Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and to the hon. members of the Legislature this afternoon, 31 students from Corpus Christi Separate School under the direction of Miss N. Gilbride, sitting in the east gallery.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the opposition): Mr. Speaker, I know you would like to know that there is a group of students from Waterford District High School in the city of Nanticoke in the east gallery as well.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

LIQUOR ADVERTISING

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- if he has given any further thought, parallel with the programme to spend a couple of million dollars in educating young people and others on the evils of drink, to bringing forward some new regulations which would stop the advertising of alcoholic beverages and beer in this province, or at least taking some initiative which would lead Ontario and nearby jurisdictions in abolishing this kind of advertising.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, no, we haven’t considered abolishing advertising, but we have certainly taken steps to curtail it, at the request of the member to the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s immediate right.

I sent a copy of the new LCBO directives on advertising to him, and if those were checked against previous practices I am sure he would have noticed that there was considerable curtailment.

I think one of the problems which arises in the attempt to abolish advertising would be that such an attempt could apply only to Ontario-based advertising media. Obviously it could not apply to those media which are located outside the country or in other provinces.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): But the minister has to start somewhere. We have to start somewhere.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: This has been tried in other jurisdictions and has been a failure, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister would not agree, however, that it appears as more and more provinces and states recognize the expanding problems of alcoholic beverages among the youth there is going to be a move by many jurisdictions to stop advertising, just as occurred in the case of cigarettes, and that there is at least as much reason for stopping alcohol advertising as there is for stopping cigarette advertising? It is not something which is impossible and we might give some leadership in this.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): We tried that 10 years ago and the opposition objected.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Was the hon. minister around here 10 years ago? It’s too bad he is on his way out now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure all members of the House that --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am sure all members of the House are aware of the fact --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A question has been asked and the minister is trying to answer. The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): He has become the professional winder-upper for the Conservative party; has he?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, of course the government is not unaware of its responsibilities in this area. It certainly has taken what it considers to be effective measures to help in the problem which the hon. member outlines and we concur in his appraisal of the problem. Certainly, it is a serious one but is he aware of the fact that cigarette advertising which was curtailed in many other jurisdictions -- it has not been completely prohibited but has been curtailed -- certainly has not resulted in any reduction in the amount of smoking; nor has the amount of drinking been curtailed in those jurisdictions which have tried to prohibit advertising? I quite agree that there is a problem. I do not accept that other than excess advertising contributes anything to the problem and we are certainly in favour of curtailing advertising. The distilleries themselves have voluntarily curtailed the amount of advertising they place.

Mr. Lewis: What a silly statement that is. From an intelligent man that is a very silly statement.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? A supplementary, the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister who has just replied: Would the minister consider asking the liquor industry, the beer industry and the wine industry to funnel the funds they may save from reduced advertising campaigns into the rehabilitation of those who are afflicted by the use of their products?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all we are not too sure that they are saving any funds because there are other forms of promotion and obviously they can embark on those which are in addition to advertising. Many of the distillers, of course, who are quite responsible in their attitude towards alcohol abuse, are making significant contributions partly through their own advertising to promote the cause of moderation. I don’t believe that a request of the nature the hon. member suggests would be either appropriate or very constructive.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON ENERGY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he can clarify the position that Ontario’s delegation at the energy conference will take vis-à-vis any change in the well-head price of petroleum out of Alberta or Canadian sources. Is our position going to be flatly that there should be and must be no increase or is the basis going to be what the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) has said -- that certain increases might be considered as long as there is at least some projection into the future as to what the changes will be?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the position of Ontario hopefully will become very clearly defined on Wednesday morning. I expect the Leader of the Opposition and others will find it as precise and clear as I am sure it will be for others and at that time he will have a very clear understanding of exactly what that position will be.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As a supplementary, can we be assured that it will not be the same position as the Premier and the Treasurer took last year which allowed the price to go up by the substantial amount we have been paying since, which has --

Mr. Lewis: The federal Liberals want it to go up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One moment, Mr. Speaker. I have to go back in history about a year and I will repeat what I said then. While there has been a great deal of discussion about an “agreement” the fact remains that the first minister of Canada, discharging his responsibilities, very quietly and precisely said, “If you can agree on a $2 increase, fine. If you don’t, it will be legislated.”

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like a further supplementary: Since the Premier was talking to the hon. Allan Blakeney over the weekend is there any thought that there is going to be a more or less concerted provincial approach to the very interesting concept put forward by Mr. Blakeney for a fund which is going to foster, let’s say, the kind of research and exploration which is going to be so important for the maintenance of our own supplies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to prejudge what will happen on Wednesday and Thursday. If you were to ask me to express a personal opinion, I would do so and that personal opinion would be that there will be less than total unanimity at that conference on one or two issues. That may or may not apply to the proposal that will be suggested by the Premier of Saskatchewan. I really don’t anticipate that at Wednesday’s and Thursday’s meetings all the first ministers will be in total agreement as to what should be done. I doubt that very much.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): How can he figure that out?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well it didn’t take much. In fact I would say that even the intellectual capacity of the hon. member for Downsview could have come to the same conclusions with a minimum amount of effort.

Mr. Singer: I recognize that.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Supplementary of the Premier: Will there be any discussions, at the energy conference in Ottawa, exploring the possibility of the Province of Ontario entering into a consortium with other interests for the construction of a natural gas pipeline down the west shore of Hudson Bay?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that’s one of the matters that, over a period of time, should and will be discussed. I would doubt, and this is once again just a personal point of view, that will emerge in the discussions on Wednesday and Thursday. I don’t say it won’t, but I doubt it.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

OTTAWA TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Education if he can report to the House the status of the negotiations in the secondary system in Ottawa. Since I believe the last word we had from him was that a new mediator was to be appointed from here, are we any closer to a solution? And if not has he any other initiatives?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the mediator who was appointed a few weeks ago, Mr. Owen Shime, is still acting in that capacity and is in touch with both sides. I’m hoping to have a chat with him later in the day to find out his impressions of where the situation stands at the minute.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: The minister is not able, then, to tell the House whether there has been any movement towards a settlement or if they are still at the same standoff position they were in when the strike began six weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can’t tell my friend that, Mr. Speaker, because I think that Mr. Shime, when he went into his mediation sessions with them a few weeks ago, agreed there would be a news blackout. I don’t think there’s been any indication from any side as to what has or has not been happening; but the fact is he is still there as a mediator.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What news blackout?

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): A supplementary to the Minister of Education on this subject: I wonder if the minister has received a memo from me asking that if this mediation fails -- as it apparently has, ending this morning at 5:15 a.m. in Ottawa -- has the minister received my communication asking that if the teachers then do not accept voluntary arbitration the government consider legislation to get the teachers back into the classrooms and the students back to school?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is yes, I have received that memo from my friend the hon. member for Ottawa West.

Mr. Lewis: So the member for Ottawa West is running again, is he? Who would have known it, had we not been here today?

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): That fixes that one.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary; the hon. member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton hast): Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Education clarify what seems to be a contradiction here? The minister explained that Mr. Shime is still on the job and now he admits that he knows the talks broke down at 5:15 this morning. Now which is it; is Mr. Shime still hopeful of some negotiated settlement or has he indeed given up hope of a negotiated settlement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as far as I’m concerned -- as I say I haven’t talked to Mr. Shime, I’m expecting to talk to him later in the day -- he is still active --

An hon. member: He walked out, didn’t he?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- he is still mediating the situation. Now I wouldn’t presume to tell mediators how to operate, but I understand that at times they’re there and then they’re not there, and then they’re back again in a day or so. As far as I can tell my friend, Mr. Shime is still operating as our appointed mediator in that dispute.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Has the minister met with the delegation from the Ottawa Board of Education that was coming down today to see him? If so what was his response to their requests?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, I haven’t met with the delegation from the Ottawa Board of Education. I understand I’m having a meeting with them tomorrow. It may be that I will see them later today if they are here and available.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with his questions.

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to ask a question related to the last, but of a new kind. Since the Premier is in Ottawa for three days at least this week, and presumably the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) as well, is this not the time for the Minister of Education to attempt a personal cabinet intervention, if, as many believe, the parties are in fact very close together, thanks to Mr. Shime, but need one last nudge for settlement? Is this not the time for a responsible cabinet to bring the parties to a settlement?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, in order to answer the question from the leader of the NDP, I would have to have an opportunity to talk to both of the parties and Mr. Shime. I haven’t had that opportunity at this very minute and, therefore, I can’t really answer his question.

Mr. Cassidy: It might have helped if the minister hadn’t been in Florida for so long.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We will be doing something about that today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON ENERGY

Mr. Lewis: I want to follow up another question which was asked earlier of the Premier.

Can I ask the Premier quite specifically is he opposed to any further increase in the price of oil at the wellhead in Alberta? Is he opposed to any further increase at all?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition our position, I hope, will be very clearly stated and defined. I expect that will be done shortly after 10 o’clock Wednesday morning.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): By way of supplementary, was the Premier misquoted in today’s Star and Globe where he was quoted as saying he was not going to tolerate any increase in price?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t have a copy of my text here, because I departed from it very substantially Saturday evening.

Mr. Bullbrook: What did he mean?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think what I did say Saturday evening -- and I hope it left the impression that Ontario has always played its role in the national sense and will continue to do so -- was that we recognized certain responsibilities in this regard and that there did come a time when we must say no.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Bullbrook: But can we rely on the Premier to be less equivocal in Ottawa than he is in Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, the member can rely on my being less equivocal. The only thing I can’t rely on is that his people won’t come to the defence of his federal party colleagues once again.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: That’s interesting, because since it appears to be clear -- one never knows with Tories -- that the Premier is going to oppose an increase, what then follows for Ontario? Will the Premier give then to the Ontario Energy Board or to some creation of the Legislature the right to roll prices back if the oil companies increase them, or will the government legislate a maximum level of price?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the New Democratic Party doesn’t totally understand what price increases are involved, and I say that very respectfully. The last price increase -- and I am the last one to defend the oil companies --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: The last shall be first and the first last.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, except for Syncrude, because we are part of that now, we all are. I would say that of the $1.8 billion, if that is the figure that has been collected as the result of the increase of a year ago, the oil companies have received something less than $100 million, So it is not a question just for Ontario, if a price increase were to go through and even though we were to oppose it. If there is a price increase and if it is in the form of royalties or corporation tax or export tax how does one roll it back? It is a totally different situation. Perhaps the leader of the New Democratic Party could prevail upon the Premier of Saskatchewan, for one province at least, to reduce the amount of royalty. That might be one way of keeping the price down.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Sarnia?

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes. Can we understand the Premier’s last response to the leader of the New Democratic Party to mean that in connection with his last negotiations the Premier not only did in the people of Ontario, but he did in the oil companies at the same time?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Sarnia is that concerned about doing in the oil companies, I understand. I mean it is his constituency and I understand him being totally in support of the oil companies.

I would say this, Mr. Speaker, that what has happened is not as it was portrayed both by the producing provinces and by the federal government as of a year ago, where part of the rationale for the increase in price was to have greater security of supply. This meant keeping the “explorers” in business, and the facts demonstrate very conclusively, Mr. Speaker, that this has not, in fact, happened, The great bulk of the sums have gone to the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and the member’s friends in the federal treasury.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale in a final supplementary?

Mr. Renwick: That’s where it has gone.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And the Premier has no friends in the federal government, is that right?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, yes, we do, but we maybe disagree with them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Riverdale has a supplementary.

Mr. Stokes: Roy McMurtry speaks for the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He speaks very well.

Mr. Renwick: Will the Premier be more precise about the figures in the equation which he has used on a number of occasions, that an increase of $1 in the price of energy in the Province of Ontario will result in the loss of several thousand jobs? Can the Premier be more precise as to the other side of that equation? What are the number of jobs which are in jeopardy if there is a $1 increase in energy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that will all be made available at the conference and, without knowing what will be developed here at 8:30 tonight, there may be some of that information at that time.

Mr. Singer: Tell us why --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier certainly has done a little more homework on the eve of this conference than he did on the eve of the last one.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): He has a new minister.

Mr. Lewis: It doesn’t mean he won’t sell us out anyway, but this time he will do it knowledgeably.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Questions?

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question on this subject matter. Is the Premier then saying, in terms of the tough stand that Ontario obviously intends to take, that there is no justification to the oil companies’ argument that they need an increase for further exploration purposes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there could be a very legitimate justification for their arguments; I don’t know. All I can say is that perhaps that could be accommodated with the existing $6.50 price if the two levels of government that are directly involved were to rationalize their take.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

DOW CHEMICAL ACTION

Mr. Singer: I have a question of the Attorney General.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada relating to the government of Manitoba and its lawsuit against Interprovincial Co-operatives Ltd. and Dryden Chemicals Ltd., where the Supreme Court of Canada said the suit for pollution did not lie at the behest of the province, could the Attorney General tell me if he has reconsidered Ontario’s position vis-à-vis Dow Chemical and whether or not the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada doesn’t, in fact, take that lawsuit out of court?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I cannot really come to a good conclusion on the Dow Chemical matter until the statement of defence has been received.

Mr. Singer: No statement of defence after four years?

An hon. member: The member ought to be retained as counsel.

Hon. Mr. Clement: As to the decision in the Supreme Court of Canada, I have not had the benefit of reading that particular judgement, so I have no comment to make. Was it reported fairly recently? Could the member for Downsview help me on that?

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Today?

Mr. Singer: Oh no. The story appeared in the Star on March 27.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): This year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s last month.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, I see. Well, I don’t read my law in the Star. I usually wait for it to be reported in the law reports. When I receive that copy of the Dominion Law Reports, I will be glad to confer with the member on it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Does the minister think the case will be reported?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, does the Attorney General really mean to advise the House that until cases are published in the law reports that the law officers of the Crown have no opinion about current proceedings in law and decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada that may materially affect Ontario’s position? Is that his legal approach?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, I wouldn’t infer that at all. The member asked me the question and I said I hadn’t read it; and I won’t go by the reports in any of the media until I see the law reports.

Mr. Singer: When is the Attorney General going to get them?

Hon. Mr. Clement: My subscription ran out.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

Ms. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Could I have the attention of the Minister of Health?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Dukszta: What are the details of the latest directive from the ministry and the policy in respect of funding community health centres? Specifically, what is the difference between supporting the existing community health centres and the proposed ones?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to appear speechless. I just lost the most important thing a politician can have, his voice, and I have to speak into this mike a little more carefully today.

Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any directive on community health centres having been issued. There are some rumours running around the countryside which I think are quite erroneous up to date.

There are two aspects of the funding: One is capital and the other is operating. For some years we have not paid any capital funds towards community health centre buildings, but we have been working with a lot of groups of people around the province who indicated they wanted a different form of payment. We are still working with quite a few groups, and within my ministry I am also reassessing the overall policy.

Mr. Dukszta: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Very specifically, there has been a verbal communication between the Ministry of Health and the South Riverdale group not to renew contracts. To me that sounds like a major change in policy in terms of supporting community health centres.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right -- and it’s happening across the province.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the member can become more specific and go to his own riding. I’ve talked to the group within his own riding within the last few days personally. He may be aware of that or not; I don’t know. However, if in fact someone’s contract is in jeopardy, it is not because of policy, it is because of a question as to whether we are getting our value for the money spent.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the minister has answered the question. The verbal directive from the ministry to the South Riverdale Community Centre has been not to renew contracts, not on an individual basis, but as a general policy.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. I wish we could get this clarified. In talking with Dr. Aldis, who is the head of the branch which has been assisting in the development of community health services, I understand there has been a directive which says, in effect, to hold ground for the time being.

An interpretation of that directive, which the minister himself gave me, was that for ongoing projects there would be no cutting out of funds, but for proposed contracts there would likely be, or might be. Is that an accurate statement of the situation?

Hon. Mr. Miller: That’s an accurate statement, Mr. Speaker, yes. Every contract is reviewed each time it comes up.

Mr. MacDonald: Right.

Hon. Mr. Miller: And the statement I tried to make a moment ago is there is no policy to refuse to renew an ongoing programme that is worthwhile. There is always the odd chance that our staff may have some questions about the value of an existing programme. But that is not policy; that would be their interpretation, not mine.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Fort William.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, there have been several questions on this topic. It is not in order to debate it.

Mr. Dukszta: The minister did not answer my question about one specific case.

Mr. Speaker: Ask the question then, please.

Mr. Dukszta: Yes. I asked specifically whether there is any question of renewing contracts in the South Riverdale Community Centre?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can’t answer that, Mr. Speaker, but I’ll find out.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Fort William.

AMETHYST HARBOUR MARINA

Mr. Jessiman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. The ministry conducted a programme this past year on the north shore of Lake Superior to investigate the harbour situation.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Like to buy a share in a dredging company?

Mr. Jessiman: The summer and winter residents at Amethyst Harbour are very disturbed that this harbour may be used as a public marina. Would the minister make a statement either to confirm or deny this?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, the study to which the member refers is the north shore Lake Superior recreational study and that was an interministerial study that was done in the Lake Superior area. The committee itself was chaired by a member of my ministry.

I might say that I received a number of letters from the member for Fort William, and also from the local people. Since receiving those, Mr. Speaker, I have contacted my staff at Thunder Bay. They have informed me that on further examination they are going to recommend to that particular committee that the recommendation to establish a marina at Amethyst Harbour be withdrawn.

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

Mr. P. Taylor: Carleton East, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, Carleton East.

Mr. Cassidy: We call them the Bobbsey twins, Mr. Speaker.

PORTER COMMISSION MEMBERS

Mr. P. Taylor: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give this House assurance that the Porter commission will consist of people who will directly reflect most consumer and environmental interests?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes I can, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health. I would ask the minister how he responds to the resolution passed by the regional council of Sudbury asking for a public inquiry into the mess created by the mismanagement of the board at the new Laurentian Hospital in that city?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that question would seem to imply that if there is mismanagement of the board, it is my fault. I don’t think the member implies that, does he?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Of course.

Mr. Martel: Now, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Cassidy: He did it in Haileybury; what about Sudbury?

Mr. Lewis: Look what he did in Timiskaming, for heaven’s sake.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’m quite aware that there has been a series of disagreements between the administration of one hospital in Sudbury and the board of that hospital. I understood that an agreement had been reached between the two parties very recently. As recently as last week the chairman of the board of that hospital was brought down to Toronto at our request and talked to our ministry. At the same time we dispatched a person of high competence to the Sudbury area to work with the board that is trying to amalgamate St. Joseph’s and Laurentian. I believe he is assessing the situation first-hand. We will be in touch with the regional council after that assessment is made.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: While we are on the subject, can the minister explain why he has refused to release the report which says that the Haileybury hospital should be closed down in the Timiskaming area?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Again, Mr. Speaker, that assumes the member thinks it should be in Haileybury. I can only tell him that I have assessed that many times and I am of the conclusion that the proper site has been selected.

Mr. Shulman: Why won’t the minister release the report?

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister release the report?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. That’s far different from the original question.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: On the original question?

Mr. Martel: On the original question. In view of the fact that the minister now has someone in the Sudbury region who he says is competent to look into those matters, could he not look into what plagues the whole delivery of health services in the Sudbury area so that we can get on with finding the solutions there?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it’s the members who represent the area.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is being very political.

Mr. Renwick: They didn’t pack the board with NDP members there.

Mr. Martel: The minister’s got a point, though -- like Don Collins for openers.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are other ways, but that’s the most pleasant.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the member has very excellent facilities in the Sudbury area. I think he knows that. We are doing our best to bring in what we call a rationalization of them. I think we are having a certain degree of success in that area. The opening of the new hospital will permit a further rationalization.

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

COMMUTER TICKET INTERCHANGEABILITY

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. What progress has been made since the minister stated nearly a year ago that he would be working with the federal Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission to co-ordinate fare schedules and fares between federal rail services and GO Transit? What progress has been made during the last several months in that matter?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Absolutely none. The federal ministry is so busy trying to develop a national transportation policy it won’t even discuss it with us.

An hon. member: Too busy dredging harbours.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are not as interested in magnetic levitation as the minister is.

Mr. Singer: I wonder what happened to Krauss-Maffei.

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for Cochrane South.

Mr. Singer: The member for Scarborough West has consented to stage one of Spadina.

COCHRANE DISTRICT HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Yes, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Will the minister investigate the reasons for payments to the Gregoire Insurance Agency by the Cochrane District Home for the Aged board of management to see if these represent premiums for insurance, and will he further investigate to see if a conflict of interest may exist for board member Palma Gregoire?

Mr. Stokes: Not them again.

Mr. Speaker: I think in the confusion the hon. minister wasn’t identified. I didn’t get the name of the minister.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): I heard the last part and I would be pleased to look into the situation.

Mr. Ferrier: All right. Thank you.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Even if the minister doesn’t know what it is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

EDUCATION COSTS IN CAMBRIDGE

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Education: Will the minister take steps to lessen the discrepancy in the education costs among the merged area governments in Cambridge, which I understand is due to the various assessing methods that were used previously before regional governments and which evidently cannot be rationalized by the application of the equalization factors? What is the minister prepared to do about this?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to give me some more information on the matter I would be very happy to look into it. I am not aware of exactly what he is talking about.

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

ADOPTION OF VIETNAMESE CHILDREN

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker: Has he or his ministry issued directives to the various Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario to vastly accelerate their adoption home studies of those persons wishing to adopt Vietnamese orphans

-- particularly those who applied three months or more ago and have not had their home studies take place -- in order that a greater number of these children could be allowed into Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we have at least 120 applications where home studies have been completed by families who have indicated an interest in adopting children from Southeast Asia. This was prior to last week. Since that time, of course, we certainly have taken steps to make sure -- assuming children will be coming in -- that there certainly will be no problem in finding suitable homes.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Let me ask the minister, is he putting any quota on the number of Vietnamese children that will be permitted into the Province of Ontario? I hope not.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, on that question, we are guided by the number of children the government in Saigon would allow to leave. Until the present time, it indicated that the children had to be adopted by families beforehand. However, in case of an emergency, there are some ongoing discussions with the federal government, especially the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Manpower and Immigration. As far as we are concerned in Ontario, we’ve done I believe, just about everything we could possibly do. We’ve set up a team; we’ve sent a team to Hong Kong and it arrived this morning.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is that where the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) is? He was there before.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We’ve also established a treatment centre in the city which will be staffed by doctors, nurses and social workers who will look after the children once they arrive. It could well be that many would need medical and nursing services. As far as our government and our ministry is concerned, we’ve taken every step possible to accommodate the children when they arrive.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

BRUCE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education. Would the minister reconsider his ministry’s decision to chop the entire capital projects plan of the Bruce County Board of Education, in view of the fact that some of the schools are under tremendous pressure because of the rapidly increasing population in the Douglas Point area?

Mr. B. F. Nixon: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to tell my friend, as a bit of background, that this year when we asked the school boards for the kind of capital programmes they might have in mind, the total came to something like $293 million which I might tell --

Mr. B. F. Nixon: Just like it was back in the 1960s.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s more than it ever was in the 1960s and one would never know that there are declining enrolments or anything else happening in the educational scene today in Ontario. We’ve been slowly cutting back and weeding out and asking people to be sure they’re asking only for things that are definitely needed; therefore, a lot of boards have not got what they asked for in their presentations three or four months ago.

Insofar as Bruce county is concerned, I was reading some correspondence from them last week and I’m going to take a look to see exactly what the situation is. I want to see whether perhaps they got some things in the past two years while we weren’t able to make arrangements for some other areas to get them; maybe it’s balancing itself out in that area. I’m not sure of that at this minute.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if it’s correct that a number of counties in the province received capital funds even though they weren’t requested? Is that so?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would think that would not be so, Mr. Speaker. Nobody would be getting anything that wasn’t requested on the capital allocation forms.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, when he is reconsidering the Bruce county situation, the minister would also reconsider the Huron county situation? Last week, I was talking to the heads of science departments there and they informed me that they’re going to have to stop dissecting animals in the science classes because they can no longer afford to purchase the animals which they dissect. Would he reconsider the Huron county situation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, my friend is not bringing forward a situation concerning capital building which was what his colleague was talking about. He is talking about actual operating funds for the school boards and I would venture to say that the Huron County Board of Education has adequate funds to operate and do all the things it wants within the educational framework of the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): A question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of his extended absence from the House, I wonder if he could bring us up to date on what representation he has made to his federal counterparts regarding the condition of the textile industry in Ontario, specifically eastern Ontario?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, for some months I have been meeting with my counterpart in Ottawa regarding the problems in the textile industry in Ontario generally. May I also say that we have been consulting with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the Province of Quebec and the minister related to that particular portfolio in the Province of Manitoba, those being three very significant provinces looking after the textile industry. We have made our position very clear with Mr. Gillespie, that we believe it’s essential for the government of Canada to place upon textile imports either a quota system or a higher tariff position.

The only information I can give to the House at this point, Mr. Speaker, is that a week prior to the Easter recess, Mr. Gillespie’s ministry indicated they would once again take a review of the situation but they were not that hopeful of introducing any more restricted importation laws relating to the textile industry.

I have also, Mr. Speaker, been able to meet with the unions and the textile manufacturers of Ontario and Canada. We have discussed the situation very clearly, which has been able to afford my ministry extra material for input to the federal government in relationship to the discussion on tariffs and quota systems.

Mr. Samis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the statement made by the minister in Quebec, Mr. Saint-Pierre, demanding further meetings with Mr. Gillespie, has the minister been in contact with the minister in Quebec in the last week?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my people in the ministry have been the ones who have been prodding the Province of Quebec along into doing something for this particular operation in our provinces. We have had a constant relationship involving the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa, the Quebec ministry, my ministry, and the Manitoba ministry to try to review the situation on a continual basis.

My understanding is that only a few days ago my people met once again in Montreal with the representatives of the Quebec government and the ministry to review the coordinated position of Ontario and how we are going to present the case further to Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

INQUIRY INTO DUMP TRUCK OPERATIONS

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications:

Following the appointing of. the inquiry into the haulage industry, can the minister advise us when we might have a report on this as, of course, the members of the association are most concerned that the season is slow upon us in which a number of temporary permits can be issued?

If the time frame is going to be somewhat late, will the minister consider a moratorium, for this spring at least, on the issuing of further permits?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of the same letter that the hon. member is referring to and I am now considering it. I just received it this morning from Mr. Natale and we are looking at his proposal to see if we can perhaps come up with some sort of moratorium. I don’t know, but perhaps we might.

Mr. Breithaupt: Could the minister perhaps consider making a statement this week on his view of the situation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I will have something this week.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

MOPEDS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Why has the minister granted permission for 3-hp motorized bicycles capable of achieving 30 mph to be driven on public highways by 14-year-olds without licence, without insurance and without helmets?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, rather than: going into details as to why it was done in the first place, may I say to, the hon. member that I have had some second thoughts about that particular legislation. I have had discussions with a number of organizations across the province -- safety organizations, police organizations, concerned families, groups, and individuals, I am presently looking at the legislation with a view perhaps to, making some modifications in it.

It was done in the first place because we felt that the moped, as it is known, the motor-assisted bicycle, could be used on the streets similarly with the 10-speed bicycle. I am not so sure whether that is correct or not, especially considering some Of the actions and some of the manufacturers who have taken it upon themselves to attempt to take advantage: of that legislation and put out what in essence would be a motorcycle, but would fall within the terms of what we have outlined as a motor-assisted bicycle in the Act.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary: Would the minister take a look at the recommendations made by the select committee on snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles where we considered the moped to be an all-terrain vehicle? And will the minister look at some of the recommendations that we have made in that regard for the proper control of those particular all-terrain vehicles?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker. One of the things we are doing right now is looking at the report in some detail as it applies specifically to the motor-assisted bicycle.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications if Unity Bank made representations to his ministry to have this legislation amended?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I would have to say no, because I am not familiar with the Unity Bank; so I would say no, they haven’t, to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health: It appears that working in that ministry is injurious to the minister’s health, but we won’t go into that. Can the minister indicate to the House whether his ministry is continuing taking blood samples, hair samples and so on, of the Indians in the Wabigoon English River system in northwestern Ontario to test for mercury? If they are continuing this, and I hope they are, can the minister indicate if those tests show that the level of mercury in those people has gone up or gone down in the two or three years they have been testing them?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we are not doing the testing right now, and let me explain this. The federal government took over that role some while back. We are performing the tests for them in our laboratories but they are actually determining who shall be tested. They are going out into the reserve and examining people and taking either hair or blood samples. We do the tests on them once they submit them to us. We give the answers back to the federal government’s Dr. Connop, I believe it is, in the area and he in turn notifies the people as to their level.

I have been looking over the test results that have been coming along of late, particularly those on younger children and mothers, and those two groups have been pretty good. We are still very concerned about some of the test results we have seen from people who have fairly high exposure to the fish in the area. I know that other ministries are looking at this problem too. To date, as members know, we have bad no symptoms of any mercury poisoning but I would be the first to say that we often would wonder why, because of some of the levels that were established.

Mr. Stokes: That is not what the Japanese experts said.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am quite aware of that and I have looked into it, but they also didn’t see the people, don’t forget that. It was one of those questions where an expert said one thing and there was a disagreement even among that group of people.

We are not trying to pretend there isn’t a problem, let me assure the members of that. I am only saying that the tests the federal government has done in Winnipeg -- not by the Province of Ontario -- on those people who are willing to go to hospital have shown no symptoms of the disease. That in no way lowers our determination to see the problem resolved, and I am sure it is only going to be resolved by getting people who eat a lot of fish to eat less of it or else eat fish from another source.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, time is just about up. A new question?

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr. Dukszta: Yes, a question of the. Minister of Health: Will the minister, tell the House of his intention with respect to regulations for optometrists? Very specifically, is he going to allow optometrists who are employed by various companies -- 25 per cent of all optometrists in Ontario -- to continue the job, or is he going to allow the regulation which the college is proposing, to tell them to stop working for the companies?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows we talked about this at great length during the health disciplines bill. At that time, I believe an agreement was made with the College of Optometry to bring forward certain regulations, the details of which I can’t regurgitate on a second’s notice, but I believe they guaranteed that employees of companies that sold eyeglasses would be given alternative employment. I believe this was one of the agreements. I have seen some of the members nodding their heads. I haven’t personally reviewed the regulations. They have been submitted by the college quite recently and we will be circulating them to all other colleges shortly, so that they will be public once we have, let’s say, sort of changed the verbiage to standardize it.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that when the House rises for the dinner interval this evening it will resume sitting at 8:30 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the select committee on company law be authorized to sit concurrently with the House in order to prepare its report.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I got wind of the possibility of that motion being introduced at lunch time today. I don’t think it is really fair to the members of the House who want to take part in the proceedings or listen to the proceedings that are going to take place this afternoon. After all, the wind-up of the Throne debate is coming today and certainly I want to sit here and listen to my colleague, the hon. member for Sarnia.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): His swan song.

Mr. Singer: As important as the committee is I think we should get the full benefit of his words of wisdom. I understand the Premier is going to be winding up for the government and we wouldn’t want to miss that.

Mr. Lewis: No, the Premier never winds up. It will be the House leader.

Mr. Singer: I don’t know. Maybe it will be the House leader but whoever it is it might be interesting.

Mr. Lewis: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development does all the winding up.

Mr. Singer: I think it’s all very important and I think the members should be here and not be expected to be at a meeting of any select committee. I would ask the House leader if he would withdraw the motion. It’s unfair to the members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): If I may say a word on this, Mr. Speaker. We were bereft of the wisdom of the member for Downsview during last week when we were called into plenary session and sat four days, all day, seeking to get this particular report through before the election is called. We’ve spent two years on the thing now and the committee --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The election is next year.

Mr. Lawlor: -- in its wisdom, with representatives of two parties in this House, came to the conclusion that the only way in which we’d be able to do so is to utilize every second we have at our disposal. This afternoon seemed to be an appropriate time and spot. All the committee agreed with it and I think that the House leader should go ahead with it.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

TOWNSHIP OF GOULBOURN ACT

Mr. Morrow moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Township of Goulbourn.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE ACT

Mr. Gilbertson moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

HURON COLLEGE ACT

Mr. Walker moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting Huron College.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT

Mrs. Campbell moves first reading of bill intituled An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing the bill which I introduced last year. It is to provide for mandatory landlord and tenant review boards in municipalities with populations of over 50,000 persons. These boards would have the power to determine the amount of rents and to order tenants removed from premises for non-payment of rent or wilful damage to premises.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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 (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I don’t see much point, really, in having a windup to a Throne debate on the day the budget comes in. I don’t suppose there are very many people in the Province of Ontario who care very much what anybody thinks about the Throne debate or the Throne Speech today, given that by 9 o’clock tonight they will know about their tax decreases; they will know about the massive housing programme of the government; they will know about the additional social benefits the government is going to bestow on the elderly and the infirm; they will know all about the reasons the provincial government can’t proceed with programmes in the magnitude they would like because the Ottawa government won’t give them the money out of the inflated coffers; and they will know a bit about the fact that the Province of Ontario is going to stand fast against any proposed increase in the price of fuel. Therefore, it is pretty obvious that anything I might have to say with regard to what was contained in the Throne Speech will take very much a back seat compared to the things we know are going to come out of tonight’s budget speech.

I do though, nevertheless, waist to take a moment or two to talk about some of the things that have aggravated me since the government announced in its Throne Speech its ideas of how a government might meet the crisis that has been confronting the people of the Province of Ontario. I can recall, Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago; in a windup something like this, taking time to look at the various cabinet ministers and discuss their inadequacies. I would have liked to have done that today but there aren’t very many of them here to look at. That seems to be the normal procedure these days for the government; the moment the question period is over the cabinet rises and departs for some of the other more comfortable places in the legislative building and you don’t see them around very much.

Perhaps that’s the reason, or at least one of the reasons, they are incapable of dealing with the problems that confront the people of the Province of Ontario. It is becoming more and more apparent to a lot of us here t.at the cabinet doesn’t really care very much what the members of the Legislature think; that the cabinet of this Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Premier personally, the Premier of the province, do not really believe that we, as elected members, were given the responsibility of bringing to the Legislature the concerns and the views of the people who live within the constituencies we represent.

I think that is probably one of the greatest aggravations in the Legislature these days. I think it is a shame the cabinet can’t find the necessary time to spend in the Legislature, even if it were on a roster system, a rotating system where half or a third of the cabinet would devote some of their time to the Legislature in order to hear what it is the people in Wentworth, the people in Sarnia, the people in other parts of the province want them to hear with regard to their legislation and their programmes; and in some instances with regard to the fact there are no programmes, to meet their needs.

As you look along the cabinet benches, Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting, too, to think about the cabinet ministers and the way in which they conducted the business that they had given to them as a responsibility.

Starting at the extreme left end, you find the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine), and I’ve got to say to him -- I’ll talk a little more about it in a moment -- if there is a single position in government where there has been abject failure it has to be in the Ministry of Housing. In thinking about all the various cabinet posts its very difficult for me to think of any other single cabinet minister who has failed so miserably in carrying out his responsibilities to the public of the Province of Ontario.

The next gentleman is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman). One thinks about the responsibilities given to that particular ministry; the obligation it has to protect the public against rising prices, which are unjustified and unwarranted; the obligation of that ministry to provide warranty protection for homeowners, which haven’t come forward; the obligation of that ministry to act on behalf of and to speak for the consumer in the Province of Ontario. When you weigh that over and against what has come forth from that ministry you can truthfully say that, next only to the Minister of Housing and seated appropriately on his left, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has failed to protect the consumers of the Province of Ontario against the unwarranted profit-taking which took place during the last two years in a period of high inflation.

Then you look at the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen). There’s a man who was given a responsibility that no man should have had given to him, the responsibility of looking after two pieces of legislation, both of which were doomed to fail right from the very beginning. He is the man who had the land transfer tax and the --

An hon. member: Land speculation tax.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): They’ll do away with the land transfer tax.

Mr. Deans: Yes, I’m going to mention that. He also had the land speculation tax thrust upon him. I don’t blame him for that; that was obviously the decision made by the Treasury board. But the fact of the matter is that neither of these taxes has acted in the way in which it was intended they act. Neither of these taxes has played an important part in keeping down land costs as they were intended to do. In fact, those major new taxes, which this ministry was charged with the responsibility of administering during this last fiscal year, in both instances have failed.

You can skip the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter) because he hasn’t done anything.

You go then to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes). I doubt if there has been more of an embarrassment thrust upon the government than that which has been brought about by the inadequacies of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and the inability of that minister to deal adequately with the problems of commuter transportation and the problems of public transportation. I refer to the whole fiasco that developed over the Krauss-Maffei pilot project. At the CNE and the inability of the government to extract itself with some degree of efficiency and honour from a situation that it got itself into without giving adequate consideration to the cost to the public of Ontario, or for that matter without taking into account the available modes of transportation which could have been and ought to have been encouraged to develop in this province.

There is no question that right within the Province of Ontario at this point, as there is all around the world, there are many conventional methods of public transportation that could and should have been used to try to cut down on the use of the private automobile in the major metropolitan areas. There are available to us, even on this day, a number of fairly rapid surface transportation methods for transporting people and goods between major municipalities in this province, or for that matter right across this country, that have not been used to greatest advantage by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. I say to that minister that another ministry in which the effort was made but was wrong-headed and obviously doomed to failure, and did fail, was his ministry.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld) is incapable of understanding the dilemma of the major universities and colleges in the Province of Ontario; the difficulties -- and now we have one minister fewer; the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) is leaving.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member was just getting to him.

Mr. Deans: I am just getting to him and he is leaving.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities seems incapable of grasping the significance of the cutbacks that he has made; and he doesn’t seem to understand that education is of course a costly matter and that there has to be a far greater degree of input from the various universities and colleges across the province before decisions are made with regard to their expenditures. This doesn’t seem to be the way of the government, and the Minister of Colleges and Universities, though a lightweight in the cabinet, a lightweight politically, hasn’t been able to bring forward the kind of legislation and put forward the kind of muscle within the cabinet that would guarantee that there was some voice heard.

We come to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. What can be said about him? What can be said about the ministry? Here is the one ministry with the opportunity to take a very long and serious look at the entire food industry. He can begin right from the source. He can talk sensibly and knowledgeably, one would hope, about the situation right from the farm gate to the retail outlet. He could have investigated, had it been his desire, the rising costs which resulted in great hardship for a great many people across this province; but that wasn’t the way he was going to go. The minister refused, and it’s only in the last three or four days that the minister has recognized his responsibility and has begun to move toward determining such things as what causes the rising prices in the milk industry. That could have been and should have been carried over into so many other of the food producers and food product industries.

That minister is one minister who should in fact resign, because over the last 3½ years we have seen a rapid escalation of costs with an equally rapid escalation of profit margins within the food industry at the retail level. The farmer has obviously not been receiving his share. It has been evident to us, to the farmers and to the public that the opportunity for the farmer to gain a reasonable share wasn’t there as long as the middle man in the industry was taking out of the profit and adding to the cost. This ministry had a responsibility to conduct the kind of investigation that we are talking about, perhaps on an even larger scale than the one it is currently about to conduct in the area of milk pricing, but no action was forthcoming.

We go down the field to the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) who precipitated, who encouraged, who, by his dog-in-the-manger and dogmatic attitudes, almost brought this province into a strike situation with regard to his own employees, who was unable --

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): I am glad the member is having --

Mr. Deans: Oh welcome back. What have we got? One Minister without Portfolio. That’s the best the government can muster.

An hon. member: That’s enough.

Mr. Deans: He used to have a position of prominence; now he is in charge of the reelection, and we can see how that’s going.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): It depends on who is giving the speech.

Mr. Deans: That’s right, it does depend. Why doesn’t the member sit in his own seat?

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

Mr. Deans: The Chairman of Management Board has no earthly idea about labour relations and no idea of negotiations. He continues to negotiate with a big stick in his hand. He doesn’t appreciate the need of the civil service to be able to conduct its negotiations in a reasonable and sensible way. He forces them right to the wall. He almost causes a strike in the Province of Ontario and then he expects everyone to be grateful that the strike didn’t take place.

An hon. member: What one?

Mr. Deans: It was certainly no thanks to him that we weren’t forced to suffer through a prolonged strike within the civil service, and it’s further evidence of what we have seen over a number of years, the inability of the government to sit down and negotiate sensibly.

The Premier I’ll leave to other people. I speak in terms of the inefficiency and inadequacy of his entire cabinet, and I suppose in the final analysis the Premier has to assume the responsibilities for the inefficiency, for the ineffective way the cabinet reacts, in fact for the entire misappropriation by this government of its mandate and its responsibilities.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, through all of the various ministries, finding one or more reasons why they have failed to carry out their responsibilities. But I’m not going to do that. In the half hour that’s left to me I want to deal primarily with three matters that are related to things that have occurred in this Legislature which ought to have been dealt with in the Throne Speech and which were not.

I want to deal with housing; housing as a right in the Province of Ontario and housing as a government responsibility in the Province of Ontario. I want to talk a little bit about this government’s attitude toward housing; the way in which this government, through its Minister of Housing has failed to provide in any way the kind of leadership, guidance or initiatives that will ensure that this generation and generations to follow will have an opportunity to live in a house of their own at a cost they can afford.

I want to talk about something that has been discussed in this Legislature on previous occasions, something that some members may find a bit repetitious, but I think it important to say it at this point because much of what was said by many of us some months ago about the government’s policies in housing, particularly as they relate to land, have resulted in higher costs to the consumer; costs which have forced the actual outlay on a month-to-month basis to rise to a point where it is outside the reach of the average worker in this province.

I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of a debate that took place in the Legislature over land which was assembled by this government in 1967 for housing purposes. It was land assembled in the Hamilton area, but it was land which, in fact, could have been assembled anywhere. I want to recount for you, Mr. Speaker, the details of how this took place.

You will recall, as I do, Mr. Speaker, that in early 1967 Kronas realty owned some 700 to 800 acres of land on Saltfleet Mountain and they offered it to the government. Kronas had paid $1,500 an acre for that land and had assembled approximately 800 acres.

The government refused in May, 1967, to buy the land at the reasonable markup asked for by Kronas. Kronas then went out, and in partnership with a firm called Jon-Enco Ltd., proceeded to assemble additional land. The additional land was finally sold to the Ontario government.

The part about it that causes the greatest aggravation is this: The average cost per acre for the land that was assembled on Saltfleet Mountain ran at about $2,000. The selling price for that same land to the Ontario government not 12 months later was $4,000 per acre. This meant that the land had been purchased by the Ontario government for twice what the developer-speculator had paid for it.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It’s called free enterprise.

Mr. Deans: Not the original owners, who were farmers in most instances; or Kronas realty, which acted as. an intermediary; or Jon-Enco, which finally purchased or optioned much of the land; none of these put a single penny into development of that land. They didn’t even cut the weeds between the time the land was optioned and the time it finally became owned by the Province of Ontario.

The purchase price for that land, when averaged out over the year on all of the acres purchased, came to approximately $3 million. The final selling price by Jon-Enco to this government -- to this government here, the Conservative government of Ontario -- was $6 million.

I said at the time that this could do nothing but drive up the cost of land in the area; that this could do nothing but drive up the cost of building lots; and drive up the cost of accommodation.

I want to show you if I may, Mr. Speaker, what exactly has happened as a result of this government’s actions. It has to stand condemned for them, because these actions have caused so many people -- working day in and day out to earn a decent living in the Province of Ontario -- to be forced out of the housing market.

In November of 1974 there was an advertisement placed in a number of newspapers in the Hamilton area with regard to a HOME programme that was being drawn for under a lottery system in two areas. One was in the east end of the city of Hamilton, on the mountain, and known as Lawfield Gardens; and the other was in the west end of the city of Hamilton, on Hamilton Mountain, and known as Gourley Park. It is no more than three miles from Lawfield Gardens to the Saltfleet satellite development. That’s the one where the $6 million was paid for the land.

In the lottery draw held in November of 1974, the minimum gross annual income that would enable an applicant to qualify was $8,700.

An applicant with a minimum income of $8,700 would have qualified for a certain number of the homes under this programme.

The land costs ranged from a low of $38 per month per building lot to a high of $81 per month per building lot.

The house prices in Lawfield Gardens and Gourley Park surveys were in the neighbourhood of $18,500, up to a maximum of $21,000.

We then turn to the land that I speak about, not three miles away and drawn for four months later. Four months later they drew in a lottery on Saltfleet Mountain. The lowest income for eligibility purposes was $11,430; that was up from $8,700 in November, 1974. Within four months, people who could have qualified no longer qualified, not marginally but to the extent of having to be making $3,000 more in order to get into the programme. The reason for this increase is entirely within the cost of land.

On this government programme on Saltfleet Mountain the cost of the land, on a monthly basis, ranged from $102.93 to a high of $135.27 per month for every month for the rest of the remaining five years just to rent the land. The housing costs were marginally down as a result of the federal government reducing the building sales tax. The cost of the actual buildings themselves was marginally down. The cost of the taxes was comparable in fact a little lower. The cost of the land itself had gone, in four months, from a low of $38 for land on Hamilton Mountain to a low of $102.93 for land on Saltfleet Mountain.

What I’m saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is that this government hasn’t even begun to understand the problems of housing when it can answer me as the Minister of Housing did in the House when I asked did he feel the increase in cost was justified and didn’t he feel he was forcing many families out of the housing market and didn’t he understand the housing programme wasn’t meeting the needs of the majority of the people who lived in the Province of Ontario, and didn’t even meet the needs of the average income earners in the Province of Ontario. The minister said they were lucky to get housing at all, that they were fortunate; and that that land was inexpensive compared to what they might have to pay elsewhere.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, why is it that this government can’t see the error of this kind of drastic increase and why is it that the government can’t recognize that there is not an obligation on the part of the person purchasing the building to pay off or pay up the amortized cost of the land over the period of time that the building mortgage might be amortized? Why can’t they simply pay the interest charges on the land, because the land will remain in the hands of the Crown as the land belongs to the Crown? It will never belong to those people. There’s no reason at all why those people should be paying the actual purchase price of the land when they’re not buying it. All they’re doing is leasing, for the duration of their lifetime, that particular piece of property.

The government could have opened the programme up to so many other people if it had been prepared to take an entirely different view of the housing needs of the people of the Province of Ontario.

I want to tell you something about it, Mr. Speaker. The government has only now begun to move in housing and, unfortunately, every single step that it takes is a disaster for the average income earner. The government is prepared to provide assistance for housing for people who earn in excess of $20,000 a year. It is prepared to provide assistance for housing for people who earn between $12,000 and $20,000 a year but there is nothing in the Province of Ontario, either private or public, to assist people who earn on an average less than $12,000 a year to live in a house of their own.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That’s right.

Mr. Deans: Absolutely nothing! What happens to those people is this; they are then required to go and rent in an already sparse accommodation market, an accommodation market that doesn’t have a sufficient number of rental accommodations available for the numbers of people who need them.

This government by its action forces those people into a position where they are at the mercy of the owners of those apartment buildings.

I asked a question last week, and I ask it again, what is the relationship between the Minister of Housing, or for that matter the government as a whole, and the apartment owners of the Province of Ontario that this government refuses time after time to take any action at all to protect people who cannot fit into its inadequate programmes against the unwarranted and unjustified charges levied against them by the owners of apartments and by the developers in the Province of Ontario?

The common sense approach to this is that the needs which have to be met first are surely the needs of the people who cannot, through no fault of their own, avail themselves of the private market.

Surely the needs in the Province of Ontario are to ensure that there is accommodation available for wage earners in this province who earn at the average wage level. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the average wage in the Province of Ontario isn’t $12,000 a year. That means the average wage earner can’t get into the government-sponsored programmes.

It requires a number of things to occur for those people. It requires them to work at two jobs. It requires their wives or their husbands, depending on who happens to be the wage earner in the family, also to hold down a job. It requires that those jobs be permanent in order that people are able to take advantage of the HOME programme and the other programmes of the government of the Province of Ontario.

If one happens to be in that 60 per cent of the population which falls below $12,000 a year and is unable to fit into either of those programmes, it is too damn bad says the government of this Premier. “Go out into the private market; be taken advantage of by the apartment owners of the Province of Ontario. We don’t care about you,” says the Premier and the Tory government. That is what aggravates me and that’s probably what aggravates a great many members, including some back-benchers of the government.

If they would just take a moment or two to take a serious look at what this government has done to the people of this province maybe they would understand that there is a desperate, emergency need for action by the government to provide accommodation in this province for that 60 per cent, and to take action now to protect that 60 per cent against the usury of the many people who own apartments as a business in this province.

Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to you, as it has been suggested a number of times in the past, that as a interim measure the government of the Province of Ontario should institute a form of rent review. There should be an opportunity for tenants to go before this review board and ask whether or not the rent increase being foisted upon them is justified, taking into account the added cost to the owner. If, in fact, it is justified, and the owner produces the justification, that rent increase, of course, would go through; but if it is proved that the requested rent increase is not justified, this board must have the power to inform the owner that he cannot apply it.

That is an interim measure, and while this is in force and effect in the Province of Ontario there has to be a direct involvement by the government of the province in the development and building of public housing units for rental purposes.

At such time when there is a sufficient number of them people living in this province will have an alternative market to turn to and an opportunity to live in decent accommodation without having to pay to the landlord far more than the accommodation is worth or far more than is justified by the actual costs of operating whichever building it happens to be in whichever municipality it is located.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if there is one area, one single area of total failure on the part of this government, it has to be in housing; it has to be its attitude toward housing. It’s not a matter of whether the government is going to build another house or bring in another programme; or whether at 8:30 today it is going to tell us it is going to spend half a billion dollars, up from the $430 million which has been already guaranteed to be spent in the current fiscal year. It is not enough.

It has to be an entirely different attitude toward the needs of the people of this province. It has to be a response to what is recognized by governments across the world as a requirement of life. It has to be a response by the government to one of its major obligations, that being to ensure there will be accommodation for people of a reasonable standard at a cost they can afford. This government has failed in that regard and it is the worst failure ever because it is in one of the most vital areas.

I have said many a time and I say it to the members again, I don’t care what the cost of colour television is. I couldn’t care less. I don’t much care if wall-to-wall carpeting goes up in price. I don’t care if they charge another $50 or $100 for a holiday in Mexico. I couldn’t care less whether they charge more for any of the luxury items. Put the price of beer up, I don’t care. But I am going to tell the House, I care about the cost of housing and I care about the inability of people in this province to get accommodation at a price they can afford.

I say to the government that if it is going to do anything at all, ever, in the lifetime of this government, then for heaven’s sake let it make that its priority of all priorities and make sure that it amasses every single resource at its disposal, because the measure of this government will be its failure, or perhaps its capacity to provide decent accommodation for the people over whom it governs.

I want also to speak for a moment or two about regional government -- municipal affairs in general but regional government in particular. I am disappointed that the government chose to lump together Treasury and municipal affairs. It is far too large a job for one person no matter how hard a man tries. I say this to both the incumbent and his predecessor -- it was a major undertaking.

Mr. Bullbrook: They offered.

Mr. Deans: The fact of the matter is that they ought not to have been put together.

Mr. Bullbrook: They offered.

Mr. Deans: There is a desperate need in the Province of Ontario for a ministry that deals solely with municipal matters in order to allow for easy and quick access for municipalities; but not only that, in order that the municipalities have a sense that the government recognizes the important place and role they play in the development of the Province of Ontario. It isn’t good enough to have to wait in turn to see the Treasurer to talk about planning, to talk about municipal matters, to talk about the development of sewerage systems within municipalities; and it isn’t good enough to be shunted off to the Minister of Housing to talk about planning or over to the Minister of the Environment to talk about regional --

Mr. Bullbrook: It will be changed back within two years.

Mr. Deans: It will be changed back after we form the government, right.

It is not good enough to be shunted off to other ministries to find the answers to what are in effect municipal problems.

I want to deal, really briefly, with what has occurred in the Hamilton-Wentworth region in regard to regional government. The members will recall I had some grave reservation about the structure as it was set up at the time the bill came in. They will recall that I said I thought Hamilton would tend to dominate the region and that the outlying areas wouldn’t have sufficient power, because their size was so small, to withstand the city of Hamilton and its wishes.

They will recall that I said I thought common sense said that Burlington should be part of the Hamilton-Wentworth region and it should be Hamilton and Burlington -- Burlington and Hamilton offering some kind of counter-balancing effect one with the other -- in order that there wouldn’t be the kind of problems developing such as the spilling out of Hamilton into the more rural areas.

There are some real problems developing in the region and the problems are all in the area I spoke about.

I say to the House that I am not a part of that problem, because I have spent many long hours trying to find solutions to it, speaking with the chairman of the region, speaking with numerous council members until the wee hours of the morning trying to find ways to ameliorate and find ways to resolve difficulties that have arisen.

I don’t think there are many who would deny that, but I am going to tell the House something. There is a desperate problem developing in the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and that desperate problem centres on a need for a great deal more co-operation. There is something very sad about a situation that requires regional councillors to stand up and march out of a meeting in order to stop the passage of something which they feel is going to be detrimental to their municipalities. There is something desperately wrong when all you can see as the result of regionalization is the movement out from the city of all of the worst features while no benefits seem to flow or accrue to the more regional areas.

Prior to regionalization, the rural communities enjoyed fairly high taxes, fairly low services and fairly intimate representation. They now enjoy equally high taxes -- higher, in fact -- they enjoy no better services and they have very limited representation because of the way in which the region is structured.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Make it one tier.

Mr. Deans: My colleague says to make it one tier. That would make it worse. What we would have happening if we had one tier would be the city of Hamilton making up its mind, as it is now doing, to dump all of its garbage in a corner of Binbrook. That’s what we would find happening. We’d find the city of Hamilton deciding that since it can’t sell its own ward populations on having --

Mr. J. R. Smith: One at King and James Sts.

Mr. Deans: If the member for Hamilton Mountain wants to enter the debate, I’ll sit down and let him speak. Does he have something to say? Any time the member has spoken in this House, what he has said has been said so inadequately as to be almost incomprehensible. But if he’d like me to sit down I’ll let him speak.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman Management Board of Cabinet): I have listened to a few falsehoods from the member for Wentworth today.

Mr. Deans: Does the Chairman of Management Board have something to say too?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes. Mr. Speaker, since I have been given the invitation, I listened with interest from another place --

Mr. Deans: The minister wasn’t even here.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- in regard to what he said about some members on the front benches, and it indicates to me a total absence of knowledge.

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

Mr. Deans: Thank you. It certainly is a pleasure to have the Chairman of the Management Board drop in to hear the debate. He’s the only front-bench member here at the moment. Anyway, let me go on for a moment.

My colleague from Hamilton Mountain says to make it single-tier. What he doesn’t seem to appreciate is that when the city of Hamilton has been given any part of the rural community under its wing, as happened in Barton township, the residents of the annexed area got absolutely nothing by way of service but they got given to them all of the most disgusting things. The dump that is located now on Limeridge Rd. got there as a result of that becoming part of the city of Hamilton, and the city of Hamilton wouldn’t even provide the people with water. And the member for Hamilton Mountain was the alderman!

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the member sit down?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. J. R. Smith: On a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Deans: What personal privilege?

Mr. J. R. Smith: I think the hon. member for Wentworth is away off base. If you look at the record concerning that particular dump --

Mr. Deans: That’s not a point of personal privilege.

Mr. J. R. Smith: -- he’s away off base and it’s misrepresentation of the facts.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of personal privilege.

Mr. Deans: Well, the member is going to have to prove that. I did not misrepresent the facts. Tell me.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Now the member is inviting it. Strange, strange.

Mr. Deans: I am eager to have it on the record.

Mr. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if he had a very good memory he would recall it was this member, as one of the aldermen for that particular ward of the city, who took an active role when he was elected in convincing the corporation of Hamilton it was to its advantage to abandon the landfill operation and embark upon incineration, which eventually developed into the SWARU. Eventually that became a reality. After due time, the chaotic and very serious pollution conditions at the old Barton township dump were rectified to some extent and great improvements were made. I do think, though, that particular dump was founded by Barton township as a township dump and not by the corporation of Hamilton, but when the area was annexed by the city it came under the jurisdiction of the municipality of Hamilton. But it doesn’t really matter one way or the other.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth will continue.

Mr. Deans: I am glad to have had that interjection because I will deal with it. First of all, if it was the hon. member who convinced the city of Hamilton to abandon landfill sites as a means of dealing with garbage, could he please then explain why it is that they’re going to acquire a 20-year landfill site in the township of Binbrook?

On top of that, can he also explain -- perhaps he’ll do it by press release since I haven’t got enough time to hear him out -- why it is that the people who live adjacent to the dump were promised for 15 years that it would be closed? And for 15 years they did without water. For 15 years their wells were polluted. For 15 years they had to go out with a bucket in their hand to get some water out of a truck that went by once a day. What did the member do to correct that?

Anyway, that’s the reason regional government doesn’t work and why there is such distrust. The people who live in the areas that are now being affected by the decisions of the city of Hamilton recognize that in all of the time the city has been there, it has never lived up to its obligations. That’s why we’ve got problems today.

But let me go back for a moment anyway. What I want to suggest is this: If the member feels so strongly about the abolishing of landfill sites, then he has a great opportunity to be of some use to this Legislature and to the people of the area. He can lean forward and, when his absent colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), is back, he can say to him that maybe it isn’t such a good idea for him to approve the development of a major sanitary landfill -- and I use that word with tongue in cheek -- site in the township of Binbrook. Maybe it isn’t such a good idea for them to develop this sanitary landfill site at the most southerly corner of the region, where every truck that has to go there will travel the entire north-south distance from one regional boundary to the other to get from the treatment plant to this place where they are going to dump their garbage.

Maybe it would be a good idea if he could convince his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, and show a little bit of spunk and guts, that the government ought not to have rejected the request of the regional municipality for additional moneys to improve and to make work the SWARU system in the city of Hamilton; and that maybe it would be a good idea if this government lived up to its responsibilities and provided the dollars necessary to put this pilot project into suitable and adequate working condition to ensure that the people who live outside the city won’t have to put up with 20 years of landfill in their particular municipalities.

If the member wants to contribute something of any significance during this brief stay that he has had in the Legislature, perhaps between now and the next election he could bring those things to the attention of the minister in order that it can be done, so that when we take over the government there will at least be something left to work with.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Yes, smarten up.

Mr. Deans: In addition to that, let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government’s record in the areas of garbage disposal and in the areas of treatment of garbage is a pretty pitiful one. I am obviously not going to get through everything I wanted to say today, but that’s okay.

Let me tell the House about this government’s attitude toward the recycling of garbage. I have a letter here from a group of people who are in the recycling business who have approached the government for assistance to maintain themselves during this economic downturn to try to make sure that recycling is, in fact, the order of the day in the Province of Ontario, that waste of natural resources doesn’t continue to occur, and that we do take full advantage and make full use of all of the products that have been used and can be reused.

Do you know what has happened, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of the Environment doesn’t even deal with their problem. One after the other, recycling operations that were set up, hopefully to comply with what appeared to be a direction being taken by the Minister of the Environment, recycling operations that could have saved in the long run many millions of dollars in terms of the waste of resources in this province, are being allowed to go out of business, because the Minister of the Environment is not committed to a programme of recycling and because the Minister of the Environment doesn’t really care what happens.

One final point on regional government: Let me say that in the area of regional transit I don’t think anyone would deny that the request put forward by the area municipalities in Hamilton-Wentworth region is reasonable. They shouldn’t have to pay for something from which they derive no benefit. They ought not to be expected to pay on an equal basis for a regional transit system that doesn’t benefit them one whit and isn’t likely to in the foreseeable future. They are reasonable people and, no doubt, would be prepared to provide some assistance from their tax coffers in order to try to expand the system and then pay for it on a user basis in accordance with the availability of the service. I think the government has an obligation to respond to that in a positive way.

Let me just turn to one final matter for five minutes, and then I will be finished. I want to say something about labour relations in the Province of Ontario. I think that, second to housing, this government’s attitude toward labour relations is probably the largest failure that it has before it.

Like many members of the Legislature I have looked around the world for places to model labour relations after. I have come to the conclusion that what works in one jurisdiction won’t necessarily work anywhere else. Throughout the world there is a variety of different ways in which labour negotiations and labour relations are conducted but the main thrust, the main component, of any reasonable labour relations legislation or environment has to do with both sides attitude toward the government -- whether they believe the government is fair; whether they believe the government is acting in accordance I with the best practices in dealing with inflation; whether the government is putting forward labour laws which are practical or workable; whether the government really cares whether or not the system works.

I think the evidence of the government’s own inability to understand the problems is available to us, if we want to look at it, in the Public Service Bargaining Act. I think it is evident that the government, although it has moved ever so marginally to a more progressive position, didn’t understand and doesn’t understand the need to enable people to negotiate at the bargaining table for all matters which include, of course, matters of working conditions.

I want to suggest that the government needs to have a different outlook toward labour relations. It has first of all to believe that the negotiation process is here to stay; that it is, in fact, a better process than the one which was in effect before when it was everyone for himself; that it makes good sense and that the majority of corporations are perfectly happy that there is a negotiation process available to them. It then has to set about, as a government, to establish reasonable minimal standards of hours of work, safety and wages and benefits.

The government has to make it understood by everyone that the public sector employees are employees of everyone, and that no one should expect these employees would be prepared to work for less than they would expect to be paid under similar circumstances elsewhere or, for that matter, to work in conditions which are any less tolerable than the conditions under which other people have to work.

I think there is such a thing in Ontario as essential services and they could be defined fairly readily. Some are obvious, some are not so obvious but I think it’s entirely possible to assign them.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am glad to hear the member say that.

Mr. Deans: I have said it before.

Mr. Bullbrook: Some of the member’s party did.

Mr. Deans: I say there are such things as essential services and I think the government would find, if it were to sit down with the public service, that it would not be difficult to define what things were essential services. They would be quite content to sit down and discuss the matter given the opportunity.

I also think it should be understood by everyone that by simply banning the right to strike one doesn’t eliminate strikes. That’s been tried in a number of jurisdictions across the world and one can ban the right to strike if one wishes; one can make it illegal. All one has done is make what was once legal illegal. It still happens. When people become sufficiently frustrated, when people become sufficiently aggravated and upset about working conditions and the attitude of their management toward them they withhold their services whether they are legally entitled to or otherwise. I don’t condone that. I recognize it as a fact of life and we have to recognize things as being facts.

I think the government has also got to straighten out the anomalies in the labour laws in the Province of Ontario. It can’t have, on the one hand, the right to strike while on the other hand there is the right to have strike-breakers. It creates a situation which results in intolerable conditions on the picket lines and causes much of the turmoil and conflict which develops in the Province of Ontario.

The government has also got to recognize and state publicly, in order to gain the support of the great majority of people, that there are a number of ways in which conflicts will be resolved. They can be resolved at the bargaining table as is now the case in 95 to 96 per cent of the negotiations that take place. There is a place for conciliation, for mediation, for arbitration. There is even a place for final offer selection for anyone who wants to use it.

There’s no question there’s a place for any form of settlement of any dispute that takes place and I don’t think anybody with any brains would deny that. Two parties, having a dispute, reach a point where they cannot resolve it themselves and choose to have someone else resolve it for them. They also must have available to them the right to choose whichever method they want to choose in having it resolved.

I also want to say that for as long as there is a province, there will always be people who will go on strike. The sooner everyone understands that the sooner we stop making an issue of it, the sooner we sit down and start to create an atmosphere in which collective bargaining can take place meaningfully, the sooner we set up the kind of research facilities that will provide arbitrators, mediators, and conciliation officers with a full range of services and knowledge that they require to resolve disputes, the sooner we will cut down the number who do end up on strike from four or five per cent to one or two per cent.

I think it’s a matter of attitude, and I don’t think this government has the attitude that is necessary in order to resolve the many problems.

There are a number of other things that have to be done in the labour relations field, which I don’t intend to go into fully today. But I think we have to recognize that safety and health in the plant are a provincial responsibility, not a matter for negotiation, and that the laws have to be sufficiently stringent to protect the health of the worker and his family during the times that they are at work.

I think we also have to understand that, while the Workmen’s Compensation Board may be by some people’s standards a model, it doesn’t go nearly far enough. A person who is off work because of illness is just as much in need of a continuation of wages as a person who is off work as the result of a broken leg or an injury incurred at work.

There has to be a new attitude toward workers in the province to bring about the kinds of changes that we think are necessary. We believe the members of our party probably know as much about the labour relations field as any member in this House. We think we could help to resolve that particular area which is causing so many people so much concern today.

I want to say in closing that there are going to be a number of things said tonight by the government. No doubt they will attempt to create the confrontation between Queen’s Park and Ottawa that will allow them to go to the polls, probably on the pretext of establishing a mandate for tougher negotiation.

They will, in fact, make some marginal changes in social benefit. They will, in fact, make announcements of further expenditures in housing. They will no doubt make a marginal reduction in tax costs tonight, whether by way of rebate or by direct reduction of the income tax. They’ll do away with the land transfer tax -- in fact there are a number of things that they will do.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Do away with the land transfer tax? Is that right? Is that what is going to happen?

Mr. Bullbrook: Over someone’s dead body -- right?

Mr. Deans: The problem, of course, is that the government has a credibility problem. They have a problem of trying to convince the public of the Province of Ontario that they mean what they say; that they will do what they claim they’ll do.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Party, the official opposition, also suffers from a similar credibility problem. If it could be said truthfully, I think the public believes our party does what it says it would do.

Mr. Bullbrook: A fine speech ruined.

Mr. Deans: Anyhow, I want to end by saying you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on the day my leader spoke he moved an amendment and that amendment said as follows: “That this House regrets the failure of the government to provide political leadership.” That’s really what I’ve been talking about.

This House regrets the failure of the ministries of Health, Labour, Natural Resources and Environment to establish and enforce adequate standards for occupational safety and health -- and that is a responsibility of government.

There is the failure of the Chairman of the Management Board and the ministries of Labour and Education to develop labour laws and collective bargaining procedures in the public and private sector to prevent the continual breakdown of negotiations and subsequent strikes. And I’ve suggested some things that might help in that field.

There is the failure of the Minister of Housing to pursue policies which would combat the drastic decline in house building now occurring; to provide housing for low and middle income groups within their capacities; to control rents and rental accommodation; and to prevent the conversion of rental accommodation to condominiums. I’ve made mention that we believe that that is perhaps the single, greatest failure of the government.

There is the failure of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) to control the expansionary policies of Ontario Hydro.

My leader moved further the failure of the Premier to provide the leadership required to combat the social and economic hardships which are affecting the citizens of Ontario, and I say to the House now that I welcome the government making a decision after the budget this evening that we should go to the public of Ontario and ask them whether they don’t agree with us that this government has failed in almost every single area of responsibility, that this government has taken on fanciful programmes rather than practical experience, that it has turned to things which were doomed to failure from the beginning rather than applying common sense and brains to things which have been practised and for which there is knowledge available.

I am going to say to the House that if there is a single failure of this government the failure has been this, that the government of Ontario, recognizing the needs as it has, has not once in 3½ years responded with positive programmes aimed at resolving the needs where they exist. For this reason I hope -- though perhaps I hope in vain -- that the people of the House will see fit to reject what was, in fact, a very empty document, the Throne Speech of 1975.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of joining in the debate in reply to the Throne Speech by Her Honour, and following my friend from Wentworth, who I think we’ll all agree exudes a great deal of sincerity in connection with the matters that he speaks of.

I had the opportunity, sir, of joining him and the Minister without Portfolio representing London South, before the Stanford Fellows here about three or four weeks ago and I must say I was tremendously impressed with both their contributions and I must say prideful of the fact that the response that was directed afterwards was, I thought, one of high esteem for the quality and calibre and sincerity of the members who were on that panel.

I want to say first if I may that I want to take this opportunity of expressing in the journals of this House my deep appreciation, my continuing appreciation, to the people of the Sarnia riding for the opportunity that they have afforded me over the past eight years of being their representative in this chamber. It’s a strange riding -- I regard it as a sophisticated riding -- strange in the context of thinking that they can send to us Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor and at the same time send me, because that shows an ambivalence of purpose that one can’t always explain.

I think, frankly, that Her Honour, I must say on behalf of my constituents, of whom she was one at one time, graces that office with a charm and dignity almost irreplaceable by any man. I want to say that I had the opportunity of beginning my political career, for what it was worth, sitting as the desk-mate of her mother on the Sarnia Board of Education; obviously at that time an elderly lady, Mrs. Mills, who, again, graced that particular office with charm.

Mr. Speaker, if I may, I want to convey through the Chair to the significant occupier of the chair my congratulations on his elevation to that responsibility. I want to say to you that many of us -- and I say it frankly -- looked upon the appointment originally with some reservations, and I for one, expressing a personal opinion, now negate any reservation that I had in connection with the appointment. I think the Speaker has attempted to show a sincere and dedicated approach to the office that he has, a very difficult office, especially in the context of our national reputation as being one of the more difficult Houses to control; a reputation, by the way, well considered by those who put it forward.

I often wonder, frankly, whether the reputation isn’t only referable to the 29th Parliament. My recollection of the 28th Parliament is a much happier one, if I may speak frankly, Mr. Speaker, than of the 29th Parliament. To me, there has been a change, a flavour in the process.

I recall coming in here originally and I look back with great fondness upon the associations that I made at that time and the associations that will continue, I trust, as long as I continue. For example, I couldn’t say that I have not had any strong words with or debate with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Dymond), who occupied the portfolio of Health for many years; yet, at the same time, that particular gentleman never at any time left me with any residue of doubt that he knew it was debate and solely a debate. I would say the same about the former Treasurer who represented the riding of Huron, now occupied as a result of a by-election -- an indicator of some consequence -- by my colleague now sitting here in the Liberal benches.

I recall distinctly one day when the level of debate descended pretty low, about as low as you could get in the 28th Parliament, that I called him a seed merchant from Exeter, and he referred to me reciprocally as the long finger with the big mouth. Immediately thereafter, knowing I had gotten second best in that particular repartee, I went outside prepared to take issue with him. He accosted me with, “Let’s have a cup of coffee, Jim.”

I recognize it’s very difficult when you get into the debate, not to say some things at the time that you’re not too happy about, but I must say some of the debates in the 29th Parliament have left me almost aghast. I can recall one time being barracked at by the hon. member for Middlesex South (Mr. Eaton) to such an extent that perhaps I shouldn’t have said it, but I turned to the Speaker and said, “Will somebody ask that lady to be quiet?” No sooner had I finished my speech and walked out there, I think he intended to physically assault me.

An hon. member: He was going to hit the member with his purse.

Ms. Bullbrook: I immediately called for the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) because he does all my small fighting. But in any event, we do have these problems. The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) sometimes loses control of himself. They remind me a bit of Batman and Robin over there. I can’t tell which is which half the time. But, in any event, there has been a change in flavour in the House.

I want to say, as I’ve said before, Mr. Speaker, that I attribute to some extent the change in flavour to the change in Premiers. I want to talk about that afterwards because I interjected the other day, perhaps improperly, that the present Premier couldn’t carry Mr. Robarts’ political shoes. I meant that in the context of the recognition of constitutional responsibilities and national thrusts and national responsibility, and I truly believe that.

I want to talk about what the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) said the other day and was so quickly supported by the Minister of Housing and, in his direct but always equivocal way as could be, by the Premier. Quite frankly, I can never tell what the Premier is supporting at any particular given time. I trust this will change in Ottawa, come Wednesday.

In any event, there has been this change of flavour that we know about. Some of it has to do with the feeling that is not singularly appropriate to the present Premier, but the feeling that the legislative process isn’t that very important. I’m not going to bore you with statistics again, Mr. Speaker; I have tried to bore people with statistics before about the use of the legislative process, because frankly I am a great believer in the use of the legislative process. I am a great believer that strangely enough, from this mean and medium of 117 of us, there can evolve good legislation if we permit it to evolve.

I’m not going to bore the House with the statistics about the sterilization of the committee process as it should be used, but somewhere along the line the bureaucracy has crept in to such an extent that we are not really given the opportunity of coming to grips with what we want to say or coming to grips with legislation that we would like to see. We’re faced with the dominance of a volume of press material -- spewed forward, as my colleague from Rainy River (Mr. Reid) says, talking about the chairman of the public accounts committee, spewed forward by a bunch of faceless names earning $18,000 to $20,000 a year.

An hon. member: I could name a few.

Mr. Bullbrook: And it costs us $15 million, they tell me, for press people.

I just want to read the hon. members one I got this morning. It is just a tremendous example of where government is going. It’s a news release from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, Communications Services, Hearst Block, 900 Bay St., Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ont. M7A 2E3 -- just in case the hon. members want to write to them.

It reads: “Ontario, in spring, is a floral thing.”

An hon. member: Oh.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s what it said. It is a discussion --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White) must have written that.

Mr. Bullbrook: When I read it first of all I said I knew the people of Ontario were against them but now the damn elements are against them.

In any event, it’s an exposition about the beauties of Ottawa and Niagara Falls written by some press officer. Some of it really is almost insensitive. Some of it, I think, would corrupt. Listen to this for a moment:

“For many thousands of people living within a 100-mile radius of the Honeymoon Capital, the trip to see the peninsula in full bloom has become an annual pilgrimage which ends in a festival of fun.”

That borders on obscenity. Not only should we not be publishing that type of thing, I think -- who is the censor man? Is he still involved?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why it’s old Don Sims. I don’t know whether Don would approve that or not.

Mr. Bullbrook: In any event, is Don Sims --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Don’s doing it.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’ll send him a copy of this. Don would know what that means.

In any event, that’s the few words about the Falls. They go on to Ottawa. This is something:

“Ottawa’s Festival of Spring is the culmination of the spring flower parade which starts around the end of March as the first hardy crocus bud pokes its nose above ground.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s got a stem 15 ft long. I might be interested.

Mr. Bullbrook: It goes on:

“More than a half-million of these first spring harbingers form this vanguard. Next come the high-stepping golden daffodils -- more than a million of them storming the capital’s parks and hills -- followed by their less jaunty cousins, the narcissus, in hot pursuit.”

Mr. Breithaupt: At $15 million?

Mr. Bullbrook: The hon. members don’t believe me. The narcissuses are in hot pursuit. I knew there was something Freudian about that and I looked up what narcissus vas. This fellow, whoever he or she or it is, has to go. He has to go. That’s part of what the change is all about. That is kind of a funny part.

I want to tell the House about an unfunny part for a moment. An unfunny part transpired in this House about four weeks ago when a certain member -- the member for St. David, should I say -- whom we can tolerate flitting around this House, acting the part of everybody’s mother-in-law; this we can subscribe to, but this type of speech wasn’t something that can be laughed off.

He says -- she says, I’m sorry, that was a Freudian slip -- she says: “The introduction of dirty tricks into Canadian politics.” This is a pre-arranged speech. One can tell because the first line says: “Thank you for that kind introduction.” The second paragraph reads:

“Realizing that this year of 1975 is International Women’s Year, as declared by the United Nations, it might have been appropriate for me to discuss the issue of women’s rights.”

In the context of the introduction of dirty tricks, I wonder why she didn’t consider that at the time.

I want to tell the hon. members what her speech was basically about. As the majority of the members know, it had to do with the need for housing.

The former speaker, quite eloquently, and colleagues of mine, just as eloquently and just as sincerely motivated, have attempted to put forward their ideas in connection with housing in this province, because it’s a sad commentary when we hear so much about housing. We recognize the need. We transport ourselves back, as we must, to the times when we had just turned 20 and the times when we were beginning to raise a family. We try to transport ourselves inside the minds and the skins of those people who face that kind of responsibility now in the context of high, usurious interest rates and in the context of almost unconscionable profits by certain people in the industry. She begins by saying this:

“Basically, the parameters of our housing policy are based upon three main objectives:

“1. That housing is the basic right of all residents of Ontario.”

I won’t talk to you about the other two, Mr. Speaker. When one starts with a platitude in connection with a concrete problem, I am not going to continue on.

But let me read something that she said. She then talked about certain people who are in the employ of the Liberal caucus in Ontario. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, without reservation as a lawyer that they could sue her for libel without any difficulty at all, having regard to what she said in this speech. She says:

“Sadly, we are all familiar with the Watergate mess in the United States. Part of the investigation into the Watergate uncovered what has become known as dirty tricks.”

She then goes on to say that the federal government has withheld certain moneys from the provincial government which has stultified and sterilized their ability to provide housing adequate to the needs of the people of Ontario.

Many of the people in this House who have a responsibility to the self-same people of Ontario immediately pointed out that $103 million had been voted in the last two years -- correct me if I am wrong -- which was unexpended. Many people pointed out that in a budget of $8.9 billion, 1.1 per cent had been allocated in the field of housing.

I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, Do you know what the Watergate mess was about? The Watergate mess was about break, entry and theft. The Watergate mess was about illegal wiretapping. The Watergate mess was about a conspiracy to cover up criminal activities. To think that a member of this - House, then supported. by her minister and supported by the Premier, would try to get away with equating that type of activity by high officers of government with even what she accused the federal government of, were it right or not.

I want to say that’s what’s wrong with this House. That’s when I interjected that the Premier couldn’t carry John Robarts’ political shoes. Read his opening address at the Confederation of Tomorrow conference. The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White), who is one of his closest friends, knows that the attitude of John Robarts always was that we will not in any way fracture this Confederation.

This is what that member does in this type of speech. She talks about plumbing the depths of the gutters. I don’t talk about that. I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, if I may, there was only one explanation for that type of speech: Either an over-zealous speech writer somewhere and a lack of responsibility on the person who delivered the speech, or stupidity, clear unadulterated stupidity -- nothing else. Nobody can possibly try to carry forward an analogy of what happened in the United States with her accusation, and so I sometimes become concerned.

I become concerned when the Premier doesn’t stand in his place and say, “I refute that. I will not have anything to do with it.” Mr. Robarts would have done that. He would have. He would have said, “I will have nothing to do with saying that there were motives of that nature on the part of the federal government.” Once you do that, you can’t negotiate in the context of your responsibility to the province and the nation, Mr. Speaker. You can’t do it. You can’t bring that type of slumming into the high offices and the seats of the mighty. It can’t be done, but the Premier is prepared to do it. He apparently is prepared now. He is prepared now to come forward, he says. The headline reads: “Davis Promises to Fight Price Increases of Oil and Gas at Federal-provincial Talks.” I applaud him for that.

I don’t know whether he will do it; that’s the problem. He didn’t do it a year ago. The problem a year ago was that he didn’t understand what was going on. Today he said to us, in effect, that the industries didn’t get enough share of that. Now he’s going to take it upon himself to blame the federal government.

The federal government imposed, I believe, a $5 a barrel export tax. They use that to equalize the difficulties east of the Ottawa River. The distribution of the remainder of the funds was something that should have been negotiated; if, truly, the Premier of Ontario is correct and sincere when he’s quoted as saying he believes in a national commitment, then he’s got to recognize this.

First of all, there is a body that is called upon to accept the responsibility for national commitments, and that’s the government of Canada. And if the government of Canada must pass legislation for the protection of all the people of Canada, then they must.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, were my leader the Premier going to Ottawa there’d be no reservation. Don’t worry about the country cousins. Do you think for one moment, Mr. Speaker, that we’re their country cousins? Far from it. There would be hard bargaining on the part of the Premier of Ontario, Robert Nixon. I’ll tell you why, because he’s already called Alberta exactly what it is, the Valhalla of Canada, at the present time. Do you think there isn’t need for hard bargaining when you look at the budgetary problem that the Treasurer will have tonight?

Let me read you what goes on, if I may:

Personal income tax: Alberta, 26 per cent; Ontario, 30.5 per cent; British Columbia, 30.5 per cent.

Gift tax: Alberta none. Yes, we have it and so does British Columbia.

Gasoline tax: In Alberta 10 cents a gallon; here, 19 cents; British Columbia, 15 cents.

Alberta has no succession duties; we have them and so does British Columbia.

Property tax relief, where it’s so much needed. Education tax has been abolished in Alberta, and on residential and farm land.

The corporation tax in Alberta, 11 per cent. Ours is 12 per cent.

Sales tax, none. Sales tax, which thaws into the Treasury of the Province of Ontario at the present time $1.5 billion, and they don’t have any in Alberta. If that doesn’t call for effective bargaining, nothing does.

And we’re not going to be fooled here in the Liberal Party by being told that we’re the country cousins of the people in Ottawa. We never have been. We never will be. We recognize the responsibility that we have to these people in the Province of Ontario. I for one, frankly, get sick and tired when I hear people talking about the ability of the Liberal Party to govern. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the Throne Speech would have said had I been assisting in the writing of that Throne Speech.

The hon. member for Wentworth peripherally talked about labour relations in the Province of Ontario, and I want to say to you this: Unions, management, the consuming public, everyone, are sick and tired of strikes. They’re justifiably sick and tired of strikes. But the collective bargaining process must continue, on this I totally agree with the hon. member for Wentworth. But there must be something done to look into the field.

The Premier speaks about the need for leadership. Look at that document, how can you debate the Throne Speech? A debate, I think, is defined as an exchange of ideas through dialogue. There’s not an idea in that Throne Speech that we can exchange. There should be something in that Throne Speech. Listen for a moment what might have been said, just for a moment if I may -- what could have been said by Her Honour.

She could have said: My government will immediately establish a select committee or a royal commission to examine alternatives to strikes, including centralized bargaining, non-stoppage strikes, co-determination, productivity bargaining and final-offer selection.

These are just some of the possibilities that are being experimented with throughout the world. We aren’t saying that they’re that good; we don’t know. But we’ve done nothing in eight years. I have really been nauseously repetitious in this House in asking for the appointment of a select committee to look into labour relations -- not because of some inventive genius on my part, but because of the fact that you don’t have to look beyond your nose to recognize that it’s the one poor relation of government, and that people are thirsting for some type of answers.

And surely to goodness we have an obligation to give them the answers. Not only was there nothing mentioned about it in the Throne Speech -- I am afraid we will go on forever with nothing mentioned because, I say again, albeit repetitious, we can do the job. If we are given the opportunity we can do the job.

I have sat on only one select committee of this legislative assembly, albeit it was a quasi-judicial one, but I recognize the job that the members of that committee did. They went in with no predisposition save the perhaps understandable predisposition that the personal integrity of the Premier of Ontario should not be attacked. We didn’t attempt to attack that personal integrity. If we went into that committee it was with that predisposition because we don’t believe the present Premier is personally without moral fibre; we recognize quite the contrary. But he can’t continue to play the Pontius Pilate approach and say, “It is not there, because I don’t see it. I don’t know anything about Fidinam and the $50,000. I don’t know anything about Gerhard Moog. I have never spoken to him about this matter.” But other people in his place and stead have and that is why people are becoming sick of this government also. He can’t continue to say it is the other man all the time.

I say to members frankly this: I laugh when they talk about the inability of the Liberal Party to put forward an alternative. The Liberal Party can put forward an alternative in every portfolio. I would think of all the ministries, were I given the choice of a ministry in the next government by the then premier, I would say, “Please give me the Attorney General’s job.” It has been atrophied and decimated by the last two incumbents who have done nothing. At least during the first four years of our sitting in this House we had the opportunity of seeing a quiet, staid but able man recognize that the law is a vital and viable instrument of social need and social good but these people don’t know that.

It is a sad thing to see the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) take upon himself that type of responsibility. I feel he has more talent. He could have been a fine Attorney General and Secretary for Justice and Minister of Justice. Being Attorney General isn’t sitting in one’s place every day with bon mots or having some commission look into the Landmark scandal. Being the Attorney General is a recognition that one is the chief law officer of the Crown who has a responsibility both for the enforcement of the law and the administration of justice. In that context these people have done nothing. One saw it today, for example, when my colleague from Downsview put forward a question, “What is the Attorney General going to do about the Dow suit?” The Dow suit is a charade; it has been.

As an aside, the two great things upon which the Premier built his last campaign -- do members recall? -- were the attack on the environment, by the Dow suit, and the sanctity of our roads, by the Spadina Expressway, both of which have crumbled fully. The response of the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) today to my colleague from Downsview on the question decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Manitoba suit was if, in fact, the supreme Court of Canada has said that the province has no jurisdiction in connection with interprovincial pollution of water, then this is the focal point of the Dow suit.

To answer that my subscription to the DLRs is not up to date is truly funny at first and then it becomes almost a tragic comedy. One recognizes one can’t have a fellow as Attorney General who, in effect, is playing games with one. The Attorney General must, of necessity, be the person who almost is the tuning fork of the legislative process and the judicial process, having regard to the protection of the people.

Were I Attorney General there would be some practical things I would do. I would insist, for example, that the courts sit all year round. I would insist, for example, that there be an increase in the complement of the courts; I would insist that semi-judicial appointments be not made by orders in council as they are now because they become the instrument of my colleague, the member for Lambton, playing games in Sarnia which he shouldn’t do.

I wrote a letter to the Attorney General which said let him appoint everybody to the liquor board. That’s his baby. That’s his style. But, for goodness sake don’t appoint the registrar of the Supreme Court because he happens to be a party hack buddy of the member for Lambton who doesn’t, in effect, know what’s legally up or down, because we went through that. This is what I mean. You just can’t play games with that type of portfolio. It’s an important one.

You see, Mr. Speaker, a Liberal Attorney General in the context of the Morgenthaler decision would have to go to the Premier and he’d have to say to him, “I can’t abide that decision” -- not about abortion, I don’t want to talk about abortion now. We’ll talk about that some other time. We’ll talk about the law.

I’m not talking about whether the decision as far as abortions go is correct. I’m talking about the lack of availability of the section 45 defence to Dr. Morgenthaler which had been established by precedent long before his case, but more importantly, I want to read to you what happens to be a cornerstone of the law in the Dominion of Canada. Let me read it to you. It’s from a statute that you. might know. It says:

“It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist, without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely, the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person, enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by the due process of law.”

And the due process of law in the Criminal Code in connection with Dr. Morgenthaler’s case is a trial by jury and he was deprived of that.

I don’t say that it’s the function of the Attorney General of any province, or the Minister of Justice of Canada, to interfere with the decisions, be they unanimous or split, by the Supreme Court of Canada. Quite to the contrary. It would be disrespectful and out of order entirely to do so. But what can be done is this. We can change the law. That’s our job.

When we see that something wrong is done we change the law. We can’t change the law when one is the Attorney General for Ontario, but what you can do is this: You must protect, under that Bill of Rights, the people of Ontario. And you must bring to the attention of the Attorney General for Canada what his responsibility is, as you see it, in the legislative field.

I think that’s what a Liberal Attorney General would do. He would go to his Premier and he would put that forward and I believe a Liberal Premier would say, “Yes, do that. Please do that. I want that protection for my people.” And if, by some strange imagination, by some abortion of common sense itself, we had a Premier -- which wouldn’t be the next encumbent but we had a Liberal Premier who wouldn’t accept that type of advice, you know what you’d do? You would resign. You would resign on a matter of principle.

That’s something that’s crossed my mind over the last eight years -- not one resignation from that cabinet on a matter of principle. Resignations because you’re not going to run again; resignations because you’re tipped with scandal; but never a resignation where you hear a minister say: “I’m sorry, I must resign. It’s a matter of principle with me.” You’re left to only one conclusion; either there is no discussion or there are no principles. That’s it.

I think that’s how my colleagues would govern. I think that’s how the Leader of the Opposition, soon to become Premier of Ontario, would want them to govern.

Much more can be said in support of the amendment as put forward by my leader. I want again to read it into the record, if I may. It was moved by the Leadership of the Opposition and seconded by the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon):

“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 housing programme that will 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 in the workforce; the failure to enunciate a policy for the retention of agricultural land in production with compensation for landholders affected; and therefore that the government no longer has the confidence of this House or the people of Ontario.”

I said once before in this House, I think in winding up this debate, that the result of the motion and the amendments is a foregone conclusion. I said before that were the people of Ontario here to take our places en masse it wouldn’t be a foregone conclusion.

The Premier of Ontario is staggering his way out. I, like many others, enjoy him personally. I, like many others, in a professional responsibility as a politician and as a representative of the people, recognize that he unfortunately just doesn’t have it.

The fact of the matter is that if we do not form the next government immediately, we’ll probably be the most strengthened opposition in the history of this province and there is no doubt that we will then form the government thereafter.

My particular guess is that we will form the government as a result of the next election, and we’ll be given the opportunity of putting forward truly Liberal positions in truly effective fashions.

Hon. Mr. White: Name one.

Mr. Bullbrook: I have just named a whole portfolio for the minister. I think he was asleep.

Hon. Mr. White: No, the Liberal policy --

Mr. Bullbrook: I find it difficult to tell when the minister is sleep and when he isn’t asleep. When I came here eight years ago, he was a wide-eyed young man.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Upwardly mobile, and now he is on the way out.

Mr. Bullbrook: I find him very slitful now.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Before he put an a sweater.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, we have talked about housing and about labour relations, but I want to say that the Premier of Ontario is clutching for an issue with which he can go to the people of Ontario and say, “You need me”. Now, he’s going to try that issue in Ottawa. He’s going to attack the federal government. He’s going to say in effect: “All right, you haven’t taken on Lougheed enough.”

Hon. Mr. White: What’s the Liberal policy on oil prices?

Mr. R. G Eaton (Middlesex South): They don’t have a policy on anything.

Mr. Bullbrook: The problem is, of course, he didn’t take on Lougheed at all over the last six weeks. When Lougheed was talking about the fact that the rest of the country were bargain hunters and consumers, when Lougheed was saying Sarnia is a little town in Ontario sucking Alberta dry; where was the Premier then? He was silent -- in Florida or up here, I don’t know where, but he was silent.

Now, at the 11th hour, he decides that the villain will be Ottawa. Well, like the next proposition, he can’t make that stick with the people of Ontario. And the next proposition is, we’ll make the teachers villains. We’ll get the situation to such a point that the people of Ontario will say, “To hell with those teachers, no matter what,” and they will forget some of the things that. the Premier did and that he is truly. the author of the difficulty.

In the last four years -- let me give you one statistic, Mr. Speaker -- the educational cost at the local level of the Province of Ontario has gone up 38 per cent. The administrative cost of the Ministry of Education in those four years has gone up 222 per cent.

Some hon members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s what the people of Ontario are going to know, because we are going to tell them. There’s no way he is going to fool them this time. The fact of the matter is that there is going to be a new government. It’s going to be a Liberal government, and it’s going to be an effective government. And the Tories will sit, in pallor and trembling, when they read the Throne Speech that we will present.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): That’s brave talk.

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

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, let me join previous speakers in congratulating you, sir, on your election to this high post and on the dignified and dedicated manner in which you carry out those responsibilities. I must say that I am one of 117 people indebted to you for your contribution to these deliberations.

Mr. Speaker, the Webster dictionary defines the word “traitor” as one who betrays his country by violating his allegiance, and allegiance is defined as “duty owed to one’s state.” The Oxford dictionary defines the word “traitor” as “one who violates his allegiance or acts disloyally” to his country. By these definitions, sir, Rene Levesque is a traitor. Any citizen of a country who would assist internal or external forces to destroy that country must be considered a traitor.

George Drew, I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, would have called him a traitor; and so would Tom Kennedy. Leslie Frost would have called him a traitor, as indeed he is; and so would this Premier (Mr. Davis). The Leader. of the Opposition, who aspires to be the Premier of this Province, calls Rene Levesque a reasonable man.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): The Premier hasn’t said a word.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): The Premier hasn’t said a word, and he has had the same opportunity.

Hon. Mr. White: And that, I think Mr. Speaker, illustrates in a nutshell why the leader of the Liberal Party here will never he the Premier of Ontario. Because one can’t be that accommodating to the forces that attempt to destroy your nation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister would call out the OPP.

Hon. Mr. White: One can’t be that pleasant in a face to face situation in front of hundreds of people --

Mr. P. Taylor: Does the minister want to go back and throw bombs?

Hon. Mr. White: -- even as one attempts to prove what a lovely, personable, co-operative human being he is.

Mr. Reid: The minister is really that desperate, is he?

Hon. Mr. White: I hope the members on this side, if not both sides of this House --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I want to tell the minister something, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: That is not only unprincipled and vicious, but that is racist. Somebody is going to tell him that, and I am going to tell the minister that. I have to sit here and listen to that kind of rubbish.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: What kind of nonsense is that?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: Regardless of what one believes of Rene Levesque --

Hon. Mr. White: Of course he is a traitor to this country.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is a disgrace to this House.

Hon. Mr. White: He is a traitor. to this country.

Mr. Speaker: Order; order please.

Mr. Lewis: Oh stop it; for heaven’s sake stop it! The minister uses a French-Canadian figure in an effort to smear. What is wrong with him?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Breithaupt: Let’s debate Ontario’s problems.

Mr. Lewis: Good Lord; to what depths has he sunk? It happens that Levesque is a penitent separatist and a man committed to social change and social reform.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: He is trying to destroy Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have a little order in the chamber please? Order please.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you should call him to account. You shouldn’t allow the Legislature of Ontario to be used for racist stuff.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: That is what the minister has done; and somebody should --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I think this debate should end -- this part of it. The hon. member for London South.

Hon. Mr. White: I am going to deal with this.

Mr. Lewis: If he wants to criticize the opposition there are a thousand ways to do it without using racism.

Hon. Mr. White: I haven’t got an ounce of malice in my body for any race, and I have nothing but respect for my French-Canadian colleagues --

Mr. Lewis: Oh no, that is why Rene Levesque is the choice.

Hon. Mr. White: -- as I have demonstrated in a hundred settings.

Mr. Lewis: Sure, some of his best friends are French Canadians; I know.

Hon. Mr. White: The race of the person urging the breakup of Canada has nothing to do with this matter at all.

Mr. Lewis: Oh stop it, stop it.

Hon. Mr. White: And the minute a person of English or other descent attempts to break up this country, I will have to call him a traitor, as I have done today.

Mr. Lewis: That was a really unnecessary opening.

Hon. Mr. White: And I will have to conclude, too, that people who are afraid to use that strong word are no friends of Canada.

Mr. Reid: Who wrote this for him, the member for St. David?

Mr. Lewis: His Tory friends applaud.

Hon. Mr. White: People who are afraid to use that strong word do not deserve and cannot, in fact, assume the leadership of a great province like Ontario.

Mr. Breithaupt: What has this got to do with the Throne debate?

Mr. Lewis: How does he measure a traitor? How does he measure the betrayal of Ontario in the last four years by the Tories?

Hon. Mr. White: There has been no betrayal of Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for London South has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t give us Oxford dictionary definitions.

Hon. Mr. White: There has always been loyalty towards Canada from our party. There has been a furthering of Ontario’s interests, but never to the jeopardy or danger of Canada.

Mr. P. Taylor: Would the hon. member permit a question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for London South has the floor.

Hon. Mr. White: Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition is a very decent, honest fellow.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t even want that kind of a comment from the minister. What kind of a judge is he?

Hon. Mr. White: But he hasn’t got the muscle or the moral fibre to head up this province; and he’s proving it week by week. By the time the election comes, whenever that may be, I have no doubt that the people once again will turn to the present Premier and his colleagues --

Mr. Breithaupt: Call it today.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and once again assure themselves of Ontario’s appropriate place in this Confederation; once again assure Ontarians the highest standard of living in the country and the lowest unemployment rate --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): The lowest level of debate too.

Hon. Mr. White: -- the highest quality of life --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is a joke.

Hon. Mr. White: -- given any measure that is appropriate in the year 1975.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The worst speech that has been given in the Legislature in a decade. Almost the one he made in 1969.

Mr. Lewis: He should resign on principle.

Hon. Mr. White: Now sir, I am going to spend a moment or two on some of the comments of the speakers opposite. The member for Wentworth urges once again that the existing Treasury ministry be broken in half. I think he is finding less and less support for this position among municipal politicians and others. It was less than three years ago, Mr. Speaker, that that ministry had 3,700 employees and now it has about 700 employees.

It was less than three years ago that there were many boards and commissions reporting to them with additional employees; and now there are none, with the exception, I think, of OMERS and the Ontario Economic Council. The ministry itself as a control ministry exercises a variety of responsibilities. Some are inseparable in any effective sense. When the Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs sits down with the municipal liaison committee, he can commit this government insofar as responsibilities and resources are concerned. This has proven to be a tremendously powerful combination of duties and one which has redounded to the benefit of the municipalities of this province. To destroy that combination now would be a very important retrograde step.

I want to spend just a minute saying that my colleague (Mr. McKeough) who has taken over the reins of that very important ministry and who, has moved in very very quickly to make it his own --

Mr. Deans: The minister means he has returned to his former post.

Hon. Mr. White: -- is the kind of a man who is touched upon in the novel by Trollope, “The Prime Minister,” where the Prime Minister of the day calls him one of his cleverest ministers and says something to the effect, “I need a great man for the great ministry.” This is what our Premier has in the person of the Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough) whose budget is coming down today. We have a great man for the great ministry, and the great ministry cannot be nibbled away by the acceptance of thoughtless or uncomprehending suggestions such as that made by the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Breithaupt: That has a nice ring to it.

Hon. Mr. White: My hon. friend said that he spent very long and very late hours sitting up until early hours of the morning solving regional problems. I wish he’d stop. Every time he goes in to solve one of these problems, nothing but discontent and troubles flow from that attempt on his part. Let him save himself a lot of those late hours with those regional councillors and let them work that out. How about trying that for just a little while?

Mr. Deans: The minister won’t find much support for that my friend.

Hon. Mr. White: It’s the kind of help we don’t need.

Mr. Deans: That is quite inaccurate.

Hon. Mr. White: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, may I observe that while the Speech from the Throne has been attacked by some of the members here present for what it didn’t say, it seems to have engendered considerable debate and a great deal of verbiage from the opposite side of the House over the past month. The obvious fact is, sir, that the speech very clearly enunciated the priorities of this government for the continued progress of the people of Ontario.

I think it would be well worth refreshing our memories with a summary of these priorities. There can be no doubt that the single most important issue in the minds of the government and the people of Ontario is inflation. I hear the opposition time and time again urge us to spend more money and decrease taxes. One day, I suppose, when the Liberals do announce their policies, we’ll have an opportunity once again of costing them.

Des Newman assured us at Trent University -- and the hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) was there -- that the leader of the Liberal Party had promised to have some policies before the election, did he not?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): We have them now.

Hon. Mr. White: The leader of the Liberal Party has promised one of his candidates hell have some policies before the election, but we have yet to see them and so we can’t really cost their effects.

Mr. Gaunt: The minister doesn’t distinguish between platform and policy; that’s his problem.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He put it even more succinctly. He said he couldn’t perceive what the Liberal policy was but that the leader would reveal it at some point; meanwhile, he would give his policy.

Hon. Mr. White: Anyway, one day I suppose the Liberal Party will attempt one or two policies and one or two programmes. Then we’ll have an opportunity to cost some of these brave new world issues touched upon by the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Breithaupt: And phoney up the tax rate because of them, I am sure.

Hon. Mr. White: Then we’ll be able to tell the people what tax increases will be brought about by my friend from Kitchener and others.

Mr. Ferrier: Will the government get the civil service to do it this time?

Hon. Mr. White: The government, sir, is committed to doing everything in its power to reduce the impact of current strong pressures on the economy, but I would emphasize it can’t do it alone. My colleague, the Treasurer, will shortly outline some of the measures which the government is prepared to take. They will definitely require the cooperation of all Ontario citizens, if the battle against inflation and rising unemployment is to be won, as indeed we hope to do.

As far as this battle is concerned, I would add a reminder that a key weapon which the Throne Speech strongly advocates is the practice of moderation and restraint in prices and wages in both the private and public sectors. I am so amused, once again, when I hear one of the members of the opposition jump to his feet on the hustings and in effect say pay them more. “Bill Davis is a cheapskate,” is what they have said, when we ended up with something over a 20 per cent settlement.

How much would the opposition have had us pay in circumstances of that kind? And now the Leader of the Opposition talks about giving the teachers’ federation even more monopoly powers, à la certain of the troublesome professions which now exact a heavy toll on our citizens.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister won’t be around to have anything to do with it.

Mr. MacDonald: Why doesn’t the minister take the same monopoly powers away from other professions if he doesn’t think it is right?

Hon. Mr. White: Well I can’t hear the hon. member and I suppose it is just as well.

Mr. MacDonald: I said why doesn’t the minister take the same monopoly powers away from other professions if he doesn’t think it is right?

Hon. Mr. White: My first speech in this House 16 years ago was on that subject.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is the minister’s last.

Hon. Mr. White: Sitting behind the hon. member, I think I had a measure of support from him; which frightened me a little then as it does now.

Mr. MacDonald: I didn’t hear what the minister said. It was lost in the gurgle.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He has done more damage in the Conservative Party than any other member.

Hon. Mr. White: Let me briefly review, Mr. Speaker, other areas of emphasis as announced in the Speech from the Throne.

This government considers, as a matter of current priority to the people of Ontario, that administrative costs in government must be controlled and that a high standard of service must be maintained at the same time. The Chairman of our Management Board is doing exactly that. A half a dozen times in as many months he has brought in announcements of increased control, increased efficiency and increased effectiveness in the public service; never with any support or encouragement from across the hall.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right. He’s planning to run the schools, to run the municipal councils, to run the hospital boards.

Mr. Speaker: Order; order please.

Hon. Mr. White: The safety of our cities and streets must be ensured. We won’t be deterred by any sarcastic references to law and order, because one thing we are going to guarantee is that this city of Toronto and the other communities of this province continue to be the safest in North America, as indeed they are. As a matter of fact, the ex-Deputy Attorney General was able to provide me some months ago with statistics indicating that crimes of violence had fallen off in Ontario in contrast to every other jurisdiction in North America. That is the kind of thing we are going to have more often.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Very good.

Hon. Mr. White: The rights of citizens in relation to the state must be protected. In this respect, I must say, we contrast vividly and dramatically with the socialists, who would in effect tell every other person how to run his life.

An hon. member: Every person, not every other person.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh no.

Hon. Mr. White: Intellectual elitism characterizes the members of the NDP.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Gracious. In this province we would sooner have socialists --

Mr. MacDonald: That is cheap rhetoric.

Hon. Mr. White: Almost all of them were born to some exotic strata in the pyramids, teaching or some other profession. Hardly a single one of them is in the category of those of us on this side who started to work at a tender age and slugged his way right up to the top.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: These intellectual dilettantes, called socialists, would impose a form of life on every other person in this community according to their somewhat bias and perverted standards.

Mr. MacDonald: Now I know why the minister is getting out of politics.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: Continued and improved security must be provided for our senior citizens. Ontario has the highest such standard in the world today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, that is right.

Hon. Mr. White: Together with our tax credits, an elderly couple receives something in excess of $6,000; which is the highest in the world, bar none.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): If fertilizer was music, he’d be a brass band.

Hon. Mr. White: One anticipates making additional resources of every description, financial and otherwise, available to these pioneers who went through two world wars and a great depression and the aftermath.

I’m not going to apologize for any moneys raised by way of taxes to nurture these elderly people in this province. I think our members, if the others will not, should be telling our people of every age time and time again that we are going to have the highest standard anywhere in the world for our elderly men and women.

Persons in need must be compensated for social benefits discounted by inflation and here again every budget sees new measures -- and, indeed, between budgets too -- to increase the minimum standard to one that’s decent, to one that’s livable, to one that has a measure of dignity.

Greater opportunities must be provided for women and we have introduced a number of measures in recent weeks, some of which the leader of the NDP chose to scoff at. We have introduced a number of measures and there will be more measures to be announced later in this International Women’s Year to ensure that women have more and more opportunities in every aspect of human life here in this province.

Access to education must be ensured for all people in our society. Mr. Speaker, I saw a release from Statistics Canada three or four weeks ago showing that Ontario is providing something like $1,070 per student in the primary and secondary schools, the highest in Canada by a very considerable measure, and almost double that paid in certain other provinces where the per capita expenditure is $500 and some odd a year.

I do know that we have provided additional sums of money at the community college and university levels.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government is also responsible for the low quality of education.

Hon. Mr. White: I do believe that we expend as much per capita as any other jurisdiction in the world with the possible exception of Kuwait. This is a history that goes back to the earliest days of the country when our Scottish pioneers brought over this reverence for learning. I do believe it has augmented the fortuitous location of resources in making this province the most prosperous jurisdiction in Canada and one of the most prosperous jurisdictions anywhere.

Mr. Stokes: In spite of the Tories.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Everybody agrees with him except the parents and the students.

Hon. Mr. White: Adequate housing must be provided. The member for Wentworth had quite a lot to say on that subject, much of it misinformed. As a matter of fact the member for Hamilton Mountain came over and was able to tell me the number of thousands of new houses created in that very same riding and the number of senior citizens apartments and HOME lots and such like. The member, who is unfortunately out of the room at the moment --

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): As usual.

Hon. Mr. White: -- apparently has no comprehension of what’s happening in his own riding.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Nothing new about that.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That is par for the course.

An hon. member: He doesn’t know whether he is punched or bored.

Hon. Mr. White: I think he probably has no comprehension of the several announcements made by our Minister of Housing in the last couple of weeks, copies of which I have here. I will be dealing with that in a moment or two.

Farmers must receive more assistance and farm protection, greater encouragement, and we will have more to say on this subject. My colleague, the great warrior from Middlesex North, is sitting here beside me giving me moral support as always.

Mr. MacDonald: He is being pushed into battle. We will see when he gets there.

Hon. Mr. White: He is recognized as the great Minister of Agriculture. He will have some more assistance for farmers and farm production will have greater encouragement under his tutelage and under the leadership of our Premier. The role of cultural and recreational pursuits and traditions in the quality of life in Ontario must be supported. I vividly remember hearing John Robarts speak in late 1970 to the Empire Club. Unfortunately, most of it was extemporaneous and unfortunately most of it was lost.

Mr. Breithaupt: Lost to posterity.

Hon. Mr. White: Much of it was lost, but I do remember --

Mr. MacDonald: It’s lost? They always record it and publish it. He can get it any time he wants.

Hon. Mr. White: -- being deeply impressed when he described bow the emphasis in the 1960s had been very largely on the quantity of life, so to speak, and how he had noticed a change in attitudes toward the end of the 1960s and thought that the 1970s would be characterized by more and more emphasis on the quality of life.

We see here, sir, in this jurisdiction the switch in emphasis which the government has placed more and more on the quality of the life of our people. Every month brings new measures to enhance the quality of life in the area of soil preservation, in the area of cleaning up our rivers and streams and air --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Paving over the farms.

Hon. Mr. White: -- in contributions to a wide variety of cultural activities, now epitomized by our new Ministry of Culture and Recreation. And so, once again, in support of this changing order of priorities, we have moved in the forefront.

These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the areas in which strong emphasis is being placed by the government in its policies and programmes during this session. Already if the first few weeks several significant programme announcements have been made by the ministers of the Crown in support of many of these goals. I can assure you, sir, that there’s no let up in sight.

A fair proportion of the debate on the Speech from the Throne was centred on housing. In the first days of this session the Minister of Housing announced to this House two more agreements with municipalities to accelerate production of another 17,000 units in Brampton and in Nepean township under the Ontario Housing Action Programme. In addition, he has reported that 24 developer agreements have so far been signed, covering 16,000 additional units and bringing a further 4,431 acres of land under development.

Ms. Deans: Statistics are meaningless.

Hon. Mr. White: Yet another major initiative under OHAP is a loan of $8.8 million to Halton regional municipality --

Mr. Deans: Tell us about the income requirements. Tell us about the rental accommodations.

Hon. Mr. White: -- to double the present sewage treatment capacity of the Burlington Skyway pollution control centre and pave the way for another 11,360 new housing units over the next five years.

Mr. Deans: How many people earning $10,000 a year will get into those?

Hon. Mr. White: Further progress has been announced in measures to increase the supply of lower-priced accommodation by accelerating development of family rental units.

Mr. Deans: How many?

Hon. Mr. White: I need hardly remind you, Mr. Speaker, that while the members of this House all seem agreed that this is a crucial area of concern, unfortunately, it seems far less an item of priority on Ottawa’s list.

Mr. Deans: That’s right. Whenever something doesn’t work, blame someone else.

Hon. Mr. White: The intemperate remarks, insulting in nature, spoken a moment or two ago by the hon. member for Sarnia in winding up for the Liberals concerning the hon. member for St. David’s criticism of the federal government’s intransigence in this area --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I think he called her everybody’s mother-in-law.

Hon. Mr. White: -- was not only incorrect, but was, once again, damaging to Ontario’s cause.

An hon. member: Poppycock!

Hon. Mr. White: He said that the Liberals here wouldn’t be known as the country cousins of the Liberals in Ottawa. We’ve never called them their country cousins. We call them their office boys!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: And, once again, the office boy from Sarnia was carrying the message. Of course, the federal government is starving us for housing funds. In an election year it can’t be a coincidence.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Those fellows are really reading.

Hon. Mr. White: A further stage in the implementation of a comprehensive energy management programme, as announced on March 26 --

Mr. Breithaupt: He will be finished soon.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This is a $75 million speech. Better listen to it.

Hon. Mr. White: -- will effect economies within the government itself and also provide leadership and example to the private sector and the public at large. Simply, the goal of this programme is to reduce considerably the total demand for energy in Ontario. We hope to achieve this in four ways: Through better efficiency in the use of energy; though better management of energy distribution and consumption; by encouraging voluntary action on the part of industry and the general public; and though the adoption and practice of an energy conservation ethic throughout the province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Lots of public relations.

Hon. Mr. White: A forceful illustration that the Canadian public has so far failed to take the matter very seriously appears in a survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, showing apparent changes in oil consumption in 16 of the world’s most highly industrialized countries since the Middle East oil supply crisis made itself felt. I must say that Canada’s record doesn’t look very good.

Mr. Breithaupt: Neither does Ontario’s.

Hon. Mr. White: Fourteen of the 16 countries reduced their oil consumption over the previous year, ranging from 0.7 per cent reduction by Japan to over 19 per cent reduction by Belgium.

Mr. Breithaupt: They probably cut the speed limit.

Hon. Mr. White: The oil consumption was actually increased during the same period in Spain by 11.7 per cent and in Canada by 5.9 per cent. This is one of the things we’re going to attempt to do, certainly internally, and to the extent that we can externally in this province.

Perhaps I should mention that once again our Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Energy will be going down on behalf of Ontario in the Confederation setting to protect --

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): We hope they do a better job than last time.

Hon. Mr. White: -- our people for the benefit of Canada and to protect our industries for the benefit of employment all across Canada. Once again, when we need some support from the Liberal claque in Ottawa, we find nothing but destructive moves by the member for Sarnia and his friends in the Liberal opposition.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s never Alberta’s fault, is it?

Hon. Mr. White: So I would like to hear the Liberals say, before our Premier and his colleagues arrive in Ottawa, that the opposition here is in full support of our endeavours to keep the price of oil and gas right down where they are.

Mr. Deans: Tell us what the government’s position is going to be.

Hon. Mr. White: I would like to hear the opposition say that. I would like to hear the Liberals here say that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the minister remember when, as Treasurer, he wanted to conserve energy and he said people should turn their thermostats down and put on their sweaters?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, I never did say that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We opposed him then. He had to back down on that. Remember?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: Bearing in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the Province of Ontario is self-sufficient as an energy source and that at the same time we have one of the highest per capita rates of energy consumption in the world, it is plain that we must achieve the goal stated by the Minister of Energy, namely to reduce the growth rate in energy consumption in Ontario by one third over the next five years or, in terms of expenditures, by about $1 billion a year.

Mr. Speaker, to continue in somewhat the same vein, I recall that the leader of the New Democratic Party expressed concern about what he calls the expansionary policies of the Ontario Hydro. It should be remembered that the generation development programme projected by Ontario Hydro over the next several years is without precedent in the kind of preliminary investigation and questioning that has taken place and which is far from over.

In fact, at the first full day’s sitting on March 13, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) announced the government’s establishment of an independent commission of inquiry to hold public hearings into the long-range plans for Ontario’s power needs. The minister’s statement predicted that in an effort to meet the public’s need to know what demands for electricity will be placed on Ontario Hydro in the future, and how these demands should be met, the hearings may be expected to take as long as two years.

Moreover, I would stress that the commitment to public participation in planning Ontario’s electric power needs is ably demonstrated in the government’s announced innovation of offering to fund potential participants, and this I must say is an innovation of very considerable significance.

Mr. Laughren: The Nyet line.

Hon. Mr. White: Legislation has been introduced to require environmental assessment of proposed major public projects from very early in the planning stages. Significant additions and increases to the Ontario Student Assistance Programme have been announced, making a total of $47 million available in grants and bursaries in this fiscal year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: More scholars to the dollar.

Hon. Mr. White: I really get to the Leader of the Opposition, don’t I? It really pains him, doesn’t it? To think that he can remember that from four years ago.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: More scholars to the dollar.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, why not?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Turn down the thermostat! Let him make that speech outside of this House and see how wrong he has been.

Hon. Mr. White: To think that he can remember my speeches from years ago, that touches me.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: The Ontario student loans plan and Ontario’s special bursary programme offer new channels for assistance, primarily to part-time students and persons on social assistance or with low family incomes.

Now, sir, we have made a $200,000 allocation through the Ontario Arts Council to support new cultural projects directly related to International Women’s Year, and I was very interested to see that the women’s organization who had put this request to us issued a press release about a week ago commending the Ontario government for once again taking the leadership in this area.

Mr. Laughren: Show us the legislation.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I have outlined several initiatives already undertaken in this session in some of the priority areas which were described in the Throne Speech. I can add that policies to meet the present labour relations climate, further incentives and support for the agricultural sector and to encourage farm production, as well as improved occupational and environmental health protection measures, to name some specifics, will be presented to this House by the ministers responsible.

So, Mr. Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition may try to list what he regards as unfulfilled promises from past Throne Speeches, I would point more constructively to the overwhelming number of policies and legislative proposals that have been fulfilled.

I have every confidence that the policies and programmes which are being brought forward in this House, and which we shall continue to present for the consideration of members throughout the session, reflect a responsible approach by this government to the issues facing the people of Ontario.

In placing these priorities on record in the Speech from the Throne, the government has declared its intention to deal with these issues and we wish to get on with the job.

In conclusion, therefore, I have no hesitation in expressing my support for the Speech from the Throne put forward by this government and for what it means with respect to the quality of life and well-being of the people in Ontario. Neither do I have any hesitation, Mr. Speaker, in calling on all members of this Legislature to endorse, without amendment, the motion of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) as seconded by the hon. member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane).

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a weak speech.

Mr. Speaker: The Throne debate being concluded, I shall call for the vote as follows:

Mr. Taylor moves, seconded by Mr. Lane, that a humble address be presented the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable Pauline M. McGibbon, OC, BA, LLD, DU (Ottawa), BAA (Theatre), Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. May it please Your Honour:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves, seconded by Mr. Deacon, that the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor now before the House be amended by adding thereto the following words:

“This House regrets:

“1. The failure of the government to enunciate a programme to moderate the combined effects of unemployment and inflation on our people and the economy.

“2. The lack of a housing programme that will significantly reverse the downward trend in housing starts.

“3. 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.

“4. The absence of action to improve general labour-management negotiating procedures which have been so detrimental to our economy and the work force.

“5. The failure to enunciate a policy for the retention of agricultural land in production with compensation for landholders affected.

“And, therefore, the government no longer has the confidence of this House or the people of Ontario.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a good one.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lewis moves, seconded by Mr. Deans, that the amendment to the motion be amended by adding thereto the following:

“That this House regrets:

“1. The failure of the government to provide political leadership in particular.

“2. The failure of the Ministries of Health, Labour, Natural Resources and Environment to establish and enforce adequate standards for occupational safety and health.

“3. The failure of the Chairman of Management Board and the ministries of Labour and Education to develop labour laws and collective bargaining procedures in the public and private sectors, to prevent the continuing breakdown of negotiations and subsequent strikes.

“4. The failure of the Ministry of Housing to pursue policies which would combat the drastic decline in house building now occurring; to provide housing for low- and low-middle income groups within their income capacities; to control rents in rental accommodation and to prevent the conversion of rental accommodation to condominiums.

“5. The failure of the Ministry of Energy to control the expansionary policies of Ontario Hydro and, further;

“6. The failure of the Premier to provide the leadership required to combat the social and economic hardships which are affecting the citizens of Ontario.”

As is usual procedure, first of all we shall vote on the amendment to the amendment which was moved by Mr. Lewis.

The House divided on the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Lewis, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Bounsall Braithwaite Breithaupt Bullbrook Burr Campbell Cassidy Davison Deacon Deans Dukszta Edighoffer Ferrier Foulds Gaunt Givens Good Haggerty Lawlor MacDonald Martel Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon (Brant) Paterson Reid Renwick Riddell Ruston Singer Smith (Nipissing) Spence Stokes Taylor (Carleton East) Worton -- 34.

Apps Auld Bales Beckett Belanger Bennett Bernier Brunelle Carruthers Carton Clement Downer Drea Dymond Eaton Gilbertson Grossman Handleman Havrot Hodgson (York North) Irvine Jessiman Kennedy Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck McIlveen Morningstar Morrow Newman (Ontario South) Parrott Rhodes Rollins Root Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Stewart Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Timbrell Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle Welch Wells White Winkler Wiseman Yaremko -- 52.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 34, the “nays” 52.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

The question now before the House is the amendment moved by Mr. R. F. Nixon.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to accept the same vote with respect to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed that the same division be recorded?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

We then come to the main motion, moved by Mr. J. A. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Lane. Shall the same division be reversed?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Reversed. Yes, sir.

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

RESOLVED: That an humble address be presented to the Honourable Pauline M. McGibbon, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Ontario:

“May it please Your Honour:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects of the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us.”

Mr. Speaker: There being no further business at the moment I do now leave the chair.

It being 5:43 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.