Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Good speech.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): He hasn’t finished yet.

Mr. Foulds: Oh.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of a social function I attended when I was back home a few weeks ago and some of the people there asked me what went on here at different times. I said, “Well, I think one person spoke for seven hours. And I can assure you there weren’t very many people listening for the seven hours he spoke, although it wasn’t all at one time.”

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Let that be a lesson to the member tonight.

Mr. Ruston: It would appear that we don’t have too many listeners tonight, but I guess that is one of the problems here.

Mr. B. Newman: We have the cream of the crop tonight.

An hon. member: Call in the troops.

Mr. Ruston: I had thought of speaking on that particular item a few weeks ago, but when I got to lining up some of the things I wanted to talk about I thought I would leave it until a later date.

Mr. McIlveen: Take a lesson from it.

Mr. Ruston: Having listened to the Throne Speech, I must say it was very well read, and it was rather nice to have Her Honour attending this year. There is only one thing that disappoints me a little, and that is that I had a number of people tell me they couldn’t hear her in the galleries. I’m sure it wasn’t any fault of hers, but I did notice that the microphone was quite a distance from her when she was speaking. It’s really too bad, when we had people come so far on that occasion, that they couldn’t hear her properly.

I suppose I could be facetious and say there wasn’t anything in the speech anyway. But really that isn’t what they came for. I think they came to see the ceremony and the Lieutenant Governor reading the speech. With the assistance she has, I think someone should see to it in future that the microphones are set properly so that everyone that comes can hear her speak.

At this particular time, I suppose some people say we’re in a world recession. I don’t know that we actually are in a world recession. I would think we are probably more in a recession of the United States since we’re so close to them. I think that no country, especially one the size of the United States, can expect to lead the world when it has had no one to lead it for probably a year and a half or two years. It is sad indeed when one sees the way their government deteriorated until last August the president had to resign and prior to that the vice-president resigned. All this despite their population of 220 million people and the resources, the vast power and resources and manufacturing capabilities and so forth, that country has.

In fact, on the radio tonight -- or on TV news I think -- they stated that the Senate had finally passed a bill lowering the income tax by $30 billion. The president had talked about that last fall but their method of parliamentary procedure is so much different from ours that they still haven’t got anything done over there to try to stop the recession. I don’t know whether lowering taxes always stops it; it certainly does help to some extent and it is only one of the things they are trying now.

Looking at our own parliamentary system I suppose we are much more favoured here in that the government carries on; and if the Prime Minister doesn’t have the backing of the majority of the members of parliament, of course, he has to resign or call an election. In the United States, in the case of the president resigning, there was no necessity for an election because their system gives the appointment to the president. It so happened in this case that the president resigning was appointing the new president.

I don’t know -- as much as I have a certain amount of respect for the new president he seems to be tarnished by the old president, and I am not sure that really is a good system to have, either. I would think they would be much better off if they had a system whereby when the president resigns they must call an election to elect a new one -- an election by the people instead of by appointment, especially when the retiring president or the one that has to retire appoints the new one.

I suppose this reflects in the automobile industry since it is a main part of our industry in Ontario, the whole southern part pretty well. From Oshawa through St. Catharines, Stratford, Windsor and all the way through, the automobile industry is more or less tied into all that area.

We have, of course, felt the recession in the Windsor area as well as in Oshawa and other areas where the automobile industry is located because of the reduction in the sales of cars in the United States over the past six months.

If one looks at the sales of cars in the United States, 1973 was their banner year when they sold about 11.5 million cars and in Canada we sold about 1.2 million. I give these figures as being as accurate as I can get with the statistics I have been given. It certainly points out that when you begin reading the different statistics you can use statistics in different ways, in all ways and to your own advantage. I will say that all the statistics I got didn’t give me exactly the same figures as I am quoting, so I tried to pick a ballpark figure in between all the ones I got. I think I am within five per cent of the ratio. I suppose I am as close -- or closer -- as a Gallup poll is when it comes to predicting elections.

At the time the auto pact was brought in it was supposed to be, and probably still is, serving the purpose of giving Canada a fair share of the total production of cars sold in the United States and Canada and giving us the total production more or less for our use.

There have been some problems in that, and in the last few months it has shown up more when there has been vast unemployment in the United States. In fact in the city of Detroit, the core part of the city of Detroit I think has about 40 per cent unemployment. In the State of Michigan, I think it is about 19 or 20 per cent. The unemployment situation is very high there with the automobile industry.

There is pressure, of course, on the United States companies from many people in the United States, not from just the people laid off but from people affected in all ways. They are wondering whether, in effect, we are producing cars in Canada and sending them to the United States. Well we are, there’s no doubt about that; but we certainly import a great many too. In fact I think there are two lines of cars at the Chrysler plant that are selling so well thank goodness we are making them in Canada. It’s about the only place they are being made. The Chrysler Cordoba and the Dodge Charger are selling well, although again the price is not cheap by any means, but they are the type of car that people seem to want to buy. They are selling well, so it’s keeping some of the plants going, especially the Chrysler plant, which is the company that suffered the most in our area.

I don’t know whether the management of Chrysler is quite as well controlled and so forth as the other two big ones and the fourth smaller one, because Chrysler seems to fluctuate more in sales than some of the other companies. They seem to go on mass layoffs and house cleanings, in all departments, white collar and all. I don’t know, maybe they need a Ford or somebody from General Motors to show them how to run some of their departments.

Anyway, they employ a lot of people in Windsor and we certainly do need their operations. They are the largest employer of people in Windsor, they employ about 11,000.

I think sales in 1974 in the United States were down, from what I can gather, to about seven million units; and in Canada they were about 1.1 million. That’s estimated for the full year in Canada. So the sales in Canada in 1974 are almost the same as in 1973, but as members will notice there were about four million cars less sold in the United States.

Really, in effect, the fact we are tied into the export of cars to the United States really had most to do with our unemployment in the automobile industry. If you live around the Windsor area, you will notice the big car transports lined up day in and day out going over the Ambassador Bridge hauling the cars over to points in the United States.

We can look back, I suppose, and wonder what caused this. Really, the main reason would be the gas and oil embargoes last winter and the increase in price of crude from the Arab countries. That would be the main cause; plus, as I mentioned, the general conditions of the political system and the political situation in the United States. This would probably balance with the main cause as well.

Also, pollution equipment was the “in” thing about six or seven years ago, and heaven help us we know they needed it in some areas more than others. I’ve never been in Los Angeles, but I have a brother who lives there. He told me about eight or 10 years ago that in the smog and so forth, with the vast expressways, it was pretty heavily polluted. I guess it was necessary that the car industry change its systems to clear up the air, since cars were one of the causes of pollution.

I think we may have jumped on the bandwagon kind of fast. It is interesting to note that when we have engineers who build something and then somebody else comes in and tells them they’ve done this wrong or they’ve done that wrong, that the one who tells them they have to do something different is not necessarily the one who has to do it. He isn’t necessarily the one who has to take it back to the drawing board, put it to new tests and find out what can be done with it.

If you look at gas mileage in cars over the past number of years it would appear that 1973 was the worst year we’ve had. In 1974 it might have been a little better, but not too much. With the 1975 models, many people are stating they are getting the same mileage they were getting on their 1972 models or those of previous years. After working on the engines with the extra emission control equipment on them, the automobile companies apparently figured out a way to get the gas mileage up some. Many of the models are still pretty high in fuel consumption and it means a lot of improvements are still necessary.

I was reading an article in one of the papers the other day about the catalytic converter that has been used on a number of cars and which is supposed to be quite an improvement. It is datelined Washington and says:

“Sulphuric acid emissions of automotive catalytic converters pose a very real health hazard, administrator Russell Train of the Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday. Train told a congressional subcommittee that the catalytic converter controls three automotive pollutants, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. But he said the dangers from the sulphuric acid could outweigh the benefits of the converters in two to four years as more cars using the devices are produced.

“Train made the comment before the House health and environmental subcommittee which is holding six days of hearings into the Clean Air Act. Last week the EPA recommended a freeze on automotive standards because of data indicating the danger of sulphuric acid emission from automobiles using the catalytic converters. Train said that health scientists from both the EPA and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare agree that the sulphate emissions create a very real health problem.”

I suppose that’s hindsight. On the other hand, I don’t think that when any engineer produces something he can have someone else tell him he has to do this or he has to do that, until he has time to take it back and come up with improvements.

Another thing would be the increase in price of the cars, which no doubt had a bearing in the last two years. In the wage settlement that the automotive workers made with the Big Four a year ago last fall -- that would be October, 1973 -- their wage increase was really only about three per cent. There were many of the workers who said that that was a terrible increase. I know many of the people who work there -- some of our own family -- and they said they were getting a very low increase. There was one consolation in there. It was that they did pick up COLA, which is a cost of living allowance. This is the only thing that saved the auto workers over the last year or two with inflation and the increased cost of living.

Just to give you an idea of what it does mean, Mr. Speaker, I have an article here from the Windsor Star, in which it says:

“Chrysler Canada Ltd. hourly workers and their families can enjoy one of the few rewards of inflation this week. Ray Lebert, acting financial secretary of the UAW local 444, said more than 9,000 union members will be picking up hefty cost of living allowance [that’s COLA] cheques when they complete their shifts tonight and Friday.

“Mr. Lebert said the COLA cheques covering the period from Dec. 2 to March 3, are worth at least $260 gross if a man worked regular shifts for the 13 weeks. Some cheques are worth as much as $350 gross depending on the amount of overtime and weekend shifts.

“Local 444 members who have been on layoffs will receive COLA cheques based on time worked between Dec. 2 and March 3. The COLA payments are based on the increase in the consumer price index and the COLA cheques have been rising steadily with the increasing cost of living. The June cheques are expected to be worth at least $360 gross for a worker.”

This of course is helping. It is not actually tied into their salary. It is a separate cheque that comes out every three months and that certainly is a great improvement to the worker.

General Motors and other auto companies say that their costs are going up each month. I suppose we can understand that because that’s one of the places where it’s going. Mr. Speaker, if you look over the price of cars compared to what they were a number of years ago the price of cars really isn’t that bad if you take the industrial wage scale into effect.

In the industrial wage scale of 1952 the weekly wage was $69 or $3,590 yearly. At that time a 1952 Ford four-door V-8 sold for $2,400. That was a standard size car with a 112 in. wheelbase. That was two-thirds of the yearly wage in 1952.

In 1964, the weekly industrial wage was $130 or $6,700 yearly, and in that year a 1964 Pontiac four-door automatic with radio and a V-8 motor was $3,300, so that took half of a person’s yearly wage in 1964.

In 1974 the weekly wage was $229 -- that seems a little high for general work in the auto industry, but anyway this is what we get from statistics -- and the yearly wage was $11,900. A 1975 Dodge Monaco, a full-size car, 122-in. wheelbase, equipped, is $4,363. That is 40 per cent of the yearly wage. Actually it was two-thirds in 1952, 50 per cent of the annual wage in 1964 and in 1974 it’s 40 per cent.

I’m quoting the prices of cars that I happen to know in the years I mentioned previously, having purchased them in those years, but the price on the Dodge Monaco was given to me by a large Chrysler dealer. The key thing in s ome of the prices of cars, though, was that the smaller cars generally cost almost more than the medium-sized car. If they are not more, they are just as much as a medium-sized car, maybe not quite as well decked out. A Dodge Dart four-door -- it’s not a big car -- with 111-in. wheelbase and steel belted tires is now $4,300. The 1952 Ford had the same wheelbase as that particular car had, so they are actually making a car the same size as in 1952 but of course it’s $1,900 more -- it’s double. The Chrysler large cars are $4,800, but I would think that people who are working are as capable of buying a car now as they were 10 or 20 years ago.

Probably the key thing is that the cost of other items has gone up, and this is what has taken incomes up to what they are now. I would suppose that if we look back a quart of milk was probably about 15 cents in 1952 and now it’s 50 to 55 cents, so it’s gone up much higher. However, at the time the farmer was selling it then at 15 cents he wasn’t making any profit. At the price of milk today I think dairy farmers are getting more or less a fair return for their investment and their work.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the so-called gas shortage last year I’m not sure that it was a genuine shortage. I think maybe there were areas where it was made up and maybe poor management too. I think the distribution of gas at that time -- I am speaking of oil and gas -- and they distributed it on the basis of sales of the previous year or two. In many areas where there was a larger population and so forth, they ran short and yet other areas might have had a surplus. So we are not sure what that problem was.

Of course, one common thing that we read in different places is that the Arab countries say, “Well, you put your exports up in price so much that we had no alternative; we used to buy a bushel of wheat for $1.50 and now we pay $4.50 or $5, so we put oil up $10.” I don’t think they needed to go quite that high. I think they are ripping us off, but I think that what we have to do is sit down and figure out why we can’t produce a car that is much more economical on gas and I think it can be done.

If we look at some of the engines that have been built in the last few years and the economy that they gave in the late 1960s and the early 1970s -- a 250 cu. in. six-cylinder motor for a standard-size car weighing around 3,000 to 4,500 lb, at 60 miles an hour would probably give about 25 miles to the gallon and maybe even a little better; a 318 cu. in. V-8, which is a popular motor, or the 283 or 289, were probably as economical a motor as you can get on gas.

I really think that those engines are powerful enough. They have the cubic displacement to power any car of 3,000 or 3,500 lb and with a little ingenuity and research into these motors that I’m thinking of, I think the automobile industry can certainly take these back and improve them even with the facilities they have today.

I think there was an announcement made on TV news tonight about some new process to be put in motors to make them easier on gas. I think the stock exchange in the US had to take the stock off the market because of the rush.

I think the key thing needed in the automobile industry is concentration on building a motor that can be brought up to about 30 miles per gallon in a medium-sized car. I am sure people would be willing to buy it, and certainly it would improve the economy a great deal.

Mr. Speaker, I had a number of articles I wanted to speak on. I didn’t intend to go quite as long on this item but I think it’s very important this time since so many of the people in Ontario depend on the automobile industry for a living. We think of just the big plants where there are 10,000 people employed and they’re rolling cars off the assembly line at a rate of 1,100 a day, I think, in the Chrysler plant in Windsor, and General Motors in Oshawa is probably similar, along with Ford in Oakville and St. Thomas. But there are a great many more people involved.

In the tire industry, the rubber companies are finding right now that their main sales of tires are going into the farm machinery business because the farm machinery business has picked up in the last couple of years and there is a shortage in that business now. So the rubber industry is putting a lot of its stress and priorities on tires for farm machinery because of the automobile industry having slowed down somewhat.

We might just run into a couple of items with regard to agriculture, Mr. Speaker. When one looks back over the last few years -- and I was looking over some of the remarks made in the Legislature from 1968 and 1969, and especially 1969, 1970 and 1971 -- farmers were leaving the farms pretty rapidly because prices were so low that they just couldn’t make a living on them or earn anything worthwhile. They were trying to sell corn for $1.05 a bushel and the cost of producing it then was about $1.20.

I suppose the members wonder how anybody can sell something for less than it costs to produce. The farmer is about the only one who can do that, because he may have bought a tractor a couple of years before and he lives on depreciation a lot of the time. I see one of the farm members looking up when I mention that. I think he’s quite aware of how that works.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Are there some farmers over there?

Mr. Ruston: Yes, I think there are some over there, in fact.

Of course, another thing that might be affecting some of the business in western Ontario, and I think of the soya bean industry --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The member means southwestern Ontario.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, southwestern Ontario. Pardon me. The soya bean market has been fluctuating in the last number of years. I can recall back in 1972 and 1973 when the price of beans went up to such an enormous height that most of the money was made in the futures market and not made at that time by the farmers who grew the beans. I think the average price for beans to farmers in that year was $3.90, and it went up as high as $11.50, I think, in the spring or summer, so it was in the futures market that all the money was made.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Four ninety-five.

Mr. Ruston: The member for Waterloo North just informed me that the price of soya beans was $4.95. I can recall last fall --

Mr. Good: Didn’t make much this year.

Mr. Ruston: -- when I was home for a day or two -- the House wasn’t in session -- and I went over to give my brother a hand to combine beans. I took some beans up to the elevator for him on the wagon, and said when I left home: “Do you want me to sell them?” And he says: “Oh, I don’t know. Maybe you should store them. I don’t know; whatever you think.”

So when I drove up I said: “How much are beans?”

The fellow said: “They are $8.40. Are you going to sell them or store them?”

I said: “Oh, I guess you had better sell them.”

Well, they did go up later on to $8.99, but a lot of people stored them -- for two reasons, of course. The price was good; there is no doubt about that. But when you sold the previous year’s beans, already you had your 1973 crop and held on to them until 1974, and then when you take off the 1974 crop, it is not very good. You are not sure what you are going to get in 1975, so you like to hold them over and sell them in 1975 in case your other crops are no good, or you don’t have a crop to keep the income tax down.

I guess all those who kept the beans that were $8.99 that day -- if everybody had sold them that day, I guess they could have paid all their income tax and been farther ahead. But, of course, that is something you don’t know in the market. Maybe the member for High Park has some secrets on that, since he has been in the futures market. But it’s a gamble. There is no doubt about that when you are wondering about world prices.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): The member’s leader thinks it is a sure thing.

Mr. Ruston: The futures market?

Mr. Shulman: That’s what he accused me of.

Mr. Ruston: I think my leader feels the same as I do. I think we should handle our soya beans the same as our wheat. The ownership of them should remain with us until they are in the processor’s hands and he has bought and paid for them. I think we should keep them until then, and I am in favour of that. That’s marketing right from the soil, right to where they are used, and that’s the way I would like to see them. However, we don’t have it that way yet, and maybe we will.

Mr. Stokes: Who supervises the futures market? Is that federal or provincial?

Mr. Shulman: It’s provincial, but nobody supervises it at the moment.

Mr. Ruston: Now, Mr. Speaker, in regard to farm land, there have been discussions as to planning and how we should save our soil for future crop production. Many are aware of the amount going out of production at the present time. I spoke about this three or four years ago. I said at that time, when prices were so low, that if we wanted to keep farm land in agricultural production, all we had to do was to pay the people to produce. I said if the people who were producing got a profit, they wouldn’t be taking the land out of production.

Now, I think that is still the case. There are many more farmers coming back on to the land. Many young people are making applications for farm credit loans. I think there is a new bill in Ottawa now introduced by the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, increasing the amount that a young farmer can borrow to get started in farming.

There are now a number of new people starting into farming, but it is still a pretty unsettled situation. Look at what has happened to the grain market in the last few months. China, Russia and some other countries had ordered a lot of grain from the United States, but since then they have not taken delivery of it, for some unknown reason. We are not sure why, but a number of those orders have been cancelled.

Mr. Shulman: A bumper crop.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, a bumper crop; but there is also one other thing. The president of the United States said he wanted grain down in price. He wanted the cost of living down. I have a feeling that he said to people in some of those foreign countries: “We want you to cut down your purchases of grain so we can have a surplus in the United States to put the price down.” I think that would be much closer to what has happened on that particular item.

Mr. Shulman: Does the member mean the Russians are helping him out to control inflation?

Mr. Ruston: Well, the Russians took us down the drain there a few years ago when they came over and bought all that wheat and grain from the United States. They bought 25 per cent of the total production in one day from six different jobbers, and they offered to sell it back to us a year later at $3 a bushel more than they paid for it. You never know what goes on in the inner sanctums of government, Mr. Speaker. I just don’t think that I would trust them that much, having known what goes on over there in the last few years.

Mr. Shulman: Are the Russians helping the USA?

Mr. Ruston: Now, of course, there are two problems. When you have high grain prices, of course, the beef farmers have their problems. Right now, beef is about 40 cents or 41 cents for top-grade live beef, which is really low, compared with the cost of producing it.

The other day I asked a farmer, “What’s going to happen to soya bean prices? They’re down to about $5.” He said, “Well, I think they’ll go back up.” But that isn’t really what I’m worried about. What I’m worried about is all the money I’m losing on the 150 beef cattle I’m feeding out there. I don’t know what I’m going to do with them. I can’t just kick them out. I’ve got to feed them, fatten them up in some way and hope that the price will go up.” Therefore, if anybody has an empty freezer, I don’t think they’ll ever buy meat any cheaper than they can today. The one who is suffering, however, is the man who produces the beef.

A new stabilization Act is being presented in Ottawa, and in the Throne Speech here there was a slight mention of a guarantee for farmers. I don’t know whether that will come about, but we certainly need something. Probably it should be combined with the federal plan, but at least it should be a provincial plan because a couple of other provinces already have provincial plans. I think we certainly should have one here, since more than one-third of the population of Canada is in this province.

Mr. Speaker, in looking over the motion by my leader for amendment of the Throne Speech motion, I was interested in all of the points it contained, but the one in particular that interested me is the one that reads: “The absence of action to improve general labour-management negotiation procedures, which have been so detrimental to our economy.”

Mr. Speaker, this matter has been mentioned before by different people in the House. I know the hon. member for Sarnia has mentioned a number of times that we should have a select committee of the Legislature or someone to really study our whole approach to labour relations and labour-management negotiations. We are in a bad situation, not only in government bargaining, as we have seen lately with the federal employees and the provincial employees, but also in industry. I think we are going to have to take a new look at our problems with labour relations, especially when one considers the strikes that result.

I noticed in the newspaper the other day that grain shipments from British Columbia have been cancelled because of a dockworkers’ strike in one area and because some government inspectors are on strike.

“Japan has been sending urgent Telex messages to the Wheat Board in Winnipeg [this newspaper said], and the tone of the language this time suggests that country’s patience with Canada is just about ended. Grain trade sources in Vancouver reveal that Japan has told the Wheat Board in so many words that unless the grain begins moving again quickly, and there is some guarantee of a continual flow in the future, they will have to look elsewhere for supplies.”

Thank goodness, both those strikes have now been settled, and we can get back to shipping. But this kind of situation reflects on the farmers in western Canada who depend on shipping their wheat out.

With regard to the labour situation, Mr. Speaker, I’m going to quote a few remarks made by Mr. Robert L. Houston, president of the Japan Trade Council. I’ll just quote a small part of his remarks:

“One of the most frequent causes of disruption in our distribution system lies in the area of labour-management disagreement. In my opinion, this is due to an archaic concept of labour-management relations which has become entrenched in the thinking of government, of labour and of management. This system, involving, as it does, confrontation, is sadly out of tune with the times and with the circumstances prevailing in this country. The adversary system cannot serve when there are no true adversaries.

“In the first 10 months of 1974, 8.9 million man-hours were lost. For October, 1973, the figure was 491,140, while in October, 1974, it was 752,800.

“For management to regard workers as stupid and stubborn is as inappropriate as for labour to regard all management as heartless and selfish individuals, intent upon exacting as much work as they can for the lowest wage possible. The trade union philosophy is possibly 50 years out of date, and management philosophy has kept pace with it.

“As for governments, they appear to have bought both views and have obligingly maintained a context in which they continue to flourish. The vast majority of workers today are educated, perceptive, reasonably affluent, and fully participating members of their own particular community. To picture them as sweaty and oppressed workers exploited by cruel and domineering bosses is ludicrous. It may serve the ends of certain career labour leaders but there is a large body of evidence that it is no longer believed by the workers themselves.

“As for the bosses, most management consists of a multiplicity of managers as opposed to owner-managers or proprietors. The old individual entrepreneur of the turn of the century, the buccaneering type, is long gone. Workers today want decent wages, but they also want recognition as individuals with something besides work to contribute on a 9-to-5 basis.

“It is no longer possible for one side to score off the other without damaging the economic health of the enterprise which provides increased benefits for both -- not to mention the city, the province and the country in which they carry on their work.”

I wanted to mention an item or two, Mr. Speaker, with regard to Hydro. We are very concerned with Hydro installation of new power lines. We have them down in our own area where Hydro was in for the last two or three years trying to buy up properties for new rights-of-way.

Mr. Speaker, we admit no one wants the hydro line, or big cable line, going down in front of his house, but somebody has to have them. On the other hand, I think, Mr. Speaker, when we start thinking about where we are going to put these we should study it a little more thoroughly than we have in the past.

Hydro will have a line going through an area and say, “That’s a great place there, so we will just put another one alongside it.” In the case of this one in Raleigh township in Tilbury East, they decided they should put a new line through there. They talked to one or two people and put on the pressure, saying, “You know, you’ve got to sell to us.” I guess they sell.

What they are doing is going into a township that has the best of land close to buildings. Some people there have large beef herds. They grow corn for seed, tomatoes and many vegetable crops. They sometimes have to get in there with airplanes for dusting and so forth. Then Hydro comes along and says it wants another right-of-way.

The people in Kent county and Raleigh township and Tilbury East did ask for a hearing of necessity, which is proper under the Expropriations Act. The officer appointed for the hearing of necessity studied it very carefully. He had one or two meetings and then adjourned them, and went back about a month later and heard more evidence on it. His recommendation was that Ontario Hydro had not looked over other possible areas, and did not consider the environment when it was recommending the new line go alongside the other line.

In the meantime, this made the people feel very good. They thought they were not going to have these big lines coming down by their feedlots and so forth. But the ministry felt otherwise and sent the then Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) down to inform them that the line was going through on the present route.

Another thing that concerned the people and also the hearing officer was that the order in council set a 600-ft right-of-way but Hydro was telling them that it only wanted 120 ft. I think there is a right way to do these things and there is the other way. I think the right way is that there has to be a real discussion with the people involved, with alternate plans, and the people involved should realize that Hydro has to have certain power lines and they are necessary, naturally, if they are to get the power into the city of Windsor and the surrounding territory.

Hydro should sit down with these people. I find most of the farmers are very reasonable people. They realize that they can’t stop progress and they don’t intend to stop progress, because it’s a part of their business too. But there were areas there, either along Highway 401 or along the railroad, that already had high tower lines, or down the blind line, the lot line between two concessions, which could have been considered.

In Essex county a lot of them run in that area. In fact, about 2,000 ft from my house there is a large tower line and the farmers there agreed to allow the next one to go through without too much trouble. They got a fair amount of money for their land, maybe not quite enough, but they agreed to let it go through because it wasn’t going to interfere with their farming that much. It was in an area that was not close to the buildings and so forth.

What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that Ontario Hydro certainly has to improve its image when it comes to setting out power corridors or it is going to have an awful lot of people mad at it. They have a good number right now.

I have taken a little longer than I figured, but I don’t think the next ones who want to speak are in that big a rush, so, Mr. Speaker, it might be an opportune time to discuss a couple of things on government in general.

One thing that I take objection to is the proposed new housing development in the riding of Essex-Kent. It is located in the township of Raleigh, on a large western Ontario centre formerly called the Cedar Springs Hospital. It has about 200 acres of land around it and that hospital, members may recall, was built for about 1,500 but they had about 1,000 boys and girls in it and they want to cut that number down to about 600.

Anyway, on this 200 acres of land the proposal by this government and the present Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) was that 150 or 175 acres be used for a housing development which would hold about 800 homes. That doesn’t sound too bad if it’s going to supply housing. The thing that concerns me is that we have many towns and villages in the area, not more than six or seven miles away, that are now putting in sewage systems, sewage treatment plants, sewage lagoons, and improving their water systems. They have to do this with the present population.

I say what they should be doing is expanding those towns and villages and allowing for the new homes to be put in there. We can add this many homes in three or four towns within seven, eight or 10 miles, without any disruption of the farmland, because they are in a general area where there is quite a lot of room for expansion without really disrupting good farmland. I’m sure that the 185 or 200 acres of land next to the former Cedar Springs Hospital is probably of better quality than the land in Tilbury, Merlin, Wheatley, Blenheim and areas like that.

I think that to start up a new town with other towns in the area that already have their schools, churches, services, stores, and so forth, is absolutely foolish and we should be concentrating on the areas we have and building them up.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other item that I want to say a word or two on, and I will be quite brief. We get resolutions from some of the municipalities in the area that they are very concerned about the crime rate. Police chiefs and police commissions in these areas are saying that the Bail Reform Act is all owing people out on the street who have been picked up, charged, and released and then commit a crime while they are released without bail. I’ve read or heard, that someone might be charged as many as three or four times after being released.

This is not bail reform the way I understood when it first came out. I recall at the time reading a couple of articles in which one or two judges had said that it was strictly within their reasonableness as to whether a person would be allowed to be free without bail or with a small bail. It was up to them to decide. If the attorney for the person charged insisted he be released, it was still up to his discretion.

We wouldn’t object, I’m sure, on a first offence or on a charge that wasn’t too serious. They certainly should be allowed to be let out. But if it is a second or third charge I think it is utterly ridiculous that this should be so. I don’t have the clipping with me but I read a couple of articles where judges said it was within their discretionary power to keep them confined. There certainly are quite a few people very concerned about that.

Another thing they are concerned about is the type of sentencing that our county judges and provincial judges are giving. I recall a letter the other day that was sent to the present Attorney General (Mr. Clement) about this from one of our municipalities. He said he couldn’t interfere with the judges, and he’s right. As long as the laws are there, it is up to the judge to interpret them.

The thing that we noticed and some of these people noticed is that the judges in many cases give the very minimum sentence. I recall sitting on the select committee when we were writing our report. Some of us had said that should be a $25 minimum fine and a maximum of $300. Somebody else said that maybe it should be a minimum of $50 and a maximum of $500: I said, “I guess it is up to the discretion of the judge.” From what I can gather in most cases the minimum is used instead of the maximum.

In making new laws we are going to have to look at what the offence is. The legislators are going to have to look at the offence and decide then whether the minimum should be so low and whether we should make it much higher than we have in writing the laws. That would ease the problem for the judges. They would then know what our intentions were at that time.

I suppose everyone here in the House wouldn’t agree with me on this, but I think that the appointment of judges provincially and federally is something to be desired. I’ve thought this for a number of years before I ever got into politics, and maybe it was because I was so close to the United States.

A number of years ago, in conversation I with somebody, I said I wasn’t sure which system was the worst, ours or the one in the United States. In Canada over half the judges are defeated candidates for the two parties, and probably would be for the third party if it ever wins -- and in some provinces they must be appointing theirs. In the United States they are elected. I’m not sure which is the worst system.

At one time, years ago, they’d elect a hanging judge in some areas. If the judge would hang people, then they’d say, “We’ll elect the hanging judge.” In other areas they would elect a judge who was easy on people. Maybe right now with the mood of the people in some areas, if it was an election, I’m afraid they’d be electing a hanging judge. I don’t think that’s the answer.

I think the matter of the appointment of judges certainly should be given a new look at, completely. I think they should be appointed according to their ability to interpret laws. Who can decide on that I don’t know but I would imagine that there are groups of people who could certainly come up with recommendations instead of the present system, I think that is all I have now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Durham.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of joining with my colleagues in this debate on the Speech from the Throne. In extending congratulations to all those who obtained new offices of responsibility I want, in particular, to extend personal congratulations to you, sir, because you and I have shared over the years a great deal in common being representatives for the two sister counties, the united counties of Northumberland and Durham. We have ridden the rods together for a number of years on a day and night basis and in assuming the duties and responsibility of Speaker, you have not only brought honour to yourself but honour to the great and historic county of Northumberland of which I am now a resident.

Mr. Stokes: Is this one of the member’s swan songs?

Mr. Carruthers: It could be my last speech so the member had better listen.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): He might learn something.

Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker, your skill in administering the office and the affairs of the Legislature have been justifiably recognized by your colleagues in the Legislature and I join with them in extending very sincere congratulations.

Indeed, sir, you are rather fortunate in your position in the Ontario Legislature in comparison with the office of the Speaker in some of the other jurisdictions. I had the pleasure of having lunch with the representatives from Ottawa who are touring the globe and studying the operation of the various parliaments throughout the world. They were speaking about the parliament in Canberra, Australia, and there I understand the Speaker’s responsibilities aren’t really to the Legislature -- his responsibilities are to the party in power.

Mr. Shulman: One might get the same impression here.

Mr. Carruthers: No, one doesn’t get that impression.

Mr. Shulman: Only when they count the votes.

Mr. Carruthers: One outstanding feature of this present Speaker is that he is very fair.

Mr. Shulman: He can’t count.

Mr. Carruthers: He’s very fair.

Mr. Shulman: He can’t count. He never counts right.

Mr. Carruthers: He’s unbiased.

Mr. Shulman: Next time we call a vote, let’s see how he counts it.

Mr. Carruthers: If there is any partiality shown it is to that side of the House because it’s very difficult to get his eye on this side.

Mr. Shulman: We have not noticed that.

Mr. Carruthers: In the Canberra parliament, as I said, the Speaker’s allegiance is to the party. They said while they were there the Speaker took the liberty of bringing one of the members of the cabinet to order and the Prime Minister of the day -- it is a labour government by the way, too; a group of socialists -- said, “You goofed it. You goofed it. You’ve had it.”

Mr. Shulman: Here they take them in a back room.

Mr. Carruthers: And I expect the next day he was out of a job.

Mr. Shulman: Here they call him out. The last independent Speaker got fired by a prime minister. His name was Bill Stewart; not the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker, 1974 has been a very eventful year in the riding of Durham and one cannot help regretting that in the redistribution proposal it now appears that the riding of Durham will be fragmented. My own township of Hope and the town of Port Hope go to your riding of Northumberland, sir. The township of Cavan goes to the riding of my hon. friend from Peterborough; the township of Manvers goes to my hon. friend from Victoria; and the township of Cartwright goes to the new riding of North Durham. This leaves the riding with the town of Bowmanville and the village of Newcastle, the township of Clarke and the former township of Darling which now form the town of Newcastle. In addition, the riding of East Durham has now added 34,000 people out of the city of Oshawa, which makes it rather an urban riding.

I do say this, Mr. Speaker, that those members from Cavan, Peterborough, Victoria, and North Durham are receiving a very fine part of Ontario as an addition to their ridings. They are receiving a very fine and a very loyal group of people; very fine people.

There have been problems, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to bring them to the attention -- in fact I have already brought them to the attention of the minister -- within the new town of Newcastle. There has been confusion and I have had some representation from that community.

Mr. Stokes: Which of those riding is going to get the dump?

Mr. Carruthers: I will get around to that in a few minutes. I thought the member would want to hear about that.

Mr. Shulman: They are going to divide it equally and put it in each of them.

Mr. Carruthers: In the town of Newcastle there is a bit of a problem in the fact that we have the town of Bowmanville inside the town of Newcastle. When people come out from Toronto and see that sign reading: “Town of Newcastle, 24,000” -- up near Ajax someplace -- they look for the main street in Newcastle.

There is a difficulty. I would recommend that area be given a different designation, be it a borough or a district. As far as I am concerned I would favour the area municipality of Newcastle. I have been assured they are going to give this consideration and I have asked the municipal council of the town of Newcastle to give it some thought. I have suggested a number of designations to them and I trust they will be passing a resolution to that effect.

At the present time, development and restructuring studies are taking place in the county of Northumberland. I am sure in the days and months ahead that study will result in the establishment of a restructured form of regional government in the county of Northumberland.

Mr. Stokes: That Garden Hill is a fine place.

Mr. Carruthers: It is indeed.

Mr. Stokes: Lovely walnut trees there.

Mr. Carruthers: I said I would bring the member some of those walnuts. I shouldn’t mention this but --

Mr. Stokes: That is another broken promise.

Mr. Carruthers: No it isn’t. The fact remains that for once, for the first time that I can recall, and some of those walnut trees are very old, the walnuts were inedible this year. That’s a little sidelight.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Sounds a little squirrelly.

Mr. Shulman: Things are turning bad for the Tories everywhere.

Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to regional government, because this has been one of the issues in the riding of Durham. It’s not easy to create a new government. It takes leadership, and thank goodness we have leadership on this side of the House.

We all tend to resist change, and in the establishment of the regional municipality of Durham and the restructuring of the new county of Northumberland, this resistance to change has been the basis for concern on the part of both the elected representatives and the taxpayers.

We live in a pluralistic society, Mr. Speaker, where many people have different views and different ideas and different values. There are not just two sides to many of the issues confronting us today, there are a dozen sides. In the process of resolving them, no politician can afford to be behind the people nor can he be too far in front.

Effective and relevant local government is a key indicator to the health of any society. It is essential that action be taken to assure it is equipped do to the tasks which must be done; that’s the secret and that’s the whole concept of regional government.

In order to accomplish this, local autonomy must be maintained by centralizing, to the greatest degree possible, power and authority, supported by increased unconditional grants, within the orbit of the strengthened local government. We have heard quite a bit in the last few days about local autonomy, and I am going to come to that in a few minutes. It is perhaps appropriate to review some of the basic reasons for local government reform, because we have many counties now in the process of restructuring. These reasons can be defined.

There is the reduction through amalgamation of municipalities with limited resources. And one of the problems facing municipalities today is the limited resources they have to provide the services required by their people. The number of municipalities has decreased from 964 in 1968 to 838 in 1974.

Now, Mr. Speaker, through amalgamation, we avoid the annexation battles which have prevailed in the past and under which assessment resources of one municipality were sacrificed to the benefit of a neighbouring municipality. This has been prevalent throughout the province and it has been a live issue in the area which I have been privileged to serve. You eliminate the destructive and inefficient competition between municipalities for industrial and commercial assessment, and this is a very important point when we consider regional government.

The pooling of municipal resources under a regional form of government provides a strong economic base for the construction of sewer, water and major road projects. In other words, it restores to a major degree, Mr. Speaker, the local autonomy of the area. Otherwise, without that good economic base, it cannot carry on and provide the services required without depending upon some senior form of government.

It enables the establishment of a co-ordinated transit system, not only within the restructured municipality itself or the region, but also in co-operation with other restructured communities. This is the key to the concept of regional government as it relates to Metropolitan Toronto.

The setting up of the inter-regional transit commission is one of the major steps and decisions made by this government. Again, I say it shows real leadership against considerable opposition.

Although I regret that up to this point it hasn’t participated, I am very sure that within a short period of time the new region of Durham will be involved in that inter-regional transit programme, because it all goes back to the MTARTS report and the Toronto-centred region. The key to the whole thing is transportation and communication throughout that horseshoe region around Metro Toronto. We have done a great deal through regional government to control growth and at the same time provide for the people an excellent transit service.

Regional government relieves the pressures of burgeoning urbanization. It deals with problems arising therefrom, including pollution control, land use planning and waste disposal. And this is very important. You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that no municipality can plan unto itself. There must be planning over a large region.

This is the difficulty we have experienced in our area, where one municipality will plan for a housing development just across the border and the neighbouring municipality plans for something else. And if the senior government tries to, shall I say interfere or advise, then they are always accused of using the big stick. You hear the cry for local autonomy, and rightly so.

Again, I repeat that the objective of regional government is, though good leadership, to restore local autonomy to the municipalities of this province. It provides a permanent staff to deal with problems, such as planning, which require a continuity of experience. I think this is very important, Mr. Speaker, very important.

In municipalities which I have represented over the years, we have had to hire consultants after consultants. One municipality hires this group of consultants; somebody hires another group of consultants.

In the new regional municipality of Durham, we now have a permanent planning branch which will provide good planning on a continual basis in the years ahead. Debate and concern with respect to local government will continue and should continue, but the fact that 150 to 160 municipalities in Ontario over the past year or two have been placed under ministerial orders is not only a blunt comment on the capacity of small communities to deal with their problems, but it is also, Mr. Speaker, an indication of the urgency for municipal reform, particularly in those rapidly developing areas of the province.

I become very concerned when I hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) decrying the steps taken by this government to promote and develop regional government in this province. It’s a sad reflection on their part.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The member must try to control himself.

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Right on.

Mr. G. Nixon: He doesn’t know what he’s for.

Mr. Bullbrook: If he is going to be provocative we might have to interject, and we wouldn’t want to do that.

Mr. Morningstar: Give them some more fire. Let’s go.

Mr. Carruthers: Another issue that has received considerable attention -- and this is what the hon. member for Thunder Bay referred to -- has been the proposed CPR waste disposal site in my township of Hope, designed to accommodate, in particular, Metropolitan Toronto’s waste. This has been one of those emotional issues, Mr. Speaker. It has created a great deal of controversy, and I would like to place on the record some of the background of that proposal.

Public opposition to the proposal has been ably presented by the local groups, and particularly by the local press. The local council of the township of Hope has also opposed the project. While an environmental hearing board has reported favourably, but on a conditional basis, it is perhaps in order that we do put this report on the record.

The Ministry of the Environment has, in addition to studying the report of the Environmental Hearing Board, made a very deep and extensive study of the site itself to see if it is environmentally adaptable for a waste disposal facility.

Mr. Morningstar: Right on.

Mr. Carruthers: It should be noted that the site, if approved environmentally -- and that is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment; I regret that in many instances they are trying to put the responsibility on the minister to turn that project down.

Mr. Morningstar: Shame.

Mr. Carruthers: The only responsibility he actually has is to decide whether that site is environmentally suitable or whether it is not. If it is decided that it is not environmentally sound then that’s the end of it. But if the research and the investigation prove that site is environmentally sound, then he and his assistants, or his staff, can be taken into court to prove it if the CPR wants to take that action.

In the final analysis, that area of the site will require rezoning if approved environmentally, and there it comes back to the responsibility of the local municipality. No doubt if that is the case there will be a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board.

I think I should place on record what the proposal was, so that members have an idea of what the background of the proposal really is.

We are inclined to oppose everything these days, but I am of that school that likes to take a real good look before I say no. I want to look at both sides of the situation very carefully. I want to look at all the factors that may affect it in the future.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on; that’s the way to do it.

Mr. Carruthers: I want to put on record what the proposal of the CPR was. They proposed to dispose at the site all delivered domestic waste generated in the township itself without any charge to the municipality for the lifetime of the landfill. In other words, they were prepared to provide free use of that landfill site for the township of Hope. The area comprising the sanitary landfill, which had been used for the disposal of waste, will be turned over to the township when completed, subject, of course, to the Environmental Protection Act. This will include the re-sodded area and the wooded screens around these areas.

I have toured the area and I have to be honest, I have to be frank. The area has many large stones as large as many of the desks in this room. It has never been agricultural land; it is wooded with some beautiful gorges which must be protected. An Environmental Hearing Board, as I said before, made its decision conditional that all that protection would be provided. It is all very clearly outlined. After it is completed it will be turned back to the municipality as a park site with full protection of the natural features. CPR agreed to negotiate with Hope township in good faith for the payment of a royalty on each ton. They were prepared to pay so much a ton for the waste material which would be disposed of in the sanitary landfill site; or, in lieu of that royalty, they would make a payment of money to be used for the benefit of the citizens of Hope township. Now that wasn’t bribery, I don’t think.

We all realize -- as I said before I like to look on all sides of this -- and I realize the city of Metropolitan Toronto has a problem. If members read this morning’s financial page of the Globe and Mail they will have noted there that recycling the waste -- for example paper -- is almost a lost cause until they develop some new techniques.

With the hon. member for Dovercourt and others we visited Continental Can; we visited Dofasco; we visited a number of industries which are doing a major amount of recycling. They all stated the same problem: the problem is in the collection and the separation of the materials. That can only be done,

Mr. Speaker, by having a large amount of the waste available so it can be separated with the equipment. We can’t have expensive equipment here and expensive equipment there, all over the place; it must be employed on a full-time basis.

Mr. Stokes: Where does the member suggest it be?

Mr. Carruthers: We have set up six places in the province, and we have one here -- just wait until I finish. The company was prepared to discuss and negotiate commercial arrangements with other municipalities in the region --

Mr. Stokes: That could be a whole new industry for Hope township.

Mr. Carruthers: -- for the use of the site for the disposal of the waste. Practically every municipality in the area is having a problem with waste disposal and I think this is general throughout the province. At the present time a study is under way in the county of Northumberland, which now includes the town of Port Hope and the township of Hope, to develop a facility for waste disposal for the municipalities in the area. The province is financing that to a major degree.

It is difficult. I have to be very frank and very honest. It is easy to discuss these things; it is easy to plan and say we must do something about it, but when it comes down to the final analysis and a decision has to be made, it is very difficult for a number of municipalities -- say 14 municipalities -- to decide which municipality is going to have that waste disposal site.

Mr. Stokes: It is like the weather. Everybody talks about it and nobody does anything about it.

Mr. Carruthers: That’s right; everybody wants it over there. Let’s be honest about these things and let’s be very frank. That is a problem and I am going to be very interested to see, after many thousands of dollars have been spent, who is going to make the decision. I hope the decision will be made at the local level; I hope that local autonomy will prevail and I hope the local municipal councils, their reeves and deputy reeves and councillors will make that decision in the true democratic style.

Mr. Morningstar: Right on.

Mr. Carruthers: The company was prepared to make available land and other assistance at the Hope township site to further research the programme, and this is the point the member for Thunder Bay raised. They were prepared to put in a research station there and a recycling plant. They were also prepared to participate in the development of a recycling plant at the site with the government, and that could be another site. They were prepared to do further research in the programme on solid waste separation and recycling which is being undertaken by the province. Then the company stated they were aware of the great necessity for control of pollution and they were interested in operating an excellent landfill site and the opportunity to participate in the control of the environment and practical recycling schemes.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that many people in my area wouldn’t agree with them. I have to be honest and I have to be frank. I have visited that site. I have walked over the whole area. I see the advantages it offers. I can sympathize with the people who don’t want waste from another source, particularly a large area like Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Stokes: I thought there were too many big boulders there.

Mr. Carruthers: There are big boulders too, very large boulders. The area has never been farmed.

So what do we do? We have Metropolitan Toronto with a very great problem. Due to the immigration policy, which I will mention a little later, some 50,000 or 60,000 new citizens are added to the population of the city every year. Figure that at so many tons of waste per person and they have a growing problem. I think we have to accept some responsibilities and we have to look at these things from every angle.

While realizing Toronto’s predicament, I also realize that the rights of the local people must be respected and every assurance must be given that those rights will be protected. I think we have to have some faith. Mr. Speaker, you know and I know when we visit some of the waste disposal sites presently existent in our rural areas they are not very acceptable. I think people judge modern sanitary waste disposal sites by those undesirable and certainly not picturesque waste disposal sites that we see around the country, some of them burning, some of them with rats; I know one that is half full of water. Talking about pollution, I think there would be pollution from it.

Mr. Stokes: Wind him up.

Mr. Carruthers: I didn’t get the opportunity to hear the Leader of the Opposition in his Throne debate speech, but I did read his speech very carefully and I’m going to refer to it in a few minutes. But I was in the Speaker’s chair for the speech of the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Stokes: Fine performance.

Mr. Carruthers: I’m going to say I congratulate him on his effective, and I may say very clearly enunciated policy of the New Democratic Party. He enunciated very clearly that it was certainly a policy of socialism, which has brought England to its knees, and down which road we are heading very rapidly.

Mr. Stokes: Is the member saying he is heading down the road to socialism in Ontario?

Mr. Carruthers: No. I congratulate him on his effectiveness and I say this, he clearly drew a sharp line between the policy of his party and the policy of this party. But I have to say honestly that I, together with the people of Ontario, still find it very difficult to determine what the policy of the official opposition really is.

Mr. Shulman: They are against the government.

Mr. Carruthers: May I suggest that the government will do well to heed the leader of the NDP’s speech. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the cabinet ministers in their respective roles will be prepared to reply to that speech, because it was effective. I thought it would have got more newspaper copy than it did. No doubt it was a repetition of a great many jewels of the past, but still it was effective. He brought up a number of points which I think called for rebuttal. I hope that the government members do get involved and present the government’s side.

Mr. Stokes: Please do.

Mr. Carruthers: We are going to hear a lot about leadership in the days ahead. I can see that, because both the speakers referred many times to leadership. I think this originates with Watergate -- destroy the leader. This is the old Communist tactic. It goes back to the very early days of communism when their policy was to destroy the people’s faith in their leaders.

Mr. Stokes: That’s what Bob Stanfield did in the last election.

Mr. Carruthers: This doesn’t apply just to this party or to the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis). It applies to federal people as well. There seems to be a determined effort, a policy on the part of many groups to destroy leadership in our democratic system.

Mr. Shulman: The leaders are co-operating with that.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Carruthers: They are not. It is a dangerous move in a democratic society.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker, leadership calls for objectives. A leader must have some objectives. The only objective that I can see that the official opposition has is that it is over there and we’re over here and its members want to get over here.

Mr. Stokes: That’s dirty. It is called politics. It is a dirty word.

Mr. Carruthers: But they don’t tell us how they are going to do it. I think they should tell us how they are going to do it.

Mr. B. Newman: Tell us what was in the Throne Speech.

Mr. G. Nixon: Didn’t the member read it?

Mr. Carruthers: Certainly the objective of the New Democratic Party is very obvious. It is to nationalize and to --

Mr. Shulman: When we come to power we are going to socialize all the women.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. B. Newman: Tell us what was in the Throne Speech.

Mr. Carruthers: I’m going to refer to that Throne Speech in a minute.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Carruthers: It is no trick to be captain of the ship when the waters are calm, but I’m telling you, Mr. Speaker, it takes leadership when times are difficult, and we are going through difficult times. I join with my colleagues, and I think the very large proportion of the people of Ontario, in thanking our lucky stars that we have real leadership in the present government of Ontario.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: We are happy it is there also.

Mr. Carruthers: That leadership goes back over many years. We had Mr. Frost. He was condemned over the northern pipeline. It was going to be a flop or a failure. It has been a success. I sat in this House and listened to the opposition to the Pickering project and the Candu system. Certainly the government stuck its neck out. They took a chance.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): But it worked.

Mr. Carruthers: But it worked. It’s the greatest success. People of little faith over there condemned it and said it wouldn’t work.

Mr. B. Newman: Tell us about Krauss-Maffei.

Mr. G. Nixon: Give it to ‘em.

Mr. Shulman: Let him be careful. He may go off the rails here.

Mr. Carruthers: I’m just coming to Krauss-Maffei.

Mr. G. Nixon: He is on the right track.

Mr. Shulman: Krauss-Maffei wasn’t.

Mr. Carruthers: We had the same cry we’ve heard over the years, that Krauss-Maffei would be a failure, a flop. Krauss-Maffei is not dead. It is not dead.

Mr. Shulman: It may not be dead, but it is well buried. Go over to Exhibition Park.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The member for High Park will rue those words.

Mr. Carruthers: Even in England, in the economic condition we find that socialist state today, they are still experimenting with that same type of a system.

Mr. Shulman: They will be experimenting after we are all dead, but it won’t go.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what they said about the airplane.

Mr. Carruthers: One of these days it’s going to be a success. That’s the same story I’ve heard over the years from these people. I heard the former leader of the NDP condemning it. It wouldn’t work, he thought. Let’s have some faith for a change.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Think positively.

Mr. McIlveen: They said the same thing about Candu.

Mr. Carruthers: That’s real leadership when the government is prepared to take such a risk. That’s just the difference, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I’m taking too long.

Hon. Mr. Snow: They are negative thinkers over there.

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. Carruthers: That’s the difference between socialism and our free-enterprise system --

Mr. Foulds: Does the member really believe that?

Mr. Shulman: Of course, we don’t pay any taxes!

Mr. Carruthers: The socialists say the government must run everything. “Let’s build up a real bureaucracy,” they say, “and let the professors lead it.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: Think positively.

Mr. Carruthers: One of these days the bureaucracy is going to run the government.

Mr. Shulman: It does now.

An hon. member: Oh, no.

Mr. Carruthers: Not yet, but it is getting close.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It says put in the NDP and make it official.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): It’s run by the bureaucracy now!

Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker, the member for High Park knows, and I know, that he doesn’t belong there.

Mr. Stokes: It’s just a matter of degree.

Mr. Carruthers: He’s a free-enterpriser.

Mr. Shulman: I am the only socialist.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Durham has the floor.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Carruthers: Sir John A. Macdonald said: “The reason I have been able to beat George Brown is that I have been able to look a little bit ahead.” And that has been the policy of the Progressive Conservative Party down through the years.

An hon. member: Right on.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to another area which was covered in the Throne Speech. The leader of the NDP, in his criticism of the Speech from the Throne, stated: “This House regrets the failure of the Ministry of Housing to pursue policies which could combat the drastic decline in house building now occurring.”

Mr. Shulman: Does the member agree?

Mr. Carruthers: I am not going to defend the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) at this time because he can defend himself and he has outlined a very progressive programme. But in the next few minutes I do want to outline some of the problems that we face in housing. It is not just the Province of Ontario --

Mr. Shulman: But that is the major problem.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We heard the leader of the NDP --

Mr. Carruthers: The federal government is involved. The provincial government is involved. Every municipal council is involved. Every developer is involved. And the general public is involved.

There are five groups we’ve got to work with. Certainly it has become very obvious. Mr. Speaker, that housing is going to become a major issue in the next election.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): It is now.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, that’s going to be a very big issue.

Mr. Carruthers: And we are going to be very proud of the programme and the progress that has been made by this government, against great odds, I may say.

Mr. Morningstar: Compared to other jurisdictions we have done well.

Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Speaker, I think it would appear perfectly in order at this time to review some of the problems involved in developing the housing programme.

Mr. Shulman: First there is the minister.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): And Hydrogate here.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Carruthers: All those programmes, Mr. Speaker, are based on the principle of shared responsibility. Let’s not forget that. This includes the other levels of government, which I mentioned, as well as the private sector and the public.

The provincial government cannot single-handedly solve oh the housing problems which exist in this province. Financially it would be an impossibility. This year alone, the province has increased the provincial housing budget from $101 million to $284 million --

Mr. Shulman: But the government doesn’t spend most of it.

Mr. Carruthers: -- and it is expected this figure will double again in 1976.

Mr. Stokes: In the last three years $130 million remained unspent.

Mr. Carruthers: Last year -- and this has been referred to before today -- the federal government returned $130 million of our own tax dollars for housing. This year we have been told that the federal government, in spite of its wide-open immigration policy, which is flooding vast numbers of people into this area, will actually reduce its allocation of funds for this use --

Mr. Shulman: That is not true. They are increasing it.

Mr. Carruthers: -- from $78 million in 1974 to only $50.4 million in 1975 for socially assisted housing in the lower-income field.

Mr. Shulman: The member has been listening to unreliable sources.

Mr. Carruthers: Socially assisted housing, as the provincial government recognizes, is the area of greatest need; I think we all recognize that fact. This group is made up of lower and moderate income-earners, those earning $12,000 a year or less. These are the people hardest bit by rising costs.

The federal government has seen fit to make other cuts. Funds for non-profit rental housing have been reduced by $9 million and money for land assembly and development has been cut by $20 million. The neighbourhood improvement plan loans have been reduced by $7 million, from $9 million to $2 million, which is more than three quarters. One of the major reasons, Mr. Speaker, that this province requires so much new housing is because of immigration, as I mentioned before. Of all the immigrants who come to Canada, 75 per cent or more indicate Ontario as their first choice to start a new life. And why? I don’t need to answer that -- we know why.

Mr. Shulman: Because they can’t speak French.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Carruthers: It’s because of our favourable economic and cultural environment that approximately 60,000 new citizens -- as I said before -- come each year to this area of the province and Metropolitan Toronto. That means we have to provide housing for these 60,000 new people every year. The federal government controls immigration, and yet it does not see fit to provide this province with the necessary funds to house these new citizens.

We are faced with problems from the local municipalities. A few municipalities are hesitant about approving housing because of the education costs and the social services to accommodate more population. Under our present provincial housing policy -- and this is apparently unknown to a large number of municipalities, although directives have been sent out -- when a municipality accepts a new development which is low in assessment yield the grant rate is increased.

For example, for OHAP houses proposed in Oshawa, the Ministry of Education would pay 95 per cent to the annual capital debt charges for school facilities. They weren’t aware of that fact. But they are hesitant, and I can understand this from a municipal point of view. There’s that feeling that they are going to be left holding the bag. And certainly with all service costs rising, you can appreciate the feeling of municipal councils: “What would happen if suddenly the province and the federal government withdrew and left us with the costs of servicing all this new housing?”

Education, of course, is a major cost in any new housing development; and few municipalities appear to be aware of the programme of the province. However, I feel the real reason is the unwillingness of middle- and upper-income communities to accept as neighbours people of lesser economic means. I don’t think that it is a serious problem, but it does come into the picture. Because people of low and moderate incomes do not live in these communities, they have no political base from which to influence local policies.

There is the general question of developers, and we bring the developers into the picture because they have their problems and they have their responsibilities. The general impression of developers held by the public would seem to be that developers are making a lot of money -- and they’re to blame to a degree themselves for this image. The general suspicion is that developers are making huge profits. And the highly inflated prices which they apparently are prepared to offer for land would give one that impression.

When developers come along to a farmer and offer him many thousands of dollars for land at very inflated prices, it leaves the impression that they are rolling in wealth. But they do have their problems and the image may be correct or it may be incorrect. I think it is largely exaggerated, but it has an effect on the housing programme.

We’re all aware that developers are deeply involved in housing programmes. They have expressed great concern over the fact that municipalities are imposing municipal levies, and this varies from municipality to municipality. This was brought home to me the other day.

For example, in your region, Mr. Speaker, the York region, I don’t think there is any levy. I think in the region of Peel the levy is a very moderate amount. But in the city of Oshawa it is a levy of $1,500, and that’s been reduced from the original figure. On top of that, I think there is a levy on the part of the region of $1,250. That total amount added into the price of a house creates a problem.

The result is that people will move from a high-priced housing area to an area where there is no levy and where housing is more reasonable. This, in turn, creates another problem. You then have a traffic problem and a road problem. For example, many people from Oshawa, a high-cost area as far as housing is concerned, are moving into the Port Hope-Cobourg area or into Peterborough even, and commuting back and forth, because of lower-cost housing. The result is we have growth problems. The result of all that is increased cost of housing when you add the regional and the municipal levy to the cost of a housing unit.

When the developer is limited also in the number of housing units -- due to a number of factors, not the least of which is the lot size -- the cost per unit of housing is increased again. The developer then tends to cut corners as far as building codes are concerned. I think we have all experienced this.

I have been called in many times in the last 12 months by people who have bought new housing and found the floor shaking and the walls were cracked. There had been no money held back. I appreciate the fact that the contractor in 90 per cent of those cases came back when requested and corrected the situation. But it’s a patchwork job, because once a basement wall is cracked, it is very difficult to correct the situation.

There’s another problem and this involves the general public. They say, “Why should we carry the burden of taxation for new housing because we all know that the average new house just does not pay in tax revenue for the services that it requires.” In a community like my own the public says, “Why should we pay for the services for new housing for these people?”

I think they should remember, though, that many of them did not pay for all the services they enjoy. With the new government grants, this has been alleviated to a major degree. But it is one of the problems and it should be recognized, I think, that it is a problem and it is something we have to deal with. We have to accept that it is one of the arguments they use to oppose growth. But the public’s attitude toward new housing is not only based on the cost of housing, it’s based on the fact that there is an opposition to growth in our smaller communities, and it is understandable. In recent years, many people have moved out of the cities, particularly out of Metropolitan Toronto. They have moved into Port Hope, Cobourg and Bowmanville, as far as I am concerned. They all are enjoying a very fine life in a semi-rural area, a nice quiet town, and they want it to remain that way.

They use this argument: “I moved to Port Hope because I wanted a nice quiet rural town to live in.” The fact they moved to Port Hope doesn’t stop a thousand other people from moving to Port Hope, We look at these things from a parochial point of view, not considering the problems that have been created, largely by immigration. We are going to house people in high-rise apartments in Metropolitan Toronto or we are going to do something in the development of growth in communities surrounding Toronto.

Here again, we see leadership in the North Pickering project and in the areas outside of Metro. At a meeting in Courtice the other evening, which is east of Oshawa, 600 people turned out. Many of them were in opposition to the Courtice concept, which is the development of a planned community, largely on land that is not agricultural. Really, the community of Courtice is a scattered community and the plan of the region is to fill in the vacant areas with housing. But there is that opposition -- “It is a nice quiet community and we want it to remain that way.”

Time is running out, but I would like to refer to another issue that has been raised by both leaders of the opposition and that is local autonomy. I have mentioned it several times in my speech thus far, but it is being promoted these days as an issue of political significance. There are those, I won’t mention any names, who are aspiring to take over power in this province who are proclaiming they will restore local autonomy to the people of Ontario. Now I want to know what they mean when they say they’re going to restore local autonomy to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Shulman: We will explain that shortly.

Mr. Carruthers: Local autonomy is defined in the dictionary and is interpreted as a self-governing community. In the extreme this would mean that municipalities would plan, operate and finance all matters of importance lying within their jurisdiction.

Mr. Shulman: It would be a change.

Mr. Carruthers: But there’s a fly in the ointment and I’m going to refer to it. They can’t dispute this, Madam Speaker, that major efforts are being made by this government through the restructuring of municipal government to grant, to the greatest degree possible, local autonomy and control by the municipal councils over their local affairs.

This was a decision that should have been made, maybe, long ago; but one has to give the present Premier of this province credit for going against public opinion to a major degree indeed in making the decision that something had to be done about municipal government in this province.

No one was more emphatic that something should be done than the present Leader of the Opposition. I can recall many speeches he made criticizing the government because this government had done nothing about restructuring local government. But as soon as we started doing that, as soon as there was a reaction on the part of the public, the opposition got on the bandwagon; there was public dissent and they were going to ride on it.

Mr. Morningstar: Right.

Mr. Carruthers: Don’t let them kid themselves; that public dissent is limited. In the final analysis, the people of this province have too much common sense. They think; they realize all the factors involved and when that day of decision comes the opposition will still be over there and we’ll still be over here.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The people always decide the right way; they always make the right decision.

Mr. Carruthers: As long as municipalities are organized as they are now on limited boundaries with a limited economic basis they do not have a sufficiently large base, from an economic point of view, to provide through taxation the services required. Therefore, they’re dependent to a major degree on the senior level of government through subsidies and grants. With larger economic tax bases through the regions and restructured counties, we have municipalities in a good position to provide at least a major degree of services through local autonomy.

Some questions should be asked of the opposition members about local autonomy. I say this: One of those questions would be should provincial moneys, collected in various ways from the people of Ontario, be handed out unconditionally to municipalities?

Mr. Shulman: No.

Mr. Carruthers: The member doesn’t agree with that? I don’t agree with it either because they’re collected. I don’t understand how the Leader of the Opposition can say: “We’ll take the ceilings off education; we’ll reduce taxation and we’ll restore local autonomy.”

Mr. Shulman: That’s irresponsible.

Mr. Carruthers: Should municipalities be granted the sole right to plan their respective areas -- I think this is a question opposition members have to ask themselves -- without consideration of the impact that planning is going to have on the neighbouring municipalities or even on the province? Members know and I know that in the past such action has proved completely disastrous.

Should ceilings on education and health services be left in the hands of local governments; do members think so? I can’t see it. This would obviously result in a variety of standards for services and in inter-municipal competition. Yet there are those who, as I said before, would remove the provincial ceilings and at the same time guarantee a reduction in government spending.

Mr. Shulman: That produces bankruptcy.

Mr. Carruthers: It’s unbelievable.

There is an old proverb that says: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” Now we are trying to get that piper back on the local level, and we are trying to get the man who calls the tune back on the local level through regional development and through restructuring of local municipalities.

It is very interesting to note, and we have some prime examples of it, that when a municipal government is faced with a major problem, what happens? It turns to this government for a decision, because they know they can get a decision. A good example, I think, was the Spadina Expressway.

Mr. Shulman: The member had better not use that as an example. The municipal government didn’t feel too happy on that one.

Mr. Carruthers: Better not mention Spadina? I am going to mention it.

Mr. Shulman: The member had better not mention that one. Metro isn’t too happy about that one.

Mr. Carruthers: It couldn’t be decided at the local level; it couldn’t be decided at the OMB. I don’t know whether the cabinet split on it or not --

Mr. Shulman: They did.

Mr. Carruthers: But in the final analysis it turned to leadership and the leader was the present Premier of this province. He made the decision and --

Mr. Shulman: It was a brilliant political decision.

Mr. Carruthers: -- he has been abused ever since by a certain group of people, but it will be proven to be the right decision, and the member knows it is the right decision.

Mr. Shulman: It won the election, what more can the member expect?

Mr. Carruthers: Yes, right; but that is a good example, that is a very good example. I have seen that happen time and time again in the final analysis. We saw it with the OPAD study in Oshawa. They studied for several years; at least three or four. They spent thousands of dollars; I have volumes of research material in my library at home on the OPAD study. So what happened? They came to the province for a decision. When the province made the proposal, I regret to say that my own area of Port Hope, Hope township, decided to remain out of it. I think it was a mistake and I go on public record as saying it was a mistake, and I think some day we are going to recognize that fact.

Mr. McIlveen: I will vote for that. The member for Durham and I were the only two.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): The member for Oshawa wasn’t too happy with things at the time, when it was put through this House. He was even going to vote against the government.

Mr. Carruthers: I never varied from my stand on that and I never will. If one looks at all the factors involved and the research that had been done by the province, it was a sound proposal.

The degree of local autonomy presently granted the municipalities is very large when one considers who holds the purse strings. At the present the province has allocated $2.29 million in road building and maintenance grants in 1974-1975 in my area, and of this amount $1.7 million is to assist the smaller municipalities in financing their road needs.

Mr. Morningstar: Wonderful.

Mr. Carruthers: The Ontario government has committed to local government some $124 million in new grants and $115 million in increases to existing grants, bringing the total provincial aid to municipalities, Madam Speaker, to $2.1 billion. That is a lot of money to hand out to municipalities.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on.

Mr. Morningstar: Good government.

Mr. Carruthers: And when we think of that amount let’s also think about local autonomy. The province increased its operating subsidies for public transit from $20 million in 1973 to $35 million in 1974; and in addition the province assumed 75 per cent of the capital cost of municipal buses, etc., and shares on a 50-50 basis the operating losses of their transit systems.

Mr. Morningstar: Wonderful.

Mr. Carruthers: Now just tell me bow members opposite are going to increase the degree of local autonomy under those conditions. I am waiting with bated breath to hear the Leader of the Opposition come forth with his great new programme of restoring local autonomy to the people of this province.

Mr. Ferrier: He doesn’t have a programme.

Mr. McIlveen: That’s what he is saying.

Mr. Carruthers: He is out looking for one.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He can talk about the non-existent programme.

Mr. Worton: Just like the Throne Speech.

Mr. Carruthers: We have seen education ceilings revised upward. Every day we have seen greater and greater emphasis and greater assistance provided, not only for elementary and secondary, but for university education as well.

I would say to those who are advocating greater local autonomy that they review the municipal bankruptcies that have occurred in the past. Members are aware of some of them, where municipalities because of lack of experience have got into very difficult financial circumstances, and in some instances have had to be taken over by the province. There has to be that guiding hand in there. There has to be somebody that can make decisions. Get 15 or 16 women or men together and try to get them to make a decision. We all know within our caucuses that that is very difficult to do.

Mr. Shulman: We don’t have that problem. Our leader just tells us what to do.

Mr. Carruthers: That’s right.

An hon. member: We all speak with one voice.

Mr. Carruthers: I don’t think the member for High Park knows, because I don’t think he even attends the caucus. Am I right?

An hon. member: He’s right.

Mr. Turner: He doesn’t follow his leader’s instructions.

Mr. Carruthers: I say that those who are advocating local autonomy had better take a look at the past and what has happened to many municipalities because they were given too much rope as far as financial assistance is concerned.

It is very difficult for municipalities, in groups, to make decisions. I can understand this, and it is not showing any disrespect to local councils. I have a very fine rapport with all the councils in my area but I do know the problems they face in trying to reach decisions at a local level where they’re close to the people and they’re being affected by the next door neighbour and all the people that they have known for years.

I wasn’t going to say anything about agriculture, but agriculture is a major industry in my riding and we are all concerned about the agricultural situation. Yet in my own area I have some very happy farmers. It is one of the finest farming areas in the province as far as I’m concerned. We have practically every type of agricultural enterprise. We have Christmas frees which are grown in the Manvers area in very large numbers. We have tobacco. We have some of the finest beef herds and some of the finest daily farms in the provinces.

Mr. Ferrier: Are there any Charolais cattle there?

Mr. Carruthers: Yes, we have. We have some very fine Guernsey cattle which are famous in the whole area around us. We have some very fine vegetable growers.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Sheep farmers?

Mr. Carruthers: Yes, we have sheep farmers too. It lends itself to that type of farming because we have a great variety of soil, from light sandy soil through loam to heavy clay soil.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): What about Garden Hill?

Mr. Carruthers: Garden Hill, of course, is a joy.

Mr. Maeck: Next to the Garden of Eden.

Mr. Carruthers: That’s right. I didn’t like to say it myself. This is where I want to refer to the Leader of the Opposition. I quote from page 89 of Hansard of last Friday where he said:

“In agriculture there were 127,000 fewer farms in 1971 than a decade earlier, a loss of more than seven farms a day.”

Isn’t that startling? That’s serious.

Mr. Bounsall: What they need is an airport in his riding.

Mr. Maeck: It is too far out.

Mr. Carruthers: The Leader of the Opposition said:

“Canada lost 1.7 per cent of its farm acreage, and Ontario during that period lost 14.1 per cent of its acreage, eight times the national average.”

Then he goes on to speak about the reduction in acreage and the reduction in the production of farm produce, which of course is due to a number of reasons, overproduction for one thing and the price of farm products for another.

I do want to refer to this, and reiterate that figures can be readily used for one’s own purpose. I would like members to think about these figures for a minute. This is taken from “The Grower.” I found these facts, but I’m not going to delve into them -- I might at a later date. Reference is made to the loss of farms in Canada and Ontario. I’m going to look at the totals in the census. In 1961 there were 480,903 farms. In 1971 they had gone down to 366,128, which was a reduction of 29 per cent. On paper that looks pretty serious. But let’s look at it.

Farms with sales of $2,500 or over were reduced by 0.3 per cent; farms with sales of $5,000 or over increased by 39.2 per cent; but farms with sales of $10,000 or over increased by 127 per cent. And yet he says the number of farms are decreasing at a very rapid rate.

Do members know what is happening? I know what’s happening, Mr. Speaker. Farms are being amalgamated. There are not as many farms, but there’s just as much acreage. At the present time we’ve got land coming out of our ears that isn’t being farmed at all. You know and I know, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. G. Nixon: Terrible.

Mr. Carruthers: We are not anywhere near the productive capacity of our farms today, and I can go on for a long time on that.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Carruthers: But I want to point out that figures can be very deceptive. You can say that the number of farms has been reduced, yes; and perhaps in Ontario more than any other area, because we have a great number of small farms.

Mr. Stokes: The member can work all afternoon and all evening with figures, but land is going out of production at 26 acres an hour.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Carruthers: The member knows better than that. He knows better than that.

Mr. Stokes: Talk to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Mr. Carruthers: I know what’s happening in my own area. I know land that hasn’t been farmed for years, and is now in production.

Mr. Stokes: It is 26 acres an hour.

Mr. Ferrier: Is that the result of improved drainage?

Mr. Carruthers: Those figures are not true. Mr. Speaker, I’ve taken longer than I intended and I know the member for High Park is just itching to get the floor.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on.

Mr. Maeck: Keep going.

Mr. Morningstar: Keep it up. The member is doing all right.

Mr. Carruthers: So I’m going to conclude my remarks. I hope to have the opportunity of participating in the budget debate. It might be my last opportunity to speak in this Legislature.

Mr. Morningstar: No, no.

Mr. Turner: No; heaven forbid.

Mr. Carruthers: But I have appreciated it. So I surrender my --

Mr. Maeck: Let the member for High Park sit. He is never here. Let him sit for the evening and come back to make his speech.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Carruthers: No. that wouldn’t be right. I think I’d better surrender, Mr. Speaker, unless you would like to hear about --

Mr. Morningstar: Snowmobiles.

Mr. Carruthers: Snowmobiles?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Give it to them. Lay it on.

Mr. Carruthers: No, I’ll sit down. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the member for High Park starts, I recognize the member for Brantford for one moment.

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to draw to your attention and to the members of the House that in the Speaker’s gallery there are 25 members of the Brantford Junior Chamber of Commerce. I would ask you and the members to recognize their presence.

Mr. Speaker: Now, the member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, as I gaze about me at these crowded benches I have some cause to regret having announced --

Mr. G. Nixon: Where is his leader?

Mr. Shulman: I regret having announced in caucus this morning I was going to speak tonight.

An hon. member: Oh, is that what happened?

An hon. member: They’ve all gone and left him.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): There was one in here a while ago.

Mr. Shulman: Well, we will struggle on without them.

An hon. member: Hey, I’m here.

Mr. McIlveen: Just goes to show you.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Just goes to show what they think of him.

Mr. Shulman: I have a couple of subjects I want to discuss that are of some minor importance. But before doing so, perhaps I should deal with the ministers who are here. They have taken the trouble to come and receive their praise that is due them. I suppose I should start with my favourite, our “Slow Sidney,” the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, because he’s in charge of the two departments which are of some interest to me and in which --

Mr. Stokes: One of them is booze.

Mr. Maeck: We know.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thought I was his favourite.

Mr. Shulman: One of them is booze. I must confess, we all have weaknesses. Some of us like women; some of us like politics. I have an interest in fine wines, and I must say this has caused me some difficulty over the years with the various Ministers of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am in charge of that too.

Mr. McIlveen: And women too.

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): The member for High Park has a paper cup there we can’t see through.

Mr. Shulman: His predecessor, John-John, long John, or whatever his name was -- now he was a fine speaker. Periodically he would get up in the House and he would announce: “Next month we are bringing in the new liquor bill.” And this went on for a long time. He was the minister for two years. And every three months he would announce that, “Next month we were going to get the bill.” And I really believed him. I must confess that was in my younger days. I was innocent; I didn’t realize what politics was all about and when the good minister got up and said, “We are going to bring in a new, radical, wonderful liquor bill; we are going to solve all these problems -- ”

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member doesn’t want that. He wants local option; he voted for it.

Mr. Shulman: Oh, I want local option in High Park, of course. We don’t want to change that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Liquor in everybody else’s backyard.

Mr. Shulman: That’s right. Okay. Not in High Park. We voted on that.

But anyway, the thing that interests me is that he phoned Jim Mackey one day and he said, “This is terrible, all this confusion. One fellow can have Sangria; one fellow can’t have Sangria. One fellow can stay open until 10; the other one has to close at 3. Somebody else can stay open until midnight. What I want you to do is write down all the rules so the owners and the public and everyone can know exactly what they can do and what they can’t do.”

Well, that’s all right saying it to Mackey. He also made the mistake of announcing it to the public. After a while, all the people in the public started phoning up and saying, “Where is this book of rules?”

I do not want the members to think Chief Mackey did not write them down, because he did write them down. After all, when a commissioner is given instructions by his minister he doesn’t say, “No, I’m not going to do it.” He says, “Yes, sir, I’ll do it right away.”

He put all the inspectors to work and they wrote out all the rules and they sent them up to the minister’s office. The minister read them and he blanched, I am told -- I wasn’t there unfortunately; I am told that when he read them he blanched. That’s the present minister’s predecessor; the present one needn’t shake his head. The previous minister said, “Oh God, we had better not publish those.” So as we all know, of course no rules have ever been supplied, published or made public, and I suspect no rules ever will be supplied, published or made public.

I also tell the House that that bill that the previous minister kept promising us every three months -- as the members will recall, I asked the new minister when it would come; he said in the fullness of time -- that bill just isn’t coming. The minister won’t deny it either. He knows it is not coming.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s the greatest help I have ever had from the member. I’ll make sure it is coming to make sure his prediction is wrong.

Mr. Shulman: Well, all right.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Shulman: It is not coming. The minister knows it’s not coming and I know it’s not coming, because somewhere in there they looked at the new bill and they had horrors. They said, “We can’t do that. The people of Durham will vote against us.” And that’s exactly what was said.

Mr. Bounsall: They outlawed apple cider.

Mr. Shulman: So I announce tonight, and I challenge the minister to deny it, there isn’t going to be any new liquor bill. The minister is silent. He does not deny it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I deny it.

Mr. Shulman: All right, we’ll go on. We’ve got the old liquor bill. I don’t mind, mind you, because even though I am not going to be in politics I hope to write a column in the future and there is enough material in the liquor board to keep me supplied for at least four more years, and then we can discuss it again.

What I want to talk about is something the minister can do something about -- but some people are slower than others and he may not get around to it -- and this is the problem of commodities. It may be a surprise to the House but that thing that the member for Essex-Kent and I were discussing earlier -- commodities -- comes under the minister of consumer protection; at least, it is supposed to come under the minister of consumer protection but he hasn’t got around to writing any law about it.

I want to tell the House that the situation in the commodity field right now is on the brink of a massive disaster -- not the type of disaster the Liberals were talking about, but an entirely different type of disaster; a disaster that is going to cost tens of millions of dollars, and all because the minister and his predecessor have certain problems that are associated with snaildom.

The situation is this: Anyone -- the member for Durham if he wishes -- may go out tomorrow and open a commodity house. He doesn’t have to have any capital. Hey, that’s what he should do. You don’t have to have any capital, you don’t have to have any knowledge of the business, you don’t have to have any -- no, I won’t say that.

Hon. Mr. Auld: The member has a conflict of interest.

Mr. McIlveen: Is this another chapter on how to make a million?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a chapter on how to lose a million.

Mr. Shulman: This is a chapter on how the government might save many millions. My commodity broker -- the chap I deal with here in Toronto; the firm’s name is Friedberg and Co. Ltd. -- is one of the more conservative types. They keep a very close rein on their salesmen. Some four months ago they found one of their salesmen was absolutely incompetent. He couldn’t understand the business. As a result of things he was doing, the firm lost many thousands of dollars and this salesman’s clients lost many thousands of dollars, so they fired him.

What did the fellow do? If you are fired in another business you search around for a job. He tried but couldn’t get a job in any other commodity firm. No problem; he just rented an office downtown, opened it up, put his name on the door and said -- I won’t mention his name because it would cause me more difficulties -- “So-and-so, Commodity Broker.” The public doesn’t know the difference. How are they to know? He started sending out cards and advertising, and people are flocking in there and he is becoming one of the busiest brokers in town.

I will guarantee the House that within a year he is going to go bankrupt, because he didn’t have the capital nor does he have the knowledge, and he is going to take with him some dozens, or, if he is successful, some hundreds of people who are investing their money there. It will all go down the drain.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Speculators -- gamblers.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, all of those people are speculators.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: When you gamble, you take a risk.

Mr. Shulman: Doesn’t the minister feel any responsibility? Let’s suppose we had the same situation on the stock market. People who go in and buy penny stocks are taking risks, but don’t they expect the stockbroker will still be there next week if they want to sell their stock?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The stock exchange will be there.

Mr. Shulman: Well, I’ll tell you, that commodity broker isn’t going to be there; he’s going to be in Florida with the money. I’ll give another example. There’s a fellow by the name of Bartlett, Pat Bartlett, who managed Carleton and Co. here in Toronto for some time --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s a good name.

Mr. Shulman: Yes, it was a good name, but they ran into some problems. The problems were that a few of the clients were slow in paying, so they brought in a couple of huskies from Dallas to beat up the clients and collect the money.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s against the law.

Mr. Shulman: Well, it may be against the law, but there’s no law regulating commodity brokers. The OPP came in and they hustled these two heavies and the heavies went back to Dallas. I got in touch with Carleton and they fired Mr. Bartlett. So what did Mr. Bartlett do? He opened a new company; it’s called Bartlett and Co.

Mr. Turner: Commodity dealer?

Mr. Shulman: Commodity dealer.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Where?

Mr. Shulman: On Eglinton Ave., I believe, here in Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Is he doing well?

Mr. Shulman: There are no regulations, no rules, no financing required, no inspectors, no government supervision. He is the minister responsible. Where’s the legislation?

Mr. Worton: It is just like an off-track betting set-up, isn’t it?

Mr. Shulman: “Slow Sidney.” Well, we’ll get the legislation, but first we’re going to have a massive bankruptcy. This is what bothers me about knee-jerk ministers. They move when there’s scandal. Well, now they’ve been given warning. Right here. In fact, the minister’s predecessor was given warning two years ago in a letter, and he said, “I’m looking into it.” Well, he looked into it and looked into it and finally he went to his great reward; he became the Attorney General. Okay, now I’m telling the minister to look into it. I suppose he’s still looking into it. I know he has a whole committee looking into it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He wants to become Attorney General.

Mr. Shulman: Well, maybe. I will tell him something. If he doesn’t do something about it fairly quickly as Attorney General, he’s going to have lots of business and lots of people to prosecute. He’s going to have to extradite a lot of them because they’re going to grab the money and run when things turn sour.

One can’t allow a business which is taking in quite literally tens of millions of dollars, on the one hand, and which, secondarily, can affect the price of many foods and other commodities in the world, to be unsupervised. It’s criminal. This is the only jurisdiction in North America or Europe where one can open up a commodity business with no capital. One can open up with a one-dollar bill. Well, the same thing happened in California before they had such control.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Not in Europe?

Mr. Shulman: Nowhere in Europe.

Hon. Mr. Auld: With a buck?

Mr. Shulman: In California, one could do it without capital until, I guess, two years ago. They had a bankruptcy there which took down $48 million from one firm and $35 million from another firm; then they rushed to get in legislation. Do we have to do the same thing here? What in the world is holding it up?

Hon. Mr. Auld: What about Majorca?

Mr. Shulman: Where? Majorca? I must confess I’m not familiar with Majorca. Perhaps it can be done there; I don’t know. Certainly in England, in France, in Spain they cannot, and certainly not in West Germany.

Mr. Worton: Or on the island of Skorpios.

Mr. Shulman: There may be some little islands where one can do things, but surely we’re not going to compare Majorca with Ontario. We are supposed to be responsible and grown up financially.

I want to say a word about “Fast Rene,” the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle). He was here a minute ago.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: “Fast Rene.” Come on. That’s like saying that the Attorney General was blanching, which is impossible.

Mr. Ferrier: Wait until he gets to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have heard the worst.

Mr. Shulman: Actually, I cannot come to grips with the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick in his new ministry. It’s such an amorphous thing, I’m not quite sure --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, the member has to learn the name of it.

Mr. Shulman: I honestly don’t even know the name of it, and I suspect he doesn’t either. However, that’s another matter. When he was Minister of Correctional Services, I really liked it, because then I could grab him. There was no fun in grabbing the present minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We had a ball then, didn’t we?

Mr. Shulman: Anyway, to come back to the minister of patronage, “Fast Rene.” We had a bit of a Conservative mini-scandal last year. Members will recall that we discovered when cheques were to be handed out the Conservative MPP, if it was a Conservative area, would hand out the cheque. If it was a non-Conservative area, they would have to import a Conservative MPP.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What a scandal. That’s enough to destroy the system.

Mr. Shulman: No, it really wasn’t a Conservative scandal; it was mini-patronage, sort of petty stuff. So we embarrassed the government --

Mr. Turner: We just didn’t trust the post office.

Mr. Shulman: We made a list of all the donations and the gifts that had been given out across the province, and by some coincidence -- I guess he just hadn’t got around to it -- no Liberal and no NDP member had ever got to present a cheque --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They just got the money.

Mr. Shulman: The ridings got the money. But every day without fail in 1974 -- and it is continuing in 1975 -- somewhere in Ontario there was a Conservative back-bench MPP handing out a cheque saying, “Your government is doing this for you.”

Mr. Maeck: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Shulman: I think it’s wonderful patronage, but it is bad politics.

Mr. Turner: It is not patronage.

Mr. Shulman: And, you see, I just want to warn the government again -- and I am here as a friend to it only and that is the only reason I am doing this --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You always hurt the one you love.

Mr. Shulman: -- to point out from the kindness of my heart it really should repent.

When this came out, I went up to the Minister of Community and Social Services and I said: “Rene, I don’t care about those other fellows, but when there are cheques to be given out at High Park, please don’t send Nick Leluk in, let me present the cheques. I feel a little embarrassed when I got to these meetings and Nick gets up.” So he said: “Okay, any time, any time.” So, no cheques but he is very friendly.

Actually he is very friendly. When I was travelling up to Moosonee with my family on the Polar Bear Express, he let us come back to his private railway car to have a drink of water. We spent a couple of minutes there and then he sent us back. But, anyway that’s another story. I am telling the members opposite we are making up a --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Shame, shame. What would the hon. member have said if he found out that the minister had done that for some Tory friend?

Mr. Shulman: I would denounce him!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member would call it a mini-scandal.

Mr. Shulman: A mini-scandal. Please, I just want to warn those fellows -- and this is meant only in friendship -- that we are making up a list again and a week before the election we are going to publish the list.

It is bad tactics, so I have a suggestion to make. Pick some token member of the opposition -- perhaps me -- and let me present a few of those cheques. In that way the government will be able to say there have been exceptions and so it won’t look so black and white when it comes to election time.

Mr. McIlveen: The member can come down and give some of mine.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hasn’t the member for Thunder Bay ever presented a cheque?

Sure, there you go. Member for High Park -- he has presented a cheque. One of his colleagues.

Mr. Shulman: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Auld: And it was a good cheque.

Mr. Shulman: I want to point out there has been a great deal of research done -- and perhaps I shouldn’t make this public and I am embarrassed to do so, but the truth must out in these things. Before the last election, the Premier did a brilliant thing. He stopped the Spadina Expressway. It was outrageous in a way. It was a break with tradition. It was a break with the past and it was such a bright, brilliant, progressive outrageous thing to do that he swept the people of Ontario with him and that won the election. I agree with the member for Durham, that’s the thing that won the election, that brilliant act.

Mr. Ferrier: That was Dalton Camp’s idea.

Mr. Shulman: Now there’s a terrible problem now. What do we do for the 1975 election? I understand -- and I know the cabinet hasn’t been informed of this yet, but I want to be the first to reveal it. It is a little premature and I apologize, but there has been a meeting of the Premier with his secret advisers and they said: “We need another great thing, a thing that will strike the imagination of the people of Ontario. Something we can get up about which we will say, ‘Nobody else would have done this.’”

Mr. Stokes: To capture their imagination.

Mr. Shulman: Yes. “Something that will capture their imagination. Something that we can take into the election campaign which the opposition will not be able to criticize.”

They argued and they argued and they argued -- and I understand cabinet is to be told about it next Wednesday, but I have to break the news first because one of my confidants told me they have this fantastic new bill and they are going to have the member for St Andrew-St Patrick introduce it. I have a copy of it here. It’s a bill to ban pay toilets.

Well, it shows imagination. Now who in the opposition is going to quarrel with that? I must give them credit again. Once again they have shown genius, ability and they may yet pull the election off with that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: What has that got to do with law and order?

Hon. Mr. Auld: It is a request from a limbo dancer with a back problem.

An hon. member: I think it is federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Shulman: Okay.

Mr. McIlveen: I thought the member for High Park wanted to be the ombudsman?

Mr. Shulman: I am going to talk about that tomorrow. My speech on going to be an ombudsman is going to take about three hours so there is no use starting that tonight. I have really an exposé as to why there is only one man for the job, but we will do that tomorrow.

I want to turn to a slightly more serious matter, Mr. Speaker. The major thing I want to talk about is the situation at the University of Toronto, but there isn’t time to start that tonight so I will save that until tomorrow morning. My apologies for those doctors who are here because of that, but the other members --

Mr. McIlveen: I came just for that.

Mr. Shulman: I am sorry. Come back tomorrow morning.

I want to talk to a serious matter that has taken place in the borough of York. Some six weeks ago a delegation of builders came to my office with a rather frightening tale of corruption involving a number of officials in that borough. There have been certain charges laid in the court and I am not going to say anything about that, for obvious reasons; it is sub judice. But the matter is so serious that there are some things I wish to discuss tonight with some apologies. I attempted to have this matter settled without it being made public but unfortunately the officials I spoke to did not agree with my point of view.

Briefly, what these six builders had to say was that in order to get anything done in that borough, they had to pay off. The process of getting a building permit I’m not going to discuss tonight because that matter is now before the courts. The reason it’s before the courts is that we supplied these men with $5,000 in marked money and sent them out to test their story.

However, once they had their building permit -- incidentally, the way they said this was done, and this has nothing to do with the charges against the people being charged, is that when they applied to have something done a certain alderman, who has not been charged, would appear and protest against it. They would win what they wished in front of the board of adjustment but they were then contacted by someone who said, “Unless you want this alderman to put in an appeal, you will pay so much money.” Of course, the danger of an appeal is that it would tie things up for some six, eight or nine months and when one has $100,000 or $200,000 tied up for that length of time it costs a great deal of money and it’s better to pay off.

Above and beyond that, the other things they said I found extremely upsetting. They said, “If you wish to put in a drain once you have your permit you pay the inspector. If you wish to up a wall you pay the inspector

If you wish to put in a foundation you pay the inspector.” These are extremely serious allegations. This is the sort of thing that’s happening in New York, Detroit and other areas where gradually corruption has crept into the building industry, forcing the cost up tremendously. If this is allowed to proceed here the same thing is going to happen.

I’ve turned that information over to the police and I presume some investigation is taking place. However, there is one thing I want to deal with tonight and this has to do with the board of adjustment itself. The chairman of the board of adjustment is a Mr. Cecil Foreht. He’s a lawyer; he’s a QC.

Mr. Foreht, who is the chairman of the board of adjustment in the borough of York, is extremely active in real estate in the borough of York. I have here the minutes of the meetings of the board of adjustment for the last two years, and I find that quite literally since -- well, let’s go back here.

Meeting No. 6, April 23, 1974: Chairman declares a conflict of interest, application at 1179 Weston Rd. Next meeting, absent. Meeting No. 8, June 4: Chairman declares a conflict of interest, 79 Snider Ave. Next meeting, No. 10, July 16, 1974; Chairman declares a conflict of interest, 144 Marcotta. Next meeting, No. 11; Chairman declares a conflict of interest, 38 Miranda. Next two meetings, no conflict of interest. Meeting 14, Oct. 5: Chairman declares a conflict of interest at 38 Miranda. Next meeting, Oct. 29: Chairman declares a conflict of interest re Donald Ave. Next meeting, Nov. 19: Chairman declares a conflict of interest re 43 Bloem Ave. Next meeting, Dec. 10; Chairman declares two conflicts of interest, 149 King St. and then one on the north side of Black Creek Blvd.

There is no proof and there is no suggestion that there have been any illegal activities on the part of the chairman. But I think it is fairly obvious that when a man is on the board of adjustment of a municipality he should have enough sense not to put himself in a position of constant conflict of interest and to have to constantly declare it. Here’s a man who, meeting after meeting, has to get up and say, “I or my partners are involved in that transaction.” He is very, very busy in that borough in real estate and he should not be on that board of adjustment.

I phoned him a week ago, last Friday actually, and I laid all the facts in front of him and said, “I don’t wish to make this public. It appears to me you should give up either your position on the board of adjustment or your position in real estate in the borough. Even though there is no conflict of interest or you say there’s no conflict of interest or when there is a conflict of interest you declare it, the feeling has gone abroad among many of the builders that if you want to get a problem through you go to this particular lawyer. He declares his conflict of interest and the other members then vote for it.”

That isn’t entirely true because I’ve gone down the list. Most of the ones he declared did go through; some of them didn’t so obviously that isn’t insurance. But that is the feeling among many of the small builders and it is all smaller builders in the borough of York. Surely it’s common sense that when we have builders going constantly to these meetings and hearing the chairman, meeting after meeting, saying, “I have an interest in that,” then grave suspicions arise, and surely they shouldn’t put themselves in that position. I can understand if it happened once, but to be happening time after time after time, that man should not be on the board, that is what I am saying.

There is nothing illegal here; this is not a matter for police action. I suggest it is a matter for action by the Treasurer. I did take the matter to the mayor and he said he would speak to Foreht, but that was also a week ago and, inasmuch as nothing has occurred, there is some provincial responsibility here, not only to make sure that everything is done legally in the borough of York, but also that everything is done so that it appears to be proper, so that the public or the builders or others do not feel that there is an inner circle that gets things its own way.

I want to speak very briefly about the problem of loan sharking. Members may have read in the paper yesterday that a gentleman made the mistake of not paying back a loan shark and was killed on a contract murder. A charge has been laid in that, so we can’t discuss that either. The thing that bothers me about that whole affair is that the police knew in advance that this man was going to be killed. They didn’t know who was going to kill him, but they received a tip a week ago that he was going to be killed, and what bothers me is that they weren’t able in this province to protect him; they weren’t able or they didn’t.

Something is very wrong. We have come a long way since the days when the police were instructed that there was no such thing as organized crime. We have improved tremendously and we were on the verge of another big improvement. The former Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) promised me he was going to fight for more money, more equipment and more personnel for the intelligence department of the police but they didn’t get it. They haven’t got it yet. They have got promises, but what do the promises mean when he isn’t in the cabinet?

Is the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) going to fight for it? He doesn’t know anything about the department, he is busy with his Attorney General’s job and he has problems with his health to boot.

Here we have a situation where the intelligence departments of our police are still so undermanned -- that is the only answer I can give, because their quality has been upgraded tremendously -- they are not able to give proper protection to someone they know is going to be assassinated. Yet when that man is assassinated they are able to make an arrest, we have come that far.

In the old days the death would occur -- we know how many of them took place here time after time -- or mysterious disappearances -- the Teddy Yanovich case was a perfect one, and the Leo Kerwin case -- and nothing happened. Well, we have come further. They have made an arrest, they have a suspect, and we will just have to see what happens there. But they need more personnel, they need more equipment, they need more money, and as far as I can find out nobody seems to be listening.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to the major address which I wish to make, but we seem to have run out of time. I wonder if I could adjourn the debate and continue tomorrow?

Mr. Shulman moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the business for tomorrow will be the continuation of this order, and the House leader proposes to call the government notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow).

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

Motion agreed to.

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