The House resumed at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

MILK INQUIRY

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey to the members of the Legislature a recent decision by the Milk Commission of Ontario to hold a public inquiry into certain aspects of the milk industry.

Milk, a basic food necessary to good health and nutrition, has undergone several price increases in recent months. These price increases have come about for several reasons, some being increased input costs at the producer, processor, distributor and retailer level, and the withdrawal of the consumer subsidy on milk by the federal government.

Whatever the specific reasons for increased milk prices, the consumers in Ontario, as well as those individuals connected with the milk industry, have a right to know how certain elements in the milk chain -- from the cost of processing and marketing fluid milk products to trade practices, price spreads, management policies and methods of financing -- contribute to the final price paid for a quart of milk.

Recent milk price increases at the producer level have been reviewed by the Milk Commission of Ontario and upheld. Indeed, the Consumers’ Association of Canada (Ontario) has supported these necessary increases to farmers but they, along with the Milk Commission, are concerned about what happens to milk prices once the milk has left the farm.

Bearing this in mind, the commission, upon its own initiative and under authority vested in the Milk Act of 1970, will proceed along the following lines:

1. Investigate pricing practices and margins between processors, distributors and retailers of fluid milk products;

2. Inquire into the manner in which these practices may vary within a corporate organization;

3. Examine the manner in which these practices may vary from one part of the province to another;

4. Inquire into the variations in practices between different processors, distributors and retailers within the province;

5. Investigate the retail margins currently being given on the basis outlined in Nos. 2, 3 and 4;

6. Inquire into discount practices in and after the year 1972; and

7. Compare the retail margins and discount practices in Ontario with those in other jurisdictions.

This public inquiry will begin as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.

I am confident the consumer appointment of Mrs. Robin Jeffrey to the Milk Commission of Ontario on Nov. 1, 1974, will prove to be a very valuable dimension during the public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing.

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAMME

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech on March 11 indicated this government’s commitment to ensuring that Ontario families continue to be the best housed in Canada.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): And the government has failed most miserably.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: To do this, we must both encourage new housing and preserve the existing stock.

Mr. Deans: The minister should be ashamed of what he has done.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Today I am pleased to report to the House on the progress my ministry has made in implementing the Ontario Home Renewal Programme.

Mr. Deans: It is a real big seller, this one.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Ontario Home Renewal programme was developed by my ministry to extend home rehabilitation opportunities to areas not included in the federal-provincial Neighbourhood Improvement and Residential Rehabilitation Assistance programmes.

Mr. Deans: How about the people who cannot get housing at all?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Under OHRP, municipalities receive per capita grants to issue loans and grants to eligible homeowners for major property repairs. The programme also extends to homeowners in unorganized territories with the administration provided by provincial rather than local officials.

I am pleased to report this programme has met with a very enthusiastic response from municipalities and homeowners. As a measure of its success, may I point out, Mr. Speaker, that while we funded OHRP with $10 million for the full fiscal year of 1974-1975, the programme did not become operational until October, 1974.

Nevertheless, by the end of the fiscal year on March 31, 1975, we fully expect to have disbursed more than $9.5 million to 111 municipalities and 34 homeowners in unorganized areas.

I am tabling a list of municipalities which have received OHRP funds. We expect these funds to result in almost 2,900 rehabilitated living units. Another 1,250 units will be rehabilitated as a result of RRAP, for a total of 4,150 units.

Mr. Speaker, the ready acceptance of this programme by municipalities and by the homeowners, and the results expressed in housing units speak for themselves very clearly. I look forward to continuing this programme with additional funds in the forthcoming year. Thank you.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The government should have started years ago.

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce today that the government of Ontario, through my ministry, will be implementing the next stage of a comprehensive management programme.

The importance of energy conservation and the need to alleviate potentially critical future supply problems by moderating demand have been repeatedly stressed by this government.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Legislature will recall that the National Energy Board recently concluded that by the early 1980s, there will no longer be sufficient crude oil to meet Canadian feedstock requirements west of the Ottawa Valley.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That’s not what the producers said three years ago.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The future supply situation regarding Canadian-produced natural gas is even more alarming. Ministry of Energy studies firmly indicate that present supplies are beginning to fall short of total Canadian needs and committed, exports.

Ontario, which imports from other parts of Canada or from other countries 80 per cent of its total energy requirements and which has one of the highest per capita rates of energy consumption in the world, must now take strong, effective action to ensure that the total demand for energy throughout the provincial economy is considerably reduced in the years ahead.

If all of us in Ontario have the resolve we can, and will, accomplish this vital objective by improving the efficiency of energy use, by better managing energy distribution and consumption, by encouraging voluntary action to conserve energy, and by putting into practice an energy conservation ethic across Ontario.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That’s why the minister criticized the federal Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Will the member save his energy for the question period?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: These, briefly, are the goals of the energy management programme.

My predecessor and colleague, the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), has emphasized that government co-ordination is required so that all of the varied energy management activities being undertaken by no fewer than 11 ministries in this government and by the private sector at large will achieve concrete results.

The energy management programme has been carefully designed to co-ordinate on a long-term basis the various aspects of all of the government’s energy saving projects, and to act as a research and information resource centre for energy management projects which can be called up by other ministries, by industry and by the public. The budget for the coming fiscal year is to be $2.1 million, the bulk of which will be directed to space-conditioning projects which involve improving the efficiency of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and lighting.

Those ministries dealing with individual sectors of the economy will be announcing their own elements of the energy management programme. My ministry, in its catalytic and co-ordinating role, will ensure that unnecessary duplication is avoided and that the government itself sets an example for efficient use of energy in our province, particularly in the application of space-conditioning methodology and in vehicle operations.

It should be pointed out that within the context of government initiatives in energy management, the Ministries of Housing and Government Services have been particularly progressive in implementing space-conditioning programmes and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has already defined government policy regarding the purchase and use of smaller automobiles.

We have examined the energy use trend and costs in Ontario and unquestionably, we must change our current, wasteful pattern of consumption to an efficient pattern of consumption which minimizes waste and cost in Ontario and, unquestionably, we must change our current wasteful pattern of consumption to an efficient pattern of consumption which minimizes waste and maximizes energy yield.

It is projected that the cost of energy used in Ontario this year will be in excess of $5.6 billion. If present consumption rates are maintained, Ontario’s energy bill could be twice as high by 1980, making the energy management programme all the more important.

The provincial government, by putting the energy management programme into effect, wants to reduce the rate of growth in energy consumption in Ontario by one-third over the next five years.

Already we are seeing the beginnings of what will be very significant energy savings, obtained through voluntary action by all sectors of the economy. However, let me also state that the government realizes that further measures, including incentives and regulation may be necessary. If we -- government, industry and the public at large -- achieve this one-third reduction in the energy consumption growth rate, total energy expenditures can be cut in this province by about one billion dollars a year by 1980.

Through the energy management programme, government will co-operate with and provide operational management assistance to industry, to business and commerce, to the construction and transportation sectors of our economy, to our municipal governments and to the public, to enable us all to save energy now so that we don’t suffer the consequences later.

It is vital that we recognize the facts: Energy is not available in unending supplies, but it is within our power to avoid the disastrous results of continuing on an energy binge.

We plan to go well beyond the current federal government advertising programme to work with industrial end users of energy toward better energy management.

Mr. Roy: Oh does he? Another dirty trick.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We plan to demonstrate to the public and to industrial and commercial users of energy, practical, proven applications of existing and new energy-saving technology, together with the substantial cost benefits which can be realized.

The government has in the past, and will continue to draw on the capabilities and advice of the private sector in the development of energy savings projects, as well as in a wide spectrum of other matters. The energy management programme will complement existing industry programmes, and those being undertaken by the province’s energy suppliers, including Ontario Hydro.

The government’s energy management plan, the next stage of which I am announcing today, will, hopefully, make it possible for business and government in Ontario to reduce the need for new capital investment in energy producing facilities, reduce the environmental impact of energy mismanagement, extend the life of non-renewable resources, save money for those practising conservation, and generally lessen the impact of higher energy prices on our economy.

The availability of energy for tomorrow is of primary concern to this government in Ontario today. This government, with the implementation of the energy management programme, is taking a leadership role in harnessing all of the ability, all of the research and development, and all of the motivation which exist in government and in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few minutes ago, further announcements will be made by my colleagues and by myself as individual projects within the government’s overall energy management programme are launched. My intention today is to inform members of the Legislature, at this early date, of the objectives of the programme and the role of the Ministry of Energy in ensuring that every potential area for energy saving is closely investigated and that effective provincial action is taken.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions?

The member for Kitchener.

CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing, following his statement that we must encourage both new housing and preserve the existing stock.

What is the minister prepared to do with respect to the problem, as brought forward from the study recently in North York, that the single-parent families and the handicapped are most particularly involved in problems when apartment buildings are turned into condominium units? Is the minister actively studying this problem and has he reached any conclusions with respect to this matter so far?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I read the report as submitted by the borough and have not had the opportunity to fully analyse it, but I have said before that the conversion aspect rests with the municipality.

Mr. Deans: Oh of course, there is always someone else to blame.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Whether or not they convert into a condominium is up to them to decide. I have asked them to very carefully consider how many people they place into a rental situation when they convert -- although not necessarily all are placed into a rental accommodation. At this particular time I haven’t got a definitive answer for the hon. member. However, I will say that recently the conversions have been considerably less than they were last fall, and the indications are that condominiums are not that popular. It may reach a time, as it did a few years ago, here in Metropolitan Toronto, when they are a glut on the market.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that more than half of the apartment units now being offered for rent in the Metropolitan Toronto area are restricted to adults only, and, in view of the concerns he expressed in his statement, is he willing to enact legislation that would stop discrimination by landlords against people with children?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the matter raised is not a supplementary, but I would like to answer it in any event. It is a matter of concern to us. I’m not fully in agreement with the percentage which the member has mentioned, he might be slightly wrong on his percentages.

Mr. Cassidy: We’ve checked it out.

Mr. Deans: It’s 48 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event, I think we still have to go back to the matter of supply of all types of accommodation, rather than just zero in on one particular type of accommodation.

Mr. Deans: What difference does that make?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This is what we’re trying to do. As I said yesterday, we have gone ahead with our limited dividend programme. We have recently had $42 million agreed upon by this government to proceed with housing in the areas of low vacancies. We also have asked the federal government to proceed with its limited dividend programme. They have $200 million allocated for LDs across Canada. We’re hopeful that they will allocate a considerable portion of those funds in Ontario and, if we proceed with our other home ownership programmes and plans, whether through AHOP or whether it’s through HOME in Ontario, I think we can fulfil the needs of all our people. But it takes a combined programme by the federal, provincial and the municipal governments to fulfil the needs of our people.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary.

Mr. Germa: If it is true that local councils are inhibiting his plans for housing, what does the minister plan to do to circumvent the obstructionist attitude of these local councils?

Mr. Roy: Isn’t that a dirty trick too?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, what I’ve been doing recently, and expect to carry on doing, is talking to the municipalities, to the elected representatives and the people in the municipalities, to try to impress upon them that there is a need for them to accept housing and to make sure they understand the different programmes. Many times there is confusion about what type of housing will be provided by a certain programme. I do not think it is the time to take away local autonomy at this particular point. I believe we have to work with the municipalities and work with the people --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Oh boy, that would just suit the minister’s purpose.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is a disaster; he really is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to make sure that we have housing. If we haven’t got housing in the member’s particular area I would appreciate it if he, as a member of this House --

Mr. Laughren: Doesn’t that tell us something about the minister’s housing programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- would stand on his two feet and ask his local people: “Why don’t you accept housing?”

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): That’s a good idea.

Mr. Deans: We do it every day.

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communication, Mr. Speaker. Following the exchange with my leader yesterday concerning the matters of the use of the GO-Urban materials from Krauss-Maffei, and looking at the article in today’s press with respect to the possibility of Ontario quitting the GO-Urban plan, can the minister advise us if, in fact, the article in the press is correct and there are no particular advances in continuing any use of materials or projects in this entire system?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I will be making a statement in the House in the very near future, as I committed myself to do some time back. I cannot be responsible for those articles that may be written. The member will note that there is some source of information that the reporter has. I’m not familiar with it.

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister be prepared, when he does make that statement, to advise us if, in fact, the suggested figures of some $700,000 spent by the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. are correct; and will he be able to give us some details at that time as to the moneys which have been spent by that corporation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, again, I said yesterday that I would do exactly that when I made my report, which will be coming very shortly. I indicated I would be giving the figures as they related to costs that have been incurred since the cancellation of the project.

TENDERING FOR TRUCKS

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the --

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): We welcome the minister back from his holiday.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- tendering for some 400 half-ton trucks in the Kenora and Sudbury area last summer. Is it correct that one company received the contract for all of those vehicles at once on a regional basis and that local firms were not involved in that tendering procedure? Is it further correct that those vehicles were all shipped out within thee weeks, which might lead someone to believe that a prior knowledge of requirements did exist on that project?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the Leader of the Opposition did send a request to my office for a complete résumé of those vehicles to which the member referred. If I recall correctly, many of the dealers in the immediate areas where the vehicles were used were asked to tender. It is a policy that we get tenders from a number of operators within the specific areas where the vehicles will be used. I’m not aware of the accusations the member makes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, with regard to his statement, whether the programme he’s bringing forward this afternoon is intended somehow to be an answer to the $23 billion in spending anticipated by the Ontario Hydro Corp. prior to the year 1982? If it is, can he give some specifics as to what kinds of cutbacks he anticipates recommending to the private and public sectors with regard to the use of hydro so we won’t have to spend the $23 billion or $24 billion over that period of time?

Secondly, can he indicate whether he has any programmes that might be put into place immediately, perhaps along the line of reversing the method of applying the rates that the user must pay, to ensure that the more you use, the more you pay?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there are about four questions there, I guess. To start with, let me say that what I have announced today is in no way to be considered the final answer. I referred to it several times as the next stage.

Mr. Deans: What has the minister got in mind?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Does the member want me to answer this question or not?

Mr. Roy: Don’t be so sensitive.

Mr. Deans: I’m asking the minister what he has in mind.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: For some time the ministry and the government have been involved in a public educational programme, if you will, as have other governments and agencies such as Ontario Hydro. What I’ve announced today are specific amounts of money allocated for improvements within public buildings to save energy and to give an example to the public sector, as well as projects within various ministries of the government relating to segments of the overall public sector in industry, agriculture, institutions and so forth.

As it relates to Hydro -- and this has come up several times -- I think one of the basic problems here is that the member may be confusing the creation of demand with reaction to demand. Over the last 50 years --

Mr. Stokes: Who created the demand over the last 20 years with building programmes?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Over the last 50 years the demand for hydro has doubled every decade. In their submissions to the Energy Board last year, Hydro indicated -- and I’m not apologizing for Hydro; they look at the statistics regarding the growth of the Ontario economy, the number of new residences the number of new industries, the number of whatever one wants to look at. They also look at conversions, improvements on farms, conversions from gas or oil and the potential for more conversions from gas or oil, given the supply and demand situations in those two areas. We can’t just look at Hydro in isolation. We’ve got to look at the total energy situation.

They said: “Our best estimate, given this past information and our look into the future, is that it will probably double in the next decade.” On that basis they project what they needed by way of new generating facilities, new transmission corridors and that sort of thing, and came up with the dollar figures. The exact dollar figure, I think, is about $20 billion --

Mr. Deans: It is $23.8 billion.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I grant that it is inflated from last year; that’s a serious concern and should be to all of us. I think this is an opportunity for the hon. member to not only highlight that bill -- it’s a very large bill, and either all of it or some of it has got to be met and is going to be met by we, the people of Ontario. But here’s an opportunity for the hon. member to join with the government in stressing the energy conservation ethic and stressing at all levels the need to be innovative.

Well, the hon. member obviously has a supplementary; I will leave it to that.

Mr. Deans: I thank the minister for the lecture. Can he now explain to me what we can anticipate by way of reduction in the Hydro’s anticipated spending from the $23.8 billion as a result of the programmes which he intends to implement, flowing from his statement today?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I expect that within the next month Ontario Hydro will submit to me their request for rate increases for the next year. At that time, along with my advisers in the ministry, I will review that request in light of current levels of consumption and in light of our goals in this programme when making my reference to the Energy Board for their review. At this time I haven’t got the hard facts and figures because they haven’t come to me yet.

Mr. Deans: Is the statement simply a whitewash, an attempt to sell another non-programme of the government? Or is there some intention on the part of the government to cut back on the anticipated spending of Ontario Hydro? Secondly, where does the government propose to get the $23.8 billion?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to take the last part first the member makes it sound as though all that has to be raised this year. It has not.

Mr. Deans: That’s to be raised in eight years.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point is that whichever projects are approved, those which, in the best judgement of the government are, in fact, needed to serve the interests of the people, will have to be financed. There’s no question about it.

Mr. Roy: Thank God the Tories won’t be the government then.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But whatever the amount, I can’t predict at this point.

Mr. Deans: The minister doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can’t predict what the amounts will be in nine months’ time. No, I can’t, because I haven’t seen their requests to me. I haven’t made up my mind on what I haven’t seen.

Mr. Deans: These programmes don’t mean a thing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me just say something, Mr. Speaker. Unlike that party I don’t believe one can have an instant answer today to solve all problems.

Mr. Deans: This government has been developing this utility for 20 years.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What we are saying -- and no other government in this country has said this -- is that it is our goal to reduce that rate of increase by a third over the next five years.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): That’s just PR.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I’ll allow the hon. member for Carleton East a supplementary.

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Energy say, in keeping with his final remark about reducing the rate of energy consumption, whether or not he intends to instruct Ontario Hydro to stop advising the planners of large buildings to install central thermostats as opposed to thermostats for each individual unit within that building, which has been proved to be a method for controlling and reducing the consumption of energy?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member indicates that he has some knowledge that Ontario Hydro is instructing; Ontario Hydro doesn’t instruct.

Mr. P. Taylor: I said will the minister instruct Hydro to stop advising them.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Hydro is asked for advice. I’ll check into it, but I know it is asked for advice from time to time on the relative merits of various systems. It does not, as a rule, instruct, as I thought the member’s word was.

Mr. Roy: It was advise.

Mr. P. Taylor: I am asking the minister to instruct them to stop advising.

Hon Mr. Timbrell: I will look into it. I have seen some studies from the United States which indicate there are savings by going to individual meters as opposed to bulk meters.

Mr. P. Taylor: This is thermostats.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am talking about Hydro meters as well. That’s another aspect of it.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Individual meters can reduce consumption by 25 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, in this programme is the minister going to persuade Hydro to revise its rate structures so it will discourage the wasteful use of electric power by reversing the philosophy that the more one uses the lower the rate one pays?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member for Wentworth. That was part of his question; I apologize. That was discussed at the Energy Board last year and instructions -- not instructions -- comments made by the Energy Board have resulted in the inauguration of studies on the ways and means of achieving that. I would hope those studies can be completed very soon and that we can make such a determination.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Deans: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Given that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has just indicated there is going to be a study into the price increases in the milk industry and given that housing might also be considered by some to be a necessity, when is he going to instruct that there be a study conducted into the rate of increase in rents in the Province of Ontario? When is he going to recognize that giving money to people who are in the income category in excess of $20,000; making available a limited number of houses for people in the range from $12,000 to $20,000; and making available a few houses in the rental field for those under $12,000, is not an adequate response to the needs of the majority -- perhaps 60 per cent of the population -- who earn less than $12,000 a year? What is it between the apartment owners in the Province of Ontario and this government that makes him so adamant in his refusal to investigate the reasons why they increase their rents on such a regular basis? What is it that makes him refuse to require justification?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat what I have said several times before. We have reviewed certain rent increases. I had a letter yesterday in which a person was complaining about a very unusual high increase in rent. That unusual increase happened to be $20 a month. I have asked for particulars in regard to when was the lease signed originally and when was the last increase and so on. We have gone into many increases and we have found that in most cases they are justified. The point the member doesn’t understand is this: There is a very sizeable increase in the cost of maintenance.

Mr. Deans: I want to know what it is. Why doesn’t the minister conduct a study?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have been doing our analysis of it. If the member wants to do his, he can do it. I’m telling him the best way to look after the rental accommodation problem is to have supply; and that’s what it’s going to be.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The minister has the staff. He falls short there, too.

Mr. Cassidy: They are down by 30,000 this year.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister agree, by his own statements on March 20 and today, that there are occasions which arise when there’s justification for reviewing rental increases? If he does why doesn’t he conduct a study now of the major rental accommodation available across the province and determine once and for all whether or not -- as is thought by many including me -- that rent increases are unjustified on the basis of increased costs? If that is not the case, let him table the material in the Legislature and show us why it isn’t so.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, once and for all, I say again, I am not going to be intimidated by the NDP. I’m going to tell them this. We’re going to have supply, we’ll have supply for the people of Ontario; and we’re going to have the programmes which are necessary for the people of Ontario.

The socialist philosophy is entirely different from what we happen to have.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): We’re not trying to intimidate the minister, only to make him do his job.

Mr. Deans: We believe housing is essential.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And I’m not going to listen to their philosophy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This type of question is developing into a debate time after time. Would the hon. member have further questions for other ministers?

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, no more supplementaries.

MILK INQUIRY

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Food rationalize his statement of about a week ago when he said an inquiry into the milk subsidy was within the purview of the federal government and, perhaps, the Food Prices Review Board, with that of his statement today in which he says he is now going to conduct such an inquiry? What’s happened in the last week to 10 days to change his opinion?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Good question.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Some information has come to our attention which we thought warranted the Milk Commission proceeding with a study; they had been approached by at least two different groups. I would point out to my hon. friends, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a study by the Milk Commission of Ontario, not by the government, not by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It is a study by the Milk Commission of Ontario.

Mr. Deans: It has no relationship to the minister either.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): It is a whitewash.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would say as well that the Food Prices Review Board at Ottawa is also proceeding with a similar type of study, but not in the same detail as ours.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is a week late, under pressure.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not a week late under pressure at all so the member needn’t get his tail in a knot. We are doing what we think is right.

Mr. Deans: That really got him.

Mr. Foulds: They’re in a knot over there.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is an agricultural simile.

Mr. Deans: It’s frequently called backtracking.

MOHAWK KNITTING MILLS

Mr. Deans: Can I ask the Minister of Labour if he has had brought to his attention the pending closing of the Mohawk Knitting Mills in the city of Hamilton with the likely lay-off or severing of employment of all of the employees; and the request of a certain number of employees for government assistance in order that they can independently fund one sector of that industry which is viable within the city of Hamilton? Will he make representation to his absent colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), that there ought to be direct input by the government to try to protect those workers’ jobs and to ensure they can be on an equal footing with any number of companies which get money from the government with some relative ease?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear the first part of the question. I think I got the end of it; was the question was I aware of Mohawk and its problems?

Mr. Deans: Mohawk Knitting Mills is closing.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think I am. I had some information and we entered into an agreement with a knitting mill this past week, Mr. Speaker, but I don’t think it was Mohawk. I’ll ask my adjustment service people to investigate this one and see how we can help them, if we can.

HAMILTON-NANTICOKE TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Deans: One final question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Can the minister indicate how he expects to be able to have a rational policy with regard to transportation from Hamilton to Nanticoke when the planning body for the airport, the body studying the possible airport location in that area doesn’t have any provincial representation on it? It will be a major motivator and economic force in that area.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I was not aware of the make-up of that particular committee, and the airport is obviously something we have not been involved in. I can certainly inquire as to the possibility of us having a representative on that particular committee. I agree with the hon. member that what develops in that airport area is certainly going to have an effect on the traffic patterns and the need for highways; so I will look into it.

Mr. Deans: Can I ask a supplementary question; whether the minister believes the study of the airport and the subsequent decision with regard to the airport and the Nanticoke transportation corridor would be a matter which might be referred to the environmental review body set up by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) two days ago?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Again, I really have practically no information at all about what has been happening at the airport study. That particular group I believe was established by the federal government in conjunction with the municipal governments.

Mr. Deans: It must affect the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well certainly it will affect us, but I wasn’t aware we had no input into that committee. I will inquire and if it needs an environmental look we will take a look at that too.

Mr. Speaker: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development has the answer to a question asked previously.

FACILITIES ON THE TRENT-SEVERN SYSTEM

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, on March 21 the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith) asked the following question:

“Is the minister aware that the federal government, through its park branch, has announced locking charges for boaters using the Trent, Severn and Rideau systems? Would the minister inquire from the federal ministry what the money will be used for?”

Mr. Speaker, on March 14, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. Judd Buchanan, announced an increased capital development programme for the national parks and a change in the fee structure for national parks and other areas and facilities operated by Parks Canada.

The Trent and Rideau Canals are operated and paid for by Parks Canada. Therefore the responsibility for establishing user fees is totally within the jurisdiction of the federal government. In the same way, user fees for provincial and municipal areas and facilities within the Rideau-Trent-Severn waterway corridor is the responsibility of the managing agency.

In all cases, the level of fees normally is established as part of a broader fee policy applying to all areas under the respective agency jurisdiction. In the case of the canal user fees, the same fees also apply to two canals in the Province of Quebec.

The federal minister stated that the user fee structure changes were being instituted to help defray the costs of the increased parks and canals programme, including an expanded programme in Ontario.

The CORTS agreement makes no reference to user fees because, as I stated previously, this is an individual agency policy decision. However, the CORTS advisory committee -- the citizens advisory group established under the agreement to advise the federal minister and my colleague, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources -- is required to solicit public opinion with respect to the water.

I would assume therefore, Mr. Speaker, that in the public meetings to be held by the advisory committee, any public comment on the canal fees would be directed to the committee, which in turn would advise the ministers, including any recommendation it wishes to make.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Supplementary: I wonder if the minister would take a look at the 1906 water agreement between the federal and provincial governments in relation to this matter and see whether that is not the vehicle for determination of fees and lockages through the canals?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be pleased to look at that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES

Mr. Roy: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), I would like to ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: Would the provincial secretary give an undertaking to this House that the government will cease the practice, when awarding contracts or jobs to architects under which the architects are chosen on the basis of a list, and that the only way they get on the list is to make a contribution to the Conservative Party? Would she undertake to stop this practice?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): I will give the hon. member the same kind of answer his question deserves:

Mr. Roy: Supplementary!

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: There will be no supplementary to an improper question in the first place.

Mr. Roy: An improper question? On a point of order: What’s improper about that?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The question period is to ask for information. The member for Sudbury East.

MOTHER’S ALLOWANCE

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Recently, as reported in the press, the review board suggested that a mother should have to withdraw funds which had been willed to the children rather than get mother’s allowance. In view of the fact that we went through this in committee about a year ago and the minister was going to have it investigated, who has instructed the review committee to make that type of recommendation?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I’m not familiar with the case the hon. member is speaking of, but I would be glad to look into that individual case. However I would like to mention that these matters are discussed with the official guardian, and there is a certain amount of money that can be left in trust for the care of children. At the same time, if the assets exceed a certain amount of money, there is no further sharing of assistance under the federal Canada Assistance Plan.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: The money that is provided in the will or left to the children belongs to the children and surely it has nothing to do with the mother. Therefore we should not be penalizing the mother in these instances.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, as I said Mr. Speaker, there is a certain discretion. I think it’s very difficult to speak in a general way. If the hon. member would give me the particulars of this case, I would be glad to look into it.

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

GRAVEL LICENCE APPLICATION

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP asked a question of me a few days ago concerning the status of an application from a Mr. Sam Manetta for a licence to extract gravel in Pontypool.

In March, 1974, Mr. Manetta made an application to open a pit in the township of Manvers. A number of persons objected to the issuance of this licence, and as a result I referred the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing. I understand the board conducted a hearing on Feb. 10 and as yet has not reported its recommendations or findings to me.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

PRICE OF SEED CORN

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food who is under the gallery. Since the price of seed corn is running around approximately $1 per pound and since many farmers in the province consider this price to be excessively high, I would like to ask the minister if he has had any complaints from farmers in this connection? And if so, would he consider that farmers are being ripped off?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether I consider farmers as being ripped off or not. Many of the farmers who are buying this corn are also growing it and selling the seed as well. There are many hybrid seed corn growers in Ontario, as my hon. friend should know. As far as the price is concerned, it is high; there’s no question of that. But bearing in mind that 1974 was the poorest corn crop year that I know of in recorded memory, either in Ontario or in the United States, it’s understandable that quality corn seed may not be as good as it was in other years and that it may be short in supply.

However, as I understand it, the price is much stronger than it was last year. When one considers that a bushel of corn will plant four to five acres, it’s spread over a fairly substantial chunk of land. I would say that while we’re aware of the situation, there are no price controls in this country of ours. That was decided last July 8, if my friend remembers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. It is in connection with a statement he made yesterday concerning a subsidiary agreement under DREE Ontario for a development programme in Dryden. What are the criteria that are used now for municipalities seeking some kind of development assistance or funding under DREE Ontario? And would the minister not agree, since he is responsible for the regional development programmes across the province, that an upgrading of the Design for Development programmes take place so that conventional wisdom appropriate in 1969 and 1970 may be brought up to date and reviewed so that a good many of the applications made under DREE Ontario might pass in the light of the new circumstances?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that I could give the hon. member a precise answer as to criteria -- certainly not off the top of my head -- but I will be glad to get that information and pass it to the member. In terms of upgrading, I think the statement yesterday perhaps didn’t say it as clearly as it should have. The statement implied that Design for Development, phase 2 -- phase 3 really, the approval process -- in northern Ontario, was now five years old and that we had already met some of the targets which were projected for the 1980s.

We had a discussion about this in the ministry two weeks ago, and I was asking just where matters stood. There was a request from a meeting at Quetico that the plan be upgraded and with local input. Those plans are under way and we are starting to gear up to that sort of an exercise, I would think that probably by some time in 1976 we would produce a progress report and revisions on a plan for northwestern Ontario.

I would agree there have been changes. I mentioned yesterday that the pulp and paper industry, which in 1970 and 1971 had not as rosy an outlook certainly as it has now; and I think the same thing is true of the mining industry. I have discussed this with the staff and we were talking about the need to upgrade plans. We had more or less tentatively agreed that this should be done on a five-year basis. The thought that I would be responsible for five-year plans put me so firmly in a red position that I was appalled, but nevertheless I agreed to it.

Mr. Stokes: One final, brief supplementary: Would the minister agree with his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, that Ontario, and particularly northern Ontario, isn’t getting its fair share of DREE funding?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I always agree with my friend, the Minister of Natural Resources, that great exponent of the virtues of northwestern Ontario and its need for more support. I particularly agree with him when he is suggesting they need more federal funds; I would encourage that kind of reasoning --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He is almost laughing.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and that line of thinking at all times. That view is shared by the Chairman of Management Board.

Hon. E. A Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development is a great believer in that principle also. He is a great exponent of northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Ferrier: We need more in the north-east.

Mr. MacDonald: What a love-in!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Up the north!

Mr. Deans: Why does nothing happen since they believe all this?

Mr. Ruston: The minister is laughing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A lot better than the member for Essex-Kent.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would specifically agree that Ontario, relative to other parts of Canada on a per capita basis, on a square mile basis, on any basis that one wants to calculate it, has received zilch in terms of DREE assistance, and the rest of Canada has received a great deal.

But I am the eternal optimist; and since Mr. Jamieson became the minister, some progress has been made and we seem to be getting together and recognizing the fact that within as large a province as Ontario there are regional disparities, which are not as serious as they are in some parts of Canada, but which, nevertheless, within this province have presented problems and will continue to present problems.

DREE assistance is needed in such places. Cornwall, of course, comes quickly to mind; and there are certainly other places in northern Ontario which are relatively as much in need of federal assistance under DREE as parts of the Maritimes or Quebec or western Canada. So the answer is yes.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary? There has only been one supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Make it a new question in your turn. The member for York-Forest Hill.

SPADINA ARTERIAL ROAD

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications when he intends to reply to the application of Metropolitan Toronto for the 50 per cent provincial contribution to pave the four-lane arterial road in the Spadina ditch; and when he replies to it, whether he intends to reply to it in the affirmative in accordance with the recommendation in the Soberman report?

Mr. Roy: And the minister’s comments in the House.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated I would be making a recommendation to cabinet. That decision has not been made at this time. When the decision is made, it will be made known in response to Metro’s application. The member knows my recommendations.

Mr. Givens: A supplementary: In light of the fact that the minister has had this application before him for several days now and that we’re entering the construction season, when is it likely that he’s going to make this recommendation? Surely he is not going to wait for another year, is he?

Mr. Roy: The minister has made the recommendation --

Mr. Martel: He will make it on the eve of the election.

Mr. Roy: What is the recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I suppose I could use the time-worn phrase, “in the fullness of time.”

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): In due course.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

TORONTO-HEARST LRC SERVICE

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the fact that it takes two years, once a decision is made, to get a train on the tracks, how seriously is the ONTC looking at the prospect of implementing an LRC train on the route between Toronto and Hearst? Can he give us any idea when the decision might be forthcoming as to when, or if, he is going to go ahead with implementing this kind of a service?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I don’t think we’re looking at it very seriously at this time at all, because of the fact that there have been absolutely no LRC vehicles purchased in Canada as yet. We aren’t sure just exactly what sort of a policy is going to be developed as it relates to rail, along with other policies as a result of the national transportation policy review that is going on.

I can tell the hon. member that I met this morning for three hours with the Hon. Mr. Marchand, discussing some of these particular items. We have, at this stage, not made any specific move towards implementing that sort of service anywhere in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Ferrier: As a supplementary: Is the minister saying that until the federal government comes to a certain policy decision and agreement that the ONTC just has to more or less wait on the sidelines until that federal policy is enunciated?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member knows full well that a part of this run he is talking about is not ONTC right of way, it’s of the other railroads.

Mr. Laughren: Nationalize them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Until such time as there is a national policy developed -- and we agree with the development of a national policy and we want to discuss that with the federal government to see what their involvement is going to be -- we won’t take any steps in this direction, changing the type of equipment being used on railroads.

Mr. Foulds: Bring them under public control.

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. Deacon: Yes, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. It now being four weeks since the federal government made the decision to proceed with the Pickering airport, is it not time that this government told Ottawa to either compensate the owners from whom the Ontario government removed the rights for development three years ago, or lift the freeze? Will the government not now set a deadline or 30 days and tell Ottawa to either compensate the owners or remove that freeze?

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Wire Pierre.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Tell him something else.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter that should be received by Mr. Danson -- maybe it hasn’t been yet -- asking that they outline their position to this government as clearly and as quickly as possible in regard to the hon. member’s question. I haven’t received the answer yet.

Mr. Stokes: He won’t answer it after the comments of the minister’s parliamentary assistant (Mrs. Scrivener).

Mr. Deacon: Will this government just set a deadline by which time it will either lift the freeze unless Ottawa does make compensation? Stop fooling around with it.

Mr. Roy: Will the minister answer for us?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting on Monday with the Hon. Barney Danson and, contrary to what some people may think, we’re still talking. We did discuss certain issues and I expect to have an answer from him.

Mr. Breithaupt: Hon. Mr. Danson is a fine fellow.

Mr. Ruston: He is more open-minded than the minister is.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Laughren: In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld), I would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Mr. Roy: Try to get an answer this time.

Mr. Laughren: Is she aware of the documents published today in the University of Toronto student newspaper, the Varsity, which indicate a major shift in emphasis by her government toward post-secondary education in Ontario? Is she aware that if the COU proposals in those documents are implemented they would mean a possible increase in tuition fees for students without an accompanying reduction in grants by the Ontario government; that there would be an accompanying decrease in the quality of education at the post-secondary level in Ontario; and that there would be further discrimination against the staffs at the universities, who are already being paid less than people doing comparable jobs in other parts of the public sector as well as the private sector?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, no I am not aware of that article in the Varsity.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker. I have one final supplementary if I might: Would the provincial secretary assure this chamber that this will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Colleges and Universities and that he would then make a public statement on it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I will bring it to the attention of the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

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

PLANT SAFETY INSPECTIONS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. What action has the minister taken on the 28 or so alleged unsafe labour practices and unsafe labour conditions that the president of Local 444, Mr. Charlie Brooks, brought to his attention about one month ago?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a report here which I’ll be pleased to send across to the hon. member. It’s quite detailed. We are keeping a close eye on the Chrysler company up there. They are complying with our directions and we are satisfied, but -- we are inspecting them regularly.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister table that, Mr. Speaker, or send it over?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’ll send it over.

COMBUSTIBLE PLASTIC FOAM

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. What action has the minister taken since the dangers of foam plastic as a fire hazard in homes and other residences have been drawn to his attention?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the hon. member raised the question of foam plastic in home furnishings, not in residential construction.

Mr. Burr: It was in homes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I assume he means the use of foam plastic within residences, not in the construction. The hazard has been brought to my attention. As I understand it, there is a possibility that Mr. Ouellet, under the Hazardous Products Act, may take some action here. They are the only people who have the jurisdiction. We’ve drawn that to his attention.

In the meantime, the technical standards branch of my ministry is pursuing the subject. There is nothing really definitive about the information the hon. member has given to us. Therefore we are having to conduct additional inquiries. In my own opinion the best possibility for any elimination of the hazards, if they exist, and I question that assumption, would be under the Hazardous Products Act as administered by Ottawa.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Has the minister not read the December issue of the Ontario Fire Marshals Quarterly News and the article on foam plastic hazards? It gives a great deal of information?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t read that particular issue. Now that the hon. member has drawn it to my attention, I can assure him that I will be reading it.

Mr. Deans: He hasn’t read it? Isn’t that his job?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South hasn’t had the opportunity to ask a question today.

HOME INSURANCE RATES

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in reference to the Throne Speech, which indicated strong and decisive response from the government on moderation and restraint in mailers related to pricing of goods. Will the minister order the fullest possible inquiry into the entire area of the fluctuating rate structure, and increases up to 50 per cent, as they relate to home dwelling insurance, as proposed by the Canadian Underwriters’ Association?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we do monitor rates, but we do not control them. I’m quite prepared to look into the question the hon. member has brought to my attention and ask the Superintendent of Insurance to report to me on it. At the present time, as he knows, we do not control insurance rates; we do monitor them.

Mr. Good: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson from the standing social development committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with a certain amendment:

Bill 4, An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act.

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

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3

Clerk of the House: The government notice of motion No. 3 by Hon. Mr. McKeough:

“RESOLUTION: That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil service and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1975 such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.”

Resolution concurred in.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4

Clerk of the House: The government notice of motion No. 4 by Hon. Mr. Winkler.

“RESOLUTION: That the committee on procedural affairs should investigate and report to the House with all convenient dispatch its recommendations respecting the following: 1. Whether substitutions should be allowed on standing committees other than those considering estimates and if so on what terms including time of necessary notification to the chairman; 2. Whether the voting procedures in such standing committees should adhere more closely to the procedure in committees of the whole House than heretofore, including stacking of divisions; 3. What improvements should be made in the physical facilities for the meetings of such committees.”

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves notice of motion No. 4.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I think there are a few things that could be said with respect to this resolution. The points have been raised in the House on several occasions with respect to this matter, most recently when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was speaking on the motion to strike the committee to deal with committee formation. Certainly the points which are raised in the resolution are worthy of support and have the support of this party.

We believe this matter of substitution is most important for the effective use and development of the committee structure within the Legislature. I commend the Chairman of the Management Board and the government House leader for bringing forward this resolution and I hope the committee will be able to deal with it expeditiously in the best interests of the House.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, like the Liberal House leader, I am pleased that we have finally got around to looking at committee. It has been something that has been a bone of contention among many members for the last two or three years, and I don’t think it’s before time that we should be taking a serious look at the way in which the committees are structured and the way in which they operate within their own sense of responsibilities.

I want to remind the House leader and the members of the House that the matter of the stacking of divisions, for example, is in fact a matter that is an agreement from time to time and is not something that is a hard and fast rule in the House. I would not want the committee to come forward with a recommendation that stacking become a hard and fast rule in dealing with any amendments placed before a committee.

I think it has to be left to the discretion of the committee and perhaps to the unanimous consent of the members, since from time to time there may be a matter that a particular member or a particular group of members might feel deserves individual attention.

I therefore strongly urge the committee on procedural affairs not to make a recommendation with regard to creating a hard and fast rule about any future stacking of any future divisions, but that it may be considered by the committee that it would be appropriate, as it now is appropriate in the committee, for the committee by unanimous consent to agree to hold off any votes on any matters that are in contention until an appropriate time is reached, perhaps close to the end of that sitting or perhaps close to the end of the consideration of those particular estimates.

I’m particularly eager that two things should be paramount in the thinking of this committee. One, I want them to think in as non-partisan a way as they can about the matter of substitutions. I’ve wondered about it and thought about it for a number of years, and I can see no advantage to any side in continuing the current practice of not allowing substitutions in the consideration, let’s say, of private bills.

I’m sure that if the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) had a private bill from his constituency before the committee, he would probably like to be a part of that committee not only for the purpose of discussing the bill, or supporting the bill or otherwise, but perhaps even for the purpose of moving amendments on behalf of his own constituents. I think that is probably true of all members of the House. I really do urge that that be kept in mind at the time consideration is being given to whether or not substitutions should be permitted.

I also suggest that it ought not to make much difference to the House what the name is of any particular committee member. As long as the representation on the committee is by party strength, and as long as that committee and its chairman are aware in advance of the sitting who it is who is going to represent each of the political parties at that particular time for whatever reason the committee is sitting, it should make very little difference as long as the numbers are maintained with regard to the appropriate strengths of the three political parties represented.

I do urge also that we give consideration to putting in adequate recording facilities in at least one and perhaps two of the committee rooms immediately. I think it’s in the best interest of everyone, when we are reviewing such matters as commissions and their operations when they come before a committee, that those be made a matter of public record.

We probably could cut down to some extent on the repetitive nature of the questions if a member who might have to miss part of a particular hearing because of a commitment here or elsewhere, was able to pick up the instant Hansard -- it doesn’t have to be done in the normal Hansard form -- to leaf through it and to find out what the answer was to the question that he may well have asked to be raised on his behalf. It may save time or it may not, but it’s worthwhile looking at.

I also think that, for the purposes of the record, it’s a public responsibility that chairmen and representatives of boards and commissions of the government should have their views on record with regard to matters of public concern. If it be the Liquor Board, the Workmen’s Compensation Board, the Racing Commission or any other commission or board, when questions are put to the chairmen or to the representatives of that particular commission, their answers should be on the record and the record should be available for public scrutiny in other than just simply the reporting of the media.

It shouldn’t be left up to the members and to the commission and to people who happen to be present at the hearings to try to recall exactly what was said. It should be there for all to see. I think that makes for a much better system of representation. It brings about a greater degree of truth and a greater degree of accuracy. Then in future years when one refers to matters that were commitments or undertaken as commitments that have not been pursued or that have been pursued, it’s clear for all to see what was undertaken and what should have been arrived at and what should have been decided.

I make these comments. I hope the committee will take a moment or two, will think about them and will recognize that I make them with the complete understanding that within six months we’ll be the government and we’ll have to represent the government’s side and have to abide by and live with these rules.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member was doing well until that last part.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear some of the comments made, and at the fact that the minister has brought in this notice of motion. There is one area that has just been raised where I would certainly ask the minister whether or not he would be considering this as included in No. 3, and that is the form of recording of the proceedings that we can provide for in the future.

For example, in our select committees we have someone there who speaks into a mike and types out a draft. It’s not a full Hansard or provision for a full Hansard. It’s not done at great expense.

It is really important that we have a record of what has been said, especially when many people come before the committee who are very experienced in certain areas and make significant contributions. Yet we have no reference or no record of what those people provided the committee in the way of information or enlightenment concerning their problems that we’re trying to solve. I would ask if the minister intends that part 3 of the notice of motion would include the committee’s consideration of some form of recording of proceedings that is appropriate under the circumstances.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the resolution, specifically to one point. I would hope that under subsection 3 of the terms of reference for the committee on procedural affairs it would recommend very strongly the recording of all standing committee debates on legislation. When a bill is significant and important enough to be referred outside this House for consideration, I would hope that we would consider that important enough to record in terms of debates, just as we record the debates in committee of the whole House on legislation and just as we record the debates on estimates in standing committee outside the House.

I’ve had the experience of sitting in on the standing committee on social development, of sitting in on that committee for some three weeks as we debated and discussed Bill 72, which is the new Education Act. Yet none of that debate and none of the proposed amendments were recorded.

We could, I think in fairness, Mr. Speaker, save both time and money in the long run if we recorded the debates on legislation. For one thing, when we have a debate running for a thee-week period, as we did then, we often had people coming in, both from the public and from the Legislature itself, who had missed three, four or five days of the debate when we had adequately covered a topic of a certain amendment, and the whole thing had to be reopened again so that they could be filled in because there was no record.

Secondly, it would save time because the opposition now feels -- certainly we felt in terms of that particular bill; they even went to a committee outside the House -- we had to refer it to committee of the whole House simply to get the recording on a number of key issues -- at that point I think it was only five or six -- in a very lengthy bill. If that could have been done while the committee was going on, we could have saved some time in terms of processing in the House itself.

I really think legislation is one of the primary responsibilities of this House. It’s as important if not more important than the debate which takes place on estimates. For that reason it should be recorded for a record both for the House members and for the public generally. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I would just like to say one or two words. We haven’t had a chance to comment on this question of substitution over the last two or three weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I think that apart from our differences of party, which are very real, as members of the Legislature we all have a common interest in making the Legislature function efficiently and effectively. That’s why I hope the committee on procedural affairs will come up with a positive recommendation as far as substitution and the right of substitution are concerned.

I say this to members of the government -- if they consider the way the hearings normally proceed on a bill when it is in committee, the running of that committee or the work of the committee is normally determined by the opposition members on the committee. That is, for the most part they carry the burden of what’s going to go on there. Some of the government members make useful contributions but often they are simply there to make up the quorum. The opposition’s function is to oppose, among other things, and we want to raise points and we do.

I think it is also worth pointing out that the government is not inhibited from having its experts and its specialists take part in a committee hearing on a particular bill in the same way that the opposition is. The specialists in a particular area of legislation in the government are, of course, the government ministers and on occasion their parliamentary secretaries. These are the people who go to a committee in order to carry the bill through that particular committee.

As a matter of courtesy and custom and obvious necessity, those ministerial people enjoy full rights on the committee including the right to move motions and the right to speak, to answer questions, to make comments and that kind of thing. Nobody ever thinks to ask whether or not those people happen to be members of that particular committee.

For some reason which is beyond me, Mr. Speaker, this whole hassle over substitution has come up because the government side, in the past, has indicated that its specialists can take part on an equal basis in committee but that the specialists of the Liberal opposition party or our party cannot.

I may say for the record that it is very frustrating. For example, in the condominium bill which was before the standing committee on justice just before Christmas, I came in as one of the two spokesmen for my party on that particular bill but I was deliberately and provokingly relegated to second-class status by the chairman of the committee. It wasn’t just lacking the power to move motions or amendments and it wasn’t just the fact that one had to speak last after all members of the committee had had their turn.

It was the fact that in addition there was a feeling put abroad that one was second class, and that was encouraged by the chairman of the committee.

That really shouldn’t be allowed to be and, of course, when it takes place, Mr. Speaker, it has the effect of delaying the work of the committee, raising people’s tempers and generally being unproductive in the furtherance of sound legislation by this House.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, there is no time-saving involved right now in the present prohibition on substitution. If anything, it may take up more time because the members of a committee are there because they have to be there. Other members who take an interest in it, from our party or the Liberals, may also attend and contribute. We have more people taking part than if, through substitution, we were able to have only those people with a direct interest take part in consideration of a bill.

I would suggest as well, Mr. Speaker, that if the government were to show co-operation in this area of substitution, an area which has obviously been of concern to the opposition for many years, it might in some small way help to accelerate the handling of the business of the House.

I can’t make any promises about that. I can’t say that all will be milk and honey, particularly in an election year. But it seems to me that as members of the Legislature, we have a common interest in trying to remove unnecessary causes of friction that sometimes divide us and sometimes hinder the work of this House.

If we want to fight on party issues, that’s fine. If we want to fight on policy issues, that’s fine. But in the past this question of substitution Mr. Speaker, has been one of those petty and frustrating annoyances that have made life so difficult for people on this side of the House, when in fact we are trying to contribute to the work of the Legislature and not detract from it.

I hope that the committee considers this recommendation positively and brings in a substitution rule as an innovation of the House.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two comments. I want to commend the government House leader for bringing this resolution before the House. I can agree with several things, and I have several reflections. In particular, I believe there are one or two things that should be done which might involve broadening the terms slightly, but I think the terms are already broad enough that they could include these points.

First of all, I believe substitution should be recorded in the order paper. That would have a very good effect. The other thing I would like to suggest is that the members of the House should attend some courses in parliamentary procedure under that committee for the very basic reason that if one examines what happens in committees, very much of the time is taken up by budget and Throne speech material, rather than on the actual work before the committee. I say that very advisedly, because I think any examination would show that to be true.

The other thing I want to stress is that I think there’s often a distortion between what this House is actually here for and what it actually does. To me, that distortion is simply that very often the examination of expenditures, which aside from the redress of grievance is the primary reason that this House meets, as I understand it, is not necessarily for the educational process of the members. The first two requirements are for the members to deal with those matters of the House and the matters that are placed before us here in the interest of the public. I often think there’s a distortion of this.

Sir, I think it would be a good idea to have some definite meanings that would distinguish between examination of estimates, public accounts, expenditure, the redress of grievance and so on, and get these things back into shape so that our committee structure can function the way it is designed to do. I say that advisedly. I think there are additional things that should be considered, and that’s why I wanted to make those points today.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, as we are making comment on this motion, I would like to suggest as whip that at the time the steering committee deals with the names that are to be placed on each of the committees, they should take on the responsibility of electing the chairman and vice-chairman at the same time so that the committees are organized and ready to go as of the day of selection. I put that suggestion forward in the hope that the committee can work it into the three terms of reference in some fashion or other.

Mr. Ruston: How about no smoking?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution as far as it goes, the resolution being to give this to the procedural affairs committee who will look at these matters and report back. But I support those speakers who have said that, in addition, we should have that procedural affairs committee investigate the other question of whether committee proceedings should be recorded.

I’ve gone through two committee reports by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, one of which was tagged on to the estimates and of which no recording was kept, and the second being the formal one, which was recorded in committee. At each of those times, the statements made by the chairman and the various board of officials to that committee were invaluable in terms of how the board functions and how we can best function as members vis-à-vis the board, when we have complaints come to us. Unless the members who are there are taking notes in shorthand, that direction is lost.

The memory retention of most of us is not all that long, and these invaluable comments on what they were going to do and how things were going to proceed, or should proceed, and how we could best function are completely lost and gone. So I would say to the minister that not only should those be recorded but this resolution should also give to this committee the decision as to whether committee meetings should be recorded.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this and my comments are going to be very brief. Much of what has been said here was said in the committee when we were first striking the members to the various committees, and I would suggest that all of those who have constructive suggestions to make be present at the committee when it meets the next time and resolve the problem there rather than in here.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the interesting observations that have been made. It is not my intention that the terms of reference be restrictive; the exact opposite. I trust that these terms will be used in a broader sense.

As I have said in the past, I have no intention of interfering with the committee in its function or even in recommending to it what its determinations should be. I would simply like to say that in my experiences on a committee in previous years, in visiting different jurisdictions -- and of course I was a member of another jurisdiction -- exactly the same problems arose there that are arising here, with the exception of the visit that I had to the California Legislature. I think the committee room there was done extremely well for the benefit of all concerned; the division between the witnesses and the committee members and also other participating members who were not members of the committee. I think all of these things should be taken into consideration.

I also agree with those who say that probably the recording of the deliberations of committees would have some effect on the reduction of debate in the House. I am not too sure of that in some cases, but in others I am sure it would be so.

Therefore, I hope that this committee deals with the terms, as I said, in the very broad sense, and comes back with its desires as to the committee function.

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

REPRSENTATION ACT, 1975

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Welch, moves first reading of bill intituled, the Representation Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, all members of the assembly are very well aware of the objectives of the bill. I felt that in the absence of the minister it should be in the record of the House prior to the recess that is just before us, for whatever use it may be to the members so that they may proceed with certain aspects of consideration to be brought back after the recess.

PROFESSIONAL FUND-RAISING CORPORATIONS CONTROL ACT, 1975

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to control Professional Fund-Raising Corporations, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the licensing and control of professional fund-raising corporations.

It is not aimed at local Red Feather, United Appeal or other similar drives where a great deal of the organizational work is voluntary and expenses incurred are a very small proportion of the total proceeds.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE ACT

Mr. Cassidy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit discrimination in the rental, the sale or the occupancy of housing accommodation against families with children or against any person because of age.

I introduced the bill in the last session and I am reintroducing it. The problem of discrimination against families and accommodation is, in fact, becoming worse and our indications are that now more than half of the apartments available in Toronto are for adults only. We hope the bill will be adopted by the government. We understand the principle is now under consideration by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

CONTROLLING OF HOURS IN RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT

Mr. Edighoffer moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the Controlling of Hours in Retail Establishments.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is the same as the previous bills introduced -- to provide for uniform store hours and business hours for retail establishments throughout the province.

RENT CONTROL AND SECURITY OF TENURE ACT

Mr. Cassidy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for Rent Control and Security of Tenure.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, at a time when rent increases in cities like Toronto and Ottawa are outrunning the rate of inflation by two or three times -- that is, a running of 20 per cent to 30 per cent per annum -- it is clear to us that an Act is required by this Legislature in order to ensure that rent increases are geared to increases in costs.

We have put forward this principle before on behalf of the party and the bill has been before the House in the past. I hope that this one will also be accepted by the government before thousands of families, and thousands of individuals on low or modest incomes are simply bankrupted by the present tendencies in rents.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

THIRD READING

Clerk of the House: Bill 4, An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Speaker, just a comment to say that the committee met this morning and we were able to get through the bill rather quickly. I simply want to make the point that the minister conceded during that discussion that in the future we would meet in his office with all interested parties to try to start to shape something along the line of prevention of the breakdown of the natural family. We, on this side of the House, were delighted with that action taken by the minister. We are looking forward to the meeting in the near future.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 4, An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St George): I understood that there was to be an amendment; has that been moved?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): It has been carried.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, I’m sorry. I wasn’t present.

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 Peel South.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate we’re winding up the session prior to the Easter recess, so I will keep my remarks as brief as possible.

First, I would like to add my congratulations to you on having been elected to your high office and to commend you on your diligence, firmness and fairness in discharging your duties in a most difficult job. I know all members join with me in acknowledging the accuracy of this description.

In entering this debate I wish to make a few remarks on a subject the principle of which is now history, and which the opposition persists in flogging continually. I appreciate that I do this at the peril of boring everyone, but it’s continuing the discussion on regional government.

In his remarks on the Throne Speech, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) predictably took a swipe at regional government. He seems obsessed with doing this, and subsequent speakers from the opposition have joined in this clamour.

In these excesses he makes one remark that is totally untrue, Mr. Speaker. He said that if the Conservative Party should be re-elected to power in this province there will be a regional government imposed from one end of the province to the other. Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely false. This is the ultimate in overstating cases and there are overstatements that have been made by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) but some of his are insignificant compared to this one.

In Peel we have 10 municipalities and I could quote statistics to illustrate the variation in mill rates, the attendant tax levies, and so on. One of the major effects of this government has been to provide significant grants to municipalities to stabilize property tax and the municipal levies. Until 1974 this was generally very successful. But in that year, last year, there was a hike in taxes. However, in our area, where regional government started a year ago in January, as a result of regional government there was a decrease of 11 per cent. We don’t hear about that from the members opposite.

In Mississauga the province contributed $1.09 for each dollar that was raised locally. Last year grants to Mississauga were increased by $1,206,714.

In Peel with the regional plan 10 municipalities were consolidated into three. Now it is a complicated exercise to determine what effect this has had on the tax burden, the tax levies. Regardless of whether there is regional government or not, rampant inflation and the increased costs that go with this were going to add a burden regardless of the type of government.

Mr. Speaker, the control of a major part of the financing was and is right within the municipalities and the regions themselves. It depends on the will of the people, the needs of the community, those who are elected. It is their responsibility to administer the taxes, the public works and the various things that go to make up the municipal structure and their fields of activities.

It seems logical to me that reducing the 10 municipalities to three should result in efficiencies. Restructured government will result in equality in both responsibilities and the benefits.

I don’t wish to belabour the point but the fact is in Peel the studies started some 10 years ago with the Plunkett report. It has been discussed and studied interminably over the 10 years prior to inauguration of the programme. I attended a county council meeting at which the leaders of each of the 10 municipalities agreed to regional government on principle. Subsequently the bill was drafted, based on the suggestions of the county council representing those 10 municipalities.

We know there were dissenters among them in that group and this isn’t unusual. This occurred. We know that but the consensus was to go ahead with regional government; the 10 leaders agreed with it in principle and it was proceeded with it.

I mentioned earlier that I took exception to the word imposed; that regional government was imposed on municipalities. It is not the intention -- it was not and this was not done -- that there would be regional government imposed from one end of the province to the other, which is totally a fantasy; but those now in existence were not imposed. This word simply is not applicable. There is quite a difference between honest, legitimate differences of opinion as to whether or not there should be restructuring and an imposition, which implies and there is no accord in this direction by local municipalities. This was not so.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): We were forced into it in the Niagara region.

Mr. Kennedy: There was no forcing anywhere across the province. It was done in consultation with municipalities. I hope, Mr. Speaker, this will put the problem into perspective and that the opposition will be fair and acknowledge the origin of these new restructured forms of government in the various areas across the province.

The government has responded and will respond to the wishes of local people and there is no intention to do other than consult with them; to co-operate and act in partnership with municipalities on matters of mutual concern. The provincial-municipal liaison committee is an example of these ongoing discussions. I recall some years ago a meeting held at the Science Centre prior to the introduction of the PMLC -- perhaps it grew out of this -- which was just such a very successful and interesting meeting.

Regional governments have been berated and beleaguered by critical opposition and the criticism has not been constructive. The form of government is feasible, workable, sensible. It consolidates services and it consolidates administration. It has been unjustly maligned by an ambivalent opposition. Regional government permits revenues, benefits and, as I said, expenditures and responsibilities to be shared more equitably on a broader basis.

When the announcement of the Peel-Halton and Hamilton-Wentworth regions was made in Hamilton -- I think it was Jan 22 or 23, 1973 -- the Leader of the Opposition whose riding borders on the Hamilton regional area, was quoted in the Star as saying:

“The proposal should be shelved until plans for a regional government in Brant are ready. The plans for the two regions should be co-ordinated.”

There is only one meaning I take from this, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the Leader of the Opposition favours regional government.

Why then does he go around the province continually knocking it, hoping it will be a failure?

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Mr. Kennedy: The Liberals don’t think it will fail really, when one gets right down to it; they really don’t. But it might well if they took over with the attitude they have toward it and several other issues I’ll touch on later.

This form of government is going to be a success; it is a success. There are many examples of successful amalgamation to various degrees throughout the province. I don’t know of anyone who wants to go back and pull these all out. No way! This is progress. I would ask again, where do they stand? I couldn’t get it from any entries into debate either here or out in the hustings. Would they dismantle regional government?

I want to touch on a little history. One of the first forms of regional government, though the name is different, is Metro Toronto. It is an unqualified success. Would the opposition dismantle this? These are the same terms they’re speaking of with respect to other regions. I haven’t heard anyone, at least in recent years, speak in favour of taking this retrograde step. I know, they know, we all know and the municipalities know there’s some rough water, some ripples, as these units of administration become shaken down into smooth, efficient operations. This is to be expected; it’s natural and there are no surprises in this.

However, I do believe the great majority of the people who are elected to carry out the terms of the bills in the various areas are working with dedication to make them work. I think they can look with pride on the success they have achieved in about something like 16 months of operation. It has been very, very demonstrative of the capacity of these elected people to deal with the problems that are attendant on such a large new entry into this type of restructuring, despite the fact that they get sniped at from all directions.

I went back into Hansard and had a look at Bill 80 to see how the opposition reacted. They talked about it as if it was a crime then. I found how they were feeling and whether they were in good humour in those days. I found their attitude then was about the same as it is now. The Leader of the Opposition of the day -- and I speak with respect because I knew the leader -- was Mr. Oliver, a respected member of many years standing in this House. However, what he said at the time of the Metro bill was that he believed in progressive amalgamation. There were some words leading up to this, but he said he believed in progressive amalgamation: He wasn’t quite for it or quite against it -- it was something like now. Then he sat down.

The minister piloting the bill through was Robert Macaulay. I don’t know if any members here were here on that occasion. Perhaps the former Minister of Health, the member for Ontario (Mr. Dymond), was. It was a widely debated topic anyway and received lots of publicity. Mr. Macaulay said that although the Leader of the Opposition spoke of progressive amalgamation, there was some confusion here because at the same time the Leader of the Opposition said fire and police services should be taken over at the time of the bill -- in other words, have progressive amalgamation but bring in fire and police. Yet the bill didn’t provide for that.

The government wanted progressive amalgamation with those two services, yet the opposition leader, having spoken for progressive amalgamation, wanted instant amalgamation of those two services. Subsequently, police have come under the Metro plan. Fire is still, I think, one of the local municipal responsibilities, though they have as good a working arrangement as is needed to provide the service to all of Metro.

Another interesting comment was made by the then member for Riverdale, Mr. Macaulay, when he said: “The opposition have no understanding of the background of the subject.”

Perhaps the best illustration of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition was the observation that if you had a boat with 13 holes in it -- the number of municipalities at the time -- all of them taking in water and any one of them enough to sink the ship, there would be no use in saying: “Boys, fill up hole No. 1.”

An hon. member: Who said that?

Mr. Kennedy: That was the former minister, Robert Macaulay, when he was putting the bill though. In other words, they were looking to patchwork solutions to a major problem -- I guess the member for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root) was here at the time. So the same illustration could be used today in the most recent amalgamations.

I recall some of the 13 boroughs at that time. North York was one and it, in effect, was on the ropes financially -- it was bankrupt. This is no discredit or criticism of the municipal leaders of the day. They were in a bind to provide housing, to provide all the services necessary to accommodate people. But there wasn’t the residential-industrial ratio that would permit this. And this is what really projected this forward, that there could be a broader sharing.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is just what is taking place. These same principles apply today. Bill 80, in the fullness of time, has proved to be a very skillfully developed bill put into operation by very able people to the extent that it is world renowned. People come from cities around the world to consult and examine and see what we have done here and, I presume, to return home and see if it’s applicable to their local situations.

There is another interesting piece in Hansard. I don’t want to belabour it, in the interests of time, Mr. Speaker, but it is interesting. The Leader of the Opposition criticized Mr. Frost’s government by saying that the legislation was at least 10 years too late, referring again to the Metro bill. I quote:

“We are late in getting started and it does seem to me if we had started on this matter some 10 years ago we would have by this time got around a lot of the difficulties and we would have a much larger family around the city of Toronto than we presently have.”

That caught my eye, I can assure you. I would agree that probably Metro Toronto might have started 10 years earlier. But there were two routes that could have been taken subsequently. Either Metro Toronto was to be contained, as it is now, or it could have been extended in ever-increasing circles. To my way of thinking, Metro Toronto is a large enough family under the present situation. Accordingly, we have moved forward with similar arrangements for government in the adjacent areas surrounding Metro Toronto.

The opposition leader also said in reference to this:

“We, as older members of the House, will recall an instance of that in the city of Windsor some years ago.”

I see the member for Windsor-Walkerville is here and he may be interested in this, if he wasn’t aware of it; I wasn’t.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): I will be interested.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, I am sure. I wasn’t aware of this, but Mr. Oliver said:

“In that instance in the city of Windsor some years ago, in the 1930s I believe, there was in that instance a complete and total amalgamation. It was possible in the city of Windsor and I think, looking at it from this vantage point, all of us will agree that was the best solution.”

So they supported that. He thought it was great then, although it may have seemed a little harsh at the time.

So evidently, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals believed in amalgamation in the 1930s. Have they ever stepped backwards! I think it has been downhill all the way since my term here. Obviously, if one can read anything they are consistent. They are advancing to the rear. They’re not in favour of going forward with these very essential moves that will provide more equality for all residents.

Mr. Haggerty: Mostly to the left too.

Mr. Kennedy: Left and to the rear. Well, maybe by horse and buggy, too. They agreed with it in the Thirties, but as nearly as I can determine in reading and rereading comments in Hansard, they’ve been ambivalent on the subject ever since.

It is hard to know where they stand in the Seventies. The Leader of the Opposition said we shouldn’t go ahead without going ahead with the county of Brant, and now they’re criticizing it. Mr. Speaker, apart from any partisanship -- certainly we’re partisan here, but I think we’re also objective -- I’m sure it’s a matter of deep concern to the people of Ontario, and it is to me, that there is no firm policy articulated by the opposition with respect to this very important matter as well as several others. Regarding education, they would remove the ceilings, yet they say there should be constraints on spending. In the teacher situation, I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition is speaking for all Ontario, as this party is -- for the students, the teachers, the boards of education, the taxpayers -- or does he just speak for some of the teachers? I don’t know. You can’t tell. It sounds like the latter to me.

They fought for local autonomy, yet they wanted us to take over the York board at the time of the difficulties up there. By their own admission, at Windsor -- Windsor is an interesting part of the subject this afternoon --

Mr. Haggerty: Everybody was there but the member for Peel South.

Mr. B. Newman: Windsor is “the garden gateway to Canada.”

Mr. Kennedy: At Windsor they said, “Well, we won’t have any policies. Maybe we’ll develop some later. We’ll send out a questionnaire.” Are they coming in, by the way? I would ask their leader, are we going to have what they hope is an alternative to the government by virtue of returned questionnaires and presumably from that, as expediency dictates, at the time of the next consultation with the electorate? It’s not good enough, Mr. Speaker. I think the Ontario electorate will be so concerned over this that they’ll reject out of hand the Liberal Party.

Mr. Haggerty: They didn’t reject Sir John A. Macdonald.

Mr. Kennedy: I submit, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of what we’ve been hearing over the last year or so, that this party is not to be taken seriously. Someone has mentioned that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the federal party. They may have taken heart from recent polls, Mr. Speaker, but I do believe that on reflection the people of Ontario will recognize that the Ontario Liberals are not a creditable alternative to the leadership needed in the 1970s and so ably provided under the guidance of the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I only want to speak on one other subject at the moment, and it is one that has a high priority in debate here and across the province. I refer to the matter of housing. The opposition continually berates this government about housing, but the Liberals at least should turn their attention to Ottawa and put the heat where it belongs. The hon. member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) made some profound remarks in this regard, which didn’t go unnoticed across the way. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that funds aren’t coming from Ottawa as expected.

The NDP response to the Throne Speech by its leader and subsequent speakers, was the same record with respect to housing that I’ve heard from them in the seven or eight years rye been here.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Yet nothing’s changed.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): It shouldn’t be necessary.

Mr. Kennedy: All right, it is the same thing, but I suggest there has been no change and we all want more housing. I suggest that the 85,000 that have been built -- below expectations, about 15 per cent perhaps --

Mr. Haggerty: Twenty-two per cent.

Mr. Kennedy: Okay, I won’t argue it, but when one considers the high inflation rate, high interest rates, drying up of the housing market, Ottawa’s attitude, uncertainty in the labour and supply markets, it is perhaps more significant under these conditions that we have achieved the enviable record that has been recorded in Ontario in this past year.

This isn’t to say that, as we have mentioned, there is not still a great deal of need, especially among young couples or anyone of any age who can’t get a home and who wants a home. It is difficult for young people to save money in this inflationary time that we find ourselves. Wages and incomes were never higher, but the demands on these likewise drain resources and we know it is difficult to save for the purchase of a home.

I had a thought for the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) which I would commend to him. If the government is really interested in helping some of these families or young couples who are just on the margin of not being able to acquire a home, I suggest this. The government has embarked on a programme of acquisition of large tracts of land for residential, industrial and commercial use, I presume, and all the parkland amenities and so on.

Just dealing with the residential part of it, if they get four or five lots per acre in these tracts and say, broken down, with services, ready to go, that the cost is $6,000 for the lot, yet the market value might be $12,000 because of the demand. The house is erected at a cost of $25,000, for the sake of illustration, maybe less; because I believe in do-it-yourself construction and I think if there was an opportunity for people to build their own homes they would respond in very interesting numbers and we would be surprised.

Anyway, with a lot of $6,000 and a house at $25,000, the cost to the purchaser is $31,000. Yet the market value, because of the $6,000 for the lot, takes it to $37,000. I say, this, Mr. Speaker, if the purchaser resides in that residence, presumably with his family, and maintains ownership for 10 years, that $6,000 should be forgiven; write it off. Against that measure we have them in subsidized housing; $6,000 over 10 years, $600 a year, and I am sure subsidized housing costs a lot more. In effect, what I am saying is it would be sold on a two-price structure. We would sell it for $31,000; if he leaves inside the 10-year period the government would take that $6,000, the market price of the lot, and he would pay $37,000. If he stays, okay, good luck.

Some members will perhaps recognize this as a variation of the successful Veterans’ Land Act programme. So under certain terms of eligibility which would need to be established, and I mentioned that, we could have young people or others coming in, we could have developed -- we would need to recognize the real social benefits involved -- the pride of ownership. Let those who are in apartments and wish to move come out and have a home, get out into the sunlight, give them some hope, give them the opportunity.

I say, Mr. Speaker, if the government really wished to do something they could look into this very seriously and I ask that the minister do so. It’s much better than subsidized housing in the traditional terms as we know it. It would cost the taxpayers nothing.

I had two or three other subjects of a local nature I wanted to touch on. The Rattray Marsh matter, and railway protection, for example. We’ve had a couple of serious tragedies in our area. There was a happy resolution of the Lakeshore study area, a development area; and the road subsidies. However, in the interest of time and I know others want to get on, I will leave those for another time.

The Throne Speech, to me, Mr. Speaker, has been undeserving of the criticism vented against it from across the way. I take just one little paragraph.

“Ontario cannot stand still. It will continue to fulfil its accustomed role within the Canadian nation which is that of a progressive, compassionate and innovative society with a standard of living and a quality of life unequalled on the North American continent.”

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary that the amendments to the Speech offered by the opposition be resisted.

The preambles of the speeches leading up to the motions by the leaders of the opposition parties didn’t carry in them the conviction that one might be inclined to read in Hansard, although it’s no great shakes there either. I will be voting against those amendments, Mr. Speaker. I haven’t consulted my colleagues but I think they will; what I will do is invite the members of both opposition parties to reread those speeches, reread the amendments and then join us in rejecting them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. It will only take a minute but I think it’s worth putting before the members of the House and having it recorded in Hansard.

Tomorrow, at York Manor in Newmarket, Mrs. Mary Louise Patterson, the widow of the late George Patterson of Alliston, Ont., will reach her 101st birthday. Just mentioning that Mrs. Mary Louise Patterson is celebrating her 101st birthday may not mean too much to most of the members in the Legislature but to the older members who have been around here, Mrs. Patterson is the mother of Mrs. Malcolm McIntyre who was a familiar figure around this Legislature for many years as I’m sure you, Mr. Speaker, know well. Mr. McIntyre was secretary of the cabinet for a great number of years.

I’m sure each and every one of the members in here would want to join with me in wishing Mrs. McIntyre’s mother, Mrs. Patterson, a very happy birthday on her 101st birthday tomorrow.

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

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the Throne debate. I believe I have spoken on the occasion of every Throne debate since being elected to the Legislature in 1967 as the member for Welland South. Perhaps now, with the final bill here, Bill 22, the Representations Act, 1975, this will be my last opportunity to represent the constituents of Welland South. Through redistribution I hope to continue to represent the same citizens once again under a different riding name, Erie.

Erie consists of three municipalities: The town of Fort Erie, known as the gateway to Canada and one of Canada’s largest ports of entry; the city of Port Colborne, known to many as the gateway to navigation on the Great Lakes system and one of Canada’s largest inland ports located at the entrance of the Welland Canal on Lake Erie; the township of Wainfleet, a rural-urban municipality noted for its specialized farming abilities.

I regret that through redistribution the town of Pelham, which has many scenic landmarks, will not be part of the new riding of Erie. I will be rather remorseful not to continue as its representative in this Legislature, but I am rather pleased that the Niagara region will gain another seat in the Legislature providing the government brings in the necessary legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to you for the manner in which you have carried out your duties in this chamber, at times under very difficult circumstances but in a fair and just manner; perhaps not in agreement with all members but with authority and respect.

I also want to express my gratitude to the Hon. Pauline McGibbon, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, for her address on the opening of the 29th Parliament. I was delighted to see, as many other citizens were, that the traditional duties of the head of the government of Ontario were now the responsibility of a very gracious woman. It was a great occasion for this province and quite a boost in the recognition of International Women’s Year.

Usually, it is the practice for a member to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Throne Speech, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane). Mr. Speaker, I do, but with some reluctance. I thought, with the possibility of a provincial election being called this year, in view of the usual importance of a Throne Speech that indicates government policy or programmes, the Premier would have his heavyweights carrying the banner. I was looking to the member for Welland (Mr. Morningstar) and the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson). The Premier has failed to produce the heavyweights and has failed to provide a Throne speech with any noticeable programme.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to deal with a particular aspect of the Throne Speech. There can be no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of all the citizens, that the most pressing problem facing Canada is the rapid increase in the inflation spiral, which affects everyone through the rising cost of living. Since the Throne Speech of 1974, almost one year ago, and the debates that followed, we have seen consumer prices increase by more than 11 per cent and the price of food has risen in that same period by well over 17 per cent.

In the Throne Speech of March, 1974, introduced by the Conservative government, inflation was dismissed as a problem. It was also cast aside in the Throne Speech of 1973. The comments of the Throne Speech in 1974 can only be dealt with in a national context.

Every member of this Legislature has read or received complaints concerning the numerous comments by experts and government leaders and consumers as to the inflation impact on our everyday living. We all agree that some price increases are the result of international economic forces that are beyond the province’s control. But the influence of government action in every jurisdiction can soften the impact of inflation. With more than $8 billion in annual expenditures, this government has the responsibility to counteract the high prices of consumer goods throughout the province.

Since the election of 1971 and the buoyant years in our economy, the Premier and his cabinet have failed to show the strength of leadership that is clearly required to bring about some measures of stability to our economy and to reduce the high inflationary costs that face every citizen and in many instances cause undue hardship to those who can least afford it. Instead the Premier’s economic policies have reinforced the already heavy inflationary pressures in our society. The government’s financial forecast as outlined in the Throne Speech and its proposals are in a quandary of remorse, uncertainty and embarrassment.

The first page of the address states:

“For the first time in many years, the long prevailing prosperity and buoyant growth of the Province of Ontario have been challenged. Because of unprecedented inflation abroad and here in Canada, and because of world recession, Ontario is presently confronted by economic conditions which will call for strong and decisive response from the people and from this government.”

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): We are not getting it from Ottawa. We will have to get it somewhere.

Mr. Haggerty: We won’t get it from here because it has been lacking for the last two or three years.

The second paragraph of the Throne Speech certainly does single out the group or body that is wholly or partly responsible for the inflationary pressures in Ontario. The government is bold enough to chastise labour as the culprit. I might read that second paragraph, Mr. Speaker. It says:

“From the people we must have moderation and restraint in the pricing of goods and services and in wage contract negotiations to help stem these inflationary pressures and maintain our competitive position in world markets.”

To my knowledge, this is the only time that labour has been mentioned in any Throne Speech and it is a disgrace by the government to single out labour as the responsible party. But again this is typical of the government not to shoulder any responsibility for an extravagant economic policy. We in this Legislature have seen this economic policy of the government continue for the past 36 months, or in fact since this Premier took over the reins of the Robarts government. We have seen this government bring in supplementary budgets year after year. The budget deficit for the year 1974 alone is estimated at $850 million, the highest in provincial history.

I suppose if one takes everything into focus the modern economic Conservative is no longer a budget balancer. Many experts in the field of economics have stated any expenditures of government in excess of current revenue were to be shown in the budgets as deficit and that budget deficits were injurious to the health of the economy and must be shunned as far as possible.

Living beyond our means surely does not improve our economy and once such practices are pursued by a body like this government which is privilege-bent to its own policy decisions with impunity, it may well be rather dangerous to our present economy now or in the near future. For this administration to continue with budget deficits year after year certainly adds to the spiralling cost of inflation as a fiscal nightmare.

The present administration has done little, if anything, to control this specific cancer. Many members concerned for the wellbeing of this province know that over a short period of any recession there is a possibility of a downward swing in government revenue and that possibility may occur at any time. Such a deficit must be covered or protected by a surplus realized during expansionary growth periods by the private sector and the government.

But for some unknown reason, this government’s policy is to spend and spend during a buoyant economy, especially when the private sector is expanding at a rapid rate and will add to the full employment.

There is a common knowledge that in any slow growth period or recession when unemployment is on the increase, as it is now in Ontario, government does not apply restraint but primes the economy to maintain full employment.

Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate that the United States government through tax reductions and rebates will put some $33 billion, the highest in American history, back into the pockets of the consumers and corporations in an effort to create full employment in the United States, following the principles established by the federal minister, John Turner. But the Premier and his cabinet colleagues have taken their usual approach to solving important issues by criticizing federal economic policy.

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the government will play the waiting game to see how much of the tax cuts taken by the United States government will add to the windfall of productivity here in Ontario. Times have been so good here in Ontario and throughout certain other provinces in Canada that Canadians do have the highest --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): They sure can’t run a railway.

Mr. Haggerty: -- earned income of any developing country throughout the world. We are well aware of the exceptionally good period of economic conditions in the past three years for the private sector and that expansionary growth patterns have been able to obtain large corporation profits in a buoyant economy well above the annual production gains.

I know that sometimes this is noted as a ripoff in a number of instances. This government has not moved in any direction to control the cartels in the Province of Ontario. They did not move in to take a look at the price-fixing that goes on. They have not brought in any legislation that perhaps will control the combines.

I know this perhaps is a federal matter, but again there have been no charges laid in the Province of Ontario for this exorbitant increase in prices here in Ontario. Perhaps it’s caused by many of those that I mentioned previously. But to single out labour as responsible for the present economic crisis is unjustified.

This year 3,107 Ontario collective bargaining agreements will expire. Expiring agreements cover almost half a million employees, or 47 per cent of those working under union contracts in Ontario; a crucial year for both management and employees, for bargaining in 1975 will take place in an economic climate that is dominated by rapidly rising prices, an indication to the experts in economics that the cost of living will not recede here in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, inflation has cut deeply into the gains in workers’ incomes in Ontario. The public is deeply concerned about the current bargaining conditions throughout Ontario pertaining to both the industrial scene and to the Crown employees at all levels of government. I’m interested in a release by Statistics Canada dated Jan. 2, 1975. It says:

“Work stoppages in Canada during October, 1974, resulted in a loss of 752,800 working days. The time lost brings the 10-month total for 1974 to 8.9 million man-days -- a record figure for the year. This is in comparison to the year 1973, with 7.3 million man-days lost. The 1974 figure represents 40 per cent increase above the previous year.”

This represents a substantial loss of income to both employees and employers, as well as governments. No doubt this loss of earning adds further fuel to inflation. This additional loss of income to families causes undue hardship in most cases, when already the employee’s income has been seriously eroded by the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hardships and the frustrations that strike-bound employees have encountered -- and strikes in Ontario have been known to be bitter ones -- in obtaining a fair settlement, particularly under present economic conditions in an inflationary environment.

We in the Liberal Party strongly endorse the principles of free collective bargaining and feel that strikes are an integral part of the collective bargaining system. Bargaining must be in good faith. Sometimes it has failed -- not in great numbers -- but enough to arouse the general public’s interest to demand government intervention to end long periods of disruption and labour disputes and produce a more rational system of order.

Even top American union officials -- such as president George Meany, AFL, president Walter Abel, CIO, and the United Steelworkers of America -- have called for a review of the recurring cycle of bargaining charades. They are seeking approved, rational means of settling their differences without inconvenience to either party or the public, who are the most concerned.

The Liberal Party of Ontario supports the position of promoting new patterns in collective bargaining. The highest priority must be given to promoting continued consultation and negotiations between labour and management throughout the life of the contract. Enabling legislation must provide for early mediation at the request of either party, and continued mediation for the period of the contract.

We have long recommended the establishment of a tri-party commission -- composed of representatives of labour, management and government -- to sit continuously in any place in Ontario during a labour dispute and to be continuously active at all times. The commission’s objectives would be to ensure and to interpret technology changes, industrial mergers and takeovers which can result in industrial closures and large-scale layoff.

Perhaps if we were to have that initiative provided by the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) we wouldn’t have the strike problems at Standard Tube in Woodstock. I believe the Ministry of Labour should have been working there very closely to assist both parties to get back to the bargaining table to allow full employment to continue in that particular industry.

I attended a seminar on labour in Guelph. A member from the Conservative Party, a member from the NDP and myself were present. I remember the Conservative Party member standing up and saying: “The present Minister of Labour is gutless. The previous minister before him was gutless, and the previous one before that minister was gutless.” He said they would not get involved in the labour issue. In other words, they would not take the bull by the horns and take an active part in any labour dispute. The game was to wait and see.

Well, sometimes you can wait and see and wait until industry closes its doors because of the lack of initiative by the Minister of Labour. His responsibility is not to corporations but to the labourers, the working people of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we must protect employees whose collective bargaining rights are threatened. They must not be restricted in negotiations. This applies to Crown employees in particular and to Bill 105, the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, which removes the right to strike from all government employees. The Liberal position in this particular labour environment is that employees in essential services -- which include police and firefighters and perhaps there are a few other ones -- discard collective bargaining and substitute binding arbitration. In this context of bargaining rights, I strongly insist that the government provide additional financing for the Ministry of Labour to provide sufficient staff, trained as competent conciliators and mediators. We should insist on more effective intervention by the Minister of Labour, along with his senior mediators, to act as an ombudsman to endeavour to bring about an agreement as speedily as possible, with broad powers to act as an arbitrator and to be available seven days a week throughout the Province of Ontario.

There is no need to have labour and management confrontations on our streets in Ontario, Matters of great concern to the public must be settled in a new labour court atmosphere without the delays that are now present in the Labour Relations Act. Ontario surely needs complete review of all labour legislation.

One other suggestion that we should be looking at at the present time though labour legislation, which is enforced in the United States, particularly under the Taft-Hartley Act, is an emergency cooling-off period for strikes that are considered injurious to the public’s interest. The strike may be postponed for a period of 60 days allowing the federal mediators and conciliators to take the time to assist in obtaining a settlement while the employees continue to work.

During the Throne debate of almost one year ago, 1974, the Leader of the Opposition moved, seconded by the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) the following words to be added to the motion: “For its failure to establish a prices review committee of the Legislature which, together with a reduction in provincial deficit spending would exert control on inflation.” That’s a very reasonable approach to providing guidelines in order to bring about orderly growth in the Ontario economic environment.

What is required now is some initiative by all governments to review and implement institutional machinery to bring about price stability in our economic climate suitable for our primary industry -- for example, the automobile and the steel industries.

In particular I want to make a few comments related to our neighbours to the south where they have had success in such a programme. There should be a wage and price review board initially armed with authority to investigate price and wage decisions in enumerated industries which would hopefully represent the public interest. We need guidelines to urge unions and industries to limit their demands and annual productivity gains, particularly by unions even if a particular industry has improved its efficiency more rapidly than others in the province or in all Canada.

The guidelines I have suggested by no means are the sole answer to halt inflation but would assist in controlling it on reasonable terms. The problem now existing in the automobile industry in Ontario in my opinion, could have been controlled and it could still maintain full employment. The contract settlement between the United Automobile Workers and their employees in 1974 in the United States resulted in gains of 4.9 per cent for workers at a time when the wage guidelines recommended 3.2 per cent.

For their part, the automobile manufacturers’ spectacular productivity gains led them to very large profits but they failed to lower their product prices accordingly. I suppose there is a lesson to be learned by this. If the automobile industry had reduced its prices of automobiles as it has in the last two or three months, the employment rate in the automobile industry would have been at full force today.

I think it is typical of everything else. Whatever the traffic will bear, they will charge the consumer for that commodity. This is particularly so in the automobile industry. I think they have out-priced themselves in moving their cars. The proposals have actually worked with reasonable success and have been the wage-price guideposts in the United States in certain commodities and labour.

In the steel industry in the United States, for example, they use this type of approach to wage and price controls. The steel industry there has an agreement, which I believe runs out in 1976, whereby management and labour agreed upon a certain percentage increase in wages and profits, and it has worked very well. In fact, the federal government of the United States has stepped in on two or three different occasions and said to the steel companies, “Roll back your prices,” And they have rolled them back. In the meantime, wages have not increased at a rate that would add to the inflationary process in the United States.

A price guidepost instructs businessmen to maintain existing prices if productivity in their enterprise matches the national average, to raise their prices if they have done less well, and to lower them if they have reaped substantial gains, more substantial than their counterparts.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few other comments that I’d like to add in this debate. In particular, I want to comment on paragraph three on page four of the Throne Speech, which reads:

“The government will seek the co-operation of law enforcement agencies and the general public so that the cities and streets will remain among the safest and most secure in North America.”

I think this is particularly true in Metropolitan Toronto, where the tourists who come to this city think it’s one of the greatest places to visit.

It is pretty safe to walk the streets at night, and I hope it continues that way. But I am deeply concerned about the remarks of this particular paragraph, and I’m not quite sure, if one is to interpret the paragraph, that it does not indicate a police state. I hope not.

Mr. Speaker, I support the motion put forth by the Leader of the Opposition, that this House regrets the failure of the government to enunciate a programme to moderate the combined effects of unemployment and inflation on our people and the economy; the lack of a clear commitment to co-operate with the government of Canada and the municipalities to inaugurate a housing programme that would significantly reverse the downward trend in housing starts; the absence of a clear commitment and programme to stop the waste in government spending caused by duplication of services, overlapping of government jurisdictions and bad administrative judgement; the absence of action to improve general labour-management negotiating procedures, which have been so detrimental to our economy; and the failure to enunciate a clear policy for the retention of agricultural land in production with compensation for landholders affected.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will concede to some other hon. member who wishes to join the debate.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I must say, and I’ll say it rather quickly, I regret the organization of the House business is such that the last six or eight speakers have about 20 minutes with respect to the remarks they wish to make in this debate if each speaker is going to be fair to the other. I can see no reason why we shouldn’t continue on next week and treat this Throne Speech debate with the proper importance and seriousness with which it is usually treated. Perhaps we would have had a lot of time if some of the other speakers hadn’t gone on for 2½ hours.

Briefly, this is one of the most lacklustre Throne Speeches I’ve ever encountered. It contains nothing concrete except the proposal for an ombudsperson, and who knows when we’re going to get that. It’s reminiscent of some of the promises that one had prior to the 1971 election, where having promised it in the minds of Ontario people, it’s assumed to be there. This may well be the situation with the ombudsperson.

Apart from making very vague references to services to the elderly and social benefits affected by inflation, measures to provide farmers with assurances of a profitable operation -- I don’t know how they are going to do that. None of these vague promises filled out in the flesh; there is no meat on any of the bones. The Speech from the Throne was a real bomb. It talked about encouraging home ownership and yet the minimum salaries to qualify continue to escalate well beyond the point where the average person in Ontario could consider home ownership.

One of the areas which it completely neglected to mention was the area of labour. They didn’t completely neglect it, in the sense that they tried to blame all inflation upon labour rather than even mentioning prices. There wasn’t anything in the speech which would appear to suggest a control or even an investigation of the prices. They blamed labour and wages for it, which is typical of this government and, of course, not a proper analysis of the economy whatsoever.

Also in this field of labour, there was nothing about what they were going to do with the Labour Relations Act. It’s now almost five years since it was dealt with at all.

The other area of concern in its lack of mention in the Throne Speech is the entire area of women and their rights and their equality. The only reference is that there will be a deliberate policy to find greater opportunity for women within the public service. How much attention was paid to that was made very evident by the leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis), when a few days later he asked various cabinet members who the woman was in their department who was dealing with this and creating a greater opportunity for women within their particular ministry, and the ministers could not recall any of their names and had to go out and look it up and report back.

In fact, their reporting back revealed that they really hadn’t been informed.

It was a memo sent to the deputy minister, and presumably the deputy minister didn’t think it important enough or a serious enough matter to even let the minister know who that person was in the ministry who was going to provide a greater opportunity for women within that ministry. So that’s how much attention this government pays to opportunities for women and the role that women have within Ontario’s society at the moment. Here it falls very short and is one of the most disappointing areas. Progress toward equality for women continues to be very slow and very inadequate, and nowhere in this country is it slower than in Ontario.

The response by the government to the Ontario Law Reform Commission report, brought out in February of last year, was pitiful. Their only response was to bring in a bill which effectively allowed one spouse to sue the other. In terms of a marital breakup, perhaps if one spouse happens to break the nose or a leg of another in a dispute I can see where it might be of very small use -- perhaps of some use for the injured spouse to sue the other -- but that’s really the step forward that it took.

It took another minor step forward, but it was almost a step backward in so doing. It reviewed the Murdoch case in Alberta, which came before the Supreme Court. Because the case was cast in the terms of the wife having worked on the family farm -- and therefore had some rights in ownership of that farm owing to her because of her actual work on the farm, the case had to be decided by the Supreme Court within those narrow limits: Is there a contribution? When there is a contribution from one spouse should that spouse -- the wife in this case -- benefit from that contribution? The whole case was looked at in that light and there was a very good dissent by Bora Laskin in the decision, in which he said that that contribution should clearly be taken into consideration. But they weren’t considering, in that case, the overall partnership in a marriage; that was not the case before them. If they were, I suspect that Chief Justice Bora Laskin would have spoken to that wider issue.

In its report, the Ontario Law Reform Commission made it very clear that marriage was an equal partnership and at the time of divorce or nullity the assets acquired since marriage should he evenly divided between both spouses. But did this government take the Ontario Law Reform Commission attitude? No, they took the very narrow case taken by the Supreme Court and said in the bill which they presented that if a wife got involved in the husband’s business, running the farm of helping to keep the store, then a careful accounting of that time spent would be eligible for some share in the division of the particular property arising from that particular business. They took the wrong conclusion from the dissent of Chief Justice Laskin, and we’re going to apply it all across Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, I introduced a private member’s bill in the last session and will reintroduce it in this session, An Act to establish Matrimonial Property Rights. I took the Ontario Law Reform Commission attitude that marriage is a partnership in which both husband and wife work together as equals, and one spouse’s contribution to the undertaking -- even if, in the case of the wife, her only contribution is running the home and looking after the children -- is just as valuable as that of the other spouse in providing the home and supporting the family and sustaining the marriage as a partnership and an entity.

At the time then of divorce or annulment, my bill would require that the assets acquired since that marriage be divided equally between them. It goes on in other areas to provide for some exceptions, for example, gifts or inheritances to one of the spouses, although the income produced in the capital appreciation of such would be considered part of the division. In the case of a business being involved, if that business was threatened by an equal division all at one time, there would be up to three years from the date of the order of the judge by which the total share of that could be brought forward. Any payments would not, of course, be affected by the subsequent remarriage of either of them.

It would also stipulate that for a year prior to the commencing of the divorce suit no gifts could be given to third parties or such gifts would have to be taken into account in the division. This is the fair way to proceed.

Also, in the submission of the new bill which I will bring in, I would ensure that in the case of the matrimonial home -- and that has been well defined -- one spouse while they’re married -- and it would apply if there was a divorce or annulment or until that is settled -- could not sell the matrimonial home without the consent of the other.

The Ontario Status of Women Council’s views are a little stronger on this than what mine are. They would say, irrespective of the initial ownership of that house or its registration, that, in fact, the ownership was equal. I take the view that if a spouse happens to own a house before marriage, when marriage occurs that house is still that spouse’s house. Any increase in appreciation of that house would be divided equally, but per se one shouldn’t take a house previously owned by a spouse and upon marriage say that that is now half the other spouse’s. I would prefer to go along with the Ontario Law Reform Commission report in that small respect. At the same time, unless by court order, one spouse could not sell the matrimonial home without the consent of the other spouse. I think that is very valid.

As well, in this whole area I think we’re well at the time when marriage contracts should be provided, to be signed at the time of marriage or, lacking that formality, that the marriage certificate provide an outline of the property law as it exists in Ontario, so that couples entering into marriage, particularly the women thereto, know their full property rights. At the moment in Ontario, there is a great lack of knowledge of property rights.

There is also another problem in this area which, in a border city, perhaps is a little more obvious than in other municipalities or rural areas in Ontario. Windsor being a border crossing city, in the whole area of maintenance and support payments by deserted husbands we have the problem of the deserting father fleeing across the border, which is one very easy way of avoiding maintenance and alimony payments. They’re extremely difficult to collect. Most deserted women are not in a position to afford the moneys to take court actions in two different jurisdictions. Legal aid is provided only for legal expenses in Canada and the courts on both sides of the border are slow to act in this area.

A bunch of signatures of concerned women in Windsor were collected under the leadership of three women, Mrs. F. Mercer, Mrs. B. Close and Mrs. Marylou Cooper, on a petition which was sent to Laura Sabia of the Ontario Status of Women Council. She was quite impressed and has promised to press this before the Ontario Law Reform Commission and other groups which she is addressing on this particular area of maintenance and support payments. I’ll read the resolutions rather quickly; they are not too long.

“Whereas the default of maintenance and support payments creates injustice and undue complications and hardship be it resolved that in the event of default of maintenance and/or support payments the onus be on the Minister of Community and Social Services for adequate maintenance and court action under section 6, of the Deserted Wives and Children’s Maintenance Act.”

The second resolution was on tracing the delinquent ex-spouse and I feel that this is very important.

“It is resolved that the province, in conjunction with the federal government, arrange access to the provincial and federal income tax returns in order to allow the tracing of the delinquent ex-spouse. This would be upon court order and all information, save the address and the employment status, would remain the confidentiality of the court.”

This is the only way, I think, one could trace deserting husbands to other localities in Ontario or to wherever they’ve gone. A third resolution speaks to where they go:

“Be it resolved that the Province of Ontario and the government of Canada make representations to other foreign states [this is particularly important in Windsor] to expand the number of foreign jurisdictions willing to subscribe to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1970, chapter 403, or any other similar statutes or treaties; and these jurisdictions as well as those already agreed to in the aforementioned Act be encouraged to enforce these agreements and that the Province of Ontario give serious consideration to providing whatever support necessary, be it financial or otherwise, towards that end.”

In other words to set up some real reciprocal agreements about tracing deserting husbands or ex-spouses to wherever they have deserted; to be able to go to their income tax returns as far as concerns getting addresses for the tracing; and to require reasonable payments by them.

I find this to be very reasonable and it should be embraced by our particular jurisdiction here in Ontario.

The Province of Ontario does have agreements, as it works out, with New York State, I believe, and with Michigan. But the courts act very slowly in these cases and it’s difficult to fight court actions in both jurisdictions. Some real attention needs to be given to this area particularly when in 1973 -- I’m not sure if it was the calendar year or the fiscal year 1973-1974 -- it was shown that $7 million ordered by the courts was not collected from delinquent ex-spouses. Some real savings can accrue to the province if it would set up a system to pursue these delinquent ex-spouses and see that those payments were made. By not so doing it cost the Province of Ontario $7 million in that particular year.

One other area I would wish to speak on rather briefly -- I’m sorry I do not have much more time for this -- is the case of an ex-civil servant. That’s not clear; let’s say a civil servant who is no longer working for the province. The case of Andrew Putnocki from Windsor is an example of how the government treats its civil servants and the incredible mixed-up way it handled his particular firing.

Mr. B. Newman: The way he was treated is a real disgrace.

Mr. Bounsall: The procedures were and are abominable and I’m sure he is not the only example of the kind of treatment and lack of procedures being followed by the Ontario government in letting its civil servants go.

The government went about it in all the wrong way; that is the most favourable thing we could say about this gentleman and the government in its handling of his case. I haven’t the time to give the entire background here in deference to other members who wish to speak, but I’ll do the best I can in the short time available.

This gentleman became a civil servant in 1970, a rehabilitation counsellor in the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Three appraisals were made of this gentleman between then and the middle of July, 1971, by the regional supervisor, and all were favourable.

In June, 1971, a new boss arrived on the scene, a new supervisor of the Windsor office. Apparently they didn’t get along right from the start, and the first inkling we have of Mr. Putnocki’s not being adequate was from this particular supervisor. It appears that he was a very good social worker but he didn’t keep up with his paperwork very well and, as a result, he was not a very good bureaucrat. From then on the reports, started to go downhill. In May, 1972, there was an evaluation of Mr. Putnocki, concluding with his recommendation for dismissal because he wasn’t a very good bureaucrat. The deputy minister ordered a hearing, which was held.

In August, 1972, an incredible thing happened: He was informed that his annual salary increase was being deferred for six months. To make a long story a little bit shorter, he appeared before the public service grievance board and subsequently in a divisional court case. On that particular point, the grievance board said the ministry acted without authority and contrary to Civil Service Commission directives. Here we have a suspension of the annual salary increase for six months. Mr. Andrew Putnocki grieved it, and the assistant director was sent to investigate this complaint and others. The director of personnel, on receiving the report on Sept. 13, suspended Mr. Putnocki without pay. That’s an interesting point. The Public Service Act states that only the deputy minister can suspend.

There is no trace of the director of personnel of Community and Social Services having been given the authority to suspend without pay and no trace that the deputy minister had so authorized.

The director of personnel sent a letter on Sept. 27, saying there would be a hearing on Oct. 4 to discuss his dismissal and Oct 5 to consider the three grievances, which certainly is a little backwards, if I may say so. It’s not surprising that Mr. Putnocki and the CSAO would say, “Look, how can you deal with the dismissal grievance when you haven’t dealt with the three grievances prior to that, some of which led perhaps to a decision to dismiss?”

Finally, they went to the public service grievance board, and that board, spoke rather toughly about some of the procedures followed and particularly stated that the six-month salary increase deferral was quite illegal, although it upheld the decision to dismiss.

No transcript was kept of the public service grievance board decision. They refused to let Mr. Putnocki have witnesses. They refused to let any person but one speak at that time with respect to the charges. I’m not saying that this board is incapable of a good decision, but they allowed only one person to speak. The lawyer for Mr. Putnocki was not allowed to speak, and witnesses brought along were not allowed to speak. How they could arrive at a decision that was valid, I have no way of knowing.

Mr. Foulds: A positively shameful procedure.

Mr. Bounsall: Finally, when it was appealed to the Ontario Supreme Court, the Supreme Court divisional court said that the dismissal hearing was not legally conducted or authorized and that senior officers of the ministry, including the deputy minister, did not properly carry out the mandatory requirements of the civil service regulations according to either their letter or their spirit. “Their attempts to do so,” said the court -- and this is a marvellous piece of understatement -- “were inept.”

In its final decision, the divisional court said with respect to the handling of the public service grievance board hearing that although the procedures carried out by the ministry were inept, they ruled that it followed a previous court case that once there, all grievances prior to the one for the dismissal as well as the dismissal could all be taken into account at the same time. That’s a debatable decision and perhaps may well be appealed at some point, but that was their decision in that respect. Therefore, with no new evidence allowed at that level of court, they upheld the decision.

Another interesting comment they made was that they had to take whatever evidence was presented, by way of I don’t know what, because it commented several times throughout the decision that they had to make assumptions as to what happened at that grievance board because there was no transcript.

The final injustice in all of this, Mr. Speaker -- and I will end my remarks rather shortly so that others can talk -- was that when a decision of the grievance board is made, before that person is let go it must be commented upon, accepted or rejected by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and a letter sent to the person fired, upholding or not upholding the decision of the grievance board. That was never done. So really Mr. Putnocki still has never been legally fired in spite of all the lousy procedures followed.

The deputy minister and the staff were, in the divisional court decision, spoken quite strongly to over the way they handled I themselves. He’s never yet been fired, and this is really acknowledged in the very first line of the divisional court statement. The applicant, Andrew Putnocki is a civil servant; he’s never been fired. Under Section 51 of the Act, the determination of the board is final but subject to the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. He’s never received his firing.

Irrespective of what the courts may be able to do -- and I think he’s perhaps reached the end of his tether there, Mr. Speaker -- the comments which the board can make and have made about the ministry and their procedures, and the fact that he is a civil servant, I think demands some justice from the cabinet and they have been appealed to on this matter. I would certainly think from the time that Mr. Putnocki appealed his decision, on Nov. 5, 1972, to take it to the grievance board, to this very day, or until at least the end of the Supreme Court divisional court decision, he should be paid his wages for that entire time, because it’s clear that lousy procedures were followed.

I would say to the cabinet that in their consideration of this appeal they take very much into account the circumstances and the procedures and the fact that he’s never been fired, in what they finally decide to do. I would suggest they be very lenient and show some mercy to this person whom they have kicked about incredibly.

It could happen to any other civil servant in this province, because we have no real safeguards against it. Believe me, when we get the ombudsperson appointed, this -- and I suspect many other cases of firings -- will be the first thing that will be on this person’s platter to deal with. In other jurisdictions where this has occurred, they have in fact dealt with cases of this sort, that have been of long standing, and dealt with them in a way which was beneficial to the person applying. So they could short-circuit that system and give some mercy now, rather than waiting for their own ombudsperson.

I regret, Mr. Speaker, that there’s not more time to speak on other topics here. I’ll just touch very briefly, on one of them. I don’t agree with the view of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) on mopeds in this province. The least he could have done was to require that helmets be worn by these 14 year olds and others who ride them. He could at least have done that. The second step which he should at least have taken was to have a licensing programme to see that the people owning them and driving them were in fact capable of driving them; a driving test for those who would have that licence. I suspect that not too many children are going to be killed by these mopeds -- that is, being struck by them -- but the persons who are going to be hurt are those driving them, as they collide with automobiles, telephone poles, etc. They will become very widespread this summer, and we don’t even require that helmets be worn, nor do we test the vehicles to see that they can be properly driven. I am sure that the municipalities will license them as they do bicycles.

My last point is that I cannot understand how the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) could continue to say that parts of Windsor and Essex county, which have regionalized themselves for sewer service should not get the grants that go to regional governments for this purpose. There is a large section of Windsor and parts of the county east of Windsor which have established a regional sewer system. The Treasurer refuses to admit that there has been regionalization to that extent.

Out in the county, the same is true of the water system. They have really got a regional water system. Because the county has not called itself a region yet, the Treasurer will not say: “Here’s the equivalent grant that would go to regional municipalities which have done the exact same thing you have done.” The Treasurer is being very stubborn here, and unreasonably so. This is a point at issue between the government and the people of Windsor and Essex county which will not be forgotten.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the few minutes that I have at my disposal, I want first to make comments concerning the Throne Speech.

In the number of years I have been here, never have I heard so little said in so many words. Other than the comment and the suggestion by the government of taking over a suggestion from the hon. member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), the Throne Speech was completely bereft of any type of policy or programme.

When the members opposite come along and talk on the Throne Speech, I wonder how they talk on nothing. As a result, I would suggest to each and every one of them that they read the suggested amendment, proposed by my leader on page 120 of Hansard, and let their conscience be their guide and support that amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Windsor West brought up the case of Andrew Putnocki. I too am quite aware of that problem. I know Andrew Putnocki personally. In my estimation, it certainly was a very shameful way in which the government did treat the dismissal of a man who, in my estimation, is very capable and was performing his job in a satisfactory fashion. I think the cabinet should rethink the decision and restore Andrew Putnocki to his former job.

Mr. Speaker, within the past year the problem of asbestos seemed to have been quite a going thing. It was the popular thing. May I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a press report in March, 1966 -- I don’t know the exact date in March -- from the Toronto Globe:

“A study by Dr. Irwin J. Selikoff at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York suggested asbestos dust is a health hazard for workers exposed to it and their families. Autopsies on 1,100 persons in three cities showed that 25 per cent had asbestos lodged in their lungs.”

This doctor indicated in his studies that asbestos was linked to cancer and is definitely a health hazard. On March 4, 1966, Mr. Speaker -- March 4, 1966 -- I asked the then Minister of Health concerning the health hazards of asbestos. So the issue was well in the minds of the Ministry of Health at that date. That is almost nine years to the date.

Mr. Speaker, nothing was done on the part of the ministry concerning the dangers of asbestos. Back in 1971, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations of the day was Mr. Arthur Wishart. I asked of him in the estimates debates if he was aware of the use of asbestos in the manufacture of ladies’ coats. I also told him at that time that there was the health hazard and there was the cancer hazard with the use of this, or the potential hazard in wearing coats that had asbestos fibres mixed in with the cloth in the weaving and the manufacture of the coat. At that time he was unaware of the thing and said he would look into it and he would have the matter investigated. But you can see, Mr. Speaker, from 1966 nothing was done until 1971, and from 1971 nothing was done until today. Now the government of the day is aware of the asbestos problem.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to talk on another --

Mr. Speaker: Will you please conclude.

Mr. B. Newman: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Speaker: We wish to adjourn the debate.

Mr. B. Newman: All right. I’m finishing now, and I can go back.

Mr. B. Newman moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, the administrator of the province awaits to attend the chamber to give royal assent to certain bills.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. G. A. Gale (Chief Justice of Ontario): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the legislative assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said legislative assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

The Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 4, An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act

Bill 8, An Act to amend the Pollution Abatement Incentive Act

Bill 12, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, 1974.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Administrator of the province doth assent to these bills.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, prior to my adjourning the House I would like to say that the business for Monday, April 7, has been announced; and I think all members are apprised of your generosity on the adjournment of the House. I think we might proceed to that stage of business, which really isn’t an item of business. I am prepared to trust that all members will have a very nice holiday, a restive holiday, and return ready to work.

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

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would not have cut my comments short had the House leader decided to do this because I still had part of an issue to raise in the House. I would suggest that we proceed until 6 o’clock.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it your invitation is for 5:30 and it is now 10 past 5.

Mr. Speaker: Everyone is right, of course, this afternoon. Is it still the wish to adjourn? In which case I presume the hon. member will be able to continue his remarks on April 7.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have asked for the adjournment of the House. The member adjourned the debate; he has the floor when the House reconvenes.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there’s a topic I wanted to discuss. I consented to the House leader intentionally, out of courtesy, to allow the hon. gentleman to come in and give royal assent to the various pieces of legislation.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I want to rise on a point of order, and the point that I want to take up with the minister is the ad hoc disposition of the business of the House.

The fact of the matter is we sat here and the House leader of our party was apprised of the fact that we had three more speakers. They obviously were expediting their remarks to come within that time frame. I know there was no intimation from the government House leader to the official opposition House leader, and I don’t think to the NDP House leader, that there was any intention to adjourn the House. The fact of the matter is that motion is not debatable. We can’t even get into the consequences of it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, if I might, by way of explanation, it’s not that important to me. I am prepared to suggest to the House that we sit until 5:30. I might say that I certainly had indicated earlier what I planned for today and also for Monday, April 7. There is no question about that.

However, that really doesn’t matter. If the member is that keen to proceed, I think the House will agree.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. minister withdraw the motion then?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I do, yes.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is withdrawn.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, just for the moment on that. I understand there are three members who still have remarks they would wish to make. If we could agree to hear those three members out, even though it might go a few moments past 5:30, we will then have completed the debate other than the wind-up and I think we will be back on the track, if that will be convenient.

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

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House leader for consenting to allow us to continue our speeches.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): It is all in the spirit of the Passover.

An hon. member: The minister had better head for home.

Mr. B. Newman: Out of courtesy I had decided to allow the procedure to take place. I could have carried on my comments, but I don’t want to waste time now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read into the record just a few headlines. For example: “Third Traffic Holdup by Train Charged.” Another: “Remington Park Residents Protest Rail Path Closing.”

Mr. Speaker, I bring these to your attention because this will show to you the harsh, the cruel, the inconsiderate approach used by big business -- and in this instance it happens to be the CPR -- in coming along and doing things without the knowledge of the public concerned. They just ride roughshod; they do as they please.

Mr. Speaker, I own a piece of property yet I can’t do with that piece of property what I would like. I have to go through certain procedures before I can do anything on it. CPR should have to do exactly the same thing. Simply because they own the right of way in a given area doesn’t mean that they can come along on that right of way and do what they please.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There’s quite a bit of noise in the Legislature. The hon. member.

Mr. B. Newman: I was pleased to see the Environmental Assessment Act being introduced into the Legislature, however it will have no effect on a procedure such as this. It will have no effect on CPR’s actions. But I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, to show how big business, in this instance, completely disregarded the community.

In the area in which I live -- and I may have a conflict of interest so to speak, because I live fairly close, within 1,000 feet of a railroad track -- CPR owns the right of way. The right of way was a single track used to transport freight and passengers in and out of Windsor and the city of Detroit. All of a sudden CPR decided they were going to triple track the area, so they built two parallel lines with the main track in the centre. And now, all of a sudden, they’ve decided they’re going to use this for a marshalling yard.

Little did they realize -- I shouldn’t say little did they realize; they should have realized -- that they had the right of way available in an area that was not populated. It was in a commercial or a manufacturing area. But all of a sudden they wanted to expand it right in a residential area. As a result, Mr. Speaker, the people got up in arms and petitioned both the federal and the provincial members to come along and attempt to stop the CPR from doing this.

I would like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, the letter sent to me by one constituent. Here it is:

“I live in the South Walkerville area in Windsor on Lincoln Rd. Lincoln Rd. ends at the CPR right of way, one half block from my home. This area, as you may know, is one of the nicer residential areas in the city, with homes that range from $50,000 to possibly $100,000 in value.

“Recently the CPR has constructed two parallel lines beside the existing rail line, and they are now using these rail lines to shunt freight trains and freight cars. Needless to say this is causing some considerable disturbance with the noise, with the unsightliness of the freight cars and with the diesel pollution in the air.

“The sad part of this is that just east of Walker Rd. there is vast area of undeveloped field and a factory area that could very well have accommodated this type of railway manoeuvring. Undoubtedly someone in the higher echelons of the CPR who probably doesn’t live within many miles of a railroad track made the decision to put these rails where they are.

“I think it is unfortunate that Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other large corporation, proceeds with such development without taking into account the harmful effect that they have on such a nice residential area.”

CPR was the same company that interfered with three ambulances by stopping its trains on a highway. It was fortunate that the ambulances weren’t involved in any emergency manoeuvres at the time, otherwise it could have been extremely serious. The city has protested, and Ald. Tom Toth has discussed it in council; but what do you do with CPR? They are a body to themselves, and they attempt to dictate to government.

Mr. Speaker, any time any kind of change is going to take place in a given area, the people in the area should be circularized or notified that the company or organization is going to make changes; public meetings should be held to describe what they intend to do and alternatives --

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That’s up to the Canadian Transport Commission in Ottawa.

Mr. B. Newman: I know it comes under the Canadian Transport Commission, but I’m bringing it to the attention of the Speaker so that the Environmental Assessment Act possibly could apply to the railway companies and the harmful effects they create by disregarding the rights of citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to use my 20 minutes, because I want the other two speakers to have a fair share of the time, but I do want to bring to the attention of the government the plight of the city of Windsor in relation to the construction of sewage and water projects.

In 1972 I brought to the attention of the present provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) -- and he was the provincial Treasurer at that time -- the concern of the city when they looked at the way the Ottawa-Carleton region was being treated and asked for similar treatment. They wanted a one-third grant from the Province of Ontario as well as a one-third grant from the federal government towards the development of provincial sewage and water lines.

The city council in Windsor, under the leadership of Mayor Bert Weeks, has asked the provincial Treasurer to treat the city of Windsor in the same way as a regional government, but apparently to date there has been no change in his attitude.

The Windsor Utilities Commission, under the chairmanship of Murray Whelpton, has likewise petitioned the government for assistance in the construction of a filtration plant and in the development of transmission lines.

The government says that Windsor is not a regional government. That may be true, but why should we come along and penalize an area because it isn’t regional? The utilities commission, for instance, really operates on a regional basis. For example, if the construction of the filtration plant were solely for the residents of Windsor, it could be substantially smaller. It is going to take care of the townships of Sandwich West and Sandwich South, the town of Tecumseh and the village of St. Clair Beach. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, one can really say that development is on a regional basis.

It may not be on as big a regional basis as is development in the regional governments, but it still is on a regional basis. I don’t think the citizens in Windsor should be penalized simply because there is no regional government in there. They are the ones to decide whether they should or shouldn’t have regional government. In the meantime, they should be treated in exactly the same fashion as are residents in any of the regional governments. It is absolutely unfair.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to bring up the problem of unemployment in the city of Windsor and the extremely harmful effect it has had on the economy of the community as well as the harmful social effects it has on those who now find themselves without employment.

Too often people think the auto worker has it made. He’s getting unemployment insurance and he’s getting supplementary unemployment benefits. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, not all of them are getting all these benefits. As a result, many of them are finding the days extremely difficult.

I think that the provincial government, in co-operation with the federal government, should undertake retraining programmes for those who are unemployed now but who can he trained for other jobs that can be found, not necessarily in the community but throughout the length and breadth of Canada.

For example, I understand that in Alberta the unemployment situation is practically next to nil. Many from the Windsor area have gone to that province seeking employment. I would think that a retraining programme could possibly train many of our own unemployed in the community so that they could likewise go into other parts of Canada and find suitable employment.

Mr. Speaker, one of the other issues I wanted to raise is the one concerning vacation pay. Too often when a company finds itself in difficult circumstances it simply goes bankrupt. There was the case of a tavern, the Bavarian Inn in the community. It simply went bankrupt. The firm had withheld vacation pay for the employees and the employees can’t collect. The company is bankrupt. That is completely unfair.

Vacation moneys should be deposited in a trust. They are supposed to be a trust. They should be available to the employee, regardless of the financial circumstances of the corporation, so that when that corporation does declare bankruptcy at least the vacation pay funds are available.

In the case of Sun Tool and Stamping Co. in the community, I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) concerning their vacation pay. I had difficulty finally resolving the issue because both the federal and provincial governments were involved, but eventually the issue was resolved and the 240-some employees did receive their vacation pay.

Another problem I wanted to make mention of, Mr. Speaker, and I’ll only be about another two minutes, concerns a rent supplement programme.

My colleagues are disturbing me, Mr. Speaker. Will you call them to order?

Mr. Foulds: Let’s hear it for his colleagues.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): The member is disturbing them too I think.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, many senior citizens are content to live in the housing in which they presently live but can’t afford to live in that housing. In my estimation the government should not attempt to put them into senior citizens’ housing unless they wish to go into senior citizens’ housing. They should keep them where they are by providing them with a rent supplement.

The idea of a rent supplement is nothing new. I’ve been speaking on it in this House since 1966. I only wish the government would come along and pay attention to some of this and provide rent supplements for senior citizens in exactly the same fashion as they are doing now in supplementing the rent of those who are living in senior citizens rent-geared-to-income housing.

All senior citizens with the same income should be treated in exactly the same fashion. If the government supplements the rent of an individual living in rent-geared-to-income housing to the extent of $75 a month, then it should likewise supplement the rental of a senior citizen who is living in housing not geared to income to that same extent.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we should start looking back at the children taking care of the parents; and maybe we should have a grandfather bonus or something through the Ministry of Community and Social Services and pay to the children the equivalent of the supplement that the government is paying now to senior citizens who are living in rent-geared-to-income housing, if that son or daughter would undertake to house and take care of the father and/or mother or both. It would be a lot cheaper. We wouldn’t have to build housing accommodations. The children, if they wished, could come along and take care of grandma and grandpa or mom and dad in their own home.

Mr. Speaker, I have a whole series of other topics I wanted to bring up, but I don’t think it would be fair on my part to come along and deprive the two other speakers of an opportunity to speak. I’m not going to be one who speaks for an hour and a quarter and takes the time of others in this House for more than an hour in the Throne debate. I have spoken no more than approximately 18 minutes, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude, and suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that you convince your colleagues to read the amendment that is found on page 20, the amendment suggested by my leader, and use common sense and vote with us on it. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): I want to address myself to the issue of foreign medical students in medical schools in Ontario, an issue that has acquired some importance in the last while. In fact, it is an issue that for the last five months or so has passionately preoccupied both the public in general and the medical community in particular.

The problem is probably best summarized by an insidious editorial which appeared in the Medical Post of last Nov. 12.

It states in its first paragraph: “This year there were 241 seats available to medical students in the faculty of medicine at the University of Toronto. Of these seats, 33 are occupied by Chinese and 28 other seats are held by students from countries such as the US, Lebanon, the UK, Venezuela, Jamaica, Yugoslavia, Italy, Korea, Israel, India, Argentina, Guyana and Trinidad. These 61 foreign-born students represent 25 per cent of the entire first-year class. There was no method of selection except that of marks. There were no personal interviews.”

This issue has received intensive press, including interviews with such U of T faculty members as associate deans Jan Steiner and Edward Llewellyn-Thomas, the president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Bette Stephenson, and several GPs. During the past few months there have been literally dozens of letters, representing a number of different viewpoints on this issue, in both the Star and the Globe and Mail.

Some people have viewed this issue as one of the rights of native-born versus foreign-born students. We have heard them say: “Native Canadians are being discriminated against in their own country;” “Foreign-born students are displacing our children,” and so on.

Others are willing to give landed immigrants the same opportunity as native-born Canadians but they view the problem as an incompatibility between Canadian high schools and medical school admissions policies. Again, we have heard: “Our high schools are unable to compete with those of Hong Kong”; “Our admissions policies are too marks-centred”; or, “Our children don’t have a chance because their high school environment prepared them to value other activities in addition to studying.”

Still others focus on the patients being served. “We need doctors who fulfil the needs and expectations of Canadian society”; “We need students who are similar in culture to their patients so that they can communicate best with them.”

The variety of ways in which the issue has been defined in the press reminds one of the story of the elephant in the dark house. Each person described a very different animal depending on what part of the beast he touched. It is time to view the issue from a different perspective. The following list of questions is one place to begin:

First, if we are unhappy about students being rejected for medicine, maybe we ought to ask if it is satisfactory to turn away 14 out of 15 qualified applicants to medical school. Perhaps there ought to be more places.

Second, if people are concerned over the issue of native-born versus foreign-born Canadians, then perhaps we should open the whole question of doctor distribution and origin. Perhaps students ought to be drawn from geographic areas or ethnic groups for which doctors are most needed, in the context that the future doctors will serve those areas for a given number of years following graduation.

If we are concerned over the possibility that one ethnic group would be over-represented in the medical schools’ student population, we ought to open the larger question of what it means to be over-represented. Should each ethnic group have doctors in proportion to the number of members of that group? If this were the ideal, we would find that several ethnic groups are highly underrepresented since they have zero representation in medical schools. Several other ethnic groups could then be viewed as replacing our children in the same sense that their presence is preventing the ideal representation.

We might do well to remember here that although 25 per cent of the first-year class are foreign-born students, 22.2 per cent of the population of Ontario was born outside Canada, while for Toronto itself the percentage of the population which is foreign-born is 34 per cent.

Third, while we are questioning the entrance criteria for the U of T, what about the entrance requirements of other medical schools in Ontario? In the case of McMaster, for example, the main criteria, unlike here, are a biographical sketch and an interview which demands both excellence in English and a cultural concordance with the norms of our society. Translated, that means the longer one has been in Canada the more acculturated one is, the more likely one is to gain admission to a place like McMaster. U of T, which does not use an interview, may provide a more democratic selection by leaving out cultural considerations which would tend to discriminate against the newly-arrived immigrant.

Fourth, underlying many of the arguments, there is an assumption as to what kind of a doctor is in the best interests of the patient. We should get some viewpoints as to the patient’s interests from other sources besides doctors and students, such as from the patients themselves.

We should ask whether those with highest grades do make the best doctors from the standpoint of patient care. Is one ethnic group better able to communicate with patients than another group? If so, with which patients? Are all communication problems related to a student’s cultural background or are there some general psychological or personality characteristics unrelated to ethnicity which may even be more important determinants of communications skills?

Each of these questions touches upon a particular part of the elephant’s anatomy, but we need to stand back farther to get a clear perspective of the animal, to get a broader view of the issue. To do this, let’s reflect on a number of comparable life and career situations which exist in Canadian society.

Situation 1: A factory advertises for manpower and offers minimum wages. Seventy- five per cent of the hired labour is Italian and Portuguese and the remaining 25 per cent of the jobs are given to Canadian-born people. Is it reasonable to expect a hue and cry from the media, from the public? Of course not. Jobs that rank on or near the bottom of our power-prestige work hierarchy do not command our attention.

Situation 2: A new hospital has just been built and is in the marketplace for 100 trained nurses. Eighty per cent of the nursing positions are filled by foreign-born persons, mainly Asiatics. Assuming the public realizes that the nurse is the more frequent contact person with hospital patients, is it then reasonable to expect an outcry that foreigners are taking our jobs away from us? No; decidedly no.

The questions arising from these examples must focus on why we react with such passion and arbitrariness on issues concerning foreign- born/native-born doctors and why we remain passive on similar issues in the factory and nursing situations.

We cannot say that our reactions are based solely in terms of the perceived importance of the jobs because we are willing to tolerate foreign-born nurses who are essential to the maintenance of our health. On the other hand, we cannot dismiss the reasons for our elitist reactions because we ignore the plight of our foreign-born factory workers.

The whole issue of our concern about foreign-born doctors may stem from our over-dependence on the medical profession. Any issue that is seen to cause some possible future difficulty in the delivery of health to each of us individually, however irrationally based, will evoke our emotions. Calmness and reflectiveness in dealing with this foreign-born doctor issue cannot descend until we, as members of society, learn that health resides within us and is not necessarily a marketplace commodity that only doctors can dispense to us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): I will be as brief as I can and address myself immediately to the matter of housing and the housing policies of this government. We have had the rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, and it is unfortunate in my view that whereas at the municipal level of government one tries to be truthful and to bring forward all the facts pertaining to a given question, here that practice is not followed. I’m not here to make any apologies for any other government, I’m here to deal with the facts as they pertain to this particular government.

In the year 1974, the allocation from the federal government to this government for housing was $428.4 million. In 1975, it is $445.4 million. We can all argue it isn’t enough. The thing that is important, from this government’s point of view, is the fact that in two fiscal years it has underspent its own appropriations for housing by $103,393,466. When this government starts in crying for the poor, it had better remember and tell the people that $20 million of that was for rental housing for the poor.

Mr. Speaker, since I have to speak in shorthand -- and I’m not very good at it -- I’d like to look at the matter of the OHAP programme; if you can call it a programme.

Mr. P. Taylor: It should be called the “MISHAP” programme.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, you started out with a minister who said specifically that there would be 12,000 housing starts in 1974 -- and he did say 1974. Then we had a new minister who started talking about 12,000 starts in the fiscal year. Then we lost even the starts and all we got were some agreements in principle. This is a problem which is this government’s responsibility and its failure.

Mr. Kennedy: And the municipalities.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, we’re now getting them into the plot.

Mr. Foulds: Stop passing the buck to the municipalities. What a copout.

Mrs. Campbell: Good. Mr. Speaker, I’m so glad that interjection was made, because I’m waiting for the next stage in this serial when we get to what kind of a plot the municipalities are running against this government.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): One of this government’s dirty tricks.

Mr. Foulds: Most of them are Tory tricks.

Mrs. Campbell: The thing that comes through to the public is --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): It’s all part of the conspiracy.

Mrs. Campbell: -- they’re explaining away their failure. It is a failure that we are talking about, and you’d better believe they know it, Mr. Speaker. We’ve already pointed out the ineptness of the government’s land acquisition policy and the fact that, by some psychic quality, there were always people who had bought up the properties from the farmers. This government’s policies seriously inflated the price of land across this province.

Mr. Roy: Right on again. How’s that for a dirty trick on the government’s part?

Mrs. Campbell: The thing that I think I would like to say is that even in condominium housing they didn’t feel they had a responsibility to ensure that there would be no speculation in that area of housing development. People were permitted to buy up several units and then sell them at a profit. That is their record in housing, and I invite them to face up to it.

The difficulty is, Mr. Speaker, it shows the attitude of this government in various areas. They don’t consider they are here to serve people. What they do consider is that, by any means they can, they want to stay in power; they want to have their nice public relations-oriented programmes, and they want to forget that there are people out there affected by what they do or don’t do. The people are a faceless mass to this government; but believe me, that isn’t the fact of the situation.

I would like to discuss very briefly a matter than concerns me greatly, and which I’ve brought up several times.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for St. George has the floor.

Mrs. Campbell: I’m glad they have enjoyed the party. I take it they have been at the party.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): There’s a better party here.

Mrs. Campbell: I have brought to the attention of the previous Attorney General (Mr. Bales) and this Attorney General (Mr. Clement) the fact that in my opinion, again the government has no concern for the little person in this community. In the city of Toronto, in our courts, because of the under-staffing they cannot get the summonses out to people except after months. They are protected, on these little parking violations. But when you deny a person the right to have a defence, you are subverting justice whether or not you consider it to be that.

The great majority of the people who are in those courts are not there because they are criminals; they are citizens and should have the right to have a defence. If months go by, they can’t really do much about it. The courts therefore are held up to opprobrium by the public and that is totally unfair, because the government has fine judges, it has fine Crowns, it has good staff, but it doesn’t care that there be equal justice for people across the province in this area. It is one of the problems I have to face from people calling me all over the metropolitan area.

The last thing I am going to mention is that as a result of the Soberman report and the comments on it, and as a result of Highway 404, there is no doubt that we will be seeing some changes in alignments which to many people in the city of Toronto mean the beginning of the Crosstown Expressway. The government has been so uncertain in its remarks and so unclear in its positions that the people are concerned and confused as to what the future is in the city.

It is remarkable that the Treasurer of this province could stand in this House and say that the core of Toronto was of great importance to the metropolitan government, and indeed of great importance to the whole province, yet the ability of the city of Toronto to have its own autonomy over its own area is being eroded all the time. The government has taken certain steps to change representation in that council in advance of the Robarts report. I trust that it will not so treat Mr. Robarts as to put him into a position which is totally political in its decisions, because that would be unworthy of the government and certainly would not be worthy for him with his reputation in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say more but we do have one more speaker and I am prepared at this point to yield to the member for Nipissing. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I have some very short remarks to make on two subjects that are very parochial in nature. If anybody wants to leave and go elsewhere I certainly wouldn’t be offended whatsoever.

Mr. Foulds: There are very few people out there. Everybody has left,

Mr. R. S. Smith: There are very few to talk to anyway, so I wouldn’t be offended. I would like to speak on two matters that are of great significance in my area. They are two things that have been rather misrepresented, mostly by people in the Ministry of Natural Resources and by the Ministry of Housing.

The first has to do with the question of Lake Nosbonsing and the Nosbonsing Park Development Ltd., which has made a proposal through the Ministry of Housing to develop about 2.4 miles of shoreline on Lake Nosbonsing. They failed, should we say, to go ahead when they had their proposals finalized and when they had approvals given by the ministries and these ministerial approval ran out. On reapplication, they were quickly given back to them, whereas on most other applications, I’m given to understand, the whole process has to be followed through to have approvals given the second time, if the developer has not taken up the first approvals that were provided to him.

There was then an intervention by a group of cottage owners on that lake to have the plan not approved by the Ministry of Housing. But the people concerned had in their hand a letter from the minister himself, indicating that approvals would be given by the Ministry of Housing just as soon as they passed the OMB hearing, which was forced by the intervention of the group which purported to intervene on the basis that further building on the shoreline of this lake would cause deterioration in the lake to the point where wildlife and fishing would be badly damaged, as well as the quality of the water itself.

Anyway, it was very strange that the Minister of Housing would write such a letter but, apparently, it is in the hands of the developers. In so doing, he indicates that the OMB hearing is more or less just a farce that they have to go through. On this assumption, I presume that the provision of approvals, along with this letter that has gone out from the minister concerned, has been done more on a political basis than on the input of the different ministries that provided information to the Ministry of Housing before the final approvals were granted.

I’m not one of those who feel that there should be no building at all on any of these lakes, but I certainly am one of those that feel the lakes themselves should be protected, more from political interference than from environmental hazards in this case. I believe that the lake itself has come to the point where it cannot stand any further building.

Of the 31 miles of shoreline on that lake, 29 miles are publicly owned, which leaves two miles held in the hands of the Crown. If one goes to examine the two miles held by the Crown, they are all marsh and the lake is inaccessible through the two miles held by the Crown. In fact, what we have here is a private lake for those people who own the properties around it, and there is obviously no public participation in the enjoyment that that lake provides.

I have suggested to the Ministry of Natural Resources that to solve this political problem of the approvals for Nosbonsing Park Developments -- and I say that the approvals have been obtained on a political basis rather than on the basis of good environmental management or on the basis for the regular Ministry of Housing procedures that everybody else has to follow -- that this government should he looking to the expropriation of these lands from these people, they should be put in the public domain and a park with public access to that lake is the proper answer to the problem that faces not only the ministry but the people concerned on the lake.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the people involved in this subdivision have used political connivance to obtain their approvals, and I believe that if this government is going to be responsible it will move in and block that type of procedure by expropriation so that the public can be given the necessary access to the lake.

We are all aware that it has been a policy of this government since the 1950s that 75 per cent of the shoreline of lakes in northern Ontario should be publicly owned. In this particular case, less than six per cent of the shoreline is publicly owned -- and that six per cent is of very low value -- so there is every reason for the Crown and Natural Resources to move in and expropriate these properties before development takes places. I believe this is the solution to their political problem -- because it is their political problem -- and the solution to the problem of the other people on that lake who are trying to protect it.

I would like to point out that the Ontario Municipal Board has set its hearings for June 21, and it is expecting to hear from the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment in regard to studies that are to be done on the lake.

Obviously the ice won’t be off that lake until about the second week in May, so there is just no way that proper studies can be done in that short period of time, particularly when Natural Resources depends on other help than its regular complement to do these studies. There is no way they can do the studies, put the information together and make a proper presentation to the Ontario Municipal Board by June 21. So even the date of the hearing by the Ontario Municipal Board is set so that proper studies can’t be done by the Ministry of the Environment or the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The whole thing is stacked against the people around that lake who are trying to protect it and is stacked in favour of the developers. I include the hearing date set by OMB, because there is no way that the two ministries involved -- and they will tell you this themselves; in fact, they have told me -- there is no way that they can provide proper studies on the lake by the hearing date of June 21. So even the setting of the date is another indication of what has taken place in this political fiasco that the party opposite is creating in this area.

In support of the statements that I make, I would point out that the head of the local conservation authority has written directly to the Premier of this province, explaining to him how the political pressures have been put on the government to make certain decisions in this area and how he and his authority have opposed the implementation of the plan of Nosbonsing Park Development Ltd.

Mr. Bullbrook: I grew up with these fellows. They were Tories the day after they were born. I know them both. They make the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) look like Douglas Fisher.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Nipissing has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Even Doug has become a Tory. What’s the matter with that?

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s right.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I wouldn’t even mention their names but some of them have had to resign from some of the government commissions within the last year or so. It’s not hard to figure out who they are; they have conflict of interest all over the place.

Mr. Roy: We are not saying that that is a dirty trick.

Mr. R. S. Smith: This is just another one and our area is full of them. If one wants to start talking --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s a pretty serious allegation.

Mr. Bullbrook: A pretty serious allegation.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have three minutes left so perhaps I will make a few remarks about dirty tricks. I come from an area where I know every dirty political trick in the book.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Those are the members who know about that.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): He should know. He will tell us.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I have learned well from every Conservative candidate I have run against, particularly the last one. He knew every political dirty trick. I’m sure the Tories must have a seminar set up at which he is going to be brought in as the guest speaker and the chief spokesman. He has every political dirty trick right down to a T. And the Tory members know it as well as I.

Mr. Roy: He makes Barney Danson look like a choirmaster.

Mr. Bullbrook: He has been made a found-in for the 11th time. He was the Tory candidate six times.

Mr. R. S. Smith: There is nothing the matter with the Election Act except that he found every way to get around it or to abuse it.

Mr. Stokes: I think the government members appreciate what a favour this member did them.

An hon. member: How?

Mr. Stokes: By keeping the seat.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Nipissing has the floor.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I wanted to point out to members that although we do have a fairly good Election Act in this province, it doesn’t really matter because we have to have the machinery to guard against the abuse of that Election Act set up under the jurisdiction of the chief electoral officer. I don’t think we have that in this province. They don’t want to enforce the Election Act.

On numerous occasions dirty tricks were played on election day and the people were caught red-handed; the police were called. The chief electoral officer of the district was called and he refused to come because he had been appointed by the Tory candidate and he certainly wasn’t going to have anything to do with him.

The police came and said, “We can’t do anything about this fellow; he’s on the police commission.” And I was standing there watching this fellow vote for the sixth time that day. I said to the fellow, “Who are you voting for six times?” He said, “For the Conservative candidate.” I said, “What is he giving you?’’ “Two dollars each time,” he said.

Ms. Bullbrook: That is all they think about people.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I want to end up by saying to the Tories that if they want to talk --

Mr. Bullbrook: I am going to yield to him. Let him start again,

Mr. R. S. Smith: -- about political dirty tricks, I’ll talk about cheap political dirty tricks.

Mr. Roy: Two bucks a time.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That is what we got from that party in my area -- cheap political tricks. It’s 6 o’clock; I can’t go any further and I wish I could because I could spell out about six other times --

Mr. Bullbrook: Let him move the adjournment of the debate; we’ll let him on.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I could spell out about six other times this poor fellow was caught --

Mr. Foulds: It is called a discount, cut-rate price.

Mr. R. S. Smith: -- obviously in contravention of the Act. There were numerous people who contacted the returning officer and the chief returning officer of this province, who usually sits in that chair, with complaints. There was nothing done; not a damn thing was done. If somebody over there wants to talk about dirty political tricks, I would like them to talk to me and I would like to be given a chance to talk to them.

Mr. R. S. Smith moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

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

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 2 o’clock on Monday, April 7, and may I extend my personal best wishes to the members of the Legislature for a happy and peaceful holiday.

The House adjourned at 6 o’clock, p.m.