Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before we call the next order of business, the hon. member for Welland would like to introduce some guests.

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to welcome here this evening students of the Niagara College of Arts and Technology from Welland, whom I am proud to represent in the Ontario Legislature. They are in the charge of Mr. Bruce C. Milligan, BA. They are enrolled in the law and security administration programme of the college.

These fine people are indeed excellent examples of the younger generation. These young people will one day take over the reins of leadership in this great Province of Ontario. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. members join me in welcoming my young friends from Niagara College.

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 Scarborough Centre.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Give them the works.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): I’ll tell you, I always do.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): He always does.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Where are the Tories tonight?

Mr. Drea: All of the Tories don’t need to be here tonight. I speak for them.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The member couldn’t call a vote if he wanted to. He needs five.

Mr. Stokes: The Tories couldn’t call one. They have only got four members here.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would you do the hon. member for Scarborough Centre the courtesy of allowing him continue his speech?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I was informing the member for Thunder Bay. He doesn’t know it.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be put on the record that there is only one NDP member in the front row and there is only one Liberal member in the front row.

Mr. Stokes: And there are only three Tories on the east side. Put that on the record.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I note there are only four out of 57 Conservatives on the other side.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I think it should be noted there are eight Liberals and three Tories in my sight.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: But the member doesn’t see well.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Including the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate at 5 o’clock this afternoon, I suggested there were only two things I was going to talk about tonight. One was gun control, which is a favourite of mine; it’s anathema to the Liberal Party but a favourite of mine. I also want to talk about the very poor quality of the meals served on Air Canada. Once again a favourite of mine and anathema to the Liberal Party.

Mr. Paterson: Is that in the Throne Speech?

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Where are we, Ottawa?

Mr. Drea: One of the problems, Mr. Speaker, is when a party in Ontario gets so immersed in all the things that go on in Ottawa. They take their money from it, they take their --

Mr. Stokes: What is the member dredging that up for?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If the member will just listen, he will learn something.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, now look, come on. I know I have a reputation in this House, eh? I have tried to start out today to be calm and peaceful --

Ms. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Next joke.

Mr. Stokes: And he has failed again.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, look, seriously. When I came into this House 3½ years ago, I was so naive I didn’t even think one could read anything.

Mr. Stokes: Boy, was he ever.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I watched the political pygmy from Huron today reading a whole speech with his two books up in front of him.

Mr. Stokes: Ah, that’s not nice.

Mr. Drea: I have watched it for 3½ years. I go on without notes. I may make pauses --

Mr. R. S. Smith: There should be a slight change in that.

Mr. Drea: -- but I have tried to abide by the rules of this House. I am not asking for any special privileges tonight, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Ruston: The member for Durham (Mr. Carruthers) read his speech the other day.

Mr. Drea: -- that if somebody wants to interrupt me tonight, they are going to get back far worse than they have had.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair recognizes your calm qualities and would urge you to continue.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Does the Chair recognize his effect on the other members?

Mr. Stokes: Well said, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as I said before the adjournment, I want to talk about gun control and I want to talk about the quality of meals on Air Canada.

Mr. Samis: Why?

Mr. Stokes: That’s federal, too.

Mr. Drea: Before I do, Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention that perhaps I didn’t exactly clarify for everybody the things I was talking about this afternoon about the deliberate deception -- by the federal government in regard to housing warranties. I want to say two or three paragraphs about that.

It is on the record that the government of Ontario, from last August, was prepared to introduce a housing warranty programme which would have protected --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The member was in Taiwan at that time.

Mr. Drea: -- everybody who bought a new home in this province in 1975 from the vicissitudes of the builder taking off because of bankruptcy or the builder being unable to qualify, because he wasn’t there, on the quality of the house that was built. Mr. Speaker, throughout the last six months of last year and the first three months of this year this government has stood for that kind of a programme. The fact that there is not going to be that kind of a programme in 1975 lies directly with the federal government.

Mr. Haggerty: It said nothing in the Throne Speech.

Mr. Thea: And I couldn’t care less which party it is that occupies the federal throne, because it is with them.

Mr. Stokes: Oh? Oh?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to come to a very serious subject, which is gun control in this province.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Which the member supported the last little while.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the kind of traditional Ontario that has grown up over more than a century now lies at the crossroads.

Mr. Haggerty: Particularly in the last 32 years.

Mr. Stokes: Crank him up. Wind him up.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Does the member have any notes there?

Mr. Drea: Yes, I’ve got lots of notes.

Mr. Gaunt: I don’t like to pry.

Mr. Drea: Well, all right. Okay, come on. All right, I tried to be peaceful. I tried to be calm. If the comedians want to start it, okay.

Mr. Speaker, I really believe the Province of Ontario as everybody has known it, that has grown up over the past 100 years, is really at the crossroads today. A hundred years ago, or better -- or, I suppose in particular areas a little bit less -- people came here from other areas, people settled, they broke the sod, they tilled the soil, and they did four things at the crossroads: They put up a bank, they put up a school, they put up a church and they put up a general store. That was the basis of civilization in this province, and I think it was a very good basis of civilization, because they took care of the financial, they took care of the educational, they took care of whatever goods they needed, and they took care of thanking the Almighty for the fact that they were able to be here in Ontario. I suppose maybe there was a predecessor of OHIP. They had the good health or the good being to be able to farm the fields, and they did that for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, in the 1920s when the Americans were engaged in what they like to call their noble experiment, which was prohibition, in this province we were not. We accepted the fact that people in other jurisdictions had engaged in perhaps something we didn’t think was very practical, but we did not impose it upon our own people.

In retrospect, now we can see what prohibition, or the noble experiment, did in the United States. It led to the corruption of the police force, it led to the corruption of the judiciary, it led to the real beginning of organized crime. In this province we were very, very lucky to escape that, notwithstanding the fact that after the Americans wound up their noble experiment, we went into prohibition for a very brief time, and after that emerged the various liquor control statutes which are still with us today.

I do not choose to speak tonight upon those liquor control statutes. Rather, I choose to speak upon the society we live in. I wish I could turn back the clock 20 or 25 years. I wish we could go back to “Toronto the Good.”

Mr. Bounsall: Oh, no. The Orange Lodge again.

Mr. Drea: Well, Mr. Speaker, let it be recorded that the New Democratic Party doesn’t believe in “Toronto the Good.” The New Democratic Party obviously believes in permissiveness at all levels.

Mr. Bounsall: Oh come on.

Mr. Drea: Well the member opened his mouth; stick with it.

Mr. Bounsall: You can’t turn back the clock; you just can’t turn back the clock.

Mr. Samis: Make the best of 1975.

Mr. Drea: I wish we could turn back the clock to those days, Mr. Speaker. I wish we could turn back the clock to those days when I was in the newspaper business, and if there was one holdup in a day it was front page news.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): The newspaper is doing okay now.

Mr. Drea: Quite frankly in terms of the six days of the week at that time, it wasn’t front page news very often. But today, Mr. Speaker, we are in the era of 1975. In 1975, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you every night on the radio you hear about the holdups, you hear about the armed robberies, you hear about the bank robberies, you hear about the abductions, you hear about the criminal assaults on females.

Mr. Speaker, what I am going to suggest to you is, and I suggested it a year ago, that we live in a climate, in a civilization of violence. Mr. Speaker, I am determined to be very pleasant tonight but the New Democratic Party think the climate of violence is very funny.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): The member for Scarborough Centre is the only violent one in the House tonight.

Mr. R. S. Smith: He has threatened us about four times.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think in terms of the crimes on society that are being committed, I think it is very improper for a political --

Mr. Germa: Shouldice was one of the criminals. He didn’t have a gun; he was a pirate in a $200 suit and a member of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, let it be recorded that the New Democratic Party in this province really believes in organized crime. Let’s put that on the record.

Mr. Samis: Tell that to the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman).

Mr. Germa: They all belong to the Conservative Party, with Ross Shouldice the leader.

Mr. Drea: Well I could tell my friend opposite about all the union goons for about an hour; but I am not going to, I want to give him time to walk out of here, so he can hide his face in shame.

Mr. Germa: Tell me about Ross Shouldice.

Mr. Drea: Would the member like me to talk about all his union friends who contributed to him?

Mr. Stokes: They sure got wise to the member for Scarborough Centre; they sure tossed him out on his he-knows-what.

Mr. Germa: How come they fired him if he was one of them?

Mr. Drea: Nobody ever fired me.

Mr. Stokes: The member got his walking ticket.

Mr. Drea: Well, I tell you, Mr. Stokes, if you think they did, walk outside of that room and just say it tonight, because I would like to collect off you.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member will refer to the other hon. members by their riding, not by their names.

Mr. Stokes: Is that a threat?

Mr. Drea: No.

Mr. Turner: That’s a statement.

Mr. Stokes: If that’s a threat, the member is on.

Mr. Drea: Well come on. When I am done, when I’m done.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the climate of violence. We have a climate in this province, particularly in this city, and it is not altogether remote from the situation in Hamilton or from Windsor or from Sudbury or from Ottawa. We are talking about the fact that the gun has become the great equalizer in all disputes.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago I talked about the fact that crimes, because of the gun, had shown a very vast increase. A year ago I read into the record all these statistics. I am not going to do that tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to you tonight about the fact that hundreds of thousands of people in this province -- most of them in big cities so far, but I am sure that if we let enough time go by many of them will be in the smaller communities -- are very concerned about the fact of increased violence, particularly with the gun.

Mr. Speaker, it is on the record in this country that because of the federal Criminal Code we have allayed, I suppose, about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the handgun crimes that are committed in the United States. I suggest that When the Metropolitan Toronto police commission can say that for every registered handgun in this city there is one unregistered one, and when it can talk about, in figures, 100,000 handguns registered in Metropolitan Toronto and 100,000 handguns unregistered in Toronto, then perhaps in a community of this size we should begin to have qualms -- especially, Mr. Speaker, when I can suggest to you that the penalty for having an unregistered handgun in Metropolitan Toronto is exactly the same as being unable to produce your driver’s licence upon request: $50 plus costs, which I reckon at the moment is $53.50.

Mr. Ruston: Is that the maximum?

Mr. Drea: Yes. But that’s handguns, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ruston: That’s the minimum?

Mr. Drea: No, it’s the maximum.

For a number of years we’ve talked about the Saturday night special in Chicago or Detroit. Would anyone like to try the Monday-to-Friday special in downtown Toronto? Try my friend over at Hercules. It’s a block and a half away, down Wellesley St., up one-half block. Try his Monday-to-Friday special on a rifle. He will offer a rifle with ammunition that is better than the rifle that the fellow who killed John F. Kennedy was able to buy. He will offer a rifle that is better than the man who killed Martin Luther King was able to buy. And he will offer it on a Monday-to-Friday special and put it on a neon sign outside the door.

Mr. Speaker, I will bring up something else. There was a fellow named Oswald who shot the President of the United States. The whole of the United States was appalled and still is appalled about the fact that man sent away by mail and got a rifle and ammunition and killed the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll tell you, in terms of Ontario today he was a piker, because he could go to the Simpsons-Sears catalogue or he could go to the Eaton’s catalogue and he could send away by mail for a far better rifle, a far more accurate rifle, and far better ammunition than he used to kill the President of the United States, and we would send it to him here in the Dominion of Canada with no questions asked except, “Guns and amo not sold to somebody under 17 years of age. Give your credit number.”

They don’t really care about the fact they’re sending out a rifle. The rifle I’m talking about is a .303 Enfield, which was the standard British military weapon. They’re not talking about that and they don’t care about the ammunition. “Are you over 17, because we want to make sure you can pay?”

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to you very realistically about gun control tonight. I know all of the yahoos and the rednecks from the farm country are going to say this will take away the .22 rifle from the stock man who wants to kill rodents or to shoot wolves or something that is going against his stock.

An hon. member: Careful now.

An hon. member: Tell the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) to pay attention.

Mr. Germa: The member has got some yahoos on this side of the House.

Mr. Drea: There are no yahoos on that side of the House, but for the member it comes to redneck.

Mr. Germa: In the rump there are some yahoos.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: With the member for whatever it is in Sudbury -- and it won’t be long -- it’s redneck all the way. He’s had a long career in it.

Mr. Riddell: This will make good reading for our good rural friends.

Mr. Drea: Yes, it may make good reading to the member’s rural friends.

Mr. Riddell: The member wants to believe it when he calls them yahoos and rednecks.

Mr. Drea: Well, the member for Huron is not going to be here very long because the riding has changed.

Mr. Edighoffer: The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) isn’t going to be missed.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: The member for Huron is going to run against the Minister of Agriculture and Food? He’s got to be kidding. Nobody wants to commit suicide -- not even the member for Huron.

Mr. Paterson: That is why the Minister of Agriculture and Food won’t run.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Riddell: I have never backed away from anybody yet, and I don’t intend to start now.

Mr. Drea: Oh, bravery, bravery.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the facts about mail-order rifles in this province. It seems very odd to me that while this is a province that stands for the law-abiding -- we send petitions to the United States; we tell them to please be law-abiding; and we can’t understand why they don’t go for gun control, because we would certainly be behind it -- we in this province allow a situation where we can buy increasingly more high-powered rifles and high-powered ammunition.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve had a bit of experience with this kind of ammunition; I know what a copper-jacketed shell can do. I know exactly what it can do. We allow them to buy it by mail, although we say, as I’ve said before, they’ve got to be over 17 or they can’t buy guns and ammunition.

Mr. Speaker, a year ago when I talked about this subject, I talked about the fact that Toronto was inevitably going to go the way of Detroit, Chicago and other American cities. I’ll be honest with you: I thought it was five, 10 or 15 years away. Mr. Speaker and especially to the yahoo from Huron, I can tell him I had a murder in my riding about four or five days ago and I’m very glad to see he is on the side of the perpetrator.

Mr. Riddell: And who is the member suggesting did it, one of our good rural friends?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it used to be that we thought about crime and gun control in terms of the urban city. I would like to talk to you tonight about the suburbs. In the suburbs of Metropolitan Toronto we have a tactical squad, which I suppose is the polite name in Canada for the thing that’s on television, SWAT -- Special Weapons and Tactics. There is a tactical squad downtown. There is a tactical squad in Scarborough. I personally think that perhaps that alone is grounds for gun control in this province. I think it is grounds for gun control in this province that 83 per cent of all the gunshot offences in a rural area are committed with rifles -- not with handguns but with rifles. I am the first one to agree that probably in terms of North America, in terms of handguns or restricted weapons, that the federal government, through the Criminal Code, through the administration of justice in the various provinces, has probably come to grips with it. I agree with that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the rifle and the shotgun, the non-restricted weapon, the non-concealable weapon. I don’t want to talk about the sawed-off shotgun. I don’t want to talk about the sawed-off .22. I want to talk about -- if you want to have it that way -- the .22 or the shotgun or the .303 that has been left intact. These, I suggest to you, are used in better than three out of four out of every one of the gunshot woundings or the gunshot killings in this province.

I am sure that the lawyers on the other side are going to say, “Well, they are not registered by the Criminal Code.” I agree with them. They are not. I am sure that the gun nuts on the other side are going to say they can’t be. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to agree to that because the cheaper the rifle or the shotgun the less likely it is to have a serial number.

That’s all very well and I sympathize very much with Sen. Cameron in the Senate of Canada that he would want to bring in mandatory registration of those weapons, except that I understand the cost, as does this government. The cost of each one of those registrations where there is no serial number would have to include a ballistics test and, provided the ballistics test could be taken, it would be in excess of $80 a weapon, which is a very prohibitive cost for a weapon that costs less than $35 -- $30, $25, whatever.

Mr. Speaker, what I’m talking about is that we in the Province of Ontario embark on a whole new line with rifles and shotguns -- a line that has already been pioneered by those who want to collect guns. Because you see, Mr. Speaker, the people who ordinarily have to use a handgun in this province register the serial number of the gun. That use is because of their occupation, whether they are policemen, or bank guards, or somebody who has a gun for personal protection or what have you. They are registered because of the serial number of their weapon, because with every handgun there is a serial number registered. How do we reconcile the fact that registration appears to have done something? I call you back to my earlier warning that registration hasn’t done very much, because for every handgun registered in Metropolitan Toronto there is one unregistered gun.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest we go to a very special category within the Criminal Code, and that very special category is for gun collectors. They are not going to be licensed because of their occupation; they are not going to have the serial number registered. They are going to have a great number of weapons licensed in view of the fact that they are of a character that would assure they can have this multitude of weapons in their place and they will not be used illegally.

Mr. Speaker, already within the Criminal Code is the requirement that if someone wants to be a gun collector he is licensed as to his personal character. I suggest to you, despite the fact that within two or three years there have been two --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: Yes, there have been two gun collectors who achieved some notoriety and were charged. Nonetheless, the vast majority of gun collectors in this province obey the injunctions of the Criminal Code, obey the injunctions of ordinary society and conduct themselves very admirably.

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to suggest to you tonight that in this climate of violence in Ontario, particularly in Toronto -- and I realize all the rubes are going to have smiles on their faces, but there is a climate of violence -- people are afraid, people are concerned. We don’t want to become Detroit, we don’t want to become Chicago, we don’t want to become New York. And, thank God, we are not going to. But I suggest to you the time has come in this government that there be a firm declaration that the handgun is within the control of the federal government, and that abuses with a handgun are within the control of the judiciary who are controlled by the federal government. That is something none of us has any control over.

I also suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that before someone can go from a province to a federal government and say that there has to be something done, the province has to go with absolutely clean hands. Those clean hands are, sir, I suggest to you with the greatest of respect, that we go to the federal government and we say in this province that we are prepared to register the character of the person who owns firearms, notwithstanding the fact that the federal government has the jurisdictional right to deal with handguns.

What does it mean that we have the right to look at the character of people who have weapons above and beyond those who are cleared by the federal Criminal Code to possess handguns? It means that we are going to go to see the people who have rifles and the people who have handguns. It means that they are going to come into us and they are going to have to tell us what they want them for. It would be very easy, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, there is the hunter. He has got a hunter’s licence. Let me point something else out to you. Every single person who wants to be a hunter in this province who hasn’t got a hunter’s licence must go through a mandatory gun control course and get a certificate before he is issued the licence. Not a single legitimate hunter is going to be bothered.

I suggest something else to you, Mr. Speaker, because I’ve been talking about this for two years.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: Go on, say it again; just let the member say it. Go ahead. Mr. Speaker, for the last two years, not a single young hunter, not a single hunter who is going in for the first time to get a licence has complained to this government. They appreciate gun control because it’s their lives that are at stake outside in the bush or outside in the turkey blind or wherever else they shoot. I would suggest something else to you. The death toll from the people who used to sit in the duck blinds, or used to sit in the other kinds of blinds, has dropped very drastically since we brought in this programme of control.

Now let’s talk about the skeet shooters, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if somebody wants to shoot skeet as a recreational endeavour, he knows how to use his weapon. He knows what he is going to do. He belongs to a club. And in case one of the yahoos wants to open his mouth again, how many municipalities are there or townships --

An hon. member: Who is that?

Mr. Drea: Some of the members opposite. How many townships allow the inordinate discharge of firearms without a penalty? Think about it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, if a person wants to -- and the reason I say a person is that there are a great many ladies as well as men who want to shoot skeet -- who want to shoot a shotgun off in the air with one arm.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: They want to do skeet shooting. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you they have already obtained through their gun club, their hunt club, their recreation club, or what have you, the right to discharge firearms in a municipality.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: They already belong to it. Those who are at target practices, who want to shoot on target, well, Mr. Speaker, once again I suggest to you because of the very vast prohibitions against the discharge of firearms in this province, they have already obtained an exemption under the municipal laws for the gun club.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to you that the very gun clubs that obtained that exemption, these are the gun clubs that handle the registration for us and the certification for this government of those who want to use a firearm or hunt, or what have you.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the last year since I talked about gun control in a very prominent manner, I have been to Detroit.

Detroit is one of the places that the New Democratic Party in this province would really enjoy. It is one of those places where the Ten Commandments hasn’t done very much to discourage organized crime.

I have been in Chicago, Mr. Speaker, and in Chicago they think that -- well, they really wish they had a Legislature like that of Ontario; that someone could introduce this kind of thing, and it had a reasonable chance of passing.

Mr. Speaker, at the time I went to Chicago, they had more than 38 homicides on a weekend. Now, these weren’t husband and wife where he came home and -- bang! Bang! -- or anything. Oh, no, after they took all those away, there were still more than 38 homicides.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, in the city of Chicago -- and I almost got to meet the mayor, who is rather legendary. But I certainly got to meet his commissioner of police. And the commissioner of police talked to me about the fact that he understood the Province of Ontario is going to bring in gun control. He certainly wished the Province of Ontario would bring in gun control, because Chicago had recorded 38 homicides on the last weekend. And that didn’t count domestic arguments, or else he could have added another 10 or 12 or 15. He talked about real live ones.

All right, Mr. Speaker, here we are two years from the first time that I brought up gun control in this Legislature. Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, we didn’t have the number of aggravated assaults. We didn’t have abductions on the streets. We didn’t have cab drivers being shot through the head. We didn’t have shoot-outs with tactical squads of the police. A year ago, Mr. Speaker, I would have suggested to you that realistically we were a long way away from having the kind of violence that unfortunately has become the lot of people in Metropolitan Toronto. I suggest to you, sir, that the time has come for gun control in this province and if the yahoos don’t like it, let them stand up and run against it.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): They’re on the member’s side.

Mr. Drea: Let them stand up and run against it.

Mr. Breithaupt: They’re on the member’s side; he shouldn’t ask us.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Who are the yahoos?

Mr. Drea: They’re not on my side.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s the yahoos who are against it.

Mr. Drea: The hero in the back row won’t even open his mouth. He’s on their side.

Mr. Lawlor: The yahoos are against it.

Mr. Riddell: If the member wants to come into my riding we’ll go and visit these people he is calling yahoos.

Mr. Lawlor: Where do the Houyhnhnms come in?

Mr. Riddell: Stop referring to the rural people as being yahoos.

Mr. Drea: I’m not referring to the rural people. I’m referring to the member.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: I’m referring to him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: I’m not referring to the rural people of Ontario. I’m referring to the political pygmy of the Liberal Party.

An hon. member: He is treading water.

Mr. Drea: I’m not treading water. I’ll say it again. I’m not referring to the rural people of Ontario. I’m referring to the political pygmy of the Liberal Party and that’s him.

Mr. Breithaupt: Let the member talk to his own members. Don’t worry about us; we’ll solve our own problems.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member for Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) is leaving now. He can’t take it any more.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can really find in objection to the position I have stated tonight -- and I would ask the House to let me get the sentence out before the members holler, okay? -- is “Radicals in Canada move from a scheme to restrict handguns to a major push for confiscation of private weapons.” That is issued by the John Birch Society and a fellow dropped it off at the house the other night. He said I was one of the main efforts of the Communist plot in Canada to make sure the citizens were disarmed before they took over.

I really think after all this time, Mr. Speaker, it is very ludicrous that (a) I am a radical --

Mr. Lawlor: We know our Neanderthals.

Mr. Drea: I thought it was funny, too. And that (b) I am any part of a Communist plot.

Mr. Lawlor: No, never.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there are those in the opposition benches who were with --

Mr. Lawlor: He spent all his time in Taiwan.

Mr. Drea: -- Communist organizations which I had to take on but, however --

Mr. Germa: How about the Ku Klux Klan?

Mr. Drea: What was that?

Mr. Germa: is the member with the Ku Klux Klan?

Mr. Drea: No. There were fellows who were with such dubious organizations as the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, weren’t there?

Mr. Lawlor: How can the member make gun control effective?

Mr. Drea: The opposition supported us with the steelworkers. Don’t get calm after the day is over.

Mr. Lawlor: Really, isn’t the member whistling up the pipe?

Mr. Drea: Am I?

Mr. Lawlor: How can he make it effective? There are millions of guns around.

Mr. Lawlor: The member for Halton West (Mr. Kerr) shouldn’t prompt him.

Mr. Breithaupt: For God’s sake, don’t prompt him!

Mr. Lawlor: Let him think for himself for a change.

Mr. Drea: The member wasn’t the lawyer for the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, was he?

Mr. Lawlor: I wish I was. I could have made a fortune.

An hon. member: He wouldn’t have to be here now.

Mr. Drea: No, I didn’t think he was. I thought he had far too much honesty to try that one.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): He’s a fine man.

Mr. Drea: He wasn’t?

Mr. Lawlor: Leave the poor old mines alone. How can the member make it effective?

Mr. Drea: I am never too sure about you. Were you or weren’t you?

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member for Scarborough Centre address the Chair, please?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with the utmost respect, it seems to me a very sad day in Canada or in Ontario when you cannot discuss the fact -- and I raised the fact about radicals in Canada -- I really think it is a very sad day when you cannot comment on the past history of some of the more distinguished members here.

I was saying: “Radicals in Canada move from a scheme to restrict handguns” -- and I suppose that was me -- “to a major push for confiscation of private weapons.” Okay, may I repeat the headline? You see, Mr. Speaker, unlike some of the other people in here I don’t read my speeches.

Mr. Bounsall: What point is he trying to drive home?

Mr. Drea: “Canada Faces Gun Confiscation,” by F. Paul Fromm. This document was apparently published in the United States of America. He is talking about things that go on in the United States of America under the guise of talking about Bill S-14 in the Canadian Senate, and in passing he talks about the various efforts of myself and other distinguished members of this Legislature to bring in gun control in this province.

He raises the point that the decent hunter will be deprived. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that under any gun control legislation which I have submitted to the government, or in any gun legislation that will be brought into this Legislature --

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, Paul is the last of the vigilantes; he is the last of the vigilantes. He is one of the Edmund Burke Society.

Mr. Drea: -- the hunter will not be affected. The hunter in this province has already qualified for the right to carry a gun.

The apprentice hunter already has to go through a form of gun control, which incidentally is not run by this government but is run by a gun control club and is run very successfully.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): What is it the member wants? What is it he wants then?

Mr. Lawlor: It is not even run by the federal government.

Mr. Drea: I want to give the member for Waterloo North less business.

Mr. R. S. Smith: What’s the point he is trying to make? That’s what we are trying to figure out.

Mr. Drea: Since we have raised the point about --

Mr. Ruston: He doesn’t know what he is saying.

Mr. Good: He just wants to listen to himself talk.

Mr. Drea: Since we have raised the point about gun control with the hunters, let’s raise it again with the target shooters. The legitimate people, whether they use a handgun or they use a rifle, will not be affected by any legislation that will be bought in by me or this province, because they already belong to a gun club. Those gun clubs have done more to ensure the safety of the hunter or the target shooter in this province in the last 20 years than everything else combined, so they are not going to be affected. Who is going to be affected?

Mr. Riddell: The farmer who wants to shoot the rabid skunk is the guy who is going to be affected.

Mr. Thea: Keep talking, buddy.

Mr. Riddell: Sure, keep talking about the rabid skunk and other rabid animals that are a menace to livestock products.

Mr. Drea: This is the longest speech he has ever made, other than a grunt and a groan.

Mr. Riddell: Rabid animals affect the livestock. The farmers won’t be able to shoot them under legislation that the member is proposing.

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Oh, come on. He is not saying that.

Mr. Riddell: That’s what he said.

Mr. Kerr: No, no.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, indulge him; it is the longest speech he ever made.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): The member hasn’t been listening.

Mr. Good: The member for Halton West was going to bring in legislation last year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough Centre has the floor. He may proceed.

Mr. Drea: In short, nobody is going to be affected by any type of gun control legislation except the person who is going to buy a weapon upon impulse. I am not saying that it is going to end criminal activity in this province; it is not. Mr. Speaker, you know that and I know that. The anti-social are going to be with us always. I think it is our duty to limit the anti-social --

Mr. Stokes: The impulsive buyer.

Mr. Drea: -- or the criminally minded. I would have expected better from the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: The impulsive buyer, that’s what the member said.

Mr. Drea: I really would have expected better from him.

Mr. Breithaupt: But he is agreeing with the member.

Mr. Drea: From the criminally minded we cannot expect any improvement. As I said before, the Ten Commandments haven’t made much impact upon organized crime.

Mr. Lawlor: They haven’t made much impact upon anybody.

Mr. Drea: From the anti-social we can’t really expect anything more. Our obligation is to try to eliminate that 1½, two or whatever to as small a proportion as we can humanly do in our lifetime. I suggest to the member for Thunder Bay that if he and I can move that a little bit closer, then maybe we will have justified our lifetime upon this planet. I’m sure he’d agree with me.

Mr. Stokes: I don’t even own a gun.

Mr. Drea: You know, Mr. Speaker, one of the problems of making a serious speech in this Legislature --

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes?

Mr. Good: Is that the member doesn’t know how.

Mr. Stokes: The member had better start with the premise that he is serious.

Mr. Drea: I’m very serious. If the member for Thunder Bay wants to take me on, my riding is Scarborough Centre; he can run against me and say, “Give everybody a gun.”

Mr. Lawlor: Does the member for Scarborough Centre own a gun?

Mr. Stokes: That’s a challenge.

Mr. Lawlor: Has he got a gun?

Mr. Stokes: I’ll tell you what, I’ll run in Scarborough Centre if the member will go up and run in Thunder Bay.

Mr. Germa: At Attawapiskat.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s as fair a balance as I have heard all night.

An hon. member: Right, a good trade.

Mr. Drea: Yes, I rather suspect that would get rid of both of us, and that would make for a good House with no social reform.

Mr. Lawlor: I’ll agree to half of that; guess which half.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I’m not talking politics tonight. I haven’t tried to.

Mr. Lawlor: You are above all that stuff.

Mr. Drea: I am talking to you and I’m talking to the Legislature on gun control. I realize I’m not the easiest person in this Legislature to get along with.

Mr. Lawlor: Hear, hear.

Mr. Drea: But in terms of gun control I have always talked from the heart, I have talked from the soul, I have talked from the brain --

Mr. Lawlor: Right out of the mouth of the object, so to speak.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): The member for Lakeshore is provocative tonight.

Mr. Drea: I have always tried to do it in the utmost of sincerity, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lawlor: The member should control himself. The night is young.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this year is the year of destiny in this province.

Mr. Lawlor: Destiny? My Lord! That’s another word for going under.

An hon. member: It’s the end.

Mr. Drea: All right, Mr. Speaker, I’m going to start my conclusion on this topic one more time --

[Opposition applause.]

Mr. Lawlor: I didn’t know the member had got to the premise yet.

Mr. Drea: All right. Fine. They think it’s frivolous.

Mr. Lawlor: No, we didn’t think it was frivolous.

Mr. Drea: Okay, fine. They think it’s frivolous --

Mr. Lawlor: Not at all. I think it is totally serious. That’s why it is so damned funny.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you I have never discussed this topic in this House except to bring out the most serious implications. I wish I had been wrong a year ago when I said Toronto was going the way of Detroit and Chicago. I wish I had been wrong. I would love to stand up here tonight and say, “No, we’re not.” But we are, and the members opposite know we are. Every single one of them reads a newspaper, so they know we are. And I have just about had enough of the frivolity of some criminal lawyer from the Lakeshore. I’ve just about had enough.

Mr. Breithaupt: Who?

Mr. Drea: Either we are going to get gun control in this province -- and it’s not going to deal with handguns; it’s going to deal with rifles and shotguns --

Mr. Lawlor: The member doesn’t think his ineffective gun control is going to make any difference, does he?

Mr. Drea: And that stands for the great yahoo back there --

Mr. Haggerty: Order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Let’s have a little order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you very seriously that a year from now --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: I’m not going to talk about it -- and I’ll be here, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Ruston: No, he won’t.

Mr. Drea: I’ll be here.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): No, he won’t.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Want to bet?

Mr. Lawlor: That’s what he means by destiny.

Mr. Drea: I’ll be here, but about 50, 55, 60 or 70 in Metropolitan Toronto won’t be here because they were blasted down because the government found itself confronted with all the people who said, “Oh, protect those who have the guns, protect those who have this, protect those who have that.” It will be small consolation to those who have met their Maker.

I am not going to stand up again next year. I’m not going to read the statistics. I’m not going to talk about how many were killed in my riding -- and they are killed in my riding.

Mr. Lawlor: The member can set up all his straw men so he’ll be able to burn them down. The surrogate personality!

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Let the member for Lakeshore beware he isn’t the next one.

Mr. Lawlor: He dreams his dreams and makes his illusions.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: What member of this House takes exception to him fundamentally? Come off it.

Mr. Drea: The member for Lakeshore does.

Mr. Lawlor: He plays games and makes long speeches. It is all beside the point. I agree with everything he says, the poor beggar.

Mr. Drea: Well, we now have the NDP on record for gun control. He had better talk to his deputy leader who just came in.

Mr. Lawlor: I think there should be gun control. I personally believe so.

Mr. Drea: Yes, he does. Then why does he open his big mouth in here and object?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member for Scarborough Centre get along with his debate in relation to the Throne Speech?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, why doesn’t he?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That is unparliamentary.

Mr. R. S. Smith: He is being provocative.

Mr. Lawlor: Can’t he control his instincts?

An hon. member: Not very well.

Mr. Stokes: Let him tuck in his shirt.

Mr. Lawlor: Introduce the legislation and he will see where we stand.

Mr. Drea: Would the member vote for it?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Mr. Drea: Okay, we are in.

Mr. Lawlor: Get on with it, lad. He fights ghosts. He wrestles with angels and he is not even Jacob. He has no ladder.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore will have a chance to make his contribution to the Throne Speech later. Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: He never gets anywhere.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: Figments, will-o’-the wisps, poltergeists.

An hon. member: He was worried that if he had him out of sight he must be wrong.

Mr. Breithaupt: Does that worry the minister?

Mr. Speaker: You have order now. You may proceed.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve talked enough about gun control. Now that we have the support of the New Democratic Party, I don’t think there is anything that stands in the way of the implementation of gun control as I imagine from the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, once the government has got our consent, I suppose it can go ahead. I didn’t know we were such terribly important people.

Mr. Drea: I tell the member when the normal and the peculiar get together, there is not much else left.

Mr. Deans: And the member for Scarborough Centre is the peculiar.

Mr. Drea: We are the normal.

Mr. Lawlor: They the normal, are they? Oh, my God, how would we deal with aberration when it comes?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We will deal with the member.

Mr. Drea: Yes, I will protect him. Mr. Speaker, I want to come to the second last point that I want to raise tonight. That is something I really think, provided the major it of the House will go along with me, I’m going to do something about. I would certainly like their opinions because I presume they fly as much as I do on Air Canada, or as little as I do, out of this province.

Mr. Speaker, in this province we give Air Canada the equivalent of a tavern licence for their airplanes. That’s based upon the fact that supposedly they feed all of their people a meal or something. It’s on the 50-50, and those in the House who are conversant with the liquor laws of the province will understand that. In any event, they are supposed to serve a decent meal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk, first of all, about my experiences on flight 2904 on March 16, 1975.

Mr. Breithaupt: What did they run out of?

Mr. Drea: Food, that’s what they ran out of.

Mr. Stokes: Was that coming to or going from?

An hon. member: Was that the flight from Ottawa to Toronto?

Mr. Deans: Would he tell us a little more about the trip so that we can understand it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let the member finish his address please.

Mr. Drea: Well, to those who have independent means, like the deputy leader or the House leader of the Liberal Party, these things are very minuscule but --

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s the nicest thing he has ever said about us.

Mr. Drea: No, independent means -- not independent brains. Mr. Speaker, I happened to be on this flight on behalf of the government. I made the mistake of getting on this flight with Air Canada on a Sunday afternoon without having had lunch.

Mr. Lawlor: Where was he going to? He can’t complain about a charter service.

Mr. Drea: What? Listen, I don’t take chartered flights. I regulate.

Mr. Lawlor: I know.

Mr. Drea: No, no. This was a regularly scheduled flight.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Ottawa to Toronto.

Mr. Drea: I just want to talk about the meal.

Mr. Lawlor: He is stepping on federal toes.

Mr. Drea: No.

Mr. Deans: Is it a federal problem?

Mr. Drea: No.

An hon. member: It’s a dirty trick.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Let the member for Scarborough Centre continue.

Mr. Lawlor: Is it a federal matter?

Mr. Drea: Come on -- it’s no federal matter. We license them.

Mr. Ruston: Please speak through the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I wish everybody else would speak to the Chair, too.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: It would be a lot easier position for the Speaker to be in at this time if everybody spoke to the Chair.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I am about to interject.

Mr. Speaker: Has the member for Lakeshore got a point of privilege he’d like to rise on?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He never has a point of privilege.

Mr. Drea: By all means.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, let’s all settle down and come to order. Let the member for Scarborough Centre proceed.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, for some time it has bothered me about Air Canada. I come back to the deputy leader of the NDP -- are they regulated by us or are they regulated by the federal government?

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the member for Scarborough Centre that you don’t call a member the deputy leader. You refer to him as the hon. member for the riding he is representing.

Mr. Deans: Smarten up.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is it out of order to have your dinner in the legislative chamber?

Mr. Drea: The hon. member for Wentworth, my good friend the deputy leader of the NDP.

Mr. Lawlor: House leader.

Mr. Drea: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to draw the distinction. Air Canada is a common carrier and it’s under federal jurisdiction -- no question. But, in terms of the liquor licence in Ontario they are under our jurisdiction. And I have some responsibility for that.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Drea: And that is what I want to talk about tonight. It is that very minor responsibility, which is the liquor licence or the tavern licence. We grant that tavern licence on the grounds they are going to issue a good, substantial meal. Now let me tell you what happened to me on March 16, 1975, on flight 2904, Mr. Speaker.

It appeared that there was some kind of meat. These are my own notations; I’ve signed them with the times and everything else. It appeared that there was some kind of meat. It appeared that there was some kind of juice poured over the meat. It also appeared that there was a half-stale roll. That I can testify to -- it was a half-stale roll.

Mr. Deans: Was it a half roll that was stale or was it a roll that was half stale?

Mr. Drea: There was also a half-dried bit of cheese over the meat.

Mr. Stokes: That is why the member had to regulate them.

Mr. Drea: It was so half stale it was --

Mr. Stokes: That is why he had to regulate them.

Mr. Drea: There was some kind of apple delicacy for dessert, or something. This may be of substantial interest to everybody here. The girl asked me if I would like some wine and I said to her, “Is there a Canadian wine?” She said, “No, there is no Canadian wine because we lose so much business on it. It is rotten.”

Mr. Paterson: It sounds like the legislative dining room.

Mr. Deans: Okay, who said that?

Mr. Breithaupt: Next.

Mr. Drea: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal Party wants to go on record that Canadian wine is rotten, that is not my problem. Not my problem.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is not what he said.

Mr. Drea: Well then, I will give way to a point of privilege; let him stand up and say what he has to say.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are sharing the member’s experiences.

Mr. Paterson: I said you can’t buy a bottle of Canadian wine in the legislative dining room.

Mr. Drea: That’s not true. You can buy a bottle of Canadian wine in the legislative dining room any day of the week.

Mr. Good: You can’t buy a half bottle; and that is always the way we order.

Mr. Breithaupt: After all, we are in the opposition.

Mr. Ruston: We drink only a small amount.

Mr. Drea: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think in this province, where there are a great many farmers who are engaged in the growing of grapes and in the processing of grapes that are essential for Canadian wine, the fact that the premier Canadian airline doesn’t carry Canadian wine because “the public thinks it’s rotten,” is a very bad reflection on the Canadian farmer who grew the grapes, the Canadian processor who processed them and the Canadian vintner who made the wine.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): And a Canadian airline and the LCBO.

Mr. Drea: A Canadian airline; yes, and that’s what bothers me most of all. If I was on an American airline I couldn’t care less if they had Canadian wines.

Mr. Breithaupt: Fly United.

Mr. Drea: Don’t turn it around. The member was the guy talking about the tender fruit marketing board; that includes grapes.

Mr. Deans: Who is the member talking to?

Mr. Drea: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: On a point of privilege, I wasn’t saying a word.

Mr. Speaker: State your point of privilege.

Mr. Deans: My point of privilege is that I want you to understand that I have a great deal at stake in the tender fruit industry, particularly the winemaking tender fruit industry. Most of my riding is made up of it, and I subscribe to the theory that people should drink Canadian wines, particularly Ontario wines.

Mr. Drea: Well then, why is the member laughing?

Mr. Breithaupt: May I speak on that point of privilege? He has more tender fruits in his riding than anyone I know.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener has no point of privilege either.

Mr. Deans: I would like to get that comment of the member for Kitchener on the record. I will be passing that around in the next election.

Mr. Riddell: Point of order.

Mr. Speaker: What is the member’s point of order?

Mr. Riddell: Just because Air Canada didn’t serve a meal that suited his fancy doesn’t mean to say they’re running a restaurant up there.

Mr. Speaker: You haven’t got a point of order either.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I have raised a point again, maybe beyond the comprehension of the yahoo from Huron, that we do license Air Canada as a tavern where they have to serve as much food as they serve liquor.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of decorum, would the Speaker ask the member to tuck his shirt in?

Mr. Speaker: If we don’t have better order in this Legislature at this time, I’m going to ask the Speaker to come in and adjourn he Legislature.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t push that one.

An hon. member: The member’s tender fruit is slightly bruised.

Mr. Drea: No; not a meal like that again.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Did the member drop a wing?

Mr. Ruston: Where are all the member’s Conservative friends? Oh, there is one down in the rump -- the member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. Drea: Well, I’ll tell the member for Essex-Kent the only one who counts is here.

All right Mr. Speaker, I try to raise subjects of importance and they do have some impact in this province. We have a very big subsidy programme for grape growers, as I’m sure my friend from Wentworth knows.

Mr. Deans: I appreciate it too, I might tell the member.

Mr. Drea: Yes. We have some rather substantial special concessions to Ontario vintners in this province, which I am sure that my friend from York-Forest Hill, with his great regard for the rare wine store knows.

Mr. Givens: I’m a Mogen David man.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Only the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer) drinks Mogen David.

Mr. Deans: And he drinks it with the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, coming back to the fact that Air Canada is issued a tavern licence by virtue of this province whenever it flies out, that tavern licence is comparable with that which is issued to other people in Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor, Sudbury, Kenora, Ottawa, Cornwall, right across this province. One of the conditions we put upon the people who have a tavern licence is if they serve food that is unpalatable -- not food that is bad but just unpalatable --

Mr. Lawlor: The whole weird liquor policy has been severely under review. Why in blazes doesn’t the government bring in some legislation --

Mr. Drea: That’s not what his party said today.

Mr. Lawlor: All the Tories ignore what they already have. They haven’t even brought in the McRuer recommendations of a couple of years ago.

Mr. Drea: And he is the member who stands for a saloon on every street corner, right?

Mr. Lawlor: The whole thing is out of date.

Mr. Drea: He is the one who wants a saloon on every street corner, right?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore is out of order.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s dreadful. Can the member defend that policy?

Mr. Drea: He is the one who wants a saloon on every street corner, right?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Except the member for High Park.

Mr. Drea: Does the member want a saloon on every street corner of the Lakeshore?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: I would like to talk very seriously except I keep getting interrupted by rubes and what have you. I was talking about the concept of Air Canada and I would talk the same --

Mr. Lawlor: On a point of personal privilege --

Mr. Speaker: State your point of privilege.

Mr. Lawlor: I think he called me a rube.

Mr. Speaker: The Speaker didn’t hear that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not only did he call the member for Lakeshore a rube but I think he meant it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not only did he, but he is correct.

Mr. Lawlor: All my life, for all my life I have tried not to be a rube, just to be the opposite, a sophisticate; now I don’t want to be either.

Mr. Speaker: There always has to be a first time for everything.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is the opposite of a rube?

Mr. Lawlor: A sophisticate.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member means a square.

Mr. Deans: Adjourn the debate and try again tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Is the member for Scarborough Centre ready to proceed?

Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The reason I was raising Air Canada -- and I come back to it -- is once again it’s under federal jurisdiction as a common carrier but as a tavern -- and that’s what it is; it’s enabled to serve drinks as well as food -- it is under the jurisdiction of this province. On the basis of the meal served to me on flight 2904 --

Mr. Braithwaite: Where was the member going?

Mr. Drea: -- on March 16, 1975, at approximately 4 p.m., I am going to ask the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board tomorrow to ask Air Canada to show cause why, if it cannot improve the quality of its meals on flights, we do not take its liquor licence away from it on flights departing from Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not a bad idea.

Mr. Lawlor: Talk about squares.

Mr. Drea: My friend, I will read out of the Toronto Daily Star, and this was after me.

“If you or I ran the airlines, leather steaks would be out. [That was on March 22, 1975; he makes a great deal of sense.] The only thing they care about on Air Canada when they leave Ontario is peddling you drinks. They couldn’t care less when you get fed, how you get fed, or any other way you get fed.”

I say that tomorrow I am asking the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board to take a long look into Air Canada on the basis of my complaint and the complaint in the Daily Star to get it to show cause as to why it shouldn’t lose its right to serve liquor outside the Province of Ontario on flights that depart from here until it can provide people with a decent meal.

Mr. Ruston: Send the speech to every Air Canada employee.

Mr. Drea: Since I asked it, members can rest assured it is sure going to be a show cause.

Mr. Lawlor: It sure is.

Mr. Breithaupt: Now that is power.

Mr. Drea: Oh the member is on the side of the airline, is he?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Show cause down here.

Mr. Drea: He is on the side of Air Canada, is he?

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Mr. Drea: The great socialist on the side of Air Canada; oh wow!

Mr. Stokes: I travel it twice a week and I think they’re doing a fine job.

Mr. Drea: Does he? Good.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is just afraid they will jettison him.

Mr. Drea: Terrific.

Mr. Deans: Talking about show cause, the member’s shirt is hanging out.

Mr. Drea: He’s right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is he showing his cause?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it has been a very long afternoon and it has been a bit of a very long evening.

Mr. Stokes: Get that on the record, that the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development wants to know if he’s showing cause.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it has been a very long afternoon and a very long evening, I realize.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: It could be longer. Mr. Speaker. I realize I’m not exactly the calmest member who comes before here.

An hon. member: This is better than last year.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Well, that’s all right. Mr. Speaker, I realize when I come up twice a year I’m not exactly the calmest or the easiest, but I do speak from the heart and maybe that irritates a great many people on the other side, since they’ve been posturing, phoney --

Mr. Lawlor: There are three times as many of the opposition here as there are government members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breithaupt: At least we’re listening.

Mr. Lawlor: There are three times as many of the opposition listening to him as his own members.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member for Scarborough Centre please proceed. Is he finished?

Mr. Drea: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’ve never needed the audience the hon. member for Lakeshore has. I’ve never been a sycophant or all those kinds of things that need people to applaud them. I know where the party stands behind me, I know where the party will stand behind me in the next election, and I know how many people will be here in the next election. And he won’t be.

Mr. Lawlor: A sycophant?

Mr. Breithaupt: So there.

Mr. Lawlor: Has he ever been a hedonist?

Mr. Ruston: All five members who are here, eh?

Mr. Breithaupt: Six.

An hon. member: Four, isn’t it?

Mr. Drea: It’s going to be a great pleasure that he will not be here.

An hon. member: All six members are behind the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Drea: He wanted to open his mouth. I sit in the third row of the Conservative Party. The third row of the Conservative Party happens to be known as Murderers’ Row because that’s where all the talent is.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s why he is alone.

Mr. Drea: If it wasn’t for the third row of this party, clowns like the member would be around. And if clowns like him were around, the last of the big time spenders in Ottawa --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Drea: -- would be around, the last of the big time receivers in Quebec would be around; and the last of the big time givers would be in this province. Now, take that one.

Mr. Lawlor: He was going to remain so calm.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Tell’em!

Mr. Lawlor: He was going to remain so calm.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, having gone through one of the two of my little indulgences in a year, I’m generally the nicest, easiest, calmest fellow to get along with, except for the rubes.

Mr. Lawlor: Poor old Air Canada, when he gets through with them.

Mr. Drea: The member might even fly on them as a good socialist. There is nothing like a good capitalist straightening out one good socialist outfit. That is what I’m going to do. He’ll be pleased to fly with them.

Mr. Lawlor: What Haile Selassie needs is one good man like the member for Scarborough Centre. He’d have no trouble in Eritrea or anywhere else.

Mr. Drea: In all good favour to the hon. member for Lakeshore, principia non homines. If his party would take that as a motto, it might be better off. Would he like a translation or would he like to give it to me?

Mr. Lawlor: No, it is a terrifying thought.

Mr. Drea: It means principles not people. It might be very good for him to adopt it. Having introduced Latin into the assembly, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it’s time to close.

Mr. Lawlor: Has he noticed how the whole of consumer law has changed since he became parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Speaker: Order; order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: Before his time everything was great.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Lakeshore. Order, please.

An hon. member: Throw him out.

Mr. Thea: Mr. Speaker, once again, principia non homines.

Mr. Stokes: Encore une fois.

An hon. member: He is reading it there.

Mr. Drea: No way. I never read anything in this House.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would sooner read a Liberal policy statement, for a change.

Mr. Drea: Come on, that’s “principles, not people,” and I realize that is a total anathema to the NDP. I realize their concern over it, but I would like to conclude on the Throne Speech.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s something like the difference between the men and the boys.

Mr. Drea: What?

Mr. Lawlor: I am not going to tell him. He can remain as confused as he is.

Mr. Drea: Not me. I am the first one in a long time to bring Latin to the Legislature.

Mr. Breithaupt: Frequently in error, but never in doubt.

Mr. Lawlor: Non dubitandum est.

Mr. Drea: When the hon. member for Lakeshore wakes up in the morning --

Mr. Lawlor: I enjoy life too much; I can’t sleep.

Mr. Drea: -- he is going to think about the little motto I gave him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When he wakes up in the morning he should thank God.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude on the Throne Speech by mentioning a person I believe to be the foremost political leader, not only of this time in our province, not only at this time in our country, but certainly someone who has emerged as one of the great people who can meet the challenges of the post-war era as reflected in the 1970s --

Mr. Deans: Darcy McKeough.

Mr. Stokes: The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One has to show some modesty.

Mr. Gaunt: We knew he could do it.

Mr. Drea: -- and that is the leader of this party, my colleague, the Hon. William Davis, the Premier of this province.

Mr. Deans: Oh come on, the member can do better than that.

Mr. Good: All eight of them agree, eh?

Mr. Breithaupt: I am underwhelmed.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in the Throne Speech we have become the first government to tell people the truth about life in the 1970s.

Mr. Lawlor: Ain’t much, is it?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I really wish somebody would catalogue all these things. Every time I go to start a decent speech, every time I go to be calm, I am not trying to provoke anybody, you let every single one of these clowns, etc. --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member --

Mr. Drea: I am getting tired of the interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. Calling people clowns in this Legislature isn’t really parliamentary procedure. I would think you would want to take that off the record. There are nicer names you can call them than clowns. Would you retract that word “clowns”?

Mr. Breithaupt: Say hon. clowns.

Mr. Drea: Sir, with the greatest respect, if you direct me to, I will; but I would like to say to you there is a standing rule in this Legislature that precludes interruptions, catcalls and that kind of thing. It has been a long time since I have seen it done. Sir, I am not asking it be done on behalf of me.

I have always demonstrated in this establishment that I can more than take care of myself.

Mr. Lawlor: At the moment he is not.

Mr. Drea: But if you are going to ask me to stop calling the Liberal opposition clowns, then I suggest to you --

Mr. Lawlor: We wouldn’t dream of that.

Mr. Breithaupt: No, no.

Mr. Drea: -- that you are going to have to call a complete moratorium on them. With the greatest respect, sir, I will abide by your decision, I will withdraw the remark.

Mr. Deans: It isn’t worth it.

Mr. Drea: I will look upon them as hon. people no matter how much it disturbs me, but I suggest to you, sir --

Mr. Lawlor: It’s okay, we won’t object.

Mr. Drea: If you’re going to do that to people like me on the government’s side, Mr. Speaker, then I suggest to you that you make them obey the rules about no interruptions.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on.

Mr. Morningstar (Welland): Right on.

Mr. Lawlor: Is he serious?

Mr. Speaker: Are you finished?

Mr. Drea: No, I’m waiting for a reply.

Mr. Speaker: I have no reply for the hon. member for Scarborough Centre. You retracted your statement and you may proceed.

Mr. Drea: Sir, you asked me to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Speaker: And I understand you did.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry for losing my temper. I withdraw the remark.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Mr. Drea: I would just like to conclude on the following notes. We are the first government in this province, or in this country, or in North America, to have told people the truth. We are in hard times. Let there be no mistake about it; we are in hard times.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Tory government is.

Mr. Lawlor: It isn’t as bad as it is going to be.

Mr. Drea: We are in times that -- because of inflation and because of recession at the same time -- defy conventional economic analysis.

Mr. Lawlor: No, only for the inept.

An hon. member: Silly.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to you, I withdrew my remarks. I don’t want any interruptions, and that’s in the book.

Mr. Lawlor: Whatever he may want.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, I am ready to proceed with my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: As far as the Speaker is concerned, you will proceed when the member for Scarborough Centre has finished.

Mr. Stokes: I think he finished an hour and 10 minutes ago.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, this government has been very honest. We don’t have the solution to the recession, the combination of inflation -- and other things that are going to come.

Mr. Lawlor: He is telling us.

Mr. Stokes: This government is the cause of it.

Mr. Drea: If we were like the New Democrats, of course, we could pull out a little old rule book of the 1930s that’s been annotated by Comrade Mao and call it the “Little Red School Book.” It would give a solution for everything to come.

Mr. Breithaupt: The socialist hordes.

Mr. Drea: We don’t do that because we’re honest, because we’re realistic and because we’re not insane.

Mr. Lawlor: This government is so out of date it doesn’t know the difference.

An hon. member: They have all the answers don’t they.

Mr. Drea: We could go to the Liberals, to Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. We could ask them for their solutions, but they have none. They have no policy. They can’t even put down on a single piece of paper what they believe in or what they don’t believe in.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They have a new one every day.

Mr. Drea: They won’t do it, because they don’t want anybody to see what they did on this day or that day. We have been ruthlessly honest with the people.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just read it in Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which day.

Mr. Speaker: I think the remarks coming from the opposition side of the House are very provocative to the member for Scarborough Centre. If you wish him to proceed and finish, I would appreciate very much if you would just withhold your remarks at this time until he does finish his remarks.

Mr. Drea: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very glad to see there’s one rule for those who would like to be in power and those who are.

Mr. Samis: Come off it, finish the speech.

An hon. member: Get on with the speech.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, we have been rather ruthless with the public. We have told them the truth. This government doesn’t have any magic solutions; neither does the government of the United States. They’re trying, but neither do the governments of the 50 states; and neither do the governments of the other nine provinces. Neither does the government in Ottawa. I don’t think they’re trying -- but you know, what the heck.

The fact of the matter is this. Civilization, society, everything we have known is now at the crossroads. I talked about that in terms of gun control, and I’m very glad to see I received the ridicule of the Liberal Party tonight. That made me very proud. I know I’m on the right track.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is fame enough for some people.

Mr. Drea: I’m very glad to see that in economic areas I received the ridicule of the NDP. That makes me feel I’m on the right track.

An hon. member: Me too.

Mr. Drea: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, this government is being honest, is being forthright and is going to the people on this basis.

Mr. Stokes: When?

Mr. Breithaupt: When?

Mr. Good: They are scared to go to the people.

Mr. Drea: If that party had guts enough it would nominate somebody to run against me instead of playing Russian roulette.

Mr. Samis: Conclusion?

Mr. Drea: Don’t answer; I know what I am talking about.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s all it takes to beat the member.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s anybody’s choice.

Mr. Drea: Why doesn’t the member for Nipissing come out and try it?

Mr. Stokes: How was the Russian roulette?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, we’ve been honest. We don’t have magic solutions. We don’t have instant remedies. I don’t think anybody does.

Mr. Lawlor: They haven’t got a clue.

Mr. Drea: But I will suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, we have one thing on this side of the House.

Mr. Lawlor: They’ve calcified; they’ve lost it.

Mr. Drea: From 1943 onwards through thick and thin, through good times and bad times, through recession, through wars, through everything else --

Mr. Breithaupt: Even pestilence.

Mr. Drea: -- there has been one solid thing in the Province of Ontario. and that has been the Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Deans: It is on his shoulders.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that through the Seventies and through the Eighties there will be one solid thing people can rally round; not the riff-raff, not the rabble --

Mr. Lawlor: The member has lost his nerve.

Mr. Breithaupt: Their desire for power.

Mr. Drea: -- but the Progressive Conservative Party of this province. Mr. Speaker, when we came to power in 1943 the hydro lines were broken down and everything else and we built the finest hydro-electric system in the world and we have it today. That’s us. When we came the power in this province it was because of that derelict bunch on the other side.

Mr. Breithaupt: At what cost?

Mr. Good: Who paid for it?

Mr. Drea: They couldn’t even build a school. We have built the finest school system in this province --

Mr. Breithaupt: Who paid for it?

Mr. Drea: -- or anywhere in this country.

Mr. Good: The people of Ontario paid for it.

Mr. Drea: We have provided more jobs for more people every year, year in, year out, in this province than the whole of the rest of Canada, and that has been done because of Conservative government since 1943. And that’s us.

Mr. Deans: The civil service -- most of them are in the Premier’s office.

Mr. Breithaupt: The civil service.

Mr. Deans: Most in the Premier’s office.

Mr. Drea: I’ll tell members something else. We haven’t provided the kind of jobs they write about in the newspapers -- that Canadians have to be hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No way.

Mr. Drea: We have provided jobs for them which are the best jobs, the jobs which come from going to school.

Mr. Breithaupt: What did they do?

Mr. Drea: We have built the schools.

Mr. Breithaupt: Why aren’t they so grateful as they should be?

Mr. Drea: I suggest to the House it would have been a monumental error to build schools to turn out the kind of graduate who couldn’t do anything but labour work and we haven’t. We have turned out the people who have made CANDU in this country.

Mr. Breithaupt: They rest on the seventh day. Great stuff.

Mr. Drea: They have made the nuclear reactor. We have turned out the people who make the airplanes in this country. We are turning out the people who are making the highways in this country.

Mr. Breithaupt: What about the Arrow?

Mr. Drea: I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, once again this is a product of the Progressive Conservative Party in this province.

Mr. Breithaupt: Amen.

Mr. Drea: And not the bunch of militant cowards who sit over there and wave their hands because they haven’t got guts enough to stand for anything today, tomorrow or yesterday.

Mr. Breithaupt: Isn’t it too bad the federal government was never involved?

Mr. Drea: Isn’t it too bad what?

Mr. Breithaupt: Isn’t it too bad the federal government was never involved?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There he goes apologizing for the feds again.

Mr. Drea: The only time the federal government was involved was when a fellow by the name of John G. Diefenbaker was the Prime Minister and that’s when we got something in this province.

Mr. Breithaupt: If the member believes that, he would believe anything.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): What about the $100 million the Tories were supposed to talk to him about?

Mr. Breithaupt: Or the Arrow, if the member likes aircraft.

An hon. member: Talk to Leslie Frost about it.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I hate to end on a partisan note but it is going to be a very difficult time for me when I have to vote upon the motions. There will be motions. I presume that somewhere over there in the rabble somebody can produce some kind of motion which will oppose this government on the Speech from the Throne. Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a very difficult day for me.

Mr. Breithaupt: There is nothing to oppose.

Mr. Drea: Because you see, Mr. Speaker, it is --

Mr. Breithaupt: Nothing was said.

Mr. Drea: -- going to be very difficult for me to stand up when my name is called --

Mr. Samis: He said it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Tell us what is new?

Mr. Drea: I’ll tell him after I get through punching a couple of them tonight it is going to be fun.

Mr. Stokes: Would he like to rephrase that?

Mr. Samis: Why should he?

Mr. Drea: No, it’s going to be very difficult for me, Mr. Speaker, to stand up and vote for this government -- not because of what this government stands for, not because of what this government has done, but because when I look across the floor I say to myself, “What am I voting against?” And that goes for the Liberal Party and it goes for the NDP. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. B. Newman: What do the polls say?

Mr. Breithaupt: What do the polls say?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is a hell of an act to follow.

Mr. Breithaupt: No problem there.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Mr. Speaker, it’s been quite an afternoon --

An hon. member: And evening!

Mr. Givens: And it’s been quite an evening. My only regret is that I told my wife and my daughter to go home, because I don’t think they can possibly entertain themselves at home to the same extent that they could have been entertained here tonight.

My only concern is how one wrenches oneself back into reality and relevance after what has transpired this afternoon and this evening. To get back to the relevance and the elements of the Throne Speech -- to discuss what we were really after --

Mr. Good: In the real world.

Mr. Givens: -- in the real world, the world of relevance and reality; my first words are words of --

Mr. Lawlor: The member mustn’t give himself airs now.

Mr. Givens: -- commendation to the appointment of the Speaker. I too want to make comment as to his appointment as Speaker -- the Speaker-in-chief, that is, sir -- and to his affability of personality which all sides of the House can agree on. The only time that I disagree is when we have so much difficulty in being recognized during the question period. I have found it so difficult in being recognized when I want to ask you a question having to do 25 or 30 push-ups with my kind of avoirdupois, I have found that quite often I have had to --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Reminds the member of Ottawa, doesn’t it?

Mr. Givens: But in this case we are in the opposition, so it should be easier, but I have found that I have neglected to ask questions and I have declined to ask questions because of the physical impossibility and the physical effort of having to make 25 or 30 push-ups from this chair, in order to avoid a kind of coronary --

Mr. Lawlor: Why don’t those Liberals get together?

Mr. Givens: -- a kind of coronary thrombosis which will result from making 25 or 30 push-ups.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There has to be some benefit.

Mr. Givens: I didn’t hear that interjection.

Mr. Lawlor: They should get together. We don’t have any difficulty.

Mr. Givens: Well, wanting a bar on every corner, as the member for Scarborough Centre has pointed out, perhaps the member is in better physical condition than I am.

Mr. Drea: That’s what he stands for?

Mr. Givens: I’m not in as good training as is --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member should try those setting up exercises while he’s sitting down at the table.

Mr. Deans: Push up, push away.

Mr. Givens: -- the hon. member for the Lakeshore.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Push-backs.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, unlike those who have heaped scorn and poured fire and brimstone on the Speech from the Throne, I think that the Speech from the Throne was a clever piece of work. I think it was a clever piece of work because it was designed for a specific and a particular purpose --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh really? That’s usually the case.

Mr. Givens: -- because I think it was designed for the purpose of preventing anybody from laying a glove on it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Pretty good.

Mr. Givens: And in this way it was a clever piece of work, because after all, there is always bound to be criticism of the Throne Speech anyway.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Did the member have that cleared with his leader’s office?

Mr. Givens: And what can you criticize -- I never clear anything with my leader’s office.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s obvious.

Mr. Givens: We agree in principle on a lot of things.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member doesn’t believe that is true, though.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He can’t believe that.

Mr. Givens: What can you criticize when nothing is said, Mr. Speaker?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Givens: All you can criticize, Mr. Speaker, is what is left unsaid. But then I don’t know anyone who has ever been shot down or who’s been hanged for what they haven’t said, and I’ve never seen anybody who has been held liable in a law suit for libel or slander for anything that they haven’t said.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Remember that.

Mr. Givens: And you can’t get into trouble for anything you haven’t said, Mr. Speaker. The hon. minister from St. Andrew-St. Patrick and I know that very well.

Mind you, this speech has been in very marked contrast to the Throne Speech which we heard on the evening of Thursday, Feb. 13, 1975. You’ll remember, Mr. Speaker, this was an evening session that stretched on to about 1:30 or 2 o’clock in the morning, when the Lieutenant Governor was dragged back from some dinner that she was at away out in Kingston or Peterborough or somewhere --

Mr. B. Newman: Chatham.

Mr. Givens: Chatham, was it? Wherever it was, somewhere in southern Ontario -- and she came back here at 1:30 in the morning and she read a speech that was authored for her, that went on and on and on about the miracles that have been accomplished by this Conservative government in Ontario. She went on page after page after page, a panegyric and paeans of praise for what this government has accomplished over the past six months. It was more than all the governments in all the provinces of this country have accomplished in the past six years.

But something very strange has happened since Feb. 13, because on the way to the opening of the session on March 11, a couple of Gallup polls took place.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It sure gallops all right; gallops in a fantasy.

Mr. Givens: And the author of this Throne Speech that we heard on March 11 was either replaced or he suffered a severe stroke of pen-in-the-mouth disease, because this speech was very, very reticent and very, very brief indeed compared to that speech of Feb. 13, 1975. What happened? What took place? What disturbed his articulation? What made him so short of breath all of a sudden? What cramped his writing style? What interfered with his handwriting? Something went wrong.

Mr. Deans: He had a stroke.

Mr. Givens: This brevity or lack of information in this Throne Speech is consistent with two possible conclusions which I come to in my mind. The first conclusion which I come to, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is so cocksure and so confident of itself that it is the best government of all time, as the hon. member for Scarborough Centre said, the best in the world, the best of all the provinces, the best of all the countries, the best of all the states of the union, the best of all the Americas, and the best in the world, and the people in Ontario are the luckiest in the world.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Right on.

Mr. Givens: Is there any place you would rather be? All we need is law and order. We have the best legislation on the books. If they really think so, bring down the budget on April 7 and call for an election this June. I challenge them to do so. I defy them to do so. Call the election this June.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What date does the member have?

Mr. R. S. Smith: The second Thursday.

Mr. Givens: I should be one of the last people in this Legislature to encourage them to so do, because I’m one of the worst off in this Legislature because my riding has disappeared.

An hon. member: Same here.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He should quit griping.

Mr. Givens: I’m not griping.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Sure he is.

Mr. Givens: I’m only stating a fact. If they’re so sure of themselves then call an election in June. They say they’ve got the best of everything. Ask the people of Ontario to concur with that opinion, that they have brought about the best government in the world, the best government in all of Canada. Ask them to concur in that decision.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Don’t forget it is the Ontario people who put us here. Don’t forget that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: Don’t forget they will put them out. He that giveth shall take away.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Forest Hill has a question.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I have heard that before. I will say it again. It has been going on for 40 years and those members are wrong.

Mr. R. S. Smith: They didn’t put the member in the cabinet. If they had known that they might not have put his party in.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Forest Hill has the floor.

Mr. Givens: On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there is another conclusion one can come to about this brevity, this conciseness, this shortness of the Throne Speech, this pen-in-mouth disease: that the government is so disturbed, the government is so sensitive, so fearful, about the position that it’s in, that it has retreated behind its bureaucratic bastions to lick its wounds, to reassess its strength and prepare for the future; that it has become sensitive to the daily outpouring of criticism and calumny that it’s being deluged with every day --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Nuts. We have always been sensitive.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Calumny is right.

Mr. Givens: -- the columns that it’s getting, the editorials that it’s getting, the commentaries that it’s getting. The people are laughing at the government. They’re smirking at it. They’re criticizing it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: How many people like the hon. member are there?

Mr. Givens: The people are carping at it. The government is worried. Why was it so short in its speech? Why wasn’t it more bragging, which is more characteristic of its position? The people are angry at it and that has become the general consensus wherever I go. I don’t know what you hear where you go, Mr. Speaker, but wherever I go the general consensus is that the Tories have gummed up the works in this province. That is what they are saying everywhere; every newspaper that you pick up; every comment that you read; every radio commentator that you listen to -- that the Tories are gumming up the works.

That may change, as the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) says, but that’s what they are saying right now. And they are saying it day after day, week after week, and they have been saying it now for the past six to eight months. And this government is scared about that and that’s why it became so reticent in the Throne Speech.

An hon. member: Right.

An hon. member: Dead on.

Mr. Givens: And right across this province --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We would rather be scared than over-confident. They can be overconfident and we can run scared.

Mr. Givens: All right, call an election in June. Right across this province there are pockets of discontent; there are people by the score who are discontented. They include the government’s friends, the civil servants, teachers, doctors, denturists, realtors, farmers, travel agents, labourers, mining people, developers, investors, old people, young people -- blaming the government for mismanagement and incompetence and worse. There are pockets of discontent all over the province.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will bet even the Grits are on that list.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Givens: Put your ear to the ground, Mr. Speaker, and you will hear these pockets of discontent.

Mr. Good: Former Tories are on that list, too.

Mr. Givens: Former Tories all over the place -- and this is the way they are talking.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Forest Hill has the floor.

An hon. member: They pulled that one in Hamilton. That is what they did.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue.

An hon. member: They are being deceitful.

Mr. Givens: So I say that the reticence in the Throne Speech was deliberate. It was a result of this concern, if not fear -- do they prefer that word concern?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are always concerned and the opposition is always overconfident.

Mr. Givens: It’s uneasiness the Tories are feeling. We have talked about integrity and the Premier has talked about integrity. And the Premier becomes very uptight when we talk about integrity -- when Fidinam is mentioned, when the Hydro building is mentioned, when Shouldice is mentioned, when methods of funding are mentioned.

The Premier told Judy LaMarsh on that CBC morning radio programme that he has become very sensitive and very concerned about the fact that there is too much name-calling in politics.

This makes him very concerned and very uneasy. He doesn’t like it, and I don’t like it.

The Premier finds in the wake and the backwash of Watergate in the United States that people have become very disrespectful of politicians and of politics. But at the same time he doesn’t repudiate the kind of nonsense that the hon. member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) came out with -- the Lucretia Borgia of the back bench of the Tories. She came out with this business about the dirty tricks the federal government has deliberately pulled in cutting off housing funds to the provincial government in order to make the Liberal opposition look better in the next election. The Premier didn’t repudiate her remarks on that, so he can’t be all that sensitive.

The Premier says that it’s a question of competence as to who should govern this province. Now let’s look at this concept of competence.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, was it competence to abandon the Spadina expressway and distort the entire transportation grid of Metro Toronto and leave it as a ditch with nothing else, and then receive the award as transportation man of the year? And even if he showed competence to do that -- and God knows we have argued this 100 times over -- was it competent to abandon the subway and force us to wait for four long years while costs escalated before it could be resumed?

I appealed to my opponent in the election of 1971. I said: “I can understand why you have abandoned the expressway. You say the cities are for people. You don’t want to have cars going downtown. Okay, but why don’t you go ahead with the subway? You are ultimately going to have to put it into this ditch anyway. Why wait until costs escalate? It is going to cost you five times as much to build it now, and it isn’t going to be finished until 1978.”

For the good of the government, the subway could have been finished now, before the next election. Did it show competence by abandoning it in 1971, if cities are for people and we really needed public transit? Did that show competence?

Mr. R. S. Smith: It was all done to save the seat of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Mr. Givens: Did it show competence not to build or plan any other subway in Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To save the people too.

Mr. Givens: And was it competence to make the Krauss-Maffei deal without going to the German government, knowing full well that the German government was supporting and subsidizing the Krauss-Maffei firm and that without the subsidization of the German government the Krauss-Maffei work on magnetic levitation would collapse? Did it show competence for this government to make a world deal in full view of the whole world and put an Act through this Legislature where we were going to have the world rights to sell it in South America, Central America, in Europe and all over the world and not go to the German government and assure itself that the German government would not pull the rug out from under the Krauss-Maffei company? Did that show ordinary common horse-sense, let alone business competence? What kind of competence did that show?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It showed that if their own government had confidence in it, it is all the more reason. The member is not logical.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Givens: That showed no competence at all on the part of this government, that showed stupidity.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) is going to have to come over here.

Mr. Givens: Does it show competence to continue with the Krauss-Maffei debacle now for another year rather than to abandon this fiasco, while at the same time insisting, as the Premier did today, that we shall develop an intermediate capacity system before anyone else in the world? What evidence is there that we are developing this intermediate capacity system that the Premier talked so much about? All we are doing is sinking good money after bad.

Is it showing competence not to subsidize the fare structure of Metro Toronto? We have just had a fare increase making the fares of Metropolitan Toronto the highest fares in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are subsidizing them.

Mr. Givens: Is this how cities are for people, that they are going to have three fares for $1 and a 40-cent cash fare? Is this the way this government is helping to underscore and to support public transit by not supporting the fare system of Metro Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are.

Mr. Givens: Is it competent not to have a parking policy for the big cities of Ontario so that we encourage commuter parking and discourage long-term downtown parking?

What competence was shown in setting up the test track at the CNE and then restoring it to parkland at great cost and at great expense, which is being done right now at the Canadian National Exhibition?

What competence did the government show in the way it launched and operated its dial-a-bus system, which has now gone completely kaput, in Metropolitan Toronto?

I could go on and on. The fact is that four years after Spadina, what urban transportation policy does this government have, either in Toronto or Ottawa or Windsor or Hamilton, or any other major city in the Province of Ontario? And what competence went into building the Hydro building across the street without going to tender? How much extra did this cost the people of Ontario? How much money has there been made in that building across the street by the builder?

And what competence went into the imposition of regional government? People are resentful all over this province about the imposition of regional government, which even the Premier, at this late date, has agreed to stop, with reservations -- for the time being he’s agreed to stop it.

An hon. member: Here comes the election.

Mr. Givens: And what competence does it show to have appointed non-elected political hacks, non-elected chairmen of these regional governments all over the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker, I can’t for the life of me understand on what basic principle of democracy it is necessary in these particular regional governments to have non-elected chairmen -- chairmen who tax; chairmen who spend money by the hundreds of thousands of dollars and by the millions of dollars; chairmen who have responsibilities. Aldermen have to be elected, controllers have to be elected, mayors have to be elected, we all have to be elected, the Premier has to be elected. Everybody in this democratic structure has to be elected, but the people that this provincial government appoints as chairmen of the regional areas do not have to be elected. What competence does this indicate on the part of the provincial government of this Province of Ontario?

Mr. Breithaupt: They have to be defeated.

Mr. Givens: These people should have to be elected. They cannot be defeated. When we talk about competence, the government thunders across this middle aisle to us, “What would you do?” I never know whether the question is motivated by gall or frustration.

The government has the deputies, the experts, the consultants, the public relations flacks, the speech writers, the advisers -- thousands of civil servants. Ask them a question and they become incoherent; suddenly a blizzard of paper breaks out from under the balcony as their assistants help them with the answer. The only time we get a coherent reply from the cabinet ministers is when their statements are prepared by their trained personnel. Give us 10 per cent of the help that they have over there and we will show them the answer to some of these problems.

When they thunder, “What would you do?” after 30 years of rule and reign, with all the expertise and assistance that they have, they have a nerve to ask us what we would do, what ministers we would appoint and who will be the cabinet material over here. So much for competence.

Another topic I would like to mention for a moment is the statement of inter alia and intergovernmental affairs on Toronto’s 45-ft height limitation bylaw.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, what would the Liberals do?

Mr. Breithaupt: We would do better.

Mr. Givens: On the one hand, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) says the city has a right to control growth. On the other hand, he says he upheld the Ontario Municipal Board’s decision, which vehemently rejected and repudiated the city’s right. Then he went on to say -- and I quote:

“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.”

This decision by the minister was hailed as a landmark decision, even though what he said has been said to council a thousand times. It has been said by certain members of council; it has been said by people like me in public speeches; it has been said by lawyers; it has been said by the Municipal Board; it has been said by many people before; it has been said in newspaper editorials.

The fact is that there are several members of the Toronto city council who wanted it this way, who wanted to substitute their subjective opinion instead of objective criteria. That is why, after 18 months, they still haven’t got objective criteria. They are unwilling and unable to bring these objective criteria into effect. That is why they won’t have any within the next 30 days with respect to their new bylaw, and they probably will be hard put to have them permanently in effect by Sept 30 after both temporary bylaws run out, the 45-ft height limitation and the new bylaw, which was to take its place. There are too many members of the Toronto city council who feel that way, they are anti-development in their philosophy and in their concepts.

What I want to know is, will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs always have to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for the city of Toronto? When he was asked today about the 12 pending applications, he had nothing to say about them. He was at his mumblingest best as to what they were going to do about the 12 pending applications that came in before and after the 45-ft height limitation was rendered invalid.

I think the time perhaps has come to redistribute the powers with respect to land use and zoning, because when Metro was set up, the Province of Ontario had to determine what power should be metropolitan and what power should be local. Certain works were made Metro and certain works remained local; certain roads became Metro and certain roads remained local; certain parts were Metro powers and certain parts were city powers. The same thing applied to the capital construction of parks, schools, assessment and so on.

In other words, with respect to large projects having to do with land use and rezoning, there are certain things that take place where the interests of the city are not paramount, where the interests of the city are not alone affected. They also involve other municipalities and even the Province of Ontario because Metro Toronto is the capital city of the Province of Ontario. Metro is affected, the province is affected. Perhaps there should be rethinking. Perhaps some of these projects are so large that their land use and zoning should become a Metro responsibility.

For instance, when you’re planning something like Metro Centre, which is down on the railway properties and which affects thousands of people and affects the transportation facilities of the whole of southern Ontario, or when you discuss something like the Eaton’s plan, or the Toronto-Dominion Centre, or Commerce Court, where Metro roads have to be altered, heavy services have to be altered, assessment has to be taken into consideration, transportation has to be taken into consideration and schools have to be built, Metro should not only have to be consulted but should be directly involved. Metro should have the power to decide.

It is too costly and too tortuous to allow the present local system to continue the way it is, having to be righted at the top by an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board and then to the cabinet. It is too much of an obstacle course. Surely the cabinet has other things to do than to third guess Toronto city council. I think the time has come that these land-use matters are so prodigious and so gigantic in their size, affecting so many people other than just merely locally the people of the city of Toronto, that those people themselves cannot be the decision-making people who make the decisions with respect to these land-use and zoning matters.

Take, for instance, the Soberman transportation report that we heard so much about, which not only affects transportation in the city of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto and the surrounding area, but affects hundreds of thousands of people in the environs of Toronto. The report keeps on talking throughout of transportation policy depending on land-use decisions. But transportation is a Metro responsibility right now and land use and zoning is a local responsibility. If transportation is a Metro responsibility and land use is a local responsibility, how can one ever get the two things to merge? How can one ever get the two things to jibe? How can one ever get the two powers to coincide? This government will never be able to work them out under those circumstances. Indeed, Metro must be in a position to influence land-use policy beyond its borders if it is to have a viable transportation policy.

That is the trouble today with this provincial government, Mr. Speaker. It has no comprehensive urban policy; it has no comprehensive transportation policy; it has no comprehensive parking policy. It just lurches from Throne Speech to Throne Speech, from session to session.

I would like to say a few words about the policy of showing preference to Ontario students with respect to admission to government-supported schools. I’m talking about higher education -- universities and professional schools -- especially those which are short of facilities, such as the professional schools in this province, like medicine, dentistry and so forth.

I disagree with those who believe in a quota system because I think that a quota system can be insidious. I remember there used to be a quota system in Toronto many years ago when I was a boy, and people of certain races were excluded from certain professional schools. They couldn’t get in. This was a bad thing.

There are certain people in the United States today who are advocating a quota system with respect to blacks and chicanos because they believe that’s the only way the blacks and the chicanos in the United States are going to catch up with whites, who may have greater merit from the standpoint of their intelligence or their educational know-how. I don’t think that that’s good.

I don’t believe that it is possible for landed immigrants to learn English and to be able to read and write it but not be able to communicate it to their parents. I don’t believe that you can learn to read and write English to be able to answer very difficult examination questions and not to be able to communicate with your patients. I don’t believe there is anything perverse about being brilliant and clever; I think it’s a gift from God.

While I was in Ottawa, I saw many people there, many members of Parliament and many civil servants, who studied French for many years and couldn’t learn from books or teachers how to read or write French or how to communicate in French; they never did learn. I don’t believe it is possible to learn how to read and write French and not be able to communicate with people.

I just feel that it should be possible in government-supported universities that longtime Ontario residents who support universities -- and medical schools, dental schools, law schools, schools of engineering and schools of architecture -- some of them all their lives; they somehow should have some preference by virtue of their long-time residence. Some weighting and preference should be given to those people, not on the basis of any kind of a quota system, but some weighting on the basis of priority; not on the basis of race and not on the basis of anything of that sort, but on the basis of residence in Ontario, of being long-term taxpayers. When you take into account all the things that are weighed in the balance for admission into a course -- their intelligence; how they do on oral examinations and written examinations; letters of reference; their background and every other thing -- the fact of their residence, the fact of their domicile and the fact of the period that they’ve been in Ontario should have something to do with their admission.

For instance, when somebody is a landed immigrant and has a 90 per cent standing, and somebody has lived in Ontario for 20 years and has an 85 per cent standing, the person who has an 85 per cent standing should somehow be able to rank with the guy who has a 90 per cent standing who is lust recently a landed immigrant. Somehow there should be some way of balancing this off.

I think this is an important question because I think the time has come when this matter of discrimination on the basis of marks alone is discrimination against those who are giving the tax support that enables the schools to exist. When it comes to rationing facilities that are in short supply, consideration should be given to those people who pay the taxes of the province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I’d like to congratulate my colleague from York-Forest Hill for having brought the purpose of this whole assembly back to some sense of logic and reason after listening to the other member’s speech, which I believe lasted an hour and 45 minutes. While it was entertaining at times, I think it would be almost an absolute insult to the people in my particular riding considering the problems we face here today.

Mr. Speaker, I won’t make my speech long, but I want to say that the people of my riding are faced with several problems, and they want action. They don’t want endless diatribes and diversions on to Air Canada or anything that’s federal. They want their elected representative to face up to the problems of this province and to deal with them.

In my particular riding, we are faced with very serious economic problems. Last year was a good year for us. We made a recovery. In late 1974 the recession hit the economy in Canada, and we are now feeling the pinch in Cornwall. Our largest employer, Domtar, is closing down for one week, putting 1,500 men out of work. Courtaulds, our second largest employer, has been laying people off for the past six weeks. Another one of our major industries is Sylvania; it is closing down completely in the summertime.

The people of our riding, Mr. Speaker, want action in the Speech from the Throne, not just some vapid, empty, philosophical treatise that only extends to six pages, or 12 minutes, and offers nothing for the working man, the old age pensioner, the farmer or the average person who is facing the economic problems of inflation and recession.

Whether or not a man is working in Cornwall, Mr. Speaker, he is worried about the fear of layoffs. He’s worried if his industry will be next. Will his job be next? Will he be dumped? He wants the government to try to do something about it. I don’t pretend it is the sole responsibility of the provincial government; obviously it isn’t, but he wants this government to take its share of the responsibilities as defined within the BNA Act not to sit back and just give him a philosophical treatise on what society is all about.

It is not just the working man in Stormont; I also represent farmers in eastern Ontario and the fanner is no better off than the workers. I was rather interested in noting some statistics offered by our research department showing that the famer in some ways is actually worse off than the industrial worker.

In the riding of Stormont, Mr. Speaker, from 1966 to 1975, the number of farmers has declined by 38.9 per cent; the number of non-resident owners has declined; the number of people in the total farm population is down from 5,883 to 2,850, a decline of 51.6 per cent; the total area of farmland, in acres, down by 23.1 per cent; the amount of improved farm land down by 25.8 per cent; the amount of land under crops down by 29.1 per cent; the amount of improved pasture down by 21.9 per cent as well.

Mr. Speaker, the farmer is no better off in Stormont than the industrial worker who is suffering from the twin evils of inflation and recession in the form of layoffs.

I noticed the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, speaking for all of Ontario, wasn’t any more optimistic and I quote from its brief presented to the cabinet:

“Yet the evidence presented below indicates without question that Ontario is slowly losing its place as a pre-eminent agricultural province of this nation. This means, as well, that the population of this fastest-growing province is steadily moving toward dependency on other regions [and I emphasize ‘other regions’] for its food supplies.

“It means, therefore, despite all efforts to date, our agricultural policy and programmes have failed to maintain Ontario’s position as the most productive agricultural province in Canada. We contend that this failure is due to the policies and commitments of this government. [That’s not the NDP speaking; that’s the OFA.]

“Past and current evidence indicates that the government of Ontario is primarily concerned about the promotion of industrial, commercial and residential development in the province; other programmes have taken second place. Certainly where farming has been in competition with industrial activities or long-range environmental imperatives have indicated redirections of growth, the dominating rule has been urban development goes unguided, unplanned, and agriculture must adjust as best it can, usually out of production.”

If the OFA, which speaks for the farmers of Ontario, along with the NFU, expresses its dissatisfaction about the declining income of farmers, the same problem of inflation faced by the consumer is also hitting the farmers and they give some clear-cut examples in their brief, Mr. Speaker.

For example, the cost of ammonium nitrate from 1973 when it was $69 a ton is now up to $174 which is an increase of 152 per cent. Another nitrogen fertilizer, diamonium phosphate, has gone up 122 per cent. We can take other examples; baler twine, for example is up a drastic 400 per cent in two years; tractor tires up; the cost of corn. It goes on and on.

The Province of Saskatchewan has now supplanted the Province of Ontario in terms of total farm revenue. Mr. Speaker, this province, which used to have a proud tradition of agriculture, whether in the western central part of Ontario or in eastern Ontario, is gradually going to the dogs when it comes to the farmers. It is proved by the statistics and the number of people who are leaving the farms; how few young people are going to the farms; how more and more farmers are farming on a part-time basis because they can’t make ends meet.

Mr. Speaker, if you put it in the context of the people of Stormont, whether it’s the farmer who is just trying to survive on the farm; the man who is working in a paper mill worried about his job; the man working in the textile mill worried about the economy; they wanted something far more substantial from the Speech from the Throne than they got last week.

Let me outline briefly, Mr. Speaker, the needs of the people of Cornwall. The primary need besides jobs right now is housing and the record of the provincial government, as outlined by the leader of the NDP last week, leaves an awful lot to be desired. The game it is playing of always blaming the feds for it just won’t carry with the average working man. What we need in Cornwall, Mr. Speaker, above all, are houses and programmes geared to low- and middle-income people. The people of Stormont are not exactly wealthy. They need programmes designed to help the average man.

We badly need another senior Citizens home in Cornwall, Mr. Speaker. The present one has a waiting list of 400. One is being constructed, and by the time it is completed it will be obsolete in terms of the needs of the area.

Another thing the people of Cornwall need, like the people of Ontario, is some system of rent controls. It bothers me, Mr. Speaker, when people call up and say their rents have been increased 40 or 50 per cent. They ask: “What can I do about it?” And as a legislator, you can’t do anything about it, obviously, if the government says: “No rent controls; let’s leave it to the market.”

What bothers me even more than that, Mr. Speaker, is the poor people, the old age pensioners, the people on fixed incomes, who are getting hit hardest by these rent increases, because they have no alternative. There isn’t enough public housing, and they’re the ones who are trapped in the middle. The affluent upper middle class can move on to something else; but not the poor people, not the people on fixed incomes.

Another thing we need in eastern Ontario, Mr. Speaker, is far more aid to the industrial parks of the existing communities. We have the spectacle of Spencerville, an abnormal creature created by the provincial government with no input from the local people. We had the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), who toured eastern Ontario last year, saying Spencerville didn’t make sense. He said it would be extremely difficult to defend, and you’d almost have to be “off your nut” to advocate an idea like that. Then he did the flip-flop of the year up here in the Legislature, announcing it, defending it and saying it was a good idea for eastern Ontario. That’s water under the bridge, Mr. Speaker, and it’s gone.

All we ask in eastern Ontario, Mr. Speaker, is: Where is the aid promised for the existing industrial parks in Cornwall, Brockville, Hawkesbury, Pembroke, Belleville and Napanee? These areas need help. The Speech from the Throne could have given some indication of where we’re going. No such thing.

In terms of tourism, Mr. Speaker, we like to think that the eastern part of the province has tourist attractions that rival the rest of the province. Unfortunately, we’re in a pretty stiff league when it comes to competition. We need more to attract people to the east, because many people just don’t think there is enough to come and see.

What I would like to see the government do is get involved with the marina on the St. Lawrence River at Morrisburg to attract the boaters who are just down for a visit. They would be attracted to a full-size marina.

We would like to see some form of outdoor summer theatre in the vicinity of Upper Canada Village to attract people beyond just visiting the village itself. It would give them something to stay for. We would also like to see facilities of the golf course expanded.

Mr. Speaker, the seaway district snowmobile club has over 900 members, making it the largest snowmobile club in the Province of Ontario. And we would like to see the whole field of recreation in the wintertime, providing assistance for recognized snowmobile clubs beyond what they have to provide leisure and recreation facilities for these workers.

We badly need education facilities and post-secondary education facilities in Cornwall beyond what we have. During the by-election campaign the Premier promised that the freeze would be lifted, something would be done about it. We need it in 1975 -- not 1976 or 1977. When you’re faced with unemployment, people leaving your riding, you’ve got to have something to keep them there.

City council of Cornwall has agreed, the University of Ottawa has agreed, St. Lawrence College has agreed and the board of regents of St. Lawrence College has agreed, it is needed. All we’re saying is: Let’s cut through the red tape, let’s get the bureaucracy moving and let’s get things started on the expansion of St. Lawrence College.

We’d like to see action to help municipal transit authorities. In Cornwall, again, public transit of the municipal sort is used primarily by the people on low incomes and fixed incomes. If they don’t get help the rates obviously have to go up, and that hurts the people who can least afford it.

When it comes to the matters of layoffs, Mr. Speaker, we recognize it’s not the sole jurisdiction of the province -- it’s federal. But all we’d like is some assurance that the government of Ontario is speaking up on behalf of the electronic industries, the textile industries and the pulp and paper industries in a constructive, positive way to the federal authorities to try to get people working in eastern Ontario as well as northern Ontario and any other parts that are faced with layoffs.

I would sincerely hope that the people on fixed incomes, when it comes to the budget, will be duly taken care of. We have inflation of 12 per cent; and then you see what they have to live on. I’m talking about the people who are not cheaters, chislers, or anything of the sort. They are people who obviously need help. Let me hope the government will recognize this at budget time.

For the farmers of eastern Ontario, as well as the farmers of any other part of the province, I would hope that the farm income protection plan would be adopted. It was advocated by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) -- I believe it was last year -- adopted by the NDP, and now adopted by the OFA. I hope the budget will incorporate some form of farm income protection plan to allow the small family farm to survive, and give some sort of attraction to the young man who is interested in agriculture but who sees no future in it and just isn’t interested in taking the chance. A farm income protection plan could give him some security in view of his weak position vis-à-vis prices, market conditions and the weather. Let me also hope that on class 1 and class 2 farm land the government will take a much stronger stand on preserving it in Ontario.

Let’s also hope that in 1975 the government also shows even greater flexibility on spending ceilings. Had the minister made the announcement he did one month earlier, quite possibly we would have avoided the strike in Ottawa and the problems in Windsor and Thunder Bay. Let’s hope that the minister this year is much more flexible and reasonable.

A final thing, Mr. Speaker: Quebec workers in Ontario have been a problem in the east. The minister has promised to do something about it, but we have had no sign of action, no agreement with the Quebec minister and no initiative toward the Quebec minister. Let’s hope 1975 brings some sort of agreement on that.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, there are two things in the Speech from the Throne that concerned me somewhat. One was the reference to violence and law and order. It is rather fatuous for the Premier of the province to talk about violence on TV, unless he is talking about the Philadelphia Flyers or something of that sort, when it is a purely federal matter and he knows it. It is either political kite-flying or some form of red herring he is trying to launch. If he is constructive about violence on TV and if he is worried about violence on TV --

Hon. Mr. Winker: Does the member not think that is a responsible position? Tell us that.

Mr. Samis: I was just going to say it is responsible if the government makes suggestions about what it would like to see done about it. It’s not within this government’s jurisdiction. If the Premier is concerned about it, let him make some proposals about what he wants to do about it, but let him not use it as some political football to try to cater for votes.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It is no political football when one takes a position, and my friend knows it.

Mr. Stokes: Isn’t the minister glad he asked?

Mr. Samis: The government knows it is just using it as a voting issue. We don’t need another Richard Nixon-style campaign of law and order. We want constructive suggestions on what the government would do about it. When the Premier reads the Toronto Star tonight, I am sure he would agree it is an awfully complex issue when he talks about TV violence and children. Let’s have something constructive if the government is going to use that as an issue.

Mr. Parrott: We are listening.

Mr. Samis: The final thing, Mr. Speaker, is on immigration. I would apply the same thing. It’s a federal matter. If the government is going to try to float it as an issue, let’s have something constructive. Otherwise, don’t use it. The Speech from the Throne is a purely political football to cater to certain groups.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member just told us to make representation to the federal government about the situation on unemployment in his area.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Samis: Where is the government’s positive action if it is concerned about the problem?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He is not offering any solution to the problem at all. He is playing politics; that is what he is doing.

Mr. Stokes: The member for Stormont just spent the last 17 minutes being positive.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Stormont has a speech to make.

Mr. Samis: Yes, and it will be terminated in two minutes, Mr. Speaker. Let me say as a freshman member I have serious reservations about the whole procedure of the House when it comes to the Speech from the Throne. I really wonder if two weeks or the equivalent of two weeks are necessary to debate such a speech. I really think the people of Ontario want action on the problems.

If the government has a budget, let’s get on with the budget. If it has a list of bills it wants to get passed, let’s get on to that; but I really think putting two weeks on this is a waste at the taxpayers’ expense. The people in my riding of Stormont, and I am sure all of Ontario, want action not words.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member thinks the Throne speeches are bad, wait until he hears some budget speeches.

Mr. Stokes: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development said if the member thinks the Throne Speech is bad, wait until be sees the budget.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not what I said. I said the Throne speeches and budget speeches.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Do we have someone who wishes to adjourn the debate?

Mr. Breithaupt moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, as I indicated last week, tomorrow we will deal with three second readings; items 6, 5, 4, probably in that order. Then we will continue with the debate that is currently before us.

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

Motion agreed to.

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