The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce 60 grade 10 students from West Toronto Secondary School with their two teachers, Mr. Jarman and Mr. Ketcheson, who are sifting in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ONTARIO SUMMER GAMES

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to advise the House this afternoon that the 1975 Ontario Summer Games will be held over the Labour Day weekend in London.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What’s wrong with Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Welch: We expect more than 1,800 athletes from all parts of Ontario will enter the various competitions, including swimming, diving, lawn bowling, cricket, rugby, soccer, track and field, water skiing, canoeing, lacrosse, shooting, field hockey, golf, rowing and netball.

In addition to these sports events, my ministry will co-ordinate a programme of cultural activities similar to those which contributed so much to community participation and the success of the winter games in Thunder Bay in December.

We looked at facilities in a number of Ontario communities which offered to hold the summer games, and the interest of these municipalities and their local organizations is, of course, evidence of the widespread interest and support for these games in the province.

Mr. Speaker, we will be using facilities of the parks and recreation branch of London, the University of Western Ontario and the London Board of Education for competition sites, athletes’ accommodation and administrative support services; I would like to commend all of these agencies for the excellent co-operation we have received from them so far.

An hon. member: Why wasn’t it in Brampton?

GLAUCOMA SCREENING CLINIC

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, to promote public awareness a free glaucoma screening clinic using non-contact air puff tonometry is being made available to all members of the Legislature and the press gallery on Thursday and Friday, Feb. 13 and 14, from 10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): The government is myopic, not glaucomic.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Members opposite have hardening of the arteries, not the eyeballs.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The clinic, under the auspices of York-Finch Hospital, will be located in the library off the west lobby. The new puff tonometry method was developed by Dr. Melvin Cooper of York-Finch Hospital and has been hailed as a breakthrough in detecting elevated eye pressure, which if undetected and untreated can lead to blindness. The test takes about five minutes and does not involve the use of drops or direct eye contact. I hope all hon. members and all members of the press gallery will allow themselves to be tested.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): We have always said the government was lacking in vision.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It is not the eyes that need testing around here.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Premier if the commitment made in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this session is going to be fulfilled, in which Her Honour said to us: “You will be asked to approve legislation which will require an environmental assessment of major new development projects.” Does the Premier recall making or having the Lieutenant Governor make the same commitment of government policy in 1973 as well as 1974?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall having made Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor do anything. I think there was some reference to it in the Throne Speech, yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Perhaps in order to answer the question, will the Premier tell us whether we are going to have legislation as promised, or is it, like the seatbelt stuff, going to be handled by public relations?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recall the suggestion in the Throne Speech about seatbelt legislation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was very clear; it wasn’t suggested.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve read it myself.

Mr. Cassidy: I thought it was a commitment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only sense that the Liberal Party is officially on the record as opposing legislation on seatbelts, although I haven’t read anything about it yet.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: All I read is that the Liberal Party raises it as an issue and hasn’t decided yet whether it is for it or against it, like everything else.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is it true that the government has to change its mind?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t expect it will be in the Throne Speech again.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: With your help, Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier to indicate whether this legislation, which is clearly promised, is going to be introduced before the end of the session; and if not perhaps there is some reason why not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hope the end of the session will come this week.

Mr. Deans: I doubt it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The proposed legislation is very complex in nature. I anticipate we will have that legislation prior to any question of elections.

However, I have discovered that the Liberals are in favour of something. Somebody just sent me a button which says on it: “Kiss me, I’m a Liberal.” It’s the first positive thing I’ve seen from that party.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Is that the Liberal policy?

Mr. Lewis: Let the Premier be careful where he puts the button.

Interjections by hon. members.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to put a question to the Minister of the Environment. Is it his impression that it was because of his relatively junior position in the cabinet that the influence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes), the former Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) particularly, and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), did not permit him to introduce the legislation establishing a proper environmental hearing procedure?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as for the influence of anyone, I don’t know what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about. He talked about a proper environmental hearing procedures and he talked about environmental assessment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A point of order, with your permission, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A point of order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: With reference to the minister’s statement, I’m talking about the clear statement by Her Honour, on page 5 of Hansard, which says as follows: “You will be asked to approve legislation which will require an environmental assessment of major new development projects.” Now where is the legislation and why doesn’t the minister introduce it?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Leader of the Opposition had been here, I believe when we first went back into session, I explained that it would --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was a personal commitment.

Hon. W. Newman: Just don’t get all excited; just calm down.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister has an opportunity to answer.

Hon. W. Newman: Maybe we should do one on the member.

Mr. Lewis: It was a personal commitment this time, it was not government policy.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. W. Newman: In answer to that question, I said it would be coming in the next session of the Legislature.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, we’ll see what we get on that.

APPEAL ON OHIP PAYMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask the Minister of Health why he is continuing to harass my constituent, Arthur Taylor, an elderly gentleman who appealed the non-payment from OHIP of his medical expenses to the OHIP appeal board? He won the appeal. The minister appealed it further to the divisional court, where my constituent won his appeal again, with costs. Why is the minister now directing his legal officials to appeal it further, when my elderly constituent has gone now more than two years without adequate payment from the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition and I have discussed this issue privately. He knows that this latest step just came within the last week.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Yes, but the public doesn’t know it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I, in turn, am looking at the request from my ministry staff to proceed with this appeal. I am going to make a decision on it within the next 24 hours, I would think.

But the issue isn’t quite as simple as it might seem. The law states that persons receiving treatment outside of Canada may not he paid more than the amount a physician in Ontario would have been paid. A discretionary decision was made by the appeal body in that case, allowing extra costs for Mr. Taylor. We appealed it on the basis of a point of law, not on the basis of the justice or injustice of the particular case. It was on that basis that the appeal went forward.

Now, I do intend -- and I have put a request in to discuss this with staff -- to see whether the law needs to be changed, or whether the appeal needs to be proceeded with to determine the validity of the current law.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the ruling of the review board established under legislation a year ago and staffed by people appointed by order in council, approved the payment; and that was appealed to the divisional court which surely knows something about the law and which permitted the payment; why isn’t the money sent out to my constituent?

Mr. Lewis: Why not send out the money and pursue the point of law?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’m not a lawyer, nor is the Leader of the Opposition, but I assume one of the reasons for the numbers of appeals that are allowed in British law is because the law itself is not always easy to interpret, and therefore requires review by different courts.

Now we have a test case -- I’m sure you know that whenever we put a statute in the books one of the important things is to see that it stands the test of court cases -- and this, sadly enough, happens to affect a rather elderly gentleman. But the fact remains, this law, in our staff’s opinion, should be upheld. The principle was very important to them. There are millions of dollars at stake in this kind of thing, with people who go into a Florida hospital, or see a Florida doctor or a California doctor, and pay five, six, seven times the rates in Ontario. If this was allowed to go unchecked there could be almost unlimited drain upon the Treasury of Ontario.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s the thing that is strange.

FIRE PROTECTION COSTS COVERAGE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask a question of the Solicitor General. Is he going to respond affirmatively to the many requests from municipal officials for a thorough review of the efficiency and the cost of providing fire protection across the province?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Well Mr. Speaker, that was a very general request from the municipal group. I’m not sure whether or not they require permanent fire brigades in every part of the province. Hopefully we are intending to provide fire protection in unorganized territories in the north where they have no protection whatsoever now.

There is the question of volunteer fire fighting. Many of the forces want to continue that programme, where a small part of their force is permanent and they supplement that force with volunteer help.

I had asked people in my ministry to look into this. It would not necessarily be on any type of shared-cost basis. Most fire protection, including equipment, for example, is paid for locally. I am not aware of any substantial grants from this government to help municipalities, in say the southern part of the province, with fire protection.

We have our inspection facilities, of course. We hope to take over many of the functions that are now being performed by the Liquor Control Board and by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, but this is a very general request and I am sure it will result in a number of conferences between those within the firefighting community and the government.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Good: Is the minister not concerned about the statement last year of his retiring fire marshal, Mr. Hurst, who said that the province is wasting money on fire protection; that they are using methods that haven’t changed since the inception of fire protection in the province; and that of the billion dollars being spent he feels a lot is being wasted because of a lack of review of procedures? Why does the minister resist having a task force look into the economics of it, the same as he had one look into the police a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the retiring fire marshal was talking mainly about large metropolitan areas, such as Toronto and Ottawa --

Mr. Good: They spend money too.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- where there are a number of fire departments, for example, within the various boroughs. At the present time, as the hon. member knows, there are commissions under way in both Ottawa and Toronto to study the municipal structure of those areas in particular, and included in the terms of reference of both the Mayo commission and the Robarts commission is the question of firefighting.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? A supplementary?

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Yes. When is the minister going to do what he promised during his estimates and devise a scheme whereby the unorganized communities in the province could have some financial assistance to provide fire protection for their residents?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I just alluded to that in my answer to the question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. We have funds in our next year’s budget to provide firefighting equipment to small communities in unorganized territories.

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

Mr. Good: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Good: In view of the fact that in some lower-tier municipalities of regional governments firefighting is now taking up one third of their budget, would the minister see that this matter could be discussed at the PMLC meeting, which up to now has resisted even putting it on their agenda?

Would he answer verbally so that it can be recorded in Hansard, please?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

ELECTION EXPENSES; REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORAL DISTRICTS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier, if I may. Do I take it from his response about wishing to adjourn this week that the Camp commission recommendations on the reform of election financing -- and indeed the redistribution bill -- that neither of them are likely to be passed before we reconvene with the Throne Speech?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t prejudge the work of the distribution commission as far as time is concerned. It would be my thought -- in fact, commitment -- that we will have redistribution. I am not sure that it will be here in time for us to consider, as we should consider it, carefully, before the balance of the programme we have is completed this week.

As it relates to the election finance reform, I hope that we will have it at least for introduction before we adjourn.

Mr. Lewis: So that, by way of supplementary, barring unforeseen events I suppose is the way the Premier would say it, his commitment that we will have the legislation on election financing passed before an election, still stands. It is not like his commitments in Throne speeches.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think we match 90 per cent of our proposals that are enunciated here by Her Honour.

Mr. Lewis: With indecision and vacillation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We do accommodate the vast majority of them. As it relates to the commitment on election finance the answer to that is, unquestionably, yes.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary: Is it the Premier’s intention to prorogue the fourth session at the end of this week or merely adjourn it, perhaps to have it --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I expect we will prorogue, but I should alert members that the business of this province is really quite time-consuming, and while there might be a short interval between prorogation and the next session, if I were the member for Downsview I wouldn’t plan a six- or seven-week period canvassing the riding or on holidays.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe the Premier could indicate when he expects the new session would begin.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would expect, Mr. Speaker, and I can’t give any firm commitment on this today, that it should be fairly early in March.

Mr. Lewis: Another holiday gone.

Mr. Deans: There is one particular piece of legislation, the Condominium Act, currently before one of the standing committees, and there has been a commitment from many members of the House to a great number of people across the province that it would pass during this current session. Are we going to sit long enough to see that Act passed? The current situation is inflicting a great deal of hardship. It is intolerable in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t comment on that. I will be quite prepared to discuss it with the House leader.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

TTC SUBSIDY

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier whether he can give another public commitment that the fares of the Toronto Transit Commission will not be allowed to rise within the next several weeks, by way of guaranteeing further provincial subsidy if necessary?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t give that commitment.

Mr. Lewis: Well, by way of supplementary, given the reversal on Spadina, the abandonment of Krauss-Maffei and the adoption of certain Soberman proposals, what is left of the Premier’s public transit policy if he cannot at least contain the fares that are paid to the TTC?

An hon. member: What indeed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess I could take several minutes to answer that question; and I shall, now that I have been asked.

The public transit policy of this government I think is, hopefully, relatively simple to understand. That is, increased funding, both by way of operating and capital expenditure, to make public transit more viable in terms of our urban centres.

While there has been a great deal of attention focused on some of the more interesting and novel parts of what we would like to see accomplished, the basic ingredient has been and still is -- and the ingredient on which this jurisdiction is lust light years ahead of any other in North America where they have similar problems -- related to the commitment given regarding the capital expenditures by the various transit authorities and our subsidization of operating costs.

I think it is also fair to state though, Mr. Speaker, that there comes a time, with increased costs related to recent arbitration awards, where a degree of equity must be maintained as it relates to other fields of expenditure --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, so he is going to put fares up in Toronto. That’s the last blow.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- where costs have increased. We will continue to pay operating grants; at what level as it relates to the various transit authorities, I honestly can’t say here today. But it would be unfair of me to say that the transit fares will remain exactly as they are now.

Mr. Lewis: Well, the message is clear; the message is clear.

Mr. Cassidy: Is that a green light?

Hon. Mr. Davis: But, Mr. Speaker, whatever determination is made, this province will continue to enjoy one of the most enlightened transit policies you will find anywhere.

Mr. Lewis: Let him tell that to his backbenchers. Nobody else believes him. Not a soul believes him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t need to tell them. They know, they know. If the leader of the New Democratic Party doesn’t believe it, doesn’t understand it, just let him take me to any socialist jurisdiction where it’s any better. Just take --

Mr. Lewis: With pleasure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where, where? Let him show me one. Let him show me one. I will tell him something else --

Mr. Lewis: Well Scandinavia for starters.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, he wants to stay in Canada? Much less exotic.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t finished yet. Where will we go? Is the member inviting me on a trip? Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show I am being invited on a trip.

Mr. Speaker: Please, the hon. Premier has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: We can discuss election financing on the way.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member see any conflict in this trip?

Mr. Lewis: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not at all, I have it from the leader.

I would also point out, Mr. Speaker, that as it relates to one of the areas where this government was offering and will continue to offer some leadership as it related to the intermediate capacity carrier, one of the things that I found particularly interesting, and I haven’t finished my total study of Mr. Soberman’s report, was his, I think, almost total endorsation of the need for an intermediate capacity carrier of some kind.

Mr. Deans: Yes, but not Krauss-Maffei.

Mr. Cassidy: Not GO-Urban.

Hon. Mr. Davis: While we have had a lot of fun with it here among our members opposite, particularly the member for York-Forest Hill (Mr. Givens) who refers to it in rather sarcastic tones, the fact remains that somewhere, some time, fairly soon, some jurisdiction is going to develop an intermediate capacity carrier; and I just hope it’s the Province of Ontario that does it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier annihilated the member for York-Forest Hill. He is speechless.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That isn’t easy.

CATHOLIC CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour: Is the minister now prepared to appoint a senior member of his mediation staff to intervene in the most recent breakdown in contract negotiations between the Federation of Children’s Aid Societies’ staffs and the Metro Toronto Catholic Children’s Aid Society?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Stevens of our mediation staff is working on that and he’s quite competent. Wages are still the main issue involved. At one time we thought it was union security, but wages are still a major issue. There has been movement by both sides, and I’m hoping for further movement in the near future.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM AT CANADIAN JOHNS-MANVILLE PLANT

Mr. Lewis: I have one question I want to put to the Minister of Health, which may lead to a supplementary or two. Is the Minister of Health prepared to launch, as he did in the case of Elliot Lake, a complete health examination, including chest x-rays, sputum tests and general examinations, of those workers presently employed, not just at Johns-Manville but in the asbestos industry generally, in order to give some kind of security to the workers who are involved; and to make the results public, as I think he intends to make the Elliot Lake results public?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, currently I can only assure people that we’re doing quite a bit of x-ray work with anybody we consider at risk. I understand that the senior staff who have been working for some time at Johns-Manville are getting x-rays twice a year.

At the current time, sputum cytology is not being carried out. I have been talking to staff as recently as this morning, and the problem hasn’t been one of willingness or unwillingness, but one of the technical facilities to carry out the testing. I have asked as recently as 1 o’clock that we look into this as quickly as we can to see if there is capacity to do the testing on those people who may be considered at risk in that industry.

I’d have no reason not to carry out similar tests in other places where manpower permits it. I repeated the other day that my job is not to defend the company, it’s to point out the risks in any industry where people work.

I feel, having reviewed the issues in this particular plant over the weekend, that perhaps some comments should be made to reassure not so much the workers, because as the member knows, the workers are getting the reports --

Mr. Lewis: Careful.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- and I believe the workers should get the reports -- that we, from our staff, bring out.

Mr. Lewis: They’re not getting the reports from the plant. They’re not getting them.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I was told the union is given the information in Johns-Manville, and the reports are discussed with the union.

Mr. Lewis: No, no. They have to request reports. I spoke to the safety chairman yesterday; it is not so.

Hon. Mr. Miller: At this point in time it’s the member’s information against mine, and I’ll be glad to check that. I can’t argue that he’s wrong or right.

Mr. Lewis: They have to ask for it.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I simply say I see nothing wrong with that. I think it’s one of the best methods, if we can do it, of alleviating unnecessary concern or of finding places where we can clean up the act, whichever way it happens to work, and I’m quite willing to work on it.

But our standard is only 40 per cent of the US standard in this particular area. We allow two particles per cc; the American standard has been five. Five years ago ours was 12. We have progressively cut it down, so that by even the most pessimistic standard, currently, today a man would have to have over 50 years’ exposure under the current working conditions to be eligible as a risk person.

Mr. Lewis: Nonsense. That’s just unadulterated nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. Lewis: And I’m surprised at the minister.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’m surprised at the member. I’m surprised at him.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, wait for the supplementary that’s coming.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’m ready for the supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Okay, that’s fine. It’s coming.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I only say to the member that I have seldom found him guilty of the type of smear that the man behind him, the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), is so excellent in. That’s the type of thing; the fear-mongering that goes on in the world; the statements that there is --

Mr. Lewis: What fear-mongering? The minister has nerve. How does he explain fearmongering to the men who have had asbestosis and have died? What kind of fear-mongering is that?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I do not have a nerve. I’m talking about --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Was it fear-mongering in Elliot Lake?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: He is treating it lightly. He is being conned by his staff. He’s being taken in by all the bureaucrats in his department, with his nonsense about fear-mongering.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the minister have a further answer to the question?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I want to tell the member that I wasn’t talking about in-plant conditions. Is he aware, for example, that we recycle all the air in that plant? Is he aware of that?

Mr. Lewis: So what? There was recycling of the air at Denison. They recycled the same dust.

Hon. Mr. Miller: We recycle it so that dust -- I am talking --

Mr. Lewis: They recycle the same dust.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Sir --

Mr. Lewis: Come on; look at Denison. They said the same thing. Don’t give us that.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The minister is still answering the question.

Mr. Lewis: Is the minister apologizing for Johns-Manville?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am not apologizing for them. I am apologizing to people in that community who the leader of the NDP has frightened to death over the weekend.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister talking about? I don’t have to frighten them to death; they died on their own, thanks to the minister’s negligence and that of the government.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: They don’t have to be frightened to death. Boy oh boy; has the minister got gall. Come on. Move in there and clean up that plant.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am working on that plant; and I am proud of the work we are doing in that plant and the improvements we have made in that plant since our staff went in in 1959.

I am just saying that to make a person with eight kids --

Mr. Lewis: That plant is still 200 times above the recommended level. That’s right; 1/100 of a fibre per cubic centimetre.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There was a question asked and the minister is answering it.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I simply say that when the member frightens people in the community by statements --

Mr. Lewis: Frighten people?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The leader of the NDP did that very effectively.

Mr. Lewis: I just stressed the facts. What does the minister mean frighten people?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Would the minister rather have them die than be frightened? He just doesn’t want any of this to be public knowledge.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: He sits on the reports and represses them. He has a public responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. It seems to me the minister is straying from the original question. Has he completed the answer to the first question?

Mr. Lewis: The Speaker is right when he says the minister is straying from the original question. The minister is engaged in criminal negligence when he suppresses those facts, and he shouldn’t kid himself.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for High Park has a supplementary

Mr. Shulman: Does the minister think a report released today by the Department of Preventive Medicine of the University of Toronto is fear-mongering when it says such casual contact with asbestos as working in a plant for four days can produce cancer of the larynx leading to death; that such casual contact as laying asbestos pipe for one month will produce cancer of the larynx leading to death; that the cause of cancer of the larynx has definitely been linked to asbestos? Does he think that is fear-mongering? Is the minister going to blame them?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, unlike another member, I am willing to look at his article as well as the ones I have.

Mr. Shulman: It is not an article.

Mr. Lewis: It is a study in Toronto, at the university.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The fact remains there is a lot of literature in the scientific journals, not done by the staff in my ministry, to indicate the tolerance and levels at which people can work. Now either you are going to say you cannot work with asbestos at all, or you are going to minimize the risks so that the odds of illness are very low; and we are trying our best to do that.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister not aware that a study was done at the Toronto General Hospital of every person who died of cancer of the larynx, and they have definitely linked it to asbestos? Is the minister not aware of that?

Mr. Laughren: He is looking for a way out.

Mr. Shulman: He is not aware. He knows nothing of what is going on, and yet he calls me a fear-monger.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions -- the member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Lewis: One supplementary on this, which I didn’t intend to ask, but the minister certainly can aggravate a person; which is perhaps uncharacteristic of him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Well I am usually a placating moderate, but on this issue, by God, I want to ask the minister now: Does he know that 800 bags of blue asbestos, which he himself has described as a danger to health, which the head of his occupational health branch described as a danger to health, are now sitting in that plant at Johns-Manville? Does he know that three tractor-trailers of blue asbestos were delivered just last week? Will the minister explain to me how he can allow that to continue when he has himself documented the hazard?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the assumption that one never works with hazardous material in industrial settings is totally incorrect. The question is to recognize the danger and to take action to prevent disease from it.

Now there are many things we wouldn’t work with if we took the assumption that the member took as the foundation of the working conditions. Vinyl chloride monomer would be ruled out at once; nickel carbonyl would be ruled out at once --

Mr. Lewis: Does the economy require blue asbestos?

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- blue asbestos would be ruled out at once. But it is our job to try and make sure that the working conditions are maintained for safety.

Mr. Lewis: What is more important?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Lewis: No, sir.

Mr. Deans: Who is going to protect the people if the minister doesn’t?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am doing it, whether the member believes it or not.

Mr. Deans: No, the minister is not. He tells me that the people are not the first consideration.

Mr. Speaker: I would just point out that there has been a great deal of time spent on this. The member for Sandwich-Riverside may have one supplementary.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): A supplementary of the Minister of Health: Are x-rays and other precautions and concerns being shown to the workers at the Holmes Insulations plant at Pt. Edward as well as at Johns-Manville?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would have to ask that of my staff, because I don’t know myself; but I will find out.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has the answer to a question asked previously.

Mr. Lewis: There is more of this to come.

ALLEGED LCBO HARASSMENT

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question raised on Jan. 27 by the member for High Park, who can hear me even though he is not in his seat at the present time.

The member asked: “Has the minister looked into the complaints of harassment by the Liquor Licence Board which were sent to him by the Concordia Club in Kitchener? What has been the result of that looking in, if he has done it?”

Mr. Speaker, I’m always very concerned whenever an agency for which my ministry is responsible is accused of harassing any segment of the public. I asked for and have received a full report on the activities of both the Concordia Club and the inspectors of the LLBO since the club first applied for a liquor licence in May, 1955. We have a 20-year history and sequence of events.

After a careful examination of this report, I am convinced there has been no harassment, and in fact this club has been frequently in violation, not only of the liquor regulations of the province but also of its own charter and bylaws. I think the inspectors of the LLBO have gone out of their way to be fair to the club and have repeatedly brought infractions of the bylaws and regulations to the attention of club officials, only to find them repeated time and again.

Following the club’s appearance before the board in a “show cause” hearing on Oct. 23, 1974, at which the club’s licence was suspended for seven days for service of liquor to non-members, the club’s solicitor wrote to Mr. Mackey, chairman of the board, thanking him for a fair hearing and for the courtesy extended by the board.

If the hon. member is interested, I will be glad to show him a copy of the report I referred to in my answer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

OPP TAKEOVER OF LOCAL POLICING

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Solicitor General. Has the police commission, under his direction, drawn up any guidelines for the takeover of local police departments by the OPP, either in a regional government setting or just generally speaking, so as to avoid the kind of problems that happened, I believe in Napanee, where the local police force was taken over without the men involved knowing exactly what was going to happen to them or what the guidelines were

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the latter part of the hon. member’s question, the Ontario Provincial Police have not taken over the police in Napanee.

Mr. Reid: Regional government.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The Napanee police force has decided to carry on as it was in the past. It depends on the particular area --

Mr. Reid: I am talking about guidelines.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Pardon?

Mr. Reid: They didn’t know what was going to happen.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It’s been the practice, Mr. Speaker, that when a particular municipality wishes to be taken over by the OPP, to amalgamate with adjoining forces, or to have a county force, usually a study is undertaken by the police commission, as was done, for example, in Huron. Then the OPC will make recommendations and give various alternatives to the local people to decide how they want their policing handled in the future.

Where there are OPP detachments, for example, surrounding a municipal force in a small community, the OPP will, in most cases, agree to take that force over. Mr. Speaker, the task force on policing has recommended that all small forces of under 15 members be either amalgamated with other forces in the area or taken over by the Ontario Provincial Police.

To answer the hon. member’s question, there are guidelines, there are suggestions, directions and recommendations, but we for the most part leave the decision up to the local force and the local police commission.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

MID-TERM SCHOOL BREAK

Mr. Burr: I have a question of the Minister of Education regarding the mid-term break in Ontario schools. Is the minister aware of the considerable disruption to the plans of families and to the plans of children-oriented organizations that is being caused by the decision to leave to the local boards the determination of dates for the mid-term break?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I am aware there are some problems involved -- some very real problems -- however I guess this is the price we have to pay for local autonomy and local decision-making.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. Burr: What merit is there in having local autonomy in this matter? What merit is there?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You know, Mr. Speaker, the member is sounding like these fellows.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my friend, perhaps, doesn’t want any local autonomy, but when you have local autonomy you have to accept the kind of decisions that are made by the local people. I’ve told people who have written me about this --

Mr. Deans: It is a bit selective though, the minister must admit.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- that certainly there should be consultation between, for instance, the separate school boards and the public school boards and the neighbouring boards. But surely in this matter of the school year, we debated it when an amendment went through this House -- and the member probably voted for that amendment a year or so ago -- we debated it fully then and we said: “We are turning over to the local boards some degree of autonomy to plan the school years, including when the mid-winter break is;” and that’s what we did.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Revenue has the answer to a question.

OVERTAXING OF AUTOMOBILES

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Tues., Feb. 4, the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston) asked me if I was aware of what he suggested was “overtaxing of automobiles resulting from the rebate instigated by the big four auto companies,” and whether I was considering “the refund of the seven per cent sales tax on the amount of the rebate to the consumer.”

Mr. Speaker, where a car dealer allows a reduction in the selling price of an automobile because he’s being compensated in a like amount by a supplier, the retail sales tax is, naturally enough, applicable to the selling price, net of the reduction. However, where the rebate is made directly to the consumer by the automobile manufacturer, as appears in many cases to be the case, and the dealer has not reduced the selling price of the automobile to the customer, the rebate cannot be used to reduce the amount on which the sales tax is applicable.

In this second kind of case, the selling price negotiated between the dealer and the customer is unaffected by the rebate, the rebate can’t be considered a discount and therefore does not act to reduce the amount upon which the tax is applied. The rebate transaction is a separate agreement between the customer and the automobile manufacturer.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, to the minister: The actual price the consumer is paying for that product is really with the rebate off.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, you are debating it. Do you have a question?

Mr. Ruston: Yes, I am just asking, isn’t the minister really over-collecting in sales tax, because the consumer is not paying that full amount, in effect?

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have just outlined to the hon. member that I’m not. I’m applying the tax on the basis of the contract price. Whatever happens after that is between another party -- namely the manufacturer -- and the purchaser.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What about the federal tax?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I said one supplementary. The time is fast flitting. You may ask something as a new question later. The hon. member for Downsview.

MINING TAX REVENUE

Mr. Singer: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Has he been able to ascertain the incidence of tax raised by the mining tax and its projection forward to the end of the fiscal year ending March 1 next; and the comparison of what the mining tax has raised in this fiscal year as compared with the last fiscal year?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): I don’t have those figures right handy, Mr. Speaker, but I’m sure the hon. member realizes we can get a projection. That projection, of course, would all depend on the price of metals. There is a definite decline in metal prices right across the whole spectrum, so that would have an effect; but we would be glad to get a projection for the member for 1975.

Mr. Laughren: Trade revenues for INCO --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since we will be debating this tax law, probably some time today, would it be possible for the minister to make that information available, or the best projection he has, so that it could at least form the basis of some of the discussions tonight?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I’ll see what we have within the ministry. If we have something reasonably reliable then I’ll bring it forward.

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

MINING CROWN CORPORATION

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources: Has the minister abandoned the idea of setting up a provincial corporation to do exploration in mining? If he has abandoned it, why has he done so when the amount of staking in the mining areas of the province is going down?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, let me reassure the hon. member for Cochrane South that staking in the Province of Ontario in 1974 has not declined. In fact, it has gone up considerably over 1973.

We have not abandoned our ultimate goal of setting up a Crown corporation with regard to exploration, but it may be slightly delayed because we are going into a number of other different fields. One could be, as was pointed out in the budget speech, the extension of the MEAP system -- that’s the Mineral Exploration Assistance Programme -- into a number of different areas across the province. That would be part of it. But we have not at this time abandoned our ultimate goal of setting up a Crown corporation.

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

SUN TOOL AND STAMPING CO.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister is aware of the discussions we’ve had over the last couple of days concerning the Sun Tool and Stamping Co., and the $55,000 worth of vacation pay that is being withheld. Would the minister clear up this situation? From discussions that I’ve had there appear to be three different agencies involved -- that is, the Provincial Bank, the Ontario Development Corp. and the adjustment assistance board, a federal body -- and one seems to be putting the blame on the second.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor-Walkerville spoke with me late on Friday afternoon about this matter. Regrettably, I haven’t been able to get to the root of the matter yet. As I understand it, Sun Tool and Stamping Co. of Windsor has a loan guaranteed by la Banque Provinciale of over $80,000. I understand that ODC is the first body behind that loan; but behind that again, the second body is the General Adjustment Assistance Programme. I understand that the General Adjustment Assistance Programme, which would be the first loser, is asking the ODC to share some of the possible loss involved. That’s what I understand the position to be. We believe that the GAAP should take the entire loss on the matter, but I will have further information for the member tomorrow, I hope.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: May I ask the minister to check with ODC so that we could speed up the release of the funds and the workers could get their vacation pay, because it is adversely affecting them?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether my colleague has any further information to add on it or not, but I’ll follow it up with the member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

PEACE BRIDGE INCIDENT

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Solicitor General. Has he had brought to his attention an incident which occurred over the weekend at the Peace Bridge where Buffalo police chased an Ontario-licensed vehicle across the bridge, stopped it in Ontario, accosted the driver and then left without even communicating with the Ontario Provincial Police? What action does he plan to take to correct these things?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the information I have was that this happened Sunday morning about 4 o’clock. Apparently there was a truck with Ontario licence plates that was being followed by a couple of Buffalo police cruisers and there was some suspicion that an offence had been committed. The Buffalo police attempted to stop the Canadian vehicle. The Canadian vehicle took off across the Peace Bridge and apparently the vehicle was stopped about 60 ft past the immigration checkpoint on the Canadian side of the bridge.

There was some discussion between the immigration authorities and the Buffalo police, said: “We want you to notify the Niagara regional police force and we will stay here until someone from that force turns up.” Now that was done. Apparently, however, there was a scuffle at that point and the Canadian driver of the vehicle, I believe, vas hurt.

Mr. Lewis: He was hurt? I heard he had a concussion.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I have asked for a report from the chief of the Niagara force so that I can get the details, particularly as to what offence the Canadians had allegedly committed. I understand that two other occupants in the vehicle have been charged by the Niagara police.

Mr. Deans: With what?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I believe with either disorderly conduct or assault. I will get the full particulars, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Lewis: He had better bring NORAD into this.

LIQUOR ADVERTISING

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Has the minister studied the new Quebec legislation with regard to liquor advertising; and if so does he propose to introduce similar legislation here in Ontario to avoid existing association between alcoholic beverages and achievement?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, not only are we away ahead of Quebec, they have copied us almost word for word. I would be pleased to send the hon. member a copy of the Ontario Liquor Board’s directive on advertising so he can compare ours with the Quebec regulations.

Mr. Deacon: Is that now in legislation?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is not in legislation; it has been issued and is in the hands of all the advertisers and agencies.

Mr. Deacon: For what purpose?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): By way of supplementary, for what purpose is it in the hands of the advertisers and in what way is this government ahead of the Province of Quebec, which has promulgated it and established a date on which it is going to come into force?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we are ahead of the Province of Quebec in that we have designed the directive --

Mr. Renwick: Would he let us have a copy of it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s in the hands of the advertising agencies as guidelines to them.

Mr. Deacon: Why doesn’t the minister let the public know what he is doing?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources has the answer to a question asked previously.

MINING TAX REVENUE

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member for Downsview was asking what are our projections for revenue out of the mining tax. I am informed that the budget address last spring indicated about $88 million, and our estimate now is $144 million.

Mr. Speaker: We have about 30 seconds. I think the member for Waterloo North was up earlier. Can you decide which one? Okay.

Mr. Good: A question of the Minister of --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The last question was asked by the Liberals.

Mr. Speaker: You are right. I looked over there a moment ago when that question was finished and no one rose. The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

YOUNG TRAVELLERS’ PROGRAMME

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister of Education. Has he communicated with his colleague and seat mate, the hon. provincial Treasurer to see whether or not he is going to extend the assistance to the Ontario Young Travellers’ Programme beyond the end of this fiscal year?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, does my friend mean are we going to have the Ontario Young Travellers’ Programme in the next fiscal year? Yes, the answer is yes, we will be having it.

Mr. Stokes: Will he accept applications from groups who will be coming after the fiscal year, because it is my understanding they are being held in abeyance until March 31 and it’s impossible for them to plan on that basis? Can I give them the assurance they should go ahead and make application?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, certainly Mr. Speaker. I think my friend knows, though, that it is perhaps rather presumptuous for me to spend money ahead of estimates being introduced, and so forth.

Mr. Reid: Especially if the government is having an election.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Never been done before.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But we would be happy to have them put their applications in.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired; but the member for Waterloo North has a point of order, I believe.

Mr. Good: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the Minister of the Environment would not want to mislead the House when he left the impression he had not promised any environmental assessment legislation in this session. I quote from page S-1793 of Hansard on the ministry’s estimates where he says: “As far as the environmental assessment legislation is concerned, I intend to introduce that very early in the session.”

Mr. Lewis: Wrong again.

An hon. member: That was just an intention.

Hon. W. Newman: In answer to that point of order, that’s exactly what was said, “very early in the session”; the next session.

Mr. Reid: Which session?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Hamilton from the standing social 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 179, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Committee, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister -- which minister is it? Oh it’s the only place it can go -- that’s right. Committee of the whole House then. I am sorry, I didn’t hear till after we had carried it.

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. McKeough tabled vol. II and vol. III of the public accounts, 1973 and 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Motions. Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): First order, resuming the adjourned debate on last year’s budget.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): The sugar cane speech?

Mr. Speaker: Of those who are standing up, the member for Wentworth appears to have the floor.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two or three matters that I want to raise this afternoon in the discussion on the budgetary policies of the government. I want to do them in a particular order, at least initially because I want to deal with two things that may be of interest to two of the ministers who are here, while they are still here.

I started this speech, as you’ll recall, Mr. Speaker, last November, and it’s been sort of moving along little by little. I have to confess that while I thought I might have had time during the Christmas recess to pull together all of the material that I thought I could put on the record for public consumption, I haven’t really had as much time as I expected to have.

I want to talk about four or five different topics; I will tell you what they are, Mr. Speaker, and then I will talk on them. I will very quickly cover the one dealing with home ownership in a moment; I want to talk about the Nanticoke to Hamilton throughway again, because I think it’s important; I want to put a few remarks on the record with regard to redistribution. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to be here during the debate and so I am going to take advantage of this opportunity to --

An hon. member: Was the member sick?

Mr. Deans: I wasn’t sick, no; I was on vacation. Then I am going to talk about rents; about the HOME programme; I have some comments about nursing homes; I’ll talk a little hit about the central utilities plant in the city of Hamilton; about a particular picket line incident at International Harvester in Burlington; and I think if we get through all of those things, it will probably be time to adjourn the debate at 6 o’clock.

I want to turn to the home ownership matter. As you know, sir, I have been speaking for some time now about what I consider to be an inadequate way of dealing with the Home Ownership Made Easy programme, particularly with regard to the lottery system. I have put together a number of things which have caused a great deal of aggravation to many people who applied for the lottery or who took part in the lottery and who either were or were not successful -- it didn’t seem to matter. Even those who were not successful seemed to suffer the same kind of aggravations as some people who were successful.

I raised with the minister one day last week a particular problem. I want to deal with that first of all.

A couple put their name in to the lottery. To the best of their knowledge they qualified -- and I want to make it clear that it’s quite easy in the month of November not to be able to assess accurately exactly how much money you have earned during the year. They thought that they fell within the $17,000 and they signed the document to that effect. They had forgotten that there had been an increase given during that time; in addition to that, there had been a bonus paid. And so, when the final calculation time came around it turned out that they were some hundreds of dollars -- not thousands, but some hundreds of dollars -- over and so I am not making a case with regard to their eligibility. It turns out they were not eligible. But it is when this came to light that bothers me.

I want to say to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine), through you, Mr. Speaker, I have a number of the documents here before me that these people were required to sign, all of which left them with the impression of eligibility. They began, of course, in December, 1974, by signing something called “Schedule C acknowledgement” to the Ontario Housing Corp. It is that document which said that they, to the best of their knowledge, believed they had fulfilled all of the eligibility requirements and that their income was not in excess of $17,000 combined per annum.

There was nothing much said about that from that point on. They were asked to get documentation from their employers showing what they had earned. Their employers sent the documents in. Ontario Housing, upon looking at them, decided they weren’t in the proper form and they asked the couple if they would send in an additional document from each of their employers, setting out what their actual earnings were on the stationery or letter head of the place where they were employed. That was done, as I recall, in the second week of January, 1975.

At the time they first entered into an agreement -- and I have in front of me an agreement that’s called “Agreement of purchase and sale of leasehold land under the HOME programme,” and it has on it the date of the closing of the deal. The agreement says, under section 12: “The sale shall be completed on or before the 15th day of January, 1975,” and that’s important. The deal shall be completed on or before the 15th day of January, 1975. It goes on to say, “on which date vacant possession of the real property shall be given to the purchaser which shall be the date of closing.”

They signed this and they sent it in, together with their statement -- and the statement they sent to Ontario Housing indicated that in fact they had earned several hundred dollars more than they had anticipated. So they wrote to Ontario Housing on Jan. 10, and recognizing that they were within five days of the closing date, they put a PS at the bottom of the letter, which they sent special delivery registered, saying: “If there is a problem, would you please phone collect because we are most eager that there should be no difficulty encountered on Jan. 15,” which was very close.

The minister responded to me when I raised it with him by pointing out that they were not eligible, and I readily admit that. He then stated that they had been telephoned on Jan. 16, which even to me is after the closing date but, fair ball. I’ve spoken to the people involved and they assure me, and would do so in writing, and would sign an affidavit to the effect, that they did not receive a telephone call on Jan. 16. The man was working that day and his employer is prepared to swear to the fact that he was at work all day. He did not at any time during the day receive a telephone call. Notwithstanding that, I point out that even Jan. 16 is after Jan. 15, and Jan. 15 was the closing date on the documents which were filled out by them, duly signed and submitted to Ontario Housing Corp.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): But they’re not eligible anyway.

Mr. Deans: I’m not denying that. What worries me is that these people signed every single document required of them. They signed a purchase, they took over the property. They responded. I read to you from the solicitor for the builder. He’s writing to the solicitor for the purchasers:

“I now enclose a form of undertaking which I require your clients to sign. Please return two copies of the undertaking to me and a cheque in the amount of $938.39, payable to my order for the amount due on closing which I undertake to deposit in my trust account.”

It was the normal letter. This was dated Jan. 13. These people thought when they signed that, since they hadn’t heard from Ontario Housing Corp. otherwise, that they must have been accepted and that there must have been some room for adjustment. It’s not unusual that there would be room for adjustment of a couple of hundred dollars. It turns out it wouldn’t have done; but at the time that the documents were filed they thought that perhaps there was some room for leeway in the whole transaction and that the reason they hadn’t heard back was that they had been given the authority to go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think in all fairness they did not include $950.

Mr. Deans: No, no. I’m going to come to that. I’m not quarrelling with their eligibility. I’m not quarrelling with that at all. I’m coming to what I’m going to quarrel with and I’ll tell you in a minute. They had obtained the adjustments and they signed the appropriate undertaking to assume the mortgage and to assume all of the liabilities that the builder had. Then they received a letter, dated on its face, Jan. 27, 1975, in an envelope which they received on Jan. 29, 1975. That’s two weeks after the closing date, a closing date which was filed with Ontario Housing Corp., a closing date which the Ontario Housing Corp. had brought to their attention by registered letter on Jan. 10, and which appeared for some reason or other, not to have concerned anyone at Ontario Housing Corp.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, it wasn’t received until Jan. 14. We have to get that straightened out.

Mr. Deans: Well, if it were received on Jan. 14 and they looked at it and recognized that the closing date was Jan. 15, a telephone call or even a telegram -- we use them often -- would have informed the people that they had been disallowed and that they were not entitled to the property.

What I’m quarrelling with you about is that these people entered into that lottery in October. They were told in November that they had qualified. They filled in all the forms in good faith. They even sent in the form that said what they were earning. At that point, it was considered to be about $200 more or maybe $250 initially. That was their employers’ initial calculation. But even the employers weren’t absolutely sure at that stage. They sent in those things. They got correspondence from Ontario Housing Corp. They then fulfilled that requirement by sending in yet a further statement. They wrote to Ontario Housing Corp. saying, “For heaven’s sakes we are almost at Jan. 15. If there is a problem, tell us, and we won’t move.” They gave notice of the place they were living in; they purchased appliances to move; they weren’t told until two weeks after the closing date.

Now, the minister may say to me they should have known, and maybe I would agree with him they should have known -- but since they asked specifically for guidance on the matter; since they came to Ontario Housing Corp. without in any way trying to hide their intent; since they put to them as clearly as they could the emergency situation they were faced with; since they responded as quickly as they could possibly respond to Ontario Housing Corp.’s requirement that they file another statement of earnings; then surely there was a --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Which is a very important point.

Mr. Deans: I understand; but that statement of earnings should have been required at least a month before.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Sure, but they are the ones who should have submitted it.

Mr. Deans: But they did submit it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They didn’t.

Mr. Deans: They submitted a statement of earnings, and were informed that it was on the wrong form.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They didn’t submit it correctly.

Mr. Deans: They didn’t submit it correctly? How in heaven’s name is anyone to know how to submit correctly? They filled in every damn form they were asked to fill in.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If they don’t know how much they make, there is something wrong.

Mr. Deans: No, there isn’t something wrong. The minister’s people seem to think everybody is on a salary. Some people earn by the hour; some people are paid by the hour. If you happen to work overtime for three weekends in the course of a full year, you could be $500 or $600 over what your mental calculation of your earnings for that year may have been.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I would ask the hon. member for Wentworth, and also the minister, that they address their comments through the Chair rather than across the House.

Mr. Deans: I don’t want you to think for one moment, Mr. Speaker, that because I have got my back to you I am not speaking to you. You just consider that my remarks at any time are going through you; but the minister is sitting in the wrong place, that’s all. He should be up here somewhere -- okay? I do want to talk to the minister; it is not really to you. Okay? I wouldn’t want you to think you had to do anything about it, because I know you can’t.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We never ignore the Speaker.

Mr. Deans: Okay. So I will say it now, through you, Mr. Speaker, from now on I am speaking to him, okay?

I am interested to inform him of something. Surely to heaven it is not much to expect that there should be correspondence from Ontario Housing Corp. to all of the people who were “accepted” in the lottery -- in other words, whose names were drawn -- and that that correspondence should set out clearly exactly the form to be used; the time limits to be imposed; the requirements upon the people who had their names drawn. If they then didn’t follow those requirements, then, of course, they have no one to blame but themselves.

But there was no communication. They were left with the impression that they were dealing now with the builder, that all of their Ontario Housing Corp. dealings had ceased. They had signed all that they were asked to sign, through you, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to that, they were then verbally told, and told by mail too, that: “You now deal with your builder. Your builder is Mr. X and he builds houses. You go and you see him, and you will arrange the thing with him.”

They then assumed that if the lawyer for the builder -- who ostensibly is acting on behalf of Ontario Housing Corp. at that point, because he has been authorized to build houses on their behalf -- was prepared to accept all of the documentation which had been placed before them; and if that lawyer hadn’t received any communication from Ontario Housing Corp. telling him that these people were ineligible; and if they hadn’t received any communication from Ontario Housing Corp., telling them that they were ineligible; and since Ontario Housing Corp. didn’t correspond with them immediately upon recognizing the closing date was upon them and that they were faced with the possibility of having to move two or three times; and since no communication was received from Ontario Housing Corp., it was quite reasonable for them to assume that there was some room for adjustment -- that someone, somewhere had said: “Although $17,000 is the limit, we allow one or two per cent over in the case” --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It doesn’t say that anywhere.

Mr. Deans: No, I realize it doesn’t say it anywhere, but there is no reason to assume otherwise, because it happens in many transactions. When it comes right down to it, we must recognize that people’s incomes fluctuate in accordance with the amount of overtime they have worked; in accordance with whether or not their wife has worked for a full year or part of a year; in accordance with whether or not they have changed jobs during the course of a year; whether or not they’ve had their vacation yet; whether they’ve been laid off at any time during the year. You’ve got to admit, Mr. Speaker, that it’s a very difficult thing to keep close tabs on your actual income during a calendar year prior to receiving your T-4 slip. I couldn’t tell you exactly how much I’ve earned this year, and I don’t think you could tell me exactly how much you’ve earned, and I doubt very much if, without waiting for your T-4 slip, you’d be able to tell us exactly to the penny what your earnings have been.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What did the figure come to in the final analysis, Mr. Speaker? It came out to $17,950.

Mr. Deans: Yes, but I’m going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that even that figure may turn out not to be exact. What the minister has to face is that in November, when they were talking about earnings, they were talking about earnings up to and including the time when they originally filed their application. It would be much easier to find out what their 1974 earnings were in January or February, obviously, than it would be to try to determine what they might be in the month of November, given that there are still six weeks or more of the year to go and no one can tell exactly whether they will be earning during that period or how much.

Let me put it to you this way, Mr. Speaker. If they had known in November that their projected earnings for the year were going to be $900 over, do you know that either or both could probably have made arrangements not to work for the last month of the year in order to qualify? It would have been possible for them to take some action to try to make sure their earnings were not as high during that calendar year.

But the fact of the matter is that because of the slowness of the process -- and that’s what I’m getting at; because it’s not clear in any sense how one goes about qualifying and what kinds of requirements are placed upon people -- that these people are now going to have to move out of that house after having been allowed to move in, after having assumed all of the obligations.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They didn’t get in with with the permission of OHC. They got in without permission.

Mr. Deans: But I want to tell the minister something, Mr. Speaker. Nowhere in the documentation is there anything that says that you have to have permission from OHC -- nowhere. It simply says, if you are approved -- and the approval, I say to you, is tacit. It’s tacit if, in fact, the lawyer acting on behalf of the builder who is acting on behalf of Ontario Housing Corp. is prepared to proceed with the deal. That’s what I’m arguing about.

The minister can do nothing for these people, perhaps. It may well be that I shouldn’t even raise it in that way. But he is going to have to make clear exactly what will be required by anyone whose name is drawn. He’s going to have to make it clear; it isn’t clear now; it’s not nearly clear now. When those people had a Jan. 15 closing date I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that they expected that some communication might be forthcoming which would inform them one way or the other -- and it didn’t come. When the builder’s lawyer, knowing full well what their conditions and situation were, went ahead and closed the deal they assumed -- wrongly, but they assumed -- that that was done on behalf of Ontario Housing Corp. I don’t think that that’s --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Wrongly is right.

Mr. Deans: Wrongly, perhaps, but you can’t have so many fingers in one pie, Mr. Speaker. The people start out by dealing with National Trust. No sooner does their name get drawn than National Trust wash their hands of it. They’re finished, that’s the end of it. “Don’t come back to us. It’s now in the hands of Ontario Housing Corp.”

They communicate with Ontario Housing Corp. They say: “Your builder will get in touch with you.” So the builder gets in touch.

At that stage the builder takes on the mantle of Ontario Housing Corp. At that stage that builder, having been approved, takes on the responsibilities for ensuring that the requirements of Ontario Housing Corp. are fulfilled.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Not in regard to the mortgage. That is the point I’m making.

Mr. Deans: Nowhere -- in any of the communications, in any of the advertising, in any of the statements of Ontario Housing Corp. -- does it say that in addition to entering into agreement with the builder’s lawyer, or with the builder through his solicitor, that you have to wait until Ontario Housing Corp. gets around to deciding whether or not you’re eligible.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Ontario Mortgage Corp., as does every other person who applies for a mortgage.

Mr. Deans: Not so. Every other person who applied did not, and I bring to the minister’s attention at least one other incident.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, there’s always someone who wants to --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: But you understand that the people had been given a closing date, and the closing date was filed with Ontario Housing Corp. -- it was Jan. 15. They went ahead and completed the agreement on Jan. 15.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Where are these people going to get their mortgage from?

Mr. Deans: Where were they going to get their mortgage from? These people assumed when they signed the undertaking -- it is an undertaking for a mortgage, good God.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Which was not approved.

Mr. Deans: Which was not approved. But how were they to know? What are they supposed to do?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would expect they’d wait like the hon. member, or anybody else.

Mr. Deans: They wrote to Ontario Housing Corp., they phoned Ontario Housing Corp.; what are they supposed to do? They didn’t get any communication until two weeks after the date, two weeks afterwards.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They very obviously knew they were wrong, and I don’t know why the member is putting up such a defence for them because they haven’t got a leg to stand on. He knows that.

Mr. Deans: You obviously don’t understand. Do you think it appropriate -- I’ll wait until the minister finishes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Sorry.

Mr. Deans: It is okay. I understand there is other pressing business to be conducted as well as what I want to talk about.

The minister is defending the indefensible, I’ve got to say to him in regard to this. I’m not suggesting for a moment that these people did qualify. I’m criticizing the lack of communication between Ontario Housing Corp., and these people and that builder. If they couldn’t get hold of the people between the 10th and the 15th, they could have notified the builder not to close the deal because the people didn’t qualify. Surely that would have made sense, wouldn’t it? A communication to the builder saying, “Don’t close on the 15th. Extend the closing date because there is some problem over the financing of the mortgage; they don’t appear to qualify. Wouldn’t that have made some sense? Doesn’t the minister think that’s how to deal with people?

I say to the minister they felt they had done everything and they sent in their statement in good faith and they thought -- wrongly -- that there was some latitude within Ontario Housing Corp., and they expected to get a communication if that wasn’t the case. In no way did they file in an attempt to take advantage of something unfairly. They didn’t claim that they made less than they made. Has the minister found out by some other method that they didn’t? They filed honestly with the ministry. They really believed when they moved in on the 15th that they had been approved because nobody, anywhere, told them otherwise.

I want to suggest to the minister that when he set up his committee to study the way in which the home ownership programme is run, that’s another of the things that has to be dealt with. Those people have incurred substantial costs. They have given up the apartment in which they lived. They have acquired a number of appliances which cost them a considerable amount of money. They have paid to move. They have hired a solicitor. They have gone through all of the things that people normally do in the process of changing from one location to another, and now they are going to have to move again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They hired a solicitor?

Mr. Deans: No, they acquired a solicitor for the purposes of the deal.

They followed all of the forms that the builder required of them. There was no evidence on the record to show that Ontario Housing Corp. had in any way disallowed them. They were allowed to move in; they moved in. They were there two weeks before Ontario Housing Corp. got off its backside and told them that they weren’t eligible. They had already passed the closing date.

It just is incomprehensible to me that an operation could be that sloppy. If somebody wrote me a letter setting out a date, and that date was tomorrow and I knew that they weren’t able to qualify, I’ll tell you I think I would have found a way to communicate with the people to let them know, Mr. Speaker. A telegram was the obvious way. A communication with the builder was equally obvious.

But as to the ministry’s claim that they were phoned on Jan. 16, I can assure the minister that they are prepared to swear that they weren’t even there on Jan. 16. Even the claim that they were phoned on Jan. 16 is hardly of much consequence since Jan. 15 was the closing date and the deal had been completed at that time. There is something desperately wrong with the way in which the process takes place within Ontario Housing Corp. There has to be another way. We can’t go through this again and again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We’ll have this assurance for the member. The family will receive a letter fully explaining where they went wrong, in our opinion --

Mr. Deans: Yes, where they went wrong --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and where we think we fulfilled every obligation on our part.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister saying to me that he doesn’t believe that Ontario Housing Corp. erred in any way?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: At this present time, I would say we haven’t erred, yes.

Mr. Deans: OHC hasn’t erred?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s what I said. That’s my information at this time. I think the member’s people have erred on the side of not understanding what the lottery was all about and taking action into their own hands.

Mr. Deans: I’m prepared to concede that they misunderstood and that they took things for granted; but I’m not prepared to concede that when Ontario Housing Corp. doesn’t recognize that two weeks after a closing date is too damn late to correspond with people, that it hasn’t made a mistake. I am not prepared to concede that when Ontario Housing Corp. gets a communication which shows clearly on the face of it that the people are about to move and are asking for guidance and refuses to respond to it immediately, that it hasn’t made a mistake. I’m not prepared to concede that the whole process, from day one when they first put their name in, shouldn’t be cleaned up to ensure that people can’t get into this mess.

The very first thing that should be checked in this lottery, is that when their name is drawn their eligibility should be checked out. My understanding, right from the very beginning, when I first started raising it in October, was that the one thing that would be done beyond all other things was that the eligibility of all of the people would be checked scrupulously.

Now I didn’t realize that it meant it would be checked after they moved in. I thought it meant it would be checked prior to any action on their part or any financial undertaking.

I’ve got to tell the minister that in this case that wasn’t so. Now he thinks that is the way to do business, then he can answer to the people of Ontario. I don’t, and I’m prepared to make the case on those grounds alone.

When someone applies for something here -- and it is entirely possible, since day after day people apply for things and they ultimately turn out not to be eligible -- the ministry doesn’t wait until they have committed themselves and until everything is completed before it tells them of their status. It checks their eligibility before it allows them to go that far.

That’s where I think the error was made. I think they should have been told in December or in November that they weren’t eligible, if that was the case. They weren’t told until Jan. 27, which was 12 days after they had closed the deal and some 10 days after they had moved in.

The minister can defend it if he likes. I just happen to think that is not the way to do business. If it were the minister they were dealing with, I don’t think he would be satisfied with that either.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am satisfied they signed a false document.

Mr. Deans: Now that’s the problem there. I wish the minister hadn’t said that. Those people did not sign a false document. It said to the best of their knowledge.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Fair enough.

Mr. Deans: They signed that they believed that the requirements on the face of the document were being fulfilled.

I don’t think the minister understands the way people’s income works. Let him walk around and ask his colleagues, any of them who work for a living, other than the ones who just hang around here, if they could tell him, at a moment’s notice, what their income is.

They had to sign that document, by the way, very early in the going. They didn’t know exactly what their income was, but their best guess was that it would be less than $17,000. The first statement by their employer was, in fact, slightly over $17,000, wasn’t it?

It’s easy to understand that they might not have recognized it. The employer obviously didn’t even understand it either.

The minister makes it sound as if somehow or other they tried to hoodwink him. They didn’t try to hoodwink him -- they filed honestly. They said they believed they were earning less than $17,000; and I think they thought they were earning less than $17,000.

I don’t think there are many people working in a factory or working in an office who could tell you exactly how much their earnings are, unless they are on an annual salary and it hasn’t been changed.

As I say to the minister, he must bear in mind that if a man works in a plant of some kind, all he has to do is work one weekend at double time and a half and he could be $500 over. That’s what we are talking about. We are talking about somebody working overtime during the course of a week and working a full weekend on a holiday weekend at some point during the 12-month period and not remembering it. I can tell the minister there are a lot of people who would be in that position.

I just think the Ontario Housing Corp. has an obligation to try to be much more careful and to ensure that the people’s eligibility is the very first thing that is checked, rather than waiting until the people have been allowed to sign.

I want to get something clear. Just what authority does the builder have?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In what way?

Mr. Deans: In terms of acting to complete a deal. I mean, does every single person who applied and had his name drawn have to wait for a communication from Ontario Housing Corp. to inform them --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No.

Mr. Deans: They don’t?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The builder is advised.

Mr. Deans: The builder wasn’t advised in this case.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Is the member sure?

Mr. Deans: I am positive.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We think otherwise.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister telling me the builder was to blame? Because I haven’t got that information. But if the minister is saying to me that the builder was advised, what he is telling me is that people don’t receive communications from Ontario Housing Corp.; and that’s what I thought.

When I said to the minister that the builder should have been advised, that’s how I thought it might have been handled. But in this instance, if the builder was advised and he allowed those people to take the deal on, then it is with him that they have a cause.

Can the minister produce for me some communication with the builder back to Jan. 15?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am going to produce the full statement on it.

Mr. Deans: No, but can the minister produce --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It will go to the Hamilton Spectator and it will get into the hands of the people the member is concerned about.

Mr. Deans: Yes, but would the minister just do me a favour and recognize they are not quibbling about whether they were eligible or not, okay? Can he produce for me a statement from Ontario Housing Corp. to the builder prior to Jan. 15, to show that the builder should not have proceeded with the deal?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Maybe not a letter, but maybe a phone call.

Mr. Deans: Maybe a phone call.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. I think the member will find out those people were advised.

Mr. Deans: I know that the people were not advised. I am telling the minister they were not advised. But beyond that, I say to the minister a phone call --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: All right. They wrote on the 10th, we got it on the 14th.

Mr. Deans: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: A registered letter.

Mr. Deans: A registered letter, special delivery, and asking in the letter --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Four days later?

Mr. Deans: It was a Friday, the 10th.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Why would they send it on a Friday?

Mr. Deans: Because that was the first day they had the documents. They were only asked from them that week. They went right to their employer. The documents went from each employer -- they sent them in immediately; immediately on the 10th. That’s when they were asked for them.

I don’t think that whoever is advising the minister is really telling him the truth, I really don’t. I don’t know why they are not doing it, unless they have just simply made some slip-up of their own and they don’t want to admit to it.

Mr. Speaker: While the hon. member is looking for his notes, may I draw the attention of the House and the hon. members to the fact that the hon. member is being a little repetitious. This really isn’t an estimates debate, we should stick more to the budget.

Mr. Deans: This is a budgetary debate. I want to tell you --

Mr. Speaker: It is the budget debate and not the estimates debate.

Mr. Deans: I am not talking about the estimates. I mean I haven’t said a word about his estimates. I am raising before this House a complaint of a constituent of mine, and I am doing it in the budget debate.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): On a purely conceptual basis.

Mr. Deans: No, not only on a purely conceptual basis. While he is breathing, I’ll take a look through this. I don’t see it.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Who’s breathing over there?

Mr. Deans: I just want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that even I would like to see some proof of a communication from Ontario Housing Corp. either to the builder or to those people, prior to the closing date. If that closing date shouldn’t have been followed through with, then there should be a communication from Ontario Housing Corp. to the builder not to close on the 15th, because as the minister says, unless there is a problem, Ontario Housing Corp. doesn’t communicate with the applicants. Those are his own words. In this instance they assumed, because there was no communication, that things went according to the practices of the Ontario Housing Corp., if not according to the letter of the draft of the law that was before them.

I leave it at that. I am not going to argue any further with the minister about it because I know it is not going to win anything, but I just happen to think that Ontario Housing Corp. has to bear some of the responsibility for the mess these people are in.

Mr. Speaker, there isn’t a quorum.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, I see there is not a quorum present.

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

Mr. Speaker: We now have a quorum. Will the hon. member for Wentworth continue please?

Mr. Deans: Thank you, very much.

I want now to turn to another topic that’s causing me some concern. It is an incident on a picket line at the International Harvester plant in Burlington, in the riding of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr), and I want to begin by saying something to the Solicitor General.

Mr. Speaker, when someone calls him up and asks for his assistance with regard to an incident on a picket line, I would appreciate very much if, in answering, he didn’t cite as the No. 1 problem confronting these people the fact that they contacted me.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Would I say that?

Mr. Deans: Oh, yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Oh, well.

Mr. Deans: In fact, what happened was the lady called up because her husband was seriously injured -- and I’m going to talk about the injury in a moment. When she spoke to the Solicitor General and asked, since he is the Solicitor General --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: After she got me.

Mr. Deans: -- that he might inquire into the actions of the police in that instance, he said to her: “You made a number of mistakes, and the first one was calling Ian Deans.”

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Always call your member first.

Mr. Deans: Right. I’m going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that she had been trying to get in touch with the Solicitor General, and had called me out of desperation. The information I gave her was that in fact it was a responsibility of the Solicitor General, both in his capacity as the member for the riding and in his capacity as Solicitor General, to take a serious look at the incident that occurred and to determine whether or not there should be an investigation.

Well let’s you and I, Mr. Speaker, talk about it and see if you and I can agree on whether there should be an investigation or not, okay? I want to read to you a letter from the president of the union involved; okay?

“Dear Sir:

“I am contacting you in relation to an incident that took place Nov. 5, 1974, at approximately 10:00 a.m. The events preceding the incident were in the presence of approximately 30 to 40 uniformed and plainclothes policemen who were called by International Harvester Co. to assist the ingress and egress of non-union transport trailers to the strikebound International Harvester distribution centre in Burlington, Ont. This alone seemed a little excessive as only six to 10 pickets were present at the time. The end result was some extreme overreaction by the police officers present.

“Mr. Balaz, 53 years of age, was injured by the police during this overreaction. Mr. Balaz asked for medical attention for approximately 20 minutes, and was repeatedly ignored by the police officers. One sergeant -- ”

And I won’t name him.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: By the way, Mr. Speaker, could I interrupt for a moment? Has the member contacted the police about this?

Mr. Deans: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The member has their version of the story?

Mr. Deans: I’m coming to it. I did contact the police. One officer was overheard saying that the man was only play acting.

“It was only after extreme persuasion by some of the picketers that he was finally taken to the hospital. It was plainly evident by Mr. Balaz’s appearance that he was suffering pain and discomfort. Hospital tests showed that he had a bruised lung, and the lengthy delay in getting Mr. Balaz medical attention was unwarranted and unforgivable.

“In all fairness I will admit the conduct of many of the police officers has been commendable, with the exception of only a few. By the same token, the Mr. Balaz incident should not go unchallenged, as perhaps next time because of negligence by a few to get immediate medical help, more serious consequences may result.

“It’s also unfortunate that -- ”

Well I won’t go into that because it’s a matter of opinion and I don’t like to read opinion into the record.

I sent this letter to the chief of police in Burlington on Dec. 4:

“Dear Chief Skerrit:

“I am enclosing a reproduction in part of a letter which I recently received. Certain names in the letter I thought it advisable to exclude. I would appreciate knowing what the investigation conducted by the police revealed.

“With best wishes.”

Signed by me.

I left out the name of the officer whose name was used, and I also left out the names of the people who signed the letter. But I have both of those on file if the Solicitor General believes that it’s necessary to take another look at it.

I received then a reply. And the reply was Dec. 11, 1974, to me:

“Dear Sir:

“I have endeavoured to answer your letter of inquiry by answering the letter of complaint in the sequence the questions were asked. [It is a good start.]

“As you have indicated, 30 to 40 uniformed and plainclothes policemen does seem excessive when only six to 10 pickets were present. However, at the time the commercial motor vehicles arrived at the Harvester plant there were only 13 policemen present, under the supervision of a staff inspector. The additional officers did not arrive at the scene until the commercial vehicles were ready to leave. The total number of policemen at the scene, but not on foot [I don’t know what significance that has] was 28.

“Our estimation of the number of strikers at the beginning of this incident was 15. However, it was difficult to be accurate because they were arriving by motor vehicle during the time of this occurrence. We had also received information from other union personnel in the area that they were going to support the strike, and on one occasion this did happen. [But not on this occasion, I might interject.]

“I did not quite understand what it means, ‘in over-reaction in this case,’ because our acts are dictated by observance. When one of the commercial motor vehicles entered the plant, a striker took a stone from his pocket and, in throwing same, smashed a window on the driver’s side. Mr. Balaz was also seen to throw something at one of the commercial motor vehicles. It was because of this he was removed from the scene.”

I want to stop there to point out that it was not Mr. Balaz who threw the stone through the window, nor was that suggested. Okay?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: How does the member know that?

Mr. Deans: Because it says so. One of the strikers was seen to throw something through the window; Mr. Balaz was seen to throw something in the direction of the vehicle. Those were two separate incidents and I want to make that clear.

“Perhaps I should start from the beginning to explain in particular the conduct of Mr. Balaz. He was seen to drive to the entrance of the strike-bound plant and park his motor vehicle across the driveway. After much persuasion he moved his motor vehicle. His wife has since said that his motor vehicle would not start. As I mentioned before, above, Mr. Balaz was observed throwing an object at a commercial motor vehicle and for this reason he was removed from the scene.

“While being escorted to the cruiser he broke free and ran. If you are familiar with the area you will have observed the steep grass bank between the loading dock and the Guelph Line. This grass bank was very slippery from the recent rain and because of the poor footing it was in this area where the two officers and Mr. Balaz fell. When the three men gained their footing, Mr. Balaz was laughing and seemed to be in a jovial mood. At no point did he complain of an injury. Mr. Balaz was placed in the cruiser on the west side of the Guelph Line, and when next contacted by a member of our force, he complained that he was injured and he was taken to the hospital. [It is incredible really.]

“The doctor’s verbal report was to the effect that the injury could have been caused by this man’s age, his weight and the fall. I have information from other police personnel that our officers did not fall on Mr. Balaz. I take exception to the complainant stating that collusion exists -- ”

Well, I left that out of the first and I will leave it out of this one.

Let me read another letter, dated Jan. 28. It is addressed to me and to the chief of police. I am going to leave the names out again, because I don’t think it appropriate to use them. It says:

“Re Michael Balaz:

“I [Mr. X] was present the day the above-mentioned incident took place. I am under the impression that the main issue in this case is the fact that the police were lax in taking this man, Michael Balaz, to hospital [an incident which was mentioned to me ever so slightly in Chief Skerrit’s letter].

“When I arrived at the Harvester receiving area there were, I believe, three trucks there. As I was walking toward the trucks two policemen came my way dragging Michael Balaz between them. I watched until they reached the truck entrance and the Guelph Line, then I turned back to the trucks. The next time I saw Michael Balaz after that was after the trucks had left and the police had started to walk back across the Guelph line. [He mentions another gentleman and himself] being members of the strike committee, went to the school grounds across from the Harvester to see what we could do.

“When we got there Michael Balaz was sitting in the back of the police car complaining of severe pains in his chest and asking to be taken to hospital. I noticed ground-in dirt and grass above his left eye, which seemed odd for just a fall. This other gentlemen and I tried to talk to the police to get them to call an ambulance to take Mr. Balaz to hospital. During this time I overheard [he names one of the police officers] say to have him put in the wagon and also say: ‘He is only play-acting.’ We kept requesting that he be taken to hospital.

“The police got Mr. Balaz out of the cruiser with much difficulty and proceeded to put him in the wagon. He could not get his feet in because of the pain, but was helped in by the officers. We volunteered to take him to the hospital ourselves, and they were about to let us, until finally two police officers stepped forward and said they would take him there. I would estimate that the time it took to get Mr. Balaz taken to hospital from the time he was taken across the road was 35 minutes.

“We followed the police, who once again demonstrated their lax attitude by the route which they took and the speed at which they travelled. At the hospital the police went into the area where he was to be looked at but we were not allowed to. The volunteer at the desk told us that the police were not supposed to go in either.

“One officer was then called to the phone for about 10 minutes. When he came out he told us there would be no charges and that we were to take care of getting Mr. Balaz home, and the police left.

“There were enough police in the schoolyard that a driver and a man could have been spared. As far as I’m concerned, the police were out of their jurisdiction in acting as doctors in deciding that Michael Balaz didn’t need medical attention. If Mr. Balaz had had a heart attack he would have died during the lax police effort on his behalf.”

The latter part of the statement can be substantiated by another member whose name they have given Mr. Balaz’s wife, on his behalf, tells the story this way: “Yes, they did come.” First of all:

“Yes, he did stall his car in the driveway and the police gathered around, a number of them, and harassed him into moving it. He told them he couldn’t get it to start. One of the police even tried to start it. It wouldn’t start. They finally did get it going and he moved it. He then went from there to the picket line.

“He did not throw an object at the vehicle but rather flicked with his thumb something he had been standing holding in his hand. [Like this, as people do from time to time.] It did no damage. He’s not even sure if it got as far as the vehicle. It was some distance away. The police came and informed him that they were arresting him. He asked why, and they took him and roughly dragged him across. He fell.

“One of the police officers, either accidentally or purposely, [I’ll choose accidentally, okay?] fell on top of him. His knee struck him when he fell [by accident we will presume]. Mr. Balaz was then taken from that point and put in the cruiser. He asked if he could please be taken to the hospital, he was in severe pain. They refused. It was only after the two strikers came by that they even considered taking him, and they finally did take him.”

That man could have died. He could have been haemorrhaging; he could have had a heart attack; there could have been any number of things wrong. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances it was unnecessary for the police to conduct themselves in the way that they did.

I understand there has been a lot of hard feelings at the International Harvester plant. I understand it hasn’t been the most pleasant strike -- some of that brought on by the company, I might say. I understand there’s been a great deal of frustration. It takes a very highly trained and sensitive police force to deal with those kinds of human problems. It’s very difficult for people, given under the law that they are permitted to go on strike, to then stand by and watch while other people are brought in to take their jobs, again, under the law.

There have been many incidents across the Province of Ontario where people have been faced with having to try to bring to other people’s attention that it would not be in their best interests -- theirs or the others’ best interests -- to take over a job that belonged to them ostensibly and for which they were on strike as a result of the law permitting them to do so.

I think the law’s an ass, frankly. I don’t see how you can have a legal strike and at the same time permit somebody to come in and take another man’s job. But nevertheless, I think if police forces are going to take it upon themselves to try to protect companies, then they’re going to have to train their police officers to do it with compassion and understanding, realizing that many people who never in their entire lives have broken a law, are very emotionally charged around the situation that has arisen -- the conflict that has arisen -- between themselves and their employer. It requires a great deal of sensitivity and understanding to be able to deal with those. It doesn’t require the vice squad, or it doesn’t require the heavy artillery.

In Hamilton we have some very good people. The deputy chief, Albert Welch, is as good an example of a man who has the capacity to understand the human emotions involved as any I can think of. They could learn in Burlington from Deputy Chief Welch and the way in which he handles these kinds of situations.

The one thing you can’t do, in what is ostensibly a private dispute, is abuse citizens, Mr. Speaker. If they’ve broken a law arrest them. But recognize that you are dealing with a private dispute. As long as that private dispute doesn’t get out of hand you deal with those people as you would any other private citizen on the street.

I’m asking the Solicitor General for an inquiry into this incident. I want an inquiry because I want all of the information that is available to be put before the chief of police and before the police commissioners of Halton. I think it’s important -- not because I want to see any retribution, not because I want to see any action taken against the police officers involved, who may have done their duty as they saw it, but because I want them to understand that as there is commercial and industrial growth taking place they are going to have to train their officers in the way in which to handle these kinds of delicate situations.

They should be taught that they are not dealing with a criminal in these cases -- they are not hunting down someone who just finished raping somebody, or who has been shooting up the town. They are dealing with a private citizen in a dispute which he is legally entitled to be in and he must be handled with respect. If the strikers break the law they should be arrested as any other person is. But we can’t allow this kind of abuse.

I may say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Solicitor General, that man was obviously very badly hurt. He was in the hospital and is still under a doctor’s care to this very day. He could not have returned to work. I’ve fallen, as you have fallen, Mr. Speaker, and his doctor doesn’t believe that his injuries could have occurred simply as the result of a fall. He believes that he was struck with an object. He thinks it could have happened as a result of a blow from a knee, accidentally, or an elbow, accidentally, but he doesn’t think it happened just because he happened to slip and fall.

I think as the member for the area, but more important as the Solicitor General, if the member for Halton West would require either of the police commissions -- or perhaps it’s gone too far now. I had originally thought that we might ask the local police commission to take a look at it. It may have gone beyond that point now. I think all of the prejudices and views are already established. I may be wrong but I think perhaps I am right.

I’m going to ask the Solicitor General if he would have the Ontario Police Commission investigate that incident. It’s in the best interest of that police force to have it cleared up, and it’s in the best interest of the people in the area; they have to have confidence in those police. If the police did something wrong they have to face up to it. If there was a mistake made they have to face up to it. If the accident was inadvertent -- if it was in fact an accident -- then a simple apology probably would have sufficed.

But I think that we’ve got to look into it to be sure, because I wouldn’t want to think that sometime in the next year or two there could be another similar situation where the same kind of thing could occur again. There is sufficient evidence to justify an inquiry and I think a sufficient number of people are prepared to come forward and give their views. There should be some kind of opportunity for that to be done before an impartial body.

I don’t doubt for a moment that the police officers are telling it as they saw it. I don’t doubt that the chief of police, in writing to me, is telling what he believes to be true. I don’t for one moment question that the people who wrote me the two letters, who were at the scene of the incident, believe that what’s in their letters is true. The only thing is that there’s something different between the two. I would like to see that cleared up and I would appreciate it very much if you would take whatever steps are necessary to have that done. I think it’s in your best interests and their best interests to do it that way.

The Solicitor General can go now, I’m finished with him.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They will ring the bells.

Mr. Deans: I do appreciate the minister coming in to hear it because I couldn’t have written it to him the way I could tell it. It’s very difficult to get into words exactly what I felt about it and I wondered a number of times how to do it.

I want to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, another matter that has been of some considerable concern to me. I seem to have a lot of matters of concern these days. I don’t know what it is. It seems to me the incompetence of this government is bringing upon me all these difficulties but, nevertheless, I’ll have a look at another thing.

You will recall, sir, in December -- perhaps it was late November -- I was speaking in this House about something called the Nanticoke to Hamilton transportation and utility corridor. A few things have happened since the month of November and I want to bring you up to date because I know at the time you expressed an interest in being kept informed. So I am going to do that now.

We held some meetings in Hamilton in December regarding that particular corridor. I put forward a number of views at that time which I placed before the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes), asking him if he didn’t really think the process that had been followed wasn’t very realistic.

They proposed that one of two routes in the east end of the city be followed. They actually proposed three routes but one they seemed to discard immediately and they actually seemed to be moving more towards one of two, either a route down Redhill Creek or a route down Highway 20.

I can remember the horror on your face, Mr. Speaker, when I mentioned the possibility of taking the route down Highway 20. Both of us travel that area extensively and we both know the volume of traffic that is on Highway 20, the way in which it has been allowed to develop commercially, the fact that it goes right through the town of Stoney Creek and the fact that the intersection of Highway 20 and King St. and the intersection of Highway 20 and Highway 8 are without question two of the most hazardous intersections in the region. In fact, the intersection of King St. and Highway 20, if I may say so, has caused me as many problems as any other intersection I can think of. I can remember making representation to the then Minister of Highways with regard to slowing down the traffic, and with regard to signing it in order that drivers would be made aware of the hazards as they came down the hill towards the intersection.

I can remember making representation to a government body in the town hall in Stoney Creek some years ago, trying to get them to understand that that particular intersection was of such a hazardous nature that some action had to be taken to alleviate the traffic on it. We met with some success, I might say. We did, in fact, have the speed limit reduced. We did have signs placed at the top indicating the steep grade, the fact that speed would kill and the fact that there was a hazardous corner at the bottom. I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that it is a corner that has cost two or three lives in the not too distant past.

I’ve got to tell you that I was flabbergasted to read in the paper the other day that the board of control of the city of Hamilton was recommending that the Highway 20 route be the one that be adopted by the planning study that is currently looking at the tie-in between Nanticoke and Hamilton. I just couldn’t believe that any individual who lives in the area who knows the route could for one minute consider that that would be a suitable place for a major highway at this point in time.

It might well have been that 20 years ago, before the development was allowed to take place, we could have expanded the highway. We could have taken steps to provide sufficient width to enlarge it. But in this day I don’t see how any individual who knows the area at all could even consider turning that into an even busier highway than it currently is. In fact, I can remember speaking in this House about the need to develop an alternative route to Highway 20 and trying to do away with it as a major highway in Ontario.

And do you know what really amused me, Mr. Speaker? One of the controllers, Controller Campbell, in dealing with the matter said it would be better to use Highway 20 because it has been a highway for as long as he can remember. Now that’s a very compelling argument, I must say. Why not use Highway 6? It was there before 20, if one is to believe that they were given out in numerical order.

It runs right through the middle of the city of Hamilton. No one in his right mind would suggest that because Highway 6 had been there before Highway 20, it was a better alternative. And yet that’s the kind of illogical logic that the council of the city of Hamilton has to rely on for guidance. That’s the kind of position that is put forward by a senior controller with regard to the development of an access to the east end of the city.

I want to make a plea through you, sir, to the Minister of Transportation and Communications, and the plea is this: Don’t ever consider expanding Highway 20. Even at the very best it could be only a short-term proposition, not capable of handling the kind of traffic that will be generated by the development of Nanticoke, and the need for the flow back-and-forth between Hamilton and these new developments. If we are serious about providing this corridor from Nanticoke to Hamilton, let’s now try to develop an alternative route somewhat east of the town of Stoney Creek so that we don’t end up with a major highway running through the middle of the most densely populated area of the city.

I want to remind you that at the corner of Barton St. and Highway 20 in Hamilton there is a development which is by far the most densely populated single block in the whole city. The apartment buildings that were allowed to develop there, I suppose by virtue of this same board of control, or their friends, have brought about a condition of overcrowding. And then they are talking about running a highway practically through the middle of it. The whole suggestion is preposterous and ludicrous.

And I want to urge you, sir, as the representative of the members of this assembly, to make representation to the Minister of Transportation and Communications on our behalf, because it is not in the best interest of the people of the province. And you, after all, represent me. I think you do, and I need your help.

Mr. Speaker: I would be glad to referee.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. The next time you go to Hamilton, take another look at that. We have the largest single shopping mall in the Peninsula area -- built there by Cadillac Developments. We have 50 new commercial enterprises. We have every single new housing subdivision in that immediate area on either side of the highway. And for any person to suggest that that would be a suitable place to build a new superhighway, they have got to be out of their mind.

Of course, that doesn’t surprise me. I have wondered a little bit about some of the people who make these suggestions for years. I wonder whether some of them would like to try driving up and down there in the morning. Or maybe try to get across the King St. intersection when the dump trucks are barrelling down there at 50 miles an hour and can’t stop. All one need do is ask MacLeod of MacLeod Motors -- a good friend of the Conservative Party, I might say; you could ask him without even embarrassing him. Ask him what he thinks of developing that superhighway down there and he’ll tell you that they live in terror on that corner -- just waiting for the day when the next school bus or dump truck will pile into the front of their new-and-used-car business. I urge you to take that up on my behalf because I need your help, Mr. Speaker. I also want to say, before I leave that, that I still feel that it would be unwise for us to consider doing away with the Gorge and the Redhill Creek passive recreational area. There are very few cities in Ontario that can boast of a recreational area of that magnitude and beauty within their confines. While I am the first to concede that not every citizen of the area takes advantage of it, I personally do and my family does. It will no doubt be in greater demand as years go by and the total area expands with more and more residential development.

To have a recreational facility of this type right within the city available to all of the people -- within a bus ride of everyone, almost within walking distance of half of the community -- then to consider making it into a highway, that is really pretty difficult for me to understand.

I can appreciate it, of course. The studies are clear that it would be cheaper to build it down Redhill Creek. But cheaper in what terms? Cheaper by what calculation? It would be cheaper in dollars today to destroy the Redhill Creek area and to build a highway. But what would it cost to replace it and where would we go to try and find another place? How would we replace it? I think it’s pretty obvious that it’s one of these irreplaceable natural resources, and we can’t afford to have it destroyed simply because the cost today might be a little less than some alternative.

I want to suggest to the minister if I can, that if the region and the government are really interested in developing a peripheral route around the city of Hamilton, tying in Highway 403 at the west end with the Queen Elizabeth Way on the east end, some reasonable and logical discussion could take place between the council of the region, the council of the town of Stoney Creek and other interested persons, with regard to a subgrade highway out in some parts of the less developed township area. It could be done in such a way as to ensure a minimum of disruption at the lowest possible cost. It wouldn’t take anything like the potential recreational or farm properties that the government has permitted to be taken over the years without any outcry.

Although providing a longer route for a great many people, it would likely be a speedier route and a much more acceptable alternative. Over the long haul, it would prove to be cheaper. The decision would probably prove to have been arrived at with foresight, which is something we don’t seem to have had very much of in the past.

It is easy to be critical of things that went on in years gone by, and it’s easy to criticize people for not having had enough foresight. I think in this instance we have the benefit of the knowledge that we can’t replace what they are planning to take away. We can’t use what is already there because no foresight was used and, therefore, we have to develop something new. If it causes us to drive a little further, so be it, because the time made up will no doubt be made up by the saving in the long haul.

I also want to turn my thoughts for a moment to a discussion which took place in my absence. I had long ago planned to be away --

Mr. Dukszta: Because the member was away.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. I had long ago planned to be away during the week commencing Jan. 25. I had bought and paid for a trip. It was of one week’s duration. I thought at the time -- this was at August last -- that the very safest possible week to take my vacation would be the last week in January, I went ahead, only to find that because of the incompetence and bungling of the government House leader, we had to come back. Well, that’s not unusual. I should have recognized that would occur, but that’s okay.

Anyhow, I was away when the members talked about the redistribution and while I realize it’s not perhaps right on the budget, it’s close, and so I want to raise a couple of matters about it.

My colleague from Wentworth North (Mr. Ewen) made some remarks about the second report of the redistribution commission. He made a very eloquent plea that they had made a mistake; that in taking the town of Grimsby out of the riding of Wentworth, as had been proposed in the first report of the redistribution commission, they had failed to remember to put back in a portion of Hamilton Mountain, south of Mohawk, west of James, which had heretofore been a part of the Wentworth riding.

I don’t want to shatter his dream, but the fact of the matter is they didn’t forget it. The fact of the matter is that given the tremendous natural growth in the area east of James and south of Mohawk, and given the rather rapid growth in the town of Stoney Creek, and in particular in that area which is serviced now by Ontario Housing and which is going to become a major satellite development on Saltfleet Mountain, which I’ve spoken about previously and which has been on the record and on the books for some seven years or more -- that’s now proceeding. And given that 80 per cent of all of the Ontario Housing Corp.’s new development in Hamilton is taking place in the locations east of James St., it wouldn’t be possible to put that area back into the riding of Wentworth without creating a severe imbalance.

My colleague from Wentworth North -- I can understand; I mean I was really upset when I heard --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Not the member for Wentworth?

Mr. Deans: When I heard that they were taking those very fine people on the west mountain out of my constituency, I was upset about it, I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker. I went home and I said to my wife, “Do you know what they’re doing? They’re taking all these very fine people in the west mountain out of my constituency.”

I can understand that when the member for Wentworth North asked them if they would rather be in Wentworth North with him or in Wentworth with me, that out of 100, 99 per cent would rather be in Wentworth with me. I can understand that. I mean, he didn’t have to conduct a survey, I could have told him that. But that’s not the criterion for the determination of fairness in the electoral boundaries. I mean, I can I tell him that there are people in Rockton who’d rather be in Wentworth with me, and that’s in the heart of his riding. But that’s neither here nor there. So, that argument is really not of much consequence.

I’m looking for the redistribution book, by the way. I seem to have left it upstairs. Okay, well, I’ll have to go without it.

My recollection is that he was talking about that area having around -- oh, maybe 15,000 people in it. Now, my riding at the moment would be, based on the 1971 census, 7,000 to 8,000 persons smaller than his. That means, given the natural growth which has taken place in the east end of the city, in Stoney Creek, on the mountain and on the Hamilton Mountain, that instead of the approximately 60,000 I am reported to have, at this point in time I probably have around 74,000 by today’s calculations, rather than by the figures of the 1971 census.

If you took those 15,000 or so people and put them in Wentworth, Mr. Speaker, that would raise me up to 90,000. Now my colleague from Wentworth North, since little growth has taken place in his constituency, may have another 5,000 people in total in his. If you were to deduct the 15,000 from his and put them into mine, and if you were to add 5,000 for the natural growth of the Wentworth North riding, and if you were to add 10,000 for the natural growth of the Wentworth riding, I would end up with 90,000 and he would end up with 70,000, give or take a few thousand one way or the other.

I think you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that would be an imbalance which couldn’t possibly be tolerated by the redistribution commission. But I am going to say something to you, I appreciate that those people have a community of interest with the people on the Hamilton Mountain in my part of the riding, and I think we have to try to find a way to accommodate that, while at the same time making sure that we don’t create such an imbalance in the population that one riding is 20,000 or 30,000 smaller than the other, and that would be the case.

What I am going to suggest is one of three things: First of all, it would be possible, I think, for the member for Wentworth North to acquire as part of his constituency the area known as Glanbrook. It is a rural area -- substantially rural with strip development -- compatible with much of what he has within his riding now. While it would add a number of miles in distance to his total, it would not be unacceptable, I think; it wouldn’t be unworkable or unserviceable, and if we were to assume that there were 10,000 people there, which is fair to assume, then I wouldn’t quibble about taking back that section of the Hamilton Mountain.

If the redistribution commission saw fit to take the Glanbrook area and put it in with Ancaster and Dundas and the other parts of the Wentworth North riding, though I wouldn’t want to lose the people -- in fact they vote for me anyway; they support me very strongly -- I would still be prepared to concede, in the interest of fair redistribution, that they could consider that, and I will take back all of those nice people in the west mountain and continue to look after their interests, since they obviously relayed the message to the member for Wentworth North that that would be their wish.

Failing that I would like to suggest that maybe we should take a look at all three rulings -- Hamilton Mountain, Wentworth and Wentworth North -- and we should find an equitable way of distributing the population of all three ridings so that they all ended up with approximately the same population, but allowing just ever so slightly for the unusual growth which will be taking place in the Wentworth riding, and to some extent lesser growth in the Wentworth North riding.

So I think that maybe the redistribution commission, given that they didn’t accept my first suggestion, might accept that they should redistribute again in those three ridings, taking some from Hamilton Mountain, some from Wentworth, if not quite as much as they did before -- maybe part of the rural community, although I am a little reluctant to see that happen -- and putting that into Wentworth North, and allowing that the Wentworth riding would remain on a comparative basis, given that they have a great deal of expansion taking place, and that the Hamilton Mountain riding would be somewhat reduced in size. It could stand being reduced in size anyway, because it is a fairly densely populated riding in any event.

The third suggestion I would make is that the redistribution commission take all six of the ridings and attempt to redistribute them again; that they recognize that all of the growth in the city of Hamilton, in fact almost all of the growth in the region, is taking place south of Mohawk, east of Ancaster, and that while there will no doubt he growth take place in the Ancaster area at some time in the future it is not immediate. So they could take a position which would redistribute all six ridings and create another constituency. There is room and there is sufficient population. It may require the constituency to have rather unusual boundaries, but nevertheless, if representation by population is to be the main criterion then I don’t think that that should be of any difficulty and I would be delighted to give them the benefit of my views as to how it might be done.

I know the member for Wentworth North will be pleased to get my comments on it. I know he has been eager to know what I thought of what he said. I don’t resort to obscenities, so therefore I didn’t tell him.

I do think that he may have got carried away just a wee bit and I don’t think he quite understood what he was proposing would actually accomplish. It would result in a riding in Wentworth of a size that would be unmanageable before the next electoral period was over within the next four years and, no doubt, that riding would be 120,000 or 130,000 persons. It’s much too large. We simply just can’t do it exactly as he said, but I think there must be a way to accommodate his desires and also accommodate the needs of the people in terms of getting reasonable representation on a representation by population basis.

I now want to speak for a moment or two about nursing homes. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, just prior to Christmas I raised with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) some objections and concerns which had been expressed by an alderman in the city of Hamilton, Ald. Valeriano. I asked the Ministry of Health if they would investigate the complaints, if they would determine the validity of them and if they would take whatever action they deemed appropriate to correct them.

I want to say something about Ald. Valeriano, first, because I think it’s important that I put it on the record. Ald. Valeriano, by virtue of the criticisms that he levelled, has done a considerable service to the area. His interest in the conditions in nursing homes has focused both public and government attention on the nursing homes. If for no other reason than that, he is to be commended because the action that he took, quite obviously, will bring about a better nursing home structure in the Hamilton area and perhaps right across the province.

I want to say something else. I’m absolutely convinced, given the nature of the nursing home business, that it’s extremely difficult to have a set of criteria for nursing homes which can be enforced in such a way as to ensure that those who have been there for many years are able to comply to the same degree as the ones that are currently being built are able to comply. Anyhow, I asked the minister for an investigation and he very kindly arranged for his colleague, the parliamentary assistant from London North (Mr. Walker) to go to Hamilton. He and I and Ms. Jones, the regional chairwoman, Councillor MacDonald, the inspector of nursing homes for Ontario and a reporter, a Mr. Oliver from the Hamilton Spectator, set out one morning early to inspect a number of nursing homes which I chose. I got those nursing homes in the following way: I called Ald. Valeriano and I asked him if he would give me a list of all of the nursing homes about which he had particularly serious complaints. I didn’t tell him why I wanted it. He called me back and he gave me a list of about 12. I didn’t tell anyone the names of the homes. I didn’t tell the member for London North; I didn’t tell the aldermen; I didn’t tell the chairperson or anyone what the names were.

We met at 8:10 in the morning, I think it was. We all wore our trench coats with our hats pulled over our eyes so that no one would recognize us and we met behind the city hall. It’s a good place to meet because nobody goes to the city hall that early in the morning, not the employees, not the councillors, nobody.

We met and we talked about it. I then informed them which home we would first go to. I picked four but I really didn’t pick them in advance. I had the list and I said, “Let’s go to that one first.” I told them where it was and we went en masse. We arrived, we knocked on the door, and after a moment’s hesitation, which is understandable, the person in charge allowed us in. We proceeded to inspect the premises to the best of our ability and we left. We did this in four of what I thought were representative nursing homes in Hamilton.

I regret that Ald. Valeriano didn’t see fit to accompany us. I think it would have been useful for him to have seen these things himself and to have pointed out whatever problems he perceived to be there so that we could have them corrected.

I wasn’t entirely happy with every home -- I don’t think any one was. I thought that the homes offered a wide range of services. One home in particular on the mountain offered an extremely wide range of services, though it tended to be a little clinical in its environment. But there were ample opportunities for rehabilitation, recreation, patient care, and patient observation, the diets were well handled, the mechanics of the home seemed sound, and the home itself seemed in good substantial condition. On balance, while it seemed to me a bit clinical, a bit sterile, it certainly did provide a very suitable facility for people requiring nursing home care.

Of the three other homes we visited, one of which has received a great deal of notoriety in Hamilton, I found two of them fairly good. There was that one and one other which are in old homes that have been redeveloped. They didn’t have quite the procedure that the newer one had. They certainly didn’t have the wide range of recreational and rehabilitational programmes because they were much smaller. The rooms probably didn’t measure up to the standards as established by the Nursing Home Act if one was to take a slide rule and measure them out. Maybe the windows were a bit tiny in some instances and the candlepower of the lights may not have been quite up to snuff. But on balance they made up for those things with a very homey atmosphere, an opportunity for people to live out their years in reasonable comfort, communicating one with the other and with the staff in a very open and forthright way.

In one home we visited some people were sitting around the kitchen table chatting about the morning news. They’d just finished breakfast. The cleaning up had been done by the staff and they were sitting there in a very friendly discussion about world affairs, and that’s what a nursing home should be. A nursing home should be a place where people go and live in dignity and comfort. It should not be sterile -- identifiable by its box-like shape and its tiny rooms. It should be a place where people will get care, love, adequate food, attention, and be able to live in dignity and in comfort. If it doesn’t quite measure up to the standards that we’ve established, but it provides all of those things, then I think we’ve got to recognize that those other things are equal in importance to some of the requirements that we might well have established as being needed for new homes.

Some of the new homes, I might say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the parliamentary assistant, may not be able to provide the kind of care and attention and the kind of atmosphere that some of the older ones are able to provide. I did promise the member to make a report to him and I’m doing that now.

So on balance, I’m much more in favour of trying to develop a home-like atmosphere than I am in providing the most clinical, sterile environment. I think that in two cases they did that to the best of their ability. One I wasn’t happy with. The more I thought about it the less happy I was -- and you know which one I’m talking about. I wasn’t happy about it because it dealt only with men, which of course is always a problem for me. The only thing is it looked like a run-down converted motel -- I think that’s the best way to describe it. I think that is what aggravated me more than anything else.

I have the assurance of the ministry officials that a great deal of work is going to be done in that home. And I’m going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of work needing to be done in that home; and I would hope to be able to live long enough to see it.

But I also say that no matter what they do, it is really not the kind of place I would think we should be putting people. Unless drastic changes take place there in a very short time, I’d like to suggest that home is not a suitable place. The environment is terrible.

I had a communication though from the Rev. Sutherland, with whom the minister might be familiar. He pointed out to me that for a lot of those people there is no other place. Well that may well be true, but I think we are going to have to develop another place.

That’s not a nursing home, that really isn’t a nursing home. It is a sort of haven and it’s not the best haven. It doesn’t provide the best opportunities. I think on balance, we would be just as well off without it.

So I say to the minister that the one I am talking about -- and I know he is familiar with it from his gleeful little grin -- if that isn’t cleaned up pretty soon, that Ald. Valeriano’s feelings about nursing homes could be borne out; because that is not a very good example of what we are trying to accomplish in Ontario.

I suggest to the minister that he ask his officials to look into that one very closely over a short period of time; make sure the renovations that are proposed are completed; and that in fact it creates an atmosphere in which people can live.

I don’t think, as I review it in my mind, as I have done ever since I was there, that the atmosphere there is the kind of atmosphere I would want to put my father into. And I don’t think the minister would want to put his father into it either. So I think with that in mind he should do something about it.

I think though, that on balance the people who run the nursing homes are doing the best they can in a very restricted way. I would urge the minister, wherever possible, when people do apply for the opportunity to redevelop, that they be permitted to proceed as quickly as possible with whatever redevelopment they are contemplating.

There is a tremendous need; a great backlog of people waiting to go into nursing homes. If we were to build at twice the rate we are currently building, I don’t think we could meet the need in five years.

I think we have to find the wherewithal within government to meet the human needs of people. In addition to investing $100 million in Syncrude -- saving Imperial Oil and others -- we should make sure we put a sufficient amount of money into the provision of nursing home care.

I still think Pat Valeriano probably did the right thing on balance. We wouldn’t have been there if he hadn’t raised the matter; and that in itself it sufficient evidence that what he did made some sense. Okay?

Now, where was I? Oh yes!

Mr. Stokes: Meanwhile, back at the ranch.

Mr. Deans: Meanwhile back at the rents --

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): He probably yelled wolf.

Mr. Deans: He probably yelled wolf -- well okay. It wasn’t exactly a full-grown wolf, but there certainly were evidence of wolf cubs in the neighbourhood in one instance at least; so one out of four.

I think we could be of some help. I’m not trying to defend it. I just think we did see it ourselves and it could be changed.

I want, now, to turn briefly to rents in the Province of Ontario, before coming to the sort of major matters I want to talk about.

I’m having a bit of a running battle at the moment with Mrs. Ruth Walker. Mrs. Walker is a very nice lady. She owns and manages a number of millions of dollars worth of apartments in the Province of Ontario. Mrs. Walker, speaking as the representative of the apartment owners’ association in the Hamilton area, indicated there should be some rather substantial increases in rent in Hamilton in the coming year.

I think it’s time that Mrs. Walker and her friends were required to justify the rents they are charging, both to the tenants and to the community at large. I think it’s time we had a complete and full understanding of the apartment business in the Province of Ontario, and make no mistake, this is a business.

I think it’s also time we began to understand that the provision of accommodation in this province is in the hands of the wrong people, and that for low-income earners in this province it is virtually impossible to fight back against the rent increases which are imposed upon them. There is nothing in the law in Ontario which requires any apartment owners to justify in any way the rents they charge for accommodations they are making available.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what we have to know about apartment buildings is far more than what it costs them to operate over the last 12 months. We are going to have to get an insight into the investment practices of the apartment owners. We are going to have to have an insight into the reinvestment and the refinancing of apartment owners. We are going to have to try to come to grips with why it is in this province that the government of the Province of Ontario is incapable of providing a sufficient number of public housing units to meet the needs of the low-income earners in the province.

What we are going to have to do is to establish once and for all that no person be required to pay more than 25 per cent of his or her income on accommodation. We are going to have to take steps to ensure there is sufficient method within the law to deal with that problem.

I have asked by way of correspondence that the government initiate an investigation into the apartment industry, and I think it has to be done at this point in time. There is no one who can convince me that the owner of a building that is 20 years old should be charging the same kind of rent as one charges for a brand new building.

There is no one who can convince me there is only a three per cent return to the apartment owners. While I have made the suggestion to the apartment owners through Mrs. Walker that they should select at random 10 or 20 of them and allow me then to choose from within that group a sufficient number for my purposes, so that I could go ahead and take a look at the books, I haven’t yet received a response; other than from Mrs. Walker herself, who says that she’d be glad to let me look at her books, but that she would want to know which accountant I was going to use.

Well okay, but looking at one set of books for one apartment owner doesn’t begin to put on the record the way in which apartment owners in general are overcharging their tenants. When rents go up by $30 a month there is something drastically wrong. An increase of $30 a month per unit in a 100-unit apartment building is a substantial sum of money, far in excess of either the increase in property taxes or the increase in fuel or the increase in maintenance or the increase in any other general area of maintenance or development of the apartment.

I don’t understand the government’s reluctance to come to grips with apartment rents. Mrs. Walker claims that in Hamilton alone the number of apartments currently being built is so down from previous years that’s the reason the rents must rise; because the supply and demand requires it. Well I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the vacancy rate in Hamilton is twice the national average. I want further to tell you that the number of apartments currently being constructed in Hamilton does not vary significantly from the number constructed in any other year over the last four or five years.

I have before me a number of the reports of the city of Hamilton, from the department of buildings which issues the permits. I have gone through these reports very carefully, looking at all the permits issued from 1970 through 1974. And I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the amount of development currently taking place -- currently meaning 1974 and on into 1975 -- in the city of Hamilton varies very little from that which took place during any of the other years.

I am not going to put all the statistics on the record, because quite obviously that would take a considerable period of time -- unless of course you want me to, Mr. Speaker; if you would like me to I would.

Mr. Speaker: I don’t mind.

Mr. Deans: You don’t mind? Well I will now give you a couple of examples for your own benefit.

This year 1974, there are 64 apartment buildings and row dwellings; 2,268 units. Last year, 1973, there were 29 apartment buildings, 2,042 units; there were also row dwellings, 299 units, which come to within 100 of the total number of units built in the year 1974. In 1972 there were 18 permits issued for 2,142 units and 430 row-dwelling units. In 1971, there were 2,496 units on 23 permits, with 375 row dwellings.

I think you would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that going back through 1974, 1973, 1972 and 1971, the number of units being constructed in the city of Hamilton varies very little year-to-year. The claim by Mrs. Walker that there is such a drastic reduction in the number of apartment buildings being built and that this justifies and makes it necessary that they be entitled to charge more for the existing apartments, is wrong.

The very fact that by Statistics Canada’s own information the vacancy rate in the city of Hamilton is almost twice the national average, would certainly prove to me that her claim there is pressure on the apartment owners as a result of there being a very low vacancy rate is also wrong. I have to think that Mrs. Walker is making things up to satisfy her own ends.

One need only drive through the city of Hamilton -- I am sure the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) does it very frequently -- to see the numbers of apartment buildings being built. I haven’t seen as many in years.

It’s time the apartment owners were required to justify the rental increases they are currently placing before the people of that city, because they are determined, somehow or other, to extract from the incomes of these people far more than they can afford for accommodation. I hasten to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of what I said before, that because of the cost of accommodation alone we have had a decrease in the amount of purchasing power of many people in the community. The more a person has to tie up simply to pay for accommodation, the less that’s available for him to spend on the other purchases which keep the economy going.

That is the problem; because of the increasing cost of accommodation, housing and apartments, and because we haven’t been able to keep it in cheek, either because the government doesn’t care or doesn’t know how, there is less and less expendable income available for people in the Province of Ontario to use for other purchases. They’re not able to continue to buy all of these additional commodities, the production of which provides employment for so many of the people across this province.

It’s evident that fewer people are purchasing automobiles. Fewer people are purchasing televisions. Fewer people are purchasing all of the other things which make up the standard of living that we’re accustomed to.

As that occurs, there are cutbacks and layoffs; and as that occurs it will ultimately affect heavy industry. We’re going to find that we’re going to have an even greater degree of recession unless we come to grips with the problem of the apartment owners and the problems that are being brought on by the high cost of accommodation in general.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this isn’t something that’s only concerning the people of Ontario. I was in Quebec recently and spoke to people there about their rent control mechanisms. While they don’t work perfectly and while they do create certain imbalances, they are at least trying to take steps to help the people of Quebec meet the rising cost of accommodation. It could be that if we were to have either a standing committee or other committee of the Legislature look into the whole matter of the cost of apartments, the cost of maintaining them and the costs to the renter of the rents, we might be able to come up with a refined form of rental review with power to roll back wherever necessary.

I suggested during a debate in which the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) took part, that we could easily set up a mechanism which would allow people to apply in the event they felt the rents which they were being charged were exorbitant. If that were to be done, I suspect, given that, in my view it would either be that the rent would be approved or disapproved but not varied, we would find apartment owners charging whatever it was they could justify much more quickly than they would charge whatever it was they thought the traffic would bear. I think that’s what we’re trying to accomplish.

I might point out to you too, Mr. Speaker, that the District of Columbia in the United States -- I very rarely refer to the United States, by the way, it’s not one of the things I do frequently in this House -- the District of Columbia also has regulations and a law governing rental accommodation.

The latest edition of their rules governing rental accommodation is available to any member of the House who would like to read them. They’re in my file. These were printed on Aug. 6, 1974. They’ve set up a number of terms and conditions which are necessary in order to ensure that rental accommodation is within the financial reach of the great majority of the citizens of the district.

I think we have an obligation to our citizens to do likewise. I think I would like, if the government would see fit to do it, to put this before such a committee and allow them to study it and attempt to come up with suitable regulations for the Province of Ontario, which would protect the consumer against unwarranted increases in the field of rentals.

We have tried this a number of times. It doesn’t seem to have ever met with success. But I think that this government is in such difficulty at the moment that I don’t see how they can continue to tarn down their obligation to protect the consumers of the Province of Ontario. They’re not doing it now in any field, and they could at least begin in the field of rental accommodation.

The whole problem in the housing field is one which we on this side of the House have been raising with the government repeatedly. All we ever get is another statement about meeting some target, a target which, even if it were to be met, would have been inadequate to begin with and which is not going to be met by the provincial government.

There were 71,520 housing units started in urban Ontario in 1974. This represents a decline of 20,691, or 29 per cent, compared with the 92,211 units started in 1973.

Surely it is easy to recognize, at this time in Ontario when housing costs have been allowed to escalate far beyond the capacity of the average income earner to meet them, that one is not going to be able to come to grips with the high cost of accommodation if one doesn’t build more houses and put them on the market. This is where the crunch comes.

The government indicates on the one hand that it wants to leave it to the private sector; that it thinks the housing crisis can best he met by the private sector. Yet in fact the private sector has proved conclusively that it is incapable of meeting the needs of the average wage earners in this province with regard to accommodation. It has proven that it is not within its capacity to build homes that will be made available to people within the range of the income which they are capable of earning.

In addition it has acknowledged, by the very fact that there has been a substantial decline, that the homes that it can build are priced far outside the range that most people cars afford. That is why they cut down on the number of starts. If it were possible for them to have sold the homes at the prices they were charging, we wouldn’t have had a decline of 29 per cent in the numbers of homes built in the Province of Ontario in the last year.

Yet where is the void being filled? Is it being filled by the government? Are they building additional homes at a rate that will fulfill their obligations to the community? Are they attempting to provide mortgage funding for people at a rate they can afford? Are they going out into the marketplace to try and make sure the price escalation which has taken place will be stopped? They are sitting back hoping that the pressures of the market will at some point reduce the market value.

But what does one say to the people who are forced to pay the exorbitant rates because they had to find accommodation? To the people who paid 10, 15 and 20 per cent -- even 50 per cent -- more than the realty was worth during this period of inflation in the real estate markets that this government permitted to occur -- and in fact encouraged?

Mr. Laughren: Aided and abetted.

Mr. Deans: This is what the government is faced with. When statistics show an almost 30 per cent decline in housing starts at a time when the population is growing, at a time when there are more and more people unable to find accommodation at costs that they can afford, it is clear evidence of this government’s inability to come to grips with one of the major problems of this province.

You would agree with me, Mr. Speaker, and I know the hon. member for Nickel Belt would agree with me, that housing must surely be one of the two priority matters. It is hard to decide the order of priorities, but first one must make sure that food is available at a cost that people can afford. Then one must make sure that shelter is available at a cost that people can afford. Even the most Neanderthal civilization dealt with those things. They attempted to find ways to guarantee there would be food and they attempted to find ways to guarantee there would be shelter within the capacity of their people to meet the cost. This government, in the very two areas of absolute requirement, failed to act. They failed to act, and that’s the reason why one becomes critical of the attitude of the government. It’s a responsibility of government, if it has no other responsibility at all, to make sure that those two basic needs are adequately met. Beyond that you can go on to health and education and to many other fields, but those are the two priority needs.

When the government talks about investing $100 million in Syncrude -- bearing in mind that the Province of Alberta has just used its oil receipts to decrease the income tax of the people of Alberta, while we in the Province of Ontario are going to have to pay more in order to pay our share of $100 million -- there’s something wrong with the priorities of this government. When I read the paper and I see Peter Lougheed standing up, barefaced, and telling us in Ontario just two days after we have committed $100 million to his oil deal, that he’s going to use the revenues -- not all of them, just a portion of them -- from the sale of Alberta oil to bring the personal income tax level of the people of Alberta to a point which will make it the lowest in the Dominion of Canada, and when I recognize that the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) is going to come to the people of Ontario at some point -- if not immediately given that there might be an election -- and require that they raise additional funds to channel into Alberta, I’ve got to ask where the priorities lie.

I don’t see us in the Province of Ontario using our mineral resources -- in the same way that Lougheed has used his -- to protect the people of Ontario. I don’t see us getting back from the rape of the resources of Ontario, the kind of revenue that Peter Lougheed gets back for the people of Alberta.

I’ve got to ask myself just who is this government protecting? The Premier and his lieutenants trip off to Ottawa not many months ago and sit down with the Prime Minister and the premiers of other provinces to talk about the value, and the worth and the charge to be placed against oil. It became evident to all of us -- after he had been, and came back, and committed us -- that he hadn’t the foggiest idea what he was committing us to; that he had been given misinformation; that his advisers had not advised him properly; that he had committed us to expenditures considerably in excess of what he himself imagined we were committed to.

Yet, when he went out to Alberta to talk about Ontario’s involvement in Syncrude, did he suggest to them; “Since you hoodwinked us the last time fellows, maybe this would be the appropriate time to get retribution”? Did he suggest to them; “Maybe since you took more than we intended you would take at the last round of negotiations, this might be an appropriate time for us to negotiate a stake for Ontario at a considerably lesser amount”? Did he say; “Since you, my friend Peter Lougheed, are likely to have an election this year, and since you want to use all this revenue to try to gain for yourself the kind of support from the people of Alberta that you need to return yourself to power, maybe you could afford to assume a considerably greater extent of the cost of producing this oil on behalf of all Canadians -- since in fact, that oil does belong to all Canadians”? I wonder.

I wonder if the Premier really took part in the discussions. He certainly didn’t take part in the last one.

Mr. Laughren: Maybe it’s just as well he didn’t.

Mr. Deans: No, Mr. Speaker, I’ve got to tell you that when I took a look at what was said out of Alberta within 72 hours of completing the negotiations -- given that there is not yet a document; given that the information that the Alberta government had was not available in total to the Province of Ontario; given that we in this Legislature didn’t have an opportunity to review it; given that we’re not going to be provided with the information available to the government; given that the government didn’t seem to have any predetermined position before it went -- the Premier of Alberta getting up and talking about using these vast financial resources that are now available to him because of the royalties imposed upon oil, to reduce the costs to the consumers of Alberta while we in Ontario are faced with increasing costs, I ask you, is that how to govern a province?

Mr. Laughren: The Tories do it. No wonder your ship is sinking, fellows.

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): What is the member going to do? Is he going to cut his own wood?

Mr. Laughren: They are the crew of the Titanic. Does Captain Davis know that?

Mr. Deans: We are in a very good position in Ontario. We have a wealth of mineral resources here that should be used to provide for the people of this province, and to a lesser extent but nevertheless to a significant extent, to provide for the welfare of the people of this country. I’m suggesting to the Premier that he has once again been outmanoeuvred by Peter Lougheed; that he has gone, he has sat, and he has spoken, but the man who came out on top of this one was again the Premier of Alberta, just as he did the last time, because the Premier of Ontario didn’t have access to the information necessary to make the kinds of judgments that were made,

Mr. Laughren: No guarantees at all.

Mr. Deans: All we are guaranteed is if the costs rise, our share will rise --

Mr. Laughren: Right.

Mr. Deans: -- not our share of the revenues, our share of the costs, while Mr. Lougheed is going to enjoy the returns from the royalties, fill the coffers of Alberta and distribute the goodies among the people, pre-election.

I’m personally unhappy with what happened in Alberta, and I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I do think it’s time for a new direction in government. It is time that this government sat down for whatever length of time it has available to it, and mapped out a strategy for Ontario that will enable us to derive full benefit from those things which are rightfully owned by the people of this province, and in addition to that, that they learn something about negotiation so that they don’t end up giving away the --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: -- tax dollars of the people of this province to the major corporations as they’ve done in this latest Syncrude operation.

Mr. Laughren: Should have taken a cattle drover and --

Mr. Deans: It’s taxing the poor to provide for the rich. You find in the corporate profits for the year 1974 over 1973, that in oil refining in 1973 profits were $384.8 million; in 1974, $487 million. Yet we’ve got to go out there with the sales tax dollars, the individual income tax dollars, we’ve got to go out there to Alberta and put $100 million into the development of Syncrude, given the vast resources of that industry.

I’m going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if it were the desire of the country to develop that oil for the benefit of the people of this country then we should have gone it alone, because all we are doing is funnelling tax dollars into the pockets of the major oil producers. They are taking our oil and our dollars. They are using our dollars to find our oil to sell to us at inflated prices. I wasn’t really going to talk about that actually. But --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, go ahead, we are listening.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, I will, I am sure the members are. They will recall when I was speaking before the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), who is not in his seat unfortunately, kept interrupting me when I was speaking about the profits in the major corporate sectors. I want to update my figures a little bit so that they can be compared with the figures I gave for the third quarter. The year-end profits, as reported in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, Feb. 6, in a number of areas are very interesting. These are all figures for 1974 over 1973.

I’ll give the House the 1973 figures first and the percentage increase last: Banks had $402.3 million profit in 1973 and in 1974 $440.9 million, an increase of 9.6 per cent in that year. Chemicals -- $58.9 million in 1973, $113.3 million in 1974, a 92.4 per cent increase. Construction and materials -- $18.7 million in 1973, $28.8 million in 1974, a 54 per cent increase. General manufacturing -- $18.7 million in 1973, $24.9 million in 1974, a 33.2 per cent increase. Industrial mines -- my colleague will be interested -- $322.8 million in 1973, $486.4 million in 1974, a 50.7 per cent increase in profit. Merchandising has gone up 46.7 per cent. Miscellaneous industrial has gone up 53.4 per cent. Paper and forest products have gone up 46.2 per cent. Oil refining -- 26.6 per cent. Pipelines -- 16.3 per cent. Steel -- 43.8 per cent. Western oils -- 49.2 per cent.

These are the increases in the profits for 1974 over 1973. This comes at a time when we are facing the worst inflation we’ve faced in a decade, when people are having almost insurmountable difficulty in meeting their commitments. Now they are telling us, as my colleague from Yorkview (Mr. Young) said, it’s because of higher wages that we are faced with this increase in the inflationary rate.

An hon. member: The Premier said that today.

Mr. Deans: It isn’t borne out by the statistics. At a time when everybody is being asked to tighten their belts, when people can’t afford to buy houses, when taxes are rising, when the cost of the majority of the essential items is going up by leaps and bounds, how can it be corporate profits are going up by the same amount -- ?

Mr. Laughren: That’s why they are.

Mr. Deans: The average increase over all of the commodities is 24.1 per cent for 1974 over 1973. And 1973 was a good year. But 1974 was a better year. It was because they dug deeper into the pockets of the wage earners of this province and extracted more for their products.

Mr. Laughren: It is called gouging.

Mr. Deans: My colleague says it’s called gouging. I used that term before. Nobody seems to like the term gouging, but it seems as if it might be true.

What has been happening in the private sector over the course of the last year certainly hasn’t been restraint, with profits rising as they have. Even those who didn’t show a profit increase in 1974 over 1973, didn’t show a loss. The profits themselves are substantial and healthy, even though their rate of increase in 1974 may not have exceeded that of 1973 in some instances.

But the fact of the matter is that we are talking about a very healthy private economy that is extracting far more from the wage earners of the province than they can reasonably pay. And that’s part of the reason why people can’t afford to buy into the markets into which they must go -- the housing market being one of them.

Mr. Laughren: The Tories sit there and the ship sinks.

Mr. Deans: Anyhow, I have exhausted everything that I want to talk about. I know the members will be pleased to hear it.

Mr. Laughren: The Titanic all over again; Captain Davis.

Mr. Deans: While I have covered a lot of topics over the course of a number of hours, I haven’t even begun to enumerate the disgraceful attitudes that this government has shown in the last three years. I thought I had seen incompetence in my time, but I have never seen incompetence the likes of which we have seen displayed in this House by this government.

It seems totally incapable of recognizing its jurisdiction. It seems unwilling to understand its responsibilities to the people of the province. It staggers from crisis to crisis without ever developing an overall economic programme for this province; without ever developing an overall industrial strategy for this province; without ever developing an overall housing thrust for this province, without recognizing the need to establish forms of review to ensure that those who are unable to buy in the housing field will at least be protected in the rental field; and without ever being able to understand its responsibility with regard to the cost of living and the need to maintain a level of food and other essential commodities that will be commensurate with the capacity of the people of the province to earn.

It has no manpower policy. It has dealt shabbily with people all the way from the Workmen’s Compensation Board on the one hand right through to the public housing market on the other. It’s extremely difficult for me to find anything useful to say in terms of being able to save this government from its own folly. It is absolutely committed to destroying the very social order that it is charged with administering and maintaining.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it’s time for a change in the Province of Ontario. And the change that takes place will be a change away from the fringes of corruption towards people who will at least deal honestly and fairly. They may not have all the answers, or may not be able to perform miracles -- given the decrepit state of the economy that will be left to them. But at least they will bring integrity and honesty into government. They will be able to go to the young people of this province and say to them truthfully: “You can trust your government again. It may fail from time to time but when it does it will be fully informed and it will use the information to the best of its ability.”

A tremendous lack of trust has developed within the entire electorate of the Province of Ontario. They don’t trust the government any more. They feel that the government is inadequate. They don’t place the kind of faith that they had in the Robarts years in the government that is currently here. They tell me this every day. They say to me: “Look, Ian, if only we could trust the government -- we know they make mistakes, but if only we could feel that they are doing what they are in our best interests. Then we would be prepared to suffer along with everyone else.”

But they don’t think that any more. And we in this party intend to instill the kind of faith, confidence and trust in the people of the Province of Ontario that will enable them to vote at the next election -- to ensure that for the first time in 32 years they will be represented here at Queen’s Park in the seat of government.

Mr. Laughren: The only person I have heard disagree with that viewpoint is Ross Shouldice.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if --

Mr. Deans: Does the minister want me to move the adjournment of the debate?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes. Is the member through?

Mr. Deans moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I suggest you call it 6 o’clock and we will return at 8.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed? I shall now leave the chair and will return at 8.

It being 5:15 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.