The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

PAFCO INSURANCE CO.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) yesterday I informed the House that I would be meeting with the president of Pafco Insurance Co. on Monday morning. I am pleased to inform the House that the insurance company has now decided to settle its claim by paying Mr. Bradette the full $1,300 to have his truck and means of business released from the repair shop where it has been sitting for a few weeks. I would like to commend the hon. member for High Park for bringing this to the attention of the ministry.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as part of this government’s stated intention in the Speech from the Throne to maintain the present level of current programmes under way in Ontario, later today I will move first reading of a bill to amend the Pollution Abatement Incentive Act, 1970, in order to ensure that the provisions and benefits of this Act continue to be available to Ontario industry and to local municipalities.

This Act enables private industry to recover, under a grant system, the Ontario sales tax which has been paid on pollution control equipment required to meet the standards set by my ministry.

Since 1970, we have stimulated the spending of millions of dollars by industry and by this province and its municipalities on abatement control equipment which has resulted in a better quality of air over our communities, a better quality of water in our lakes and rivers, and greater safeguards for our lands and forests.

This Act has played an important part in this continuing programme to protect and to enhance the environment of this province not only for ourselves, but for future generations. Since the Pollution Abatement Incentive Act came into effect in 1970, the government has approved 1,557 claims for rebate from private industry and under the Act has paid out $8.5 million to those industries in the form of grants. In addition, more than $535,000 has been paid out in grants to Ontario municipalities.

This bill provides for provincial grants on equipment purchased, installed and operational prior to April 1, 1976. This extension of the Pollution Abatement Act will enable the government to continue to grant relief to private industry and companies which are anxious to co-operate fully as good citizens of our environmentally concerned society.

This Act represents the government’s continuing effort to provide this Province with an effective environmental control programme second to no other in the world.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech stated that the government would “further increase home ownership so that Ontario families may continue to be the best-housed in Canada.”

Today I am pleased to inform the House about two agreements signed with municipalities to accelerate housing production within the Ontario Housing Action Programme. These agreements are important not only for the units they will bring on to the market, but also because they establish valuable precedents for the future direction of the housing production process.

The first of the agreements is with the city of Brampton. This is a master agreement covering the production of 15,000 new houses over the next three years. The pace of this development will be nearly twice that of recent years.

Development will be directed toward moderate incomes according to established OHAP guidelines. Brampton will receive per-unit grants from OHAP at the rate of $600 for HOME units, $525 to the moderate-income range and $450 for the remainder. The total amount is $7,875,000 for the 15,000 units. These grants are designed to minimize the costs to existing Brampton taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, 12,000 of these units have already received draft subdivision plan approval from both Brampton and my ministry. The signed agreement detailing the scheduling, location and price range of housing will now accelerate these draft plans through to completion, with the first starts likely by the end of this year.

Individual agreements with developers will shortly be signed for the units included within the Brampton master agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to make mention of five other signed municipal agreements -- two with Scarborough, two with Brampton and one with Mississauga. These agreements provide for the payment of OHAP’s capital housing incentive grants totalling nearly $790,000.

Regarding developer agreements, I would like to inform the House today about 13 OHAP agreements that I have signed with developers during the past 10 weeks.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The member has missed a page.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The 13 agreements cover a total of 3,545 units and a further 2,281 acres of land in seven communities across Ontario. Of the total number of units, 65 per cent or 2,301 are for household incomes between $14,000 and $20,000. A further 340 units are committed to the HOME programme income range, bringing production for moderate incomes to 75 per cent of the total,

Of the 3,545 units, 737 will be started this fiscal year. The remainder is phased over the next three years. The 2,281 acres of prime residential land are for longer-term development and are dependent upon OHAP-financed planning, engineering and housing studies, which are now in progress.

In Hamilton, we have an agreement that has been signed with Vin Ton Construction Ltd. for 36 semi-detached townhouses.

In Markham, an agreement has been signed with Cedarland Properties Ltd. covering 1,200 acres in Milliken Mills. Two OHAP study grants have been made to Markham to help prepare for possible Milliken Mills development -- one grant for $95,000 to develop an official plan and another grant for $43,000 to prepare secondary plans. An accelerated schedule for these studies should enable completion this summer. A further agreement with Markham will then be necessary to schedule and set out the terms of development in the area.

In Mississauga, two agreements have been signed -- one with Cadillac-Fairview Ltd. and the other with Welglen Ltd. for a total of 813 townhouses.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Doesn’t this sound all terribly familiar? Haven’t we heard all this before?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In Newcastle, agreements have been concluded with three developers --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If the ministry built houses like it claims in its press releases, we wouldn’t have any trouble.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- Claret Investments, Duffins Creek Estates and Taunton Courtice, for a development total of 1,081 acres. Terms of development will depend upon municipal and regional government approvals, once OHAP-financed studies of the areas have been completed.

In Nepean, agreements have been signed with Greenehaven Construction Ltd. and Tartan Development Corp. for construction of 2,201 units in the Barrhaven community. This development has been made possible by the OHAP-financed storm sewer, which I mentioned earlier. The amount of finance made available by OHAP was $2.4 million.

In Oshawa, both Anglo York Industrial Ltd. and McLaughlin Square Inc. have signed agreements covering 385 units for moderate-income families.

Finally, in Scarborough, Charter-Global Ltd. and Chiavatti Construction Ltd. have signed agreements for 110 townhouses.

Mr. Speaker, we now have a total of 24 developer agreements signed, with commitments for 15,939 units and a further 4,431 acres of land for development.

Mr. Lewis: Over how many years?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Sometime between now and the year 2000.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Many of the agreements I have mentioned today are based upon the developer bringing the land and units into OHAP.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the opposition will be glad to hear that I will be announcing further agreements in the very near future.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Of course he will.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): That’s action for you.

Mr. MacDonald: Announcing and announcing and announcing.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR COMMUNICATIONS

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): On Oct. 29 of last year, Mr. Speaker, I drew to the attention of the Legislature the status of federal-provincial discussions regarding communications.

At that time I pointed out that the government of Ontario has consistently followed the process of negotiation in federal-provincial discussions, rather than adopting a policy of unilateral action, in seeking to preserve Ontario’s rightful role in the field of communications.

While this government continues to believe that the proper course to follow is the intergovernmental discussion process, we are being severely tested in our resolve by recent extremely disturbing actions by one of the federal regulatory agencies, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. I am aware of similar concerns in other provinces as well.

As the members are aware, there have been a number of activities in the last two years involving the federal and provincial governments in the communications field. Advanced for discussion have been fundamental policy issues related to broadcasting, cable and telecommunications common carriers, the roles and responsibilities of governments, major new federal legislation, a new federal regulatory body and a structure for intergovernmental co-operation.

I regret I must report that little progress has been made in the discussions since last October. While there has been a further exchange of letters between the federal minister responsible for communications and myself as chairman of the Interprovincial Conference of Communications Ministers, no agreement on a date for a second federal-provincial conference has yet been reached; nor has there been an agreement on an agenda. However, we are hopeful that a second and increasingly important conference will take place shortly.

In the meantime, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission issued policy statements and proposals on Feb. 17. These are more far-reaching in their policy implications than anything put forward to date by the federal government in its 1974 green paper on communications policy, at the first federal-provincial conference, in correspondence with the provinces or in private discussions.

These proposals would appropriate to the federal government all areas of cable communications, including those areas which have previously been considered by the provinces, and also the federal minister dealing with communications, as being the responsibility of the provinces. We are confronted with a situation in which the regulatory agency, without clear legislative authority, is zealously acting to consolidate the maximum of de facto federal jurisdiction, regardless of existing provincial activities and legitimate claims. This is all going on at the same time as the federal minister is denying the provinces an opportunity to discuss jurisdictional matters.

I have expressed my concerns most strenuously to the minister of communications and told him that the CRTC action surprised and disappointed me. The Premier (Mr. Davis) has also written emphasizing this government’s concern.

Mr. Lewis: Hey, this minister, too, is missing things.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The impact of the proposals is not restricted to cable but --

Mr. Lewis: This is a day for leaving out sentences, phrases, pages.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- will firmly establish a new industry structure involving cable, the telecommunications common carriers and broadcasting. They severely restrict the method by which new and potentially innovative services, such as pay-TV and two-way educational communications, may be developed. They ignore the role and the rights of the provinces and complicate, if not preclude, further constructive discussions between this and the federal government.

Much of the substance of these documents suggests an insensitivity by the CRTC to the interests and needs of the people of Ontario as well as to the potential of the communications industry. While I fully support and endorse the necessity of preserving and extending a strong and viable Canadian broadcasting system, the CRTC’s policy, of guarding the broadcasting industry at all costs, hinders the potential of cable and restricts it to being only a distribution system.

This government believes that the cable industry is still evolving. Restrictive, rigid policies at this time will prevent it from realizing its full potential for the benefit of the people of this province.

For example, the policies contained in the CRTC documents do not recognize the differences throughout Ontario. Obviously all cable systems in Ontario are not identical but exist in various states of economic development and growth potential. Treating all systems the same -- big or small, rural or urban -- shows misunderstanding of the unique geographic and economic characteristics which exist throughout Ontario and the need of our people, especially in northern Ontario, for a wider range of services than they now enjoy. Such an attitude can only work to the detriment of all cable systems, proving unduly restrictive to some and jeopardizing the very existence of others.

The proposals of the CRTC are not federal government policy statements. They are unilateral actions by an appointed regulatory agency. I would have expected the federal government to put forward such proposals itself so that the people of Canada and the provincial governments could effectively discuss them with the responsible federal minister as matters of important public policy.

We do not accept that such far-reaching actions can be taken by a regulatory body which apparently considers itself beyond the need for political control, and which appears to be beyond the control of the federal government.

I am making public today the letter I wrote to the federal minister on Monday requesting a public clarification of the federal government’s position on the subject of consultation between governments on policy issues. I have asked that the federal government make its position known on the issues and proposals of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. I have also asked that the initiatives of the CRTC be indefinitely deferred until there has been a resolution of the major policy issues involved by the federal and provincial governments.

Mr. Speaker, the government of Ontario has a responsibility to represent the interests of the people of Ontario with respect to the development of communications systems and services in this province. The future development of broadcasting, cable and telecommunications common carrier industries will have a great impact on the people of Ontario who will benefit from the operation of these industries.

Mr. Speaker, I have grave concern about the concentration of power over communications in a single government, let alone the advisability of placing that future in the hands of a single regulatory body. It is for these reasons that I have asked Mr. Pelletier for his government’s views and urged that discussions take place at the earliest possible date among the federal and provincial governments on all important issues related to communications policy.

I would hope that in the meantime no further attempts would be made by the federal government or its agencies to appropriate areas of provincial responsibilities or those in which the provinces have shown their interest. It is because these issues are extremely important for the people of Ontario that I have brought these matters to the attention of the House today.

TASK FORCE ON LEGAL AID

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, later today I will be tabling part I of the report of the task force on legal aid. This report reviews all aspects of Ontario’s legal aid programme with one exception -- the delivery of legal aid services to native people. This subject will be considered in a separate report.

The task force was created by order in council on Jan. 2, 1974. Under the able chairmanship of the hon. Mr. Justice John Osler, the task force has completed a very thorough review. Public hearings were conducted in Toronto, Sudbury, London, Ottawa, Kingston, Hamilton, Windsor, Thunder Bay and Kenora. Public participation included 105 oral and 285 written submissions from both individuals and organizations.

Mr. Speaker, the legal aid programme is important to all members of this Legislature. Individual liberty is jeopardized if a full participation in the legal process depends upon financial circumstances. We therefore regard this report as a most important document. It includes recommendations on all aspects of legal aid, including its structure, coverage under the plan, delivery of legal services, neighbourhood legal aid clinics, student legal aid societies, financial eligibility and assessment.

Implementation of the recommendations would have a significant impact on the legal aid programme. For example, one recommendation would restructure the legal aid plan around a non-profit corporation replacing the present administrative role played by the Law Society. Proposals of such a fundamental nature will require intensive assessment by my ministry before any decisions can be made.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario was a pioneer in its legal aid programme when it was established in 1966. After six full years of operation, an examination was, I believe, a responsible idea. Four provinces have followed our example and established legal aid programmes of their own. Each has included its own features which have tended to make the various plans different. The opportunity to study these variations was also part of the motivation for the task force report.

In addition, variations in the method of funding the legal aid plan have resulted, both from the cost-sharing arrangements for legal aid in criminal matters with the government of Canada, and the establishment of the Law Foundation, pursuant to the Law Society Amendment Act, 1973, which directs three-quarters of the interest in lawyers’ mixed trust accounts into legal aid.

This task force review has been carried out with full appreciation for the quality of the present legal aid programme. At its inception, the Ontario plan was by far the most comprehensive in the English-speaking world and the best available anywhere. Many believe, with justification, that it still is. The Law Society deserves our sincere thanks for operating the plan and developing it to its current state. Nor should it be forgotten that at least 14 per cent of all Ontario residents have benefited from the existing programme.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to report back to the House in due course with our response to the various task force recommendations. I would also like to express my great appreciation at this time for the efforts of Mr. Justice Osler and his colleagues. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The Leader of the Opposition.

AWARDS FOR ADVERTISING WORK

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Chairman of the Management Board what the circumstances were that led him, as Chairman of the Management Board, to approve the expenditure of $3.2 million for advertising work that was neither awarded by tender nor subject to contract, particularly after the award of such work had been specifically criticized by the Provincial Auditor in a previous report?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Obviously this is a broad question, Mr. Speaker, that would require me to look into the details of each particular situation, which I will do and report to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: If the minister is going to examine the records and get further information, would he make it clear as to what he feels his responsibilities are as Chairman of the Management Board to fulfill with all expedition the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor, particularly when it entails decisions made specifically in his own office?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in a general sense it is probably quite true, but from time to time, and not only in this particular area but in other areas, the situation is presented to me as Chairman of the Management Board as being of a critical nature and a decision must be made probably as an exception.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary, if I may. I am sorry to put it this way, but what game is the minister playing? Surely the minister knows that the $3.2 million that emerged in the auditor’s report involved names and contracts or undertakings by specific advertising agencies in specific areas, all of which were potentially controversial, all of which were known to the minister, and all of which had been dealt with in the previous auditor’s report. Why does the minister duck a direct question by saying he has to go back and look at the details? The minister knows, as he sits there now, what caused him to confirm those expenditures without tenders --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You asked your question.

Mr. Lewis: Why doesn’t the minister tell us?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer that question, but that is absolutely untrue. I cannot stand here and give an answer on the complete detail of that particular question but I will get it for the hon. member.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, could the minister tell us whether he is prepared to recommend, and whether cabinet is prepared to implement, a policy whereby contracts such as these will be awarded only after tenders? In that regard, could I ask the minister if he’s taken the occasion to look at another one of my private bills which says just that, and whether they care to implement that one too?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would care to look a little further he will find that we have directives in this particular matter, as I said.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are not the best in the world in this regard.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That may be, but there are exceptions to every rule. I will be prepared to deal with these questions when they come before me and as they are presented.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General and acting Solicitor General --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): The government should look after Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) in favour of patronage? Is he still in favour of it after all he’s been through?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

STANDARD TUBE CO.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Was the acting Solicitor General consulted in the decision made by the OPP commissioners apparently to put 120 of the OPP officers on duty in Woodstock at the premises of the Standard Tube Co. in order to permit General Motors to remove certain properties that they have within those premises? In fact, the riot squad was called out to allow General Motors to take out those properties -- tools and dies.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I have had no discussions on that matter. Could the Leader of the Opposition tell me when this was?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was within the last two weeks, since the minister asked. Would he get us some information on the circumstances there? With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour if he could give us a report on the status of the strike at Standard Tube in Woodstock at the present time? They had to bring in the OPP riot squad. He ought to know something about that one.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have a little note on Standard Tube to the effect that they’ve been out since Feb. 17 and the union is the United Automobile Workers. So far we have not been involved in the matter. We generally wait until one side asks us to intervene.

Mr. Lewis: That’s illuminating.

Mr. Singer: The minister is brimming over with information.

Mr. Lewis: It’s certainly a little note.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, we will be glad to get into it if either party wants us.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What does the minister mean, if either party wants him to?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, if I may: Since it required the OPP riot squad there in recent days, wouldn’t the minister think that his responsibility would be to show a little more initiative and not wait for one party or the other to request his assistance? Surely his people should have informed him as to the very serious circumstances in this strike, a very disruptive one indeed.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition’s question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, we’re not in the habit of forcing ourselves into these situations.

Mr. Lewis: They certainly aren’t.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Unless people seek our assistance on this thing and are ready to co-operate with us there is very little we can do. The United Automobile Workers are very reluctant to call upon our services.

Mr. Lewis: With good reason.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to get further information and take some action on our own part to see if we can be of any assistance to them.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Would the minister be prepared to ask Mr. Dickie to, in his normal form, contact both parties and see whether they might be prepared to sit down and talk?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is the procedure, Mr. Speaker. When neither party has asked our assistance and when we, or somebody else, suggest that we should get in it then we contact both parties and that’s what we’ll do in this case.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: It is better than his abnormal form.

Mr. Deans: That’s the way the minister always does it.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may: Does the minister mean that when police in large numbers are involved in an industrial dispute, either to open up picket lines or to take machinery and equipment out of a plant, and clearly the law is involved in such large numbers, he doesn’t feel that that is a sufficient basis for him to intervene?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think it is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Then what is the delay?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He didn’t know about it.

An hon. member: He needs a new broom.

PICKEREL FISHING SEASON ON LAKE NIPISSING

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Can he either reconsider the decision to shorten the pickerel fishing season at Lake Nipissing or at least to bring forward another type of programme to assist the outfitters in the area who are going to be, let’s say, seriously affected by the shortening of the pickerel season there? Is be aware of the problems they face with the potential loss of up to $2 million worth of outfitting business?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, this issue has been one of long standing. About two years ago, I would explain to you, sir, I went to North Bay with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith). We met with the local staff and we met with the local tourist operators and the chambers of commerce. At that time, sir, I established an advisory committee to look at all aspects of the Lake Nipissing issue as it relates to pickerel fishing and the seasons. After 12 meetings -- I believe two or three of them were public meetings -- they came forward with some recommendations which I accepted after careful consideration. I might say I accepted those recommendations after I was called on a number of occasions by the member for Nipissing, who felt that the recommendations were very carefully thought out and were acceptable ones to the entire area.

I met further in Sault Ste. Marie at the NOTO convention with operators from the Nipissing area. Following further discussions, there was some concern that the advisory committee did not go into the economics of the entire situation and they felt that a further study was required. I indicated at that time to them -- and just as late as yesterday I met with a similar group and reiterated my stand -- that we would establish the pickerel season dates this year as were announced. I would not confirm the pickerel season dates for 1976 --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That would have meant a further study.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- until I had conducted a complete economic survey and study of the last two years and the result of this year’s change. This seems to have been acceptable to all parties.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would not a partial solution to this whole problem be to increase the size of the pickerel that can be kept?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, the advisory committee went into this possibility in great detail and after very careful consideration with the biologists and those people involved and the expertise that we have in the ministry. I might say that the member for Nipissing here again agreed with all the recommendations of that advisory committee.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the Leader of the Opposition? The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, and the energy proposals he put yesterday, because I continue to be quite perplexed. As I understand it from the amount of money in the most recent year for which we have figures, 1973, Hydro’s debt underwritten by Ontario was a total of $688 million, and Hydro is now asking for $3 billion a year for eight years. I want to understand how that is financially possible for the Province of Ontario and why that is not subject to an independent commission as well as the plans from 1983 to 1993.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, as I mentioned yesterday, that is not o question to direct to me. I think it is a question the hon. member should direct to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), who deals with the financing of the province.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Isn’t that policy?

Mr. Lewis: This is a policy area.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is unleashing a monster here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not unleashing anything. All I unleashed yesterday was a programme whereby the public can ask precisely the questions the hon. member is talking about.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is just a mouthpiece for a statement by somebody else.

Mr. Breithaupt: He doesn’t get paid extra just for that.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, what I’m asking the minister is, can he widen the mandate of the inquiry, almost on an emergency basis, on an urgent basis, to take a look at the validity or the reality of the preposterous financial requirements which Hydro has laid down, which will preoccupy every underwriting capacity that Ontario has, and more, for the next eight years?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing to preclude this being debated publicly before the commission. Indeed I expect it will be. I expect that there are people who are concerned about the large expenditures, who will require Hydro --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Everybody is concerned.

Mr. Deans: I would hope everyone is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- to produce a case to establish that they need to spend this kind of money. The public is going to have to make a decision as to whether it is prepared to do without those expenditures and what it is prepared to pay for that by way of perhaps reduced power supply. This is precisely one of the reasons for the inquiry.

Mr. Lewis: Reduced power supply but Hydro growth.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The whole matter of the growth of Hydro surely is implicit. In fact, it was stated quite bluntly in my statement that it’s a wide-open inquiry.

Mr. Lewis: But this is approved.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t see any reason for any holds to be barred at all. They can discuss any matter relating to the plans which Hydro has in that period of time. They can deal with the financing of it, they can deal with the need for it and they can deal with practically anything relating to the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member for Huron-Bruce has a supplementary.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Would the minister consider widening the mandate of the commission to include a study of the need for the Bradley-Georgetown power line?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me that question yesterday. It has been decided that that should be proceeded with.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): What a waste of $150 million.

Mr. Lewis: That’s part of the growth mania.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member will appreciate you can’t stop everything at this particular time. And while there may be some concerns about the location of the transmission lines, or perhaps the location of the generating --

Mr. Deacon: The government proceeds whether it is needed or not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- plant in the first instance, there may be others who feel the same way too.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Have an inquiry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: However, having regard for the fact that we are so dependent at this particular time on electrical energy, it was agreed, and indeed it was announced in this Legislature -- we didn’t hear too much complaint, if we heard any at all from the opposition --

Mr. Deacon: Oh yes, they did.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Deacon: The minister hasn’t been listening. He doesn’t listen.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- at that time and it was necessary to proceed with some of the plans which had already gone some distance down the road.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the hon. members should be quite satisfied, having regard for the fact that the long-term needs, as outlined yesterday, --

Mr. Deacon: The long-term needs aren’t there.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- are going to be subject to an exhaustive examination by all concerned including the public.

Mr. Deacon: A waste of 50 million bucks.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since that particular line is tied directly to a new plant, a second plant, on Lake Huron which involves the whole growth aspect of Ontario Hydro, would the minister not consider that that particular line and its study are vital to the whole concept of what the provincial secretary is bringing forward?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. This matter is becoming a debate. Now it’s the same question repeated over again. Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I’d like then to go to the Minister of Energy. Since Hydro’s total debt -- total debt guaranteed by Ontario, in 1973, the last year for which figures are available -- was approximately one-quarter of the additional annual debt it intends to accrue every year for the next eight years -- $3 billion a year -- can the minister tell us how much of that Ontario intends to underwrite by way of guarantor, and how much of it will be incorporated in rate increases? This is now a matter of government policy.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, at the last Energy Board review of Ontario Hydro’s rates, there was considerable discussion of the debt-equity ratio -- I believe it now stands at about 80-20 -- and Hydro is conducting additional studies internally on what would be the best possible ratio.

I can’t say what the Energy Board will say this year. I would expect within the next three or four weeks to have the material from Ontario Hydro for reference to the Energy Board this year. I’m sure that will be considered again.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Is the minister not prepared to recommend that this independent inquiry take a look at what we have apparently committed ourselves to? And can he make a statement of government policy about how Ontario can afford it? How can this province afford Ontario Hydro’s growth ethic and how are our people to pay for it?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member keeps referring to the growth ethic --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and I think that’s a gross error.

Mr. Lewis: Seven per cent a year.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The Ontario Hydro estimates are based on the patterns of growth that we know to have been established over the last decade or two --

Mr. Lewis: No, they are not.

Mr. Gaunt: No, that’s not right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and they are also taking into account national factors, bearing in mind oil and gas supplies, bearing in mind the possibilities of conversions in the next five to 10 years as we face oil and gas shortages.

Mr. Lewis: They have seduced this minister as well.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I should be so lucky to be seduced.

Mr. Lewis: By Taylor? By Stelco?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point that was made by my hon. colleague, the provincial secretary, is very valid, that in the public hearings, for the first time in any jurisdiction, the public will have the opportunity to question --

Mr. Deans: That’s nonsense.

Mr. Deacon: There won’t be any answers, though.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and to challenge the proposals of Ontario Hydro.

Mr. Deans: That is also nonsense. How does the public become aware enough to ask questions?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The opposition members will make them aware.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary question to the minister: What happens to the approval in principle given to the programme by the minister’s predecessor, the present Treasurer? Does that approval in principle mean it is being withdrawn by this minister or does it mean that the approval is there and that these hearings are simply to take some of the steam off the people in the province who are very concerned about these matters?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the approvals in principle referred to by the Leader of the Opposition cover projects which are estimated to be required for the period up to 1982. The inquiry announced yesterday by the provincial secretary deals with the period up to 1993 or the decade following. Now, as I understand it, there are five or six outstanding items that were given approval in principle, including the possibility of a site in the riding represented by the member for Rainy River. I might say it’s something of a pleasure to receive resolutions of council and of the local unions, the chamber of commerce and service clubs stating that everybody up there wants it, and we will consider that in the next little while. But to answer the member’s question specifically those are not cancelled and I will be making recommendations to my colleagues in the next little while, taking them one by one.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question: Did I understand the minister correctly to say that Hydro was preparing a study of the debt-equity ratio that might be acceptable in relationship to rates? If I did understand that correctly, why is it not a responsibility of the government, rather than Ontario Hydro, to determine what the debt-equity ratio ought to be and the application of that to rates and borrowing?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that in the 1974 rate review by the Energy Board, as I recall reading the report, there was reference made and questions raised about the debt-equity ratio. As a matter of fact, I am meeting at 11 o’clock with the chairman and president of Hydro -- to discuss a number of items --

Mr. Deans: They’ll all be cleared up by 11:30.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We should be so lucky. The items include the progress that is being made on their internal studies on this.

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

Mr. Deans: Isn’t it the minister’s responsibility to look into that, rather than theirs to study themselves?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s the Energy Board’s responsibility, yes.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: A question if I may, of the Minister of Housing. The material accompanying the minister’s statement indicates that 737 units will be started across the province by March 31, 1975, in the 13 projects outlined. Over how many months or years will the other units be constructed?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we expect the units to be constructed in the fiscal year of 1975-1976, ending March 31.

Mr. Lewis: March 31, 1976?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Looking at this rate of building and comparing it to the GMHC projections, are we therefore to expect that the number of units of new shelter accommodation for Ontario this year will be about 80,000 maximum, which is a 5,000 drop from last year and a 30,000 drop from the year before?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept the fact that the drop in housing will be as has been indicated by certain people.

Mr. Lewis: We were dead on last year -- absolutely dead on to the figure.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think we have finally made the point that more than just the Province of Ontario is involved in housing

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the point has been got across to the federal government, I hope, and to the private sector that they must be involved very substantially in housing in Ontario. In addition, I think we have got the point across to some municipalities who in the past have been reluctant to have housing in their area, that they must assume their share of housing. If we all work together, I am confident that we can achieve 100,000 starts, which I still say is what Ontario should have.

Mr. Lewis: That is what the minister said last year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But it is dependent upon a number of factors and a number of people who have not co-operated fully in the past.

Mr. Lewis: It depends on the government’s initiatives and investment.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

GRAVEL LICENCE APPLICATION

Mr. Lewis: One last question, of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Natural Resources has an application before him from a Mr. Sam Manetta for a licence to extract gravel in Pontypool, Ont. Has that application been approved by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that we get dozens and dozens of applications for gravel pits in the southern part of the province -- at least in those designated areas -- and I am not aware of this specific one. But I will get the facts and report back to the members.

INVESTIGATIONS INTO DREDGING INDUSTRY

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General, who is the acting Solicitor General. Could he tell us what has been the role of the Ontario Provincial Police in the current dredging problems that exist in this country? Were the Ontario Provincial Police asked to investigate? Were they not asked to investigate, or were they asked not to investigate? Did they investigate? What actually did the OPP do or not do, and why?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the OPP were not asked to investigate by anyone. The investigation at Hamilton was conducted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as a result of the request of the federal Ministry of Transport.

In the course of their investigation as to many matters -- none of which originally contained any criminal allegations -- certain material came to their attention, whereupon they immediately contacted our office in this city. They worked very closely with Clay Powell and my ministry from that point on. I have met with the inspector on two occasions.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were in charge of the investigation. They confirmed as recently as Wednesday night with me in Ottawa that at no time have they had any communication with any other municipal or provincial police force in connection with this investigation.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary: Is the OPP playing any role now, or has it not been asked to, and the minister feels it is not necessary that it do so?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I haven’t heard of any role that the OPP are involved in this matter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: What about the situation involving the dredging of the slip and other facilities for the Tobermory ferry, for which final payment is being withheld on a provincial contract? Did information come from the government of Canada or the RCMP that led the Management Board to withhold funds in that case?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Management Board received advice from our office to withhold payment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: From the minister’s office. Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Would the minister give the House the time frame of the investigation into the dump truck industry, so that those who are wishing to make submissions may go forward with their plans?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get the exact dates and times on that. I know that things are moving along now and we are getting some submissions in; but I will get the exact time schedule for the member and present it here to him.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

MEMBERS’ DINING ROOM

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services related to the Provincial Auditor’s report, pages 67 and 68.

Can the minister inform the House why his ministry made a special arrangement with the present caterers in the members’ dining room and changed the tendering process that was set out, and which six other caterers turned down because they asked for certain procedures that were unacceptable, and then these same procedures were tendered or given to the present caterers?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, originally when we were establishing the members’ dining room within this building, the staff of my ministry developed a tender proposal or a tender document -- specification -- in order to allow catering firms to submit their tender for the operation of the dining room. These were publicly advertised and, as the member says, few proposals were received that met that specification.

In most cases the bidders wrote back and suggested that they were not prepared to bid on the operation of this under those terms; that they felt the only way they would be interested in operating the dining room would be on a management-type contract.

We did receive some bids that met the specification, and the lowest and most acceptable bid came from the Dineley firm, which operates the cafeteria in the Macdonald block. It was decided to accept that bid.

As we proceeded to develop the facilities, one of the requirements of the tender was that the successful firm would assist in the design and specifications of the necessary equipment that would be required to operate a proper dining facility. But as we proceeded, we became more aware, or rather we felt, that this type of a dining room, because of its very limited usage, because of the very limited amount of hours that it is open, could not be operated on that basis and the decision was made to change it to a management-type contract.

As we had proceeded to this stage with the Dineley firm, as they had put considerable work into developing the facility, as they could make available to that facility their buying power in buying the supplies for the dining room at the same time as they are buying much larger quantities for the other dining room, there were many good reasons why that firm should be selected and we made that decision, consciously, to enter into that type of a contract. I believe, Mr. Speaker, it was a very good decision.

Mr. Reid: One supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: How does the minister expect anyone to have any faith in this government when they finally do tender on something like this, and then the government not only ignores those who tender but also the people who would have made a tender based on what was finally resolved? How can anybody dealing with the government have any faith in its honesty or integrity when the ministries just --

Mr. Speaker: Order please; order please.

Mr. Reid: -- disregard the tenders submitted to them?

Mr. Speaker: That question is not related to the original question. Did the hon. member for Wentworth have a supplementary?

Mr. Deans: I have a supplementary question but I almost hesitate to ask it. Why was this information about the change in the tendering procedure, after the tenders had been accepted, not made available to the Board of Internal Economy when we were discussing the renewal of the Dineley contract?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, in response, Mr. Speaker, that full information was made available in the report to the Board of Internal Economy.

Mr. Deans: That they had changed the contract conditions after the ministry had accepted them?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, this --

Mr. MacDonald: They changed the rules of the game after the ministry had made its choice? That’s a remarkable procedure.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I recall it, this information was made available in the report to the Board of Internal Economy when we were considering this contract a few weeks ago. It was stated in that information how the contract -- of course this contract --

Mr. Singer: Oh but that was after it was done.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This contract was entered into before the Board of Internal Economy took over.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When is the minister going to improve the quality of the food?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: We’ve suffered the consequences of this behaviour every breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Members never had meals this good at home.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Windsor West has the floor to ask his question.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker: On the basis of the mercury level analysis data released yesterday by the Ministry of the Environment, which indicated that only one fish species out of the 15 in the Lake St. Clair area had mercury levels less than the 0.5 parts per million acceptable for human consumption, has the minister now decided there will be no more commercial fishing instituted on that lake?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker. This decision has not been reached.

I have indicated to the sportsmen and to the Lake St. Clair commercial fishing industry that we would be conducting further monitoring during the course of the next few months to ascertain if there are certain species that we could open up to commercial fishing.

We’re very cognizant, of course, of the tremendous pressure that is incurred regarding that particular lake from the sportsmen and from the anglers, and we’ll certainly keep this in mind when a decision is made.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.

WARRANTIES ON HOUSING

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: I wonder if the minister can inform the House on the status of the federally-sponsored home warranty programmes insofar as this province is concerned. This was proposed by the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, and I understand it has been endorsed by the minister responsible for housing and urban development.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I note a degree of concern in the hon. member’s question and I think he’s justified in being concerned. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs of Canada, Mr. Danson, has been proposing a warranty scheme now for several months. It was discussed by my distinguished predecessor, now the Attorney General (Mr. Clement), and my parliamentary assistant.

A few weeks ago we received a telegram from Mr. Danson requesting a meeting and we immediately responded saying yes. We’ve been trying ever since that time to find out the date, location and agenda of any such meeting. We now understand that Mr. Danson is leaving the country for a short time. I am beginning to wonder whether or not the federal government is really interested in the house warranty scheme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Nobody likes them but the people.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we, as a province, are interested in a home warranty scheme.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We think the purchasers of houses in this province deserve some protection against shoddy workmanship.

Mr. Reid: We suspect it is this shoddy government that is responsible.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We have never received the details of the plan that Mr. Danson has released to the press. I certainly would like to pursue with Mr. Danson or his officials an early acceptance of the scheme.

Mr. Speaker: There are too many interruptions during the question period. I think all members would be happier if --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Reid: He is provocative.

Mr. Speaker: Sometimes these are merely a matter of opinion. Is the hon. minister finished? H not, would he please continue.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as the alternative to a national scheme -- which is what the Province of Ontario has been seeking for several months -- certainly we will have to try to fill that gap. I would like to make one last effort with the federal government to reach agreement on a scheme which will protect the majority of the house buyers in this country. Hopefully, we will be meeting in Ottawa very shortly on that. But in the alternative, we will be studying the problem on a provincial basis to see whether we can inaugurate a scheme shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

WOOL LEVY

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Has the minister received representation from the sheep producers in Ontario regarding what they consider to be an inequity in the proposed levy on wool, considering that the levy is to be used to promote sheep and sheep products as well as wool? If he has received such representation, what does he intend to do about the inequity?

Further to the question, is the minister aware that the levy on wool amounts to about one-third of the price the wool producer is presently receiving for his wool?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who put the levy on it?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact to the extent that the sheep producers executive came to our office and met with my staff -- not with me, with my parliamentary assistant and my assistant deputy minister, with the marketing board officials -- and asked for the right to place a levy on either lambs or wool.

They talked about a marketing plan first of all, and to develop a full-fledged marketing plan would have required a vote. They decided in favour of and asked us to implement the legislation -- to which this House gave unanimous approval last year, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Including the Liberals.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- including our friends in the opposition, who now criticize us for what we did -- offering them the opportunity for a check-off on wool to finance the Ontario Sheep Association.

After the proposal had been debated and discussed in this House and implemented, it required regulation. We announced it in at least three newsletters that went out. I spoke about it at the Ontario Sheep Producers annual summer meeting at New Liskeard, advising them exactly what we proposed to do. So I don’t know why all of a sudden a few of them decided that they didn’t want to accept this. Maybe my hon. friend has the answer to that, being a sheep breeder himself.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is having trouble with communications; everybody says so.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not sure, but I do know that as far as the local people are concerned and the executive, they supported the move, they supported the regulation, they supported the legislation.

Now I have word that there was some problem, that some of the producers were not in favour of it. I asked that the matter be raised at the annual meeting of the sheep producers association in the Niagara peninsula a week or so ago, and it was. A vote was taken and it went well over 50 per cent -- I haven’t the exact figure but I think it was about 60 to 40 per cent -- in favour of implementing the regulations.

Mr. Gaunt: It was 36 to 27.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Now since that time I have had some representation to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are certain sheep breeders who are not in favour of the regulation, and I respect their wishes. I have not implemented the regulation and I will not implement it until I have had the opportunity to discuss it further with the entire sheep producers’ executive. But I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it would be useful --

Mr. Deacon: That’s five minutes the minister has taken to say that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- if the sheep breeders would arrive at a consensus among themselves as to what they really do want. I suppose that it is not at all unlike the Liberal opposition, who never do know what they want.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment about his statement yesterday on mercury levels in Ontario water, in which the minister told us that fish were being monitored and it has been found that the mercury levels were decreasing. Why did the minister not tell us, which is far more important, what the continued monitoring of the blood levels of the residents around these polluted lakes has shown; whether it’s an increase, no change or a decrease?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker as I mentioned in my statement yesterday, the Ministry of Health was doing that. I think that question should be more properly directed to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may Mr. Speaker. I believe that the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources -- and I recently wrote the Minister of the Environment about this -- have findings from the Fresh Water Institute in Manitoba, which is a federally-run institute, on mercury in the blood levels from a number of tests conducted recently. Is he prepared to share that information with the Legislature?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I say, the Ministry of Health is doing this and the hon. member would have to ask the Minister of Health regarding mercury levels in the blood of people.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, mercury in the blood levels.

Hon. W. Newman: Yes. I know the Ministry of Health is doing this. I know there has been extensive tests made.

Mr. Lewis: Doing what? Studying the information?

Hon. W. Newman: There has been considerable testing done.

Mr. Lewis: And the minister has no information.

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

WARRANTIES ON HOUSING

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on the subject of warranties for houses which was brought up a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker: It’s a new question if the member is asking the minister a question.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, either way. I couldn’t see for the noise from across the way, Mr. Speaker. The minister mentioned probable provincial involvement with respect to home warranties.

An hon. member: Question.

Mr. Kennedy: Does he envisage this as being carried out by the province or through the municipalities, because this is a question that comes up continually?

Mr. Singer: I’m glad he asked that question.

Mr. MacDonald: Was that all arranged in caucus?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this time is that we have not received any details of the plan and there is no way we know at the present time how the federally-sponsored plan, if there is one, will work.

However, we do have the Ontario Building Code which we anticipate will be administered through the municipalities. We’re now conducting a series of meetings and seminars with municipal building inspectors. It might very well be appropriate to discuss with them, at that time, the possibility of their involvement in enforcing any housing warranty scheme.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

MINING ACCIDENT INQUEST

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware of the coroner’s inquest concerning a recent accident at Canadian Rock Salt Co. Ltd. in which an employee had been killed as a result of an explosion? Is the minister likewise aware that the coroner’s inquest found there were no set procedures in that mine for setting off charges, that there was no formal training given to employees and that employees learned only from those most experienced on the job? Does the minister plan to take any action, either against the company or to set some guidelines for the setting off of explosive devices in the mines so that such an accident could not happen again?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, may I first express my thanks to the member for notifying me of this particular situation. I did some questioning within my ministry this morning and I’m told that the staff and the legal people are waiting for the official transcript of the inquest before determining what action we would take. It does appear, sir, from the information we have in a very sketchy way, that there will be action taken, but somewhat late.

Mr. MacDonald: Hopefully there won’t be another accident in the mine.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Carleton East.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES FOR COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transportation and Communications today delivered another 11 pages of anti-federal government material.

I would like to ask him --

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Shame.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Ask the question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The valuable time of the question period is being wasted by such interjections. Order please. Would the hon. member continue with his question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to disrupt the House, but it is obviously very sensitive on this issue.

Mr. G. Nixon: What’s the question?

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Transportation and Communications agree that, contrary to the position he enunciated at great length in this House during ministerial statements on the subject of federal-provincial consultation on communications policy, and particularly with respect to --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the member is making this a statement. Is that a question?

Mr. C. Nixon: What’s the question?

Mr. P. Taylor: Would he agree --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: Will they hang on; I will give it to them. Would the minister agree that it is the federal government’s position that the provinces are asking for a conference on the basis of transferring jurisdictions at a time when the federal government said it is not that subject that will be discussed but rather the sharing of the administration of the jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would not agree, because in the correspondence and the discussions that I’ve had with the Hon. Mr. Pelletier we have discussed the roles and responsibilities of the provincial governments as they relate to communications, and we have asked that the federal-provincial conference deal with that particular matter. I recognize that the federal government has a hang-up on the word “jurisdiction” so we have not even used it. We have talked about the roles and responsibilities of each of the provinces in dealing with this subject.

Mr. P. Taylor: Supplementary: Could the minister say whether or not Ontario is asking for transfer of the jurisdiction over cable television to the provincial jurisdiction?

Mr. Lewis: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, the Ontario government has said all along that we wanted to have jurisdiction over cable; but we have not said that should be a subject for total discussion at a federal-provincial conference. That position has been laid before the federal government, at the initial federal-provincial conference, as the member well knows. He ran the sound equipment there.

Mr. Lewis: No wonder no one heard anything.

Mr. MacDonald: No wonder there was so much static.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

DISMISSAL OF ORC STEWARD

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Would the minister care to make a statement about the government’s position arising out of the dismissal of a certain John P. Damien, steward for five years of the Ontario Racing Commission on the alleged grounds of homosexuality?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this matter would not arise in the House. However, I’m quite prepared to state the government’s position on this.

Mr. Damien has been and probably would continue to be a good and competent steward. It was felt by the racing commission -- and I concurred in the opinion -- that his position had been compromised by certain contacts that he had made with people who might come under his jurisdiction as a judge and a steward. It is felt by the racing commission -- and again I concur in this position -- that the position of a steward is such that there should be no suspicion whatsoever of his ability to act impartially and without any outside influences being exerted upon him, and, therefore, it was felt by the commission -- and I concurred -- that his contract for 1975 should not be renewed.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: We are beyond the time. The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Clement presented Part I of the report of the task force on legal aid under the chairmanship of the Hon. Mr. Justice John H. Osler.

Hon. Mr. Clement presented the 5th annual report of the advisory committee on legal aid.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves, seconded by Mr. R. F. Nixon, that Mr. W. Hodgson, the member for the electoral district of York North, be appointed Deputy Speaker and chairman of the committees of the whole House; and that Mr. G. E. Smith, member for the electoral district of Simcoe East, be appointed deputy chairman of committees of the whole House for this parliament.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the standing committees of the House for the present session be appointed as follows:

1. Procedural affairs committee.

2. Administration of justice committee.

Committees 1 and 2 combined, under the chairmanship of the chairman of the administration of justice committee, will function as a private bills committee.

3. Social development committee.

4. Resources development committee.

5. Miscellaneous estimates committee.

6. Public accounts committee.

7. Regulations committee.

Which said committees shall severally be empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House, provided that all boards and commissions are hereby referred to committees No. 1 to 4 in accordance with the policy areas indicated by the titles of the said committees.

Public accounts for the fiscal year are hereby referred to the public accounts committee and all regulations to the regulations committee.

All standing committees shall report from time to time their observations and opinions on the matters referred to them with the power to send for persons, papers and records.

That there be no duplication of membership among the committees No. 1 to 4 inclusive, or between committees No. 5 to 7 inclusive.

That substitutions be permitted on any committee while considering estimates referred to it, provided that notice of the substitution is given to the chairman of the committee prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Mr. Speaker: It’s quite a lengthy motion, shall we take it as read?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this motion then pass?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No. It’s not my intention at this time to vote against it, but I do want to say something about the committee motion. It is normally extensively debated, and I am rather surprised that it is brought forward at this time.

I want to state quite clearly that we on this side feel that the committee system is not working as effectively as it should. We believe very strongly that the options open to this House to refer bills to standing committee are not accepted frequently enough.

The statistics show clearly that more and more the bills are being examined exclusively by the committee of the whole, rather than in another area where members of the public, interested citizens and groups of interested people who are being directly affected by the legislation, would have a clear opportunity to express their views and hopefully to influence the outcome of the legislation.

We feel very strongly that this is a procedure which has not been adopted as frequently as it should. I think the House leader is clearly aware of the fact that the traditions in sending bills to standing committee were much more closely adhered to in years gone by than they are now. The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) has presented statistics to the House that show that only about seven per cent of the bills now get examination outside the House.

The other thing that concerns me is that the committees seem to be exclusively constructed to examine legislation, that only under very special circumstances are they given the leeway to examine into more general areas pertaining to their ambit of responsibility. Things did not use to be this way.

I believe that the concept the government has to the working of the committee system is contributing to the irrelevance of the committee system and to some extent the irrelevance of this House itself.

It seems strange, for example, that we do not have a standing committee on education, but only one to which education bills are referred for the hind of discussion and perhaps amendment that would come forward on specific bills. It’s obvious, particularly when the whole community is concerned about the quality of education --

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): No, it is not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh yes it is -- and those matters pertaining to the negotiations between teachers and boards, that such a committee would have been doing excellent service for the Minister of Education -- who knows he has had problems in this regard -- as a background for the development of legislation which has been so long pending.

It’s obvious, as well, that we should be establishing a committee which will have direct responsibility, and which could pass on some of its responsibility to experts in the field, to review changes in prices and costs for those services and goods that come under provincial jurisdiction.

We have discussed this in the past. It is an important subject which surely should be debated more fully than just a cursory examination of an elaborate motion at this time.

I believe the motion being repeated from previous years is simply an indication of the bad faith of the government in not upgrading the committee system into something that can be democratically useful.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, without getting into a long debate about the value of the committee system, there are three things I want to suggest.

To begin with, there was a time in the House when committees were used to examine the affairs of boards and commissions; that was done regularly and seemed to be effective. I can recall it was the practice not so many years ago to have Ontario Hydro, for example, appear before the committee, where we spent a long time with them discussing matters of their internal policy. In addition, as my colleague from Waterloo has said, there were a number of other commissions and bodies of the government which appeared regularly and who were then required to answer for their actions. Of late, this doesn’t seem to have been occurring. I don’t quite understand why.

A number of us have asked from time to time that matters be referred to the committees, but we have been told that’s not the appropriate way. And even in the committee, it is very difficult to get the committee itself to call boards or commissions before it. But when they are called, as was the case recently with the Workmen’s Compensation Board, it is of vital importance that the hearings be recorded and that there be a record kept of the things that are said by those people who appear before the committees. The reasons are that there is no point in having the same questions asked over and over again and it would be very easy for people to refer to the record of the proceedings that took place before the committee so that they could determine what the policy of that particular board or commission happened to be at any given time. Not only that, they could refer in years to come to any undertakings that were agreed to by the board or commission with regard to questions asked by members of the Legislature about their functions.

I would like to ask the government House leader that it be a practice that someone be made available or that the equipment be made available to the committees in order that there can be a record kept of all of the proceedings.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Particularly for the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Deans: Well particularly the Workmen’s Compensation Board, but I would suggest, for example, that the whole matter of Hydro expenditures is of such importance to the public of Ontario at this time that that ought to be one of the first undertakings of one of the standing committees and that there must be a record maintained of the answers given.

Beyond that, it is pretty obvious that there has to be an inquiry by a standing committee into the whole field of housing. I asked in the last session that there be some undertaking by the Ministry of Housing that there be discussion of the home ownership programme. I had a guarantee it would take place, but to this point in time there hasn’t been an indication of when and under what conditions.

The other point that we seem to fail to recognize is that the standing committees provide an excellent vehicle for members of the Legislature to hear the views of the public. The standing committee approach, rather than the select committee routine, could have been used over the last number of years -- it has been used fairly effectively on at least two occasions -- and we should be able, as a standing committee, to have hearings into matters of public concern both here in Toronto in the legislative building and outside of the legislative building in other parts of the province for the purpose of allowing individual citizens to express their grievances and concerns directly to members of the Legislature. I think that the standing committee is an ideal vehicle that could be used to obtain that particular end.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that those things simply must be given consideration by the government. We must have a freer rein within committees, and it has to be made clear that it is policy of the Legislature that there be a record made of the hearings before committees.

Secondly, we have to make it clear that it is a policy of the Legislature that all of the boards and commissions, or as many as is humanly possible during any four-year period, appear before the appropriate standing committees. Thirdly, the standing committees must be empowered on their own, as a policy of the Legislature, to conduct hearings into matters which are obviously of public concern; and those hearings need not necessarily be conducted in the committee rooms at Queen’s Park but from time to time, wherever the need arises, they could be conducted in other parts of the province for the purpose of allowing easy access for the public to Parliament. I think that if we were to do that, we would make this place much more relevant.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one brief addition, if I might, in commenting on this, and that is the old issue of restricting substitution to those committees that are considering estimates. I am not going to thrash this old straw. The government’s position seems to be that they want to maintain continuity. But, Mr. Speaker, you don’t maintain continuity by creating a situation in which people are absent. If you permit substitution on all committees, you have an obligation on the person who is officially on the committee to find a substitute.

In many instances there are people who are particularly interested in the topic before the committee that day, and they are anxiously seeking to get on the committee. The result is rather an absurd situation in which sometimes only a third of the people there have the right to vote, because they are the only people who are on the committee; the others are strangers, who wander in for that particular consideration. If the government persists in maintaining this, it’s almost a deliberate undermining of the effectiveness of the committee. I simply can’t understand it. The government is being mindless in its opposition to this.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a couple of other thoughts to this. This motion comes like the ritual sun dance at the beginning of every session --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Something like the ombudsman motion.

Mr. Singer: The same kind of speeches are made, and the government doesn’t change one bit. The government does not believe in the legislative process. It is just as simple as that. For some peculiar reason -- it is a pretty obvious reason, Mr. Speaker -- the idea was that we should not sit on Wednesdays so the committees can function. Yet Wednesday after Wednesday, nothing happens around here. The committees are not called. They do not sit. The cabinet goes off and passes new regulations and imposes new taxes by order-in-council. The committees don’t know what goes on, and they use this as an approach.

The whole committee system is being abused because this government does not believe in the legislative process. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the time has now come that if the government is going to sneer at the committee system, we should sit on Wednesdays and get the work of the Legislature done. Take the Legislature into the confidence of the government and do not do things, as the government did in the Mining Tax Act and impose retroactive taxes by regulation.

Surely the committee system has a proper function; the committee should not be limited only to doing the work that’s sent down to them by the House.

When a minister chooses not to -- and ministers don’t, that’s the new system around here, the ministers don’t want the committees to delve into those bills.

Their attitude is: “Let’s deal with them up here; let’s deal with them up here so eventually we can steamroller them through.” “We don’t want to hear the public. Why should we?” “We don’t want to have those members of the Legislature inquiring into the functions of our departments. Why should we? It’s inconvenient. It might be embarrassing.” Why go through this ritual of nonsense once a session? If the government is just going to flex its muscles and put through a resolution like this, making substitution difficult and referring the very small percentage of bills to the committee, as my colleague from Sarnia says, we just waste Wednesdays, waste one day out of five working days a week. In that situation the government has to be described for what it is; it’s arrogant and it has no belief in the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, I suppose ultimately the disintegration of the committee system is simply a reflection of the disintegration of this government and the process will come to some conclusion at some time.

Mr. Turner: The member for Yorkview doesn’t believe that.

Mr. Young: I can’t let this occasion go by, Mr. Speaker, without again asking the House leader if he has any intention whatsoever of changing the terms of reference of a regulation committee so that that committee has some substance and some meaning.

We have had this committee on this motion for some years now. The committee has seldom met. For a year or two it met, until the members became fed up because they were engaged in a completely meaningless exercise. I suppose the only purpose this committee serves is to afford to the chairman his emolument for the year, and I am not sure that even happened last year.

Mr. Singer: That’s very important.

Mr. Young: I don’t think we even met to choose a chairman; and I suppose, too, that the chairman is --

Mr. Breithaupt: Then they really are falling apart.

Mr. Young: Yes, I suspect the chairman of that committee is accepting money under false pretenses, because he has no status and he doesn’t do anything.

That’s not his fault, Mr. Speaker. I do know that the last chairman of whom I am aware did try to call meetings of the committee function, but the committee members finally in complete disgust refused to come to those meetings because it was such a meaningless exercise.

I wonder if the House leader has some advice as to how this regulations committee might be rejuvenated so that it has some meaning. Certainly the government would have to change the whole term of reference in order to make it meaningful and make it function in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I share the views expressed by my leader, especially with respect to the use of committees as we have seen this develop in this Legislature over the past few years. It has been our view that more investigative procedures and a better response would take place in dealing with legislation if more legislation was sent to the committees.

As my leader has said, it seems from time to time that the actual functioning of this Legislature is becoming less and less relevant to what’s going on within Ontario. We have seen, by the development of regional governments, that very quickly the cabinet is able to get a response to a problem in a certain area by immediately contacting the chairman of the region.

Now that some two-thirds of our population are under this form of government, obviously with the staff that exists in the regional chairperson’s office, it is comparatively easy to get information in detail, on a direct basis, through a minister in Queen’s Park dealing with that chairman. As a result, the elected members in an area may have very little day-to-day knowledge of projects that are developing in depth within their own regions.

The cabinet has decided to resolve part of the problem of meeting with people and getting to know problems by visiting about the province. On June 11, as I read in the press, they’re even going to come to Kitchener, and I certainly would welcome them to our community.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They have a lot of work to do there.

Mr. Breithaupt: The point is that there would appear to be, other than a desire for re-election or whatever partisan purposes one might read into some of the peregrinations, there would, I hope, appear to be a sincere desire to attempt to relate to individuals who are responding by bringing briefs and opinions forward to a meeting of the cabinet or a committee of cabinet when it goes to one of our communities. The attendance may not be large, as that photograph showed of the Hamilton event --

An hon. member: It was mostly empty, wasn’t it?

Mr. Breithaupt: Still there is the facility for individuals, hopefully, to be heard by the cabinet. Surely it’s just as important to provide a facility through which individuals can be heard by the members of this Legislature. If the committees were functioning if for example a bill such as the travel agents bill had gone to committee, many of the upsets, the ruffled feathers, would not have occurred. Persons would have had the opportunity to comment on a bill at a committee stage.

I see virtually no reason why a bill should not stand on an order paper for two or perhaps three weeks in order to get some feedback, some input, not only from the members but more particularly from the people who are expert or interested in the area and have something to say.

The travel agents bill, and the real estate problem that we saw in section 5 of Bill 55 in the last session, is just another situation which could be avoided in great degree if the committee system was used to better advantage.

My colleague, the hon. member for Downsview, has commented on the Wednesday operation. I suppose one can accept the fact that with cabinet and other particular responsibilities it is difficult to operate on a routine basis with Wednesday sittings. But I do recall, Mr. Speaker, in our last session we were able, on consent -- and I think it worked well -- to have a Wednesday afternoon used for some that wished to contribute to the budget debate. I would encourage the government House leader to consider this kind of process again during the early weeks of the session, so that the opportunity might come up when time is more readily available for members to contribute to the Throne or the budget debates, in order particularly to get certain views that they have on various subjects made known to the people they represent.

Mr. Speaker, of course in this situation I can’t speak for the government back-benchers but I would think, since the opportunities for speaking in the House are often more limited to supporters of the ministry, this would be an opportunity to use these additional days, which a government back-bencher would enjoy rather very much. Certainly the question period, speaking on bills and entering into debates are more likely an involvement of an opposition member the way the system works within our Legislature.

However, there is the opportunity for a government back-bencher to contribute particularly. I think the use of perhaps the Wednesday afternoon idea, at least to make the opportunity available, is something which I would encourage the government House leader to consider.

These are some of the points which I think would show that the views we have expressed from time to time on the inadequacy of the use of committees, and the better development of a more practical approach to involving the members of the House in areas in certain depth, are the kinds of things that we would look forward to.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The committee system, which is only in its infancy with respect to development in this province, is the best device that we have for the interrogating of government. It is somehow far more intimate, far more penetrating, far more searching, far more to the point than anything we can seem to generate here.

In committee not only do we get the widest range of cabinet officers sitting, but with their contingents behind them, and in this way we can come to grips in a very direct way with the issue involved. There is some kind of a veil here, some kind of a floating away when we try to lock horns over an issue in this House. It can be done, but in committee it can be done infinitely better, in my experience.

I want to attack for a moment a myth, a myth generated by the Liberal Party in the province in presenting figures with respect to the number of bills that go to the committee. It seems to me to be neither here nor there in absolute figures how many go; which ones go is the important issue. Does the bill that needs the rewarding scrutiny of committee get there? By and large, Mr. Speaker, they do, overwhelmingly they do.

May I just say another denigratory word with respect to the Liberal Party? In the past six months they haven’t been showing up. They may wail and weep and clap their hands, but the fact is that when we get to committee, who is there? I have attended too many committee meetings as the sole member of the opposition interrogating a very tricky piece of legislation. I would then ask for some assistance on some occasions from the official opposition in this particular regard.

Mr. Breithaupt: And the member’s own colleagues too, I trust.

Mr. Lawlor: By and large when they do send someone -- they know their members who have skill and capability in this regard, and bless them -- too often they send a merely token representative who says nothing, sits on his hands and listens all day.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s not right; that’s not fair.

Mr. Lawlor: Really, if this party aspires to become --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: -- as the polls indicate that they are going to become, the government of this province --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: -- then they had better bestir themselves.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I sit in abject wonder when the member for Lakeshore --

Mr. Lawlor: They had better give it a little more rejuvenation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are blinded by the member’s halo.

Mr. Lawlor: They just might become the government, Lord help us, but the fact is, when they come to office, they had better come equipped --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If the member keeps on supporting the Tories we will.

Mr. Lawlor: -- and know what it is all about and have members over there who can stand up and know their competency.

Mr. Breithaupt: We will have more of them than he can remember, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lawlor: They are not going to do that with their present sitting-on-their-hands disposition, I can tell them that.

Mr. Speaker, I have a second minor attack to make this morning, on the press.

Mr. Gaunt: I am going to report to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) what the member said.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for Riverdale won’t like that.

Mr. Breithaupt: All the members in the front row of his party should be here to hear him say that.

Mr. Lawlor: We can sit in committee until our eyes grow blue, and mine are only hazel at the moment. Does anybody drop down to visit us? Does anyone ever interrogate us as to what is going on down there?

As has been mentioned here, no record whatsoever is kept of the proceedings, so they are lost. I don’t regret that deeply. I don’t think posterity will be crying out. But the fact is that on some occasions, and peculiarly often -- more often, in my poor opinion, than in this body -- matters of significant importance are being lanced in those committees, which are completely bypassed.

I think they’re a mine of information. I think it’s extremely valuable what goes on there, by and large. Even the acrimony of the debate has another extra little edge to it that makes it palatable to some of us.

What happens in this regard? I heard a member of this House say -- and his name shall be unbespoken -- “Why would I ever bother going to committee?” He is a brilliant and good member of this House. “Why would I ever show up on one of your committees, no matter what the legislation is? It doesn’t get any coverage. It’s not taken down. I stay where these matters will receive public attention.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: Was there anybody from the member’s front row?

Mr. Lawlor: I admit that’s shrewd; it’s extremely shrewd in politics. I admit it’s cynical. I admit that it’s a kind of a lazy man’s holiday at the same time. Politics to such members is 90 per cent exhibitionism and 10 per cent hard work. Now, if you go to committee, Mr. Speaker, it’s just the opposite, obviously --

Mr. Breithaupt: Give us 10 good minutes.

Mr. Lawlor: -- and the question of fulfilling our mandates and really making a contribution to the province will be best accomplished there. If that is not carried out, then I do think the committees are no use.

Could we please move towards substitutions in a free and open way? Very often, when one wants to go down there, because of particular interest in a problem, one sits there like a mummy looking straight at the ceiling and it doesn’t do a bit of good. You can’t enter into the debate until everybody else has been foreclosed or has taken the time up and said all the brilliant things you were going to say and have forgotten. Here you are sitting there -- and you can’t vote, you can’t move a motion. Your hands are tied. You may be the only one to understand your own motion, so what are you going to do in that particular context?

What little piece off the end of the government’s nose would be involved in making this concession, which for years has been asked for by the opposition over here? Please move in that regard. There’s nothing to be gained on the government’s side by taking a constructive stand about that tiny matter, and it would open up a great deal of scope to us who go from committee to committee and would like to pop into and come out of particular hearings. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to be lengthy but I do intend to be constructive. May I suggest to the minister that substitution should be free. There is no necessity at all to come along and say, on attending the meeting, that I’m substituting for this and that member. If the Liberal representation on a committee happens to be four members, as long as there are four Liberals there that should be sufficient. There shouldn’t be any need for checking on the list to see whether a member happens to be a member of that committee.

Another point, Mr. Speaker, is that the administration of justice committee, for example, happens to have the responsibility of about five different estimates. The opposition representation happens to be four Liberals and three New Democrats. I would suggest in such an instance, if we keep that representation, that at least the critic of the department under discussion during those estimates should be a member of that committee automatically, so that there would be four members plus the critic --

Mr. Breithaupt: And be allowed to vote.

Mr. B. Newman: -- who would be allowed to vote and present motions in there.

The social development committee covers six different ministries, and estimates from any one of the six ministries are sent to that committee, yet the representation is four from the Liberal Party and three from the New Democratic Party. I would suggest again that at least the critic of a particular ministry’s estimates should be a member of that committee automatically when those estimates are sent down there.

I would prefer, Mr. Speaker, at the very least, to have representation from each of the two political parties according to the number of estimates and then the government party representation could be increased substantially if they wish to maintain the percentage balance in the House. But substitution should be free, and consideration of estimates should always include the critic of the estimates under discussion.

I can recall last year in Education where one of the members didn’t have an opportunity to present any suggestions simply because he was not a member of the committee. Those are the suggestions I make, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would you, sir, permit a very quick question to the Chairman of the Management Board under this discussion?

Mr. Speaker: Undoubtedly the hon. minister will be replying.

Mr. P. Taylor: When he replies would the minister state whether or not the government would be prepared to refer this matter to the appropriate committee for a full discussion of it where it could be resolved in the interests of the integrity of this House and, in some sense, to help my hon. friend and his party regain some of their lost prestige among the public?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate the one point about substitution on committees. As the labour critic of this party I found myself in the position on the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act -- which the minister is well aware of -- of not being able to so much as present a motion.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If the member had kept his mouth shut, I would have got away with it.

Mr. Reid: I didn’t say anything; it wasn’t me. But it is a ridiculous situation, as I think the minister is well aware.

The other thing is, I would like to put in a plea to the minister for more opposition representation on the public accounts committee. As it is now the Liberals have two, the NDP two, and the Conservatives eight. With a Liberal member as the chairman of the public accounts committee that only leaves one other member of the Liberal Party able to present motions. If something happens to that particular gentleman -- if he has to be in his riding, or if he is ill or whatever -- then he is not able to be present at the meetings of the public accounts committee, which probably meets more often than any other committee.

So I would like the minister to take a look at that with a view to increasing the number of opposition members on the public accounts committee.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t think that the matter would draw as much comment as it did.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It always does.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It doesn’t always. But however, inasmuch as it did I think that some of the statements that were made, of course, require reply.

I am a little disappointed in the terms that the member for Downsview used in the course of his contribution. I think that so far as the government is concerned in moving as it has to make the Legislature more independent unto itself doesn’t indicate in any area whatsoever that we are endeavouring to be anything but co-operative and as democratic as possible.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It amounts to running the whole show.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would say too, Mr. Speaker, that some of the points are well taken and the substitution aspect of committees is, of course, very important; it is important to the government as well and I will certainly have a very careful look at it. However, if the matter is left entirely open, as some members have suggested, it is nothing more than a committee of the whole House -- nothing more whatsoever. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, on the question of estimates, they are sufficiently well scheduled that any party knows in advance in sufficient time --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, careful now.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- particularly for the opposition to have their critics there. I don’t think that there is much argument there. But there are other aspects of the substitution point of view which I certainly am going to take under consideration.

The question arose about the standing committees being recorded. I have said time and time again in the House that I don’t interfere with the function of the committees --

Mr. Deans: The minister doesn’t have to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- and surely that’s a determination of the committee itself.

Also, so far as the committees sitting on a Wednesday is concerned, I want to tell the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, that again I think that that’s largely in their hands. I don’t want to dictate to any committee to say they must or must not sit on a Wednesday.

I say in all good conscience, Mr. Speaker, that the function of the cabinet on Wednesdays is indeed a very full one and I believe that the committees can be fully utilized for that day as well, if they so choose to do, but I am afraid that what the member from Lakeshore said applies in some respects and is quite accurate, and also, in regard to the statistics concerned, I agree with him totally. It isn’t the numbers that matter; it’s the importance of what gets sent there. With that point of view I agree, and I’ll certainly look at that very, very carefully.

I am not totally convinced that the reference that the leader of the Liberal Party has made in regard to statistics in the last year is correct, because I think that situation improved somewhat. I must say this, that in the course of the last session the degree of co-operation that was practised among the parties was unquestionably a very commendable one and I really don’t see any arguments that can be brought forth about the conduct of that particular function in the last session. I hope that it will continue and I hope that it will improve.

Certainly, where the aspect of substitution is concerned, I have now informed the members that I will in fact be cognizant of the requests. Also, I think that with the change of the function of the Legislature now, the new organization can look more carefully also on the recommendations that are placed before the Legislature where the Legislature itself is concerned. And, of course, where government policy is concerned, the government will have to accept its responsibilities in those areas.

I wanted to answer the member for Carleton East but I forgot what his question was, Mr. Speaker. If you would allow him to repeat it -- without the facetious remarks that followed -- I’ll try and get at it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: Will the minister refer this matter to the appropriate committee for full discussion of it and work out the --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, I will not.

Mr. P. Taylor: Well that’s wonderful.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): What about the regulations committee?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that a select committee of 13 members be appointed to prepare and report with all convenient dispatch a list of members to compose the standing committees ordered by the House, such committee to be composed as follows:

Mr. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton), chairman; Messrs. Allan Beckett, Carruthers, Deans, Havrot, Henderson, Maeck, Newman (Windsor-Walkerville), Nuttall, Stokes, Villeneuve and Worton.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

POLLUTION ABATEMENT INCENTIVE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. W. Newman moves the first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Pollution Abatement Incentive Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

MEDICAL DATA BANK ACT

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish a Medical Data Bank.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a medical data bank in which would be stored in computerized form medical histories of persons in Ontario who wish to participate in such a data bank. Such records, Mr. Speaker, could be of vital assistance in the case of accident or sudden illness when the patient’s personal physician is unavailable for consultation. Also, details of medical histories would be immediately available to physicians and hospitals when a patient moves to another city or changes doctors.

The proposed data bank, Mr. Speaker, would be operated and maintained by the provincial Ministry of Health and every public hospital would have an outlet for the medical histories of persons using the hospital.

Written consent of the person concerned would be required before the record was stored in the bank and the medical history could not be removed without the written consent of his or her legally qualified medical practitioner.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, participation in the use of this data bank would be on a volunteer basis only.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT, 1975

Mr. Haggerty moves first reading of bill intituled An Act to relieve Persons from Liability in Respect to Voluntary Emergency Medical First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the short title would be the Good Samaritan Act, and the purpose of this bill is to relieve persons from liability in respect to voluntary emergency first aid assistance and medical services rendered at or near the scene of an accident, or in the case of a sudden emergency.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want my first words to be those of commendation to her Honour the Lieutenant Governor for the effective and charming way she fulfilled her duties on Tuesday of this week in reading the Speech from the Throne. I was quite surprised that the hon. member moving an address in reply was critical of me for saying that the speech was -- what was the phrase? -- bankrupt of leadership and ideas.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Just ideas.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is strange, you know, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member in moving the humble address in reply would be under the impression that any of the shortcomings of that speech had anything to do with the gracious lady herself.

The thing that interests me is that the Conservative caucus could meet up there in the Hyatt Regency, with all of the luxury, all of the good food and drink that the party or somebody could buy them, and they could sit idly by and say; “Yes, Bill, that is a good speech.” Surely they have shirked their responsibilities as private members of this House when they would allow the government to put in those empty phrases in the mouth of that charming lady. Now, we know that she has within her competence all of the powers of government.

It concerns me very much indeed that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor), in moving that a humble address be sent to Her Honour, would come forward with such a fatuous comment when the responsibility for that speech lies directly with his own leader. I trust his leader consults with him and the other members of his caucus from time to time. Why else were they up there at the Hyatt Regency? Had they gathered only to examine the second report of the Gallup poll?

It seems incredible to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative caucus would have shirked its responsibilities to the extent that it would have allowed such a speech -- empty of leadership, empty of concept, empty of direction, empty of programme -- to be put before this House and to be put forward by our honoured Governor in her first Throne Speech. It is a matter of concern to me, and perhaps this is the best place to refer to it, that the position of the Governor should in no way -- in no way -- be reduced in its importance. I feel that the government more and more is using the position of the Governor to perhaps remove some of the sting of the opposition to the programmes that they have put forward.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): What sting in the opposition?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I can remember very distinctly attending, for example, the inaugural meeting of the regional government of Oxford. Her Honour was asked to attend and she delivered an excellent speech; no doubt she had some assistance from her appropriate ministers in preparing it, but that is their responsibility and obviously it is hers to follow their advice. But one thing that I felt was substantially out of place was that there is a clear understanding in that community, as in every other one where regional government has been imposed, that not all of the citizens and taxpayers think it’s the greatest idea that has come down the road. In fact, many of them are substantially offended at the increased costs and the reduction in the influence they have on their local government by these bills. To have the Governor make her speech, as she does most effectively, and then be required to sit and listen to the Treasurer of the day get up and in most acrimonious terms indicate his views of anyone who opposed the view, certainly, in my view, does nothing to strengthen the office of the governorship.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): The Leader of the Opposition has said that for the last four years.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I say that once simply to indicate to the government that they should be careful of their procedures in involving this gracious lady and this high office in the matters of -- let’s say the establishment of acceptance of their policies.

I am concerned as well that the speech did nothing to provide leadership in the areas that are concerning our taxpayers, the people, the residents of this province, let alone the members of the Legislature. It was nothing but bland platitudes on unemployment, inflation, on the problems of housing, on the growing problems of labour relations, teacher negotiations, the development of the north, the development of a plan for the Province of Ontario to bring our growth under some rational control. It was an incredible abdication of leadership and, in my view, a further downgrading of the once great Tory governing party and the emphasis of the evil days it is falling on under the leadership of this Premier (Mr. Davis).

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): And all six government members who are here shake their heads.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is interesting that the chortles and interjections come from that mighty band called the Tory rump --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Loud noises from the rump.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- perennially waiting for some kind of an appointment --

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): And perennially getting nothing from the opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- always waiting to get over into the government side so that they too, I suppose, could vamoose when anybody not supporting the government has anything to say in this House.

Mr. Breithaupt: Lots of interjections.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I suppose I would be falsely modest if I didn’t think that at least this occasion is worthy of some attention by the government and when I look across there -- what are there, 74 Tory members?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Six of them there now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- it goes down week by week but I can count and I can easily count about 55 empty blue seats. If it were not for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) over there, it really wouldn’t be worth coming in at all; at least she dresses up the visual portion to some extent --

Mr. Maeck: It indicates the value of what the member has to say.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and I won’t refer to what the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) does to it.

Mr. S. Lewis: Is the provincial secretary going to take that sitting down? Does she want me to send this Hansard to Laura Sabia?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Please.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That is a sexist comment if ever I heard one.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It certainly is.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am very much concerned that in fact the discussions in this Legislature are becoming more irrelevant than they ever have before. Now, of course, Mr. Speaker, you may say what I may be about to say is irrelevant, but I will tell you that there are many people in this province who are deeply concerned at the lack of programmes, not only in the Speech from the Throne -- not everyone is aware of that yet and they may not be --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Forty-two per cent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- but certainly they are aware of the lack of thrust of leadership that this government has failed to bring forward in the last months and years.

Mr. Maeck: Let the member tell us about all the programmes he has put forward.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: My hon. friend, the member who has moved that a humble address be sent to the governor, is interjecting, but he --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: No, that was me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- seems to forget that in the four years that he has been supporting his Premier, his party has lost four by-elections; his batting average is zero. I wish ours had been 1000, but after all three out of four is not had. I don’t feel badly about that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In the absence of the Premier, who about this stage usually gets up and says, “Well, by-elections are an occasion when the people get a chance to express their dissatisfaction with the government without risking any change.” I would say that he takes perhaps some false comfort from this, because while he is, I know, a student of history, he seems to forget that Les Frost never ever lost a by-election, he won them all. And the only ones that John Robarts lost were the ones that were unwinnable, like the one in Brant. I would say that the Premier’s position in saying that by-elections --

Mr. MacDonald: It ain’t true. They lost South Renfrew and then they gained it in the next by-election. Let’s keep the record straight.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, well, if we want to go into all those details.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, let’s keep the record straight.

Mr. Breithaupt: Whistling in the dark.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Middlesex South, that’s true. But I believe that the Premier’s satisfaction in saying, “Well, governments always lose by-elections” is simply misplaced. But he is right when he says, “The only poll that really counts is the one that is conducted on election day.” I agree with him; I wholly agree with him in that, because that’s the defence I used when I was defending second place. I think that all of us --

Mr. Breithaupt: He is quoting an authority.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- are aware that while the polls stimulate interest, enthusiasm, concern in some quarters --

Mr. Lewis: I should think.

Mr. MacDonald: Also puffery.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- they are simply an indication of what the political temperature happens to be at that particular time, and that these things obviously change.

That’s what politics is all about. That’s why we raise matters in the Legislature. That’s why the Premier perambulates with his cabinet, that’s why he travels to Italy, that’s why he goes on “This Country in the Morning” with Judy LaMarsh. Perhaps this programme has been completed by now because probably he would enjoy that more than listening to more direct criticisms of his programme.

But the polls are there. I don’t want to say that I’m surprised at the strength they show for the Liberal Party. Let’s say I am gratified and deeply interested, that my supporters are certainly gratified, deeply interested and enthused because they show that there is now a clear 12-point spread of leadership for the Liberal Party ahead of the Conservatives, and interestingly enough, the NDP is just where it was in 1971, only down a point.

There are many things, of course, to humble the people who lead the polls. Let’s say the fact that among people under 30 the NDP leads, and there is a close division between the NDP and the Liberals there, but it appears that the voters under 30 have left the government party almost completely. The Tories hardly show on that graph. The initiatives that were part of Conservative governments over many years, with Mr. Frost and Mr. Robarts, have somehow been lost and certainly they have not been regained in the speech that was presented to us by Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor on Tuesday last.

Some of you may recall the Speech from the Throne, or perhaps it was the budget, just before the election of 1967. There were those who were saying that the Conservatives were old and tired, that Robarts was a loser, that in fact he somehow hadn’t grasped the leadership magic that had been passed on to him by Les Frost. But some of you may remember the government programmes that flowed out of the Speech from the Throne and the budget then. Home Ownership Made Easy, the development of wild rivers, programmes for the north, a full range of tax credits -- there they were. And in fact the system is supposed to work like that.

If there were not opposition to the government they would presume that they were doing perfectly. As a matter of fact, even when there is opposition this handful of valiant people feel that they are doing perfectly. Even this morning there were two separate instances to programmes enunciated that were the best, I think, in the English-speaking world. Have they got something better in eastern Europe, or something like that? I don’t know. But it’s a very strange thing that opposition coming forward in the community doesn’t stimulate this government to some action other than -- well, what have we got?

The Premier says, “A serious lack of communication is the only problem we have. The people do not understand our programmes.” Yet when I read the weekly newspapers and the dailies in my community, the government is in there with at least one major display ad.

We were interested to see that even the Provincial Auditor is concerned that $3.2 million has been spent without a tender and without even a contract to put forward the government’s programme. My God! If the government has a communication problem why doesn’t it get somebody that can help it? Why doesn’t it institute a tendering programme and maybe it can find a good advertising agency that will give it some help. This strange commitment to Dalton Camp Associates’ president Norman Atkins of $1.8 million spent there specifically is maybe one of the government’s problems. Just because he was the chairman of its election campaign in 1971, the government feels it has some special commitment to him. Well, he is letting the government down because the Premier himself says that government problems in communicating are really what is setting it back in the public opinion polls.

When one reads the ethnic press -- which I read regularly in at least 30 languages -- one finds that once again the government advertising agency is going full steam ahead. There is the picture of the Premier -- it used to be John Yaremko and now it is Bob Welch riding around in that big black car, expressing his views of concern and support to each one of those groups. There is the money week by week put forward in those newspapers. The Premier travels to Italy and still his support drops in the community of Metropolitan Toronto, where there are 800,000 and more voting people of Italian extraction.

The cabinet gathers itself together each Wednesday, and travels across the province, so that they can indicate that this is an open government ready to listen to the people. I would think they are getting a little sick of it because we read the accounts of the direct criticism and the inability of the cabinet to respond in any positive way, other than to give it “careful consideration.” I would suggest to the cabinet ministers present -- and I guess there may be three here -- the Minister of the Environment wants to go but he doesn’t want to leave the front row empty --

Mr. Breithaupt: He has been looking around too much.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, he is getting a little uneasy. It will be interesting to see what happens as this speech goes on.

An hon. member: He has just promoted himself.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have some special comments to make for my good friend, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth), who has just moved into the front row. If he had minded his P’s and Q’s a few years ago, he might have made it into the front row in some other capacity.

The Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) isn’t here. One of the major defences that the government brings forward against the Gallup poll is to say, “Well, okay, let’s just laugh it off because it really is very funny and it is not going to last for long.” They say, “Who is our best laugh artist? It has got to be good old Bumpy Rhodes, the Minister of Transportation and Communications.”

The minister makes a statement in which he says the Liberals are like lizards -- not ordinary lizards, my friends, but Australian lizards. I don’t know what the concept there is, whether he is trying to win the Australian vote or lose it, but he says we are like Australian lizards.

I couldn’t help but think, as soon as I saw that, that he leaves himself wide open, because I can remember appearing on Liberal platforms with the hon. gentleman. I can remember when he moved the nomination of a Liberal candidate in his own home town. I suppose, if we have to equate him with some member of the Tory zoo, he has got to be a chameleon because he can change colours just about as conveniently as the Minister of Labour.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Just maturity.

Mr. Singer: Why is the Minister of Labour blushing?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: At least, the Minister of Labour is not a dinosaur like the rest of those lizards and, believe me, they are heading for extinction. That’s a point that the government shouldn’t forget.

Mr. Breithaupt: An endangered species.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, he is a dinosaur, but amiable.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member for Scarborough West is not equating him with George Meany again?

Mr. Lewis: Well, why not?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, I don’t know, I think the two of them, running labour matters in the North American continent --

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): He is not a meanie, he is a nice guy.

An hon. member: The Minister of Labour is a lot younger.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is the Premier, I suppose, that one has to look to for the defence of the Tory party as it crumbles from its positions of eminence which have been so well underpinned by the Premier’s predecessor.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s wishful thinking on the Leader of the Opposition’s part.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: My friend says it is wishful thinking. Where the wishful thinking comes in is when the Premier, going up to the Hyatt House, comes out and makes a statement to the press in which he says, “Public opinion is a pendulum and it is swinging in our direction.”

Mr. Breithaupt: It sure is!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, that’s some pendulum; that’s some swing. Because that very day he had to be informed the spread between the Liberals and Conservatives had widened to 12 per cent. It was interesting that he said, “I know when the swing started back.” He wouldn’t say exactly; he glared at the Globe and Mail reporter and said, “You should know too.”

I presume that’s when Fighting Bill came out to defend Ross Shouldice, one of his fundraisers. I cannot help but think that his association with that loser, Ross Shouldice, isn’t doing him any good and it’s not doing the Minister of Natural Resources any god or any of the rest of them because it is just an indication that the “big blue machine” is going on as it always has looking for the oil that it is going to have to use to buy another election.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of National Resources): That is the member’s opinion.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was interested, also, that the former Treasurer who is now the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White) in charge of the re-election of the government -- what a lost cause that is -- introduced legislation yesterday requiring the control of funds for election purposes. The bill was introduced previously. I would have thought that his statement on the introduction of that bill would have been considerably fuller than it was, because it’s an important piece of legislation. It means -- if it is adhered to in spirit by all political parties and enforced rigorously, as I have no doubt it will be -- that we are in a new political era. The bill is by no means perfect -- we are going to have amendments to put to it -- but I do consider it a piece of landmark legislation. I suppose, if you look for its antecedents, you can look --

Mr. Singer: There the Minister of the Environment goes.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): I have a meeting to attend.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right. Is he going to talk to the Hope township people about that dump? Is that the one he’s going to meet about?

Hon. W. Newman: Is that a question, or is that a comment?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We’ll ask about it very soon.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member is on the side of the angels.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Anyway, I was talking just briefly about the election expenses legislation which, I believe, has got to be seen as landmark legislation. It is legislation that can be stronger in its final form than that which is introduced but which, I believe, is extremely important.

Its antecedent goes back to the discussions in this House of the so-called Fidinam affair. So I suppose, as is often the case, these rather ugly incidents do have some valuable outcome in the long run. We can recall the evidence that Fidinam had given $50,000 to the Tory funds last time; that Moog had given $35,000 to the funds last time. Presumably that will not happen again unless money has already been contributed, and is sitting in barrels somewhere in the cellar of Tory headquarters waiting to be sliced off like cheese to buy another election.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Remember John Wintermeyer?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the thing that concerns me. The Premier is, of course, the main defence of the Tory party. He sees a swing of the pendulum but, in order to show that he is not depending on simply his own magnetic personality, as was the case in 1971, he looked at the Speech from the Throne and decided that he would not expose his flanks, or anything else and said practically nothing. He called for the appointment of an “ombudsperson” as he so laboriously named the office. Of course, you are aware, Mr. Speaker -- and my colleagues are prepared to make you aware repeatedly -- that that particular legislation has been forthcoming from our party since -- what was it? --

Mr. Singer: Since 1965.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- since 1965. But the Premier has been making other statements lately.

In speaking to the Ontario Municipal Electric Association, he was talking about regional government and the concerns that everyone has about that and he said, “There will be no more regional governments.” Before he could finish his statement the enthusiasm of the people from across the province at that meeting interrupted him with loud cheers and applause. Being the careful man that he is, it was necessary for him to complete the statement at the end of the applause and he said, “at this time.”

I think it is clear that if -- and God forbid -- the Conservative Party should be re-elected to power in this province, there will be regional government imposed from one end of the province to the other. This will be a catastrophe for the taxpayers and, even more important, it will be a catastrophe for those people who believe in effective local government. Those who believe the Conservative concept of regionalism simply accept that old and certainly incorrect assumption that bigness is efficient, that bigness is effective, that bigness serves the people better.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if a Conservative is elected in Prince Edward-Lennox that even that famous county will be regionalized -- and the people down there had better take that into consideration when they look at the alternatives that face them in the next election.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s right; that’s right.

Mr. B. F. Nixon: I would suggest that if the Conservatives are re-elected, and God forbid, even Chatham-Kent would be regionalized. And that is an area where the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) himself, now that he is back in the saddle as the chief planner, the chief regionalizer, the chief energy spokesman, the chief negotiator with the various governments of Canada, the chief adviser to the Premier, and perhaps the chief threat to the Premier’s position, he is the man -- he is the only man -- who might protect Chatham-Kent from regionalization.

There is something ironic there since he was the author of the concept and it was under his direction and power that regional government has already been imposed on 60 per cent of our taxpayers, who are now carrying this additional and unfortunate load.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Now the Liberal leader is developing new Conservative policies.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Where is the Liberal leader going?

An hon. member: Just hang on, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Is that a statement of policy?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I made some comments about the only direct promise that came from the Speech from the Throne, and that was for the appointment of an ombudsman. There was also a reference to some changes in agricultural policy, which I would like to deal with later in my remarks.

I have had an opportunity to examine the speech carefully and the Premier, I suppose because he has made some errors in the past, has been careful really to promise nothing. I think he’s wise to do that, because his speeches from the Throne previously have been a record of broken promises.

In the 1972 Throne Speech the government promised implementation of the Toronto-centred region plan. Nothing was done and the plan has now been discarded. Everybody that I’ve talked to, and certainly my party, is very much concerned about the decentralization of growth away from the Toronto-centred region. The very name of that plan at the time gave the rest of the people of the province the concept -- correct when we see the programmes evolving -- that Toronto is the centre of the universe in the mind of this government. They seem to believe that although their attempts have been frustrated to direct growth elsewhere, this is really something that they can accept readily since it is the way the universe would unfold, as someone else might say in these circumstances. The Toronto-centred region plan was a promise, but its development has been frustrated by the government’s own policy and it’s now in the discard.

In the same speech we were promised a system of off-track betting facilities that never materialized, to be administered by a provincial government board that was never established.

Also in the 1972 Throne Speech the government pledged to seek further means by which housing construction could be encouraged. That year they underspent their housing budget by more than $54 million, about $47 million of which was allocated for home ownership programmes.

The promise of that year of initiatives to increase exports of Ontario-grown agricultural food products must ring hollow in the ears of many of Ontario’s farmers. In the absence of any provincial government assistance, for example, the pork marketing board has recently had to act independently and at their own expense to establish trade with Japan even though our Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) is even now down in Los Angeles consorting -- let’s say carrying out discussions -- with movie stars and others in the establishment of our trade with that other jurisdiction.

The list of broken promises from the 1973 Throne Speech is even longer. The government spoke of preservation of our physical resources as an urgent requirement and promised land use controls where agricultural lands are concerned. There is still no policy for the preservation of agricultural land. Development companies are still permitted to buy good agricultural land, as Bramalea Consolidated Development has recently done, north and east of the city of Brantford in some of the very best farmland anywhere. This was carried out at the same time that Ontario Housing holds a full 1,000 acres to the west of the city which has simply been left in the land bank without any development programme at all.

It’s interesting to note under those circumstances that the threat is more or less put to the various governments in Brant county that until they are prepared to ask for and accept the Conservative government concepts of regionalism there is no way that that 1,000 acres of Ontario Housing-held land is going to be developed. The facilities for servicing it can be extended with reasonable costs and with reasonable ease, with co-operation between the governments involved. And still the government holds that threat, almost a blackmail threat, over the municipalities saying, “Nothing can be done as long as you resist regional government.”

The government itself continues to destroy prime agricultural land with projects like the Bradley-Georgetown hydro line that was approved without even the pretence of public hearings and now has been specifically exempted from the additional hearings that should have been called under the direction of the royal commission appointed yesterday by announcement of the policy secretary.

Also in 1973 -- we are talking about government promises that have been unfulfilled -- the government promised to ensure the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment. Today they are on the verge of approving development plans for a resort community of 7,500 on the escarpment near Collingwood, despite concern among members of the watchdog Niagara Escarpment commission and many others. They have never moved toward paying anything to those landholders whose values have been reduced by any of these actions. The 1973 Throne Speech promised further legislation on the disposal of solid waste which has so far amounted to a ban on pull-tab tops on cans and nothing more.

The minister outside the House made some announcement yesterday that within a year pop companies had to do something about disposable containers or they had to reintroduce refillable containers but there has, in essence, been a promise made that has not been fulfilled.

The government promised a still non-existent noise abatement programme in co-operation with municipalities. In the absence of province-wide noise regulations, municipal governments still pass their own bylaws and there was one very weak and ineffectual approach to that at the last session.

The promise to encourage more effective planning at the local level has been broken many times through arbitrary provincial government interference in local planning matters. I am going to be talking about these super cities that are envisaged by the former Treasurer, but in his comments and statements about the new cities that he hopes and expects to be built in the Haldimand-Norfolk area, he clearly said that he would not allow locally elected officials to stand in the way of his concepts for development. But the 10,000-acre industrial park assembly in Edwardsburgh township was assembled without any consultation with local government, as were the two new town sites assembled in Haldimand-Norfolk.

Legislation to establish the North Pickering Development Corp. was passed last month about one week before the Durham regional council even had an opportunity to present its views to cabinet.

This whole idea that has been a part of Throne Speeches in the past, having to do with effective planning at the local level, has been worse than a charade. It has been a substantial attempt, a deliberate attempt, to mislead those local officials. The government of the day is prepared to ride roughshod over those rights and this is something that the people are not going to put up with.

The integrated community housing programme that was mentioned in the 1973 Throne Speech was a failure and has now been replaced by the Ontario Housing Action Programme. We get two or three of these programmes every Throne Speech and, frankly, I regret that there was nothing more specific mentioned in the speech this time, because we feel that the present programmes are totally inadequate and I am going to be dealing with that more fully further in my remarks.

The speech also promised in 1973 a forest management programme including the regeneration of cutover lands. The statistics available from the ministry itself show clearly that there has been no attempt even made to fulfill that promise in the Speech from the Throne.

It was also in the 1973 Throne Speech that this government promised a new intermediate-capacity transit system to help meet the transportation needs of our larger cities. That misguided scheme collapsed last year, but not until the West German government had the wisdom to withdraw its financial support.

In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I was rather concerned when the president of the corporation that has had and still has the responsibility for the magnetic levitation alternative, indicated that the government was still substantially interested in its development and the research that would lead to its development.

I feel that we should stop throwing good money after bad in this regard and that it is a shame the government has continued to have some expenditure directed in that way. We are still faced with bills from that ill-fated venture. The Canadian National Exhibition has billed the government for something close to $1 million for the trees they cut down to make way for the monorail system which has since been abandoned.

Finally, I refer to the legislation with respect to negotiations between the teaching profession and the school boards that was promised in 1973 and has still not been enacted, even though that promise was repeated in the Throne Speech a year ago. Since the government, and particularly the Premier, is very sensitive when anybody uses the words “integrity” or “incompetence” -- he doesn’t like to be criticized on either of those matters -- I feel that since those Throne Speeches that have been directly this Premier’s responsibility, it is important and necessary for the people to understand the commitments that were not fulfilled.

The 1974 Throne Speech also promised proposals for further development of a comprehensive health plan. Nothing was done, Provisions for the mandatory use of automobile seatbelts were never introduced, although we are now spending $650,000 to persuade people to buckle up.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Do the Liberals want them?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where do they stand on them? We believe that seatbelts should be used, that it is the responsibility of the government to see that they are used.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Does the member want the wearing of them compulsory?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This kind of waste of money is typical of a government that has lost the will to lead and the will to govern and is going to be defeated on the basis of that loss.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Singer: The member would be doing better if he weren’t here.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He should have stayed in bed this morning.

Mr. Singer: They’ll probably love him in Prince Edward-Lennox for a while.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The speech further promised a legislative programme concerning family law and clarifying the legal rights of married persons, only one part of which was introduced and even that was never proceeded with, despite the Attorney General’s commitment -- and I quote him from Hansard -- “to proceed with it later on in the session.”

A further promise, a revised Planning Act, has never been presented; as far as we know, there isn’t even any work going on with it. If that Planning Act were brought up to date, the powers that urban centres must and should have to establish and fulfill their own planning goals would be clearly understood and clearly a part of the law, and not subject to the interference that has played a number of urban municipalities.

A further promise was a closer partnership with other levels of government in the area of housing. That has been all but destroyed by the intemperate attacks of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) on municipal governments, particularly concerned about growth, and the federal government’s housing agency.

A further promise of new accommodation and staffing regulations for daycare facilities created so much confusion and bitterness when they were announced that they have not been enacted as yet.

Limitations and controls on outdoor advertising have never appeared.

Twice we have been promised an environmental review procedure which once again, in response to questions today, the Minister of the Environment has said is not forthcoming.

This record of unkept promises and unfulfilled commitments is one of the reasons that Ontario has lost confidence in this government’s integrity. In the circumstances, perhaps it is best that the 1975 Throne Speech contained so little. The chance for disappointment is much less.

I feel that this is an occasion when we should review the commitments and promises of the government since the member for Peel North (Mr. Davis) took over the Premiership in 1971. I feel, in conjunction with that, it is interesting and useful to note the changes in our budgetary commitments during that period of time.

To go back to the year which resulted in the election of our present Premier to his high office, John Robarts, as leader of the government in those days, presented the House though his Treasurer, Charlie MacNaughton, with a budget that gave us a $150 million surplus. That was the last time we have seen any black ink at the bottom line of the provincial budget since the present Premier has been associated with the premiership. Even in those days, the Treasurer, Mr. MacNaughton, was making statements about the problems that might face us if careful direction were not part of the financial planning.

You will remember he talked about a fiscal nightmare, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you we have a fiscal nightmare now, because in the budget presented the deficit -- and those are the words of the Treasurer himself -- was predicted to be $792 million this year but something called the net cash requirements was predicted to be $1.1068 billion.

I think it’s interesting to note that the Speech from the Throne this year referred to the fact that the public debt had been reduced by a substantial amount this year and last year. Once again, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the province have been seriously misled if they read those words and pay any attention to them. We have come from a position, when the Premier took over the reins of office here, where we had a $150 million surplus in that year, the last year of Mr. Robarts’s responsibility, to this year where we are going behind $1.1 billion.

Much of that money is borrowed from the government of Canada, from the teachers’ superannuation fund, from the superannuation fund from the public service and sources such as that, where by order in council those moneys are simply transferred to the consolidated revenue fund and the interest payments, inadequate though they are, are established once again by order in council. Any government that does not think that that is a commitment, a public debt, a trust, and does not report it that way surely is in serious problems with those people who have in the past conveyed their confidence to it.

I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that any company that got into the employees’ pension fund and transferred it to their own funds for their own use would find themselves closed up and before the courts in short order. It could well be that with the resources of this province those funds cm and should be used for public purposes, but surely they should be accounted for in such a way that the people are not being misled into the clap-trap that came from the Speech from the Throne associated with the refunding of our public debt. Our public debt at the present time -- and this is our net debt -- is $3694 billion. This does not include the additional debt for which we are responsible that has been incurred by Ontario Hydro. This is the net debt with nothing to offset it.

Treasurer White, before his retirement, was saying: “Suppose we look at our highways as being offsetting assets. Then that net debt would not look so bad.” We can’t accept that argument. You can’t sell the highways, Mr. Speaker. I suppose Garfield Weston would buy them from us and set up toll gates or something if we let him, but that concept is absolutely ridiculous. What does a government tax and spend money for, if it is not to provide services, such as highway programmes to provide employment? For the Treasurer to try to set that up as some sort on an offsetting entry into a debt of $3.694 billion is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I set out to compare our position now with what it was in 1971 when the Premier assumed his present office. The net debt in the last year of John Robarts’ responsibility was $1.3 billion. The net debt has increased in the four years of the Davis administration 165 per cent, and still they tell us in the Speech from the Throne that our debt is being retired by payment. It’s seriously misleading and I feel that it is offensive, certainly to the members of this. House and the taxpayers.

Besides the net debt, of course, we have a substantial debt which does have offsetting ingredients as far as the books of the province are concerned. But I think the best way to look at our commitment is to see what gross interest payments must be made in the name of the Province of Ontario. In John Robarts’ last year, $305 million -- no mean amount -- was required for our debt and interest charges. This year, 1974-1975, we will be paying $682 million in interest alone. The interest payments have increased in the four years of the present Premier’s stewardship by 124 per cent.

I bring those facts and figures to your attention, Mr. Speaker, simply to balance the statements that we have been subjected to in the Speech from the Throne and by the ministers as they, day by day, get up in their places and talk about the excellence of the performance of the government. I would say to you that the performance has been seriously inept, that the administration has been weak and costly.

There has been serious overlapping in responsibilities and duplication of services. We have continued with a cabinet that is top heavy in its administrative responsibilities, and ramifying into the regions of this province with more and more public servants and more and more staff facilities which are making a mockery of any attempt to control provincial expenditures. Ontario is falling behind in all of these important areas, and they are matters of concern to us all.

One part of the 1975 Throne Speech that cannot go unchallenged is the assertion that Ontario will continue to fulfill its accustomed role within the Canadian nation. In fact, all the evidence indicates that under this administration Ontario is falling seriously behind. Where once we were the keystone of Confederation, in many areas -- fiscal, economic and financial -- we have now become the millstone. We’re not pulling our weight in the economy, in food production, in house building, in education, not even in urban transit. Despite our tremendous natural advantages, despite our rich resources of people, of land, of mineral wealth, the government has been unable to maintain Ontario’s hard-earned position of strength and leadership.

I want to draw to your attention specifically, Mr. Speaker, those various areas that I have mentioned and compare them with the development of Canada in these three to four years, and with the other provinces, our sisters in Confederation.

First, in unemployment, the proportion of unemployed workers in Ontario’s labour force has jumped 21.7 per cent during the past two months, compared to a 13.3 per cent increase Canada-wide. Ontario’s unemployment rate is going up almost two-thirds faster than the national rate. In British Columbia and Nova Scotia the unemployment rate has been dropping. In Newfoundland and New Brunswick it has been rising only half as fast as in Ontario, and in Quebec the rate of increase in unemployment is only one-third the increase in unemployment here. Those are the facts available.

In exports, the value of Canadian exports increased 58.6 per cent between 1972 and 1974. Ontario’s exports were up by only 34.1 per cent -- only three-fifths the national rate. We’re the richest province in Canada. Since Confederation we have prided ourselves in leading not only our sister provinces -- but most of the American states in the development of our economy. We are now growing at only three-fifths the national rate. Nova Scotia’s exports are increasing twice as fast as Ontario’s and Newfoundland’s exports value is growing at four times our rate. Ontario’s share of total Canadian exports has declined from 45 per cent in 1972 to 43 per cent in 1973, down to 38 per cent last year. This is what has happened in the period since the present Premier has assumed the responsibility of office.

Although provincial consumer price comparisons are not readily available, Statistics Canada in its survey of prices in major cities reveals that since this government took office in 1971 consumer prices in the Ontario cities of Toronto, Ottawa and Thunder Bay have been going up about 11 per cent faster than those in Halifax, and about 12 per cent faster than the prices in Regina -- for two specific points of comparison.

The cost of food in Thunder Bay has been rising nine per cent faster since 1971 than in Edmonton or Saskatoon, cities of approximately equal size. Since last October food prices in Ottawa have risen more than twice as fast as those in Winnipeg, and 40 per cent faster than the food prices in Saint John, NB.

Also since last October, Toronto’s house prices have been rising 18 per cent faster than the national average, and accommodation costs in Ottawa are going up more than twice as fast as in Vancouver, a city with great growth problems itself. In the last two years in Thunder Bay the cost of houses has increased 16 per cent more than in Montreal or Saskatoon, and 29 per cent faster than in Halifax.

A comparison in wages and salaries: In 1972 the average weekly wage in Ontario was 5.70 higher than the national average. By last October, that gap had decreased to $2.89 more than the national average. Canadian wage rates are rising more than 12 per cent faster than our provincial wages. Quebec’s average weekly wage is increasing almost 23 per cent faster than Ontario, and in British Columbia wages are going up 26.5 per cent faster.

Members may say, “Well, why do we want wages going up faster than in the other provinces?” I would say to them that I have already indicated the costs of living in this province are going up faster than in the other provinces, that we have in the Speech from the Throne been informed that Ontario is maintaining and strengthening its traditional position in the economy of Canada, and I am simply here, Mr. Speaker, to say that statistics say that statement is wrong, that under the leadership of the present government since 1971 we are falling behind, and falling behind more seriously as each month goes by.

In agriculture, there were 127,000 fewer Ontario farms in 1971 than a decade earlier, a loss of more than seven farms every day. Between 1961 and 1971, Canada lost 1.7 per cent of its farm acreage. Ontario during that period lost 14.1 per cent of its acreage, eight times the national average. If that rate continues, Ontario’s supply of arable land will disappear completely before the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) celebrates his 90th birthday. A recent government publication called “Trends in Ontario Agriculture” reports as follows -- these are just extracts from that publication:

Feed grains -- a fallen acreage; tobacco -- a fallen acreage; apples -- acreage decreased between 1951 and 1971 in all regions of the province; peach production -- characterized by a declining acreage. The pattern for pears was similar, a 20 per cent decrease in acreage. Both the acreage and production of plums and prunes has declined significantly from 5,992 acres to 2,063 acres. Both the acreage and production of raspberries have dropped off in all regions; strawberry acreage -- down 40 per cent.

Vegetable crops -- acreage dropped by 20,000 acres, off 15 per cent. Rutabaga acreage has declined 50 per cent; tomatoes -- the most important vegetable crop grown in Ontario -- acreage is about one-half what it was in 1951. The number of daisy cattle in Ontario has dropped steadily since 1956, from more than a million head to 755,000 head. Between 1966 and 1971, Ontario milk production dropped by 3.7 per cent.

Ontario’s share of Canadian beef production has declined steadily over the past 15 years by 5.8 per cent from the early 1960s to the period 1970-1974. During the same time Ontario’s share of Canadian hog to the period 1970-1974. During the same of poultry meat production dropped 9.8 per cent. If we had maintained our 1960-1964 share of Canadian beef production, there would now be 70,000 more beef cows on Ontario farms, enough for 1,400 operations of 50 head each.

In education, Canadian universities will award 12.4 per cent more post-graduate degrees this year than three years ago. In other words, the level of expansion in education is going on across the nation at a substantial pace. But in Ontario, the increase is only about one-third the national average at 4.2 per cent. Ontario’s share of Canadian postgraduate degree awards has dropped 7.4 per cent since 1971.

Across Canada, the pupil-teacher ratio has been improving. That is, more teachers for fewer students, giving rise to quality and excellence in education. This pupil-teacher ratio has been improving across Canada so that today there is an average of one more teacher for every 71 elementary and secondary school students than two years ago. During the same period in Ontario, class size has grown larger and there is now one fewer teacher for every 73 students than in that same period.

Once again, rather than maintaining our leadership in Canada we are depreciating in the essential area of quality of education.

In urban transit, after May 1, Toronto will have the highest transit fares in Canada -- 40 cents cash or three tickets for $1. In Montreal, the only other Canadian city with a subway system, there is a 35-cent cash fare or three tickets for 90 cents. In Vancouver and Winnipeg, cash fares are 25 cents.

As a result of the Toronto fare increase, the TTC’s passenger increase this year is expected to drop to four per cent from the previously projected 12 to 13 per cent Between 100,000 and 120,000 daily transit riders are expected to return to their cars because of the fare increase, adding some 80,000 daily automobile trips to Toronto’s already congested streets.

The policy in that regard is in turmoil. It was interesting, a few weeks ago, to hear the Minister of Transportation and Communications say that he was going to recommend to his colleagues that the Spadina Expressway was going to be paved to Eglinton Ave. I was interested to hear the Premier say that he agreed with this position -- the policy that our party has had consistently since 1971. But still they have done nothing but allow the transit fares in Toronto to go higher than in any other city in Canada.

In housing, we are faced with the incredible fact that the province with the highest credit rating possible -- we hear that frequently -- has the third worst performance record in Canada for housing starts in 1974. Two provinces, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, actually increased their housing starts over 1973, but not the province with the triple-A rating. Here, housing starts dropped 22.6 per cent, one-third worse than the national average setback.

For the past two fiscal years, this province has underspent its housing budget. In fiscal 1973 they underspent by $54 million and in fiscal 1974 by $49 million, a total of $103 million of hoarded housing funds in just two years. This past fiscal year the rental housing budget alone was underspent by $20 million.

This seems incredible when we are subjected to the statements from the Minister of Housing day by day, blaming the municipalities on the one hand and the federal government on the other, both of whom must share responsibility and blame. But he is blaming them when we, as a province, the richest in Canada, are prepared to have the Legislature vote money and then not even spend it for the programmes for which it is designed.

The amount of money spent on home ownership programmes has actually dropped since the advent of the new Ministry of Housing. It’s dropped by 12 per cent from $110 million in fiscal 1973 to less than $97 million in fiscal 1974.

We all want government costs to be cut, but one area which must be excepted from that concept is the area of housing. Certainly people in our communities, taxpayers and the members of this Legislature are prepared to support government initiatives which are going to make money, programmes and initiatives available in order to build houses and turn around a downward trend that has plagued this province more than any other province in Canada.

If you realize, Mr. Speaker, that the expenditures in 1973 were $110 million and now, in 1974, they’re only $97 million, when we add to this the effects of inflation, it’s clear that we are making haste backwards in the housing area in a situation that is certainly a crisis and has been for two years. What possible excuse is there for the government’s appalling housing record in the face of our serious shelter needs?

In 1973, the Comay task force reported, and I quote, “The dominant need of 300,000 or 400,000 families in Ontario is for housing they can afford.” Recently, a study commissioned by Metro Toronto social services and housing committee revealed that in this city for the first time since the Second World War some families were actually homeless. The incidence of home ownership in this province is declining and the rate of decline is substantial.

For all practical purposes, home ownership is denied to all but the top 40 per cent. Families unable to acquire equity in their own housing remain highly vulnerable in the housing market. They spend their working years adding to their landlord’s equity and not their own. In present policies, if these policies are pursued, the benefits of pride of ownership and equity buildup will be denied to an ever-increasing proportion of our people.

Already a near majority of Ontario’s residents are tenants -- over 40 per cent -- and find themselves in a marketplace characterized by scarcity and high rent. They are becoming well organized and vocal, effectively making their case for security of tenure and protection from excessive rent increases.

We have proposed fundamental changes in the Landlord and Tenant Act to put some substance and some strength into the law by establishing municipal rent review boards that can subpoena witnesses and documents and require landlords to justify rent increases. The Liberal housing critic, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), will be introducing private member’s legislation on the subject during this session.

But the thing that concerns us is that in this province we have the natural resources, the lumber, the building materials for housing, probably more so than any other province in Canada. We have land which can be serviced for building and we have a labour force that is presently seriously under-employed. It seems to me with those three ingredients the government of the day can be and must be seriously faulted for not bringing forward a programme which is going to meet the needs of the citizens of the province for housing or, at least, turn around the dramatic downtrend in housing starts. This downtrend has taken us from 110,000 starts in the year when our housing ministry began to just over 85,000 starts projected for this year.

Mr. Singer: Shame.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This government, instead of servicing land as at least a beginning, has decided to bank it. Their own figures show that 90,000 acres are presently in the land bank, controlled by Ontario Housing by the new Ontario Land Corp. and by other government agencies. These land-banking activities are not in any way coordinated with municipal planning or development priorities. In fact, there are no cases that I’m aware of where the purchases of these lands have been in conjunction with the local planning system. Certainly Kitchener-Waterloo and the whole Cambridge area are one example and the purchase of 1,000 acres in my own area near Brantford is another.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Malvern is another.

Mr. Singer: So is Milton.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Their 10,000-acre industrial park in Edwardsburgh township was created without any reference to the several thousand acres of vacant, serviced industrial land already assembled by municipal governments in eastern Ontario. There are more than 4,000 acres in the nine largest cities east of Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: It is an awful price to pay for ego.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I can’t help but feel that the acquisition of these lands has been the result of the inflation of the ego of the former Treasurer, who is now the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White) in charge of the re-election of the government. The concepts that he has used in acquiring these lands are completely undemocratic. They have not been subjected even to the kinds of control that the cabinet itself should have been exercising.

In the continued absence of a provincial land-use plan, a broad concept for growth and development, this government’s land-banking activities are no more than disruptive meddling in the plans and priorities of local municipalities. This interference is most evident in the new town assemblies, two of which have been proposed, without any consultation, for the Haldimand-Norfolk region. Like magnetic levitation trains, they are a spectacular attempt at solving a very ordinary but difficult problem. In practical terms, they are a waste of public funds and an intrusion into local autonomy.

Throughout Ontario there are many communities with considerable growth potential to provide accommodation for an increased population now and in the future. The time will surely come when new communities must be established. I remember Paul Hellyer -- whom we have been listening to for a great many years with his many interacting ideas -- talking about satellite cities, as a result of a review of housing needs that he undertook when he had that responsibility some years ago, and saying that undoubtedly the time will come when new communities must be established.

But believe me, Mr. Speaker, in communities such as the ones I represent and the ones in your part of the world, there are substantial reasons to expect growth to take place on a community nucleus already established. After all, those communities already have sewage and water systems. They already have schools with room in them. They have recreational facilities and arenas, and when people move in there, their kids can go over to the arena and get on a hockey team. The churches, God knows, have room in them for more people. These communities are served presently by roads and railways, railways that can ‘be expanded into commuter service if they are within reach of urban centres.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is more logical, it is more practical and economically feasible to encourage these existing communities to expand and to assist those now wanting to expand, rather than develop new townsites.

Now, it is true that some communities should not grow more and some do not want to grow more. But I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government is wrong in assuming that the communities, the municipalities of the province, are not looking for additional planned growth,

Many of the people at the local municipal level have simply lost heart that they will ever get support from the provincial government on approval for their locally submitted plans of subdivision. They feel, most of them, that the approvals are so detailed and with services so expensive and so complex, that any further growth must be in the major urban centres.

Mr. Speaker, I have not yet completed my remarks, but with your permission, sir, I would like to continue them at a later date, convenient to you, sir, and the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will resume the debate and we will hear the balance of the hon. member’s remarks.

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

Motion agreed to.

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