The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

TORONTO BUILDING HEIGHT BYLAW

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in December, 1973, the council of the city of Toronto passed bylaw 347/73 to adopt amendment No. 25 to the city’s official plan. It also passed bylaw 348/73, which has been referred to as the 45-ft bylaw, and which would have restricted height and density in the city core. Amendment No. 25 is broader than bylaw 348/73 because it would have permitted the city to pass similar bylaws for any part of the city.

The Ontario Municipal Board, in the fall of 1974, conducted a lengthy hearing dealing with both the official plan amendment and the zoning bylaw. On Dec. 9, 1974, the OMB issued a decision not to approve either the amendment or the bylaw. The city of Toronto subsequently petitioned the cabinet to vary this decision.

The city of Toronto has indicated that it passed the two bylaws because it had concluded “the existing zoning bylaw was insufficient to regulate and control growth and stability in the central core area of Toronto in that it was excessively permissive, most notably in the wide use permissions and high density available in industrial and commercial areas.” It was felt that such development would have created problems in the provision of adequate transportation and community facilities and would have led to a deterioration in the quality of the urban environment. The city’s objective was, therefore, to put a temporary hold on the core area to permit the completion of planning studies leading to the development of new planning standards.

This was recognized as a legitimate objective by the OMB. The board did, however, criticize the means of achieving this objective. Amendment No. 25 would have resulted, in the opinion of the board, in the abrogation of the official plan and in arbitrary powers being acquired by the city council. It criticized the failure of the city to establish objective criteria for exemptions to allow appropriate developments during the period of the hold and for its failure to study and consider the economic effects of the bylaw.

The government of Ontario shares the concerns of the OMB. At the same time, it is clear that elected councils have not only the right but the duty to establish appropriate land-use controls and to re-examine such controls from time to time to determine their adequacy.

In addition, it is clear from decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada that section 35 of the Planning Act empowers municipalities to pass holding bylaws, if such bylaws conform to the municipality’s official plan.

In arriving at a decision, this government has closely examined the expressed intent of the city, the comments submitted by the interested parties, and the conclusions arrived at by the Ontario Municipal Board.

The government supports and is in full sympathy with the objectives of the council of the city of Toronto in relation to control, preservation and planning of the core area of the city. At the same time even the most worthy objectives can only be legitimately achieved in a democratic society through the orderly process of law. Of fundamental importance in our system is the right of an individual to know or to be able to ascertain where he stands in relation to the law.

This is not to say, in the case under consideration, that the city council cannot change its zoning bylaws and its official plan. However, when doing so council must give expression to its policies in terms of objective standards which can be understood by the people affected. Any system which attempts to substitute the subjective opinion of council in the place of objective criteria would be open to abuse and cannot be supported.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): That sounds like a Globe and Mail editorial.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The criteria must be public information so that a property owner may know the basis on which the decisions affecting his property are being made so that he may be reasonably confident --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Wouldn’t be a bad idea if the government followed that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- of fair and equitable treatment and so that he may exercise his lawful rights in the event of a dispute.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The lawful rights of developers are pretty tender here in this government.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Having regard to all these factors, the cabinet has decided to deny the petition of the city in regard to the 45-ft bylaw, and to confirm the decision of the OMB.

In the case of amendment 25, cabinet has decided that the substantive objections set out by the OMB can be met by varying the proposed amendment to the official plan. One concern expressed by the OMB was that the amendment applied to the whole of the city of Toronto. To meet this objection, cabinet has reduced the area of coverage to the official plan amendment 347 to coincide with the core area of the city. Cabinet therefore upholds the OMB decision as it relates to the area of the city outside the core and accepts, in a modified form, the petition of the city as it relates to the core area.

Cabinet has also modified amendment No. 25 to require that a part 2 study be undertaken by the city in all cases where a holding bylaw is enacted. Such holding bylaws may be passed for the period ending Sept. 30, 1975, rather than the two years originally provided for in amendment No. 25.

Amendment No. 25 (347/73) is further modified to remove excessive dependence on subjective opinion and will require instead that city council adopt by resolution objective criteria by which exemptions are to be considered. Such action will be required within 30 days of the adopting of such a holding bylaw. This requirement should provide adequate safeguards until Sept. 30, 1975, at which time the city has indicated that it will bring into effect revised permanent planning standards for the city core.

As the amendment to the official plan is developed, it should be recognized that the core of the city of Toronto is of great significance, not only to the city but to the Metropolitan region and, indeed, to the province. It is most necessary, therefore, that matters such as the Toronto-centred region plan and the transportation alternatives of the Soberman report be considered as the plans for the core are developed.

The views and opinions of the Metropolitan Toronto council, the Toronto-centred co-ordinating committee and the province should be sought so that all may provide assistance in the planning of this area that affects the lives of so many people.

In conclusion, we believe the legitimate concerns of the Toronto city council, the Ontario Municipal Board and the government of Ontario can be met through these amendments to bylaw 347/73, which will give the city until Sept. 30, 1975, to adopt permanent planning standards.

CREDIT UNIONS

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House today about my consultation with credit unions on proposals to change the Credit Unions Act.

In the past four weeks, 15 regional meetings have been held with credit union presidents from all over Ontario. Both the Credit Union League and the Federation of Caisses Populaires have also been consulted on a series of proposals developed by my ministry.

Our proposals were drawn primarily from the select committee on company law report of 1969, with updating to reflect changes in other provincial legislation and the growing sophistication of credit unions themselves.

The main proposal was for a guarantee fund to insure individual member deposits and to provide emergency funding to credit unions needing assistance. The proposed fund would have included all Ontario credit unions, each of which would make a contribution related to its size. Protection provided by the proposed fund would have been superior to that of the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corp., which does not rescue financial institutions or their shareholders but merely protects depositors up to a set dollar figure.

Our proposals also provided for features such as open membership, new investment opportunities and the power to purchase life insurance and other group benefits for the membership. With the guaranty fund in place, we would therefore have facilitated additional growth for the credit union movement.

Mr. Speaker, I feel these proposals reflected our genuine concern that credit union depositors receive protection equivalent to what is offered by banks and trust companies.

In my meetings with credit union presidents, concerns were expressed as to the nature of the guaranty fund, its costs and the fact that it would be controlled by the provincial government.

I have made a commitment that this government would not force any unwanted controls on the credit union movement and so there will be further consultation with the movement over the next several months as we strive to reach a consensus.

One alternative which will be considered is the possibility of working with representatives of the credit union movement to enable full participation in the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corp. I have promised the movement every possible assistance in negotiating this matter with the federal authorities.

I will keep the House informed as we proceed with our discussions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

TORONTO BUILDING HEIGHT BYLAW

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the Treasurer, since he has refused to reverse the Municipal Board ruling but apparently has authorized changes in Toronto bylaws which in fact have almost precisely the same effect, is there a hole in the net through which a developer might claim legal approval for the building of a structure which would in fact not comply with the intention of the bylaw, which has now been reversed, or the intention of the government in giving a restructure to the powers of the Toronto government in order to permit them to have these city powers, which we all support? My question is: Is there any place that a developer can build up through the net?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The bylaw has been varied, not bylaws. I just make that comment. I think the member is referring to the period for which the bylaw has been quashed by the board, now confirmed by the cabinet, to the date at which time the city actually gave notice of intent to pass a new bylaw --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Before which, certain applications were made?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- which was Dec. 9, 1974. What the position is of those applications which were, in effect, denied during that period -- how many there are I don’t know -- is something to be sorted out between the city and the applicants. If there is a dispute then ultimately I suppose the courts are in the proper position to sort it out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the province must see itself involved in any disputes evolving from that hiatus, has the cabinet looked at any alternatives whereby it can support the expressed intention of the council of the city of Toronto to hold development at the 45-ft level and, in turn, the statement that the minister made, which we support, that the city must have the powers to make such control measures if it so chooses to do?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m not entirely sure that I follow the question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The question is: Isn’t there anything else the Treasurer can do but say it is between the city and applicants?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, because that’s where it properly is. It is not cabinet’s position to get involved between any council and the applicants.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If the OMB hadn’t reversed the bylaw they wouldn’t be in this mess.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): That’s a key point.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is a point, it is not a key point.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, it means the government is involved.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not, however, the basis on which the cabinet decision was made.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Has the Treasurer now accepted as the core area, the definition which the city of Toronto gave it in the original bylaw? When he says “in a modified form,” what does he mean by the phrase “in a modified form?” Finally, is he saying, in effect, that in the core area the 45-ft height bylaw obtains as the city requested, and he is giving the city the right within certain newly defined parameters to extend holding bylaws outside the core area as long as they don’t apply beyond Sept. 30, 1975?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Let’s take them one at a time.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The answer to the first question is that the core area as defined in the variance is roughly Parliament to Bathurst from the Lakefront up to the CPR, which is something less than the city had originally defined as the core, but we believe it is sensibly the core area. Now give me the next one.

Mr. Lewis: All right. The next one was, what does the Treasurer mean -- oh I see, that’s what he means by modified form; that he has narrowed the core slightly.

Mr. Deans: What was the reason for that?

Mr. Lewis: My colleague from Wentworth asks a very appropriate question: Why did the Treasurer redefine the core if he accepted the city’s argument on the one hand?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That essentially is the core area. There is nothing sinister about that. That is essentially --

Mr. Lewis: No, no, I am not saying there is anything sinister.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- the core area as defined by the city and other places. I’ll put it that way. There is a confusion here between core and the central business district. That’s the way it used to be defined in the old bylaw and that’s what we chose on this one, on the variance.

Mr. Lewis: The other point that hasn’t been answered is, the Treasurer has given the city the right to pass holding bylaws on the basis of objective criteria up to Sept. 30, 1975, beyond the core area. In other words, the OMB decision is effectively reversed despite the sort of definitive statement here. He is giving the city everything it wants in stages.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Lewis: No?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Lewis: No? It is what they said.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He has obviously come to a conclusion which is so confusing that nobody can understand it. It will take them until after the election to understand it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My friend from York South says we have come to a decision which is so confusing that no one will understand it. I think it will be understood.

Mr. Lewis: Yes?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I want to make it clear that it does take careful reading. Undoubtedly there will be matters which will have to be decided between applicants and between the council, and ultimately may well have to be determined by the courts, but which this cabinet has not looked at nor is it involving itself in.

Mr. Lewis: The government is just re-defining the core, that is all it is doing; it is just setting out the new boundaries.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, take another look at the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for St. George has the final supplementary.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I have just quickly glanced at the statement but I wonder if the minister would elaborate on the statement with reference to the necessity of obtaining the views and opinions of Metropolitan Toronto. Is this something new and additional which is being added? If I may, I would like to add that we now appear to have had two changes in the Metropolitan Toronto authorities while we are still waiting a report from the Robarts commission. I wonder how far we are going to go before we really know what the Robarts commission says.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think that the Robarts commission particularly has a bearing on this. I suppose the Robarts commission ultimately might recommend, and this Legislature might approve, structural changes either in planning or in terms of municipal organization which might eliminate some need for the kind of consultation which we feel is necessary and have suggested -- suggested is the correct term, because that is not part of the cabinet decision.

What we are attempting to point out is that the core area of Toronto has a significance -- in fact, if not in law, if I can put it that way as a non-lawyer -- far beyond the approximately 700,000 people who live in the city of Toronto. What happens in that area has an enormous impact in terms of the rest of Metropolitan Toronto, the regional municipalities on either side and to the north, and indeed the province as a whole.

I have no idea what Mr. Robarts may or may not suggest, but I think what the member is suggesting is that if Mr. Robarts, at the extreme, recommended the amalgamation in a one-tier municipality of Peel, York, Durham and Toronto, then some of the consultation which we have suggested is necessary wouldn’t have to take place because it would happen in that arena. I don’t think that is a possibility.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

CREDIT UNIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations if he considered the possibility of reactivating the Ontario Deposit Insurance Corp., which we put on the books back in the 1960s at a time that it was felt certain trust companies needed underpinning. Since the Provincial Auditor drew our attention to that just a week ago, saying the structure was still there, would it not have been an alternative that we reactivate that corporation, rather than saying to the credit unions that if they want deposit insurance then get it from the federal corporation, since these credit unions are provincially established?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, yes, we did consider it. I think the hon. member knows the history of the Ontario Deposit Insurance Corp. It was set up to meet a certain need. That need has now been met by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. There is no longer a need for a provincial one with small resources and a smaller base. Quite frankly, I have studied it, and I’ve discussed it with the members of the movement. I have pointed out to them that in my view there wouldn’t be any need to set up a bureaucracy simply for Ontario savings institutions when there already is a national institution set up to serve the country from coast to coast; and that the cost of the bureaucracy would have to be met out of the contributions, as it is in Ottawa, and the contributions simply wouldn’t carry the cost.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: On the other hand, the minister was prepared to establish a bureaucracy to fund the financial support for these credit unions, which they have been doing independently and which they objected to. I don’t see the difference, but since the minister is so concerned about bureaucracy, can we expect a bill repealing that Ontario deposit insurance since it never was used even by the trust companies?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m certainly in favour of removing redundant organizations and I will discuss it with my cabinet colleagues.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON ENERGY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he can tell the House what communications he has had with the government of Canada, in planning for the federal-provincial conference on energy which is coming up and which is certainly going to be of such importance. Is it going to be an open conference and, if so, would it be possible for representatives or observers from opposition parties to see what goes on?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion. I can’t tell the Leader of the Opposition what ultimate decision has been made yet with respect to a part of it being open or whether it will be closed, I expect we’ll have that within a few days and I shall inform the members of the House as to what the plans will be.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The position that has been expressed by the Premier -- and I don’t know whether the Ministry of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) has said it, but certainly the Treasurer has -- that Ontario is going to stop agreeing with any further escalation in the prices since we’re the consumers, is certainly a good position. Has this been put forward by means of an official statement of government policy and made known to the other provinces, or is this so far just simply comments and statements made by officials from the government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, until we’re familiar with exactly what is to be on the agenda and the form of conference it is to be in terms of whether it’s public et cetera, I don’t think that we are going to be presenting any prepared positions in advance of the conference. I doubt this. As I can recall, we’ve had no communication from other provinces as to what their positions may or may not be.

There is an item on the agenda, Mr. Speaker, as it relates perhaps to the economic situation generally, and I am sure individual provinces will have individual points of view. I doubt that we will have, say, several days before the conference, a printed or prepared statement and I doubt that the other provinces will either. I don’t think it will be that kind of conference.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: However, this government’s position has been publicly announced and is fixed. Is that a true assessment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I say, the agenda covers more than just energy in terms of suggested increases in costs as it relates to energy. While we have not stated our position, and I think we should do so at the conference in a very formal way, I believe the Treasurer and perhaps the Minister of Energy have, and I think I have on one or two occasions, indicated that Ontario will not be accepting a significant increase in terms of the cost of energy coming from two of our sister provinces.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Premier think the federal government’s raising the prices is a dirty trick, in an election year, to do him in?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Yes, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if that is a supplementary question, I would say that if the federal government on its own substantially increases the price of energy, I don’t say it is a dirty trick in an election year, but I think it would be certainly inflationary and irresponsible, if I can phrase it that way. I’m sure the leader of the NDP couldn’t help but support that point of view.

Mr. Lewis: Without question. I just wanted to know how paranoid he was.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any further questions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I always say, it takes one to know one.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is right, but we don’t talk about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a supplementary on that last question?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker; Does the Premier think the federal government, as an anti-inflationary measure, should by to cut back its expenditures in all fields?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think once again the chief economist of the NDP has asked me a question that relates to economic considerations.

Mr. Speaker: That was not a supplementary question, but if it is a short answer we will allow it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am always prepared to give a short answer but when I’m asked such a complicated question by the member for High Park, which really involves a detailed analysis of the total economy of Canada at this precise moment, I can’t do it in very short order. If I go beyond five or 10 minutes, I would be quite prepared to have you deduct anything over the 10 minutes from the question period. I wouldn’t object to that strenuously. Now what was the question?

In general terms, if one is covering all federal government expenditures, the answer would probably be no. I think that in terms of the economy one has to weigh the social need for housing, the need for stimulation of the construction industry to provide jobs, against the impact of inflation.

If I were asked by the member for High Park to try to sort out some of these priorities, I would have to say that further expenditure in the field of housing, while it may or may not have an inflationary impact, depending on what settlements are made related to both the wages and whatever happens to prices for building materials, the benefits derived from further impetus in the housing field in terms of jobs and the social need -- the requirements of people for housing -- I think, Mr. Speaker, that’s the kind of decision that I would make if I were in the federal government. Yes, we would spend more on housing if we had the decision to be made at Ottawa.

Mr. Deans: Why didn’t the government just spend what it had?

Mrs. Campbell: That’s right. Let it spend what it hasn’t spent.

BED SITUATION AT LONDON HOSPITAL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Health why it is that patients are being turned away from the University Hospital in London -- they have come from the outlying districts to use the special facilities there -- because of a shortage of approved beds when actually there are 60 beds which the hospital has never been allowed to make operational because of decisions here at Queen’s Park? What is the rationale in that procedure?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on that basis I would assume the Leader of the Opposition is not in favour of any attempts to constrain costs in the health care system.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am certainly not in favour of 60 beds being built at public expense and then never being used. What is the saving there?

Hon. Mr. Miller: There are many times when we plan ahead -- something the member’s party seldom does -- and we planned for a change in the pattern in that city.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Besides which, it is the federal government’s fault.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is a beautiful new hospital but at this point in time this hospital, like many other hospitals in the province --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- was designed as a shell, and to have more beds than we currently need. We will --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government doesn’t need them but the sick people in western Ontario need them.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Any number of beds at any point in time can be filled with patients. The Liberal critic for health -- if the member reads his comments and I am sure he must -- has consistently told me I haven’t had the courage to close more beds. If the member is turning around telling me we should open up every bed we have the competence to do, then I don’t agree.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Can the minister really be attempting to make a virtue out of the fact that the deplorable planning, the responsibility of his predecessors -- not his as yet -- has left this fantastic hospital there, one of the largest and most expensive in the world, with 60 beds that he will not permit to be opened when the whole concept of the hospital is to be a medical centre for the whole of western Ontario? These patients come in from the smaller communities and are turned back. That’s good planning?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the city of London, as far as I am concerned, is one of those points in Ontario where we have probably an unequalled opportunity to make some of the savings in the health care field we have talked about. The member knows we are negotiating with the federal government right now. He knows we are negotiating with them on Westminster Hospital.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Singer: I knew it had to be the federal government’s fault somehow.

Hon. Mr. Miller: In fact we are getting co-operation from them.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Another dirty trick.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is not a dirty trick at all. As a matter of fact, it’s good common sense because the Province of Ontario is charged with the responsibility to deliver health care. The federal government has been delivering it at Westminster to a selected group of people. In a very sensible way we are discussing the amalgamation of facilities, the elimination of redundancy and the saving of many millions of dollars per year in costs.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In the meanwhile, the patients are turned away.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. Shulman: In view of the statement the minister has just made -- that he plans ahead -- can he explain the form of planning that allowed the Mount Sinai Hospital to build --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is far removed. You may ask it as a new question.

Mr. Lewis: It is not.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. leader was asking about a particular hospital.

Mr. Shulman: Well, then, I will reword it.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not your turn yet.

Mr. Shulman: May I reword it? Can the minister explain, in view of the fact that this particular hospital is not allowing those beds to be used --

Mr. Speaker: Now it appears to be a supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: -- how he plans so well ahead that he allowed new hospitals to be built and before they were even completed, he was shutting down wings in other hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, I wouldn’t like to answer that question, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Is the minister using the 60 beds for anything?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Were there further questions from the Leader of the Opposition? All right, the member for Scarborough West.

TIMISKAMING AREA HOSPITAL

Mr. Lewis: Let me ask the Minister of Health a different kind of question. Is he going to respond favourably to the request from the communities of Cobalt, Haileybury, Latchford and probably from a large number of people in New Liskeard, who would appreciate a public inquiry into the fashion in which he has manhandled the entire Timiskaming area in its effort to locate, rationally, somewhere, a hospital? Does the minister not now think that their collective request for a public inquiry is legitimate in the terms of what has happened?

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

Mr. Lewis: No. Well then, may I ask the minister how he allows himself to do such violence to the democratic process as to stack a hospital board -- deliberately stack a hospital board -- in order to have a political decision made? Is there no other authority or power a Minister of Health has than to manipulate a community?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The member has made two statements. One is true and one is not true.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not bad.

An hon. member: That’s usual.

An hon. member: That’s good -- 50 per cent right. That’s better than usual.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): He ought to get his facts before he spouts off.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Did I stack a board? Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Right. Then everything else follows. That’s called manipulation.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is not.

Mr. Lewis: It certainly is.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I have certain authorities given to me as Minister of Health --

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- which, reluctantly, I have used in that area, after attempting every other form of discussion. To say that the reaction or the original decision was right is wrong. To say that it was political is wrong. As I was quoted quite accurately in the Globe and Mail today, no one could accuse me of having made a political decision in this area, because I won’t win a vote with what I did; and I will lose many for the party I represent.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Miller: All right, I face that fact. But that does not stop me, once in a while, from doing what in my opinion is correct.

Mr. Singer: Usually it does, but once in a while it doesn’t.

Mr. Lewis: We’re talking to the minister about health needs.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If the community doesn’t agree with him, he still goes ahead.

Hon. Mr. Miller: So, I have very seriously assessed these things. I have made two or three trips to the area to discuss the problem. I have found two groups of people unable to resolve their differences. I have looked at many reports in the area. Look, I wish I could say I know I’m right.

Mr. Lewis: None of the consultants agrees with the minister.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Life is always simple if you know you’re right. I believe I’m right.

Mr. Lewis: I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Miller: And having believed I’m right, I’ve gone ahead on what I think is the proper course of action; and I have used my ministerial authority.

Mr. Lewis: Surely, apart from all the reports by the consultants and the votes, in regard to the board, does the minister not recognize that the appointments are seen publicly as Conservative Party appointments?

Mr. Havrot: No, they’re not.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. That’s how it is felt up there. That’s why there are demands for a public inquiry from people who would never even have countenanced it before. There has to be a better way than to offend entire communities of reasonable people. Is the minister saying that he has exhausted every avenue open to him other than the stacking of a board? And in that case, is it worth it?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it had got to the point where having gone up and discussed this thing, as I say, two or three times, and having received a number of conflicting reports, the board had got to the point where no issue was being dealt with. If the members from New Liskeard turned up, the members from Haileybury didn’t. If the members from Haileybury turned up, the members from New Liskeard didn’t.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Shame, shame!

Mr. Lewis: That’s not quite true.

Mr. Havrot: The leader of the NDP should get the facts.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The decision was geographic. There were nine people representing the Haileybury interests geographically. There were six people representing the New Liskeard interests geographically. The hospital is on the town line, the new site that I’ve chosen. That board was created out of two boards with only one objective in mind, to select a site and build a new hospital. They all accepted that as their terms of reference. They’ll start denying it at this point in time, but they did accept it until the decision was made -- and then the place fell apart.

Mr. Lewis: They made several decisions. The minister reversed them.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I reversed one decision.

Mr. Lewis: The minister reversed all of the choices and he made his choice.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I reversed the one. I chose site No. 3. I have seen it and I believe it is correct.

Mr. Lewis: This is not the way to deal with small communities.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can only say this, we determine that a new hospital is required and there is no way of resolving the local differences. Look, when they had to put the Haileybury fire plaque up they put it up in Earlton and called it the great fire, for the same reasons. So I didn’t have much chance of getting much reaction.

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

MULTI-SERVICE CENTRES

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask the Provincial Secretary for Social Development what, if anything, is ever going to happen to the request from the Agincourt Community Services Association for a grant from this government -- from one of the ministries of the government of which the minister is a part -- to which request she responded enthusiastically in June of 1974 and October of 1974? It is now March of 1975 and no grant has yet come through and the service is faced with collapse.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, the Agincourt Community Services Association falls into a category that has no established government policy, which is a multi-service centre, and that is under active consideration in our policy field at the moment.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask her colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services, why, when support was sought from him in December of 1974, the minister did not reply to the group, despite knowing that his colleague had had much contact with it?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Policy on this whole matter, Mr. Speaker, is being considered. The Ministry of Health and my ministry have funded, on an experimental basis, the North York multi-service concept and I believe this is in its third year. But a policy decision on this whole question has not yet been made.

Mr. Lewis: One further question: Does the minister understand that this association, which has done extraordinary work -- as acknowledged by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development -- has been at the government’s door for nine months now, begging, and it cannot get a policy decision and faces closure on March 31? Can the minister not give them a decision in this instance?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to add that there was a meeting held last week, I believe it was last Thursday, with representatives from the Ministry of Culture and Recreation to look into whether some assistance could be given to it as an information centre, and also there are other avenues that are being approached. We are in agreement that it is a very worthwhile organization and we are trying to find ways and means to assist it in the meantime.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I don’t understand this. I want to press it because they are all in limbo out there, these organizations. They have seen the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, they have seen --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Is there a question?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the minister says to me that they have gone to Culture and Recreation --

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: That’s for information centres.

Mr. Lewis: That is three successive ministries in nine months. Will it ever end? Will the multi-service centre ever have funding? That is what I am asking.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would hope so. I think the hon. member appreciates that the whole question of the funding of those types of organizations is a very complex one. As the hon. member knows, we have under review right now the whole question of assistance to social planning councils. The green paper should be out within the next few weeks. There have been meetings throughout the whole province and this again relates to this question -- that is, a relation with the multipurpose centres.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary question: When will the minister’s special study on multi-service centres and the guidelines therefor be available?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It is difficult to say just when they will be available. This subject was discussed at the last policy meeting yesterday and the question is being very actively considered. As to when the guidelines will be out, I think at this time, Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to say.

Mr. MacDonald: Has the special committee produced a report for the minister as yet?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West?

HOUSING COSTS

Mr. Lewis: Just a last question of the Treasurer: Can the Treasurer indicate to the Legislature what changes he intends to make in social policy, perhaps with the Land Speculation Tax Act and other areas, to reverse the position in Toronto, which hasn’t been reversed, despite all the protestations from his predecessor about housing, so that for the first time in the history of the Metro Toronto area the average house price in March, 1975, has exceeded $60,000 for the first two weeks of this month? The average real estate housing transaction in the Metro Toronto area this month is $60,499. What in God’s name can be done to overcome that, which is obviously placing such restrictions on the market that it’s hopeless for most middle-income families?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, any substantive changes which may or may not be made will be announced on April 7.

Mr. Renwick: On April 7?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I haven’t seen the figures to which the member for Scarborough West referred. What happened last spring is that house prices in Metropolitan Toronto stabilized, indeed fell, and within the last couple of months have grown by, I think, $1,700. That’s the figure that sticks in my mind but I don’t have the figures here in front of me.

Mr. Lewis: Or greater.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Considering the rate of inflation in the last 12 months has been something in the order of 12 per cent, on a $50,000 house that would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5,000. One could argue, but I’m not arguing, that the price of housing is something less than the rate of inflation during the last 12 months. I’m not making that argument but there it is and that’s a fact. One of the encouraging things --

Mr. Lewis: No, the Treasurer has thrown it in just for the hell of it. I thought he would throw it in.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, because I always like to give the member a little economic lecture whenever I can for his edification.

Mr. Lewis: How does one afford a $60,500 home?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: One of the encouraging things which should be noted is since the first of the year, a turn-up to some extent in the existing housing market -- in the last two, three or four weeks particularly. That, obviously, is going to put some upward pressure on prices.

Mr. Lewis: That is lesson No. 2.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s lesson No. 2. Lesson No. 3 is that --

Mr. MacDonald: Could the Treasurer explain how that takes place?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- once again, we reject putting some sort of price controls on housing which is the NDP’s darling over there and by which they would have us living in the most controlled economy.

Mr. Renwick: Does the Treasurer think that the taxpayers’ pocket is a bottomless pit?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It would take away every bit of initiative there is and it would have us all living in that socialist Valhalla which, pray God, will never occur in Ontario while we’re around running the store and running it so very well.

Mr. Lewis: It would be good for the Treasurer.

Mr. MacDonald: The Treasurer would feel better.

Mr. Lewis: Cutting sugar cane in Cuba. The Treasurer with a machete.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Simcoe East.

FACILITIES ON THE TRENT-SEVERN SYSTEM

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Is the minister aware that the federal government, through its parks branch, has announced lock charges for boaters using the Trent-Severn and Rideau systems? Will the minister inquire from the federal ministry what the money will be used for?

An hon. member: What about the CORTS agreement?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He didn’t even know there was a Trent system.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I’m not too sure there is any relationship between the action taken by the federal government and the CORTS agreement. Actually the CORTS agreement deals with the land on both sides of the corridor and the treatment of that land. There may be some indirect connection; I’m not too sure, off the top of my head. I’ll certainly inquire into the question which the member has asked and find out really whether it does have any relationship to that agreement.

Mr. G. E. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. G. E. Smith: Would the minister give us his assurance that he will refer this to the CORTS committee because it seems to me that a $3 or $4 a day locking charge, particularly if the revenues are not going to be funnelled back into upgrading the facilities along the Trent-Severn, is a little much. I would hope, because of the boating traffic and the need for improved facilities, he may use his influence through the committee to get the message to the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I’ll certainly take that in hand --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Like gasoline tax.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and study any effect it may have with the agreement.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview has been waiting very patiently.

LAW-AND-ORDER LEGISLATION

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General tell us what steps he is taking to implement that fascinating paragraph in Her Honour’s speech at the opening of this session relating to law and order? Would he agree that a fair summation of the intent behind that paragraph is that we have nothing to fear but fear itself?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I think within a matter of days certain announcements will be made in this room which will ease the burden which has been placed on the hon. member for Downsview. I think that I’ll say no more, unless he wants some kind of reassurance from me that he will be safe. Even I wouldn’t make that assurance here in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

HAMILTON HEALTH CARE FACILITY

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health.

Mrs. Campbell: Where is he?

Mr. Deans: He’s here; he just has his back turned. What action has been taken by the health council in Hamilton to meet the criteria that were established by the minister some six months ago to develop a health care facility in the east end of the city?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can’t answer the question in detail. I’ll get the answer for the member. As he knows, this was one of the criteria we set up in permitting the redevelopment of one of the hospitals in the core. It had been studied and we met with the health planning council and with the regional government representatives in the city, all of whom wanted the redevelopment of the hospital in that particular spot.

Our ministry hadn’t been that keen on a redevelopment downtown. But when we set these other terms of reference, including the requirement that health care he provided in that area and that they were to come up with a plan, it was accepted by both sides. I can’t tell the member what that progress has been, but I will find out for him.

Mr. Deans: Just one supplementary question: Can the minister indicate whether there is a time limit on the council coming up with this plan in order that the people in the east end of the city have their fears allayed with regard to the delays that have taken place for 25 or 30 years and the promises that have been made over that period of time?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’m not sure, but it’s in the letter. It’s reasonable that there should be one and I’m quite prepared to see that we discuss a feasible time limit for that answer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

CHAIN STORE PRICING

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the computer checkout programmes that some grocery stores are now considering introducing. Are staff of the ministry involved with respect to the monitoring of the problems that some of the consumer association groups have suggested can occur in that whole procedure? Is the minister co-operating with the federal authorities who are interested as well in ensuring that the consumer’s interest is protected, so that the matters of shelf pricing and price changes at the cash desk itself are going to be worked out so that the consumer’s interest is protected?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, of course, we are aware of the growing tendency to experiment in this line. At the present time, there are a few experiments going on in Ontario. I’m not aware of any federal agency which is controlling it or concerned about it, except for the Food Prices Review Board, which of course has no authority to do anything except report on it. Certainly my ministry is aware of it. We have not been contacted by any of the consumer organizations. We are monitoring the situation, which is experimental at the present time.

I must say there are some concerns in the ministry about the possible bad effects of this type of experiment on the consumer. However, I’m quite sure that particularly the supermarket chains that are experimenting will co-operate in any measures that we see might affect the consumer’s interest in any retrograde way.

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

PRICE OF MILK

Mr. MacDonald: To the same minister: In keeping with the minister’s concern for the consumer, can he give the House any indication as to whether his ministry is going to examine what justification, if any, there is for the dairies adding one or two cents to the proposed increase in the price of milk, stemming from an application of the milk formula?

Secondly, will his ministry consider establishing some mechanism so that each time there is an increase in the price of milk to meet the needs of the producers in accordance with their formula, there isn’t a unilateral right on the part of the dairies without any survey to pyramid their increase on top of that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, since there is no mechanism, obviously the answer to the first part is no. There is no mechanism to do what the hon. member suggests we do.

Mr. MacDonald: Sure there is. The minister could establish it on an ad hoc basis.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We don’t have any mechanism at the present time. As far as I’m concerned, Mr. Speaker, a duplication of the Food Prices Review Board in Ottawa would be absolutely ridiculous. They have the mechanism to review it and report on it. There is no intention in my ministry to duplicate that effort.

Mr. MacDonald: That is a cop-out.

A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of his predecessor’s contention that he was going to establish, by what mechanism it would be interesting to know, excess profits in the province and take action whenever it was deemed advisable, couldn’t the minister consult with him and establish a mechanism that might do that here in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, before I made any commitment along that line I would have to review my predecessor’s statement with him.

Mr. MacDonald: Cop-out No. 2.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment.

CANADA METAL CO. PLANT

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in response to a question asked on Tuesday by the hon. member for Huron concerning the emission of arsenic from the Canada Metal plant, I am advised that the quantity or arsenic emitted from this plant is estimated to be approximately 460 lb per year. This plant is operating within the permissible limits for arsenic emission as set out by our regulations.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister then satisfied with the arsenic standard for ambient air of not more than 25 micrograms per cubic metre over a 24-hour period, which I believe was established by the Ministry of Health?

Hon. W. Newman: Our present requirement is 25 micrograms per cubic metre in the ambient air, and certainly we are always looking at this. There are some that are much lower. Our counterparts below the border are looking at it, and so are we at the same time.

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

Mr. Deacon: The minister I wanted to question has left.

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

LA SALLE RESIDENTS’ SUIT AGAINST U.S. COMPANIES

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of the Environment.

Is the minister aware of the precedent-setting $2.2 million pollution damage suit being instituted by residents in the La Salle area against US corporations? Has the ministry been involved in any fashion, either by the provision of data, or the supplying of personnel, legal assistance or financial assistance, in an attempt to help these residents of Ontario succeed against the US polluters?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I can answer the member’s question in part. Any data or information we have regarding pollution, we will make available to the residents in the area. We don’t supply legal services, no.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister been asked by the Canadian group, the Windsor group that is instituting this suit, for any specific information? And is the minister aware that the amount of pollutants that is spread over the Windsor area is about 12 million tons a year?

Hon. W Newman: Well, I can’t answer the member’s question regarding a specific request, but if a request does come through we certainly will be glad to supply them with information.

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

MOOSE POPULATION

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier).

In view of the declining moose population in the Thunder Bay district and northwestern Ontario generally, and the extreme pressure being exerted upon the species, is the policy field giving consideration to measures to protect the species, other than the mere raising of the non-resident hunting fee for moose to $175?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the question properly should be directed to the Minister of Natural Resources. I’ll make sure it is drawn to his attention.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister not brought to the policy secretariat for consideration other specific measures to protect the species, such as closing the period for sale of all licences on the opening day of the season, mandatory registration of all moose kills, as well as the selling of licenses only through ministry offices?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, these matters have been discussed in the policy field.

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Management Board has the answer to a question asked previously.

AWARDS FOR ADVERTISING WORK

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer a question on advertising which was raised on March 14 by the Leader of the Opposition.

I would like it noted, Mr. Speaker, that in 1973-1974 it was the policy of the government to make each ministry responsible for contracting its own communications services and for employing its own agency of record to ensure advantageous rates.

On March 26, 1974, Management Board approved a directive on competitive purchasing which was expanded to provide, on May 28, 1974, a specific directive relating to contracts with non-government suppliers for communication services. This directive was amplified on Sept. 24, 1974, to provide further guidelines and procedures.

These directives have since been formally incorporated in the manual of administration. They cover agreements for the provision of the following services: advertising, public relations, writing, photography, design, graphics, exhibits, audio-visual and film-making services from the planning stages to production.

They apply to all agreements estimated in excess of $2,000 but not more than $100,000. Those arrangements estimated in excess of $100,000 are referred to Management Board for approval prior to commitment. Ministries are required to solicit a minimum of three quotations from suppliers selected in an objective and equitable manner. Tenders must be opened publicly and ministries are required to document their reasons for non-acceptance of the lowest responsible bid.

This brief description of the very comprehensive directives of the government is evidence, Mr. Speaker, of the prompt action taken by the government in March, 1974, to respond to the observations of the Provincial Auditor in his report which was tabled on Nov. 30, 1973. I can say with confidence, Mr. Speaker, that these procedures in a field which has traditionally been difficult to regulate are not exceeded by any jurisdiction in Canada in promoting the cause of fair competition amongst suppliers in optimizing value and service for the public moneys expended. I should add that a single agency of record has since been established by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. This agency was selected under the procedures of which I have just described.

Mr. Speaker, as I am the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission, Management Board approved on Nov. 13, 1973, a request to form a contract with the Drake Advertising Agency regarding employment advertisements. The submission to Management Board had requested that the requirements to obtain at least three tenders be waived for the following reasons:

The agency has considerable experience with the unique needs and requirements of the government of Ontario, having provided this service continuously to the commission since the spring of 1967.

The Civil Service Commission is in the process of developing a policy on employment advertising for public servants and it is felt that it would be expedient to maintain the status quo until existing policy and related systems have been amended or replaced.

I should mention that the advertising carried out by the Civil Service Commission is purely for filling of positions in the public service and costs are charged back to the appropriate ministry. Drake was given three months notice on Jan. 1, 1975, that the existing contract will be cancelled on March 31, 1975. Tenders have been invited and 25 were received. Six of the 25 have been invited to submit further details. Drake is one of those.

Mr. Speaker: I think time will allow one supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the minister could then explain the procedures which led the Provincial Auditor to criticize the actions of the Management Board for allowing more than $3 million in contracts to be let without even an agreement, let alone a tender. If his intent was to control it, as he has described, then why did he let those $3 million to companies like Dalton Camp Associates under the previous procedure, which led to the criticism?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will make brief reply, Mr. Speaker. I think if the Leader of the Opposition will examine more carefully into the question that was raised by the Provincial Auditor, he will find that they have been in accordance with the directives. If the expenditures at that time weren’t, they are now subject to the directives.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has now expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to limit the work day to eight hours and the work week to 40 hours.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1

Clerk of the House: Government notice of motion No. 1 by Hon. Mr. Snow.

RESOLUTION: That, as Mr. Donald R. Irvine, member for Grenville-Dundas, holds a 50 per cent interest in Irvine Realties (Prescott) Ltd.; and as Irvine Realties (Prescott) Ltd. has a 50 per cent interest in the lands and premises of which the other 50 per cent is held by Francis Realties (Prescott) Ltd., the lands and premises being described as: -- All and singular that certain parcel or tract of land being in the city of Brockville, in the county of Leeds and being composed of lot 78 in Block 30, together with the water lot in front thereof as described in a Crown grant issued to the late Martha Ann Findlay, dated March 17, 1855, registered in Book 29 for the town of Brockville as instrument number 7534; and as Irvine Realties (Prescott) Ltd. and Francis Realties (Prescott) Ltd. have agreed with Pepperidge Properties Ltd. to sell to it the said lands and premises by an agreement for sale, which is dated June 27, 1974, and registered Dec. 19, 1974, as instrument No. 68811 in the land registry office at Brockville; and as Pepperidge Properties Ltd. have offered to lease to the Minister of Government Services approximately 5,100 sq ft of the said premises at approximately $7 per square foot per year for a term of five years for court purposes, the Minister of Government Services may enter into the proposed said lease agreement and Donald R. Irvine’s seat in the assembly shall not thereby be vacated, nor he thereby be rendered ineligible as a member of, or to sit, or vote in the assembly.

Hon. Mr. Snow moves Resolution No. 1.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this resolution be concurred in?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I think we’ll find several things that perhaps could be said with respect to this motion.

I suppose the first thing we should do is go back to Jan. 6, 1960, when the two companies referred to were first incorporated. Later in that year the property in question, the subject of this motion, was purchased.

While the building was leased to M. Loeb for a 20-year term, it so happened that the lease, even though it mentioned no particular consideration, did involve transactions with four or five other properties in eastern Ontario.

However, Loeb vacated the property before the lease expired, so we have the circumstance where the two particular companies attempting now to sell the property, which in turn is to be leased to the government of Ontario, are in some particular difficulty.

It was rather interesting to see that the property was taken over by this new interest, Pepperidge Properties Ltd., which apparently is operated by Mr. William Watson, who was a real estate agent in the area in the 1960s. He also is involved with Merrickville Estates.

This property was then purchased for $150,000. Really, what we have to deal with in the question before us at this time is the matter of the mortgage. It was taken back on closing for $125,000 and, therefore, might under foreclosure be possibly a property owned by the member for Grenville-Dundas through his corporate involvement. This, of course, might put the contract with the Ministry of Government Services into some seeming conflict of interest.

It was rather interesting to read in the Ottawa Citizen an article dealing with this matter, because it seemed almost that the problem of attempting to avoid a conflict of interest brought with it certain rather curious results. Perhaps I might just quote briefly from the article and the involvement in the community once the declaration made by the member for Grenville-Dundas took place:

“As a result of the declaration, plans to take over the building were dropped like a hot potato and the word went out that another location would have to be found.

“The action was clearly an attempt to avoid any suggestion of hanky-panky, following a series of conflict of interest charges that have plagued the Davis government and last week’s disclosures by the Globe and Mail concerning party fundraising activities.

“Unfortunately for the Conservatives, the city hasn’t thanked the government for making a clean breast of it.

“The decision has touched off a storm of protests from city council, the downtown business association and the legal profession, which are demanding the government reverse itself and locate the court downtown.

“Even His Honour Judge John Deacon felt so strongly he took off his robes and came out swinging against the government.

“In an unusual public statement, the provincial court judge accused Mr. Irvine of ‘demonstrating a conflict of interest position’ by using his influence or authority ‘to block the acquisition of eminently suitable accommodation.’”

Well, I am sure that the hon. Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) was not attempting to set himself up as a straw man in order to be knocked down and have this whole matter cause a problem within his community. However, cause a problem it did, and we are now dealing with this notice of motion in order to resolve the problem.

I suppose two comments could be made with respect to this particular building and to its present owner. The first is that this building no doubt will receive a historic plaque from the government of Ontario rather soon, because it was the campaign headquarters of the present member for Leeds in the federal House, Mr. Tom Cossitt, in the 1974 general election.

The owner of the building, Pepperidge Estates, as I have mentioned, is controlled or operated by William Watson, who also operates a company called Merrickville Estates. Now, just to show the abilities of Mr. Watson, it would appear that he made a proposal for an OHAP project early in January, 1974. And indeed before the end of the year, before 1974, it had received all of the necessary approvals, which surely is amazingly fast even for an OHAP proposal. So, certainly, the parties involved are skilful in dealing with various kinds of projects.

I think the interest within the community is served by the approval of this particular motion, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, the courthouse requirement in moving out of an already crowded city hall is necessary to be dealt with, and we have no intention of opposing the motion or of making any particular political issue out of the fact of a possible eventual ownership of the building. Surely, the interest of the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas is not going to be increased in any way simply as a person involved with the company, who is a mortgage holder on the building.

Since the minister has indicated that there could be a change of heart and this matter could be proceeded with if the opposition parties went on record in Hansard as supporting the proposed downtown location, I am pleased to go on record in that particular. I suggest that certainly so far as we are concerned, the location seems to be the best suitable for this particular purpose.

I suggest that the motion be approved so that the member in question, the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas, does not stand in any jeopardy in either the vacation of his seat in this circumstance, or in being rendered ineligible as a member of the assembly. Certainly his ineligibility or the vacation of his set can be taken care of perhaps more easily in a general election.

Mr. Speaker: Any further comments? The hon. minister.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member for Kitchener has fairly well researched this particular event.

I can point out a couple of minor details which perhaps he did not get to the bottom of completely. He refers to Pepperidge Properties Ltd. as the owner of this property. To my knowledge, not being of the legal profession, Pepperidge Properties is not the owner, because they only hold a registered agreement of sale. The deed of the property is still in the name of the two companies, one of which is owned by Mr. Irvine or Mr. Irvine’s family.

Mr. Breithaupt: And still subject to the lease.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Of course, the property is still leased to the old company under a 20-year lease that does not expire until 1979. That is the reason for the agreement to purchase, rather than a straight purchase of the property with a mortgage back: rye pointed out there is no mortgage back. Of the $150,000 agreed purchase price, a $25,000 payment was made. The other $125,000 payment, I believe, is to be made on closing, which is on the expiration of the old lease on Sept. 25, or some such date, of 1979.

So, the problem really is that the property, if one searches it at the registry office, is legally in the name of the Irvine Realties and Francis Realties, and that cannot be changed until. 1979, when the head lease, which covers this property and four or five other properties, expires with the old company.

Now, I believe Mr. Watson and his firm, Pepperidge Properties Ltd., agreed to purchase this property back in March, 1974. They were negotiating at that time with the Leeds-Grenville board of education to remodel this property and lease it for an office for the board of education. That deal was never finalized.

However, the purchase of the property or the formalization of the agreement of sale took place and was signed on June 27, 1974, although it was not registered until Dec. 1974, because of the fact that the new proposed owner or holder of the agreement to purchase, in order to make use of the property, had to negotiate a sublease from Loeb. So, really, Loeb is still, as I understand it, paying rent to the former owners, Mr. Irvine and Irvine Realties and Francis Realties, and then in turn subleasing the property to the proposed new owner, who proposes to remodel the property and again, I guess, sublease to my ministry for the accommodation of the court.

So as you can see, Mr. Speaker, it is a somewhat complicated deal. There is a possibility, as the member for Kitchener stated, of the deal not being formalized, or being repossessed or foreclosed on by way of the mortgage. I don’t think this is possible because there is no mortgage, but on the other hand if, on the closing date in 1979, Mr. Watson or his company -- Pepperidge Properties Ltd. -- were not able to come up with the $125,000 to close the transaction, as it is agreed upon, then presumably the deal would not close, the property would remain in the ownership of Irvine Realties Ltd. and Francis Realties Ltd.

In the meantime, my ministry would be a tenant in the building for presumably a five-year term which would run by that date in 1975. So there is the possibility -- remote though it may be -- that for a period in late 1979 or early 1980 the Crown could be a tenant of a company partly owned by the member for Grenville-Dundas, and as we are quite confident that he will still be the member for Grenville-Dundas sitting on the government benches at that time, we wanted to clarify this matter. I hope, between the member for Kitchener and myself, we have put the whole story on the record.

Resolution concurred in.

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

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, I am going to turn to a very delicate matter now, which I have had the opportunity of discussing with the other doctors in this House, and something which I hope will not be misunderstood when I speak to it. It is a very serious problem which is affecting every medical school in the province, but most particularly the University of Toronto medical school, and that has to do with the admission policy and with the tremendous number of students who are attempting to get into a very limited number of places.

Perhaps I can lay the groundwork best by reading extracts from two letters here which completely confuse the situation. The first one is from one, James A. C. Auld, who presumably is the minister in charge, and he has written a letter here dated Dec. 2, 1974, in which he says:

“In Ontario, all policies dealing with admissions fall directly within the jurisdiction of each university. I am sure you would agree that it would not be in the best interests of higher education if I, or any of my officials, were to interfere with the management of these autonomous bodies.”

That is clear cut enough. The minister responsible says it is up to the university. Alas and alack, I have a letter dated exactly the same day from the dean of the school of medicine at the University of Toronto, and he writes as follows:

“You must understand that the policy is not of our own making. The council of the faculty of medicine is simply following the generally accepted line of our elected representatives, and if you feel that these policies are wrong, I can only suggest to you that you should speak to your member of parliament to try and influence the governments concerned with setting up these policies.”

Now we have it clear cut. The university thinks it is up to the government and the government is sure it is not up to it, it is up to the universities. With that kind of situation there is very little question as to why the confusion has developed. The situation is so bad that I have a copy here of the Varsity for Oct. 28, and the lead editorial for that day says the situation in the medical school is quite literally tearing the faculty apart.

This is all the result of the Medicare system that we brought in some years ago. There are side effects coming from that which no one ever dreamed could develop. One of the side effects is that doctors are earning a tremendous amount of money, far more in proportion to the general population than they ever did in the past.

I have a son-in-law who graduated in law last year. He got his first paycheque this past week after completing his articling, and he was very pleased because he’s going to be earning $16,000 this year, which apparently is in the top 10th of the class. It’s not an unreasonable salary. But if you graduate in medicine this year and complete your internship, and if you’re willing to work hard and hustle, there is no problem in taking home $40,000, $50,000 or $60,000.

An hon. member: Net?

Mr. Shulman: Net. With that kind of a monetary reward, it is very easy to understand what is happening to the schools of medicine. There is tremendous pressure to get in. There is tremendous pressure to get this fantastic job for the rest of your life. I can understand it, but it has led to all sorts of very serious difficulties.

The situation this year at the University of Toronto, which is typical of the other universities, is that there were 2,350 applicants for only 240 places. What is causing a great deal of dismay and upset is that of those 240 places, about 60, or some 25 per cent, were given to landed immigrants -- non-citizens of Canada.

The situation has become so bad that in the effort to get into medicine, students are no longer taking the courses which would best prepare them. Instead, they are taking the courses which will best get them in, and that has nothing to do with the practice of medicine.

At the University of Toronto there are absolutely no interviews. The choices are made by computer, and the computer measures only one thing. It measures the marks you get, and it doesn’t care what courses you get them in. So now the smart student, and I use that word parenthetically, will take the bird-dog courses, the courses in which he can get the highest marks possible.

Let me quote Jim Prentice, a professor of physics at the University of Toronto, who says that the emphasis on marks “completely screws up the learning process.” He goes on:

“In order to get the highest marks possible, students take courses which they figure are the easiest. Unfortunately, the easiest courses are usually those which do not lead to any future work in that subject area.”

This is not a secret. This is well known among every student who is hoping to get into medicine. The result is that we had about 2,300 students this past year who took courses that lead nowhere. About 2,100 of those students are not getting into medicine, and they are now in the position of having wasted two years of their time, two years of the school’s time and having fouled up the school system to boot.

Let me quote Mr. Tony Key, who is an associate professor in the physics department at the University of Toronto. Last week Key’s 9 a.m. class was filled to overflowing. There was literally not an empty seat in the lecture hall. Key has said he will not teach the course next year. I quote him:

“The problem is, how can I teach students when 65 per cent of them don’t really want to take the course? It would save me a hell of a lot of trouble if pre-med students came to my class wanting to learn physics instead of getting As.”

The emphasis on grading leads to antagonism between students and teachers, which is inimical to the teaching process. Key cited the case of students in one tutorial who now have a hostile relationship with their tutor because the latter didn’t raise their grades by four per cent or five per cent on a recent quiz.

I quote him again:

“How can we teach effectively in these circumstances? I get very frustrated. More and more of my time is taken up with this. The whole atmosphere is one of competition with one’s neighbour. The whole system, as we have to live with it, is very frustrating.”

I go on with the quotation:

“There are horror stories. Students now hoard library books so nobody else can use them. There is quite a bit of cheating. Students won’t tell other students what happened at a class that they missed, because the competition has become so severe that they want the other students to fail. Students refuse to lend lecture notes to fellow students or refuse to discuss problems set. The system of admission to medical school is the biggest incentive to this bad competition.”

This numbers game has a disastrous effect on the future careers of nine out of 10 of the students who apply and who are not accepted into medical school. Because if they really want to get into medical school, they must take courses in which they think they can get the highest marks. That means that a student with a 91 average will be accepted before a student with a 90 average. A difference of one great point can be the difference between being accepted and being rejected.

This means that if you wish to take the more difficult courses, which might lead to a future specialization or a future value in something other than medicine, you are likely to get lower marks and thus you are not likely to get into medicine at all. And if you want to get higher marks you have to take the useless courses.

This means that those who want to get into medical school can’t afford to take the best things for medicine. They have to proceed on the assumption they are going to get into medicine, even though nine out of 10 of them are going to fail.

That means that last year 2,100 bright, hard-working students who didn’t get accepted had effectively wasted two or three years of education. They wasted their own time. They wasted their own money. They wasted the province’s money. They wasted the time of the university and the time of the teachers. And their talents have been wasted. This, surely, is an outrageous price to pay for admission policy based only on an academic standard. It would be an outrageous price to pay even if the medical school was satisfied it is the best possible system, but even they don’t think it is.

Edward Llewellyn-Thomas, dean of the faculty of medicine, says, and I quote him:

“There is no correlation between marks and the ability to be a good physician. When you get people with a B average or better, a few marks one way or the other won’t make any difference.”

It’s an unfortunate situation, and what are we going to do about it?

I wonder if all the members are aware there is only one group that is discriminated against. If you happen to come from a province other than Ontario -- if you happen to have done your studying in Manitoba -- then you are not allowed in. The system at the University of Toronto is to give first priority to Canadian citizens who are Ontario residents and landed immigrants; they are lumped together. Way below them, kept down in the small 2½ per cent group, and others -- and that includes foreigners; that is, people applying from outside the country. But foreigners also means people coming from other provinces.

It just doesn’t make any sense. The landed immigrants who have been here two or three years, who are not Canadian citizens, are allowed in in huge numbers; we have 25 per cent of them. Canadian citizens born in Manitoba or Quebec or other provinces are not allowed in. It is senseless.

The letter here from the dean is dated Nov. 8, 1974, and says what we have done is to “create a pattern of discrimination against our own sons and daughters.” I agree with him completely.

Nobody likes the system and perhaps we should go back a bit and I should explain how this system came about. Up until some eight years ago the university had a quota system. There was a quota for women. There was a quota for Jews. There was a quota for children of doctors. There was a quota for children of alumni. Once all the quotas were filled, then the balance was filled from WASPs. It was wrong; there is no question the system was wrong.

A new dean came in and when he learned of this quota system he was very upset and he threatened to make it public if it wasn’t changed. The response of the university was: “If you can work out a better system, do so.”

This man, with the best will in the world, brought in the only system he thought was fair. He said: “The only thing we are going to consider is marks. We are not going to interview people, because if you interview them the bias of the interviewers come into it. We are going to have a computer do the whole thing. We are going to feed it all into a machine, and then we’ll let the computer decide who gets into medicine.”

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Must have been from Hong Kong.

Mr. Shulman: No he wasn’t from Hong Kong, actually, he was from another area.

The intriguing thing is what happened the first year the quota went out. The dean was happy. It turned out there was some 28 per cent of the class, or perhaps there was 30 per cent that year, who were landed immigrants, largely from Asia. They were brilliant, they did fantastically well on the exams -- everything went well. This was three years ago. Everything went well until this year, when they started taking clinical classes. The professors discovered to their horror that a very significant proportion of these people, something like a third of them, could not communicate with the patients. They couldn’t understand what the patients were saying and the patients couldn’t understand what they were saying because they had learned English from books; they could read it and write it but they couldn’t understand it. They couldn’t communicate.

Suddenly we have this terrible problem where we are going to be graduating a tremendous number of doctors who quite literally will not understand what their patients are complaining about. And quite literally their patients will not understand what they are telling them to do. Obviously this system won’t work. We have to change it. We have to at least ensure that the students we are letting into medicine can communicate with the public and can understand their patients’ problems.

The Medical Alumni Association was terribly upset about the whole thing. They wrote a letter to the university faculty council, saying the system was wrong, in effect that we were discriminating against our own Canadian students and it should be changed. They asked for permission to be represented on the selection committee. They wrote this letter to the dean of medicine; alas, their request to be represented on the selection committee was ignored, and no one from the Medical Alumni Association is on that committee.

What is the situation now if you want to apply for medicine? Let’s suppose you are a brilliant student and you have got an A average. Well, I have a statement here from the dean of the medical school, saying if you have a straight-A average -- nothing below an A -- you’ve got a 50-50 chance of getting into medicine -- 50-50 with a straight-A average!

Obviously the solution is not a simple one. Dean Llewellyn-Thomas has come up with a suggestion that instead of using a computer, instead of using a quota system, we should have a lottery. This is the most incredible thing I have ever heard. In other words, you put the names of everybody who applies in a hat and pull those names out of the hat, and from that you decide who is going to get into medicine. Well, that is just -- to me that is just so far out that I find it absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Maybe there would be as good a selection.

Mr. Shulman: Well, I don’t know. Obviously the systems we’ve been using don’t work. How in the world are we going to take all those people and say we are going to choose you, not by merit, not by how hard you work, not by your citizenship, but purely and simply by lot! So I reject that out of hand.

The feeling among the profession -- and I am glad the member for Oshawa (Mr. McIlveen) is here to support me on this -- is a very bitter one. I am sure there is not a doctor in this province who has not had a colleague come to him and say, “My son applied for medicine and couldn’t get in, even though he had top marks.” I am sure there are very few MPPs in this House who have not had constituents come to them and say, “I cannot understand it. My son applied to medicine. He has struggled hard all his life. He wants to be a doctor. He can’t get in. What can we do about it?” I’m sure all of you have heard this.

It doesn’t seem right, and it doesn’t seem fair to me, that about 60 places this year should go to people who have come to this country purely and simply to go to medical school. I don’t want to be called a racist. I am not a racist. I personally was one of those who fought through the other system and thought it was wrong and had to be changed. But surely we must give preference to our own in something like this.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Do we graduate enough doctors?

Mr. Shulman: Well, that is the other problem -- whether we have too many doctors or not enough doctors; I don’t want to get into a battle with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller).

Mr. J. R. Smith: Canadians first.

Mr. Shulman: There is no question that Parkinson’s Law applies. As many doctors as you graduate will be busy because the way OHIP is now set up -- and looking back now, I realize it was wrong. I was one of those who fought for it, and I confess fully that I was wrong and so was everybody else here. It is set up so as to encourage the public to see doctors, whether they need them or not. It is set up to encourage doctors to bring people back, whether they need to or not. It is set up to encourage waste. This system is leading to bankruptcy.

Somewhere within the Ministry of Health we have to have a change. Actually, this is the first Minister of Health who might be brave enough to do it. He’s like a bull in a china shop. He goes places where I would never dare to go. He makes mistakes, but sometimes he does the right thing. And he may bring in the changes that are necessary.

Something has to be done to discourage people from coming to doctors offices who don’t have to go there. And if we don’t do that, it doesn’t matter if you graduate 10,000 doctors this year, they are all going to be busy. They’ll see their own families if they have to, because there is a great incentive. The government is paying them for every person who walks into that office. When little Johnny comes in with a cold and the mother has him by the hand, Dr. X says: “And how are you, mother?” And mother says “Oh, I’m feeling better. I had a little cold last week but I feel fine.” He writes down mother for another $6.70. That is human nature. It is not even crooked, it is a part of human nature and it is taking place right across Ontario in every city and town.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): He usually gets her shirt off first.

Mr. Shulman: Well, perhaps.

Mr. Bounsall: That is what the member requests, is that it?

Mr. Shulman: It depends on her age.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): It also depends on the predilections of the medical doctor concerned.

Mr. Shulman: I personally like boys!

Mr. Bounsall: The member’s practice is in Ottawa, is it?

Mr. Shulman: I am moving to Ottawa, yes.

We have here an editorial from the Medical Post of Nov. 12, 1974, and this, like it or not, represents a growing antagonistic feeling among the medical profession to the situation as it now obtains at the University of Toronto medical school and elsewhere. I quote:

“This year there were 241 seats available to first-year students in the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto. Of these seats, 33 are occupied by Chinese and 28 other seats are held by students from ... the US, Lebanon, Egypt, Venezuela, the UK, Jamaica, Yugoslavia, Italy, Korea, Israel, India, Argentina, Guyana and Trinidad.

“These 61 foreign-born students represent 25 per cent of the entire first-year class.

“There was no method of selection except that of marks. There were no personal interviews....

“The admissions committee for the [Toronto] faculty of medicine has literally given up on all methods of screening for medical students. The stock answer is that there are no ‘reproducible’ tests available which can determine whether one applicant will make a better doctor than another. Even if an applicant did have all the desirable traits, such as motivation, idealism and empathy for people when he started, he stands a good chance of having those traits pounded out of him during his tenure in medical school. So why bother testing him or even interviewing him?”

They go on at some length and I don’t want to read it all, but I want to read the conclusion, because this is of some merit:

“We are not advocating that the seats in the faculty of medicine be reserved entirely for WASP students. That would be racism. But we do feel that surely it is not beyond the capacities of the university and government to devise a system whereby the medical students more nearly represent the cultural and sociological mix of the taxpayers in the province. As the system now stands ... it is just as discriminatory against the majority in Ontario as the super-intellectuals will charge that our ethnic mx idea is.”

I want to say before I go ahead that the leader of the Liberal Party agrees with me. I got some pounding from the Tory side, but before I get any flak from the Liberals I had better read a letter I have here from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon), because he too agrees with this. This letter is dated Oct. 25, 1974:

“I feel very strongly that these facilities ought to be available to our own Canadian students and our responsibility to offer the training to citizens of other countries is somewhat less than the fact that I read recently, that 25 per cent of the places at the medical schools were occupied by students from outside Canada.”

Mr. Foulds: That is what he believed in October of 1974, I guess.

Mr. Shulman: I have here a more recent editorial from the Medical Post which I do not agree with entirely, but I want to put it on the record because it is what an increasing number of people are believing. This is dated Feb. 4, 1975:

“We are simply going to have to face up to the fact that here in Canada we have too many applicants for the available number of seats in the most popular and lucrative professions. A quota system based on the public’s needs and preferences must be set up. We have ducked the issue long enough. We might draw comfort from the knowledge that other countries are in the same dilemma, but it will not solve our problem.

“It was encouraging to read that the Ontario government’s Task Force on Physician Manpower touched on the problem when it recommended that allotment to a reasonable number of places in medical schools be made to ‘qualified applicants from smaller communities.’

“Obviously some type of quota system must be set up. It cannot be done by the universities for fear that they will be branded discriminatory. It has to become government policy, and soon.”

That surely is true. Universities, when we approach them, duck it. They are frightened stiff of this and they pass it right back to the two governments involved, the federal and the provincial governments. It is the provincial government which must make the move. The federal government can’t; all it can do is supply moneys.

I look at other countries. I have a book here from the United States -- it is called “Medical School Admission Requirements” -- and it is fascinating to see what is done there. In every publicly-funded university across the United States they do not admit people from out of state, and that is the situation. If one compares those universities to our universities, which are publicly funded, they say their taxpayers are paying for those universities, therefore their taxpayers’ children must be given first crack at it. In the private universities in the United States, one like Yale where one pays fees of $5,000 and $6,000 a year, they let anyone in, depending on marks. This is proper too because they are teaching the world. They are not being subsidized by the American taxpayer. It is an entirely different situation. Surely in our publicly-funded universities our public should get first crack.

I want to talk about the unthinkable for a moment. I want to talk about the students who are coming from Hong Kong and Korea and Singapore and are getting in. There is a great deal of tragedy in their cases, and I have the greatest sympathy for what they have suffered in those other countries. They come over here with their entire family’s future depending on what they do. They do nothing but study and they get incredible marks. They get marks that our students can’t consider -- 95, 99. One lad got 100 per cent. The computer couldn’t handle it. It came out at 99 per cent.

The way they do that is they don’t socialize. They don’t go out with girls. They don’t play sports. They don’t do anything but work.

I can understand their motivation, because when they succeed and get into medicine they get a lucrative position which represents everything -- a veritable fortune. They will then be able to bring in their families from these other countries and support them.

I can sympathize, but their problems must come secondary to ours; and ours are to educate our own students first.

I don’t say we should cut these people out completely. We have an obligation to the rest of the world and we have to decide how big that obligation is. I think it is not unreasonable to say we have 240 places in our class this year and we will set aside 10 per cent of those places, 25 pieces, for students from other countries. Perhaps we should set aside another 10 or 15 places for students from other provinces. But the way this can be handled is not by lottery or not by quota system; though perhaps there should be a quota for areas like northern Ontario, where the basic teaching is not as good and we have to have doctors up there. I can’t quarrel with that.

I think there should be preference for people from the disadvantaged areas of the province who can’t get the hot-shot teachers that we have. Perhaps we should set aside a certain number for areas in eastern Ontario that don’t have enough doctors. This I can go along with, but surely we have to give first preference to the Canadian students who have grown up here and who are residents and citizens of Ontario.

I have one suggestion here -- and I see there is a discussion in Medical Post -- my suggestion is that after the government sets aside this limited number of places for foreign-born or foreign students, it should offer the remainder of the places to these students who are children of Ontario citizens.

The minister says no. He says we mustn’t do that. He says this is against the Human Rights Code. Well I say -- and I am agreed with by the leader of the Liberal Party, by many backbenchers in the Conservative Party and I knew by at least some people over here; I know that I am supported by the Medical Alumni Association and I know that I am supported by the many doctors that I have had an opportunity to talk to in the last few weeks -- I say that the majority of the seats in the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto and everywhere else in this province must be kept for the students who have graduated from our high schools, who have gone through our courses of study. If their marks are lower, there are other factors that must be considered.

What do I say to the doctor who practises with me on Roncesvalles Ave., two blocks down, who came to my office three days ago, whose son has planned all his life to take over his father’s practice. Two years ago he came to the point Where he could apply for medicine and was rejected. He took another year at university to perk up his marks, got them up to an A average and was rejected again last year. He is taking a fourth year at university now, getting another degree and pushing his marks up again.

He will be rejected again, because he can’t match up against these other students who have taken their grade 13 in another country. They come over here and repeat it again and they know it backwards, forwards and upside down. When their 99 is better than the computer, how can any lad here compete with that? They can’t.

It is only chance the way the system is working that it is 25 per cent foreign-born. It could be 100 per cent foreign-born in the class or 100 per cent landed immigrants in the class. It could be that next year. It’s simply chance.

Mr. Bounsall: It’s not against the letter of the code, either.

Mr. Shulman: No, it’s not against the letter of the code. It’s the way the minister is interpreting it and it’s not what his colleagues want him to do.

I’ve talked about the unthinkable and the unspeakable and I’ve had people come up to me and say, “You can’t do it. You can’t say it. You’ll be called a racist.” But racist or not, this is something we have to face; and we must face it now, because an increasing number of people are becoming extremely upset about it. This is what produces racism, this type of reverse racism. We must come to terms with this problem and we have to handle it one way or another; and it has to be handled soon, before the next admission class.

There’s another thing. What they’re doing is they’re feeding student marks from high school and from the two university years into a computer, and the computer sees only the marks. Can this university not devise an admitting exam to consist of two parts, written and oral? Let the written be 80 per cent or 90 per cent of it; let the oral be 10 per cent or 20 per cent of it. This is not to determine how big are the marks they earn; because now, if he’s a smart kid, the student takes the simplest classes, he doesn’t take the advanced physics class which will lead him to something, he takes physics 100 which leads to nothing. It’s a bird-dog course and he can get 100 in it easily.

Let us have everybody on an equal footing so that when the exams are to be taken we’re not comparing one fellow who took a tough class with another fellow who took the easy class. And we’re not comparing someone who graduated from a high school where the principal says, “Give them high marks;” with one from another high school where the principal says, “Mark them tough.” It’s not a fair comparison and the wrong people may be getting in for that very reason. Everyone should take the same examination in the same subject.

There is one examination they all take in the same subject, that’s true enough. There is only one exam the university gives and it’s called the MCAT -- which amounts, I think, to 15 per cent of the mark, a minor thing.

What is the MCAT? This is the most infuriating thing of all; the MCAT is an American exam, administered by Americans and paid for by Canadians to Americans.

Anybody who wants to get into medicine in this province must send $20 to New York and apply to take a test which is written down there, which is marked down there, which is developed on American standards and which no one in this room could pass.

Last year I determined to take this test and I challenge any of the doctors or anybody else in this room to take the test. I will guarantee members that no one will pass. This test is supposed to determine whether one is fit to go into medicine. No one is fit to go into medicine according to that test.

I took the test. I got a copy of the test -- I didn’t want to take it officially because certain members of my family were afraid they would be disgraced by my marks -- but I managed to get a copy of the test and went over it. I couldn’t answer any of the questions. None of them!

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): That doesn’t surprise us.

Mr. Shulman: I would like to challenge anyone on that side. I’ll pay the $20 to the USA if one of them will dare take the MCAT test.

Mr. Bounsall: The Minister of Labour.

Mr. Shulman: I would like the minister to take it and I will guarantee him anything he’ll fail; because these are tests which have been developed by American professors to determine not what your ability to learn is or your agility of mind but how much you know of certain things which have been taught in American schools. That’s it, pure and simple.

One of the tests is current knowledge. One of the questions, believe it or not, was in what year did the Americans drive the British out of Yorktown? All right, I suppose it’s of great interest to the United States but it’s of very little interest to me. I didn’t know it.

When I went to the university to complain about this they said: “Not to worry. There are five parts to that test and we disregard the part about current knowledge because we know that’s American. We disregard all of them except the part, the one section, that bears directly.” But that one section is the one where I couldn’t answer a single question. Okay; I’m incompetent to get into medicine; I would make a very bad doctor, agreed. But I challenge the members for Oshawa, Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) or Ontario (Mr. Dymond) or the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter), or anybody else to take that test. And I will guarantee them that no one will pass it.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): The member for Oshawa had better take it.

Mr. McIlveen: I might do that.

Mr. Bounsall: Join the club, the failed MCAT club.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Shulman: Is it beyond the ability of our universities, of our professors, to develop a Canadian test paid for in Canada? Why do we have to send all this money down to the United States every year? From the University of Toronto alone $40,000 went last year to New York. Why do we send this money to the Americans? With that $40,000 they could have dealt with 100 tests. And that is from one university in one series of tests.

From what I can calculate in going through this, last year from Canada alone we sent approximately $1.3 million to the United States for them to inform us who should become our doctors and lawyers. Why? All right, that is the only test that everyone is given; and it amounts to 10 or 15 per cent of the marks. The whole system is screwed up. I don’t want to belabour this, but I want to come back to what I was saying.

The system has to be changed. Everyone should be given an examination which they can compete in equally. A lottery system surely is wrong, and this is what the university is thinking of doing now. If they bring that in, I abandon all hope for them entirely. That is wrong. The present system is wrong. Obviously the old quota system was wrong.

I am suggesting to the minister -- I hope someone will talk to the minister, he is not here -- that he has to step into the university at the present time and set up a new quota system, not based on race, not based on colour, not based on religion, but based on where did you come from? If you came from northern Ontario or eastern Ontario, where there are no universities, you have to be given preference. Preference one is that we have to get a certain proportion of doctors back there where we need them.

Preference two has to be Canadian citizens who have taken their schooling here, and they must all be examined so that the best of them get in. If the competition is going to continue, it shouldn’t be comparing apples and oranges; everybody should be taking the same examinations.

Thirdly, these examinations should be Canadian examinations, not American examinations.

Finally, I don’t want to be too parochial, but we have an obligation to the outside and we have to decide how much this is. I am suggesting that obligation is 10 per cent of the places in our classes, and that 10 per cent should be reserved for those who are coming here to learn skills which they are going to take back to their own nations or those who wish to come here and immigrate -- but they must come third, after the other considerations.

Mr. McIlveen: What about the interview system?

Mr. Shulman: The interview system has some merit. It is a problem. In all fairness to the interview system, some tests were done which showed that if you had different groups of interviewers interviewing different people you got exactly opposite results, so that isn’t the perfect answer.

But the one thing the interview system does it weed out those who cannot talk English and surely cannot communicate with the patients; for that reason only, obviously an English test should be required. An interview system would do that, yes.

I think you have to have an interview system for that reason and for that reason alone; not to decide the merits or the prejudices as seen by the interviewer, but just to determine one thing only: Can this person, if he becomes a doctor, communicate with patients in Ontario? Yes, that’s important.

Mr. Bounsall: They could give them an oral test on tape.

Mr. Shulman: Sure.

Mr. Foulds: Of course, the member for Oshawa would fail such a test.

Mr. Shulman: Actually, I must tell you in all fairness that after I had graduated from Ontario, I thought for one ridiculous moment that I might go down to the United States. I wrote my written exams and passed them with As, straight through, but I failed my oral down there. So I have some doubt about the oral test; there was a certain personality conflict between the lady interviewer and myself.

Mr. Bounsall: Ah!

Mr. McIlveen: The member is a chauvinist, that’s why.

Mr. Shulman: I don’t want to belabour this. This has been a hot potato that everyone has been afraid to touch. Quite frankly, I wanted to make this speech last year and did not make this speech last year because I had a son who was applying to medicine and I didn’t want to be accused of sour grapes by saying that he couldn’t get in. He is now in medicine, he got in via this computer, so I can speak out, without fear of any conflict of interest.

Mr. Kennedy: Did he pass the test?

Mr. Shulman: Someone has to tackle this. I know that everyone here is going to be afraid to speak up on it, but I am directing this comment to the Minister of Colleges and Universities, It is a very important issue. It is going to become an increasingly important issue, and it is going to cause tremendous racial tension unless the minister steps in and does something about it. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to loin in this debate, and now I can say that this is the second time I have followed the member for High Park. He surprised me this time. I recall that on a previous occasion it seemed to me I sat here for three days waiting to follow him. So I thank him very much for being so considerate.

First of all, I would like to join with the other members in offering my congratulations to Mr. Speaker for the way in which he has been carrying out his duties in the House and I certainly wish him well as he continues in that position.

Mr. Speaker, in looking over the Throne Speech, I feel in the same position as many other members and many newspaper writers, that it is somewhat difficult to really find any substance on which to speak or reply, because as has been said, the Throne Speech seemed to only contain many platitudes.

I noted, particularly in my area, many of the editorials seemed to be entitled with such comments as “A Throne Speech Without Clues.” Another paper said the Throne Speech was a “nebulous affair.”

I would like to place this one editorial on the record. I think it shows the concern and the manner in which most of the people accepted the Throne Speech, which I guess was the shortest one in the history of this Premier (Mr. Davis). The editorial went like this:

“Premier William Davis is not playing his cards close to his vest. He is carrying them behind his back concealed from everyone. Given the expectation of a provincial election sometime this year, the Throne Speech delivered in the Ontario Legislature was a startling short story that offered not an inkling of what is to come in the months ahead.

“Throne Speeches are supposed to be a declaration of a government’s intent. If this one is to be taken as that, we can expect the spring and summer to pass free of election fever and fervour. Politicians, if they open their mouths at all, will probably only do so to yawn.

“An unspectacular statement of philosophy, the speech at the opening of the Fifth Session of Ontario’s 29th Parliament called on residents to exercise moderation and restraint, rather than disclosing what the government intends to do about inflation and escalating strikes in the public sector.”

That’s just a very brief portion of what was written in our area of the province, and I think it is very similar to many other comments by other newspapers and individuals.

So, Mr. Speaker, I thought during my comments in reply to the Throne Speech and in this Throne debate, I would try to bring a few matters before the government which are of concern to my riding, and I think, to many people in the province as a whole.

I would just like to very briefly refer once again to Hydro transmission lines. I’ve done this on previous occasions, as have many other members, and particularly the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt). On previous occasions I have added my objections to the destruction of class 1 and class 2 farmland, particularly when Hydro suggests that this type of land is not effected to any great extent by transmission lines.

However, I noted in the north end of my riding that Ontario Hydro decided to draw a proposed route across this land. As I understand it, they made the decision to plot this power line across the map without updated information on the type of land they were planning on crossing.

Since this was done, there is a group which calls itself “The Concerned Farmers of the United Townships.” They’ve been working diligently with many interested people in the area. Really, all they are trying to do is to get the government to see that this particular line is unnecessary and to show the government and Ontario Hydro that they want this land to remain strictly for agricultural purposes.

In fact, very recently a petition was taken to county council. It is a small township. I think there are 318 people who own agricultural property in the township, and 316 of those signed a petition saying they wanted the council to pay the interested citizens to continue actively in the work in opposing this transmission line. This was taken to the local council; the council agreed with those who brought in the petition. The group of involved citizens was at the meeting. After some discussion they decided they would decline the offer of the council and in turn wrote the following letter to the council. I thought this should be on the record and I hope the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) would take note of this. The letter was as follows:

“We, the concerned farmers of the united townships, greatly appreciate the trust shown us when a petition was presented on March 3 to our council, signed by nearly every resident in the township. This petition asked the council to hilly support the work we are doing both morally and financially. Contrary to what Ontario Hydro has been saying, that there were no complaints until property owners found the proposed Hydro transmission lines were on their property, this petition indicates that people are deeply concerned about the unnecessary destruction of prime agricultural land.

“We humbly reject the general offer of receiving remuneration for our time and travelling expenses and would like to thank again the many, many people who are giving so generously of their time and effort towards this great cause.”

I thought this was worth placing on the record, Mr. Speaker, because this to me shows that people generally are concerned about what Ontario Hydro is doing to agricultural land. Again, I would ask that the Minister of Energy particularly does his best to see that before the line which is proposed goes through the north end of my riding we would have a public hearing.

I think that’s enough on that subject, Mr. Speaker, it’s been mentioned by many members in the past. But I thought it was important to show how some of these agriculturalists were working to maintain their land for farming purposes only.

The next item I would like to take a moment or two to discuss is the matter of nursing homes and nursing home beds. Recently I received many requests from the nursing home operators in my area for permission to extend their facilities because of demand. Also I’ve received many complaints from people trying to find accommodation who have had to go out of the county to try to find such accommodation.

Just yesterday I received a letter from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health (Mr. Walker) on this matter. I see the ministry is still very concerned about percentages and they get right down to the fine point and say that there must only be 3.5 beds per 1,000 population in any area.

The area I represent, of course, has a larger percentage of senior citizens than in some other areas, and in that case we at the present time now have approximately 5.6 beds per 1,000 population. This still is not adequate. I notice again in the letter which I just received from the parliamentary assistant that we just could not expect anything more in approvals to nursing homes in our area until all the other areas of the province are as good as or better than Perth county. I believe it is now 4.5 beds per 1,000 population.

It so happens, Mr. Speaker, that just two days ago an item in the local press mentioned the frustration of one of our citizens who was trying to find accommodation for his elderly sister, who was recovering from a broken hip and was in the rehabilitation unit of the Stratford General Hospital. I’m sure many of the members are aware of what takes place when citizens are in the chronic care wing of a hospital. It’s usually up to the physician and the ministry here in Toronto to decide when that patient is able to be moved or should find other accommodation.

I would just like to put this on record, because it really gives the details of the frustrations that are created and frustrations which people must put up with in the area of nursing home care. In this item, this gentleman is referring to an elderly sister who was in the rehabilitation unit and that on a certain date she must be moved and, of course, could only be moved to nursing home accommodation because of her condition. I quote:

“If I hadn’t been through the mill I just couldn’t have believed the frustrations and heartaches to which patient and family are subjected once the countdown notice is received from the Ontario Health Ministry in Toronto.

“My dilemma began on Nov. 7 last, when I learned that my sister’s stay in recuperating from a fractured hip, would terminate on Nov. 15 as far as OHIP was concerned. The daily rate charged against the patient would be $29.50 thereafter. In January the rate was increased to $32.55. How long can the individual or family meet such a tariff?

“On Nov. 8 I consulted R. J. Cameron, executive director at Stratford General Hospital, and learned that decisions concerning discharge of patients under the health plan are not made by local hospitals, rather they are based on reports made by the patient’s physician, which are sent to Toronto for assessment. If it is determined that the patient is not eligible for OHIP benefits, the local hospital is advised.

“I learned in the case of my sister that the medical report was made not by her own physician but by the surgeon who set the fracture. Her physician was unaware of the situation until he received a copy of the letter sent to the hospital. In his judgment, the patient was not ready for discharge. When I talked to the patient’s surgeon he acknowledged that the situation was due to an unfortunate misunderstanding and added that he never realized when he signed the report that it would lead to her discharge at that time. He assured me that steps were being taken to have the matter rectified.

“I was never so naive as to think my sister’s stay in the rehabilitation unit would be limitless. I am aware of the tight bed situation in our hospitals and of the desire of the officials to make room for more urgent cases, but not at the peril of the patients still under their care. It was the brevity of the notice and the uncertainty of the future that were the real shockers.

“On the advice of Mr. Cameron, I immediately visited Murray Bishop, social service director of the hospital staff. It is part of Mr. Bishop’s duties to try to find accommodation for patients about to be discharged but who have no definite place to go for further recuperation.

“We started proceedings for my sister’s admission to a nursing home and for extended-care benefits through OHIP. At that time, Mr. Bishop had knowledge of only one nursing home in the area that had a vacancy. At all the others there were waiting lists.

“I visited the home mentioned by Mr. Bishop and was impressed by its cleanliness and air of efficiency, but the percentage of patients with mental illnesses convinced me that it was not a suitable environment for my sister.

“The search became a family project. While I visited or telephoned virtually every nursing home in this area, a brother in London was doing likewise there. A sister-in-law in St. Catharines thought she could find accommodation in a retirement home in that city. The application was rejected because the patient at that time was not sufficiently ambulatory to meet the home’s admission standards. A London retirement home rejected an application for the same reason. I visited Spruce Lodge, our city-county home for senior citizens, but was advised that if the move was imminent, there would be little use in making application as there would be no vacancies in the women’s quarters in the foreseeable future.

“In every direction we turned, the answer was the same: There was simply no room in the inn. So on Nov. 13, two days before V (for Vacate) Day [from the chronic wing of the hospital] I contacted Mr. Cameron.

“He had received no word from Toronto on the application for an extension of the patient’s stay in the rehabilitation unit. On V-Day itself, the situation was unchanged. Mr. Cameron had a telephone call made to the health people in Toronto, who promised to look into the matter and call back. I heard nothing.

“On No. 18, I called Mr. Bishop who advised me that my sister’s application for extended benefits in a nursing home had been rejected. He said that he could not understand the situation and would reapply.

“On Nov. 28, I learned through J. H. King, the accountant at Stratford General Hospital, that the patient had been given a reprieve at the unit to Dec. 1 and that a further stay was under review.

“On Dec. 2, I learned through Mr. Bishop the stay had been extended to Jan. 1 but that he had no word on extended care in a nursing home.

“On the morning of Dec. 24, I called Mr. Bishop again. He said he had no further word, but promised to call Toronto. He did so and informed me that my sister’s case would go before a review board in Toronto on Jan. 2, 1975.

“Later the same day, I was unexpectedly on my way to University Hospital in London for emergency surgery. Before leaving home, I called the brother in London to tell him the bad news. He expressed sympathy but added: ‘It’s not all bad news. I just learned that our sister’s stay in the rehabilitation unit has been extended to Jan. 31 and that extended care in a nursing home has been approved.’ This despite the fact that Mr. Bishop had been told that the case would be reviewed Jan. 2. Can it be that the left hand of the mandarins in Toronto doesn’t know what the right hand is doing? The information received by my brother on Dee. 24 was confirmed in a letter received at Stratford General Hospital and dated Jan. 7.

“On Dec. 28, while still in hospital in London, I was advised that there was a vacancy in a nursing home near Delaware. It was one of the contacts made by my London brother. Before making a decision, I telephoned a nursing home near Stratford where I knew my sister’s name was near the top of the list. I felt it would be to the patient’s advantage to be closer to relatives and friends who could visit her. The situation was unchanged. Put bluntly, someone had to die to make a bed available.

“My sister was taken to Delaware by ambulance on Dec. 31, now more ambulatory The London retirement home agreed to reassess her application. She became a resident there Feb. 5. In retrospect, it seems like a bad dream.”

He went on to wonder what the problem really was. But I wanted to put his letter on record because of the letter I just received from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health saying that we were well served by nursing home beds in our area. I thought this should go on record to show the frustration of just one family. I can assure the Minister of Health particularly that this is far from the only case, and I hope the ministry will do something in the near future to relieve the situation.

I seem to be on the subject of health today, Mr. Speaker, because I have another topic which is on the subject of community health centres. I would like to go through as briefly as I can some of the facts pertaining to a proposal by a community in my riding which is very desirous of having a community health centre. This goes back, I believe, to earlier than 1971. It’s most interesting that it started to come to a head in September, 1971, when the then Minister of Health put out a press release stating that in the town of Mitchell, Ont., there would be a unit operated as a satellite of the Stratford General Hospital which would provide services for diagnostic and treatment purposes on an ambulatory basis. This press release was issued Sept. 20, 1971. It seemed to come out just prior to the October, 1971, election.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): A strange coincidence.

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): It got the member elected.

Mr. Edighoffer: That’s right, it did. Since that time, I believe the people in the community have been actively pursuing this matter without much idea of when the community health centre will be completed in the community.

I could also say that one of the reasons it has been actively pursued is that a local resident passed away a few years ago and left a bequest for further health facilities. He left approximately $125,000 to go for such a project. I just like to put this on record, because it has been a long process since Sept. 20, 1971, when that press release was issued. I believe that was issued because there had been a study suggested by the government prior to that time. I believe the local board also paid about $900 towards that study, hoping that it would assist in seeing that this community would have some of these services,

Just to keep things in order; from that date, Sept. 20, 1971, much contact was made with the Ministry of Health and the local community health centre board. On April 7, 1972, they received a letter from the then Ontario Hospital Services Commission suggesting -- or actually saying -- that the commission would give approval to the board to purchase land for this project. However, it went on carefully to state that this wouldn’t mean that there would be any support grants on the land purchased, but it intimated they could go ahead with the development of this centre.

Then on July 5, 1972, another letter was received. A letter was also received on June 27, 1973, outlining what would be contained in this facility. I won’t go into details because I think many people are aware of what a community health centre must contain. In July, 1972, and June, 1973, letters were received stating what facilities could be used in the community health centre. Of course, again it was believed by the board that there would be grants available for such a building.

On July 4, 1973, the board received a letter from the University of Western Ontario, from the faculty of family medicine, saying it would like to use the centre as a teaching facility as well. The interesting part, Mr. Speaker, is that in April, 1973, a regulation numbered 381/73 was placed on the record -- I have a copy here -- which states that grants will be available for health resources which are defined as follows:

“Health resources means a community health facility, including health practitioners and personnel through which health services can be provided to persons in a community.”

We were then advised by members in the ministry that we could go ahead and plan this facility because grants would be available; and the board, of course, did this, they went ahead. As a matter of fact, they have working drawings completed now and hope to go forward with this project. Following the time when we learned of this regulation which supposedly gave grants, particularly capital grants, to community centres, we had a delegation come to the town and this delegation informed us there would be no grants available.

I very recently checked to see if this regulation was still in effect and I understand from the Clerk’s office and from the minister that it is still in effect. I hope from the comments I’ve made, showing the determination of the local board, that the minister will look at this matter very carefully and possibly make some type of grant available. I don’t think the board expects a 100 per cent grant, although the regulation does state that the government can make 100 per cent grants. I think they do have some funds available but they would like some assistance because they’re most interested in seeing that this centre is completed in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, I read over the Throne Speech several times; it didn’t take very long to read, really. I noticed on page 1 it stated: “From the people we must have moderation and restraint in the pricing of goods and services,” and so on. I recently received a communication from the Minister of Government Services and I wonder, if the government is suggesting there must be moderation and restraint in the pricing of goods and services to try to stem the inflationary pressures, what the Ministry of Government Services is trying to do.

I refer to an instance when the government purchased 9.2 acres in the city of Stratford in 1966. I referred earlier to the 1971 election; this happened to be just before the 1967 election. The Ministry of Government Services purchased this 9.2 acres of property for, I believe, $24,500 back in 1966. Last year the ministry’s appraisers were in the vicinity and, according minister on April 5, 1974, they asked the city to pay $192,000 for that property. I believe it was in the first part of January, 1975, that the appraisers were back and they said they would be glad to sell the property to the city for a total of $270,000.

Mr. Ruston: That is a profit of $250,000.

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I think this isn’t at all reasonable, especially when the government has stated very clearly that --

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): How many appraisals were received?

Mr. Edighoffer: To my knowledge the appraisal was done by the Ministry of Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: How many others, for comparison’s sake?

Mr. Edighoffer: To my knowledge no other appraisals have been done.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Better have a look.

Mr. Edighoffer: I am referring to the information I asked to receive from the Minister of Government Services. I would think that they, with the number on their staff, should be able to go out and have some idea of what values are throughout the province.

I did write to the minister asking if he would consider selling that property to the city of Stratford at cost, plus a reasonable $50,000. But I didn’t get a reply to that.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that if this is the practice and the policy of this particular minister, it is no wonder that we are faced with such inflationary pressures because this government is doing all possible to maintain it at its present levels.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few other things I could say. I think I will just leave them probably for the estimates, which will be coming up in the near future. But because the riding of Perth is so well known for the Stratford Festival, I thought I might just place on the record an article I picked out of the paper last fall. It is written in similar language to what we listen to on the stage in Stratford where the international theatre is located, but it refers really, basically to some members in this government. I thought, if you could bear with me Mr. Speaker, it will just take me a few moments, and I would like to place this on the record.

This was an article in the paper and it is entitled “Is Foul Fair?”

[The scene: A blasted heath beneath a Florida condominium, Enter MacDavis and Darcy.]

MacDavis: So foul and fair a day I have not seen.

Darcy: Nor I, but what are these, so withered and so wild in their attire?

First Witch: All hail MacDavis, thane of Robarts.

Second Witch: All hail MacDavis, thane of Frost.

Third Witch: All hail MacDavis, thane of Drew.

MacDavis: How know they I am of the Tory line, thanes of Queen’s Park since forgotten times? Speak, you secret black and midnight bags.

First Witch: Thrice the brindled cat hath mewed.

Second Witch: Thrice and once the hedge pig whined.

Third Witch: An elector cries ’tis time, ’tis time.

Darcy: Good sir, why do you start and seem to fear?

MacDavis: They say it is election year.

First Witch: Round about the cauldron go, and into it we witches throw: Fidinam memos for old times’ sake and lunch with Moog beside the lake;

Scandals old and scandals new, sweeten the election brew.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Why doesn’t he get the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) in that little poem?

Mr. Edighoffer: I am getting some others in here.

All: Double, double, election trouble, fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Second Witch: Tooth of a bat, a dragon’s hair

Regional government and Canada Square

Stephen’s tongue and Morty’s sting

Into the cauldron do we fling

A mess of minor Tory gaffs,

We toss in just for laughs.

All: Double, double, Tory trouble; fire burn and cauldron bubble.

Third Witch: Airplanes that to Cuba go, conflicts of interest in a row;

Eye of newt and tail of skate, plus a dash of Hydrogate,

All go into the election pot, hissing, bubbling, boiling hot.

Escarpment and deals thicken the brew and colour it a Tory blue.

All: Double, double, boil and bubble; Benoit bombed, Big Blue’s in trouble.

MacDavis: Enough, begone wretched apparitions. Begone, I say!

Witches: (joining hands and dancing about the cauldron): Double, double, boil and bubble, Darcy sweats and Bill’s in trouble.

MacDavis (desperately): Darcy, the song. The song, Darcy.

Darcy (in a rather shaky baritone): We keep on growing the way we’ve been growing;

Keep on growing the way we’ve been growing.

MacDavis: Louder, Darcy. Louder. They’re fading; they’re fading away.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I thought the member was above that sort of thing, but I guess he is in the same class as the rest of them over there.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): What’s the matter? Can’t the minister take it?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member didn’t say one word about Donald Macdonald --

Mr. Ruston: It was very well done.

Mr. Edighoffer: I thought that was very well done.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I thought the only member over there with poor taste was the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent). But there was an additive. The member doesn’t have to stop at that kind of drivel.

Mr. Edighoffer: I appreciate the comments of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet; however, I was just referring to this very fine piece of literary work.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member has just put his stamp of approval on it. That’s fine.

Mr. Edighoffer: I’m glad the minister was so keenly interested.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’m always interested when the member indulges in that kind of muck-raking. He loves it. They all love it over there.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): He’s a connoisseur.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister couldn’t tell the difference between Shakespeare and the author.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member would be surprised.

Mr. Ruston: He just doesn’t understand good poetry.

Mr. Edighoffer: I appreciate the comments of the minister, and I appreciate him staying in his seat today to listen to the few comments I’ve made. I believe that’s all I’ll say regarding the Throne Speech today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Oxford.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, the member is probably making a good judgment --

Mr. Bounsall: We’re going to hear about dental admissions.

Mr. Parrott: No, they’re not. May I just make one or two brief comments first? I don’t think I’ve formally done this since you took the chair, Mr. Speaker, and my comments are going to be very brief. I’m sorry, first of all, that my desk mate is in such bad health that he is not here in the House more frequently, but I’m sure that all in the House wish him well. Secondly, I do want to extend to you our best wishes from the people of Oxford. We very sincerely believe that you are fulfilling that role in the great tradition that it’s come to know. Because those remarks are brief they are not insincere.

It is rather fitting that I should have the opportunity to follow the member for Perth. He and I have shared many occasions in the past, but let me assure you, sir, that I do not share with him the rather poor, if I may say, conclusion to his remarks. Quite frankly, I’m not going to go to that kind of speech this morning.

There is no one I like better than the member for Perth, and we have had a very kind and firm relationship over many years. But I was disappointed by that kind of poem, which seems to be so much a part of the thinking of that party; and when it gets to the finest member of that party, it disturbs me a great deal.

I’m going to come to that point because I’m in a very irritated mood this morning. Just once I would like to see some fairness in the situation. My good wife continually reminds me it’s stupid to ask for a fair approach in politics, the game itself is not fair. That disturbs me. I think we’ve got to come to that kind of understanding in politics in this country, and in this province, and soon, because if we don’t we are going to pay an extremely high price in our democratic process.

Turning just briefly to some of the remarks in the Throne Speech, I’m going to direct my remarks more to members of this House than I am obviously to the government or to the Lieutenant Governor in preparing that address. There was one particular comment that concerned me, and I’ll be quite frank about it, it was the ombudsman. I’m going to talk about that at greater lengths if, and when, that bill is presented.

Unless we in this House consider that particular role along with the duties of the House and the members of this House, we are going to see a system go out of whack. I’m concerned about that. But maybe we should talk about that at that time; it might be more fitting then. I’m going to come back to it a little bit, but I do want to serve notice that at that time we are going to have to very seriously consider the role of the member. By failing to do so, we are going to have an unbalanced view of that particular role that might be -- and I say might be -- very necessary in this province.

I’m reminded of the remarks that the great John Diefenbaker made on an occasion when he was talking about the federal House, and maybe the Chairman of the Management Board could remember that time. I don’t know whether it was before or after his day there. He talked about it being the only institution of a mental type where the inmates ran it. I rather think he was speaking with tongue in cheek but with a great deal of logic at the same time.

I’ve come to believe the same thing about our parliamentary system here in the Legislature of Ontario. I’m totally frustrated by the impossibility of the role. Unless any of my friends to my right might think, “That’s good news; we won’t see him here next time,” I want to put those fears to rest. I’m going to attempt to the very best of my ability to return.

Mr. Lawlor: The member is a bear for punishment.

An hon. member: He will.

Mr. Parrott: That’s true, and so is the member for Lakeshore. I couldn’t agree with him more. We are foolish to do so. Let’s look at some of the things that should, in my mind, be corrected. First of all, it’s an absolute impossibility to begin to do the job of representing one’s people and sit in this House the number of hours that it demands and it warrants. Let’s look at the attendance right now. It is pitiful. We see those headlines in the paper consistently. What we don’t see in those same headlines, or in the body of the story that follows it, is the reason for the poor attendance in this House.

Mr. Lawlor: The member means apart from indifference.

Mr. Foulds: And the quality of debate.

Mr. Parrott: It may be the quality of debate.

Mr. Hodgson (York North): There is a lot of indifference over there this morning. There are just two Liberals.

Mr. Parrott: I am going to answer that in one minute. I have made it my business to go to the members’ library frequently and I have yet to see a member in it. When I was in graduate school, if I found none of my confreres or peers in the library on many occasions, I knew that the quality of research of that work was going to be very poor. My friend from Nickel Belt says --

Mr. Foulds: Port Arthur.

Mr. Parrott: -- excuse me, Port Arthur -- says the quality of debate is poor. I couldn’t agree with him more. Mr. Speaker, you don’t give a well-reasoned, well-thought-out and well-prepared address under the terms in which we, the members, must serve, It’s an impossibility.

I think we must come to realize and accept that and all of us as members must come to grips with that problem if we are going to have in this Legislature the kind of debate and the kind of attendance it deserves and the people of Ontario deserve.

The first thing I think we’ve got to do is to look at the time schedule that is foisted upon the members as they try to serve. I would very much like to be standing by this seat this morning with the kind of remarks to which I had given an amount of time and effort to prepare. I am going to be very frank about the situation.

This morning I had the opportunity to have visiting from my riding a young chap who is very interested in this process, He came into my office at 9:45 and I said, “Come over to the question period.” He saw me as not a young man any more, and a totally frustrated man. There are letters not answered and people expecting phone calls which are not returned, I think it is necessary on occasion to explain to the people of one’s riding, to the people of Ontario, the system as it works. He came here for question period; ran away; 14 other things on one’s mind, work unattended back in the office.

Tell me for one minute how any of us can cope with the responsibilities of the House and the responsibilities of a riding. Perhaps my remarks are not as well reasoned, as well thought out as I would like them and I apologize for that but under the circumstances they are the very best I can do.

I would like to draw comparison with my federal member who was elected last July and who, by agreement with me, would have a joint riding office in the city of Woodstock. First of all we thought we might be able to work some rather interesting arrangements re personnel and joint facilities and we made an agreement about three weeks after that agreement was made I went to my federal member and said, “I think we had better cancel it. It’s not going to work.” The reason it wasn’t going to work was the lopsided arrangement between that House and his one.

Let me put on the record very briefly his comparison with mine. I’m not interested in the pay he is receiving; it’s more than mine but that’s fair. That’s their business. I was elected to this House and I’ve had a raise since I was here. I have no complaints on the remuneration I have received from this House. I don’t think it’s even logical to say this man who represents Oxford could be at home making more money. If I had chosen that life I would be there. I chose to be here and I am satisfied with the pay but I am totally unsatisfied with the other conditions associated with this office. The federal member has a riding office provided.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): For $8,400.

Mr. Parrott: For $8,400. Now what is my alternative? I am in comparison with this man and rightly so.

The member who represented our federal riding before that did a fantastic job; I think the record has spoken so many times on his behalf. He represented that riding for 20 years but unfortunately died at a very early age -- he was 55 years of age. He was a man of great wealth who dedicated that wealth to serving his riding. We should all give him honour for having done so but following in his footsteps some of us were naturally to be compared. I accept that comparison as a challenge but let me tell the House that I feel very few members of this House have, out of private income, $8,400 with which to compete with their federal members. If they don’t, they are looking poor by comparison. I can suffer the poor comparison but for the people of Oxford county I cannot suffer doing a poor job because we in this House refuse to fund the necessary amenities that should be associated with this job. That’s a job all of us share.

There are no greater responsibilities at the federal level than here; nor as a parliamentary assistant rather than as a private member. In fact, I think if anything my role has been enhanced since I became a parliamentary assistant, not worsened. I’m speaking more of the days when I was a private member rather than a parliamentary assistant.

All right, if it was bad enough that he had a riding office, let’s take one more comparison. He has two, and if he chooses, three, assistants in Ottawa, and one -- out of that $8,400, granted -- in Woodstock, his riding office. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, even in this term we’ve changed from sharing a secretary to where we now have the luxury of one -- one -- for all of that work that’s required.

The logic of the situation says it must be that the load the federal member carries is three times as heavy as that of the provincial member. If that should be the case, then I ask members to come to the riding and open the mailbox day in and day out. We share a common mailbox, interestingly enough, and the mail by count is two and three times as much for the provincial member as it is for the federal member, and I suspect that is not because this provincial member does the job any better than the federal member -- not at all -- or that he’s more popular. It is none of that. It is simply because the workload that’s foisted upon the members who represent their communities in this House is greater than the load carried by their counterparts in the federal seat.

Mr. Bounsall: They get UIC cases.

Mr. Parrott: They get UIC cases and a couple of others. But what else can we look at in this regard?

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): How about my riding?

Mr. Parrott: Maybe we’ll use the municipal relationship with government. If, in this House, we expect a relationship -- I think the member from Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith) asked the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) this morning -- to carry to the federal government some concerns that affected his riding; that was the normal process. But what happens in the municipalities that I represent, and there are many of them, is that they deal with these members of our government and they receive many deserving and well-reasoned answers. I might be a little biased in that, but I’m saying that the responsibility of the province to the many municipalities is far greater than the federal government’s responsibility to those municipalities, and I use that only as an illustration.

How many letters do the federal members receive from the municipalities; forgetting their constituents, just like the municipalities?

That workload in itself is very large. I use that only as an example, and maybe a poor one, but nevertheless I think when we get right down to it, we look into that mailbox that I share with my federal member and we see that it’s two and three times the workload.

There are only one or two alternatives for this, but that’s the thing that worries me. One of the alternatives is to ask only rich men to serve and that’s wrong. The other alternative is for a man of means, or one who has the opportunity to make a dollar in what should be spare time, to use those hours, and that I’ve done. Somebody had to pay that office rent up there and that was a responsibility that I chose to take on and I am prepared to do so, but I say it puts that much more extra load on the member who must either dig into his pocket or find a way of financing that particular riding office if he chooses to serve the people of his riding. That’s what it is all about.

I’m quite happy if we redefine the roles of the members of this House and if they bring us back in the next session of this parliament and say, “You are now going to be legislators.” I could accept that if we as a total House said, “The role of the ombudsman no longer is a part of serving your riding. You are not welcome to call the civil service of this province. You are to make the laws, consider the laws, and that’s it.” Let us be the legislators. I don’t covet that role for myself, but if those have got to be the terms of reference then I think there is no doubt we’re sufficiently paid and we have sufficient staff. But if we are going to be ombudsmen, and most of us have chosen to play that role, then I’m saying, as I’ve said before, we are terribly understaffed and we must do something about it.

Before we come to the role of ombudsman -- this is sort of a notice of motion this morning -- surely we will attempt to take that kind of perspective view of whether or not one ombudsman with some staff makes logical sense, particularly if he should be centralized in the city of Toronto. I say to members that I cannot accept that if that’s the role. I haven’t seen the bill obviously, maybe I wouldn’t be making these remarks if I had. It may be quite different from what I fear but I do not want one ombudsman with a staff for the Province of Ontario. Unless there can be an ombudsman eyeball to eyeball with the people of every riding of Ontario, I think we should not have one.

Mr. Lawlor: He has a different role.

Mr. Parrott: He has a different role. That’s right and I am prepared to allow the ombudsman to have a different role. I see the logic.

Mr. Lawlor: He is not a substitute for the individual member.

Mr. Parrott: I accept that. I could accept that, but I say it would be far better if we had the right, the privileges and the staff and hopefully, the ability to play that role best because I think we can. I think we can do it better than the ombudsman for this reason. The ombudsman would not be expected to go periodically to the people he was serving and say, “I want your support again.” I think that puts a real check, a real value into the system that we can’t get if we hire an ombudsman. My worry is that he becomes a bureaucratic extension -- bureaucracy fighting bureaucracy -- and that would be a very serious concern on my part. I am willing to listen to the debate of this House on that bill as I am sure there is a lot of merit to it. I haven’t just rejected it out of hand but I think we must address ourselves to that total role.

I could go on at some length on this particular subject. I won’t choose to do so now but I would like at this time to adjourn the debate. The other things I might like to get into will take a little longer than the remaining time, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Parrott moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I think today I will endeavour to outline what the next few days will be so that members can make their own arrangements or plans or judgments.

On Monday, we will proceed with this debate and on Tuesday we will deal with some second readings, Nos. 4, 5 and 6 -- standing on the order paper with the possibility of one other item that I will not allude to at this time. I have reasonable agreement that the House will sit on Wednesday the equivalent hours we might have sat on Thursday -- that is, to 6 o’clock on Wednesday of next week -- at which time we will adjourn for the Easter recess.

When we return on Monday, April 7, we will conclude the Throne Speech debate and I will call for the vote on that issue at 5 o’clock in the afternoon of that Monday. The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) will proceed with his budget at 8:30 p.m., Monday, April 7.

Mr. Breithaupt: Before the adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker, I presume the government leader does intend to sit both Monday and Tuesday evenings?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, that was previously announced. That’s correct, Monday and Tuesday of next week in the evenings.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 12:55 o’clock, p.m.