Hansard Transcript 1974-Dec-17 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) will be introducing on behalf of the government legislation later today to establish a Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

This new ministry is in response to the significant role which culture and recreation play in enhancing the quality of life and good citizenship. Although the government of this province has long provided a variety of cultural and recreational programmes, the time has now come to bring them together within a single ministry for added emphasis.

Underlying the priority the government attaches to this field is our firm conviction that individual and community involvement in the process of cultural and recreational development contributes to full and equal citizenship. The objectives of the new ministry, then, will focus on ways in which culture and recreation can enhance the general quality of life in our province.

Within this basic philosophy, the ministry’s programmes will be directed to three distinct areas. First, the ministry will be responsible for assisting in preserving and enhancing our cultural heritage, including archaeological and historical sites, our art galleries, and so on. Emphasis will be given to our diversity of cultural traditions and backgrounds, and programmes geared towards maintaining the vitality of our multicultural society will be a significant part of the new ministry.

Secondly, the ministry will have special responsibility to promote access to the benefits of citizenship for both new and Ontario-born residents alike, including the opportunity to take part in sports and recreation programmes and to enjoy access to the cultural products of past and present generations. Because culture and recreation have no meaning if they cannot be shared and enjoyed by individuals, special attention will be focused on increasing public involvement, participation and enjoyment of these activities.

Thirdly, the ministry will direct its attention to stimulating the concept of individual and community excellence, whether in sports, culture and performing arts, or other forms of cultural expression. These three areas -- cultural preservation, increased public access and the stimulation of creative excellence will complement each other and contribute to the cultural development of our province.

One of our great resources in this province, Mr. Speaker, it its quality of life, based on a rich and diverse cultural history. It is our goal to preserve and enhance that vital and vibrant quality.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all members of the House will welcome this initiative as an historic and significant step forward for this province.

Mr. J. B. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I don’t see anyone without a job.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Who is this paragon the government is going to appoint?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

ASBESTOS IN GREAT LAKES BASIN

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on Ontario’s programme for asbestos in drinking water. I’d like to comment and state my ministry’s position on several matters concerning asbestos levels in drinking water throughout the province.

Yesterday the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) raised the question of an unpublished report of the International Joint Commission indicating that asbestos fibres were contaminating the water supplies of Great Lakes cities. Let me first clarify the question of this report.

For several months officials of my ministry have had copies of a draft from the Great Lakes advisory board entitled “Asbestos in the Great Lakes Basin.” Let me make it very clear that this document was a draft being circulated for review and comment prior to publication. Let me also make it very clear that this is to result in a report to the International Joint Commission from the Great Lakes Research Advisory Board. It is not a report of the IJC. Mr. Paul Foley is my ministry’s representative on the research advisory board and he has had the report for several months for review. Several other engineers within my ministry have been asked for and have provided comment on the draft document.

It is standard scientific practice to carry out a thorough review of all research papers in draft form before entering into the final report stage. We are aware of the danger in premature publication of incomplete or unverified evidence. Our research on the asbestos situation began in 1972, and subsequently it was published. Consequently, much of the data for this draft has been provided by published work carried out by officials of my ministry.

The data was available in published reports, and what the member for High Park has done is contrary to my ministry’s and the scientific community’s practice of ensuring thoroughness and scientific accuracy prior to dissemination outside the scientific community.

In September, 1973, Mr. Garnet Kay, supervisor of the contingency planning section of our pollution control branch, published an article entitled, “Ontario Intensifies Search for Asbestos in Drinking Water,” copies of which I have with me. The article appeared in Water and Pollution Control, September, 1973, issue. A similar contribution entitled, “Asbestos in Drinking Water,” appeared in the September, 1974, issue of the Journal of the American Waterworks Association.

Mr. Kay’s findings were available and used extensively by the research advisory board in compiling the draft of its report. Until yesterday, I was not aware that this report had reached this type of preparation. I make it a practice neither to confuse nor to complicate very technical scientific work by interfering with any report while in the preparatory stage. I cannot and do not wish to be included in all the details surrounding detailed, technical papers. When my technical staff is satisfied that the best possible input has gone into a document, then I am comprehensively involved.

Further to the issue, Mr. Speaker, Ontario was one of the first jurisdictions to investigate the presence of asbestos in its drinking water, as the previously published articles indicate. In August, 1972, we collected samples at 22 Ontario cities using surface waters for their supplies. Sarnia, on Lake Huron, at that time had the highest level in the province, 3.87 million fibres per litre, which translates to a mass concentration of 0.00213 micrograms per litre. Thunder Bay, on Lake Superior, had one of the lowest counts of 0.83 million fibres per litre which translates to a mass concentration of 0.00235 micrograms per litre. Windsor, another area of concern, fell into the middle range at 1.73 million fibres per litre.

A complete list of our findings are available in both Mr. Kay’s articles. With these sample results, my ministry immediately took steps to optimize the filtration facilities in existing water treatment plants in all these cities. It has long been our established policy to make maximum use of pre-filtration treatment before entering the final filtration stage of municipal water supply treatment.

It is interesting to note that our research indicates similar results were achieved in recent tests by the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters. We have been able to research very high levels of asbestos removal where pre-filtration coagulation was used for maximum results. My ministry has always stressed to municipalities the importance of this stage in the treatment process.

In the case of Sarnia, my ministry initiated a provincial protect to design and construct a new filtration plant capable of removing 99 per cent of the asbestos fibres present in the raw water. I am pleased to announce that this plant will be operational at the latest this spring. The installation in Sarnia will utilize the best techniques we have developed through our research. It is our finding that the pre-treatment of water through flocculation and coagulation will give us optimum results from existing filters. Our results are consistent with the results reported by the Canadian Centre for Inland Waters at Burlington where removal of 99 per cent of the asbestos fibres was achieved.

The Thunder Bay situation is very different. We have been watching it closely ever since we became aware of the very high levels reported in Duluth, Minn. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a court action under way in the US involving the source of the asbestos fibres, Reserve Mines. We are in close, constant contact with the American officials and the International Joint Commission on this matter.

The sampling at Duluth showed very high concentrations of 10 and 12 million fibres per litre. Lake Superior waters at Thunder Bay had a much lower concentration, 0.83 million fibres per litre, or 0.00235 micrograms per litre. We are monitoring the situation closely and following our practice of maximum use of existing water treatment facilities to remove these fibres. Our research programme is continuing for the purpose of developing maximum efficiency in the removal of asbestos fibres at all our present water treatment plants.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): What has the minister done specifically?

Hon. W. Newman: At present, while we have clear indication of the health effects of the inhalation of asbestos, there is no clear indication of the effects of ingestion from drinking water. We have been advised by the Ministry of Health and others that the research available indicates that the levels of asbestos in drinking water of the cities we sampled does not constitute a hazard to human health.

Asbestos occurs naturally in the environment. Our efforts to this point in time have focused on determining and controlling the varied uses of asbestos in our society. We are pleased with the efforts of the many agencies working co-operatively on asbestos contamination. We are anxious to receive the conclusions and recommendations of all studies and reports. All of this work will assist us in preventing any potential danger to the health of the people of this province.

I am most surprised that, of all the members of this House, a doctor of medicine would hesitate to respect the scientific ethic which dictates maximum caution in the dissemination of scientific data.

Prior to the most comprehensive reviews aimed at establishing accuracy beyond doubt, this quasi-violation of a traditional scientific ethic borders on the sensationalizing of the asbestos situation and of the known facts, rather than as constructive assistance to the arrival at a scientifically sound report of proven and essential findings. By using common data that has been available and published for over a year, I can only conclude that the member had a self-serving intent.

Mr. Foulds: The minister would rather sit silent.

Hon. W. Newman: in any case, I welcome this opportunity to report to the members of this House on the activities of my ministry.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He hides the facts.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The minister has accused me of prematurely releasing the report of the International Joint Commission. The fact is, sir, this report has sat in his ministry for four months and nothing has been done. The reason I released it was to warn and alarm the municipalities of this province and the people of this province to take their own precautions, because this minister has failed to do anything.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not really a point of privilege. Any further statements by the ministry?

Mr. MacDonald: He sits on the facts when they are proven.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Government Services.

GROUP INSURANCE COVERACE

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, the subject of employee group insurance coverage has previously been discussed here in the House.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Yes, how much does Colin Brown make?

Hon. Mr. Snow: As most of the members are aware, the Ministry of Government Services recently called for tenders from insurance companies to provide group insurance coverage for employees represented by the Civil Service Association of Ontario.

The bids received were analyzed by the Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee, composed of an equal number of representatives from the government and the CSAO, and, Mr. Speaker, a press release has been issued this afternoon by the committee. I will read the press release:

“The Joint Insurance Benefits Review Committee announced today that the government has confirmed Confederation Life as the carrier for group life, health, and long-term disability insurance. The plans cover approximately 52,000 employees in the bargaining unit represented by the CSAO.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is quite a bit of noise in the background. Many people may wish to hear this. Order, please. Could we have a little less noise.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): That’s not noise, that’s the member for Sudbury East.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The statement continues.

“The committee, composed of both CSAO and government representatives, was established as a result of recent negotiations on employee benefits. It is responsible for preparation of insurance specifications, tendering and recommendation to the government on selection of a carrier. It is also responsible for monitoring the financial experience of the plants and reviewing contentious claims.

“Confederation Life was one of 14 companies that submitted bids to provide coverage for these plans. The committee’s unanimous recommendation of this company to underwrite these plans has been the basis for the government’s decision.”

That is the end of the press release, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to thank all the members, the four government representatives and the four CSAO representatives, and the two independent consultants, for the excellent work they put in in reviewing these very complicated tenders and making this recommendation to us.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

GROUP INSURANCE COVERAGE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Government Services indicate to the House what the saving would be and the cost to the government and the improved benefits to the employees of the government in putting this package of ancillary insurance out to tendering? In other words, I am asking what the increased cost has been over these years, based on the policy of the government of not tendering this service on behalf of our employees.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to compare the tenders that we received from the 14 bidders for this package with previous coverage for two reasons. This package now covers only the 52,000 employees in the bargaining unit. The former coverage that was placed nine to 10 years ago covered the management classes and included the members of the Legislature as well. Also, this new package includes the supplementary health and hospital plan, which was awarded by the arbitration board in June, 1974. This plan is additional and is not part of the present plan and will come into force with the new plan. There is no absolute way really of comparing the costs of the two plans

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is there any way the minister can inform the House what the direct benefit was to Mr. Colin Brown, who represented the London Life consortium, which had this coverage without tender for so many years?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of that portion or what Mr. Brown’s involvement was

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): About $150,000 a year?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will say that in this tender call, in the case of the 14 companies submitting bids, the bids were submitted directly by the companies to the ministry without any involvement of brokers or agents to my knowledge.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. What has become of the coverage for those who are not within the bargaining unit, the management people within the civil service and the members of the Legislature? Who carries that?

Is the minister going to table the bids of the 14 companies which tendered on the tender call?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the coverage for the management classes, covering I guess some 10,000 or more people, is still with London Life Insurance Co. That will be retendered.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is getting smaller, but it is still in there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Reid: That is how Colin is paying for those ads.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That will be retendered as a separate package.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): They are getting their feet in the trough once again.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have a tremendous job to carry out. This new contract with Confederation Life takes effect as of Feb. 1, 1975. Between now and then, if humanly possible, 52,000 contracts have to be rewritten. Each member of the Civil Service Association has to submit a new form, which yet has to be printed by the successful bidder, the decision just having been made yesterday afternoon. The beneficiaries and details of the members of the Civil Service Association have to be filled in and have to be handled by my ministry. As soon as we can get that package implemented under the new contract, a new tender call will be issued similar to this one, covering the balance of the group of public servants of the province.

As to the second question, Mr. Speaker, it is one of the conditions of: the tender document. I can give general information regarding the differences in quotations, but this tender document I must say is a very complicated submission.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): The way the minister tells it, it is.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We had two sets of consultants, one hired by the CSAO and one by the government, to assess it.

Mr. Foulds: How about two sets of books?

Hon. Mr. Snow: They both came down, along with the staff on both sides, with a unanimous recommendation for this bid. But one of the agreements in the tender document was that complete details of any bidder’s bid would not be made public or given to other bidders because this would erode the total rate structure of all the companies.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

OMB DECISION ON TORONTO HEIGHT BYLAW

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask a question of the Premier. Now that the council of the city of Toronto has formally appealed the decision of the Municipal board to disallow the 45-ft bylaw can the Premier indicate to the House the timetable for the hearing of the appeal by the executive council and what the ramifications are in the instance where developers are now applying for permits to undertake buildings in the absence of the 45-ft bylaw since the appeal is before the cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Leader of the Opposition would direct that question to either the Minister without Portfolio from Carleton or the Attorney General (Mr. Welch), he might get some of the detailed legal information. I can’t tell the Leader of the Opposition what time periods there are or what the implications are of the present situation in Toronto. I think if he were to direct his question to either one of those gentlemen he might get some of that information; if not, I will endeavour to get it for him tomorrow.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since the Attorney General has moved out of his seat temporarily, perhaps the Minister without Portfolio could give us some information in that regard.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker as I was distracted at the time the hon. leader of the Opposition asked this question I would be prepared to listen to it again and do my best to respond.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition repeat his question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What would the timetable be in hearing the cabinet appeal on the Municipal Board decision to disallow the 45-ft bylaw?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it would follow the usual course. First of all, we haven’t received any petition whatsoever from the city of Toronto, but it would have to be looked at by the Attorney General’s staff, referred to the cabinet committee which deals with these and a recommendation made to cabinet. There is no specific timetable, but certainly I would treat it as a matter of some urgency if it arrived at my committee.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: May I ask a supplementary? Has the hon. minister, in his experience on the executive council, participated in one of these appeals before? Could he therefore give some indication --

An hon. member: Many.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Many, it is answered on behalf of the hon. member. Then what would be the general term? Are we looking at three months, six months or perhaps three weeks?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there is no specific term. Each one is dealt with on its merits. They vary in complexity; an easy one could be dealt with in a matter of a couple of weeks and more complex ones might be dealt with at greater length.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): This is an easy one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We get all the easy ones.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Housing. Is he aware that the indication from the public accounts is that the rental housing programme was underspent by over $20 million for the fiscal year ended in the spring of 1974? Can he explain why that money was not reallocated by himself or his predecessor, rather than having to bring it forward in some sense as a supplementary estimate now? Why was that money not utilized for the provision of rental housing?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, it’s very difficult for me to speak for the previous ministers in regard to how the moneys were reallocated in the fiscal year 1973-1974. I am fully prepared, as I mentioned to the leader of the NDP, to reallocate this year’s funds as they are needed in each particular programme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Might I ask a supplementary? Was there any connection between that fund of over $20 million and the lack of success in having Metro Centre go forward, which was to have contained a fairly large number of housing units, particularly of the subsidized type? Is the minister concerned, in terms of his responsibility as Minister of Housing, about the lack of success so far in having that programme move forward at least to the extent that downtown housing might be provided?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned.

GLASS WASTE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of the Environment if we can expect legislation having to do with glass containers which has been promised by himself and his predecessors for a number of years. Is he really just kidding the troops when he says that this is still under study? Are we going to have some legislation that is going to bring some rationalization of the control of glass waste?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House about a week ago, I intend to table the solid waste task force report. The total solid waste task force report, which I understand just came back from the printers, I intend to table very shortly, along with a statement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Will a statement of policy accompany it?

Hon. W. Newman: It will be a statement and it will have several --

Mr. Cassidy: Yet another study.

COMPENSATION FOR DOWNGRADED FARMLAND

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Finally, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture can comment on the report in the most recent issue of Farm and Country, which may have been on his desk today -- it just arrived on my desk -- which indicates as follows:

“Queen’s Park sources say that the federation’s position is being accepted in principle by the cabinet -- that is, the position that there will be compensation for farmers whose lands have been either downgraded in their utility or downzoned by action of the Legislature or by direction of the government.”

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the issue of the paper and I have no knowledge as to the content of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. It is the first I’ve heard of it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Might I ask a supplementary? Since it is a matter that is discussed here from time to time, is the possibility of compensation for farmers’ properties affected by land-use planning being reconsidered by the government, or do the positions stated by the minister and the Treasurer (Mr. White) previously still apply?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, any action taken by the government or contemplated by the government would be made known in the fullness of time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s great.

Mr. MacDonald: Where did he get that new phrase?

An hon. member: He sounds like Leslie Frost.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He got sick of saying “in due course.”

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth has the floor.

ACID SPILL IN PELHAM TOWNSHIP

Mr. Deans: I was going to ask the Minister of Health a question, but he has disappeared. Can I ask a question of the Minister of the Environment?

How can it be that a farmer in Pelham township who had acid rerouted on to his property some two years ago by Ministry of the Environment officials because of a spill as a result of a train crash could have gone to this point in 1974 without having received compensation?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, I’m fully familiar with the spill and how it was contained on this particular property. We have had discussions with the farmer in question. We have always gone on the assumption the polluter should pay, and the polluter in this case was the railway company -- CN or CP, whichever it was.

We have spent a lot of time getting detailed information. We have given some information to this person and we expect to have a full report for this farmer within a few weeks.

Mr. Breithaupt: In the next two years.

Hon. W. Newman: I realize his concern, and I realize he has no recourse to the courts to recover for damage to his property.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s disgraceful.

Mr. Deans: Since he believes that the polluter should pay, doesn’t the minister feel, since the acid would not have gone on the property had it not been routed on to it by the Ministry of the Environment officials, that at least technically, if not legally, the Ministry of the Environment is equally responsible for the damages incurred by the farmer and the losses which have occurred over two years?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Are you asking a question?

Mr. Deans: I am coming to it. I said: Doesn’t the minister agree? Isn’t that a question? I said it at the beginning.

Mr. Speaker: There seems to be quite a bit of editorial material in it.

Mr. Deans: Will the minister, on behalf of the government, fulfill the obligation that was undertaken two years ago to compensate the farmer for his losses and take whatever action is then necessary against the TH and B in order to recover on behalf of the government whatever the costs are?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in this particular case all the data will be given and all assistance will be given, when and if the farmer decides to prosecute the railway that created the spill in the first place. They are responsible for the spill. As a result of Environment’s work on the problem we averted a major catastrophe in the whole area.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Give it to the ombudsman.

Mr. Deans: The ministry damaged the property.

HOSPITAL SPENDING CEILINGS

Mr. Deans: A question of the Minister of Health: Has the minister looked at the statement by the Toronto General Hospital with regard to the downgrading of services as a result of them having to cut back their staff by 33 members, which has resulted again from the ministry’s cutback or ceiling on hospital expenditures? Will the minister check to find out what areas the downgrading or cutback will affect and how the public will be affected by the reduction in the service available at Toronto General Hospital?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the reduction. In fact, I understand a delegation of employees who wish to talk to me is probably in the audience at the present time. In the main I have to leave it to the boards of management to decide which programmes can be curtailed and which efficiencies can be made. Otherwise, there would be no use in having a local board of management.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: As the Minister of Health, isn’t he concerned about the statement made by the hospital president? He said there will definitely be a cutback in the degree of service to the community, and that “none of these jobs was unnecessary, but it was our only choice short of incurring a deficit.” And will the minister review with the board the cutbacks which are going to be undertaken to determine the impact of them on the community and the patients who require the services, and take some appropriate steps to ensure that there will be no downgrading of health care facilities?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I can’t make any assurance that there will be no downgrading of services to the community. I can only say that I would hope that any board faced with a request from us to save funds would see that they are saved in ways that minimize any effect upon community services.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George with a supplementary.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Could the minister ensure at least that the extended car programme, which is usually developed through the social service, department of hospitals, will be an ongoing programme in that hospital, since that is certainly part of his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The extended care programme, if I am interpreting the, member’s words correctly, is not financed through hospital funds.

If I’m not interpreting the question properly, then perhaps I need amplification.

Mrs. Campbell: If I may, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Actually, it was a very general question. It didn’t follow the particular hospital which was being questioned in the first place, with respect.

Mrs. Campbell: It was with respect to the Toronto General Hospital, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker: It is a particular general hospital? I’m sorry, I didn’t gather that in the question. You may proceed.

Mrs. Campbell: I’m sorry. The minister has asked me to amplify the question: May I therefore have permission to explain it?

In view of the fact that it is through the social service department of Toronto General Hospital that there is a liaison with staff and the ministry, to ensure extended care, would the minister be in a position to ensure us that at least that programme will not be terminated or seriously curtailed by reason of this cut?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the very reason for having a liaison with the extended care facilities is to cut hospital costs. And I would hope that if anything is done to cut hospital costs it would not be in one of these areas that a hospital deemed it necessary to reduce.

SPORTS COMPLEX

Mr. Deans: A question of the Premier: I’m sure the Premier will recall that he said when he made the announcement of the sports complex at Oakville, and I quote: “It’s not something we are announcing and then sitting on for six months.” That was announced six months ago.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That’s not six months.

Mr. Deans: What exactly did he mean? Will he be sitting on it for a couple of years?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the way it is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if memory serves me correctly, the sports complex is to be a part of or related to the Bronte Provincial Park. I only make the distinction, in that the people from that community might not totally agree with it being referred to as Oakville. I think I said at the time that we would proceed with this development. We are quite enthusiastic about it.

There have been some explorations of other developments of this kind elsewhere. And while I recognize that for the hon. member to totally understand this, when you are developing a complex of this kind, a certain degree of consultation with all those in the sporting community, a certain degree of consultation with the designers, the architects and the engineers are somewhat necessary before sod is turned. I can only assure the hon. member --

Mr. Stokes: Like Thunder Bay.

Mr. Foulds: Why didn’t he do that before he made the announcement?

Mr. Breithaupt: Which sod is going to become the new minister?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only assure the hon. member that it is proceeding, but there is a certain amount of work that is necessary, believe it or not, prior to a shovel going into the ground.

Mr. Deans: How many statements will the Premier make before something finally happens?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that if the statements are relevant -- which all statements from this side of the House are -- if we feel it appropriate to make 10 statements about the sports complex at Bronte Provincial Park over the next period of time, we will not be inhibited from so doing.

Mr. MacDonald: No, I don’t think it will take that many.

Mr. Deans: Especially if there is an election in the offing.

DUMPING OF FILL IN HAMILTON HARBOUR

Mr. Deans: I have one final question of the Minister of the Environment. Has the Ministry of the Environment made contact with the federal government with regard to the recently announced continued dumping of CN fill into the Hamilton harbour?

Hon. W Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have had correspondence on that yesterday, and we certainly are in constant contact regarding it. Is the member talking about the fill to extend the rail line? Yes, we are very much aware and we are very much involved.

Mr. Deans: What is the minister’s involvement?

Hon. W. Newman: Our people have been meeting with the federal people. We are very much concerned about it.

Mr. Speaker: That is the last supplementary question. The Minister of Housing has the answer to a question.

HOUSING IN ARMSTRONG

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker on Dec. 9 the member for Thunder Bay asked me the following question:

“Mr. Stokes: Since the Ministry of Housing cancelled the construction of 12 homes in Armstrong with the announced closure of the radar base, and since at the present time there seems to be a surplus of homes of those people who have been forced to move out, will the ministry undertake to acquire those homes so that they could be made available to others in the community who are inadequately housed at the present time, so that we might make use of these accommodations at much, much less than the cost of brand-new housing?”

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member, the Ontario Housing Corp. has been discussing with other ministries of this government in regard to improving the economic condition of Armstrong. We, as a ministry, will certainly give full consideration to the possibility of not building new homes but of making use of these. We will be giving him an answer at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

ASBESTOS IN GREAT LAKES BASIN

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the concern expressed by the people of Sarnia as a result of the comment of our colleague from High Park yesterday, may I direct a question to the Minister of the Environment in two parts? Am I correct in assuming that the minister was unequivocal in saying that the building of the new filtration plant is capable of removing 99 per cent of the asbestos content at Sarnia? Secondly, do I understand the minister correctly again that his ministry has received unequivocal assurances from the Ministry of Health that the ingestion previously by the people of the Sarnia riding did not constitute a health hazard?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, answering the first question, the plant that is now being built will be able to remove 99 per cent of any asbestos fibre. I am informed by the Ministry of Health that the drinking of water by the people in Sarnia and elsewhere does not constitute a health hazard at this time.

Mr. Shulman: At this time, but what about in the future?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: Look, the member should stop making irresponsible statements and getting people upset.

Mr. R. C. Eaton (Middlesex South): He is irresponsible.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: Is the minister aware of the published studies that show that persons working in the environment where there is asbestos have a higher rate of cancer of the stomach and bowel than the normal population, some three times higher? Is this nothing to worry about?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about inhalation. I covered that in my statement today.

Mr. Shulman: No, I am not. I am talking about the bowel.

Hon. W. Newman: The member was talking about a report yesterday that I hadn’t released.

Mr. MacDonald: Does the minister inhale into his bowel?

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Can’t he tell the difference between the lung and bowel?

Hon. W. Newman: I often wonder -- no, I won’t say it, but I’ll tell him this --

Mr. Shulman: Say it!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: I will say this much that the member should certainly make sure he gets his facts straight before he makes any statements. That’s all.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Why did the minister then fail to answer my question of Oct. 28 with regard to asbestos fibres in Thunder Bay harbour until today, after the member for High Park released the report yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: The original question had to do with the pollution of the water in Sarnia.

Mr. Foulds: We are talking about his report.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is the same water. It just takes a little longer to get there.

Mr. Foulds: It’s Great Lakes water.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. Can he assure the House quite clearly that the Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act will not come up before Christmas? Secondly, whenever it does come up, can he assure us that that bill will be referred to standing committee, as the original bill was in the spring of 1972?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, when the government is ready to bring that bill forward, I will announce the course of its procedure.

Mr. MacDonald: That is very communicative.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

Mr. Deans: That wasn’t what he told me yesterday.

FEES FOR TRUCKS ON INDIAN RESERVES

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Has the minister taken any action in regard to the legislation where Indian bands have to pay the regular fee for fire engines? I brought this to the attention of the minister last June 18 and he promised that he would look into it. I haven’t heard whether the Act has been changed or amended so that if the Indian band councils purchase a fire engine or truck their fees will be the same as other municipalities outside the reserves.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I well remember the question that the hon. member placed before me. I said at that time, and I repeat, that I feel that Indian bands should be treated exactly the same as any other municipality in the purchase and the operation of this type of equipment on a particular reserve. It was my understanding that this practice has been carried out since that time. I will certainly check into it again.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

RECYCLING OF WASTE PAPER

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism: In view of the fact that in the past waste paper companies have been collecting and recycling waste paper from industry, and in view of the fact they have now ceased this practice, resulting in a backup of waste paper which has to be destroyed, is the minister examining methods of handling this situation so that the waste paper now being destroyed can be salvaged?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, we have had the opportunity in recent days of speaking with the recycling organizations for Ontario and for Canada as to exactly how we might approach the problem, not singularly as the Ministry of Industry and Tourism but also the Ministry of the Environment, as well as with industry in the province, and I have to inform this House very openly that we do not have an answer for them.

There are many complications in trying to recycle paper. The bulk of it cannot be used in the paper mills that are in close proximity to the major cities, and it would take a tremendous amount of money, freight-wise, to ship the paper back into the north country and have it processed through the mills. While we have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of tons of waste paper which has been collected in places like Ottawa, Toronto and other major urban centres sitting in storage waiting for the price, we hope, to rise again so that they can find a market for it, at the moment I have to inform the House that we do not know of a way in which to reprocess this paper in conjunction with the making of new paper.

Mr. Young: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us what has happened in the past? Surely this paper which has been collected has been used in the making of paperboard and other products, and surely that need is still there? Are we cutting our forests now to supplement the waste paper that used to be used for this process?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, at the time that they originally started to collect waste paper in this province and this country, the need for it in the industry was there, ready and available to us. We realized where it was and where it existed. All of a sudden there were a great number of people involved in collecting used paper, and the supply of it is far in excess of what they can use in the making of new paper. I understand that’s really where the complication has come in; the amount of waste paper that we presently have far exceed, anything that we were able to pile up in the days previous to this.

Mr. Young: But is the minister investigating the matter so that we can hope to find a solution?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the recycling organization here -- which is a professional group and represents industry -- is continuing to review the situation to see exactly how it might be able to overcome the surplus of waste paper that is in storage in the major areas of the province. One of the problems, obviously, is the cost of freight to send this paper back into the north country, where a lot of the pulp and paper mills are located and where this paper could be used to a greater extent than it is at the moment in the making of new pulp and paper.

MARKUPS IN FOOD PRICES

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) asked me a question concerning beef price markups some time ago and I would like to report as follows:

The Ontario Food Council has analyzed beef markups at retail, based on the carcass wholesale cost, for the first 45 weeks of 1974 at five major chains operating in Metropolitan Toronto. The council has noted no consistent increasing trend in beef markups during the 45-week study. There were variations in the 20.7 cents per pound average markup, ranging from a low of 17.69 cents to a high of 24.86 cents during the period studied. The average markup must cover such costs as labour, overhead and wrapping material costs, as well as any profits. The Food Prices Review Board, in its November, 1974, “Beef Pricing II” publication, concluded, and I quote:

“In the Toronto market at least, there has been no consistent upward trend in either wholesale or retail price spreads during 1974. The average spread in 1974 is similar to the average monthly figure of the 1967 to 1973 period reported by the Food Prices Review Board in its earlier beef pricing studies.”

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

CONDOMINIUM MORTGAGES

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Is the Minister of Housing yet able to tell us whether or not the provisions for HOME mortgages for condominium owners are governed by statute, by regulation or by departmental direction? If so, what are the regulations or the controls that surround the granting of these mortgages?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me that question about two days ago. I undertook to provide him with the information. I will do so; I haven’t had the opportunity yet. I would say, first of all though, that OHC certainly has regulations which define exactly what happens. Whether or not there are regulations in the House is what I want to determine, and this is what I undertook to find out.

Mr. Singer: We’ll talk about it in the minister’s estimates.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food has the answer to a question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Stormont.

BILINGUAL SIGNS

Mr. C. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In view of the fact that he was in Ottawa last week, and in view of the fact that I have received a petition from the residents of Alfred, could he bring the House up to date on what’s being done to provide bilingual signs on Highway 417, and more informative signs regarding Highway 17 and the access facilities?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this particular problem has been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Belanger) and also the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). While I was in Ottawa last week I met with the delegation from that particular area, and I have given them the assurance that we will adequately sign the area, as they had requested, to assure that persons travelling on Highway 417 will be aware of the communities that are located on 17. As well, I have again discussed the situation as it relates to bilingual signs with another delegation that was there, and we are moving toward providing this type of signing for them in that area.

Mr. Samis: Could the minister give us some idea when the bilingual signs would start appearing?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any definite time on it. We said that we would start to sign in the area and we would put in bilingual signs. The signing programme is going to have to follow its regular course as we produce the signs that are required. I have given the assurance that we will put up the bilingual signs that are required and have been requested in the area, but I can’t give the member a definite time on it. We would like to go ahead with that programme.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Minister of Transportation and Communications say whether or not he is saying that bilingual signs will go up on Highway 417 only as they are needed to replace the existing signs when they are deemed to have been up too long?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I’ve said. I’ve said we would put up bilingual signs. The hon. member should be aware that the big complaint is that there are no signs on 417, so I’m putting them up originally and they’ll be bilingual.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing has another answer to a question.

OHC BRIBE CHARGES

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the question was from the member for Downsview. I was going to address the answer to the member for Downsview. I see he’s not there, but I had better do it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s all right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: On Dec. 9 the hon. member for Downsview asked a supplementary question:

“I wonder if the minister could go back to his advisers and ascertain whether or not any refunds were received by Ontario Housing relating to certain floor tiling contracts, interior decorating contracts and painting contracts; what the amounts of these refunds were, and how in fact it came about that there were refunds made.”

Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the corporation did in fact recover such funds through the activity of the Provincial Auditor and OHC’s auditors. It was determined that in 1971 overcharges occurred in buildings for painting, plastering and floor tiling in the amount of $1,635. Full recovery of this amount was made from the two contractors involved.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary: Could the minister advise whether some of the recoveries were made as the results of good work by one of the area supervisors at the Ontario Housing development called Lawrence Heights?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t advise, but I will check into it.

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

SAND SUPPLY IN RIDEAU TOWNSHIP

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Transportation and Communications: In view of the fact that his department was forced to overrule Rideau township with respect to a wayside sand pit licence for Dibblee Construction Co. with respect to the construction of Highway 417, can the minister say whether or not the construction company in question and/or his ministry exhausted all possible supplies of sand closer to Highway 417 -- in other words in other townships through which the highway runs -- before issuing that wayside permit over the wishes of the Rideau township council?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that particular matter was discussed in some detail with Mayor Tupper of Rideau township. As far as my information is concerned, and from what I am able to find from that particular incident, yes every possible source of supply was looked at by my ministry to determine if this particular grade of sand that was needed could be found. This was the closest and the most economical source for it.

In discussions with the mayor at the time we indicated this was the desire, to be as economical in the construction of this particular job as we could. We also assured the mayor we would rehabilitate that area; that the work would be done in a way that would do an absolute minimum of damage to the landscape; and would be restored. I think we satisfied the mayor that we had gone about this thing in the proper way.

I can assure the hon. member it is not our intention to avoid discussions with the various municipalities and we will co-operate in every way we can with them. In this particular case, we felt we had to take this action and exercise our rights as provided to this ministry by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier).

Mr. P. Taylor: I thank the minister for that response. Would he also say whether he is actively working with his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, to initiate a sand and gravel inventory for eastern Ontario as soon as possible?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not. The Minister of Natural Resources -- I do not wish to reply for him -- but we have had one inventory done on aggregate resources in one part of Ontario. I can’t answer whether or not that is being done in eastern Ontario. Perhaps he can.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

ASBESTOS IN GREAT LAKES BASIN

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development please, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the minister a question in relation to health policy. Is it the policy of the ministry to now ask all of the cities on the Great Lakes to put in the same type of new infiltration system that Sarnia has put in in order to get rid of our asbestos as well as Sarnia’s? If not, is it not considered a health hazard in other cities? If it is not considered a health hazard, why is it being put into Sarnia?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A question of the Minister of Housing. Will the minister take steps to ensure that the housing programme announced by the federal government will be available not only for urban housing but also for rural housing, namely farm housing where there is a great need for upgrading?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House that I have written to Mr. Danson asking for a meeting before a meeting which he has proposed in the middle of January. I will be most pleased to discuss all aspects of housing, and in particular the programme to which the member has referred.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that fanners are generally in a low income category, we feel that this is particularly important; and would the minister take that up with the federal minister much earlier than he seems able to do at the moment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best; but if someone doesn’t wish to reply to me, I can’t do much about it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I will see if it is possible that the hon. minister and myself can talk by phone or some way that is a little speedier than it has been in the past.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He is the federal member for the member for York Centre. Why doesn’t he ask him?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Gaunt: Along the same lines, having to do with housing in small rural municipalities: Would the minister consider some programme whereby his ministry can undertake the OHAP programme as it applies to small rural municipalities in such a way that they can take advantage of this programme? This isn’t the case now, because many of the small rural municipalities are not in the position to take advantage of the programme because they don’t have the necessary bylaws setting up the standards which the ministry requires.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think we have to relate to the programme directory. The OHAP programme is designed to accelerate housing in areas of low vacancies. It may be there are some rural areas in need of housing -- I’m not denying that fact -- but I think it might be under another programme. In any event, we have determined where the low vacancy rates are in the more urbanized areas, and to date I am not aware of a rural municipality being declined OHAP if it qualifies. Many municipalities have applied to us, and they have all been considered. If the hon. member has a municipality in mind, I would be pleased to obtain the information and look at it.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the minister that it’s not a question of the municipalities applying, it’s a question of many people within the small municipalities applying and not being able to take advantage of the programme.

Mr. Speaker: What is the member’s question?

Mr. Gaunt: Would the minister consider that aspect of this problem? How is he going to see that these people who want this kind of programme in small rural municipalities are able to take advantage of it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think, Mr. Speaker, that problem could relate more directly to the Ontario Home Renewal Programme (OHRP) that we have in the province, and not through the Ontario Housing Action Programme (OHAP), which is a three-way deal where we have a developer, a municipality and the province agreeing. So the municipality does have to come into the agreement.

An hon. member: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: There have been enough supplementaries on that question. The question period time is almost gone.

The member for Port Arthur.

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. In view of the Premier’s announcement this afternoon about the new Ministry of Culture and Recreation, and since it presumably will be a responsibility of the provincial secretary, can she tell us when the appointment will take place? Can she tell us if a top priority of that ministry will be the saving of the book publishing industry in Ontario? Can she assure this House that the new appointment and the announcement of the new ministry will not be a further excuse on the part of this government for procrastinating and not taking concrete action to save the book publishing industry of Ontario?

Mr. Deans: That’s a good question.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the bill creating the new ministry will be introduced into the House today, second reading will take place on Thursday and any announcements will follow after that.

Mr. Reid: Is the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) the new minister?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

MEAT INSPECTION

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development if I can get his attention --

Mr. Speaker: Proceed with the question. I’m sure it will get there.

Mr. Sargent: Is the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in charge of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I’m in charge of agriculture.

Mr. Sargent: Okay. In view of the pending strike, Mr. Speaker, and since all the meat inspectors -- here’s the Minister of Agriculture and Food coming now. We’ll see what he knows.

An hon. member: Ask the provincial secretary.

Mr. Sargent: I’d rather ask the provincial secretary; the minister wouldn’t know anyway.

An hon. member: Who wouldn’t know?

Mr. Breithaupt: Saved by “the Bill”!

Mr. Sargent: I’ll direct this to the minister: In view of the pending civil servants’ strike, what is going to happen to beef sales in Ontario when the meat inspectors go out?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I’m a born optimist. I don’t think there will be any problem at all.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister consider a programme whereby the veterinarians of Ontario would stand by?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, all of those things will be taken into consideration in due course.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer indicated to the authorities in Ottawa his opinion about the inflation-provoking proposals made there over the weekend?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Yes sir, I have.

Mr. Burr: With what result?

Hon. Mr. White: I expressed myself as forcibly as I could on television on Saturday by calling the proposal disgusting. I made similar comments to other media representatives, both radio and print. I sent a telegram to a number of people, including the Hon. John Turner, this morning --

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Give another five bucks to Colin Brown.

Mrs. Campbell: And to Stanfield.

Hon. Mr. White: -- saying that I thought such an increase would have a very bad effect on conditions across the country. I have had no reply as yet.

Mr. Breithaupt: Did the minister favour the Leader of the Opposition with a telegram?

Hon. Mr. White: I did.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Bennett presented the annual report of the Ontario Research Foundation for the calendar year, 1973.

Mr. McNeil, from the standing resources development committee, presented the committee’s report, which was read as follows and adopted:

“Your committee begs to report the following bill, with certain amendments: Bill 134, the Employment Standards Act, 1974.”

Mr. Speaker: Shall Bill 134 be reported?

Bill 134 reported.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the House again resolve itself into the committee of supply for one sitting of 2½ hours for the purpose of considering the supplementary estimates.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it is a strange motion that is before us. I understand the advice to the House leader was that in fact no debate under our rules was permissible, since the time had run out for the consideration of estimates. I believe if that kind of advice had been accepted then the government wouldn’t have the right to introduce any supplementary estimates.

In my view the rules as we’ve agreed to them over the past number of years don’t put any strictures on the consideration of supplementary estimates, and I would ask that the minister reconsider this motion so that the estimates of half a billion dollars are going to be debatable in this House without an artificial limit. I know the minister has made it clear that he does not want to ram anything through the House, and he does not want to burden us as we come toward a Christmas recess with sitting longer hours; but surely the imposition of this resolution establishes a precedent that is unacceptable.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to join almost totally with the Leader of the Opposition in his comments. I don’t quite understand how the suggestion could have been made that if the government has the right to introduce supplementary estimates we in the opposition don’t have the obligation, not to say the right, to have an opportunity to debate and discuss the expenditure of those funds. If that were to be a ruling of the Speaker that the opposition shouldn’t have the unfettered right to discuss the supplementary estimates, then surely there would have to be an appropriate decision also by the Speaker that supplementary estimates would have to be brought in prior to the final vote on the estimates.

I want to suggest that we not have a motion that closes it, but rather that we have a motion that permits discussion of supplementary estimates starting sometime in the next five or 10 or 15 minutes, and that we guide the time needed according to the amount that has to be said about the expenditures that are being asked for.

My understanding, sir, is this: The government is, in fact, asking for permission to spend an additional sum of money to that which they asked for in the budget.

An hon. member: They think they have a divine right.

Mr. Deans: At the time they asked for it in the budget the opportunity was afforded to members of the Legislature to discuss fully the expenditures as they relate in their constituents and to the Province of Ontario. I want to suggest to you Mr. Speaker, that to then come before the Legislature to ask for a further sum of money in itself requires that an adequate time period be set aside for discussion of that without there having to be a government motion.

Like the government House leader, I would like to think that we would be finished by 6 o’clock. But the fact of the matter is that it is entirely possible there may be matters there which one or two members may want to discuss more fully than others, and it may take a little longer than that. I don’t think the government would want to be burdened with the suggestion that they had not permitted adequate debate on expenditures of this magnitude.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, may I speak to the motion? The motion moved by the House leader was:

“Be it ordered that the House again resolve itself into the committee of supply for one sitting of 2½ hours for the purpose of considering the supplementary estimates.”

In keeping with what has been said by my leader and the hon. member for Wentworth, it would seem to me that if we are tied to one sitting of 2½ hours it would be reasonable to conclude that the government is again attempting to stifle debate, attempting to muzzle the members of the opposition.

Mr. Cassidy: Same old story; same old story.

Mr. Singer: -- and prohibiting reasonable discussion of this very substantial expenditure.

Mr. Stokes: They think they are doing us a favour to discuss it at all.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): The members don’t talk money. They talk everything under the sun but money. They don’t talk about the estimates.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, in order not to prolong this debate, could I move an amendment to the motion now before the House, that the motion be amended by removing the words “for one sitting of 2½ hours,” so that it would read, as amended:

“That the House again resolve itself into committee of supply for the purpose of considering supplementary estimates.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I would speak in favour of the amendment by the member --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we should place the amendment first of all.

Mr. Singer moves that the motion as presented by Mr. Winkler be amended by removing the words “for one sitting of 2½ hours.”

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a sitting of 2½ hours, you know, is really only 150 minutes, and I would think that these additional estimates should pass --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- at a somewhat greater level than $3 million each minute. Surely $3 million a minute is going a bit speedy, even on these estimates?

The problem, of course, arises in that part 14 of the rules of order referring to supply does not refer -- at least I have not found any reference -- to additional supplementary estimates. It seems worthwhile that there should be a rule with respect to dealing with supplementary estimates, and I would commend to the Speaker that perhaps this matter should be dealt with and formalized in a rule.

I suppose it would, of course, mean the possible ability of the government to bring in supplementary estimates as large or larger than the original budget on an occasion if it was so minded to do. The end result would be that if the time otherwise allocated for supply had passed in accordance with the terms of part 14, then obviously there would be an opportunity to have known during the time of the original budget and the time allocation for debate on that area what, in fact, might be coming in the form of supplementary estimates.

It certainly appears to me that over the past few years we have dealt with the matter of supplementary estimates quite reasonably, on the understanding that there would have to be, from time to time, additional government programmes which would require additional funds.

We realize that this requires some scrutiny and I would hope that we could set the precedent today that dealing with supplementary estimates, if they are vital to be brought forward by the government, should receive the response from the opposition that requires the same vitality in discussing them at an unfettered length. I think if we do that in this circumstance, and have the amendment supported, we will come to a satisfactory conclusion in good will to deal with these; and that perhaps before we have supplementary estimates another year we could agree to a procedure and a rule with which to deal with this.

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

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak in favour of the amendment put forward by the member for Downsview.

The original motion as put forward by the House leader introduces a very dangerous precedent into this Legislature, and that is the precedent of closure. That is not only a stifling of debate but a limit on the time of that debate.

At the present time there is no rule in the order of proceedings governing supplementary estimates, and my understanding would be that such a motion needs the unanimous consent of the House, not just a majority vote. The House, surely, is willing to debate the motion and willing to debate the supplementary estimates. We are also, I think -- if I understand the mood of the House correctly -- willing to do it on the speediest possible terms, but we object very strenuously to what I may say is a sneaky back-door motion to include the principle of closure in that motion.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. House leader.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the contributions that have been made, I would like to say this, that as the rules stand the time for the consideration of estimates has, in fact, run out. I inquired and found out that this was absolutely correct.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So have the estimates.

An hon. member: Send it to a standing committee.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Will the members let me finish please?

Now, there was another way that this could have been achieved; I could have done it, as the Chairman of Management Board, I could have done it all by Management Board order. Now, I also know what response that would have brought from the opposite side of the House. I am very well aware of it.

Mr. Deans: The same response.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The response would be “unacceptable”.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Therefore, the only way I could bring these expenditures before the Legislature was to do it by supplementary estimates, with some understanding.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Now, as a matter of fact, I am inclined to accept the terms of the amendment; excepting that I would suggest that rather than the time allotted within the motion that I presented, that it would be brought to some conclusion on this day.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): That’s the best news we have heard all year.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: May I ask a question in regard to that, because I want to be clear. That it bring about some conclusion on this day would be satisfactory, provided there be no other order of business called until such time as it is concluded. But I would be worried that the minister might come at 8 o’clock and call another order of business.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’ll make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that if they want to sit all night tonight, I’ll sit.

Mr. Haggerty: We’ll sit all next week.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: That runs contradictory to what the Premier said. He said we wouldn’t sit all night.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Members opposite are asking us to.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s not raise any further possibilities.

Mr. Breithaupt: If I may briefly make a suggestion; possibly the House could agree to sit through the supper hour, if necessary, so that estimates could be dealt with.

Mr. Stokes: Oh, come on.

Mr. Foulds: Pass the amendment.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: The member should speak for himself.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for all the suggestions. May I just comment that in my opinion the supplementary estimates have never formed part of the time allotted to estimates. That part of the motion is in order.

To answer the other question, about requiring unanimous consent, in my opinion this does not. It is a motion, as all other motions, and it will be voted on as such.

Now we come to the amendment to the motion. Those in favour --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Let’s hear it again, Mr. Speaker, please.

Mr. Speaker: The amendment? Mr. Singer moves the deletion of the words “for one sitting of 2½ hours” from the original motion.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It would read?

Mr. Speaker: So it would read: “That the House again resolve itself into the committee of supply for the purpose of considering the supplementary estimates.”

Shall this amendment carry?

Agreed.

Mr. Stokes: Shows how reasonable we can be.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would like to ask the member for Downsview, in all good conscience, would he like to put a time on the consideration? Would he like to, say 10:30?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, since I have been asked a question, let me say this --

Mr. Deans: I think it is a tempest in a teapot.

Mr. Stokes: Let us demonstrate how reasonable we can be.

Mr. Singer: I am certain that all members, particularly the members in my party, will do our best to co-operate. But we feel the amendment should stand in the form it has been put.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, might I just add further that surely the House leader recalls that basically there was no limit on the discussion of these government expenditures. We went through the procedure where we talked about them all summer long. It was by agreement of all parties that we accepted the limitation of a time, which has just run out. Accepting the motion in the terms the minister would attempt to have us accept it would mean that we give up the right -- which should lie with this assembly -- to debate without limit. So therefore, we cannot accept his suggestion and must vote in favour of the amendment.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I can’t tell the leader what the understanding was last summer.

Mr. Speaker: Actually the motion has been put and carried.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Carried? No, it hasn’t been carried.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the amendment has been carried. So the House again resolves itself into the committee of supply for the purpose of considering the supplementary estimates.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: What? I didn’t get a chance to vote. When did you ask for the motion?

Mr. Stokes: Getting a new House leader?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just shows how reasonable we are.

Mr. Bullbrook: Getting used to governing on this side.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tomorrow morning they will all be sorry we have been so reasonable.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We will never get into them if we don’t keep quiet.

Introduction of bills.

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION ACT

Hon. Mrs. Birch, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Davis, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the earlier statement read by the Premier, the new Ministry of Culture and Recreation is in response to the significant role which culture and recreation play in the enhancement of the life of this province. Although the Ontario government has provided a variety of cultural and recreational programmes, we now believe the time has come to bring them together within a single ministry.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the North Pickering Development Corp.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the bill establishes a development corporation to prepare plans for development and to develop the North Pickering planning area in accordance with the plan.

The bill provides for the appointment of the board of directors by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The board will manage the affairs of the corporation within the policy and financial framework established by the government. The corporation will have the power to borrow from the federal and provincial governments, their agencies and chartered banks. The bill also provides that the corporation will implement the plan under the provisions of the Planning Act.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: Order for Committee of supply.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, can I inquire, before we commence, whether it is the intention to proceed through these ministries in the sequence we find them in the book? I would think, if such is the case, we will be able to have our people ready for items as they are called, and presumably it would be a convenience to the ministry as well.

Mr. Chairman: It is the Chairman’s understanding this is the order we would follow where possible. I understand that the first ministry, the Ministry of Government Services, isn’t available right at the moment and we will come back to the minister as soon as he’s here.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow) is now here, will he be taking his own estimates and who will be doing the Office of the Speaker? Will it be the Minister of Government Services? Perhaps if it would not be inconvenient, could we commence then with the Minister of Government Services?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, if the hon. minister is here now, we will revert to vote 701, the Office of the Speaker.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

On vote 701:

Mr. Breithaupt: Do you wish us to discuss this matter section by section or will general comments be acceptable, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: I would suggest we discuss this vote item by item. Is there any discussion on item 1? The hon. member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise at this time out of a deeply felt concern for the quality of debate and the quality of legislation being produced in this House. I would like you to convey to Mr. Speaker that I fully support him in his efforts to bring some order to this House and generally to raise the level of performance here. Nothing I am about to say should be construed as a reflection of any kind on the Speaker’s work in this House. The moneys outlined in this supplementary estimate will not be wasted here. Anything to render the office of Mr. Speaker more independent of politics is to be welcomed.

Mr. Chairman, the area of real concern to me at this time -- and I know it is of equal concern to you as well -- is the way the business of this House is deliberately mismanaged by the government House leader who, I’m sure, is operating under strict instructions from the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Is that why the members wanted the extra time, to listen to this nonsense?

Mr. Chairman: I would rule these remarks have nothing to do with the Office of the Speaker and I would ask the member to keep to the vote.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): What do you mean? Of course it’s relevant, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Chairman: These are supplementary estimates and I do not see that the matter under discussion, mismanagement of the government business by the House leader, has anything to do with this vote.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): He wouldn’t know whether it was managed or not.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Carleton East has the floor.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, would you care to suggest under what item this could more aptly be discussed?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: In the budget debate or the Throne Speech, that is where the member should be talking about it -- in the Throne Speech or the budget debate.

Mr. Chairman: I assume that would have been discussed in the main estimates.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, anything that is relevant on the main estimates of a particular item is relevant if a supplementary estimate is brought in in that particular area. There’s no question about that.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No it isn’t. Don’t start a major speech.

Mr. Cassidy: It happens that this is a $500 item, but if the hon. member for Carleton East wants to talk for a few minutes or even for half an hour about it, that is his privilege. I’m sure that members of the government realize that we don’t intend to stay here until Christmas dealing with these particular estimates.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We’ll sit all night, that’s for sure.

Mr. Cassidy: But the kind of reaction right away, as soon as somebody speaks more than two minutes, is that we have provoked them and that they are somehow going to have a bit of discomfort around this place, is a bunch of nonsense.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair would rule that you are not indicating any discomfort to the Chair. I might say that, again, the supplementary estimates deal with the amounts of money that are before us.

Mr. Cassidy: No. They deal with the purpose of those amounts of money.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): What is the $500 for?

Mr. Chairman: This deals with the Office of the Speaker. We must stay to that and not discuss any other part of the government.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): He’s talking about the Speaker’s Office.

Mr. Ferrier: What is the $500 for?

Mr. Cassidy: What is the $500 for?

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, as you know, if you’ve been following the proceedings -- and I know that you have -- I won’t be taking very long on this subject this afternoon. I would appreciate the opportunity to do so, because if we’re talking about the expenditure of $500 in this House, what I am about to say is directly relevant to that expenditure because it relates to the conduct of this House.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): The member should tell it to his colleague sitting directly in front of him.

An hon. member: Carry on.

Mr. P. Taylor: One can only assume that this government does not want members on all sides to be fully conversant with each bill as it comes before us. The government does not want to encourage a higher quality of debate, and therefore by extension I believe this government puts itself in the position of deliberately creating poor-quality legislation which has a snowball effect. One bad law creates opportunities to bring in subsequently badly-worded bills to amend the previously badly-worded bills.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Right. Like the land speculation tax.

Mr. P. Taylor: Right on. Before dealing with some specific examples of what I would call legislative mismanagement by design, first I want to say that I’ve been very impressed by the Camp commission reports and their recommendations to improve the quality of the Legislature in general, and that certainly is relevant to the item we’re discussing.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps on another occasion under different conditions I might have an opportunity to suggest specific changes of rules that would go a long way toward achieving this objective. Maybe you would give me some guidance at a later date as to when it is appropriate to do so.

Let’s look at what is actually happening in the House now. These supplementary estimates are a very good example of the kind of thing I am talking about. We saw them for the first time yesterday, and already today we are supposed to be discussing them in detail. That, of course, is a ridiculous suggestion.

The bill with respect to the Heritage Foundation of Ontario was given first reading in this House last Thursday. Many of us didn’t see the printed version until the following Friday and it was np for debate on second reading the following Monday -- yesterday.

The bill that is designed to have certain serious implications for the travel agency business was introduced Thursday, Dec. 5, seen by most of us for the first time the next day and brought forward for debate on second reading the following Tuesday. In that particular case you could almost argue that that kind of timetable is reasonable, but the big catch on that one was its implications for a very large industry. Members on this side of the House were forced into debating the principle of a bill long before it was possible to ascertain the opinions and reactions of the people most immediately affected, namely, the travel agents.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. P. Taylor: There is another, more immediate example. Our House leader only learned this afternoon, at approximately 2:15, that this House would not be sitting tomorrow. Now that is a situation which is directly counter to what the government House leader said at the beginning of the fall session, which was that this House would sit five days a week. Every Tuesday we sit in anticipation of learning whether or not we are going to sit on Wednesday, because of the record of the last few months.

This is an inconvenience of large proportions to the 60-odd members who live some distance from this House. More important, it is an insult, calculated to keep the members on this side continually off balance with respect to House business and a schedule of debates. It directly affects our ability to serve our constituents and it is a deliberate action by the government.

Witness this afternoon’s blatant attempt by the government House leader, who is a man with House of Commons experience, who came down here to show us how to do it and who puts forward a motion based on non-consultation that, of course, was the subject of -- let’s put it this way, cooler heads prevail.

There are back-benchers on the government side -- and there aren’t too many around today -- in the same position who say to me: “Now what are you complaining about? They do the same to us.” I know this is a fact, because I went and asked one of the government back-benchers this afternoon whether we were sitting tomorrow and he didn’t know. I say that situation is proof there is a small group of men and women over there -- namely the government -- which has indeed lost touch with the reality of governing. They don’t care about anybody except themselves; their own members don’t even know what is going on.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I just want to deal with two rules which I feel are relevant to this discussion. One is the business of ministerial statements. Under the present rules on this score, ministers can rise in their places and say anything they want, of any length relevant or not, and there is no way in which members of the opposition can respond. That situation is undemocratic and should be corrected at the soonest opportunity.

There is another item which is directly relevant to the rights of members, and that is the business of ministers responding to questions posed at an earlier date. They come back to this House with written answers. I have been keeping a tab of one minister in particular -- the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine), and he has consumed something like 20 minutes this week alone in responding to questions posed at an earlier date.

That, again, is wrong. Government ministers are consuming time allotted to the opposition in this House. If the rules were properly written in this House, they would be bringing in a written answer, rising in their places and saying they would like to consider the answer as read, and then giving us a chance to read it and comment on it at a later date; or else they would make the statement on the time allotted to ministerial statements.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 1 carry?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): No.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the Chair could pass one further comment. The Chair is sympathetic to the hon. member for Carleton East in his desire to talk on the matters that he discussed. It seems to me, though, we should keep to the expenditures, or to that area of the vote. It would have seemed a little more appropriate to have discussed that in item 4, but we did allow it to continue under item 1. I wonder if the member for Wentworth would continue the debate and perhaps keep his remarks to the item.

Mr. Deans: I certainly intend to continue the debate and I’ll do my best to keep my remarks to the item. I don’t know if this is true or not, but I understand that $500 is for additional salary. I want to talk to you, Mr. Chairman, about the use to which that additional salary might be put.

It might be useful, if it’s going to someone in the Office of the Speaker, some one staff member, that that staff member be assigned the responsibility of sending a notice out to the Liberal House leader and myself and the government House leader, asking us if we’d like to come to a meeting. That meeting might well take place for the purpose of discussing the rules of the House. I think that would have been an appropriate use to which that $500 might be put.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The entire amount.

Mr. Deans: I think that clerk or secretary, or assistant to the Speaker might draft up, with the help of the member for Kitchener, myself, the government House leader and perhaps other members of the House who have an interest in such things, some of the concerns and problems that have developed with regard to the interpretations placed on the rules of the House over the last two or three years since they were last redrafted.

Mr. Breithaupt: This afternoon’s experience, for example.

Mr. Deans: I think, for example, it might be a useful expenditure of $500 if that clerk were to devote a little time to calling a meeting and even attending the meeting as the secretary to this ad hoc committee. Let’s call it, for the purposes of this discussion, a House committee. It’s a novel name, we’ve never used such a name before. Maybe the Speaker could have a House committee with this $500 going to be paid to someone on the Speaker’s staff. It could reimburse that person for sitting with the House committee and keeping notes of the deliberations of the House committee as it talks about the rules as they have been applied, fairly and unfairly.

What I’m really saying to you is this, Mr. Chairman, under this vote of the office of the Speaker, there are those of us on this side of the House and some people on that side of the House who think the rules don’t quite do the things they were intended to do. There is room within the rules, the standing orders of the House, for some improvement. The government should bear in mind, when it’s considering by virtue of its large majority, whether or not it approves of the reference of standing orders to the Speaker’s House committee, that it may not always be the government, that at some point it may have to live with the rules it has established. It may, in fact, have to sit on this side of the House some day and try to approach the then government of the day with the rules as they are now.

I want to tell them, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Speaker, that if within this $500 we could as a Legislature draft rules which would be sufficiently explicit as to be able to deal with the major problems that have confronted us over the last two or three years, and if we were to modernize the rules and take into account such things as supplementary estimates and take into account such things as motions available to opposition parties under the general heading of non-confidence motions, and the way in which and the times at which they can be used, then I think we would have gone a long way toward improving the relationship between the government and the opposition and, also improving the general atmosphere of the Legislature.

There is nothing more aggravating than to have a ruling made that is to many of us not only unacceptable but capable of interpretation as running counter to the standing orders. To have rules interpreted in such a narrow way means that we on this side of the House are effectively muzzled in our efforts to point out to the government and to the public at large some of the areas in which we feel the government might do its job a little better.

I think that we’re quite happy to pass this $500. It’s a large sum, mark you, Mr. Chairman, but we’re prepared to see it go through, provided we can have some assurance that the Speaker recognizes there needs to be a review of the standing orders and that that $500, whether explicitly or otherwise, will be used to enable his office to undertake such a review so that this House will operate more effectively. This $500 might be used to convey the ideas that the Speaker has conveyed to the House leader for the Liberal Party and to myself, and I think to the House leader of the government party, that he, too, is concerned about the rules and would like to see them reviewed and perhaps updated.

This $500 could be spent to bring us into the 1974s and 1975s rather than leave us back in the 1970s. In 1970 the rules may have appeared to be appropriate, but in today’s society in this Legislature the rules don’t provide us with the opportunity -- not only us in opposition but us in general -- to express concerns and views that we think have to be expressed if the job that we are elected to do is to be done effectively.

I think the member for Carleton East was asking for exactly the same thing, and that’s the reason I thought he was right in order, because I would never be out of order and therefore he must have been in order. I would hope that that $500 would be spent on those things.

Mr. J. B. Bullbrook (Sarnia): That is a syllogism.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 1 carry?

Mr. Bullbrook: No.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I’m most appreciative of that.

I want to speak about what I have discussed with colleagues of mine on the subject of Bill 170; that a great deal of this money will be, in effect, an implementation of a statute that hasn’t passed. I want to direct the attention of all members, especially the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food and the hon. Solicitor General, to the appropriation of $380,000 that we are called upon to vote to the Progressive Conservative Party for their sessional and other requirements, a substantial portion of which --

Mr. Chairman: This is vote 201, item 1.

Mr. Bullbrook: We are just on item 1? I’m out of order.

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

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to speak briefly on the $500 item under salaries and wages in the Speaker’s office.

It has come to my attention that the Ontario Legislature violates two basic principles through the administration of the Speaker’s office with regard to minimum wages and with regard to indemnities for the pages. It has always been quite shocking to me, frankly, that the pages get an allowance, I believe, of $5 a day and often they work more than an eight-hour day. And it’s always been shocking to me that we don’t allow more expenses for the pages under the Speaker’s appropriation.

For example, if someone comes from my riding in Thunder Bay -- or my riding of Port Arthur in the city of Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Yes, watch that.

Mr. Foulds: Or further away -- say from the riding of Thunder Bay or from the riding of Kenora -- that page must pay for his or her plane fare down to the Legislature on two occasions. On one occasion the page comes down before the session for which the page is assigned to get a fitting, and in the case of the pages from my riding that now costs $113 return.

Mr. Cassidy: The Solicitor General says they should hitch-hike.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, well that is just the concern that he has for workers and servants of this House who are under 14 years of age.

Mr. Ferrier: While he goes around in his chauffeured limousine. My goodness.

An hon. member: Where’s the Solicitor General’s social conscience?

Mr. Foulds: They have to pay $113 return fare from the city of Thunder Bay to the Legislature for a fitting, simply to get their little uniforms redone from the used ones of the session before. Then they have to pay that fare once again when they come down for the session of a six-week period, and that is absolutely unreasonable and ridiculous.

I would also suggest that the Speaker allow the pages from ridings that are not within an hour’s drive or so at least two trips home on the weekends during the six-week period that they are in service to us, and that the Speaker’s office should pick up that expense. The very basic reason here is, we have, once again, an argument about accessibility.

If we agree that the page programme is a good programme and a programme that should be open to all the children of the province who have attained the academic qualifications that are put on it, then it should be open to all the children of the province, whether that child lives in Windsor, or Ottawa, or Thunder Bay, or Winisk, or Kenora, or Big Trout Lake or where have you; and he should not have on him an inhibition because of the family economic circumstances.

What we have to do is democratize that programme. At the present time, it favours those who are close to the centre here in Toronto, or it favours those children whose families can afford the expense of the plane fare. I would like to put it to you, Mr. Chairman, and have you put to the Speaker -- and I’m sure that I would get agreement from all members of the House -- that I would be quite willing for that supplementary estimate of $500 to be raised quite substantially if it were devoted to democratizing in an economic way the programme for the pages.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): At least he could give them the minimum wage.

Mr. Foulds: And give them the minimum wage. Let’s not be chintzy with people who serve us so well. The pages provide a very fundamental and valuable service for the members. They often run to our offices to get files for us, because of the mismanagement of the government House leader when he suddenly calls a bill or an estimate that we are not expecting.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Come on, quit playing dirty. That’s just wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Foulds: As a matter of fact, I am not wasting the time of the House and I’m not playing dirty. I’m being very, very serious.

Mr. Gilbertson: It is sarcasm to the government.

Mr. Chairman: Order; order please.

An hon. member: He is just trying to be Santa Claus.

Mr. Cassidy: Bring the member from Algoma to order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my remarks will show up on the record as being sound, reasonable and quite justified, and entirely in order under this vote, because surely it is under the vote of salaries and wages for the Speaker’s office that the pages are given their allowance. I am just saying there should be additional expenses for them under the four points that I have made. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Item 1 carried? Carried. Item 2, Hansard.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Item 2, Hansard, right. I wanted to make a small recommendation and suggestion to the minister that would accommodate us as members, as well as the pages. When we receive various bills and so forth from the ministry they are generally two-hole punched in one fashion or another and no way can we come along and interchange them in a book.

Mr. Cassidy: Take a good look at that.

Mr. B. Newman: All you would have to do, Mr. Chairman, is see that bills, and other Hansards, have six holes in them, so that they could go into it.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister without Portfolio): There are no holes in them.

Mr. Foulds: Some of them are riddled with more holes than that.

Mr. B. Newman: See how simple the suggestion is?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We don’t have bills with holes in them.

Mr. Bullbrook: You don’t know whether you are punched or bored.

Mr. Foulds: Let’s hear it for the six-hole punch.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 2 carry? Carried.

Now item 3.

Mr. Cassidy: On item 3, Mr. Chairman, the points about the misadministration, the shocking maladministration of the elections in the Carleton East by-election have already been made in this House and shortly thereafter. You’ve no idea of the difficulties, Mr. Chairman, that people had in that particular riding trying to cope with the election list, trying to cope with a totally incompetent returning officer in that particular riding, trying to cope with continued difficulties of interpretation, a lack of co-operation, a lack of understanding of the difficulties that people had to work through.

I hope that those points will be repaired. I wish the government and the chief electoral officer would carefully go through the people who have been named as returning officers in the various tidings across the province and would systematically weed out the misfits and the incompetents and the other people who have caused difficulties in the past, and would ensure that there are people there who can give a fair, impartial and competent service in what is a very difficult kind of job.

I would hope, in addition, since we are coming up to a provincial election shortly, that the chief electoral officer would hold a series of seminars or training sessions for people who will be involved in election administration, that he would anticipate in advance some of the difficulties of interpretation that might take place, that he would anticipate and think through the problems of the enumeration so that we don’t have the problems that we had in both Stormont and Carleton East, but particularly in Carleton East; and that he would do everything in his power to ensure that the lessons of that by-election are well learned and we don’t have to suffer from that kind of frustration in the general election.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Carleton East has quickly recognized the kind of frustration we all experience here in this House. It is a frustration as well in a democratic system to have to cope with that kind of thing when you are trying to do the impossible and fight election campaigns outside as well.

I’d like to make the particular point that in both the Stormont and the Carleton East by-elections between 35 and 40 per cent of the electorate was francophone. Many of those people speak French at home as a matter of custom; a substantial number in both ridings are in fact exclusively French-speaking.

Alors on se demande comment un francophone, habitué à parler en français à la maison, habitué peut-être à travailler en français, et même peut-être unilingue francophone, peut vraiment exercer ses droits démocratiques dans une élection provinciale, quand il entre dans un bureau de vote et trouve que toutes les instructions sont exclusivement en anglais.

That just doesn’t make any sense at all, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister very seriously that a commitment be made for the 1975 election that in ridings with a significant number of francophones, the election instructions, the notice about bribery and all the other material that is required, be made available in bilingual form or be posted both in English and in French. It would seem to me that it would make sense that the instructions to the returning officers in each poll should be bilingual and that, in addition, the effort should be made to ensure that in every poll where there are a significant number of francophones that at least one of the election officers be bilingual.

It just didn’t make any sense at all to find some nice English-speaking people, from an English-speaking part of Carleton East, sitting in polls in areas which are almost completely francophone completely incapable of communicating with some of the people that came there.

It’s not right to treat francophones in this province the way we treat Samoans. Now a Samoan who comes and cannot speak English is entitled in the courts, in elections and so on, to the services of an interpreter. But I don’t think we need to deal with people who are one of the two founding groups in our society in Canada in the same way as we treat people who have recently emigrated from some other country. I would like very much to see action on that by the government in this coming election.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3 carried?

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on item 3?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the brunt of the remarks by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre on the subject of the conduct of the Election Act and its staff.

I believe the chief electoral officer, in this case the Clerk of this House, is a grand chap who has an awful lot of competent people working with him and for him right across the province. But in the case of Carleton East with which I am most familiar -- I am less familiar with Stormont, but I understand there was an equal problem there -- the competence of the returning officer was seriously in question, as well as the competence of the voters’ list accumulation. The voters’ list was provided in alphabetical order, and not in numerical order by street name; and we understand that was the result of a marvellous new computer programme within the Government Services ministry.

M. le président, je veux aussi indiquer que ce n’est pas juste dans la province d’Ontario qui pretend être une province bilingue et qui accepte des fonds fédéraux dans un programme de bilinguisme, de ne pas présenter des postes de scrutin et tous les renseignements dans les deux langues officielles.

I am very pleased to see the hon. member for Ottawa Centre joining me in the point I made in this House very shortly after I arrived; namely, that all voting information in this province is in English only and that French-language voters, if they cannot understand the questions put to them by the DROs in the polling places in this province, may not vote until such time as a qualified interpreter has been found and been brought to the polling station and has translated the questions and answers accordingly. That is an inconvenience for a voting citizen that is definitely beyond what is called for under these laws. If more money is required to print the voting materials and the instructions for the polling places in both languages, which I don’t really think is actually the case -- it has been proven that instructions in public places can be posted and displayed bilingually in a very economic fashion -- I, for one, would be happy to vote for them in this case.

With respect to the returning officers in the ridings, I fully endorse the proposition put forward by my colleague from Ottawa Centre, namely, that far better qualified people be found to assume these responsibilities I would even go further and suggest that perhaps the chief electoral officer of the province might want to consider setting up a set of qualifications or guidelines with respect to these people that these people must meet. We know that they have to be Conservatives under the present administration, but at least they could meet some professional qualifications.

Mr. Ferrier: The federal Liberals are no better?

Mr. P. Taylor: Oh, you would be amazed. We have done a fine job over the years.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Ferrier: I would just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that there are a good many francophones in the northeast part of Ontario. On behalf of them, I believe that the comments by the member for Ottawa Centre and the member for Carleton East are certainly in order. I hope the government will see in the next election that these materials are in bilingual form, and that French-speaking people will be able to read the instructions and all such things necessary to the carrying out of the election in their own language. This is something that has been neglected in the past. It’s a good point and I hope the government will correct it by 1975.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a suggestion that follows after the federal electioneering pattern, and that is where the voters’ lists are mailed to the residences of each of the individuals on the list. I think that funds should be provided to the office here, so that we could follow exactly the same pattern. After the enumeration, each individual or family on that voters’ list should receive a copy of the voters’ list. In that way, if they did not receive a copy, they would generally know that they are not on the list and could have themselves put on the voters’ list.

Putting the voters’ list on poles and on trees and so forth is an outdated method of notifying an individual. I think there are more practical ways and better ways of doing it. By the mailing process, you could have that into the homes of everyone so that they would very easily know.

As another suggestion, I would also --

Mr. Laughren: And put where to vote on the voters’ list too.

Mr. B. Newman: -- suggest that a “you vote at” card be the responsibility of the returning officer for each electoral district, so that that returning officer would notify the individual on the voters’ list just exactly where he or she has to go to vote.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 3 carried?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Chairman, I won’t attempt to answer for the chief electoral officer. I will see that he gets the comments that have been made. I am sure he will take them into consideration.

Mr. Cassidy: I would just like to ask the minister where in the government’s view does the responsibility lie of having either competent returning officers or for having bilingual material available at the polls where necessary. Is the government copping out of its responsibility or does the minister accept that that is a government decision? If he does accept it, will he then make a commitment on the part of the government that these two major matters that have been raised in the last few minutes will be acted upon for 1975?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I think the points made by the hon. members certainly deserve consideration. I think, as the minister who has been designated to answer questions regarding the particular estimates for the Speaker, there were some very good points made. As you well know, when the new legislation is through relating to the Office of the Assembly and the Office of the Speaker, there will be a different method of dealing with the estimates of the Speaker, which will go before a committee of the House. I’m dealing with these supplementary estimates, as I dealt with the estimates originally for the Speaker, Mr. Chairman.

The comments relating to the election office will have to be given consideration by the chief elections officer and by the government, and I will see that this is done.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Chairman, could I ask the minister what will happen to the commission’s recommendation that the chief electoral officer not be the Clerk of the session?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, that recommendation has not, I believe, been officially dealt with, but I believe it is the intention of the government to make its views known on that in due course. I believe it is under consideration at this time.

Mr. Chairman: Item 3 agreed to.

Item 4 is next.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just one point on item 4, Mr. Chairman. It’s rather interesting to note that the government perhaps has not only forgotten some of the problems of the use of language in the by-elections, but it has also forgotten what the results of those by-elections are.

I would call to your attention that the mathematics under the unconditional grant are based on the mathematics of the membership in the Legislature before the results of the two recent by-elections. Accordingly, I would think that the Progressive Conservative unconditional figure should be reduced by $10,000, and that of each of the Liberal and New Democratic parties increased by $5,000. I would think if the minister acknowledges that those figures are incorrect, albeit the total remains, that at least -- unless there are a couple of by-elections called before we pass these estimates -- those figures could stand as amended.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I hadn’t checked the arithmetic myself -- I assume that those were prepared some time ago.

Mr. Bullbrook: Do you want to change that now?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think we prepared these estimates back in August or September, and I assure you that disbursements will be made in accordance with the representation.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, in this connection I may say, following my colleague’s comments and rejoining again the comments that I had made which were entirely out of order previously, it’s interesting to note that what we’re doing here is appropriating certain funds to support certain recommendations in the second report of the Camp commission. I think really it bears upon us to consider the very heading under which these funds are engendered for the purposes of implementing that report.

On page 36 of the report it says: “Services for the private member.” That’s why I invited the attention of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Solicitor General -- who is not here now -- the Minister without Portfolio from Carleton, and the Minister of Government Services. It’s the private member who is supposed to be supported here, not the government member.

It’s also, I think, a rationalization here. I have the highest respect for the people who made up that board, but they talk about the previous formula of granting to the NDP caucus $209,000, the Liberal caucus $242,000, and the Progressive Conservative caucus $462,000. Now, at the bottom of that page, if I may be permitted to read, they say:

“Determining the allocation for the government caucus on a per member basis has presented something of a problem, since some members of the caucus are parliamentary assistants or ministers -- ”

It’s interesting that these are the commissioners undertaking their responsibility under the heading of “Services for the private member.” They continue:

“... and, as such, are entitled to services provided them by their respective departments. Thus they do not require many of the services from the caucus allotment as do purely private members.”

This is just the most magnificent type of logic. Notwithstanding, it is argued that -- argued by whom I don’t know, but accepted in full by the commission -- that because certain services must still be provided out of the caucus allotment, some recognition should be given in the caucus allocation to that reality.

Now, follow for a moment the logic of their argument. They say: “We are dealing with private members’ responsibilities, and we recognize that to carry forward those responsibilities we would provide an unconditional grant.” And they say: “However, some of the government members are not private members and don’t require those services.” And they say: “However, it is argued that they do require some services, so we will give them the same amount that we give the private members.”

That’s the logic; that’s what it is. They give me $5,000 to carry out my responsibility to the people of the Sarnia riding. Then they say the Minister of Agriculture and Food doesn’t require that money to carry out his responsibility to the people of his riding. But he has got some responsibility, so they say, “Oh, the heck with it. We will give them both the same money.”

Well, we are going to vote against that. We are not only going to vote against that, we are going to be very conservative in our Liberalism. We are not going to refer to the member for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root), who for years has had ancillary benefits that we all know of, and more power to him.

Mr. Laughren: We know how high they are too.

Mr. Bullbrook: We are not going to refer for a moment to the whip of the Conservative Party, who has significant ancillary benefits. More power to him. We will be over there very shortly and we will enjoy them. But while we are on this side we are going to say this --

Mr. Eaton: The member for Sarnia won’t be here, he’s quitting.

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): Deserting the dying party!

Mr. Bullbrook: These benefits are for the purpose of the private member. Our conservatism is such that we are just going to refer to the cabinet ministers.

Now you see what they did today, Mr. Chairman, they created a new portfolio; the beginning of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. And as soon as they did that, Mr. Chairman, do you know what they gave the Progressive Conservative Party? Another $5,000. Today -- another $5,000.

The fact of the matter is that it is a convoluted piece of logic on the part of those commission members. They should hang their heads in shame for writing something of that nature.

We know what happens to that money; we know what happens to that $380,000 -- and let’s be factual about it. I think my colleague, the member for Downsview, in speaking the other evening, said there were about three members opposite who didn’t have some type of collateral benefits and services. I don’t know who they are.

Mr. Singer: I mentioned three names. There were two others who took exception, so I made them five.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am not even going to talk again right now about this convolution of logic by these commission members when talk about secretaries.

In talking about the services to private members, they rightly say that a private member cannot undertake his responsibility to his constituency unless he has a secretary. They spent a page and half talking about the need for a secretary. And then when they come to their recommendations, do you know what they talk about? After pointing out the need for a secretary, they say each member of the Ontario Legislature should have one. This is not each private member that they were talking about; and over, whose services they have been wrestling. They say, each member of the Legislature. That means the Premier of Ontario, who spends a million dollars running his own office. Do you think he needs a private secretary? He certainly doesn’t. And he certainly doesn’t need an allocation of $5,000 to assist him in undertaking his constituency responsibility.

It is a charade and a game that this commission played with the government. I want to show you how they played that game, because all the way through they talked about secretaries. Then they come down and they say, “Each member of the Ontario Legislature should be entitled to one private secretary, or personal assistant.”

Do you see what the situation is? Just take two of our colleagues for a moment. Take the hon. member who has served here for five terms, the hon. member from Kent (Mr. Spence), and recognize his responsibility analogous to the responsibilities of his bordering member, the hon. member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough). Now think of that man’s responsibilities to his people. Could he possibly undertake that responsibility without a secretary? Let us not be foolish. We all recognize he couldn’t; and he deserves every cent.

Do you think the member for Chatham-Kent needs a secretary, Mr. Chairman? But do you know what we are going to do? We are going to give him the alternative of choosing a secretary or a personal assistant. Do you know who he is going to choose? He is going to choose a personal assistant.

And do you know what that personal assistant is going to be doing, Mr. Chairman? He is going to be doing that wonderful work of spreading the Progressive Conservative philosophy throughout the city of Chatham. That’s what he’s going to be doing, and it’s going to be paid for out of public funds.

I close by making this motion and I’m going to stand in support of this motion when the time comes. Do I require a seconder?

Mr. Singer: No.

Mr. Bullbrook moves that the allotment of $380,000 to the Progressive Conservative Party be reduced by the sum of $135,000.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is being generous in the extreme. We’re just asking the minister to be realistic about removing his allotment for the cabinet ministers. We’re not talking about parliamentary assistants. We’re not talking about the chairman of the Ontario Northland Railway. We’re not talking about the vice-chairman of the Ontario Liquor Control Board.

Mr. Singer: Hydro.

Mr. Bullbrook: We’re not talking about the director of the Ontario Hydro Corp. We’re not talking about the myriad of ancillary benefits that the ministers get. We’re just talking about cabinet ministers alone. Keep the rest of it, but be fair.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to reply to some of that diatribe, if I may, for a moment. The hon. member, like his colleague sitting to his left when he was debating the bill last week, is grossly misleading the House and the public of Ontario with that type of comment that has just been made.

Mr. Cassidy: The member’s figures are misleading.

Mr. Singer: I was not going to speak on it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I didn’t have a chance to reply, Mr. Chairman. I will at a later date when we go back to debating that particular bill. But the funds that are voted here for secretaries -- as the hon. member refers to -- the money, as I see it for the secretaries, is at the lower end of the page, $816,000.

Mr. Bullbrook: The motion has nothing to do with secretaries. I am coming to secretaries after.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Secretaries, Mr. Chairman or personal assistants, whatever it may be, are only supplied in the government caucus for the private members.

Mr. Bullbrook: The motion has nothing to do with it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is no money included in these estimates for the payment --

Mr. Bullbrook: Look, on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I sit and listen to the hon. member; he should sit and listen to me.

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order. The minister knows what the rules of the House are. Would he grow up. He’s got the brain of a peanut; does he realize that?

Mr. Cassidy: Don’t get so upset.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The member ought to, for a change.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. Bullbrook: You sit there and listen to this.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Sit down.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): My brain is as big as yours.

Mr. Bullbrook: The point of order is this. My motion has nothing to do with secretaries. It has to do with the $5,000 unconditional grant.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Will the member for Sarnia take his seat?

Mr. Bullbrook: And don’t interrupt me not any more.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Who does the member for Sarnia think he is?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He thinks he is smarter than everybody else. The great Bullbrook is smarter than everybody else.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Let the record show that the member for Sarnia is smarter than everybody else.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: I will be right back.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The member for Sarnia won’t be missed.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ll carry on, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): This will be a snow job.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The hon. members referred to the funds supplied to the caucuses. Other than the mathematical calculation, which is not correct because of the change in the number of members in each caucus, it is made on the basis that the unconditional grant is recommended in the report of $5,000 per member. I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. members across the way that whether you’re a cabinet minister, or whether you’re the Premier of this province or whether you’re a parliamentary assistant, you’re still a member of the caucus and the caucus supplies services to you as a member.

Mr. Cassidy: What services?

Mr. Breithaupt: In addition to what the ministers have now.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Do the members have a mailing list?

Mr. Cassidy: What services do they provide?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: All kinds of services.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I certainly do agree that the Premier, the members of the cabinet and members who are parliamentary assistants receive offices -- secretaries, at the ministry that they’re attached to. There are no funds, Mr. Chairman, in the estimates we’re discussing here today, for the supply of either secretaries or assistants to any member of the cabinet or any parliamentary assistant and that money is not there, regardless of what several members across the chamber have been saying both the other night and today.

Mr. Good: We recognize that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would also point out, Mr. Chairman, that in accordance with the recommendations of the commission on the Legislature, rather substantial funds are being made available for research to the two opposition parties. You will note that there are no funds being made available in research for the government parties.

The funds that are being supplied here in these estimates, Mr. Chairman, are as recommended by the Camp commission and as announced by the Chairman of Management Board last June. The funds that we are considering here at this moment will implement the provisions of the bill now before the House.

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

Mr. Cassidy: I would like to say a couple of words, but before I do d just like to ask the minister if he can give us a breakdown of the number of secretaries or assistants that are provided for under the item of “support for members” and of how many cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants are deemed to exist on the government side. Can we have those figures, please?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t have those exact figures. There is one secretary supplied for each private member of the Conservative caucus who is not a parliamentary assistant or a cabinet minister. I believe that there are 31 members of our caucus who are not --

An hon. member: Cabinet ministers.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- supplied secretaries under this vote.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: The minister has tried to cloud the issue by relating to facts that do not relate to the amendment by the member for Sarnia. We are challenging only the $380,000 appropriation, which is $5,000 per member, the amount agreed between your ministry and our caucuses -- that is, the unconditional grant. We feel very strongly that this unconditional grant to your caucus should not take into consideration the cabinet ministers. We recognize that your figures here do not provide secretarial assistance for any more than 37 members of government, 22 for the Liberals and 19 NDP.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thirty-seven less.

Mr. Good: All right. So that amounts to roughly 80 people who are getting secretarial help through the Speaker’s office. We think that that is as it should be, but by the same argument your caucus unconditional grant should be reduced by the number of those cabinet ministers. The minister the other night during the debate was certainly either trying to mislead the House or was not well advised --

Hon. Mr. Snow: I never said a word to anybody!

Mr. Good: Just let me read from Hansard, then, Mr. Chairman. We were arguing about whether or not the increased moneys for secretaries were made available to the opposition officers. On page 6391 of Hansard, Dec. 12, the evening session:

“Hon. Mr. Snow: I said the funds had been supplied for the additional services since April, and the member is not complaining about that, although the bill is still not through at the middle of December.

“Mr. Reid: They haven’t got the money.

“Hon. Mr. Snow: They have got the money.”

If the minister were to check with Mr. Fleming and the people in charge, they have told us repeatedly that the money cannot be allocated until the passage of Bill 170. Consequently we know that it is going to be retroactive, but the minister tried to mislead the House by saying that we had the money and we are not paying the secretaries.

Hon. Mr. Snow: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I never misled the House at all. I said the money was available for this purpose and it was announced last June. It is available.

Mr. Good: Let’s read Hansard again, then, if you didn’t hear what I said the first time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Read it 10 times, if you want.

Mr. Good: Mr. Snow says: “They have got the money.” He knows the money can’t be paid until the bill is passed and this is what we tried to impress on him. You tried to make us out to be something which we aren’t, so let’s not try to confuse this issue. The issue is simply that the unconditional grant should not apply to a number which includes the cabinet ministers.

You know that is not fair. You know what your caucus are doing with the money -- you are turning out those truckloads of news items in your print shop down there. The trucks come in two or three at a time, filling the halls with newsprint so that you can hardly get around them, to chum out of your printing press down there. You are financing that party printing press down there through the allocation to the member, which includes the cabinet ministers. We say that’s wrong.

Under the same grant you expect us in the official opposition to run our leader’s office on a grant equal to 20 per cent of the amount received under the previous allocation. As I said the other night, the Liberal Party gets $22,000 to run its leader’s office, which is not even the price of one executive assistant to the Premier, who employs 80 or 90 people in his office. We are supposed to run our leader’s office on that kind of money. What kind of partisan injustice do you want us to accept here?

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a comment on the $5,000 for the use of private members --

Mr. Breithaupt: Ministers.

Mr. Eaton: Yes, I know you don’t consider us or the ministers as private members --

Mr. Breithaupt: Sure we do.

Mr. Eaton: -- but we still have to serve our constituencies the same as the members opposite.

Mr. Sargent: We’re talking about the cabinet.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just the cabinet.

Mr. Eaton: We have to send out mailings to our ridings.

Mr. Cassidy: You have the right.

Mr. Eaton: They are prepared in our caucus office, as are those of the ministers. We send out newsletters from our caucus; and all that work fs done in our caucus office. I think we are entitled to serve our constituents by that method just the same as the members of the opposition.

Mr. Breithaupt: Of course you are.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You would scream if he did it otherwise.

Mr. Breithaupt: But not the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Why not?

Mr. Breithaupt: They have all those services provided.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The member for Sarnia has used the cudgel. I would like to use the softer approach for a change, because there is a real concern here. As the member from Middlesex South points out, parliamentary assistants may be in a different situation than cabinet ministers.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: It may be open for discussion that part of the allotment of $5,000 per mem her should still be allocated even in the case of a cabinet minister. It may be that you get around it by other means, by giving more assistance to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party, so that the caucus allotment under the unconditional grant in the case of the two opposition parties isn’t so exclusively devoted to the needs of the leaders of those parties by necessity, and therefore there would be more funds to help the members of the caucus of the two opposition parties.

What we have right now, though, Mr. Chairman, is a situation where all of the funds of the two opposition parties combined, including the funds that are allocated to them for their secretarial support, are not equal to the amount of support that is given to one member of the government alone to support the Premier’s office.

The Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party, both of whom carry heavy responsibilities as political people, as members of this Legislature, speaking on legislation, making speeches across the province and that kind of thing, have heavy demands and they have to draw them from a general pot, which is created when you put together the various kinds of funds that are allocated to the various parties. That is not required in the case of the Conservative Party because the Premier has a special pot in the Premier’s office which is not accounted for here.

The cabinet ministers have got a special pot, if you will, because they can pull in two or three departmental assistants to write their speeches and do other work for them. Basically, if they want to prepare a riding report, they can get their own people to do that for them too. They don’t have the same call on caucus services as people in our caucus or in the Liberal caucus.

Therefore, you get a situation where many of the basic services are provided for members of government, because of their position as cabinet ministers or perhaps as parliamentary assistants; therefore the government side can afford something that it considers to be important but which in our case is a necessity that we cannot afford. It has a very large and, I gather, quite efficient print shop, which is an enormous advantage to the members who happen to be on the governing side and is a discrimination against the equal treatment of members in this particular Legislature where one had thought that in fact we might be treated as equals. That is not happening now.

If the government wishes to offer the services of a print shop, to make it available to members of all parties and to make corresponding adjustments in this particular item of expenditure, then that may be the way to handle it. That is the way it is handled up in Ottawa, where members of all parties have access to reasonable kinds of printing facilities, more than you can get with duplicators and the kind of things that we all have in our individual caucus offices. But it isn’t fair to carry on in this way right now -- it just isn’t fair. I would just try to say, in as general a way as I can, that the subject needs to be re-examined. The kind of arrogant attitude which says that of course cabinet ministers have exactly the same need as everybody else is just very difficult for people on this side of the House to accept. We work under very frustrating conditions.

Today I was told that I couldn’t have more than three copies of a bill, for God’s sake -- I’d have to send my secretary over to Bay St. to the government book store in order to get any additional copies. These are the kind of restrictions that members on our side of the House have to labour underneath.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: On all sides, including the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have asked for two copies, but we can’t even get one copy.

Mr. Cassidy: If you have that problem, then it would seem to me that the government members --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: You at least were offered three; we weren’t offered any.

Mr. Cassidy: Then let’s do something about it. Maybe when the commission on the rules looks into these matters that were suggested by my friend from Wentworth, we could look into these matters as well and try to find equal treatment for all members of the Legislature, rather than allowing cabinet members to sort of sneak in special treatment because of their particular position, and rather than all -- I would join with the Minister of Agriculture enduring the kind of petty frustrations which exist around this place because of an archaic kind of administration that doesn’t suit the day of full-time members working very hard to do the public’s business.

I would point out one other thing, Mr. Chairman, which also should be at least verbally acknowledged by the minister. I had understood that we now had an independent Speaker and that the Speaker no longer formed part of the government caucus. However, funds of $5,000 are provided towards the Progressive Conservative caucus in this particular estimate and it seems to me that that is an abuse of the integrity and independence of the Speaker. I think that I would ask, in line with the commitment made by the minister, that whatever happens on the motion of the member for Sarnia, the appropriate adjustments be moved by amendment now in order that these unconditional grants accord with the actual numbers of members in each caucus.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Bullbrook moves that item 4 of vote 201 be amended in that the allotment of $380,000 to the Progressive Conservative caucus be reduced by the sum of $135,000.

All those in favour of the amendment say “aye.” All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Cassidy: There is a conflict of interest there, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Call in the members.

Order, please. We are voting on a motion by Mr. Bullbrook that the allotment of $380,000 to the Progressive Conservative caucus be reduced by the sum of $135,000.

The committee divided on the amendment proposed by Mr. Bullbrook, which was negatived on the following vote.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Chairman, the “ayes” are 30, the “nays” are 54.

Mr. Chairman: I declare the motion lost and item 4 carried.

Mr. Breithaupt: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if rule 20 does not apply in this circumstance. May I recall to your attention that members are not entitled to vote on questions in which they have a direct pecuniary interest?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 5 carry? Carried.

Vote 201 carried?

Vote 201 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Office of the Speaker.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Clerk of the House: Supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Government Services, page 6.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Welland South.

On vote 702.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the minister about the $33.6 million for the provision of accommodation programme. I would just like to know who he is going to accommodate by spending this extra amount of money. Does it deal with the MTC and their land purchases or with the Ontario Land Corp. and their land purchases or is it some new building that the minister is contemplating building? Could he give us a detailed breakdown of what this expenditure is for?

In the original estimates for 1974-1975 you had almost $30 million, which was an increase of almost $18 million over the 1973-1974 estimates. You really have ventured into a heavy programme of government expenditures. Could I have the details of where you are going to spend this money?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, this is the money required for the funding of the acquisition of the two townsites in Haldimand-Norfolk.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, could the minister elaborate further? Which of the new townsites is this to acquire? Is this to acquire the Cayuga township land assembly or the Townsend land assembly? And how much of this money is dedicated to land acquisition in the area of Spencerville in Edwardsburgh township in eastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ll answer the last question first; none. The moneys requested here, Mr. Chairman, involve both what I refer to as the Haldimand-Norfolk site, the first site, and the South Cayuga site. There is $18.6 million for the Haldimand-Norfolk site and $15 million for the South Cayuga site.

Mr. Cassidy: How much per acre was paid in each case; how much was paid to agents acting for the government in the acquisition; and who were those agents?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, that information has all been made available to the House by the Treasurer some time ago. I do not have the exact details of every land purchase here.

The first acquisition, as the members well know, was the taking over of options formerly held by a development group that had optioned the land. The Treasurer announced, last June I believe it was, that we had made an arrangement to obtain these options. Since that time my ministry has bought considerable additional land, in filling it out, upon which that development group did not have options.

On the second acquisition, the South Cayuga site, the options on that land were taken by the firm of A. E. LePage and the transactions are being closed in the name of the Ministry of Government Services.

Mr. Cassidy: If I can just pursue these questions a bit further --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre still has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you.

Can the minister say -- he stated that none of the $33.6 million involved here is for acquiring the land in Edwardsburgh township, in the assembly near the Prescott International Bridge -- can the minister say whether any funds from his ministry have been either dedicated or spent in the acquisition of options or an interest in land or land itself in that area; or if any other government funds have been spent in that manner in that area in which he has been involved or consulted?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Chairman. No funds from my ministry’s estimates have been used for any options in the particular proposal that the member has mentioned.

Mr. Cassidy: Is there any intention that any funds from the ministry’s estimates be used in the area of Edwardsburgh township; any intention which was reached say in the form of discussions with the people taking the options?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I wonder, through you, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could advise how much is being paid to A. E. LePage in connection with the land acquisition and was that effectuated on a tender basis, flat rate, or is it by commission? Did he seek out any other competition with respect to the hiring of the commission agent?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the Treasurer, when he announced the acquisition of the South Cayuga parcel, gave some considerable detail at that time and stated that he would be tabling all options and documents, I believe in the near future. That actual acquisition of that -- the initial acquisition of that parcel was carried out under the direction of the Treasurer, but which the Ministry of Government Services having the responsibility to finalize the arrangements and take title to the land.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Has the minister considered selling back the land minus the development rights in these areas so that the sale price back to local farmers could be achieved so they could continue to own the property?

As the minister knows, if he looks at these areas where they have acquired substantial amounts of land, the land and the buildings have got into a state of disuse and neglect that’s been very distressing. In view of the fact that it’s unlikely that any development would occur for some time, and it is also unlikely that there would be any appreciable increase in value of the land for agricultural purposes over a period of time, this might be a way of the government securing the land and ensuring that it has control of it without actually destroying that sense of ownership and interest -- so that’s important to the maintenance of these properties.

Certainly, the time period that has elapsed in the case of most of these developments has been a lengthy one -- and the lack of any interest on the part of those occupying the properties has certainly caused the whole neighbourhood to deteriorate.

I would ask the minister if he has given any thought to adopting the system that the State of New Jersey has adopted. They segregate the development rights from the land and the development rights are acquired by government and the ownership is left with the original owner -- or they are free to sell it minus development rights to other owners. But the fact is, that the government acquires and pays for the development rights and holds them for whatever length of time it wishes to hold it, and then it is in a position sometime to take over the land if it wants to actually bring about development on it. Has the minister looked into that method of ensuring these lands don’t fall into a state of neglect?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Chairman, I haven’t. I am not sure whether the Treasurer or his ministry have given any consideration to that particular proposal or not. I know, and I can assure the hon. member, that we don’t intend for this land to sit fallow -- that plans have been made.

In most cases the existing farmers have entered into leases with us to continue operating the farms. In some cases a farmer does not want to do so, and that land is being offered for lease to adjacent farmers. A management office has been set up at the Haldimand-Norfolk Townsend site in -- as I understand it, I haven’t seen it personally -- a one-room school that is located in that area, and through the co-operation of the Minister of Agriculture and Food and his advisers. They are advising on the most appropriate use, agriculturally, for this land in the interim period, and my ministry officials are administering a programme of leasing this land to the farmers. The same type of operation will take place on the other site.

It may be the member wasn’t here when the Treasurer made the announcement that a decision will be made in the not-too-distant future, on the advice of the Haldimand-Norfolk regional council, as to which one of these sites should proceed first. I believe the Treasurer has stated the first site will go ahead almost immediately, so it would be quite inappropriate to make any such deals as the member is talking about at this time, anyway.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, there are two things I would bring to the minister’s attention. First of all, actually putting the land into crop production is one thing; the maintenance of property and the upkeep of fences, buildings and things like that is another.

As the minister knows, it is unlikely that anything more than a small portion of these parcels will be developed over the next short time. It’s important to realize that in any event there is likely to be a major change in what happens in the way we develop and expand and provide for growth in the future.

I don’t think that there are very many -- certainly on this side of the House -- who intend to see this wholesale destruction of useful agricultural land by this government pursued, and I’d like to see that land get back into production and be kept in a good state of repair until a new government does take over and sees that things are done in a little more logical way than this government is doing.

The point that I would make to the minister is that a government does not lose control of the land by adopting the procedure I’ve suggested. I’ve certainly found it strange that what this government has done by this programme of acquiring land holus-bolus is just to put a lot of funds in the hands of speculators --

Hon. Mr. Snow: The farmers.

Mr. Deacon: No, an awful lot of them are not farmers. The minister knows that. But there has been a tremendous amount of cash provided and rescue operations carried out for those who have gone into this land assembly business. It seems to me strange that the Treasurer would have told us how they’d bought that land in Haldimand-Norfolk at such a terrific price and what a great deal it was for the government. There was no profit provided the others, but I can assure you there were many sighs of relief on the part of those who did that land assembly that they were taken off the hook by this government.

I think it’s time we stopped this procedure whereby we, in effect, are making it possible for those in the business of speculating in land to get good cash dollars out of the government that are raised at great expense to our taxpayers. All that money goes back into another land assembly programme to be again turned over at some gain and advantage in every case, I’m sure, to those who happen to be in this business. I just feel that the government should take a new approach to this and I would ask this minister, as the one who is responsible through his ministry for acquiring these properties, to look at another approach if the government is indeed going to continue this headlong pursuit into assembly of huge tracts of land in different parts of the province.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister how wide-ranging his responsibility is for acquiring land needed by other ministries of the government. Does he acquire all lands that are required by the Province of Ontario for its various purposes, or do other ministries also acquire some of the land so that some of the costs would be in other ministries as well?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, by and large, my ministry has the responsibility for land acquisition for most of the programmes of the Ontario government. We do not buy the land for highway widenings though. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications have their own right of way section dealing with a few feet on the sides of highways, and so on, for widening.

Mr. Young: But for a new highway you would?

Hon. Mr. Snow: For new highways -- for instance, through the area designated for the parkway belt -- my ministry will be charged with the responsibility for buying most of that land where total properties are being bought. Where certain areas of strictly right of way for a new highway are being bought, that is handled by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. But other than that, we are buying most of the land. I can’t say we were buying it at all; for instance, we don’t buy sites for liquor stores, which are bought by the Liquor Control Board.

Mr. Haggerty: They’re more than likely leased, aren’t they?

Mr. Young: Then any land acquired for the purpose of Ontario Housing is purchased by your department and all costs will be shown there. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, that is planned, Mr. Chairman. The basic principle has been approved now, and the land acquisition officers of the Ministry of Housing are being transferred to the Ministry of Government Services. The same is true of the small group that, formerly was with the Ontario Water Resources Commission, now with the Ministry of the Environment -- I think there are three people involved -- that has been buying rights of way for sewer lines, sites for sewage plants and water plants, this kind of thing. They are being transferred to MGS at this moment, although they are not physically relocated yet. The policy now is that, other than Transportation and Communications, MGS will be the land acquisition agent for the government.

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

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, is this $33 million to be tied in with the new vote of $103 million for housing?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No.

Mr. Sargent: It isn’t? Regarding the $33 million, what type of housing are you going to put on this laud?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, this is for the acquisition of the land. The responsibility for the construction of housing on the land will be the responsibility of the appropriate ministry. The funds we are discussing today represent the acquisition cost of the farm land.

Mr. Sargent: What type of housing is going to go on it then?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the member will have to ask the Minister of Housing at the appropriate time in his estimates.

Mr. Bullbrook: I would take it from this that we are seeing the demise of the Ontario Housing Corp. Really, it is coming to an end; this is the indication.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, the reason I am asking this is that there is no housing being built in Ontario today for low-income families; there is not one single apartment project going on in Ontario for them. If we are voting $33 million for housing and land acquisition, I would like to know what type of housing you are going to put on this land. Is it going to be condominiums? What is it going to be? It can’t be apartments.

Mr. Chairman: I think the Chair would rule that this is out of the area of the responsibility of this ministry. All this ministry does is the land acquisition.

Mr. Sargent: The minister doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Mr. Chairman: I would rule the question out of order as far as these estimates are concerned.

Mr. Sargent: With the greatest respect --

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if all the ministry is doing is land acquisition then what are we talking about in this vote for construction of physical assets? What are the physical assets? Until that is explained, I would suggest my colleague has a perfect right to put the question.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair would --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I don’t see that we are, constructing any physical assets at all. I have stated that --

Mr. Singer: Well, it says so.

Mrs. Campbell: It says it in your estimates.

Mr. Singer: On page 7 it says: “Acquisition construction of physical assets.” That is exactly what it says.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have explained that the total funds of $33.6 million in the supplementary estimates are for the acquisition of land in the Haldimand-Norfolk areas. As has been explained, that is strictly the acquisition cost. My ministry is charged with responsibility of acquiring this land and of managing it until the appropriate other ministry or user requires the land. As the hon. members know, these two major parcels of land have been bought for two town sites in the long-range plans of the Treasurer.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, may I have the permission of the Chair to talk to the Minister of Housing to tie these two together because they are so related?

Mr. Chairman: It will come up in the next vote, as indicated by the hon. minister.

Mr. Sargent: Well, it would seem that the Minister of Government Services, in spending $33 million on land acquisition, is providing the land because the Ministry of Housing requests it. Is that right, sir?

Mr. Stokes: It is not in this vote.

Mr. Sargent: But you don’t know what type of housing is going to go on that land then do you?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the overall decision and the policy planning, as the member knows, on matters of this type for new town sites, comes from the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. When the government’s policy is to acquire a certain tract of land, then it is my ministry’s responsibility to carry out the acquisition of this land and the land management during the interim period. It will be the responsibility of other ministries to develop and industrial facilities or housing facilities on the land in the future.

Mr. Sargent: Finally then, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister this: He doesn’t know, then, whether or not that land is going to be built on, because the experience now in Ontario is that it will not be built on.

The facts are, Mr. Chairman, that in New York, Lefrak Organization Inc., the world’s largest builders, have 260,000 apartments. They have closed the door. There is no more building going on because of the cost of money, the cost of land and government restrictions on standards and so forth. Everything has stopped.

So what are they going to put on this land? You’re buying $33 million worth of land with nothing to go on it.

Mr. Young: Oh the Liberal government in Ottawa will bring us out of the slump.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask about the South Cayuga land assembly. I understand that options were taken on the 10,000 or 12,000 acres involved and that the options expire, I presume, at the end of the month, because that’s about the kind of deadline that was given by the Treasurer.

Could the minister please give, us, in general, the details of the options? Were they tor six months; for nine months; when do they expire? When were the first options acquired and could he tell us when was cabinet approval given for the acquisition of land in the South Cayuga area?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t recall exactly. I don’t have the information, Mr. Chairman, as to exactly when the options were taken.

The options, I believe, are for varying periods of time, as options invariably are on a large assembly such as this. Some of the transactions have now been closed, I believe, and title taken to the land. Other transactions will be closed over the next few months as the option dates, or the dates upon which the owner wishes to give up possession of the land, come up. Cabinet approval on purchase of the land was given some few months ago for the actual acquisition, I can’t tell the hon. member the actual date.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister say when the first acquisition of options in the area was made on behalf of the government?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can’t give you that date, Mr. Chairman. That transaction was handled through the Treasurer.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for -- I’m sorry.

Mr. Cassidy: Just a minute. This minister is responsible now for explaining the South Cayuga land assembly. This is where we have agreed that it comes. He can’t simply say that was done through the Treasurer.

Did the Treasurer simply tell the minister what to do or did the Treasurer do it and dump it in the lap of this particular minister?

Could we have a full statement of what happened in the South Cayuga land assembly; of the role played by this minister and his ministry and of the role played by the Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, as I say, the decision for a major land assembly such as this and the planning for same is the responsibility of the Treasurer. The Treasurer made the arrangements, or contracted with the assembler of the land, to take options on this particular land. My ministry is responsible for the finalization of those options, the taking of title and managing of the land.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister explain to me in what manner did the Treasurer contract, with LePage I guess it was, for the taking of options on the land? Was that discussed with cabinet, or with this minister or with the committee of cabinet prior to some kind of binding arrangement being reached with A. E. LePage?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m sure the hon. member knows I can’t divulge what discussions take place in cabinet. The arrangement was made for A. E. LePage who were engaged as a very competent firm and they did a very excellent job in taking options on this tract of land.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the reason I raised this is this. My understanding is that for various reasons the Treasurer decided unilaterally that there ought to be a second townsite in Haldimand-Norfolk, despite the fact that the population projections for that area are only enough to fill one townsite between now and the end of the century, with the industry going into that particular area. The Treasurer on his own decided that this should be done and then at this point it all becomes a bit vague. I’m sorry he’s not here in the chamber to help us out, but I ask this minister to give us an answer.

Then the Treasurer called up A. E. LePage and said: “Look, I’d like you to pick up some land.” Literally with the knowledge of no more than one or two people in the civil service a major planning decision and the commitment of some $15 million -- I think the minister agrees -- in government funds was made in the acquisition of those options through A. E. LePage. The cabinet wasn’t consulted. This minister wasn’t committed nobody was consulted. It was simply the Treasurer going ahead on his own. That doesn’t square with my understanding about the way in which a cabinet of government works. We are partisan in this particular chamber, but the system also requires or contains certain checks and balances in the way in which the cabinet is going to work as a group; and that obviously is breaking down. It broke down when some of the junior ministers began to make decisions without consulting cabinet. Now it appears that the senior ministers in government are also not consulting cabinet before they go ahead and take major decisions, and I’m very disturbed about that. Could the minister please comment some more?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The hon. member is free to make whatever assumptions that he wishes to make. I’m not prepared to comment on whatever assumptions he may with to make. I just say that it was a decision of the cabinet to proceed with the acquisition of this townsite, and that has been done.

Mr. Cassidy: Was the decision taken after the fact, or before the fact? That’s what I’m trying to find out.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the property was purchased after the decision was made.

Mr. Cassidy: I think the commitment was, in fact, made before the cabinet was involved at all and that that is not a way in which this government should be doing business in the province.

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

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, I have one or two questions on this item. First of all, I must say that I am puzzled as to why there is provided as a matter of explanation an item, “construction of physical assets.” In fact, the entire item is for the acquisition of the land.

Do I take it that it then, correctly, that out of this money which is for acquisition there no money which is attributable to any commission for anyone working on behalf of the government?

I wonder, too, if the minister would explain to me -- because I’m becoming very confused as to all of the people involved in the acquisition of land -- since these particular staff people to whom he has made reference are to be transferred to his ministry, is this to be an interim matter, or are they to be retransferred out, as it were, when we have the Ontario Land Corp.? What it its role in the acquisition of land, as it pertains to this? Will we, perhaps, see some more money from this type of acquisition which will come drib bling out in those budgets which we may have to face not too long from now?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can’t say for sure, forever, but certainly it is the policy at the present time that the Ministry of Government Services will carry out acquisitions and land for the Ontario Land Corp. It is not our intention to transfer the land realty services branch from my ministry to any other corporation. I mean, this is the area of expertise that division of my ministry has. They will carry on this work for Ontario Housing Corp. for Ontario Land Corp. or for any other ministry, board or commission as empowered in the Act.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I didn’t get to answer the rest of the hon. member’s question, before the hon. member for Downsview started jumping up and down. I didn’t know what he had in mind.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Let the minister answer my colleague.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The comments regarding the labelling of the figure on page 7 as compared to that on page 6, is the normal book name or calling of the vote in the main estimates. In the main estimates we have money for acquisition and construction of physical assets. Part of the funds in the main estimates may be for the purchasing of land and buildings or modifying of those buildings. The money in this particular supplementary estimates, as I explained at the beginning, is only for the purchase of land in those two tracts.

Mrs. Campbell: I think I did ask the other question, Mr. Chairman, as to whether any of the funds included here were to be used for payment of commission, having in mind A. E. LePage.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s not broken down, but these funds would cover the payment of the land, the payment of legal fees on the closing. I believe it would cover the payment of commission or fee payable to the assembler.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I think then we are entitled to have from this minister what the commission payment was to A. E. LePage if it is referred to in this item. I don’t think that can be denied us on the basis that the arrangements were originally made by the Treasurer. I would now ask the question again; what was the commission?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I do not have that information as to the exact amount of the agreement entered into between the Treasurer and the assembler.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: I think I heard the minister say that because of the expertise in his ministry, in this particular branch, he will be acquiring land for Ontario Housing. I’d like the minister to expand on that because it seems to me that Ontario Housing is continuing to acquire its own land.

In fact I would ask the minister to just cast his eye down to the bottom of page 6 and he will see that Ontario Housing is asking for another $45 million. We are going to be asking that minister about that shortly. That seems to be land acquisition because it is advanced under the Ontario Housing Corp. Act. Has it, in fact, come to pass that the purchase of land is being taken away from Ontario Housing? If it has, I would say hurrah, but I’m not sure yet that it has been. Can the minister expand on that or was it just an accidental slip of the tongue?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh no, I explained it, I thought, very fully a few moments ago to the member for Yorkview who seems quite satisfied and seems quite well able to understand the answer.

Mr. Singer: Oh I must have missed the explanation.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I stated that the policy decision has been made. I believe three staff members from the Ministry of the Environment will be joining my ministry and a certain number, I don’t know how many, from the Ministry of Housing will be joining my ministry. It’s government policy about land acquisition, other than in the case of Transportation and Communications. They are dealing with slivers of land and widenings and this type of thing. It is felt that because of it being a sort of a special type of arrangement and because of the expertise that the highways group have and the fact that they have to go out and buy 10 feet, when the engineer decides that they want to raise the grade so they have to buy 10 more feet and so on, that should stay with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. As I also stated in answering previously, this actual physical transfer of responsibility has not taken place as yet.

Mr. Singer: Specifically when is it going to take place? If it is going to take place in the near future, wouldn’t it have been better if that $45 million asked for by the Minister of Housing under vote 8042 was part of your request for supplementary estimates? One would think that it should take place just as quickly as possible because of acquisitions like South Milton and others. The South Milton story hasn’t been fully told yet, but it will be; and there are others.

I would think that in the public interest this transfer should be made to the ministry with the most expertise. The Minister of Government Services says that’s his ministry -- actually it wouldn’t be hard to have more than some of the other ministries. I would have thought, if it’s so imminent, that $45 million would have been part of your supplementary estimates.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I won’t attempt to answer for my colleague, the Minister of Housing, who is very capable of doing so himself and will explain the $45 million.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister. of Housing): I will very shortly.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I say, it’s not for land that is bought through my ministry -- I know that. I presume it is involved with North Pickering, and my ministry has not been involved in the purchase of land for North Pickering.

Mr. Stokes: I would like to ask a brief question of the minister. He has assured everybody in this House that there are no funds within this $33.6 million for anything other than the acquisition of townsites in Haldimand-Norfolk. But I want, if I can Mr. Chairman, to elicit a brief comment from the minister as to whether or not he has been asked to negotiate with Ontario Paper for the acquisition of a large tract of land on Manitoulin Island that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) says he wants so badly. Negotiations have been under way for well in excess of a year now. Are you actively involved in that, and can we see funds voted for that particular purpose -- to acquire that most valuable piece of real estate on Manitoulin Island?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with that particular parcel of land. We do not have funds in our estimates; nor, I believe, does the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Stokes: I take it you are not serious then.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The minister carries funds in his estimates for land acquisition as well, although we do the acquisition for him. I can just say that on that particular parcel of land we are doing an appraisal. We have been asked to carry out an appraisal, which is not unnatural at all. In many cases we are asked to do an appraisal on a piece of land before a decision is made to purchase it. We have been requested to do the appraisal, and I am not sure whether or not it is completed.

Mr. Stokes: Can we have some assurance, then, that the minister, in concert with his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, will pursue it with all diligence and all seriousness before the land cost escalates so that it will be prohibitive and the land lost to the people of the Province of Ontario? Will you assure us that you will proceed in that manner?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, we will certainly be carrying that forward with, the appraisal. It is not a simple appraisal to do, I would think. I believe there are some 5,000 or 6,000 -- how many thousand acres is it?

Mr. Stokes: Something like 60,000.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is 50,000 or 60,000 acres or something. It’s a huge piece of property at the western end of Manitoulin Island, and we have been requested to do the appraisal.

It’s something that will take some time. It’s not like going out and appraising a house or some small property. As, soon as this information is available we will be passing this on to the Minister of Natural Resources, and I am sure to the resources policy field for a decision as to what happens at that time or where it fits within their priorities.

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

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister, how long he has been in the land acquisition business? Since 1972?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I think the former Department of Public Works had been in the land acquisition business since 1867, probably.

Mr. Sargent: Right; well that’s quite a while. You had a programme of $5 million in 1972; in 1973-1974 you had a $12 million programme; and this last year you had $29 million in the budget for land acquisition. Would you say the first two figures I gave you are right?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I can read the figures right out of the book too, Mr. Chairman: 1972-1973, the actual expenditure was $5,747,121. For 1973-1974, the estimates -- we don’t have the actual yet -- $12,123,100; and the 1974-1975 estimates, that we discussed last May, $29,959,600.

Mr. Sargent: Well, the minister is getting into the big league now. He had an estimate of some $30 million they had given him to acquire land. What was that $29 million for?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know, Mr. Chairman, whether we want to go over all of last year’s estimates or not, but the $29 million was made up of a total of $11,295,800 for what we sell other land and buildings. This would be sites for new, facilities for the various ministries.

There would probably be several dozen sites we would buy, whether it would be for a highway garage or a facility for the retarded or an office building, or many things. The other figure -- there was another $17 million in our original estimates, making up the total of $20 Million -- the $17 million was for the parkway belt and Niagara Escarpment purchases.

Mr. Sargent: Well that’s what I wanted to know. The whole $33 million then is for Haldimand-Norfolk? I see. Is that the final figure for land acquisition there, or will there be more money?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well that’s very close, I would say, to the final figure. As I stated a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, in the Townsend site we have picked up a number of additional parcels of land directly from the farmers who had not optioned the land. We will probably take similar action on the South Cayuga site. There are still some parcels of land in those overall sites that are not under option or have not been bought. They will probably be picked up as they become available.

Mr. Sargent: Then the land acquisition people in the Housing Corp. will not be operating any more?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well they won’t be operating on those two particular sites, Mr. Chairman, and I would say once the transfer of responsibilities for land purchasing is totally lodged with my ministry, then I guess probably the member’s suggestions will be brought forward.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 702 carry?

Vote 702 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING

On vote 804.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 2 carry? The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: On the $45 million for Ontario Housing, I would like, the minister to give us as elaborate explanation as he can as to why he needs another $45 million, what he is going to do with it, what kind of land he is going to acquire, where it is; what kind of houses he is going to build, and how many; why he hasn’t used up all his existing funds?

Then, in keeping with what the Minister of Government Services was telling us, if his department is about to take over all acquisition of land, why don’t you let him have the $45 million and let him do what is appropriate? That’s enough just for a start, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well Mr. Speaker, we may have to go on for some length, but in any event at this time I would like to explain what the $45 million is for. The $45 million, as I think the hon. member is well aware, is for the expropriation of lands in the North Pickering area, additional funds which we felt would be acquired from the federal government. We have not been able to reach an agreement with the federal government on a 90-10 basis of funding, although since I have been minister I have asked more than once -- and will continue to ask by the way too, quite forcefully -- we have at the present time assets; and costs of approximately $170 million in the north Pickering area.

Mr. Singer: On commitments you have already made?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. We have, in this year, funds of approximately $23 million. There are still some lands to be acquired through the Expropriations Act.

In regard to what houses will be built and what type of development will occur, this will depend upon the passing of the legislation which I introduced this afternoon, the North Pickering Development Corp., which will be a board of directors of from five to nine people responsible to the Minister of Housing. We will acquire the land from the Ontario Land Corp., when that Act has received royal assent, and we will have to develop a plan for the development corporation with regard to the implementation of land use, which will follow the same pattern as any other developer or any other person in Ontario, by means of the Planning Act. We will be using the Planning Act for appeal purpose. We will be referring the plan to people in the immediate area, to those in the three regional municipalities, the area municipalities, for their comments. Full opportunity will be given to have detailed comments from all concerned.

I don’t expect, with this particular policy being followed, that there will be houses there next year. I don’t expect that.

Mr. Singer: I think that’s fair.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But we’re doing this because the people in the area have asked that this be followed. We’re trying to respond to the wishes of the people in the immediate area and those in the surrounding area, who are very much affected by this development.

We have provided for servicing through the central York servicing scheme. There is provision of water and sewers in that area, but that will take some while. Through the Ministry of Housing we have provided an extra $31.5 million over a period of seven years to try to ensure that we have housing in certain areas of this particular region.

So that when you ask the question whether or not the minister and the Ministry of Housing will be acquiring further lands, I can assure you that it is our intention to acquire certain lands in the future -- certain lands -- but it is not our intention at the present time to acquire large areas of land. We have lands, as you’re well aware, for senior citizens, for rent-geared-to-income, for other policies and programmes within our ministry.

We have, therefore, established for you, I think Mr. Chairman, the fact that the amount of money we’re asking for now is only a partial amount that we need toward the full amount of the cost of the lands to be acquired. We are still hopeful, though, that the federal government will respond to us, as it had indicated to my predecessors that it would and fulfill -- it has not fulfilled -- a verbal commitment if not an undertaking in writing.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: To this time we have no funds from the federal government. We are hoping we will either get funds from the federal government or through the Ontario Land Corp.

Mr. Sargent: No wonder you’re broke!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would think that the amount of funds being requested is very minimum, and we are, as I say, hoping that before our fiscal year we will have an answer which will --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If we don’t have that answer it will necessitate coming in with other figures for further acquisition funds.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the minister correctly, the government has already spent $170 million for acquisition costs in North Pickering. The $45 million is to complete the acquisition?

No? What portion of the $45 million is to complete the North Pickering acquisition?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The $45 million is only a partial amount of the total costs. We have this year, as I said, spent $23 million in acquiring lands. We’ll have further funds to be expended in regard to, I think approximately 8,000 acres in that area.

Mr. Singer: Well tell us what the total cost is of land acquisition in North Pickering?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, $170 million.

Mr. Singer: No, that’s the money you have spent to date, isn’t it? Or did I misunderstand you?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, you didn’t misunderstand me. That is the total cost to date. As I understand it, we have spent $170 million to date. The total costs will depend on the expropriation appraisals, and at this time I cannot tell you what they will be. That’s why I say we will have to come into the Legislature for further funds at some date.

Mr. Singer: So there is $170 million you have already spent, a portion of that being this $45 million; could you break the $45 million down as to how much of that is going to be used for the North Pickering acquisition between now and the end of the fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All of it.

Mr. Singer: Oh, so all the $45 million is to go to the North Pickering land acquisition? So that makes it $215 million and the end is not yet in sight. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, that is not correct. What I meant was, the $45 million has been expended, the funds have been used, and therefore we are bringing in the supplementary estimates to relate to the moneys that have been expended in the last few months.

Mr. Sargent: So you are going to start over again?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I am not starting over again. I am saying the funds have been spent. We have to have supplementary estimates to supplement the original estimates.

Mr. Singer: Well you would add that onto the $170 million, wouldn’t you? Is my arithmetic right?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, all that is included in the $170 million.

Mr. Singer: It includes the $45 million; which you spent, which you didn’t have, and which you are now asking for?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s right.

Mr. Singer: And then, over and above that, there is an un-estimated figure which will be necessary?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Exactly.

Mr. Singer: All right. Can you recall what estimate of the total cost of the North Pickering acquisition was given us when the government first embarked on it?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I can’t recall, Mr. Chairman, what the estimated cost was. I don’t suppose it is too relevant, at this time, to the matter we have before the House. Land costs have risen all over Ontario, so the estimated costs of North Pickering may have been considerably less. I am sure they were. Who at that time knew the inflation factor was going to be as high as it is at the present time?

Mr. Singer: But the minister is the one who made it go as high.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And whose fault is it that it is that high? It is the fault of the federal government, which has to control, in other words, the factors in inflation. I think, as I said before -- and I don’t want to get into a debate on inflation factors -- I think it is realistic to say that the federal government has a very large role to play in regard to inflation; and when it brings about an increase in its salaries -- as it has just recently -- I think it shows how much concern it has.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce gave me an indication he wanted to speak; and then the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Well maybe he could have one question, but I think it is the pattern to go from party to party over here.

Mr. Chairman: I recognize the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, and then the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, you say the people down there are asking you to do these things; I didn’t know you were so receptive to people’s wishes. What is the motivation and what is the end target? Do you know that?

Mr. Deacon: The people certainly didn’t ask you to do this North Pickering confiscation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The motivation of this government has been, as far as I have been concerned as a minister -- and I am sure as far as the government has been concerned -- to try to respond to the wishes of the majority of the people; not to the minority but to the majority. That’s why we have been in power for 30-some years and that is why we are going to carry on in power. And we will continue to be in power when we do things, as we are now, in regard to the North Pickering Development Corp.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: North Pickering Development Corp. will plan the development of that area, with the co-ordination and co-operation of the people who are directly affected.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get your explanation as to those people who want us to do it. Who are those people? You said those people want us to do it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, very specifically, I will respond to you this way: The people who live in the area at the present time; the people who were elected and represent the regional municipality of Durham; the people who were elected and represent the regional municipality of York; the people who are elected and represent the Metropolitan Toronto area; and the people who may come into the area, I think, have something to say about it. Those are the people I’m referring to.

Mr. Sargent: What is the minister’s end target, dollar-wise?

Mrs. Campbell: Metro hasn’t asked for this.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has a great crystal ball he looks into once in a while. I wish I had it.

Mr. Sargent: I want a satisfactory answer. They’re paying for this.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I don’t know what the end, target is. I don’t know what the actual amount will be. That depends on the expropriating costs. What will happen is that in my opinion we will receive full value for all the moneys expended.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The towns, the cities will be built in 20 years’ time, 25 years’ time or 30 years’ time; and we, as a government --

Mr. Deacon: All that land costs.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- will not be only proud of it; we will have our moneys recovered. We’ll have provided housing; well have provided jobs; and provided commercial enterprise where we haven’t had anything in the past;

Mr. Deacon: Just increase the cost of housing to people.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, may I say that it’s incredible the minister hasn’t built a single unit for low-income housing in Ontario today for apartment dwellers. He spends $170 million in this one spot -- the government is spending money like drunken sailors. People who need it aren’t getting housing. That’s a criminal thing today.

Mr. Deacon: Right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I can’t let that one go by.

Mr. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): No.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s rather late and we took up time this afternoon; but in any event let’s get back to the important factor, we are doing an awful lot for the people that are on low and moderate incomes.

Mr. Sargent: Where?

Mrs. Campbell: Where?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have a programme for rental accommodation. We have provided more rental accommodation than any other province in Canada or any other jurisdiction. We have provided programmes for those on moderate incomes. We’re proud of the programmes that the Ontario Housing Corp. and the Ministry of Housing have put forward in the past.

Mrs. Campbell: What year?

Mr. Sargent: Not this year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’m telling the member there is going to be housing provided for everyone, if we all co-operate.

Mr. Sargent: Come on; that’s not true.

Mr. Cassidy: At $40,000 per unit.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It will do the members’ area an awful lot of good if they were to co-operate with this government and try to provide housing, instead of being so negative.

An hon. member: The minister lacks the ability.

Mr. Chairman: Now that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is tidying his desk the chair will recognize him.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: For a couple of minutes.

Mr. Cassidy: Actually, the Chairman is wrong. My desk is quite untidy, but I hope I still have the right to speak.

How many acres has the ministry now acquired at Pickering for the $170 million that’s been spent? How many does he intend to acquire for the $45 million that is now being voted?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Approximately 17,000 acres. There will be a total of 25,000 acres.

Mr. Cassidy: Wait a minute. In January, 1974, the then Minister of Housing announced a reduction of one-third in the size of the land acquisition to 17,000 acres. Has the minister now changed his mind? Is he going back to the 25,000 acres?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, I think I’m right in my figures, though, Mr. Chairman. I don’t want to mislead the member. I felt the amount of acreage was 17,000 and that we had 8,000 yet to acquire, or at least to settle with. I may be wrong in that. I’ll check it out.

Mr. Cassidy: Well in that case, if the minister acquired 17,000 acres for $107 million --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Excuse me!

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I have just been informed. It’s 17,000 acres only.

Mr. Cassidy: I’m sorry.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: A total of 17,000 only.

Mr. Cassidy: Out of that 17,000 how many has the minister acquired and how many remain to be acquired?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’ll get the answer for the hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: I appreciate that answer very kindly. Maybe this is a convenient time to move the adjournment.

Mr. Chairman: It’s not necessary to move the adjournment.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m. the House took recess.

December 17, 1974

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

ASBESTOS IN GREAT LAKES BASIN

GROUP INSURANCE COVERACE

GROUP INSURANCE COVERAGE

OMB DECISION ON TORONTO HEIGHT BYLAW

RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAMME

GLASS WASTE

COMPENSATION FOR DOWNGRADED FARMLAND

ACID SPILL IN PELHAM TOWNSHIP

HOSPITAL SPENDING CEILINGS

SPORTS COMPLEX

DUMPING OF FILL IN HAMILTON HARBOUR

HOUSING IN ARMSTRONG

ASBESTOS IN GREAT LAKES BASIN

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

FEES FOR TRUCKS ON INDIAN RESERVES

RECYCLING OF WASTE PAPER

MARKUPS IN FOOD PRICES

CONDOMINIUM MORTGAGES

BILINGUAL SIGNS

OHC BRIBE CHARGES

SAND SUPPLY IN RIDEAU TOWNSHIP

ASBESTOS IN GREAT LAKES BASIN

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION

MEAT INSPECTION

SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND RECREATION ACT

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT CORP.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING