boards with authority and the province overruling them all the time.

In this case, the local boards of health are partly financed by the government and partly financed by the municipalities they serve. This is unlike the hospitals where the entire budget comes from my ministry. We told the boards of health the point to which we would share in the costs of increased nursing salaries on our 75, 50 or 25 per cent basis, whichever it might be. They have the decision to make, as employers do, whether they would pass along the full maximum increase that we would share in, or more or less. All those options are open to them.

Almost unanimously, the boards of health have not passed the full increase on; which points out an interesting thing, that where health costs are shared at the municipal level a great deal of thought is given to increases before they are granted.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on this point.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: Would the ministry be willing to give its share, the 75 per cent or the 50 per cent of the maximum offer, even if the municipality would not give its share of that maximum offer?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, this bill carries out a commitment which I made in my 1974 budget that “in 1975 up to 20 per cent of OMERS net receipts be made available to the system for wider investment opportunities;” and that “this percentage will be increased from year to year as investment experience is developed by the OMERS organization.”

Beginning in 1975, OMERS will retain and invest an agreed-upon portion of its funds for investment in a wider range of securities to the limitations of the Pension Benefits Act. The amount will be as agreed upon by the Treasurer and the board of OMERS and it will be confirmed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The bill allows the board to appoint a committee composed of members of the board of OMERS, officers of OMERS and persons with senior investment or other financial management experience, and delegates to it the power to invest. The committee may assign such duties as it decides to an officer or officers.

May I add, Mr. Speaker, that the principles of the bill reflect the wishes of the board of the Ontario municipal employees’ retirement system and of the board’s investment advisors.

Mr. Riddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. A point of order?

Mr. Riddell: I believe you agreed, Mr. Speaker to permit the Minister of Agriculture and Food to answer my question before the orders of the day.

Mr. Speaker: What question was that?

Mr. Riddell: A question that I posed earlier. You agreed to permit an answer before the orders of the day. Did you not?

Mr. Speaker: That is not my understanding. The minister indicated he’d have a lengthy answer and it was suggested by himself, and concurred in by myself, that he might better present it as a statement before the orders.

Mr. Riddell: All right.

ST. ANDREW’S DAY

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could bring to your attention a matter of extreme importance to a great many people. Tomorrow being Nov. 30, happens to be St. Andrew’s Day.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure we all recognize St. Andrew.

Mr. Deans: You are lucky, because the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) isn’t here.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I’d like to table the answer to question No. 4 standing on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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: The member for Huron-Bruce may continue his remarks.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Speaker: Sorry; Grey-Bruce.

Mr. B. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, in finalizing my remarks on the budget, I am interested to see the approach of the Premier (Mr. Davis) to inflation. He says that this government is going to do a lot of belt tightening. Well, I guess with the junket to Italy that cost probably a million dollars

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): The member’s vote against Stanfield did it; it shows us where he stands on that issue.

Mr. Sargent: I am sorry?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How about that first question?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: The member for Grey-Bruce told us where he stands on that issue; he voted for Trudeau.

Mr. Sargent: For what?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the member just continue his remarks?

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Didn’t the member for Victoria-Haliburton vote for Trudeau? I thought everybody did.

Mr. Sargent: I would suggest that a junket to Italy for one million dollars is not belt tightening. It was an ego trip to gain votes for the next election --

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): That is all right; Trudeau sends his wife.

Mr. Sargent: And now we are going to have one go to Israel. They now have a WIN programme in the United States. Everybody wears buttons that say “Whip Inflation Now.” But everybody on the “blue side” over there could wear buttons saying, “Win Italy Now; Win Israel Now.” These are the things that they are using taxpayers’ funds for -- in blatant spending to get election votes.

I don’t know’ whether this story is true or not but --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Trudeau sends his people on booze money.

Mr. Sargent: I can’t prove that; but if the member is going on record, I guess he knows what he is talking about.

So the story is out now that when Mr. Davis arrived in Italy the press met him at the plane and --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We don’t refer to any member by his proper name.

Mr. Sargent: The Premier of the province arrived in Italy and the press met him at the plane. They said to him, “What do you think of the prostitutes in Italy?” And the Premier said: “Are there prostitutes in Italy?” And the next day the reports in the papers said the first question the Premier asked was, “Are there prostitutes in Italy?” I don’t know whether that is true or not -- the Premier can confirm that or not.

Mr. Speaker, I want to get on with the --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): On with what?

Mr. Sargent: -- situation in Ontario Housing Corp.

The news last night said former vice-president Agnew is making $100,000 in the US as a broker; and two of his underlings went to jail for a year and a half. Here in the OHC we have 25 people charged with accepting bribes in contracts amounting to millions of dollars; but the real criminals in this whole piece are the givers of the bribes.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. Sargent: And they are allowed to go scot-free. And still, as recently as last week, OHC is doing business with these firms who are giving bribes. The name of Delzotto has been listed in the paper as being a giver of bribes. He is one of the criminals involved. But the following week the story comes out that Delzotto has received another big government contract. So this illustrates the way this big pork barrel operates.

Regarding the Saltfleet development, I want to make this very clear. The minister says on page 5193 of Hansard, No. 121, that the appraisal report from Stewart, Young and Mason indicated “in my opinion, as of Sept. 30, 1967, the market value of the property” is $3.3 million. Mr. Murchison, who was then the chief land acquisition man for the OHC opposed the awarding of the contract for $6 million to Jon-Enco.

Jon-Enco is a firm that has gone out of business. They are broke. In fact, I don’t know if they are broke. They couldn’t be broke with the profit they made but they are out of business anyway. They went broke with a full pocket. He objected strongly to the payment of $6 million to these people, an overpayment of $3 million.

Eventually, Mr. Murchison resigned and went on to become the vice-president of Y & R Properties. I asked him several days ago: “Mr. Murchison, how do you account for the overpayment of $3 million, in view of the fact that you recommended against it, and the appraisal people recommended against it but this still went through for a bill of sale for $6 million which we have in our files?” And he said: “All I can put it down to is” -- and get this -- “political pressure.”

In other words, political pressure cost the taxpayers of this province $3 million. That’s on the record. Is there any doubt that we have a need for a full-scale inquiry into this scandalous, corrupt operation here?

We have people coming into this province penniless and in five years they are multi-millionaires because they are in the know with people who have access to an “in” with the Ontario Housing Corp. One man I knew was broke six years ago in the west. He is a multi-millionaire now. He says, “Now I own 1,500 doors.” In their parlance, that is 1,500 apartments, money being supplied by the Ontario Housing Corp. There is little doubt, Mr. Speaker, if we could have the files that the minister refuses to provide, we could very clearly cause the biggest scandal that would make the Watergate look like peanuts.

A while back, Mr. Speaker, David Lewis talked about corporate rip-offs. A lot of things he said needed to be said. I am sorry that that man is not in government today or in politics today, because he is part of the public conscience. I say the same thing for the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman).

I would like to say a few things now before I sit down about the government rip-off, not corporate rip-off, a rip-off that the government went along with. I recall when we had the oil shortage, there was no shortage of oil. The Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) and the Premier went down to Ottawa to the talks and they admitted they goofed because they went unprepared. They didn’t have proper advisers, proper advice or the know-how to talk in this parlance of the millions of dollars involved.

Mr. Speaker, as a result, the Ontario consumer is paying through the nose in a $100 million rip-off simply because the Minister of Energy consented to a five-cent-a-gallon increase for Ontario taxpayers. In his words, he said it was “to pay for exploration costs that will pay dividends in the next generation.” These are his words. It is costing the taxpayers of Ontario $100 million a year because we are paying for exploration costs for the next generation.

There’s no reason for it. Those members who are knowledgeable, the lawyers involved in the House here, know about oil depletion allowances that reap millions of dollars a year for oil companies. But this five-cent flub by the Minister of Energy will cost Ontario drivers over $100 million this year. I’d say, in the words of Churchill, some energy boss; some rip-off!

Let me tell the inside story about these oil depletion allowances. The oil companies tell the stockholders about oil sales and list the proceeds as incomes and profits. But when they’re talking to the tax collector about them they’re magically transformed into return on capital.

Many of these oil companies keep two sets of books, one for their stockholders showing the same kind of original cost figures that all industries use, and another for the government. In fact, the Internal Revenue Service in the States reported that in 1964 the petroleum industry showed after-tax profits of $1.7 billion for tax purposes. But on their own books of account the same companies showed after-tax profits of $5 billion -- nearly three times as great. In 1966, their books of account showed after-tax profits twice as large as what showed up on their tax returns.

So, Mr. Speaker, I’m saying that with the great profits the oil companies are making -- the greatest profits in history -- there is no reason why the taxpayers of Ontario should be paying a five-cent rip-off for gasoline. Mr. McKeough and Mr. Davis, unprepared and not knowledgeable of what they were doing, went to these talks and made these commitments.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would refer to other hon. members of the House by their riding or their official title, rather than by their names?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Stop that “Darcy” and “Bill” bit.

Mr. Sargent: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try and go by your ruling. If you don’t know them, you should know their names.

At the risk of being on the wrong side of the fence again, the biggest rip-off in government today is the fact that this Ontario government is hell-bent on a nuclear power development to the tune of between $15 billion and $20 billion. Yesterday the Minister of Energy said to us he’s going to form the Ontario Energy Corp. --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Gotta watch that one.

Mr. Sargent: -- in his words, to give the big business firms a piece of the action. Those are his words. He says this is a good Tory conception, with the eventual chance of gaining a foothold in the ownership of Ontario Hydro, now owned by the people of Ontario.

Hundreds of millions of dollars in Hydro contracts are issued every month today with no tender bids. A top Hydro authority told me: “You think the Moog affair was bad? You should see what’s going on today in nuclear power and they’re talking billions of dollars.” There are no tenders being let today. The same basis for the levying of the Hydro contract for the building over there is being used on billions of dollars in Hydro contracts.

I say this is a big ball game of the whole world, right here; a $15 billion or $20 billion operation. Is it any wonder the Premier and his establishment people want to stay in power to control this money flow? The Mafia and Watergate are peanuts compared to the Tories in Ontario.

To summarize, after all the graft, corruption and selling of the contracts, which we have record of --

Mr. Haggerty: I want the Solicitor General to investigate that.

Mr. Sargent: It is on the record. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is starting to bristle and I’m going to get to him in a minute.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Go right ahead.

Mr. Sargent: Nuclear power will carry, in the total picture, less than eight per cent of the total power load in our lifetime, aside from the $15 billion or $20 billion drain. I say there are many different ways to spend $20 billion; many different ways. That $20 billion would provide 2,000 hospitals in Ontario with 400 beds each. We can’t even get one up our way, and people are dying on the peninsula because they can’t get doctors. Or $20 billion would provide one million families in Ontario with homes, with no taxes for life. Or $20 billion would give two million students 10 years of free education, with no taxes to pay. This illustrates the cost of the nuclear power programme, which we need like a hole in the head.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that committed as we are to this programme, everything the Minister of Energy has done he has made a flop of. He has messed up everything he has touched, and now they give him the purse strings to $20 billion, and $100 million to form an energy corporation, to get more of their friends on the gravy train.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): That’s true -- that is exactly what he will do with that corporation.

Mr. Sargent: He’ll be looking after Union Gas and all his friends down there. I recall the member for Sarnia talking about the friendship that Mr. Cronyn had with the present Minister of Energy, having lunch all the time, and then a few weeks later they had a rate increase go through for Union Gas. This is the kind of thing that is going on that people don’t know about.

No insurance company in North America will insure anyone’s place, home or property against radiation damage. One can’t buy it; it is written into insurance policies that insurance companies don’t trust this nuclear power programme. The members should check their policies when they go home and see how much faith the insurance companies have in this programme.

We have had two leaks at Douglas Point now, and they have wasted $1 million on one mistake that no one would believe in this House when I brought it up. Now they are building huts to protect people in this area and they are banning the use of the park in this area. They are doing away with the park and converting it to nuclear power. Yet the atomic power officials in Ottawa have refused to meet scientists to go on the air to tell the people of the dangers of nuclear power.

The problem with nuclear electricity is that as much long-lived radioactivity is produced inside one large nuclear plant, Mr. Speaker, every year as there is in an explosion of about 1,000 Hiroshima bombs. When we say long-lived radioactivity, we mean long. Some kinds last for 100 years, 300 years and even 240,000 years. Unprotected above ground as they are, loaded with radioactivity in their cores, the plants would certainly be large liabilities if this country ever were under attack from an enemy. They seem to make this country indefensible.

It is a matter of record -- I think I have the statistics here someplace -- that of the 50 nuclear plants in the States, 21 have been closed down for safety reasons this past month, and there is great concern. “Twenty-one of the 50 power reactors are closed down for safety tests in the USA.” That is from the New York Times.

Getting on to the dangers involved in the overall picture, under the circumstances it would not be too surprising one morning to turn on the TV or the radio or pick up the newspaper and find that a handful of fanatics was threatening to destroy -- and not faking either -- some major city across the world by the use of nuclear warheads, which could be put into a suitcase to blow up a city.

Mr. Speaker, I have made the point that we have this government which is almost bankrupt. They are approaching a debenture debt now of about $1 billion, and they are going to have a deficit this year of about $1 billion. We have a sad affair before the people of Ontario this next while.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there are two more important speakers after me here. The member for Carleton East (Mr. P. Taylor) is going to make his maiden speech and we are looking forward to hearing it.

But I want to say that the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) is in his seat today and he has a big responsibility. He decides whether or not my people are second-class citizens, that 107 per cent occupancy is what we should have, that 450 people should wait for elective surgery, and 150 people should wait months for urgent surgery, and that the Chairman of the Management Board’s (Mr. Winkler) hospital was given $4 million to put in a plush operation.

Is the minister listening? The fact is that we’re putting portables on our lawn now while this government is receiving $750 million from the federal government to distribute in Ontario and it has the audacity to say I can’t get my share of that for my people.

Who does the government think it is to make that decision because that $750 million comes from Ottawa? The minister says I can’t get any share of that because he distributes the largesse of this province and he wants to write to my people and tell them that they are second-class citizens and cannot have the right that people have in Toronto or Hanover, Hanover sends people to our hospital because they haven’t got the staff there to handle them.

I have one more thing while I am at it. This Minister of Agriculture and Food gives our people in this province the back of his hand. When the beef industry is suffering, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Alberta get interest-free loans but here in the greatest beef-producing area in the whole world he is charging interest to beef operators on their loans. I would like to ask the minister somewhere along the piece if the federation and the farmers’ union approved having the governments, federally and provincially, finance and set up packing facilities to give them a marketing wallop against their present packing industry, would this government policy include making available, say, $5 million to match $5 million from Ottawa so that it could be arranged? I know what would happen. The minister would give us the same answer that he gave to the FAME operation. When they needed $1 million to stay in business he wouldn’t give them five cents.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that not only are the packing houses paying into the pockets of this government but the trucking industry is paying into the pockets of this government for election funds. It’s one big mess and I could talk for hours on it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: If the member is not particular about the facts, he could.

Mr. Sargent: I could tell the minister what he did on FAME. Let him tell us what he did on FAME.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Why doesn’t the member go down and ask his friends in Nova Scotia what they did with the co-op packing plant?

Mr. Sargent: The minister sold them out. He sold FAME out. They needed $1 million but what did he do? He gave Victoria and Grey a $3 million credit figure but not one cent to the farmers.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The member can’t mouth out of both sides at once, sucking and blowing at the same time.

Mr. Sargent: Don’t kid me.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: One more thing, why doesn’t the minister ship his cattle personally through the Ontario stockyards? Tell us that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: He ships his own cattle to Canada Packers.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, sir.

Mr. Sargent: Don’t kid me a bit. I called the Ontario stockyards and they said the minister doesn’t ship through them.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s right.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t he? The Ontario stockyards are good for anybody else.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: There are lots of other people to ship to.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member continue?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I want my hon. friend to know, Mr. Speaker, that I have not shipped cattle to Canada Packers ever that I can recall in all the years I’ve been farming. Let that be on the record too, which is a fact and which is something that he doesn’t know anything about.

Mr. Sargent: What packing house does the minister use then?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I use several packing houses.

Mr. Sargent: Why not the Ontario stockyards?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I also use community sales. If my hon. friend wants to know my business, let him come out to the farm and talk about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He is nothing but a character assassinator of the first order.

Mr. Sargent: The minister won’t be there very long, so let him not worry about it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: If the fellows over there in that party are proud of that kind of stuff, they ought to be very proud of him.

Mr. Sargent: If we had time, members opposite would hear a hell of a lot more too.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): We’re not very proud of those over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. member would continue.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go on but I think I’ve told the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture and Food how I felt about the way they operate. I know they won’t lose any sleep about that. I would like to yield the floor now to the member for Carleton East.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair would recognize the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox before the member for Carleton East.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. G. Nixon: Great man, nice fellow.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Again I would like to compliment the acting Speaker on his keenness in recognizing the riding of Prince Edward-Lennox and calling on me at this time. I appreciate it very much, Mr. Speaker, and, of course the manner in which you always conduct yourself while in the Speaker’s chair.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): He makes a good choice of speakers.

Mr. G. Nixon: He does a fine job.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I would like to make a few remarks today in regard to the government’s current budgeting programmes, its policies and its political philosophy. In a way, Mr. Speaker, it’s an address of thanksgiving without being patronizing, and if at times I am a little critical then I hope it will be interpreted as criticism in a constructive way.

Earlier this week, the Treasurer (Mr. White) delivered an address on behalf of the Premier of this province at the Ontario Economic Council “Outlook 15” conference at the Science Centre. He stated:

“The world has difficulties of a fundamental order in its monetary system and in the mechanisms for maintaining financial stability. It faces also a serious and distressing food problem, particularly in the production of cereals. It has more people than it can feed, house, clothe and provide for at humane and decent standards. Its energy-rich countries are draining away vast financial and economic resources and threatening economic instability of a monumental order. And last, and by no means least, inflation is global and persistent.”

In Ontario, Mr. Speaker, in contrast to many parts of the world, we are experiencing buoyant times and a very high standard of living. Since the end of the Second World War there seems to have developed an attitude that we as citizens of Ontario, and I would say that we as citizens of Canada as well, expect to have and to enjoy food, shelter, clothing, hospital care, medical care and a number of other benefits, merely because we happen to be residents of Ontario, or because we happen to be Canadian citizens. We seem to adopt the attitude that this is ours as a God-given right. Combined with that, of course, is the attitude of rising expectations, so that no matter how well we do, we expect at least to do better next year.

Of course, we are in a very trying period in that it’s becoming more and more difficult, with the inflationary spiral, to maintain our status vis-â-vis one another, in terms of our standard of living. I think we have to remember that this standard of living that we enjoy and take for granted in this province is not something that we should take for granted. It is not God-given, it has to be earned. Consumers’ goods must be produced. People have to produce in order to consume.

It is not so, of course, in other parts of the world where, no matter what those people’s attitudes may be, they do not have the opportunity to work and to produce in order to consume. They face serious and distressing fond problems and starvation. There is a lack of housing which would be shocking, I think, to anyone in this chamber. Their general standards of living are neither humane nor decent. I’ve seen some of the accommodation that less fortunate people in the world have.

I remember some years ago looking down from a room in the Hilton Hotel in Mexico City and watching some Mexican people cook their tortillas under a lean-to made of cardboard and scrap metal. I’ve seen people in Brazil come down from the hillsides and go along the Copacabana beach at night searching through the garbage for the left-over food from the hotels. These very same people are washed out every time it rains.

At that time, interest rates in Brazil were often over 40 per cent per annum. As far as capital investment was concerned, industry would often write off its total capital investment in three years. The climate, in terms of its politics and economics, was very unstable indeed.

Housing in so many parts of the world reflects this situation. I’ve seen people living in caves in the Middle East. I’ve seen them living on rooftops in the Orient, along with their chickens, where space is so critical and accommodation non-existent. Even in some of the countries that we look to and seem to respect, the housing there is not anything to match ours. In the Scandinavian countries they still have their three-, four- and five-storey walk-ups.

I remember some years ago talking to a couple in Copenhagen who were getting married, because they would obtain priority in terms of rental accommodation if they were married. Their philosophy was: “Accommodation first; we’ll worry about the marriage working out later.” As a matter of fact, it was expressed that it wasn’t intended to last.

In Russia and other eastern countries, there is the same problem with housing. Again, I will recall some years ago visiting some construction sites in and around Moscow. The workers in the plants, as an incentive for production, were given the opportunity to have some priority or preference in terms of living accommodation. The apartments that were being constructed would never match the type of public housing that is being constructed by this province, and being subsidized by this province.

I think if you visit other countries, whether it be Italy -- as I mentioned today -- Greece or Turkey, you will see similar situations. Part of the problem, of course, is adapting to the current technology of the world.

Some years ago I was spending a day with an author, Frank Yerby, who was working on a historical novel, and I accompanied him on a trip from Athens to some of the islands. He related to me his despair in terms of the work that was being done by the United States in endeavouring to upgrade and uplift the agricultural economies of India and, I believe, Ceylon. There, the techniques were demonstrated to the local people, but no sooner did the Americans turn over the projects to the local people than they reverted to their own ways.

I know a similar situation exists in so many countries. I have watched the farmers along the Nile with their old hoes trying to work the land. The type of implements that they have used for thousands of years are still being used. The water buffalo is often a means of locomotion. I have watched them build roads in Jordan where they take a little hammer to break stones, carry these stones in baskets made out of old tires, place them very carefully in arcs and then pour sand on them and pat them down. If you see the results you wonder why they ever attempted to build a road. One of our pieces of road-building equipment could build as much in half a day as they would probably build in a year, but their economy would probably be ruined because the people would be put out of work.

I mention all of these things because it’s a backdrop, in a way, to what we have here and what we take so much for granted. In Ontario we no doubt have the highest standard of living in the world. No matter how poor some of us might feel we are, if we put our positions in perspective, we are very rich indeed.

Let me mention some of the measures that are being taken by this government and implemented in progressive legislation that is second to none. The consumer protection legislation which is currently being processed I think is very advanced. Our post-secondary educational system, like the elementary and secondary education, is just unsurpassed anywhere. The addition of nursing-home care and free-prescription drug plans for the aged has continued the evolution of our health delivery system.

Industrial and tourism development has expanded through financial assistance and promotion of broader export markets. In terms of our environmental programmes we are moving ahead at a very fast rate, and I must commend the government in terms of its projects for the recycling of solid wastes.

One of the early initiatives of this government was to abolish the OHIP premiums for everyone 65 years of age and over. We added extended health care and nursing homes to health benefits. Earlier this year we introduced Canada’s first guaranteed income programme for senior citizens to supplement the federal old age pension. The GAINS programme ensures every pensioner, and the handicapped as well, a minimum income of $2,700 annually. Prescription drugs are free to all our senior citizens receiving the guaranteed income supplement. These are just some of the examples of this government’s response to the needs of the people of Ontario.

In terms of local government, the transfer of moneys from the province to local government amounted to $2.3 billion this year, which is roughly 30 per cent of our total spending and represents more than 90 per cent of the provincial revenues from retail sales tax and personal income tax combined.

I think all hon. members will agree that the mill rates in most of the municipalities in this province have been kept down because of the transfer payments from the province to those municipalities. I know it is often difficult for a provincial member to accept the fact that the local politicians may be getting credit for keeping their tax levies down while the provincial rate seems to increase, but the credit surely should be to the province for ensuring that the homeowner is not unduly burdened with rising taxes.

There have been programmes for the restructuring of local government. I think the concept initially was to see that essential services were unified in those municipalities that required a coordinating and upgrading of services. The first regional government, of course, was in the Metropolitan Toronto area. We have seen a number of these regional governments develop and, where I have been able, I have certainly cautioned the municipalities to do whatever they can to preserve their own self-determination. I know that it is important and in some cases imperative, to unify the essential services of water, sewer and some other similar services, where the existing political boundaries are not the best boundaries for servicing the inhabitants.

It’s important that the local municipalities control their own destinies. I know that someone farther away always seems to think that he is in a better position to determine what is best for the local people. The mandarins around this building often have been accused of unnecessary interference, and I think unnecessary interference has been inferred because there has been a lack of understanding on the part of some of the civil servants in terms of the needs, the hopes and the aspirations of local people.

In our democratic system, surely the local people are the ones who count. They may make mistakes, but while these municipalities are small, they will be small mistakes, and they can live with those mistakes.

But, of course, the larger the government becomes, the bigger the problems, the more complicated the solutions, the bigger the mistakes and the more costly the mistakes. So, I think that we must do everything possible to preserve and to encourage the maintenance of units of government that are small, while at the same time being large enough to present to the people the type of servicing that they require and demand in this age.

It is important to ensure that the local people develop their own official plans; that they determine how their land is to be used; what type of housing they are to have; what parks they are to have. Plans of subdivision should be left with the local people. And I think it’s the direction and thrust of this government to certainly turn over more of those powers to the local people, certainly in areas where government has been restructured.

This government has been criticized in terms of its transportation policies. I think that that criticism has been unjust and irresponsible. Certainly the magnetic levitation method was an experiment that this province should have undertaken and, I gather, is still pursuing.

It’s important that we look to the future; that we employ every advanced means of technology available; that we be futuristic in our thinking; and that we have goals and aspirations. Without goals, of course, man is merely a turnip, vegetating from century to century.

We must be bold and brave, even if at times ridiculed, and I think history will prove the province to be right in pursuing new and modern methods of transportation. Certainly we have the best highway system in the world in this Province of Ontario, and the province’s support of municipal transportation systems is second to none.

There certainly is a problem in terms of maintaining our farming community, and this concerns me as a representative of a rural riding. We’ve heard much in the past, and there has been stimulus, no doubt, about creating bigger and bigger units of production, so that our farms were encouraged to become more specialized and bigger. Everything had to be on a more grandiose scale. We reached a point where the farmer has so much money tied up in his investment that if he could get it out he certainly wouldn’t put it back into farming. But the problem is to get it out.

I think we’ve lost sight again of the little man, the little farmer, the family farm, the small unit of production that has really been the backbone of this province in terms of its agricultural strength.

Looking at the farming unit of years ago, you had, of course, general farming to a great extent; so that when the price of pork was bad, maybe you could make your money on the milk or the beef or the chickens or the eggs. And if you had a little orchard, you could probably make some money on that. So, what you lost on one you could compensate for on the other. Today in an era of specialization it is more difficult and, of course, that becomes even more apparent when one talks in terms of farm labour because who wants to work on a farm today? We seem to expect the farmer who is locked in and the members of his family to stay on the farm, but we don’t seem to be able to encourage others from the outside to take on that role.

It is essential in my estimation to do whatever we can to encourage the smaller farming unit and to encourage that family to remain in farming. We have to find some way to maintain a decent standard of living for the farmer to ensure that he gets a fair return on his capital investment and on his labours. I shudder to think what would happen if we as a province and we as a country had to depend on foreigners for our foodstuffs. Let’s hope that we are never in the position to be at the mercy of other countries in terms of feeding our people. If we could ever talk about an essential service, we should be talking about the farming population.

At one time, it was thought that if you couldn’t do anything else you could always farm, Mr. Speaker. The rural people were referred to as dumb farmers as though they were stupid, but if you are working on a farm today you have to be everything. You have to be a mechanic, an electrician and a carpenter, Mr. Speaker. You have not only to know machinery, but also to know insecticides. You have to be a lawyer and everything else to understand and interpret the law. Whether you are dealing with insecticides, pollution or environmental matters or planning --

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): You have to be sophisticated, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- a subdivision or land use, you just have to have a wealth of knowledge in order to farm. You have to be a veterinarian, you have to understand livestock, you have to be able to do just about everything that any trade would ever be called upon to perform.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): We need more of them in politics.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, we need them back on the farm.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You can see, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers are very important and resourceful persons indeed. I think we have to respect more and more this group of people whom we take for granted. It troubles me that we take for granted the foodstuffs on our table the same as we take for granted electric light. We turn the switch and we expect the light to go on. It is only when it doesn’t work that we become upset and disturbed and look for someone to point the finger at. In terms of our foodstuffs we take for granted what is on the table. We expect the chain stores, the grocery stores and the retailers to have their warehouses and their shelves full of consumer goods; but we have to start thinking of where they are coming from and the people that produce them.

Mr. Gilbertson: And appreciate it, too.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Appreciate is right. We have to appreciate the toil that goes into that production for seven days a week and 365 days a year. Jobs which most people would consider too dirty or too menial to undertake are being performed by the farmer and that is why the farmer cannot hire help. The other reason is that his income from farming is so meagre that he has a difficult time being able to finance or pay for hired help.

Mr. Gilbertson: That’s going to change though.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I trust under the great leadership of our Minister of Agriculture and Food, a man of inestimable experience, common sense and hard work, will keep on working and, I hope, will make more progress in terms of helping the rural community.

Mr. Haggerty: The trouble is there are too many lawyers in farming.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I don’t wish to take too much time in developing other areas.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Carried.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If I might just comment again on our transportation system, we’ve heard a lot about expressways and what’s happening to our urban communities.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member’s riding has got the Norris Whitney bridge.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I want to thank the member for Brant. He’s always been a friend of my predecessor, Norris Whitney. He has, I know, a very high regard for that gentleman and for his contribution to this House, to this province and to his community. I do thank him for his reference to the Norris Whitney bridge, which was constructed over Highway 49.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member knows we miss his predecessor. Perhaps I shouldn’t say more than that

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That bridge is indeed a landmark and, of course, a vital transportation corridor linking Prince Edward county with the mainland. We hope, and it is expected, that a second high-level bridge or a tunnel will be constructed from the Rossmore area to the Belleville area. That will, of course, make it even easier for us to communicate with the mainland and the rest of the province and to participate in the growth and development of this great province under this great government.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Carried.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The member meant to say, “Hear, hear,” didn’t he?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In terms of urban transportation generally, I think we have to be very mindful and very watchful of the size that the urban areas are becoming. Once you encourage growth it feeds on itself, and the next thing you know is that you have a vital problem of getting people around that community. We experience that in the Metropolitan Toronto area and, I’m sure, in other areas. This, of course, poses the question as to how you can girdle growth. No doubt, the policy of this government has been to decoy development to outlying areas of the province, far enough away from Metropolitan Toronto and other urban areas so that they can be self-sustaining and provide all of the amenities that a city would have.

In this regard, I commend the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) for the legislation and his attitude in helping in the financing of industrial and commercial development outside of the Metropolitan Toronto area so that more job opportunities will be provided to the people who are already living in those areas and so that there can be sufficient development and growth to provide for the amenities which people expect in terms of urban living.

We are seeing that happen in parts of eastern Ontario, of course, and I hope and trust that with the transfer of more responsibility for the planning, development and growth of our part of the province, more industry and commerce and the resulting job opportunities will be provided.

Mr. Speaker, I know that my namesake is anxious to make his maiden speech this morning, and for that reason I would like to conclude my remarks so that he will have an opportunity to proceed. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would like to thank my hon. friend from Prince Edward-Lennox for cutting short his remarks in my favour this morning.

I welcome this opportunity to speak on the budget debate and to make what is known as my maiden speech as the newly elected member for Carleton East.

My first words to you, sir, and I hope you will convey them to Mr. Speaker Rowe, must be of congratulations on his appointment. He has been called upon to perform an important function in the public affairs of Ontario, and I wish him well.

Perhaps this is the moment for me to state my position on one important aspect of the conduct of the province’s business. I am, and have been for some time, a strong advocate of time limitation on debates. For that reason I will not take more than 20 or 30 minutes of the time of the House today, and I hope there won’t be any occasion when I will have to take more time than that.

Mr. Speaker, through you I thank the voters of Carleton East for giving me an opportunity to serve them here. Unlike most observers, to me the outcome of the Carleton East by-election was not a surprise. I was surprised, however, by the performance of my NDP opponent, Miss Evelyn Gigantes, who considerably increased her party’s total vote and came very close to winning.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Hear, hear!

Mr. P. Taylor: However --

Mr. Laughren: Stop there.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Let him stop while he is ahead. Don’t spoil it now.

Mr. P. Taylor: Before my hon. friends to my left begin congratulating themselves they should realize that their chances of doing so well again in a general election are remote, to say the least.

An hon. member: Very remote.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this was an historic by-election. As every commentator has said about the Carleton East results, it was an eloquent statement by a group of Ontario voters on just how they feel about the performance of the government sitting opposite, which today is looking so downcast.

An hon. member: And empty.

Mr. P. Taylor: I am privileged and happy to represent the people of Carleton East. This represents for me a major learning experience, because for the past 12 years or so I’ve been a broadcast journalist on the other side of the fence, so to speak, concentrating on the national political scene. It could be argued, I suppose, that in that role I have been safely removed from the reality of life as it exists in an area like Carleton East. However, I intend to demonstrate that this is not so, and to justify the confidence placed in me by the voters of the riding when they gave me their only candidate who lives in that riding, their support at the polls.

Monsieur l’Orateur, le Comté de Carleton Est est à la fois urbain et rural, commercial et agricole, riche et pauvre, anglophone et francophone. C’est une réalité ontarienne et canadienne qu’évidemment ce gouvernement n’est pas prêt à accepter.

Pour les trois quarts de million de francophones en Ontario, ce gouvernement n’a presque rien fait. C’est mardi passé seulement que nous avons entendu un ministre du gouvernement dire que c’était difficile à dire si les enseignes sur la route 417 seront bilingues; à mon avis il s’agit d’une décision ministérielle, c’est obligatoire dans une région de la province où se trouve 35 pour cent de la population francophone.

Mr. Speaker, this government has done almost nothing to serve the more than three-quarters of a million of Franco-Ontarians. Just Tuesday of this week we heard one minister unable to say whether or not the signs on the new Highway 417 could be bilingual, in an area where francophones number more than 35 per cent in my riding alone. There is just no excuse for that.

Carleton East forms a large part of eastern Ontario, one of the two clearly defined areas of this province that has been systematically ignored by consecutive Conservative governments over the past 31 years. The other area I speak of is, of course, northern Ontario.

Putting it another way, eastern Ontario is one of the regions of this Province that habitually plays second fiddle to the region centred on Toronto, but which extends from Oshawa on the east to Windsor on the west.

For decades, Conservative members of this Legislature representing eastern Ontario seats have been asking for a plan that would include a schedule of coordinated growth for eastern Ontario. Those Tory members, even though some of them have been in the cabinet from time to time, have been able to get nowhere because Tory governments in Ontario have been characterized by myopia; they can’t see beyond the urban sprawl of Toronto and southwestern Ontario generally.

Mr. Gilbertson: That’s not altogether true.

Mr. Martel: What have they given to the north, beside the bridge?

Mr. P. Taylor: Perhaps my own Liberal colleagues here in this caucus who represent this privileged part of Ontario may not like this, but eastern Ontario’s economy in some ways is actually regressing because of this knee-jerk development of the Oshawa to Windsor corridor.

Allow me to cite a few facts to illustrate what I’m talking about. Using Statistics Canada as the source, we can show that eastern Ontario’s growth rate in population, labour force, manufacturing and a number of other areas is considerably slower than the rest of the province. Under some conditions, some might argue that that would be an enviable position to be in, given the wider acceptance these days of less growth and more quality in our lives.

In 1971, eastern Ontario held about one-seventh of the total Ontario population. Statistics Canada says that by the year 2001 that proportion will be only one-eighth.

All industries surveyed by Statistics Canada except one -- the forestry, fishing and trapping industry -- reflected a clear drop in the region’s share of the total work force. Looking at it from another perspective, we can show that the growth in the size of the eastern Ontario work force is a full 11 percentage points behind the growth rate for all of Ontario’s work force.

The total value of agricultural products sold in eastern Ontario has grown at a rate of 84 per cent over the past 20 years, while in the whole province the growth rate in agricultural production has been 155 per cent. Eastern Ontario’s total farm land inventory is dropping at a faster rate than all of Ontario together, and the minister responsible for housing is busy buying up 10,000 acres of Edwardsburgh township at inflationary prices so that he can pave them over as a town site.

Mr. Speaker, the number of manufacturing firms in eastern Ontario is dropping, as is the number of people employed in that sector. Compare that to the statistics for this region here. I could go on about roads and a number of things, but that is not going to get us anywhere or get anything done.

Mr. Martel: He’s got some pride.

Mr. P. Taylor: What is happening in eastern Ontario may not be all that bad. However, it does reflect a situation that is dangerous for all of Ontario. I contend that if growth is allowed to continue unabated in the area between Oshawa and Windsor and all of that heavily populated area in southwestern Ontario and nearby, then this area will become one big wall-to-wall megalopolis, without distinguishing or redeeming features.

What this province needs -- and only the Liberal Party of Ontario has said it is prepared to provide it -- is a plan for Ontario. A Liberal government in Ontario will return to first principles and will ask basic questions --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He must be kidding.

Mr. P. Taylor: -- something that hasn’t been done for 31 years. When the Liberal Party assumes the responsibility of government in this province, everything will come under review.

Mr. Haggerty: He’s right on and they know it. They’ll have to agree to that.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. P. Taylor: Everything. Nothing will be taken for granted. One of the first questions to be asked will be --

Mr. Riddell: The truth hurts.

Mr. P. Taylor: -- and listen carefully, chaps -- one of the first questions will he: “Would it be wise to reduce the rate of growth in central and southwestern Ontario and instead work to improve the quality of life here?” At the same time, we’ll be examining ways and means to avoid what Statistics Canada says is going to happen unless we radically change course --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Hasn’t the member heard of the green belt, the Niagara Escarpment?

Mr. Haggerty: That’s where Stelco should have located.

Mr. P. Taylor: -- and that is that eastern Ontario, by the year 2001, will have 1.5 million people while the rest of the province -- mainly right here -- will have 11.3 million people.

Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer will soon rise in his place, probably as early as next week, and he’ll announce his government’s plan for eastern Ontario. Please note, a plan for eastern Ontario, not a plan for Ontario. Past performance tells us it will be a glossy news media handout filled with glowing phrases about hollow gestures that will be designed to bamboozle the people of eastern Ontario. Well, Mr. Speaker, those people are a lot smarter than he thinks.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Typical Tory tripe.

Mr. P. Taylor: And unless he comes out four-square in favour of some form of arrested growth in this area and planned redistribution of industrial growth right across the province -- not just for eastern Ontario, but right across the province -- then his plan will amount to nothing more than a public relations exercise.

I repeat, the key to the quality of life in all parts of Ontario in the next half century is a party with the political guts to say to corporate interests in this province, “Okay you can stay in this area if you want to, but there will be no more government assistance in this area. In fact, there will be considerable incentive to some industries to move to other, less developed areas of the province.”

Compulsion will not be part of our vocabulary in government in this connection. It will be a plan designed to avoid disaster here in the rich and populated centre of the province, while at the same time creating an attractive environment that will result in people and businesses wanting to relocate.

Some of my more alert critics over there might say that this kind of relocation-by-incentive programme will then create the need for the kind of satellite, instant city the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) is apparently gathering land for near Prescott. That isn’t the case. In fact, a report commissioned by the provincial Treasurer’s department in 1972 points out that the existing commercial and industrial centres of eastern Ontario are of the size and scope that could very well accommodate the kind of planned and coordinated growth envisaged.

It will also be our objective in government to retain as much agricultural land as possible for that purpose.

Now, some of my colleagues in this House may regard it as political suicide to telegraph in advance what some of my objectives will be as the new member for Carleton East. I am happy to take that risk, because I feel the people of my riding have a right to know what I am going to be spending most of my time on.

In general terms, I will be working toward the difficult to define goal of simply serving eastern Ontario and Carleton East better than they have been served in the past. And that’s a value judgment that will be made at the next election by the voters.

Senior citizens’ housing is something that my riding does not have very much of. Many of the old folks have to move from Gloucester and Osgoode townships, away from their children, and into facilities into the city of Ottawa. I will be trying to rectify that.

The roads of eastern Ontario speak for themselves. That part of Ontario features two-lane death strips that inhibit the movement of goods and people.

Mr. Speaker, bilingualism is a fact of life in Carleton East and eastern Ontario. I was shocked and deeply disturbed to learn on election day that nowhere in the polling places of this province is there any voting information in French. I was even more angry when I learned that the district returning officer can prevent anyone from voting who doesn’t understand the questions put to them in English by the polling place staff.

M. l’Orateur, l’Ontario, même se le gouvernement ne l’aime pas, est une province bilingue dans un pays bilingue. Le gouvernement Ontarien a toujours accepté le principe du bilinguisme, mais n’a jamais agi dans l’intérêt des francophones. A mon avis, et d’après les voteurs dans Carleton Est et autres comtés dans l’est de l’Ontario, ce gouvernement est obligé de fournir ses services dans les deux langues officielles.

Mr. Speaker, it makes me just a little bit sick to hear from a minister of the Ontario government, as we did earlier this week, that turning out bilingual drivers’ licences may be difficult. All that is difficult is that this government can’t seem to bring itself to face the facts in the interests of the people it alleges to serve. And that may be understandable, because the Conservative is unable to attract the francophone vote.

I referred earlier in an oblique way, sir, my interest in the business of the conduct of this House. I come from a long period of observation in the House of Commons, where the members feel their rules are always in need of amendment. However, the conduct of the business of that chamber is on a decidedly higher plane than this one, in my opinion. I think it would be good for us and good for the people of Ontario if we were all to make some effort to upgrade our performance in this House.

I am concerned about this for one basic reason. Ontario is spending more than $8 billion every year. This means that decisions worth $8 billion a year are being made in this House. And to this rookie observer, at least, the atmosphere of this House is not conducive to that kind of serious decision making.

I feel there is a shared responsibility for this on the part of all parties and all members, but there is no doubt that the government must accept the largest share. The roles of this House are shocking in the way they are stacked in favour of the government. And I must say at this point, sir, that this is not of your doing. You have inherited a system which has grown up over 31 years.

Also, the attitude of this government towards the rights of parties and individual members is equally shocking.

Mr. Riddell: We will try to change that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. P. Taylor: In this connection, I refer to the exchange this morning involving the Chair, myself and the minister responsible for housing. The fact that ministers can ramble on unchecked in response to questions or ministerial statements is unfair and undemocratic. The fact that such a procedure exists and is allowed to persist means to me that the ministers over there are making statements of such questionable veracity that they can’t stand up to inspection.

Mr. Speaker, you have my support in your obvious and commendable efforts to date, but I feel you should get to your friends on the government benches to change their thinking, because there’s no way this party, the Liberal Party, is going to let up on these questions.

One of my primary objectives while an MPP will be to work with my Liberal Party colleagues so that we may be called upon by the people of Ontario to form the next government. One of my most keenly felt desires in the political field is to be given an opportunity to show Ontario how a Liberal government will be sensitive toward the needs and aspirations of the people it leads.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes; like Bourassa, for example.

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Bullbrook: Sit down. We want to applaud some more.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, in the beginning of my remarks in this debate, may I extend my heartiest congratulations to my colleague from Carleton East who has just delivered his first speech in this assembly. I think the affairs of the Province of Ontario were considerably improved and placed in good hands when the voters of Carleton East decided as they did a few days ago.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to spend a substantial part of my time in talking about the affairs of Ontario Housing. Before I do that, I do want to just say a word about an answer that was tabled by the House leader this morning in reply to a question placed by my colleague the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). The inquiry was: “How much money has the Province of Ontario paid to Dalton Camp in the last five years? How much money has the Province of Ontario paid to Camp and Associates in the last five years?”

For anyone who might not know, Dalton Camp is a one-time president of the national Progressive Conservative Association, and certainly a very close adviser of the Premier. It is rumoured that he is the man who wrote the Premier’s great Spadina death speech. Dalton Camp is well known to anyone who has followed any of the political affairs of the Province of Ontario.

Camp and Associates, it is my understanding, is a company that was established by Dalton Camp. It is my further understanding that he presently has no interest in it but that the company is run by a gentleman named Norman Atkins. Norman Atkins, I understand, is Dalton Camp’s brother-in-law. Norman Atkins, I believe, was the campaign director for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario in the last election. Norman Atkins is one of the tiny group, the very close advisers, who tell the Premier what to do and how to do it. I understand that just in the last few days Norman Atkins has been down to Progressive Conservative headquarters in Toronto to put the place in order.

With those background facts, Mr. Speaker, I think it may be of some interest to see the answer the House leader tabled today.

Under the Ministry of the Attorney General, Dalton Camp was paid, in respect of fees as a member of the royal commission on book publishing in the years 1971-1972, and 1972-1973, the total sum of $17,910. There was also a small reimbursement for travelling expenses, so he received the total sum of $18,611 from the Ministry of the Attorney General in that period.

Dalton Camp has been paid for per diem rates and expenses concerning the commission on the Legislature, whose latest report was just tabled, $11,443, in 1972-1973; $13,961 in 1973-1974, and since the figures only go to June 17 of this year, $4,000 for the period from April 1, 1974, to June 17, 1974; for a total, up to June 17, of some $29,404.

Mr. Deans: That’s not bad for part-time work, is it?

Mr. Singer: That’s not bad for part-time work. But there are more interesting figures yet to come.

Mr. V. Hodgson (York North): The member for Downsview knows about part-time work.

Mr. Singer: Yes, I do; and so does the member for York North.

Camp and Associates received from the Department of Tourism and Information, for the St. Lawrence parks commission, $10,508, in the year 1969-1970, $10,691 in the year 1970-1971, and $7,585 in the year 1971-1972. In the year 1972-1973, they received the sum of $214,392 from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism; and in the year 1973-1974 the sum of $230,546 from the same ministry. That produced a total figure of $473,722.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): No cents on that?

Mr. Singer: No, there are no cents on that at all.

To be quite fair to the minister who tabled these figures, there is a note identified by an asterisk at the bottom of page 2 of the answer:

“These figures represent their commission [that is, Camp and Associates’ commission] of approximately 15 per cent on purchases from the media and other suppliers from 1969 through Feb. 28, 1974.”

I could pause there and point out that this is November, 1974, and one could reasonably assume an increase in those figures for a additional eight or nine months probably in proportion to the figures that were reflected in 1973-1974.

“Services provided by an agency for this commission encompass creative concepts, including writing, layouts and art; media research; evaluation and planning of campaigns; placement of advertisements; verification and payment of media invoices.”

In the Department of Lands and Forests, Camp and Associates received $5,500 in 1972-1973 for counselling fees, and another $7,239 for media services; for a total there of $12,739. In the subsequent year, 1973-1974, they received $6,500 for counselling fees and $15,711 for media services. There’s another $22,000 that we can add to that $473,000, which brings it to $495,000.

From the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Camp and Associates received $15,114 in 1972-1973 and $1,471 in 1973-1974, for another $16,585. Then at the bottom it says: “No payments have been made to Dalton Camp or to Camp and Associates by any other ministry in the last five years.”

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): They got more than half a million.

Mr. Singer: I thought the PS was very nice.

It should be of some substantial interest, I would think, to the ratepayers and the taxpayers and the residents, the old people, the people without houses, and all the other people who have difficulties in the Province of Ontario, as they try to understand those words of the Treasurer’s when he talks about money in and money out, and how well we are doing and our five-star credit rating; in order to make all this possible we have paid, in five years, to a firm called Camp and Associates, something in excess of $500,000. And the head of that firm is none other than the man who ran a Tory campaign in the 1971 election, who is the Premier’s closest adviser and who has now gone downtown to clean up the mess that exists at Progressive Conservative headquarters. I don’t think that lily need be gilded any further, Mr. Speaker.

Now let me turn to the Ontario Housing Corp.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who is down there cleaning up the mess?

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh, is someone else cleaning up that mess?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Bullbrook: “Hodgson and Associates” has a nice ring to it.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, when the Ministry of Housing came before this House, my colleague, the member for St. George, (Mrs. Campbell) led off the debate for the Liberal Party and for the official opposition. She stated in her opening remarks that we believe the time is long overdue that there be a full-fledged inquiry and investigation into the affairs of Ontario Housing Corp. -- since that time, in fact, it began. She was roundly criticized for this, I suppose, by the Minister of Housing, who has a brand new approach. He gives an answer and then he gives a further answer in words that someone could understand the second time if they didn’t understand it the first time. He refuses to produce files; and later he produces parts of files.

But the criticism which emanated from the government side of the House was to the effect: “How dare you make such charges if you have got nothing to back them up?

Well, I would think the events of subsequent weeks since my colleague, the member for St. George, made those remarks, and the events of past years, certainly are indicative why there must be and why there should be and why there has to be an investigation into the affairs of the Ontario Housing Corp.

I took the trouble a while ago to just extract from the Hansard index, going back to 1967, the number of occasions on which we, in the Liberal Party -- and I am sure the NDP could prepare a similar index -- have criticized the conduct, the actions, the performance, of Ontario Housing Corp.; have asked for information and been denied it; and have asked for investigations and have been denied those. They are here and they run through two pages; there are perhaps 30-odd different kinds of entries.

Now I am not going to rehash what has been done every year for five years; but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, about some of the difficulties we have encountered over more recent times.

In 1972 certain information came to my attention which led me to make inquiries of the ministry in order to either establish the truthfulness of those suggestions, or to prove that they were in fact wrong. The suggestions ran along the line that there were numerous land transactions in which OHC was involved and which were approved by the directors of Ontario Housing Corp., in which several of the directors of that corporation had had a personal interest, either as land owners or as solicitors for land owners, and that, from time to time, the directors of Ontario Housing Corp. declared their interest, recorded in the minutes that they did have an interest, and then the deals went through.

There were some specific suggestions, but I am not going to lightly throw names around because we still haven’t had access to those minutes. There was certainly great doubt expressed about land transactions in the city of Ottawa. My colleagues, the members for Ottawa East and Carleton East, have posed a series of inquiries about those transactions. A rather lengthy speech came from the minister this morning which, when we examined it -- certainly as I listened to it -- didn’t seem to be the kind of answer which was required. There are all sorts of unanswered questions in relation to that Ottawa land transaction, perhaps even the coincidence of an official of Ontario Housing Corp. as he then was, being present when these matters were being decided and now being an employee of the persons who purchased the land from Ontario Housing Corp. at these very apparently large and inflated prices.

There have been questions about Headway. My colleague from Sarnia has put those questions very succinctly. It’s much easier to put the questions, Mr. Speaker, than to get answers from the government. The affairs of Headway, insofar as they concern Ontario Housing Corp., certainly deserve to be told and told publicly. But up to now we have not been given any recourse or resort to the minutes of Ontario Housing Corp. which would give us some of the detail.

There are other problems in Hamilton. The hon. member for Wentworth has been talking about Hamilton and trying to get information and he’s being denied that. There are problems at the Lakehead and problems at Sarnia. All of these things Mr. Speaker, have an unfortunate ring to them. We don’t get any explanations. We don’t get any minutes.

We get the Minister of Housing saying: “You don’t expect me to look into the minutes of something that happened or the records of something that happened several years ago?”

“But let me assure you,” says the Minister of Housing, “it was good for the Province of Ontario.” He’s coined a new approach for what is good for the Province of Ontario. Insofar as value is concerned, it’s something called residual value. That means, I guess, the kind of shell game that the Treasurer plays. Now you see it and now you don’t. You get more money in than is going out. Where is the money? Under which shell?

What the Minister of Housing apparently seems to mean is: “If you’ll bear with us for 20, 25, 30 or 35 years” -- he doesn’t even put an end on the period -- “we will be able to tell you that the land we bought today, while we may have paid too much for it, will be worth far more residually.”

If that kind of con game is going to be perpetrated on the people of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, we’ve got to be able to talk about what it really means; and we’re being denied access to files, to records and to documents. What’s happening is the attempt to snow us under with gobbledygook and lengthy reports, which in fact are not backed up by statistics at all.

As a result of some of my frustrations in 1972, having gone through several sources in an effort to get access to the minutes of Ontario Housing, I wrote to the then Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grossman), who was also in charge of housing. I think these letters should be put on the record. They’ve been there once but I think it’s important enough to put them there again. I said:

“Dear Mr. Grossman:

“In recent days, certain disturbing information has come to my attention relating to the management of Ontario Housing Corp. Prior to entering into any discussion of this nature, I feel it is most important that I attempt to verify some of the details that have been reported to me.”

I think, Mr. Speaker, if I may pause at that point, any member of this Legislature, before he begins to make charges should do his best to verify the facts that lie behind those charges. Certainly this has been my approach to this kind of matter since I have been a member of the Legislature.

“With this in mind, I had a telephone interview on Wednesday last with Mr. R. W. Riggs, the acting managing director of OHC, and asked him if I could be given access to the minutes of the meetings of the board of directors of OHC for the last 12-month period. Mr. Riggs advised me this was the first request of this nature he had received and that he would seek legal advice and he would be back in touch with me.

“The following day I was called on the telephone by Mr. E. J. Whaley, who I understand is the corporate secretary of Ontario Housing. He advised me Mr. Riggs had asked him to call me and that he, Mr. Whaley, was unable to give me permission to examine the minutes of meeting of the board of directors as. I had requested. Mr. Whaley went on to suggest that if I was not satisfied with this information I should communicate with you directly.”

The letter goes on:

“I believe as a member of the Legislature or even as a citizen of Ontario that I should have the right to examine the minutes of the meetings of directors of a public body such as Ontario Housing Corp. Accordingly I now address this request to you.

“I do not with to make a public issue of the fact that I’m denied access to the public records. However, if I’m not given the permission I request, I shall have no alternative but to raise the matter in the Legislature at the first convenient opportunity.”

Then I got a very interesting letter back from the minister, dated Nov. 23, 1972.

“I have your letter of Nov. 17, 1972, in which you requested access to the minutes of meetings of the board of directors of OHC for the last 12-month period.

“You have also advised you were in contact with the acting managing director and other officials of Ontario Housing. They stated they were unable to give permission to examine the minutes of the meetings. I must tell you that the position taken by OHC is quite correct, in that the release of such documents is contrary to government policy with respect to the confidential nature of documents relating to Crown corporations in general.”

Mr. Bullbrook: After the fact.

Mr. Singer: Yes, entirely after the fact. The minister began his letter by stating:

“In recent days certain disturbing information has come to my attention relating to the management of Ontario Housing Corp.”

Then the now Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) in his usual magnanimous way, says:

“It is, of course, not only your right but your duty as a member of the Legislature to satisfy yourself regarding such matters. It seems to me your purpose would be just as well served if you requested the specific information you seek” -- like, I suppose, “Are you prepared to say that director A or director B or official C is honest?” and “Could you tell me, Mr. Grossman, if that is in fact true?” At that point the minister would then give me the specific information that I sought, I’m sure.

“It seems to me your purpose would be just as well served if you requested the specific information you seek, either directly from me or through a question in the Legislature or as an order for return.”

Well, we pursued that in 1972, Mr. Speaker; we pursued it in 1973; my colleagues pursued it in the last few days; and my colleague from Grey-Bruce in great frustration was attempting to get some kind of answer out of the government yesterday. Nothing is forthcoming. There is no availability of information to us in regard to public matters and we continue to be snowed under and conned by lengthy and irrelevant statements.

The minister goes on:

“In this respect you may rest assured we are prepared to give you every co-operation with respect to such information. [What nonsense. What baloney.] However, I am sure that you will recognize that access to the minutes of the corporation would have implications far beyond the mere matter of getting whatever information you require.

“As a lawyer, you certainly should know that reference to third parties could create legal problems ... ”

I don’t know what that one means -- “reference to third parties could create legal problems.” Does that mean that if a third party has had a particular benefit that he may or may not have been entitled to, and the documents are produced to us and we discuss it, as is our right and duty here in the Legislature, problems might be created? For whom? For a third party who might have been preferred? Or for someone who might have given preference to a third party? The provincial secretary, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, was a little confused, as well as the fact that the corporation is constantly dealing with proposals to purchase land, the premature divulging of which could seriously and harmfully affect the interests of the taxpayers.

Now, there’s a red herring if I ever saw one. Certainly no one in this party, and I wouldn’t think anyone in the NDP, would expect that they have a right to be furnished with information about pending deals which would destroy the secrecy surrounding bidding and that sort of thing. But once they are over, surely, Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to all the information that is in government files, and that is what we are being denied.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s the essential distinction we’ve made.

Mr. Singer: We are being denied it. The Minister of Housing yesterday said: “You don’t expect me to go back into the files and tell you about things that happened three years ago.” And the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development says: “Don’t expect us to tell you about what is in the process of happening.” So we get caught right in the middle and we are, in fact, denied any and all information in regard to these matters. I just can’t leave this correspondence without reading the provincial secretary’s concluding paragraph:

“Hoping you see the logic of the government’s position in such matters, I assure you again of my desire to co-operate in providing whatever information of a specific nature you require.”

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a pretty serious condemnation of how this government carries on its affairs. The government has even grown away from its carrying out of certain actions and not accounting for them. They now believe -- they have now switched their emphasis -- that they have a right to do it, that they have a right to do whatever they want, and that we in the Legislature and the people of Ontario have no right to know what they are doing. That is what is wrong.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We believe we have a right to know.

Mr. Deans: That’s a familiar refrain.

Mr. Singer: Yes, the members have heard that before.

Mr. Bullbrook: It was a chap named Lawrence.

Mr. Deans: A chap named Lawrence?

Mr. Bullbrook: A chap named Lawrence once said that you have no right to know.

Mr. Singer: Oh yes, he discovered the Mafia in the halls of the House of Commons up in Ottawa.

Mr. Deans: Oh, that Lawrence. Isn’t it amazing how he has --

Mr. Singer: That’s the one.

Mr. Bullbrook: He had a right to know.

Mr. Singer: Yes, I understand the elevator operators in the House of Commons in Ottawa won’t let him onto their elevators any more.

However, he was the one who stood up and said we had no right to know. The provincial secretary follows it up and the present Minister of Housing follows it up; we have no right to know.

All of this, Mr. Speaker, brings me to the current issue, which is the land acquisition in South Milton. That land acquisition costs the taxpayers, the people of the Province of Ontario, some $12 million. The facts that I am going to deal with, which come from some of the answers given to us and some of our own research, indicate, I think very, very clearly, that the people of the Province of Ontario paid as much as $4.5 million dollars of that money unnecessarily.

The people of Ontario paid $4.5 million dollars too much for land that was acquired for the South Milton land acquisition. The government was negligent; the government was careless; the government was non-caring, and these things happened at least because of the lack of organization and the lack of understanding as to how these matters can and should be carried out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They may have to go.

Mr. Singer: The first document that I want to refer to in this regard is the initial statement delivered by the minister after the matter had been raised here in the House on Nov. 13 and 14. The minister cause back with his statement on Nov. 14, which is in Hansard and runs about 13 pages. And while I am talking about the supply of information, unfortunately the Minister of Housing seems to feel it is sufficient for the day if he gets up in this House and reads from his prepared text, sends copies of that text up to the press gallery, sends copies of the supporting documents up to the press gallery, and neglects to supply any copies to the opposition so that the matters can be followed in detail and immediately dealt with as matters that are then current.

That happened in relation to this Nov. 14 statement. It happened in relation to the other statement. It happened in relation to a very large bundle of documents that the minister tabled the other day, and it happened again this morning. I think there is nothing that indicates better the contemptuous attitude of government toward the opposition, toward the Legislature and toward the people of Ontario than this method of giving forth information. If they deny the opposition the information for a number of hours -- and in my case I didn’t get this information, the important information, from the government source for some 24 hours after it had been talked about here -- then obviously they snub the cutting edge of the criticism that could and should be forthcoming; and 24 hours later, often the ability to capture public attention in regard to a statement made by government has gone. This isn’t by accident, Mr. Speaker. This is done as part of a deliberately contrived plan to deal with embarrassing opposition questions. “The less we tell them, the better. Eventually they’ll get copies, but if we can delay them an hour or 24 hours, all the better; we can blunt their attack.”

Well, let me go back to this Nov. 14 statement. At the bottom of page 6, the minister says: “Two other areas were identified....” In answer to the specific criticism about the acquisition of the South Milton lands, he gave us a six-page lecture about the values of land-banking. That wasn’t really what we were asking him about. We were asking him about why they paid so much money, $4.5 million too much, for the Milton lands.

So we got a six-page lecture about land-banking and the values of it. Then at the bottom of page 6, he starts to deal with it:

“Two other areas were identified, South Milton and Whitby North. I want to deal very specifically with the South Milton area, where it was decided to assemble approximately 4,000 acres out of the 8,000 acres identified in June 6, 1973, report. General approval was obtained by OHC from the government to acquire sufficient lands at a price not to exceed $7,000 per acre.”

Fascinatingly, in the some 6 in. of material that the minister tabled there is not one document from the files of OHC showing how the board of directors of OHC dealt with this matter.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Right.

Mr. Bullbrook: That says it right there.

Mr. Singer: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not just an accident, that those documents continue again to be deliberately withheld from the Legislature and from the people of Ontario.

We are entitled to see the minutes of Ontario Housing. When the minister makes specific reference to approval, then we are to see what those minutes say, what kind of discussion took place and the basis on which the decision was actually made.

Not one piece of paper comes from OHC minutes in regard to this very important matter.

On page 7:

“OHC, acting on behalf of the Province of Ontario, undertook a survey of the price of land in the Milton area in October, 1973. The survey was carried out by a senior member of OHC who is an experienced appraiser. In addition, the corporation consulted with principals of Gibson Willoughby Ltd., who confirmed that the asking prices in the South Milton area ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 per acre and could be expected to increase.”

Well, that is just a beautiful, beautiful paragraph.

The acreage we are talking about is really in the middle of nowhere. It is South Milton; it is surrounded on three sides by parkway belt greenbelt, and it is 10 miles away from Lake Ontario. There is no possibility in the foreseeable future of using it for any development purpose unless somebody builds a watermain from Lake Ontario, some 10 miles to the south. How big the watermain would be, I don’t know; it would have to be a pretty big one. How much it would cost, I don’t know. The figure of $100 million comes to mind. Whether that may be a little too large, a little too small, I don’t know. But certainly it is going to be a very expensive watermain that is going to have to run north from Lake Ontario in order to service this South Milton land.

Recognizing this, the Treasurer himself said this morning, “Well, we are preserving agricultural land by greenbelt zoning. We are preserving agricultural land by parkway belt zoning. And that is being preserved in perpetuity.” We then have a square of land, 4,000 acres in size, in the middle of nowhere, as I say, of which the government has bought 2,300 acres for a purpose -- the minister is unable to tell us what the purpose is, except that it might be a good idea. Then there is the last line in that paragraph:

“Gibson Willoughby ... confirmed that the asking prices in the South Milton area ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 per acre and could be expected to increase.”

I say that is an utter, shameful canard.

Why would that land increase in price unless the prices were artificially stimulated? There is no reason that it would increase. No intelligent developer or speculator would go near it because it isn’t developable and it isn’t developable within the perceivable future. Why would the land be expected to increase? There is just no logic behind this.

All right, let’s go back, because this is going to take a while and I am not going to get nearly through all my points this morning; but let’s see how far we can get.

Mr. Bullbrook: What about that study?

Mr. Singer: Yes, we go back to the beginning here, Mr. Speaker, to the beginning of this paragraph.

“OHC, acting on behalf of the Province of Ontario undertook a survey of the prices of land in the Milton area in October, 1973. The survey was carried out by a senior member of OHC who is an experienced appraiser.”

Just let me deal with those two things. “Show us the survey, Mr. Minister, “we asked. “Don’t worry, we will show you the survey.”

Who was the experienced appraiser in Ontario Housing? Eventually it turned out it was Mr. Procter who has apparently great qualifications as a land manager, who has great qualifications as an office person, who has great qualifications in everything except appraising. He is not a member of one of the appraisal institutes in Canada or Ontario and he was described by the minister on Oct. 14 as a senior official of Ontario Housing who is an experienced appraiser. I just couldn’t wait until we got the study of the experienced appraiser. I hold here in my hand now, Mr. Speaker, some four pages, handwritten --

Mr. Bullbrook: Handwritten, lovely.

Mr. Singer: -- and undated, which apparently is this study done by this experienced appraiser.

Mr. Bullbrook: There are no other documents that could possibly be a survey that were filed.

Mr. Singer: Right.

Mr. Bullbrook: They have got to be that and that’s what they base their acreage values on.

Mr. Singer: My colleague for Sarnia is so right. Do you know there isn’t even a date on this thing, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, you have had experience in dealing with land. Most of the people who are members of this House have had experience in dealing with land. Is this a study?

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s the study.

Mr. Singer: Is this a study, a survey carried out by a senior staff member who is an experienced appraiser in the middle of October? Then you will go to the last page, Mr. Speaker, to try to find out the date. It was so good there wasn’t even a date on it. There is a little note down at the bottom: “Undated, files chronologically indicated approximately April 17, confirmed by” -- some authority. Can the member for Sarnia read that word?

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s Oct. 18.

Mr. Singer: No, but that word?

Mr. Bullbrook: It’s October and it’s very important.

Mr. Singer: Yes, the fact is that this survey is undated. Is this the way the government does business? Is this the kick-off point for a $12-million purchase? Is this the basis on which Ontario Housing is prepared to say land is worth $6,000 to $8,000 an acre and is this how their business is regularly conducted?

Let me refer to a couple of things in this survey. The pages aren’t numbered but I think I have got them in the right context. In any event, on one of the pages, Mr. Procter says:

“A sprinkling of real estate signs is evident over the area. Most farmers have been approached. Some have listed; others have not listed but should consider selling. Samplings are shown on a separate page.”

Then there is this paragraph and I think this paragraph is a gem. Mr. Procter says:

“I believe the assembly of land would be abnormally difficult and costly....”

If Mr. Procter is the senior official of OHC and an experienced appraiser who gives a survey, wouldn’t you think, Mr. Speaker, somebody would listen to him?

“I believe that this assembly of land would be abnormally difficult and costly if the voluntary purchase route is attempted for these reasons.”

And he gives five, and I’m going to read them. Voluntary purchase is the antithesis of expropriation.

What does Mr. Procter say? Mr. Procter says to Ontario Housing, if that’s who he was reporting to; or to the minister, if that’s who he was reporting to -- because this survey isn’t even addressed to anybody. It is just headed “Oakville North,” and then “general” and “topography”. So, I don’t know who this survey was prepared for; it doesn’t show from the way it’s set up.

So Mr. Procter says the acquisition and the assembly of this land -- “would be abnormally difficult and costly if the voluntary purchase route is attempted, for these reasons:

“1. Urban influence has already inserted itself in the area and owners are well informed as to Metro Toronto land prices.”

It’s obvious that Mr. Procter really isn’t much of an appraiser, because what we’re talking about is not land in urban Metropolitan Toronto. We’re not talking about land in Oakville, where there are services. We’re not talking about land in Mississauga, where there are services. We’re talking about a 4,000-acre block of land, really isolated from anything else, surrounded by greenbelt and by parkway belt, and absolutely lacking in any of the services which would allow development. He goes on:

“The activities described, nurseries, market garden lands, golf courses and so on, all indicate high land value for other than agricultural land. The South Pickering project has taught owners to hold for the highest dollar and, if necessary, be expropriated. West of the ribbon development consists of fairly new, good quality houses. Many owners may not wish to sell voluntarily.”

Now, that’s the survey; that’s the study. And Mr. Procter, for what it’s worth, says to Ontario Housing, or to the minister or to both: “Don’t go the voluntary route, because you’re going to get into trouble. Go and expropriate.”

The minister attempts to deal with expropriation. He said during the debate: “We would never expropriate.” He then said, when he got into his second statement:

“There would be difficulties in expropriating, because the end purpose for acquisition is not clear in the government’s mind. It may be farm, it may be commercial, it may be industrial, it may be residential. And that would cause us difficulties, because there’s something we put into the Expropriations Act that might force us to have what is called a hearing of necessity.”

I feel sorry for this minister, from time to time, because he is not too experienced in these matters. He is forced to rely on the advice that is given to him by his civil servants by senior officials of Ontario Housing Corp.

Mr. Bullbrook: He’s misled by them. And, therefore, misleads us -- all the time.

Mr. Singer: So, we go to the difficulties to be faced by a trial of necessity. And I wonder why somebody didn’t tell the hon. minister what a trial of necessity really is. If it is required by an owner whose land has been expropriated, notice is given and the responsible official -- who is the responsible official? I think the Attorney General (Mr. Welch), perhaps. And he appoints an inquiry officer. And the inquiry officer comes into the area and holds a hearing and makes a report.

And guess who he makes the report to? He makes the report to the expropriating minister, who can accept or reject the report. And the expropriating minister then sits in judgment on his decision to expropriate, notwithstanding anything the inquiry officer may have said to him.

So, what is the difficulty about expropriating? Particularly, Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Procter recommended that that be done, and particularly since it would have saved the people of Ontario some $4.5 million.

Now, that has to be answered. Why did they not expropriate?

Remember the North Pickering development? They were faced with exactly the same problem; they thought they might be embarrassed by the hearing of necessity, so they had a special new little bit of legislation saying: “In expropriations in North Pickering we won’t even have a hearing of necessity; we will just go in and take and the aggrieved people are not going to have that opportunity.” But again, Mr. Speaker, that is gobbledygook. It is an unfair, improper interpretation of the expropriations statute, and improper information deliberately fed by the minister to this Legislature and to the people of Ontario in this regard.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that the hour is very close to 1 o’clock.

Mr. Bullbrook: Tell them the next chapter involves how Mr. Freedman moved in.

Mr. Singer: Yes, in moving the adjournment of the debate at the moment, let me say to you, sir, and through you to the minister, the next chapter involves a certain gentleman named Mr. Freedman, and how he moved in at the 11th hour, and how he appears to have made a profit of some $2.5 million or more because of at least the government’s negligence, at least the government’s inability to come to grips. And you might, Mr. Speaker, hear some words about the chicken, the fox, and the big blue bear, and the roles all these three people played.

Mr. Bullbrook: The big blue bear?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Tune in next week.

Mr. Singer moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to have notice of the next edition in this saga from the member for Downsview.

However, the business of the House next week will be as follows -- I have given the other parties notice already, but I shall call it so that it is on the record -- item 21, Bill 155; item 8, Bill 112; item 9, Bill 113; item 14, Bill 132; item 13, Bill 128; item 7, Bill 111; item 5, Bill 81; item 17, Bill 148; item 18, Bill 149; item 19, Bill 150; item 20, Bill 151; item 23, Bill 158; item 22, Bill 157.

Of course if the opposition is co-operative we will have another list to present at the end of that routine.

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

Motion agreed to.

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