Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the House 50 Progressive Conservative ladies from the city of Barrie, sitting in the Speaker’s gallery and the east gallery. I hope you will join me in extending a very warm welcome to them.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, through you to the members of the House, I would like to introduce the grade 10 history class of R. H. King Collegiate Institute in Scarborough, and its teacher, Mr. John Lord, sitting in the west gallery.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of the House to welcome a group in the west gallery from the village of Watford and surrounding area. This group consists of 44 senior citizens of that area. The trip was arranged by Mrs. Beatrice Martin of Watford, a lady who has contributed greatly to many different projects in Watford. One she is certainly known for is working for that great Tory party of Ontario.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): They need all the help they can get.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): That won’t be enough.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier, if he would, to give us his views on the results or the information from Statistics Canada on the unemployment levels announced yesterday which indicated Ontario is one of the few provinces which has maintained a high level of unemployment; in fact it’s a bit worse than it was a month ago. Is he convinced that the budgetary decisions taken six weeks or five weeks ago are having the desired effect of stimulating employment? What is the reason for Ontario having been so singularly unsuccessful in stimulating employment?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly satisfied that the very creative budget of the Treasurer of this province (Mr. McKeough) has had an effect on the economy of this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the Premier mean it might have been worse?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t like to deal in what might have been. I am saying it was a very excellent budget; I am sure the members opposite agree with us. I tell some people that every time the members opposite say, “It’s an election budget,” I say that really what they are saying is, “It’s a good budget.” Of course, that’s precisely what they are saying.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are voting against it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say if the Leader of the Opposition wished to pursue questions related to the figures and so on, he might ask the Treasurer, who is responsible for that very excellent budget.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since my concern is with the level of unemployment, perhaps the Premier could indicate his concern as well, since it has gone up at a time when we are supposed to be coming into the expansion of spring work. Unemployment has gone from six per cent to 6.1, not a large increase admittedly, but usually at this time of the year the employment figures are improving, not depreciating. What is the explanation for that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t propose to get into the explanation because I don’t think anyone knows the exact explanation. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes me to express concern, I will send him a number of speeches I have been making for the past three months stating this concern well in advance of his.

I would say that part of the figures, at least in this province, relate to the automotive industry, where there are unemployed but where benefits, thank heavens, are still available to the workers in that industry. Ontario has had greater effect in terms of that area of employment than any of our sister provinces.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): By way of supplementary, what about the especially acute problem of the young person in the work force, since for every 10 applicants there appear to be only one or two jobs available? Apart from the summer programme which I think the Premier will concede satisfies only a minor proportion of the job need, can he take some special initiatives even now, since that is where it is being felt most dramatically?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned, obviously, about the younger people, particularly those who might be classified as students and who may not be finding summer employment. Certainly as far as the government is concerned, our programme this year is comparable to last year in terms of the number of places. We are still hopeful that the private sector will find ways and means of employing an increasing percentage. We are always prepared to review our programmes if we feel it’s necessary or could be helpful. We are quite concerned about any person who is unemployed, not just the students or the younger people.

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

STORE HOURS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put a question to the Minister of Financial and Commercial Affairs.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Consumer and Commercial Affairs.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Consumer and Commercial Affairs -- affairs in general. Could he indicate if the commitment made by a number of his colleagues in the cabinet to bring forward legislation for uniform store hours in the province is going to be fulfilled during this session, or if the government, which has repeatedly made statements about this, is withdrawing its support from that concept?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I think the question should be more properly directed to the Attorney General (Mr. Clement), whose predecessors made certain statements in that regard.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The minister is passing the buck a lot these days.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He is the only one who can answer that question.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If you will permit a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since it does affect the consumers of the province to a very great degree, has the minister an opinion he can express on this since the government and a number of his colleagues -- not just the Attorney General but at least three or four -- have made public pronouncements indicating such legislation would be forthcoming. That was a year or 1½ years ago.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the member knows quite well that my opinion will be endorsing government policy when it is announced at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t even talk in my sleep.

PICKERING NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Treasurer a question, in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell): Has he any specific information about the problems we are again experiencing in Pickering that would indicate the flaws in the reactor are anything other than unfortunate but routine flaws? I understand that it would be of grave concern to him as Treasurer, and to all of us here, that we get the best performance we possibly can out of the Pickering establishment. Is there any reason for concern, either for the workability of the facility or the safety associated with it? Would he sooner I direct it to the Minister of Energy?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I am sure that is a question which the Minister of Energy will answer when he is here.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Where are they all?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, I guess I’ll wait for some of those boys to come back.

Mr. Roy: Where are all the ministers?

Mr. Drea: I don’t know. Where has the member for Ottawa East been?

Mr. Roy: I keep chasing them all over the province. I can’t find them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Lewis: Can I begin by asking the Chairman of the Management Board -- I think this is the appropriate place, but I am sure he can refer it to another minister if it is not -- a question arising from the auditor’s report and dealt with, I gather, at the public accounts committee, although not yet resolved.

There was a reference in the auditor’s report to a firm of consulting actuaries -- one of whose members was on the pension commission -- being paid a considerable amount of money and a reference in the auditor’s report that said the question of the conflict of interest has also been considered in depth and a resolution passed by the commission to prevent any suggestion of such a conflict in the future. Is the minister satisfied in his own mind that there is no such conflict now; that the person involved has removed himself? Or is it, in fact, true that the individual is still there and that clearly, just in the public interest, this should be removed?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I am not really aware of the exact situation the member is referring to, but, as he suggests, I will take it as notice and reply to him later.

Mr. Lewis: Okay. That’s the pensions commission.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I understand.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I must make it very clear that if we place on a commission anyone who is then engaged in some other area in the government, he certainly does not receive any remuneration for his duties, but I will have a look at that.

Mr. Lewis: Fair enough.

HOUSING STARTS

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Housing: Since housing starts in Ontario fell almost exactly 50 per cent in the first four months of 1975, as compared to the first four months of 1974, is the minister prepared to revise his somewhat inflated estimates for this year, so that at least we can get some reality into what we are dealing with in the province over the next few months?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That’s a total of 57,300 this year.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the NDP should recognize that starts have dropped -- there is no doubt. I said they would. In my projection, it would be the third and fourth quarter when the housing starts in Ontario would be the most dramatic ever. We will have more housing starts in those particular months.

I have relayed my concerns to the minister responsible, Hon. Barney Danson, in regard to the funding that is necessary for Ontario to proceed with our programmes. Mr. Danson has verbally agreed, though not confirmed, that we would have a meeting on May 21 in order to go over the programmes which we have outlined to him as being, in our opinion, necessary for Ontario to have the housing that we need for all of our people.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, I am sure the minister now realizes, given the level of starts -- I am working from memory but I think it’s down from 22,000-plus to 11,000-plus in the first four months -- that if things do not go well, he will reach 57,300 on an extension of the first four months. If things go well indeed, unprecedentedly well, he will make 15,000 units maximum in Ontario this year. That is another 15,000 to 20,000 below what he has already predicted. Doesn’t the minister think it makes sense to begin to talk in those realistic terms, so that we can then see the pressure on the market in terms of starts and completions and the implications for the rental sector as well? It’s quite disastrous. It’s a calamitous thing that’s occurring.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has not followed all the projections as closely as he might have. If he had followed the April figures, he would have noticed the projected figures for the calendar year will be 85,000 starts in Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: No, the minister is wrong. He is wrong. The April figures are down 32 per cent from last year, and the projection is nowhere near that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia has a supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: A brief supplementary, if I may: Recognizing the need for vigour with the federal minister, does the minister think he is in a position to assure the members of the House that he will expend the moneys that we vote to him this year for the purposes and responsibilities of his ministry, unlike last year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, certainly I can assure the hon. member and everyone here that we will spend all the money. As a matter of fact, last year we spent all the money except certain funds that were appropriated for North Pickering and certain funds in the socially-assisted housing field, whereby we couldn’t build because of the non-acceptance of certain communities. This may continue this year, but I don’t think so. I think I’ll have some pretty good news for the members of this House very shortly.

Mr. Lewis: Another announcement?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. Or two.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister do a service for the public of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. I’ll try to get rid of the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Every time the minister says housing starts are going to go up, they go down. Could the minister start saying that housing starts might go down and admit the current situation; then, perversely, they might start to rise? He hasn’t got anything else to offer.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Etobicoke with a supplementary.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, in view of the accentuated shortage of rental housing due to the drop in housing starts, is the minister now in a position to come out in favour of rental review boards?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m not at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

PEEL REGION HOUSING COORDINATOR

Mr. Lewis: I have another question of the Minister of Housing. How did the minister resolve the question of Mr. David Strachan, his Peel housing coordinator? Mr. David Strachan was named in this extraordinary letter, signed by the chairman of the Peel board of education, who saw the minister’s representative as a supporter of the developers when they came before the board, on a unanimous vote of the board. How is it that an Ontario Housing representative would be seen that way, and how was that matter resolved?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure how he was seen that way, because I have not yet had a satisfactory answer from the board. I think it was a matter viewed personally by the members of the board as intimidation by Mr. Strachan. There certainly was not any intimidation, nor was there any action to intimidate the board taken by the Ontario Housing Corp., through either the Housing Action Programme, or the Ministry of Housing. It’s purely a misunderstanding between the board and Mr. Strachan.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary; what is the policy of the Ministry of Housing regarding applying pressure tactics to boards of education, and the response of the minister to boards who see his agent as an agent of the developers? Has the minister met with the Peel board of education and Mr. Strachan in an attempt to sit down and resolve it? It’s a devil of a position for the ministry to be put in -- to be seen as a friend of the developers in dealings with the board.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have met with my staff -- Mr. Strachan being one of them -- and we have discussed the situation quite fully. We have indicated by letter to the board that there was not any intimidation through my ministry and I intend to stand on that statement. I again say, it’s like any other board, they have a responsibility to their community to see that we do have certain developments take place. I’m not on the side of the developers, I’m on the side of the board. I’m trying to say that we need certain developments in certain communities.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

MEMO ON CHILD ABUSE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Maybe he could give the House some explanation of this interesting memo that is on the letterhead of his deputy minister from Charles Hendry to Gordon McLellan and members of the child abuse committee? And particularly those paragraphs which say:

“1975 apparently will be an election year in Ontario. At such a time, leadership initiative is of special importance; imaginative initiatives are expected in areas of public concern. One such area is child welfare and child development. Day care has become a subject of sharp controversy. Something less contentious and divisive is needed to provide focus for more harmonious undertakings. It is suggested here that child abuse or child battering supplies such a focus for political action.

“It is also suggested that such initiative in this ministry, particularly since the first woman deputy minister in any provincial government is a key figure, would be highly advantageous.”

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The price is right.

Mr. Lewis: How does the ministry decide on child welfare priorities in Ontario, since day care has been denigrated and we’re having a conference on child abuse and child battering flowing from this memo? How does all this happen? Is this the way the ministry works?

Mr. Breithaupt: Part of family unity month.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Who decided that priority?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s as cynical as one can get.

Mr. Lewis: There is nothing straight about this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is the bottom of the barrel.

Mr. Lewis: It is about as divisible as could be devised.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I heard of that memo for the first time last night during the estimates.

Mr. Lewis: I gather.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister wants to shake that party up.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Apparently this memo -- as I said, I haven’t seen it -- was sent by a consultant to one of our officials.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is not depreciating Charles Hendry’s consultancy status; he admits it is central to his ministry. It went to the ministry; the ministry acted on the memo. I am asking the minister: Is that the way he works out priorities in his ministry, on the political advantages in an election year where child welfare is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the member is using his own interpretation. As I indicated to him, this was strictly a memo from --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- a consultant to one of our officials. The question of child abuse, and we can record this, is one we are very concerned about.

Mr. Lewis: Like violence in the media.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It’s one we have been involved with for the last two, three or four years, if not more.

Mr. Breithaupt: But it didn’t do any good.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Carleton East.

STORE HOURS

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I’d like to return to a question originally raised by my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, and ask the Premier, if he is not too busy --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am listening.

Mr. P. Taylor: He is listening?

Since, on Jan. 16, the Premier told a dinner meeting in Brampton that an announcement would be made on the question of uniform store hours within three or four weeks, could he tell the House whether or not he has a commitment to this House to produce this legislation before this session ends?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I have a commitment to the House. I don’t recall making a commitment to the House.

Mr. P. Taylor: A supplementary: Is it the Premier’s intention that his government will introduce legislation of this kind before this session is over?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, not knowing the finality of this particular session, I can’t give that commitment. I can only assure the member it is a matter that is receiving very careful consideration by the government.

Mr. Roy: Like the last three years.

Mr. P. Taylor: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since there have been repeated announcements by an array of ministers promising legislation within two or three weeks or very soon, could the Premier say what the problem is that the government is facing in bringing this forward?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants a lengthy answer as to the problem, if that is the terminology, perhaps one might inquire, as I expect others will over a period of time, if the Liberal Party of Ontario has decided on a position on uniform store hours yet?

An hon. member: Or on anything.

Mr. Roy: We have a bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the Premier enact a bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Ruston: The Liberal Party has a policy on it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If so, it is the only one.

Interjections by hon. members.

INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Last week the Premier said in Strathroy that violent crime in Ontario is undergoing a rapid increase. On what is that statement based?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I said that, as a matter of fact, in Strathroy. I did refer to violent crime and I said statistically there are facts that indicate the incidence of violent crime is increasing. If the member wants me to get the statistics, I’d be delighted to do so but I think it is something known to all of us, I am sure. I am surprised the member either isn’t concerned or isn’t aware of it.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since this is police week, perhaps I could use the occasion to give some figures for the Premier’s benefit --

Mr. Speaker: Order please; question.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and pay a tribute to the police and the citizens of Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Come on; how often do we pay tributes?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the member has a supplementary question, that’s okay.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Premier aware, Mr. Speaker, that in 1974 violent crime increased by 1½ per cent over 1973, and in 1973 violent crime in Ontario increased by 3½ per cent over 1972, and that those increases were about the same as population increases in those two years?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Any increase is too much.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Premier also aware that when measured on FBI and Statistics Canada statistics against all jurisdictions in North America, Ontario is about 47th out of the 60 jurisdictions on the continent in the incidence of violent crime?

Mr. Yakabuski: The member knows why, doesn’t he?

An hon. member: That’s the way we want to keep it too.

Mr. Cassidy: While we all share the concern that has been expressed by a number of people about violent crime, does the Premier not think --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the Premier not think that this government might devote some attention to areas where Ontario leads the country in its problems, such as the fact that housing prices in Ontario are among the highest in North America?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that the record herein the Province of Ontario is probably the best in North America; I am fully aware of it. Unlike the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, we intend to keep it that way in spite of him.

Mr. Roy: With that kind of response, he’ll be picketing the police station next thing you know; that’s terrible.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary question, the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Given that the government intend to keep it that way, can the Premier assure the people of Peel that in fact there are actions being taken to counteract the effects of loan sharking and all of the rather serious consequences which befall people who get caught up in that business, as was reported by Insp. Joe Terdik of the Peel Regional Police?

Hon A Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Did you fellows talk to him?

Mr. Lewis: Occasionally.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that as far as police enforcement in the region of Peel is concerned, it is probably amongst the finest in the finest province of Canada. Probably the policing in the region of Peel is as great as one will find any place, yes. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, I speak with less than total objectivity.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, a new question. The member for Ottawa East.

DEPOSIT INSURANCE FOR CREDIT UNIONS

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Following the minister’s trips across the province discussing with the credit unions and the caisses populaires his legislation dealing with deposit insurance and stabilization proposals, when can we expect to see that legislation presented to the House?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would attend the House once in a while he might hear the statements that are read here. There was a statement read here in the middle of March in which I enunciated the government’s policy. I said there would be no legislation.

Mr. Roy: I was here when the minister made it, dummy.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, if the member had listened to it, he would have known that we were trying to get the Minister of Finance in Ottawa to co-operate with us.

Interjections by hon members.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, is that parliamentary? It is accurate, but is it parliamentary?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I didn’t hear what the member is referring to.

Mr. Cassidy: Both ways.

Mr. Speaker: Is the answer complete?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Speaker. I said that if the hon. member was here and had listened, he would have known we would be approaching the federal government for assistance in helping the credit unions achieve what they want, which is basically deposit insurance without a government-operated stabilization fund. I have written to the Minister of Finance asking for that kind of co-operation and I have not yet received his reply.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question of the minister. When he was talking to the annual meeting of the credit unions in the city back in March or April, what did the minister mean by his statement when he said to them: “After all, this is 1975. Who needs a fight”?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would have thought the remarks were self-explanatory, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Self-explanatory? The minister is backing off now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Premier. Given that there are a number of civil servants who are currently under the gun, so to speak, with regard to their political affiliation and civil service jobs, and given that a gentleman from Grimsby recently was given the ultimatum either to resign from the PC Party or give up his justice of the peace job --

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s old hat.

Mr. Deans: -- doesn’t the Premier think there is some inconsistency when the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston) is reported in the newspaper to have claimed that he acts as a justice of the peace and as a member of the Legislature at the same time and gets paid for both?

Mr. Roy: Which job does he do best?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think this is really very similar to the question that was asked by the same member a few days ago.

Mr. Deans: No, it is very different.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If he will check Hansard, the answer is the same.

Mr. Deans: Could I have the answer on the record since the question was never asked? I didn’t ask whether the member for St. Catharines should have both jobs. I am asking the Premier, does he not feel it is wrong to inflict these kinds of penalties on private citizens while allowing members of the Legislature to hold down two similar types of positions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure they are related situations at all. I know nothing about the activities of the member for St. Catharines but I would be delighted to discuss it with him.

Mr. Lewis: No one does; not a soul would know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: His constituents do and that is why they re-elected him and will again.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact the Premier is wrong.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

NIAGARA REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. To refresh the minister’s thinking, it was under his previous jurisdiction that regional government in the Niagara region was established. Can the minister inform the Legislature as to what day he will announce a study programme to review the present regional government in Niagara; what is the name of the person who will be responsible for making this study; and what are the guidelines that will be established?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, all these things will be known in the fullness of time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There is not much more time for the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

FABRICON

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Since it was announced this morning that Fabricon in Trenton --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Why doesn’t the Treasurer answer a question once in a while.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is far more than members opposite do.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I didn’t hear the question. Will the member for Windsor West repeat it?

Mr. Lewis: Every time the Premier is in trouble, he sells another tie.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Under the new rules it is the only way we can make money.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Since it was announced this morning that Fabricon in Trenton was moving some 10 miles to the town of Belleville to open up new and expanded operations, and since the workers in that plant were not assured they would be taken on and given jobs in the new plant; would the Minister of Labour consult with the Ministry of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and assure the workers their jobs will be transferred and that the company can’t just let all their workers in Trenton go and take on a new staff of workers in Belleville?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): We will be pleased to see what we can do to help these people on this move. I will consult with my colleague.

RECREATION TRAILS

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Last fall the minister may recall he made an announcement about a bill he would introduce for the establishment of trails in the province. Since that time, I think the minister will recall, he brought in legislation with regard to trails used by snowmobiles. When is the minister actually going to bring in some legislation to assist those who are interested in having bikeways, walking trails, riding trails and motorcycle trails? When is he going to get this legislation before us to get some action?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the operational aspects of this programme are in the hands of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier). I am sure the hon. member will get an answer.

Mr. Deacon: Why doesn’t the provincial secretary make the announcement then?

Mr. Breithaupt: He did the thinking on it.

An hon. member: The provincial secretary establishes the policy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member needs another education in the responsibilities of the provincial secretary, I would be glad to tell him. Where there is an overlapping jurisdiction as between a number of ministries, the coordination is done by the provincial secretary. The operational aspect of any programme is in the hands of a particular ministry. In this case, it is in the hands of the Minister of Natural Resource. I will make sure my colleague gets notice of the question the hon. member has asked and he will get a reply in due course.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Would the minister see that some action does take place, since it is now six months since he announced it would?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the programme is well under way and my colleague will report the action he has taken.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Time is running out now.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Since his predecessor, Bert Lawrence --

Mr. Breithaupt: Of happy memory.

Mr. Stokes: -- who convened the symposium on trails said he would be responsible for implementation of the programme, doesn’t the provincial secretary think he should know a little more about it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Bert could have been here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker. I didn’t say I didn’t know a little more about it. I merely advised the hon. member which minister is responsible for putting the programme into effect. If the hon. member thinks we should put it into some other minister’s hands, I would suggest he ask my colleague, but I am sure he has it well in hand.

Mr. Roy: Bert was doing a good job.

Mr. Deacon: What a waste of money.

Mr. Roy: Bring back Bert Lawrence.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

HOUSING ON ESCARPMENT LAND

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Is the minister aware that his Housing Action Programme representative appeared at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing in Hamilton with regard to a developer’s request for permission to build houses in the area designated as escarpment land? Is there any coordination between the Ministry of Housing and TEIGA with regard to the preservation of the escarpment? Is it right that OHAP -- or AHOP, I suppose it is -- takes precedence over the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, ifs not right that AHOP or OHAP -- actually AHOP is the federal programme and OHAP is Ontario -- takes precedence over the Niagara Escarpment preservation. It isn’t right at all. The development that occurs within the designation of the planning area has the same regulations as any other development has. The only extra one is that the Niagara Escarpment Commission has to give its opinion as to whether or not the development should occur.

So the Treasurer, being the one who is responsible for the designation of the Niagara Escarpment planning area, and myself, as the one responsible for the development of the regulations and for the hearings which take place whenever an application is turned down -- and those dealing with this matter will be held in the next few weeks have been working hand in hand to make sure the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the people within the planning area are fully aware this government will preserve the escarpment area as much as possible, but some development will take place.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Why would the representative of the minister’s programme appear on behalf of the developer to put forward positions pro development of very valuable land right on the face of the escarpment?

Mr. Lewis: This is the second instance of this happening.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think we all must realize that our ministry is asked to come before the Ontario Municipal Board on all kinds of hearings. These are not necessarily OHAP matters only, but may involve a subdivision development anywhere, or even a land severance. So therefore I don’t find it very unusual.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary question: Given there is a substantial amount of land currently available in Saltfleet township, not in the designated area, already available and serviced; and given there are similar amounts of land available in Hamilton, why would the minister even make representation at all on behalf of developers on the face of the escarpment, rather than simply direct the Housing Action Programme to proceed within the lines already designated for housing?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, we were asked, no doubt, to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the escarpment: Why, in view of the fact these amendments are going to cost --

Mr. Yakabuski: Welcome.

Mr. G. Nixon: What’s the question?

Mr. Sargent: -- millions of dollars more, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of planning is going to go down the drain -- he has given the escarpment a blank cheque --

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Question?

Mr. Sargent: Why were the copies smuggled out of the meeting described as leaks of great concern to the government? Why can’t the minister supply these amendments to the people affected?

Mr. G. Nixon: What is the question?

Mr. Roy: Is that member deaf?

Mr. Sargent: Why can’t I have a copy of these amendments.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: How do they keep all these fellows awake?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The question has been asked.

Mr. Sargent: Okay, that’s a starting point.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m just waiting for the hon. member to sit down and I’d be happy to answer.

Mr. Roy: Does the minister understand the question?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I did have a meeting with the municipalities that are under the control of the regulations regarding the Niagara Escarpment, and at that meeting --

Mr. Sargent: Who called the meeting?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I called the meeting.

Mr. Sargent: Why?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Sargent: What was the motivation for it?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister hasn’t completed his answer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should recognize this, that this government always tries to communicate with the people and this is what we’re doing.

Mr. Sargent: That’s a lot of bull and he knows it!

Mr. Breithaupt: Only some people.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In this particular case, I took the initiative of making sure I had input from the locally-elected leaders of the area that was affected. In doing so, I had the benefit of their comments on what at that time I described to them as proposed draft regulations, which they actually were. Now whether or not people believe me that’s another matter. Some took them home and that’s where they made the mistake, because they got the idea those were the final regulations; actually they weren’t at that time, nor are they yet, because I have not yet had the regulations proclaimed.

Therefore, what we are doing is working as closely as possible with all the people who are affected, the locally-elected people and the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The development will be, as far as I’m concerned, under my control when there is an appeal. That is when the Minister of Housing is responsible for sending out a hearing officer, and the hearing will be held in a particular area.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): How about the members affected?

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: Why does the minister take a township like Sarawak, where in the original plan they had 300 ft leeway, and now the whole township’s under complete and stringent control? The whole township is down the drain, really.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: And why does the minister write amendments like that when the people are going to be put out of business? Why write stuff like that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the hon. member understands the --

Mr. Good: I never did understand it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- regulations regarding this development. What we are doing is promising regulations --

Mr. Sargent: He is doing away with all the planning boards.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

An hon. member: Listen.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- which exempt certain applications from having to be granted approval by the commission. When there is an application which is not within the exemptions, then we have to have a hearing before the commission. If the commission denies the application, we then have an appeal procedure -- and I am responsible for setting it up.

Mr. Sargent: Never to the OMB -- to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s exactly right. The Minister of Housing is responsible for having hearing officers and making certain a hearing is held when an appeal has been asked for by the applicant.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

NATURAL RESOURCES SCIENCE CENTRE

Mr. Ferrier: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the statement made by the Premier to the Timmins city council that he wasn’t aware of any of the developments on the natural resources centre for Timmins, how serious is his ministry taking that report by Raymond Moriyama? Is he going to make a decision if the land can be acquired to go ahead with this project?

Mr. Havrot: It’s another one of those grandstand shots.

Mr. Ferrier: if so, what kind of a time-frame is he thinking about?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, so there is no misunderstanding. What I think I said to the Timmins council was that I was not aware of what they had said to me, but that there was $8.5 million already allocated or sitting at Queen’s Park for the development of this particular facility. I don’t think I told them I was unaware of a suggestion with respect to a form of museum in that area. It had to do with the $8.5 million.

Mr. Ferrier: I wasn’t there, so I didn’t hear it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m trying to help. I’m not trying to be argumentative.

Mr. Lewis: Did the Premier offer the mayor of Timmins, L. Del Villano, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I didn’t.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier so graciously clarified things, I still am concerned about this matter and wonder if the Minister of Industry and Tourism would say what kind of plans he has to deal with the Moriyama report, and what time-frame he is thinking about in proceeding with some kind of plan in the northeast?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if the member would check the answer that was given to him about a week or 10 days ago, on exactly the same question, he will note that I said that the decision relating to further advancement of the plan of a natural science centre or resource centre in Timmins, was predicated on what Timmins was going to do in relation to the land they sold off, which was the site used in the original determination of the location of the programme. That decision has not been relayed back to us, even though we’ve asked two or three times. I’ve spoken with the mayor of Timmins relating to that particular subject, with no answer as to exactly what the municipal council is going to do,

Mr. Stokes: Del Villano can’t make up his mind.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If they do not decide to purchase back the land -- and I think I described this to the hon. member the last time -- they will have to reassess the entire project, because it will have to be located in some other part of the city of Timmins.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

HOLMES FOUNDRY STRIKE AT SARNIA

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Could the minister advise what initiatives his ministry is taking in connection with the prolonged strike between the United Auto Workers and Holmes Foundry at Sarnia?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: My information on that strike, sir, is that Mr. Howells of our ministry met with the parties on May 8. I don’t know how successful he was. As the member knows, they have been out since April 7; but the last meeting was May 8. I have not yet had a report on that. I will get one, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT LEGISLATION

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I had a time-frame question of the Premier, who has just left since I stood up. Perhaps I could ask it of the House leader.

Mr. Sargent: That’s a funny one.

Mr. Roy: He was afraid of the member for Sandwich-Riverside; that’s why he left.

Mr. Burr: I have questions of four other ministers, but they’re not here.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr. Burr: When can we expect Bill 14, the Environment Assessment Act, to be discussed for second reading in this House?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Very soon.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

HYDRO BLOCK

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): I have a question of the Minister of Housing: Is the Minister of Housing able at this time to advise us as to government policy relating to the Hydro block? Is the government considering selling any of that land on the open market?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me that question a few days ago, and I said I would be back. I’m sorry I don’t have a definitive answer, except to say to her that the board of OHC considered various proposals last week. I will be taking a proposal to Management Board next Tuesday and after that to the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

INDIAN FRIENDSHIP CENTRE CAMP

Mr. Stokes: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: Does the minister recall two years ago that we accompanied one another to an excellent campground about 40 miles up the Spruce River road, northeast of the city of Thunder Bay?

Mr. Deans: Take it easy.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Does she recall how impressed she was with the camp?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s the stuff.

Mr. Stokes: Does she recall how impressed she was with the camp being operated by people associated with the Thunder Bay Indian Friendship Centre? Does she recall saying she thought it was a worthwhile undertaking and she would continue to support its endeavours?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Remembers it clearly.

Mr. Lewis: There’s an example of whispering sweet nothings.

Mr. Stokes: Will she look into the reasons why the Ministry of Culture and Recreation has withdrawn financial --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Cut it out! I’m in enough trouble as it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Stokes: Will she look into the reasons why the Ministry of Culture and Recreation has withdrawn financial support from that worthwhile project?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, yes, I recall that day very well.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: What does she recall?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: And I thought gentlemen didn’t tell. I was impressed with the programme and I will look into the matter of support.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

OMB APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL FINANCING

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the provincial Treasurer arising out of his statement in the budget that he had asked the OMB to review debenture applications by municipalities, to look into them. Is the minister aware of the acute concern he is causing municipal councils, that OMB will go beyond its traditional role of setting limits on debentures and will now make the actual selection of which projects will proceed, something which should be certainly left to the authority of the municipalities?

Mr. Roy: How’s that for local autonomy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m not so sure I entirely agree with this. I don’t think we are in traditional times. We happen to be in times which I think call for restraint and constraint; perhaps the situation was a little different in traditional times as opposed to what has gone on.

Mr. Breithaupt: Like the budget.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: However, I know the board is meeting with a number of municipalities and I think a number of problems are being sorted away.

Mr. Good: A supplementary; Mr. Speaker: Certainly we are not in traditional times. Everybody knows the government has overspent by billions and billions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Good: Why does the Treasurer force on the municipalities conditions of his making when they should be the sole authority to set their own priorities?

Mr. Roy: Right.

Mr. Good: Maybe he should have the authority to set the limits, but he should not be meddling with the priorities.

Mr. Roy: Where is his restraint?

Mr. Good: Will he reconsider this whole matter?

Mr. Roy: Where is his restraint?

An hon. member: What did he say?

Mr. Good: He said no.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

HYDRO BLOCK

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why after two years of government ministers blaming municipalities for rejecting public housing, Ontario Housing Corp. has rejected the Hydro block plans here in the city of Toronto with the statement: “It is the intent of Ontario Housing to provide housing for all the people of Ontario, not just those of low income”? Could the minister give an assurance to the House that the wishes of the people of the area, including the surrounding neighbourhood, to have public housing in that area would be respected rather than rejected?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether the member for Ottawa Centre was listening to the reply I gave the member for St. George.

Mr. Cassidy: I was getting a copy of the letter, I’m sorry.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event I said I would have a tentative answer, I hoped, from Management Board next Tuesday; from there it goes to cabinet and I’ll bring it before the House after that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR AMATEUR SPORT

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Is the minister considering co-operating with his colleague, the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch), who is concerned with fitness and amateur sport as well as recreation, and giving sales tax exemption certificates to amateur sports organizations recognized by the province, so they could prepare themselves better for the Ontario Gaines, and then the other ensuing games, by the remission of sales tax?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the whole question of sales tax exemption certificates in areas like this has been one I have had under investigation, I guess since the day I came on the scene as Minister of Revenue a little over a year ago.

With the formation of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, in which they are better able, I believe, to assess the merits of the various applications for special consideration and for grants and the like, I expect that my ministry will be leaving that kind of thing more in the hand of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Yes, there will be co-operation between us, of course. I think, though, we are tending more in the direction of less exemptions from payment of taxes, and at the same time more in the direction of direct grants rather than exemptions from charges for retail sales tax on admissions, since the latter at the very best are difficult to assess in terms of their worth to the group and the assistance they represent in achieving goals.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves second reading of Bill 74, the Royal Canadian Legion Act, 1975.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Is the minister telling us things aren’t grinding to a halt around here?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): No, this is a very important bill I want to tell the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, I think, is to standardize the procedure that has been in practice by certain Legion branches across the province when they buy or dispose of or mortgage their property. The action must be done after a resolution has been sent out to members 10 days prior to a special or regular meeting. Then a vote must be taken and carried by a two-thirds majority of all those in good standing, present and voting, before any action can be taken by the executive of a Legion branch to mortgage, buy or dispose of property.

I checked with my own branch in Waterloo and I find out that this is exactly the procedure they carried out in 1969 when they added a large addition and put on a healthy mortgage on the branch. It is something that has been done in practice. It is now regularized in legislation. Provincial Command with its buildings here in Toronto and Dominion Command with its buildings in Ottawa, I understand, would have to follow the same procedure of a two-thirds vote of the executive bodies of those commands.

We would support the bill. From the small amount of research I have done on it with my own branch, I find it is a good thing if all branches are brought under this common procedure.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): My understanding from what the minister said at the time he introduced the bill was that this was in response to a request from the Legion. We are quite happy to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a reply?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There is really nothing to reply to, only to say that what has been said is correct. The explanatory note is exactly the way it is, as was explained by the member for Waterloo North. It has been a request from the Legion for a substantial period of time. This bill then comes before us to regularize the procedures that have been accepted in the past.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 74, the Royal Canadian Legion Act, 1975.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 68, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I have read this bill and I don’t think it really has a particular principle. Perhaps it might be more convenient for the bill to go to committee of the whole and it could be dealt with on various points as they may come up at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: My colleague is going to speak to this bill, but I’m not absolutely clear why this bill didn’t go before the private bills committee -- it would have seemed to me that that would have been the appropriate place -- or why the Metropolitan Toronto Act isn’t dealt with outside the Legislature at all, because it deals with any number of matters which appeared in other private legislation rather than public legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The answer, of course, if I may interrupt, is that the private bills go to that committee, not this. This is a public bill.

Mr. Deans: No, I understand.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill itself is routine and we have no particular objections to it.

One might even express a sigh of relief that the vaunting ambition of the Metro chairman led to a recycling of the CNE stadium into a baseball park rather than the creation of some multi-zillion-dollar colossus such as has been built in cities like New Orleans. The fact is that we’ve got a new stadium, or are getting a new stadium, on much more reasonable terms than if the grandiose ambitions of all those concerned originally had been satisfied.

There is a problem, Mr. Speaker, which doesn’t really pertain to the bill directly but pertains to it indirectly. The bill permits a slightly wider marketing of debentures by the metropolitan corporation because it allows the sale of Metropolitan Toronto debentures to the nations outside of the United States, Britain and Canada, which presumably means the Arabs, since they are the only other ones who have any money these days.

The problem is very simply the fact that the balance of borrowing as between Metropolitan Toronto and its constituent municipalities is way out of whack. Granted that Metro borrows on behalf of the area municipalities, but the capital expenditures which underlie those seem to be prioritized or determined by the metropolitan corporation and there is no sense of leaving that kind of fiscal power down to the local level.

Before you interrupt me, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that is particularly in direct line with the principle of the bill, but at least I thought the occasion was worth taking to point it out. We are, in this bill, further confirming the fiscal grip which Metropolitan Toronto has used in order to centralize power at the upper tier of regional government here in Toronto.

I think it’s interesting that the government resisted violently -- the member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett) was the instigator or the agent -- an increase of one or two people in the hydro commission -- I think it was when that was before the private bills committee -- and the city of Toronto’s hydro commission is willing to greatly expand the borrowing power of Metropolitan Toronto by giving it access to petrodollars in the Middle East

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to comment on this? The member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): There is really no principle in this bill so there is nothing to address oneself to. That it changes the late payment of water charges from one half of one per cent per month to 12 per cent a year is hardly something of momentous importance.

There is only one comment I want to make and I suppose this is as good a time as any to make it. When the province decided to go ahead with Metro on the establishment of the exhibition stadium, one thing I could not understand is this: When it is virtually impossible to move 30,000 people at a football game out of the stadium as it has existed up to now, how in the world are they going to move twice that many people under the same traffic conditions in the new stadium? I shall never be able to understand it.

How the provincial authorities and the Metro authorities were able to rationalize it in their minds to make the decision to go ahead with the stadium, I will never understand. However, the government decided to do this -- and I suppose a stadium here is better than a stadium nowhere.

I still think the place to have put the stadium is where the Spadina subway is going to end, so that the Spadina subway could have some rationale. Other than ending at a stadium, it has no rationale at all. Running through an area with a population density of about 35 people per acre is a way that a subway system is going to go broke pretty quickly.

So I think I would like to state this point right now on the matter of section 4, with respect to the exhibition stadium. As far as the rest of the bill is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is purely routine. Our party will support the bill because there’s nothing else to it of great momentous import.

Mr. Speaker: Any other comments on this bill? If not, does the hon. parliamentary assistant wish to reply?

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to reply because of the fact that I don’t believe any specific questions were asked. There were statements of opinion given by the various members, but I believe they do support the principle of this bill. If there are any specific questions, I would attempt to answer them.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 68, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second rending of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question which is somewhat related though not directly involved in this particular amendment.

Some time ago, in the Legislative Assembly Act, we passed a section which precluded any person from being able to hold office both as a member of the Legislature and as a city councillor. I realize it isn’t contained here, but I’m trying to find out, to question why that portion was never proclaimed. This is dealing with the right of the minister to require that there be an election under certain circumstances within local boards or municipalities.

They’re not related directly, but one of the reasons why there might be the need for an election within a municipality would be that a member of a municipal council may well run for the legislative assembly and be elected. We have a section which doesn’t allow a member to sit in both the legislative assembly and the council, but it hasn’t been proclaimed. I wonder if this minister, on behalf of the ministry, might be able to inform us as to the reason why that has not yet happened?

Mr. Speaker: Any other members wish to comment on this? The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled about the reasoning behind the section whereby, if a council of any municipality or a local board is unable for a period of two months to hold a meeting of the council, the minister may have an election of a whole new council.

I suppose there is some reason for this. But it could be we have a reeve, a deputy reeve and, we’ll say, three members of council. For some reason these three members of council cannot attend the meetings. Perhaps one has been sentenced to jail, and one may have been sentenced to the Legislature, and the other one may be in the hospital. But why would the elections have to cover the reeve and the deputy reeve, for example, as well as the three vacant seats?

I just don’t understand why the members who have fulfilled their duties should have to run again because of the incidents that happened to the other members of the municipality or of the board.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Merci, M. l’Orateur. J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue à ce bill parce que le principe a été enfin accepté que le français peut être utilisé aux élections municipales de la même façon que l’anglais. Cela n’a pris qu’une centaine d’années pour le gouvernement d’accepter que le français ait des droits égaux dans les municipalités bilingues dans la province de l’Ontario.

J’aimerais préciser que la situation à Ottawa était la suivante: au cours de l’élection de 1972, il y a une élection avec règlements, scrutin, etc., tout s’est déroulé dans les deux langues. Mais dans la dernière élection en décembre 1974 tout s’est déroulé seulement en anglais.

La ville d’Ottawa était prête à payer pour la traduction des documents de l’élection; elle était prête à préparer le scrutin et tout ce qui était nécessaire pour avoir une élection bilingue puisque un quart de la population de la ville d’Ottawa est de langue française. Mais ils ont demandé l’opinion du procureur général ou de l’avocat général de la province et il leur a répondu qu’il n’y avait aucune disposition dans les règlements de la province pour permettre une élection dans les deux langues. Il leur a dit que pour arriver à minimiser les objections possibles à la forme de scrutin, il était nécessaire d’avoir une élection seulement en anglais. C’est ce qui s’est passé à Ottawa, ville parfaitement capable de conduire son élection en français et en anglais.

Dans l’est de l’Ontario nous avons des municipalités où 80 à 90 pour cent de la population est de langue française. Mais ils ont toujours été obligés d’avoir leurs élections en anglais. La situation commence à changer mais je dirais que la raison pour laquelle cela change a été la pression continue mise sur le gouvernement par les organismes franco-ontariens de cette province. Ce n’est pas à cause d’une politique déterminée du gouvernement. En effet le gouvernement a résisté à toute opportunité de donner aux franco-ontariens leurs droits linguistiques égaux à ceux des anglophones de la province.

J’ai aussi d’autres questions sur les formules d’inscription pour les certificats de conduite pour les chauffeurs dans la province. On a vu l’autre jour que dans l’espace de quelques mois il a été possible pour le gouvernement de mettre sur les formules de chauffeurs une petite addition pour permettre aux gens de faire don de leur coeur, de leurs yeux ou d’autres organes de leur corps. Cela été possible dans l’espace de peut-être cinq ou six mois. Pas de problème.

Mais quand il est question de l’inscription des véhicules et quand on a demandé une inscription bilingue qui reconnaîtrait les droits des franco-ontariens d’avoir leur inscription en français, le ministre a résisté. Il a dit, et je cite, que toutes les formules avaient été préparées dans leur forme actuelle pour une durée de cinq années. Après cette période de cinq ans, M. l’Orateur, on était prêt à considérer un changement.

Pour les francophones on considère un changement seulement après cinq ans. Pour ceux qui veulent faire don de leurs organes on fait les changements dans l’espace de cinq mois. Évidemment il y a une discrimination contre les franco-ontariens dans toutes les politiques de ce gouvernement. On se demande si le ministère est prêt à accepter le droit d’avoir les livres de la municipalité en français et pas strictement en anglais. On se demande si c’est possible pour les gens d’avoir des réunions qui sont tenues seulement en français, au lieu qu’en anglais seulement, ou en anglais et en français.

Si vous êtes prêts à accepter cela, on verrait le commencement du bilinguisme dans la province d’Ontario. Si on accepte pour les certificats de naissance et de décès, les certificats de chauffeurs, les certificats d’inscription de véhicules, toute la documentation publique commune donnée aux 700,000 franco-ontariens de cette province, que cela soit en français et aussi en anglais, alors là vous aurez un vrai changement de politique de la part du gouvernement.

Dans ce cas, M. l’Orateur, la proposition d’accepter le français au scrutin municipal a été adoptée par l’association des municipalités de l’Ontario. C’est seulement après la pression de cette association et toute la pression mise sur le gouvernement qu’on a effectué ce changement. Évidemment le changement est bienvenu, j’espère que c’est le commencement de toute une nouvelle politique mais je crains que ce soit une manifestation isolée envers les franco-ontariens et pas un commencement de vrai changement de politique.

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

Mr. Givens: The official opposition welcomes the involvement of the principle of extending the feature of bilingualism into the Act by requiring the forms to be in both the English and French languages.

As far as subsections 2 and 3 of section 117 here go, the Act contemplates the possibility of certain eventualities taking place. I would like the parliamentary assistant to tell me under what circumstances a condition such as that envisaged under subsection 2 can take place? Would he kindly tell me under what circumstances that can possibly take place, outside of a case where a whole array of members is elected to higher office, assuming the office up here is considered a higher office? Where has there been an instance in any municipality in the Province of Ontario where a quorum has failed by virtue of the fact that several members have been elected to the provincial Legislature?

Incidentally, with a certain announcement that was made today, Mr. Speaker -- and this isn’t speaking to the bill -- I regret that in another Act that was passed in this Legislature municipal candidates are permitted to run for the provincial Legislature without having to resign their position, whereas we have to go under the gun. One can run for the provincial Legislature and still retain his municipal position and, if he loses, he still retains his municipal position. But if one is a member of the provincial Legislature and loses, he has had it. I think that is wrong.

I think a man or woman should have to fish or cut bait. If one decides to run for higher office, when the day of official nomination comes about he should have to resign whatever official position he holds and decide that that is the office he is risking his political career for and run for it regardless. If he wins, he wins, and if he loses, he loses.

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): The member won’t get any candidates that way.

Mr. Givens: I doubt that.

Mr. Kerr: The member’s party is having trouble now.

Mr. Givens: I did that. I resigned my federal seat. One has to do that when he runs for federal office and is in the provincial House, and he has to do that here if he runs for provincial office while in the federal House. Allan Lawrence had to do that when he decided to run federally. One has to do that when he runs from here to there and he has to do that when he runs federally and provincially.

Mr. Kerr: One shouldn’t leave here.

Mr. Givens: Oh, well, one shouldn’t leave here. Anyway, I think that was the wrong principle at that time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Bill Allen left.

Mr. Givens: I just thought I would mention that in passing. With that reservation, and if the hon. member will be good enough to answer the query that I asked about subsection 2, the official opposition will support Bill 69.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this Municipal Elections Act amendment, I am very disappointed that this Act doesn’t contain in it a couple of the other very important things which, to a fair degree, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has declared himself in favour of. Having brought an Act before us which does makes some slight changes in the Municipal Elections Act, it’s disappointing that there isn’t in this Act a shift of the normal municipal election date to an earlier time of the year, to which the senior minister indicated he was in favour.

Second, there should be an opportunity for the chief electoral officer of the municipality to declare an emergency has arisen and postpone the date of the municipal election. Such things would have been very helpful at the time of the normal municipal elections when they occurred last December in the city of Windsor, when we got more snow on the weekend immediately preceding the election than we normally get in a three-year period. I’m very disappointed it has not occurred in this Act, where we’re taking the time and trouble to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

With respect to the Act itself, I too am rather interested in the parliamentary assistant’s comments as to why one would have to re-elect the entire council if one has declared a vacancy because of the inability to obtain a quorum. I cannot understand why the seats of those members who had conscientiously turned out for each of those meetings and would have been part of any quorum had another couple of people joined, would necessarily be declared vacant. I wonder if the regulations will cover this possibility so that some may retain their seats, those who have been recorded as attending and trying to do their public duty, as opposed to their being declared vacant and having to run again for those seats.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Bill 69, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, but at the same time I express disappointment at the fact that the government hasn’t looked into the Windsor situation carefully enough and come down with legislation that could, once and for all, resolve that problem.

I know the member piloting the bill through is aware of the inclement weather we had on the day of the election and the fact that the election really should have been postponed. But the authority to postpone that election should be clear cut in the Act, so that the city clerk or the chief electoral officer in the municipality could have made that decision in sufficient time to alert everyone. As it is, the results of that election are before the courts and may end up with a rerun of that election at considerable expense to the municipality as well as to the various candidates who are going to partake in an attempt to gain an elective office.

I think the ministry has been a little lax in not resolving that problem in this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. As far as changing the election day, rather than having it --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member should be discussing this particular bill and not some other bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m talking to it, because this can involve the municipality of Pelee Island, that is adversely affected as a result of resignations there. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, if you want to resolve a lot of the problems, especially weather problems, then you can resolve them by selecting another month rather than the month of December for municipal elections. I hope the member piloting the bill through will take into consideration the comments I’ve made, and, possibly in the not too distant future, introduce legislation that could resolve these problems.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members who wish to speak to this? If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, the member for Wentworth asked for the reasons for the election. The same question was asked by many of the members opposite who were speaking to this bill. I will attempt to deal with the various sections.

Section 1 is regarding the bilingual question of the ballot. I believe all members indicated their support for that.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Isn’t the parliamentary assistant going to answer in French, like the member who spoke in French?

Mr. Beckett: Merci.

Mr. Bounsall: Oui.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Is he going to answer in French?

Mr. Beckett: In the second clause, “in the event that the council,” and so forth, concern was expressed as to what the circumstances were which would cause these vacancies. It could be a combination of a number of features; some of them could be deaths; some could be resignations; some could be a failure to qualify. It’s for these reasons and in particular the situation as mentioned by the member for Windsor-Walkerville -- Pelee Island, I believe, is a terrific example. The only difference, I would say, is it’s my understanding that the problem there was not that people resigned but they failed to qualify, which I admit comes to the same result.

There was another question -- I don’t believe the matter raised by the member for York-Forest Hill is considered to be merely a reason here. It’s one of the many considerations but I would be the first one to admit this does not cover the problem he spoke of -- of moving from the federal level to the provincial level and vice versa. This is designed more for the situation in which there could be a combination of deaths, resignations or failure to qualify.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think the parliamentary assistant has neglected to answer the question the member for Windsor West and I raised about why the whole council needs to be re-elected or elected.

Mr. Beckett: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding there would be difficulties in coming to a finality because we’re talking in terms of a quorum for two months. If there were someone who decided to stay away for the first period of time, for example, and there was a death later on, etc. there would be continual confusion in the administration of the municipality. The suggestion here is that in the event there is a lack of quorum for two months there should be a whole new election to clarify the whole matter.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 69, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It would appear we have a little time to peruse the budget and a few other items I may wish to talk on. Since there doesn’t seem to be any particular rush of legislative business at this time, I suppose it is a good opportunity to go into some of these items.

The budget, of course, Mr. Speaker, was no doubt what you would call a short-term budget with items put in such as the lowering of the sales tax from seven to five per cent for only the balance of this year and the home ownership grant up to Dec. 31 as well. These, of course, are supposed to be a stimulant to the economy although I would suppose we would also have to have a stimulant in an election year.

Of course, any budget brought down in an election year can be called an election budget. However, this one is probably more so because most election budgets don’t necessarily go for one year. That a why this one shows up a little more than usual when it cuts off at Dec. 31.

We have got to almost assume then that the Premier (Mr. Davis) will not be using his prerogative of going to the fifth year of the life of the Legislature, which he can do under our electoral system. It would appear that he must intend to go to the people in 1975. However, I think that he could hang on -- and maybe this is not the exact word, but it is used in some areas when Premiers hang on for some time. I guess he could go until 1977 if you get right down into the nitty-gritty of the law, which I am sure he will not do.

I, of course, have been one of those predicting that we will be on the campaign trail a week from today. However, that is just a guess and I don’t have anything to back it up. I don’t have anyone at the right hand of the Premier to advise me on what he is doing.

The budget is very much a one-year budget and it makes one think that he will go while the iron is hot. As the fellows in the blacksmith business say: “It’s time to hit it, when it’s hot.”

Now, in regard to the general economy of the country, Mr. Speaker, I have a number of items to speak on, and each item will be quite brief. I spoke at some length on the Throne Speech in March, I think, and took a little longer than usual. I am reluctant to take too long, because at some of the meetings at which I speak to the people on what goes on in the Legislature, I tell them that without controls on how long people can speak on certain items and at certain times, I think it degrades the Legislature. I think when people come in and see that we don’t even have a quorum -- and probably we don’t know. At this very time I am sure we don’t.

Mr. Ferrier: No, we don’t.

Mr. Ruston: However, I am not sure that I really can expect someone to come in and listen to people talk for hours on end on matters that pertain only to their own area or on something that they must have on their mind and maybe isn’t of much interest to other people. And, of course, they have it on the record if they ever want to use it or look back; maybe that is the reason they speak so long.

I think maybe the time is coming, Mr. Speaker, when there should be controls or some type of agreement made as to the length of time that you may speak in budget debates, in Throne Speech debates, probably even in the committee of the whole House. This, of course, is pretty good the way it is as far as bills and estimates are concerned, where you can get up and down as often as you want. But again, I suppose, it’s abused to some extent. A person can decide to speak several times on the Throne Speech. I think we had one member who spoke for seven hours on different occasions. I don’t think that anybody could pay me enough to have to sit and listen for seven hours to a speech.

I think a person having to listen for seven hours should get paid more than the person giving the speech. I don’t think there is any seven-hour speech that is that good or interesting.

Mr. Ferrier: Can we take it then that the member won’t speak for seven hours?

Mr. Ruston: That’s for sure. To the member for Cochrane South, I’ll definitely say that in no way would I be interested in that whatsoever.

Here’s something the member for Windsor-Walkerville just gave me. In Pakistan, a member of the national assembly was suspended from the remainder of the session for making an irrelevant speech. It was struck from the record. So you see, maybe that could happen here sometime if someone got up and spoke for a long time and maybe it didn’t have any relevance as to what we were actually doing. I suppose that is possible.

Mr. Ferrier: That would have to be a government member, though.

Mr. Ruston: That’s possible -- but anyway, I guess it is possible for anyone.

Now, I just want to talk briefly on agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In 1974 and in 1973, farm income has increased substantially in the majority of areas of Ontario -- in fact, in all of Canada -- since the fall of 1972 and 1973. Prices -- especially grain prices -- went up considerably at that time -- export wheat to about $5 a bushel and of course, there was the big futures market in soya beans.

Two or three years ago soya beans went from $3.10 a bushel at harvest time to $11.50 the following spring. I think the majority of people who made that money never knew what a soya bean looked like, and didn’t know where it came from. They didn’t know whether it came from the land, the water or where it came from. They would be the stock market people, and I guess the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) is well versed in that particular item.

There is some concern now though, Mr. Speaker, as to prices. I was just reading in one of the newspapers where Brazil is now the second highest producer of soya beans in the world. The United States, of course, is still the major producer of soya beans. I speak about soya beans, Mr. Speaker, because of their wide diversity of use.

I think that when they went up in the market to $11 a bushel two years ago that it was maybe the worst thing that could have happened to our country’s economy. It put the money in the hands of a very few people, and caused prices of anything that was manufactured from soya beans to soar.

The people who really suffered from that -- I suppose at that particular time even the farmers suffered -- were using soya bean by products, soya bean meal, for feed for their cattle and livestock. Soya bean meal went from about $100 a ton to about $500 a ton. That almost mined the dairy farmers at that time, especially in the one year when the prices went up so high.

So that reverberated around the whole agricultural economy and I think that it had some bad effects on the economy throughout the world. It is amazing that maybe that was the start of it. We needed higher prices, but in no way did the farmers -- and they’ll say themselves --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member state his point of order?

Mr. Sargent: I think it is high time we had a quorum here.

Clerk of the House: There is not a quorum present, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Speaker: We now have a quorum. The member may continue.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, could we let the record show that there are only five New Democrat members in the House at this time; just five. Just five, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ferrier: There were only four Tories when the quorum was called.

Mr. Speaker: It is not really a point of privilege. The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Henderson: Just five.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): When the division bells rang, there were only two Tories here.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, let the record show there was only one Tory in the House before the call for the quorum; only one Tory.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member for Grey-Bruce is here for only the third time this session too.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: You are welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a few more --

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Why be so nasty to us? We didn’t call it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr. Gilbertson: I want it on the record that the member for Grey-Bruce came in here and called a quorum and he is very seldom in the House himself. When he did come in he called a quorum.

Mr. Sargent: That’s the last time I’ll buy maple syrup from him.

Mr. Speaker: It must be spring fever. The member for Essex-Kent may proceed.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, for all we are accomplishing here, maybe the Premier should pull the plug and put them out in the hustings and have an election. I just wonder just how much we are accomplishing, but I hope that my speech will add something to it, although so far it has mostly been interruptions and so forth.

What I was speaking about, Mr. Speaker, were the repercussions of the price of soya beans on the world economy in 1972 and 1973 and what it is having to do now with the agricultural industry. Just to give an idea of what has happened since that time, the soya bean price last year was from $6 to $8 or $9 a bushel and today they are $4.70 and the fall price is considered to be about $4.10. For corn, we are talking a fall price of about $2. It is about $2.50 now, whereas a year ago it was $3.50. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is a fluctuating market and it is very, very difficult for a farmer when he goes out to buy a tractor and pay $15,000 to $20,000 for it and not know for sure what his price is going to be when he sells his commodities.

I had a fellow tell me the other day when he was buying a header for a combine that the price of it last fall was $7,200 and he didn’t buy it because he didn’t think he could afford it right then. He went up a couple of weeks ago to get a price on it and it had gone up to $10,200. That shows you the problem they have. Now, I think it is very pertinent and I think it is very important that we come in with some form of a guarantee -- not necessarily subsidization -- for farm commodities.

We have the new Act in Ottawa now being studied by the committee. To give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of the feelings of some people I have a letter which I will read in part from a person in my area:

“We need protection and guarantees with regard to the relation between our input costs and our returns.

“We farmers appear to be the only segment of our society who are not protected. Why should this be?

“We are willing and able to produce the food required by our country and all the world but some assurance of adequate returns is a must.

“In my own case, I have two sons who are just starting on their own. They want to farm and be a part of the backbone of our country -- farmers. They are renting land, would like to buy land and are willing to invest in high input costs and machinery to produce a crop.

“I am happy this is their decision but they will have to net something for their investment and labour or they will not be able to continue to operate as farmers and will be forced to leave the industry.

“This would be a sad situation. We must look to the future for the younger generation who are willing to work the land. We cannot depend on substitutes and synthetics. The time has passed for stop-gaps and temporary measures.”

Mr. Speaker, this gives you an idea of the feeling many people have in the agricultural industry, who have to make large investments to carry on their operations.

I might go on to another subject which I would like to mention in pasting. It’s in regard to the statements made by the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and the Premier lately about how they thought we should be cutting down on drinking and so forth because of health reasons.

It’s really rather ludicrous because every week we get a copy of a letter from the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. Here’s one on licence activities for the week ending May 3, 1975. The first couple of pages, of course, are changes in licences from one owner to another. When it gets to the third page it starts and in about six pages there are 56 new licences issued. It says, “The following applications for licences have been approved and the licences will be issued when the premises meet all the requirements of the Liquor Licence Act and regulations.” There are 56 new applications in one week.

I don’t have the figures with me today, Mr. Speaker, as to what the increase in outlets has been in the last five to 10 years. I did have them a while ago. I don’t have them with me but I know they have more than doubled in the last 10 years.

Licence activities for the week ending May 10 -- mind you, there weren’t too many that week. There are only 16 new applications to the end of that week. If as the Premier and the Minister of Health say, they’re going to get tough and cut down on drinking, I don’t think they’re going to do it by increasing the outlets every week.

I think somebody mentioned the other day when I asked a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), he said that really didn’t have anything to do with it. He said they want people to cut down. Someone interjected and said that by having more outlets we could cut down; we could get one drink in each place and keep going up and down the street. In that way we wouldn’t drink much in each place but we would drink just as much and maybe more.

I think people who want to drink are going to enjoy a drink. I know we have some problems with alcoholism and so forth and a certain amount of people who haven’t been able to control it, but the easier the access doesn’t necessarily cut it down, Mr. Speaker.

I’m not a teetotaler myself. I enjoy a drink occasionally but when the Minister of Health and the Premier talk about cutting down and then we get a notice in the paper of 56 new outlets in one week, it’s pretty hard to understand them at all.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or take them seriously.

Mr. Ruston: Or take them seriously is right.

In the Throne Speech debate in March I spoke about the automobile industry. I don’t want to reiterate all of that, Mr. Speaker, but we depend a great deal on the automobile industry for employment in Ontario. We have an automobile pact with the United States where many of the cars that are manufactured here go to the US and the ones manufactured in the US come back into Canada duty free. It is very interesting to us because the US is suffering the worst sales it has had in 14 years. Although in Canada sales have been down slightly in the last three to four months, though I see April sales are higher than last year in April, we are holding our own pretty well in Canada. The United States market is our biggest problem.

Mr. Speaker, you can’t sell cars if you are not going to have any place to drive them. When we have a population of 2¼ million in Metropolitan Toronto and when the Premier gets up and says that cities are for people and not for cars, I suppose then that our manufacturers and those manufacturing cars are wondering what they are going to do with them. There are more than two million people here. There must be a car for every family and maybe two cars. If the Premier says that the city is for people and not cars, I guess one begins to think that maybe he had better not have a new car.

I don’t know whether he really understands this. I don’t think so. I think of the mistakes some of the large cities made. Being close to the city of Detroit, I think their mistake was that they never did put in any rapid transit. One of the reasons for it, from what I have read in some of the Detroit papers, is that when they were talking about rapid transit about 10 or 15 years ago there was quite an objection from the automobile industry. Auto workers, combined with the automobile industry, pretty well put a kibosh on that in the city of Detroit, which is known as the city of wheels. They never did build any rapid transit system in Detroit. They still have a kind of open motor bus system, but that’s not good.

Mr. Stokes: What is kibosh?

Mr. Ruston: That is a new word. I am pleased to have the member for Kent (Mr. Spence) as Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to see you, Mr. Speaker, in that position.

Mr. Sargent: That is what the Premier does.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Gilbertson: Bring him to order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ruston: The Toronto subway system is one of the best transportation systems I have seen in any city. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, if they could have built in conjunction with that a rapid transit system outwards east and west, or northwest and northeast as well as in conjunction with their highway system, then they would have had a combination of both. Seventy-five per cent of the people in the United States and Canada go to work in their cars. In fact, in some areas it is as high as 90 per cent and in some areas it is 100 per cent, but as a whole about 75 per cent use their cars to get back and forth to work.

Until the government makes a good alternative system, people are bound to use their cars. So the government is going to have to make some way for them to use their cars. That is why it needs a combination of both, especially in the heavily populated city where one certainly does need an excellent rapid transit system. People still want their cars to get out in the country and get up to the north. By having a combination of both, one can move people around.

There is some concern, regardless of how big Toronto gets, whether when any city gets over a population of perhaps two million one can ever really solve the transportation system properly and whether one can ever really put in a system that will work.

One can get too heavy a population in a very small area. It is getting that way in Toronto with the high density of office buildings in the downtown core. There are some reports, I think, of 50,000 to 60,000 people working in a five or six square block area. Whether rapid transit and other modes of transportation can really handle that is hard to say. It is probably difficult. We all should be thinking of what some of the planners are saying.

Toronto now is receiving half the immigrants who come into Canada. The Metropolitan area has over 2½ million people and it is still growing. I wonder whether we should be saying to industry and all commercial enterprises that we are going to have to take a look and open up new areas and enlarge some of the present cities. There is no reason at all why the city of London can’t handle another 100,000 people, or Peterborough or North Bay.

Maybe we should be encouraging industry to go into those areas. I don’t think they need a grant structure. Maybe it should be on a corporation tax basis that you could encourage them to go into these other areas. You would double their charge maybe if they went into a heavily populated area such as Metropolitan Toronto. That might be an alternative to encourage them to go into these other areas.

But I think we have to do something. I don’t think we can continue at the present rate we are going and still be able to have what we call respectable living in an area such as Metropolitan Toronto, or the way it will get if it continues.

Another area of concern, Mr. Speaker: We’ve been reading where the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) and the Premier are concerned about the crime rate. And I was just reading an account in the Windsor Star where the judge is very concerned about the way the courts are operating. He says it certainly is a degrading situation. Judge Zalev mentioned in his remarks to the panel of jurors the costs involved with them appearing in a court -- and he mentioned the legal aid system. He pointed out to the panel that they in effect were paying these costs:

“The panel, which has about 86 members, attended county courthouse Thursday morning for a jury selection which didn’t take place because of charges dismissed when the Crown offered no evidence. Then on the understanding that another matter would be ready for trial today, Judge Zalev asked the panel to return this morning so a jury could be picked, but there were no defence lawyers available to begin the trial today. He said that it costs about $1,000 in taxpayers’ money to bring these people in.”

So I am concerned about our court system. We keep hearing about royal commissions and everything. I am not sure what we need to speed up our court system, but I am sure that there must be some lawyers that have the answers. Maybe what we need is a new Attorney General.

The member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) was here a few minutes ago. He spoke a week or two ago about what he would do as Attorney General, and I was very interested in some of his comments. Maybe we need a new broom and some new blood to modernize our court system so that there is not a backlog of six or eight months in a year to get things through. That seems to have a bearing. A lot of people are concerned about this. I think it shows that we are not taking a real interest in this. The government certainly has at its disposal anything it wants to do on this. I know it has the ability to improve it, and it certainly should do it.

I know that the Premier now says he is a law-and-order man. I noticed the other day someone asked him what he thought about capital punishment, but he said that particular item was a federal matter and he wasn’t going to get involved in it. But he certainly has been getting involved in a lot of other things that are federal matters. I think he shied away from that because I guess he didn’t want to commit himself about capital punishment.

I think everyone has a right to his say and it shouldn’t matter whether it’s a federal or provincial matter. Capital punishment up to now has been a federal matter and is voted on in a free vote in Parliament. I don’t think that that is the way it should be, though. I think that we shouldn’t leave the responsibility on Parliament to decide whether or not we should have capital punishment. I would be more inclined to think it should be a referendum or a plebiscite for the people of Canada to decide whether we have capital punishment or not, and not leave it up to the members of Parliament. I am sure that some of them have their own feelings and have to use those feelings as they see fit. Yet they may not be speaking for the majority of the people because they have their own convictions, and you can’t take that away from them.

So I would think that a plebiscite would certainly give you a better idea of the feeling of the majority of Canadians all across Canada and that maybe that would be the one way to solve that particular problem. It then would take it out of the hands of those elected people who have certain feelings about it that are very different and very deeply felt too, of course.

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me when I see the amount of money that this government is spending on advertising. You can’t pick up a daily paper or a weekly paper without seeing at least three-quarter-page ads, half-page ads, some of them full-page ads, about what you might do about your seatbelts or what you might do to get a home buyer’s grant.

But the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld) was putting ads in the paper, and I don’t know why he had to put them in. I can understand advertising the home buyer’s grant to some extent -- it’s a new plan -- and I don’t object to them doing a little advertising on that. But the Minister of Colleges and Universities has been around this Legislature for 20 years. I don’t think he needs to place full-page or half-page ads saying that we have a Ministry of Colleges and Universities. I think that’s a complete waste of money.

As for the advertising of seatbelts, people have them in cars that have been bought in the last four or five years. I’m sure the government shouldn’t have to spend $650,000 asking people to wear them. If we’re going to require them in all the cars and if we have ample proof that wearing them is much safer, then I think we’re going to have to make it into legislation. Instead of spending more than half a million dollars on advertising, I think people themselves will learn to wear them. If the government doesn’t want to accept that, then I think it’s going to have to put it into legislation.

But as for spending extra money to advertise the wearing of seatbelts, I think that is a complete waste of public funds. That $650,000 could be lent to people who are making about $9,000 or $10,000 a year so they could buy a house. We could provide quite a few houses for people with that kind of money; and we could lend them the money free of interest, instead of spending this $650,000 to advertise seatbelts. You see signs on the highway telling you to buckle up and so on; I think it’s kind of ridiculous that there should be such a waste of the taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Sargent: Right on, right on.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): It’s grease for “the big blue machine.”

Mr. Ruston: It’s grease for “the big blue machine,” as my colleague from Perth says. Of course, it’s probably also a public relations thing with the newspaper industry. I suppose when the government does a lot of advertising, and there is a big account every few months, then I suppose it has got the inside track as to where its ads are going to appear when it wants to place some advertising for the election. That probably would help considerably.

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): Is that the way the Liberals do it? They must have a good teacher.

Mr. Ruston: I’m pretty sure that’s what the government and the Conservative Party are thinking about.

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): That’s the way the feds do it.

Mr. Stokes: Is that what the feds do?

Mr. Wiseman: That’s the technique they use.

Mr. Ruston: The next thing does not have anything to do with advertising, Mr. Speaker, but I noticed in the public accounts -- and I didn’t count each individual name -- when the public accounts came out in 1974, that there were 522 people in the head office of the Ministry of Education who were making over $20,000 a year. In 1972, there were 340.

I know that wage scales have gone up, but when they brought in the county school boards and larger school areas, I understood that the intention of the former Premier from London, Mr. Robarts, when he announced that we were going to have consolidation of education in the counties and so forth, was that this was going to turn the operation of the schools back to the county and it would do away with the massive hierarchy here in Queen’s Park. But instead of doing away with the hierarchy, I think for every one they hired out in county they must have hired two here to kind of oversee them.

Mr. Sargent: Right.

Mr. Ruston: Another thing is that each county director is paid about the same as the Deputy Minister of Education is now. So instead of having one Deputy Minister of Education, receiving whatever his salary is -- $40,000 or $45,000 -- we now have about 40 county school board directors, plus all the city ones, or probably 50 directors of education who are now receiving the same as the deputy minister. Instead of having one deputy minister, we’ve got 50 deputy ministers. That just shows the waste of money by the government.

I would have no objection if they were going to cut down on the bureaucracy here in Toronto and leave it in the county areas or in the city areas, but when you are going to have it in both places, then that is a complete waste of the taxpayers’ money, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) about the automobile rebate a few months ago. When the automobile industry brought in the rebate system, they were turning refunds back directly to the purchaser. Chrysler, General Motors, and I think American Motors, all did it the same way. People would buy a car -- and we’ll say it cost $4,000 -- and pay the dealer $4,000 plus seven per cent tax, $280, and then about three weeks later Chrysler or whatever company it was would send a rebate back, whether it was $200 or $500, whatever the case may be, on that particular car.

On Feb. 4, I asked the Minister of Revenue:

“Is the minister aware of the overtaxing of automobiles resulting from the rebate instigated by the big four auto companies, and is he considering the refund of the seven per cent sales tax on the amount of the rebate to the consumer?

“Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem which the hon. member raises. If he would like to give me some particulars, I would be glad to look into it.”

So I put it out in kind of an easy way for him to understand. I am sure he has a lot of experts over there, but since I have been in the retail business a long time myself it was quite easy to figure out the price of the car and then the rebate. I sent it over by messenger to his office. Then on Feb. 10 he responded thus:

“Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, Feb. 4, the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston) asked me if I was aware of what he suggested was ‘overtaxing of automobiles resulting from the rebate instigated by the big four auto companies,’ and whether I was considering ‘the refund of the seven per cent sales tax on the amount of the rebate to the consumer.’

“Mr. Speaker, where a car dealer allows a reduction in the selling price of an automobile because he’s being compensated in a like amount by a supplier, the retail sales tax is, naturally enough, applicable to the selling price, net of the reduction. However, where the rebate is made directly to the consumer by the automobile manufacturer, as appears in many cases to be the case, and the dealer has not reduced the selling price of the automobile to the customer, the rebate cannot be used to reduce the amount of which the sales tax is applicable.

“In this second kind of case, the selling price negotiated between the dealer and the customer is unaffected by the rebate, the rebate can’t be considered a discount and therefore does not act to reduce the amount upon which the tax is applied. The rebate transaction is a separate agreement between the customer and the automobile manufacturer.

“Mr. Ruston: Isn’t the minister really over-collecting in sales tax, because the consumer is not paying that full amount, in effect?

“Hon. Mr. Meen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have just outlined to the hon. member that I am not. I’m applying the tax on the basis of the contract price. Whatever happens after that is between another party -- namely the manufacturer -- and the purchaser.”

That was his answer on Feb. 10. Then on Feb. 12 I sent out a news release saying that I thought it was very unfair. Part of it said:

“ … the provincial sales tax on a $4,000 car is about $280, but if a rebate of $500 is given by the manufacturer, the true price of the car is $3,500, and the provincial sales tax should be only $245.

“It would be quite simple for the auto companies to supply a list of rebates given by them to the Minister of Revenue, who could refund the equivalent amount of tax to the customers directly. Alternatively, some arrangement could be made with the dealers to take the tax differential into account in anticipation of the rebate from the manufacturer.”

That was on Feb. 12. Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, Feb. 12 was a Wednesday. That Friday I was listening to the news at 12 noon and the Minister of Revenue announced that if anyone had purchased a car and had received a refund from the company, he would send them a cheque for the amount of the tax on the amount of the refund.

What we did -- I don’t know, Mr. Speaker; I am sure it helped a lot of people because of the amount of cars sold in that time but it is amazing what it takes to get the government to move. We brought this up. I discussed it with an automobile salesman in my area and I told the minister I thought the Ontario government was ripping off the people when they were buying cars because the companies were refunding the money. I was glad to see the minister changed his mind, although I don’t know whether it was because of my question or because of an editorial in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, Feb. 12, the same day I sent my news release out.

Mr. Speaker, they wrote an article on it: “No rebate from Mr. Meen.” I suppose they could have said: “No rebate from the meany, Mr. Meen.” It would have kind of rhymed a little. But anyway he changed his mind two days later and we got the rebate. That’s only a small item, I realize that --

Mr. Edighoffer: They are followers, not leaders.

Mr. Ruston: It is $40 or $50 to someone buying a car -- it may be only $15 -- but I think the government should not in any way participate in collecting more money than it is rightfully due under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

We know we have to have money to pay for the operation of the government and if we have a sales tax, it should be fairly administered. That wasn’t being fairly administered on the plan they had so I am happy we were fortunate in having him come around to our way of thinking.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Thank God we are here to protect the interests of the people in this province.

Mr. Ruston: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: We’re going to wake them up.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): The Liberals will have to wake themselves up first.

Mr. Ruston: I wouldn’t have many more items to speak on but I had noticed an article to show you, Mr. Speaker, the confusion this government operates under with its ministries.

The Ministry of the Environment took over the operations of the county health units a year or so ago. The member for Waterloo North is well aware of this, being an expert on a number of items and that was one of the things. He mentioned a number of times that they were taking over the health units and the minister took over.

In the town of Wheatley in my area they thought they had something all set. They went to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) and he said, “They are building a new sewage disposal system in the town and it is going to be going in another year or two. They are doing the engineering work on it now and it will probably be 1½ years before it is constructed.”

They have a large number of lots in the town which could be built on but the medical officer of health would never give them any sewage permits. We made representation to the Ministry of the Environment and the Village trustees did as well. They thought everything was going along fine but I just noticed a little news clipping here. I guess it happened in a week when I wasn’t in Wheatley; I am there quite often talking to the businessmen and so forth. In fact I spent an evening there discussing the new sewage system going in in Wheatley and so forth at one of the business meetings. We said we thought they would approve filling in some of these lots because there was a demand for homes in the town. These lots should be filled in and then when the sewage works were put in, they could be hooked up at that time.

I have just noticed here, it says:

“A big hurdle in building a new home in Wheatley is overcome, sight? Wrong! The local health unit in its great wisdom won’t approve it. A plan okayed by the Ministry of the Environment (the ultimate in pollution conscious bodies of government) is given the thumbs down treatment.

“The conflict of ideas between the Chatham health unit and the ministry leads one to think the whole organization should be dissolved and recreated somehow.”

I guess the thing to do is dissolve that government over there, the Conservative Party and the Premier, for that kind of thing.

It is really frustrating to people when these things happen. It makes one wonder if one department knows what the other one is doing. It is kind of discouraging to many people living in these areas when they want to do something. I see the town of Belle River is building a sewage system now and is really going fast to get it done at $4.25 million. I just happen to have a news clipping from the Windsor Star, of May, 1971; it says “The new sewage plant for Belle River is okayed for $1.5 million.” Four years later it cost us $4.25 million. “Town council Tuesday signed the necessary agreements and bylaws for its proposed $1.5 million sewage works programme.”

Just imagine. They stalled around -- the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ministry of the Environment, or the OWRC at that time -- and they passed it from one to another and then back to another one and four years later, it cost $3 million more.

Mr. Roy: Then they tell the municipalities to try to save money.

Mr. Ruston: That isn’t just the money of the people in that particular village or that particular town. I think they are going to pay about $189 a year per household, but the province is paying 75 per cent of the total cost. Really, it isn’t just the people there who are paying a lot of money. It is the people over the whole Province of Ontario who are going to pay $3 million extra because of stalling. It was needed in 1971; why didn’t we build it? You tell me; I don’t know. They got lost in the Ministry of the Environment and everyone else down here. No wonder people living in these areas get so confused when they see this happen.

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had one or two more items here on which maybe I would speak very briefly. I wasn’t going to be very long. I am concerned about the city of Windsor and the hospital plans of the province there. “New Proposal Could Close Hospital Units,” and so forth; there is a write-up on this in the paper. The last paragraph is really the strange thing. We read it all but sometimes people say we should read only the last paragraph of anything and we will find everything in it. Maybe this is the case. It said:

“Mr. Backley’s letter said the ministry was making the proposals since the planning council and the individual hospitals ‘have been unable to arrive at a solution satisfactory to the ministry.’”

They have planning councils and so forth to come up with recommendations but when they don’t agree with the minister he says, “That’s no good.” Why does the government have these people in the community to recommend these things when it says right here “have been unable to arrive at a solution satisfactory to the ministry”?

I could talk a lot more on it but it just shows what is going to happen to this government in the election. I think the Premier might as well get it over with and let the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) take over. I am sure that with the kind of broom he is going to bring around here he will do away with a lot of the nonsense we have in things like this.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Absolutely dead on.

Mr. B. Newman: He is always right.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered most of the items I had but there is one thing I want to report here and this is in a little lighter vein. It has to do with hockey.

In the town of Essex and the surrounding areas we happen to have the all-Ontario Junior C hockey champions. They beat Lindsay for the final playoffs. I wanted to mention that the manager of the team and those involved said the people of Lindsay were very gracious to them at all times. The member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. R. G. Hodgson) isn’t in his place at the present time but I did speak to him earlier in the day and told him I was glad to hear that our team had won, although they had very good playoff games. They were happy with the results in our area. They did want to stress that the people of Lindsay treated them very well, exceptionally well; most gracious in defeat, I think were the words he said.

Maybe I should put on the record, Mr. Speaker, the names of these people involved because it is quite a feat for a small town of about 5,000 population, the town of Essex, to win the Ontario Junior C hockey championship.

I would just mention that the coach is Dave Prpich; the general manager is Mike Sadler; the assistant coach is Dave Moore; the trainer is Tom Price; the equipment manager is Henry Davis; the assistant trainer is Dan McKenzie; and the president is Mr. William Woltz.

The players are George Gagnon, Dave Chittle, Dave Maedel, Bob Brett, Dana Woltz, Fred Bahna, Bruce Crowder, Dan Mills, Len Chittle, Andy Pritchard -- he’s from Woodsley -- Keith Crowder, Norm Kerr, Rick Chapman, Tom Price, Howie Dinning, Brad Brown, Louis Gagnon, Fred Gagnon, Ken Bracken and Don Chittle.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the team on their victory; and I believe that completes my remarks.

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I would like to introduce a group of students from Prince township in the famous riding of Algoma, with their teacher Mr. Bedell and his good wife, a chaperone. It’s a real privilege to have them come a long distance to the great city of Toronto. I want the members at this time to welcome them. They are in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments regarding the budget that was introduced by the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) on that important evening early in April -- a speech that marked another important milestone in the development of the Province of Ontario.

But first let me pay tribute to you, sir, and to those who occupy the Chair, on the way you are discharging your most important responsibilities presiding over this Legislature. In the 24 years that I have been a member, this is probably the most difficult Legislature for a Speaker to control. I think it is unfortunate we have some members who do not seem to be anxious to maintain the dignity that was associated with the Ontario Legislature in previous parliaments.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): The member is still welcome here.

Mr. Root: However, you, sir, are making a fine effort to bring more decorum to the debates.

With regard to the budget, this was a very important milestone in the life of our province. It was a budget that was designed to deal with particular problems that confront us today. Everyone knows we are concerned about the rising cost of living, inflation and the slowdown in our economy that is leading to increased unemployment.

As I see the budget, it is a comprehensive document designed to deal with these problems in a reasonable and sensible way. The reduction of the sales tax to five per cent for the balance of this year should stimulate purchasing, and purchasing in time will stimulate an upswing in industry and provide needed job opportunities. The reduction in the sales tax will make it possible for our people to have more purchasing power. It is estimated the savings on the purchase of a new car by this reduction in sales tax will amount to approximately $100 and the furnishings for a new household to about $125.

It is estimated this reduction in the sales tax will bring direct benefits to consumers of approximately $230 million this year. It is estimated the sales tax will provide $24 million in cost savings to builders and home buyers. In other words, the estimate is that consumers will benefit to the extent of some $230 million, industries some $50 million, construction $25 million, and housing $25 million -- for a total of $330 million.

While I’m speaking about the sales tax, I must say I was really pleased with the announcement that vendors may withhold three per cent of the tax collected in an effort to compensate for the work associated with collecting the sales tax. This collection can go up to a maximum of $500 in any fiscal year. This is something I have endeavoured to promote ever since the compensation was eliminated.

Mr. Stokes: It was the member’s government that cut it off.

Mr. Root: I have always felt any necessary service is entitled to a reasonable remuneration. I am sure that businessmen, particularly small businessmen, will appreciate this consideration they are receiving from the government.

The grant of $1,000 to people purchasing their first home with an additional $250 a year for two years for a total of $1,500 should stimulate the purchase and the construction of homes, all of which will have an influence on the construction industry and encourage our people to own their own homes.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The member doesn’t believe that, does he?

Mr. Root: This programme will remain in effect until Dec. 31, 1975, so it should have a very important impact on the building and purchasing of homes. It is estimated this programme will cost some $83 million. Applicants for the grant, I note, must be 18 years of age or over.

Another programme I know will be appreciated by literally thousands of people throughout the province is the increased grant under the GAINS programme for pensioners and free drugs for pensioners over 65. This will benefit over one million people or one out of every eight persons in the province.

Adjustment of the income tax levy will remove some 450,000 low-income taxpayers from provincial income tax rolls in 1975.

Mr. Laughren: It should never have been in to begin with.

Mr. Root: I thought the member believed in income tax.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t let the member start trying to exchange quips with me.

Mr. Root: All of these programmes that I have mentioned will bring purchasing power to everyone through the reduction of the sales tax and for pensioners who have been hit by the inflation that is taking place throughout the nation. Mr. Speaker, the small business tax credit from this budget, amounts to some $15 million. Ontario will double the maximum small business tax credit from $3,000 to $6,000 annually. I have already mentioned the compensation for collecting sales tax.

The farmers will receive additional assistance. Some $20 million is provided in the budget to supplement, where necessary, the federal Agricultural Products Stabilization Act which is currently before the House of Commons.

Mr. Lawlor: It will shore up the member’s election chances among the farming community, which have drooped recently. It’s not dropping, it’s drooped.

Mr. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): Wait and see.

Mr. Root: If I had no more farmers in my riding than the member for Lakeshore has in his I wouldn’t be talking about farmers.

The farmers will receive additional assistance of some $20 million -- I’m just repeating -- which is provided in the budget to supplement, where necessary, the federal Agricultural Products Stabilization Act.

Owners of managed forests who are resident in Ontario will be eligible for a rebate of 50 per cent of property tax on forests. This is a measure that parallels the rebate of property taxes on farms available to Ontario farmers.

Mr. Lawlor: Does the member still make more money than any of the cabinet ministers?

Mr. Root: I’m glad the member came back in. I thought I wasn’t going to have him here to listen to me.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s too enjoyable to stay away.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Root: Our municipalities are to receive an extra $380 million through the province’s revenue sharing commitments. Transfer payments to local governments and agencies, as I mentioned, will go up by $380 million for a growth rate of 16.3 per cent. The increase in unconditional grants will be directed mainly toward the per capita grants for policing costs with special assistance to northern Ontario municipalities.

To ensure the continuation and growth of family farms or businesses in Ontario and to allow for the impact of inflation in general, the following improvements in succession duties and gift taxes will be made effective April 5:

For all estates, the basic $150,000 allowance will be increased to $250,000. The present forgiveness period for family farms will be shortened from 25 years to 10 years. The succession duty payable in respect to assets of small family businesses will also be forgiven over 10 years. The basic exemption for gift tax will be raised from $2,000 per recipient and an aggregate of $10,000 in any one year to $5,000 per recipient and a total of $25,000 in any one year. The once-in-a-lifetime special exemption for farmers under the Gift Tax Act will be raised from $50,000 to $75,000 and this provision will extend to small businesses as well. Transfers between spouses will continue to be tax exempt.

These initiatives ensure that all taxable estates in Ontario will enjoy the benefit of tax savings.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comment about some criticism that we have heard from hon. members opposite. I listened to some hon. members criticize the collection of provincial revenue through sales tax. Let me advise the hon. members that some 22,786,000 American tourists entered Ontario last year. It is estimated that these American tourists spent some $743 million. Another 674,833 tourists came in from overseas. It is estimated they spent $161 million. In other words, the total tourism money in 1974, domestic and foreign, was $2.3 billion, up 18 per cent over the last year. Tourism has more than 20,000 small businesses serving that industry.

I put these figures in the record, Mr. Speaker, to indicate the importance of the sales tax to the financing of our provincial programmes. When we got out of the province, in practically every jurisdiction we find they have a sales tax. Why shouldn’t we collect sales tax from the millions of tourists who come to our province? The hon. members opposite who are opposed to sales tax are really suggesting we should let these people use our facilities without paying these taxes. The revenue that we must have would have to come from our own people.

I put this into the record, Mr. Speaker, because I think that at times people might be misled by members who argue against sales tax as one source of revenue. If we look at the projection of where our provincial tax dollars will be spent, it is estimated that 28 cents out of every dollar will go for health, 10 cents tor education, 17 cents to school boards 13 cents to municipalities or local agencies, seven cents for debt charges, and 15 cents for other provincial operations.

Where does the revenue come from? It is estimated we will collect 23 cents of every dollar from personal income tax, 15 cents from retail sales tax, 20 cents in the form of federal government payments, 12 cents from corporation taxes, six cents from gas tax, 10 cents from all other taxes, four cents from interest on investments, four cents from Liquor Control Board profits and six cents from health premiums -- five cents paid by the employer and one cent paid by the employee.

Mr. Speaker, you can see the importance of the sales tax, along with the other sources of revenue, to the economy of the province; and while we realize that a great deal of this revenue is coming from the millions of tourists who come to our province, it is very hard for me to understand why hon. members would say we should not have a sales tax.

Mr. Speaker, from time to time during the debates we listen to members opposite talk about the provincial debt. I realize no one likes debt, but after all, most of us bought our farms, our businesses or our homes by going into debt, and for some time probably having deficit financing. The budget we are dealing with this year is designed to stimulate business and get our economy back in stride. I see no reason why we shouldn’t have some deficit financing if we can accomplish that.

Talking about debt, Mr. Speaker, when I ran my first election 32 years ago, the Liberal Party had been in power for nine years. With the revenue of the province under its administration, it would have required close to four years of the provincial revenue to pay off the provincial debt.

Now, after 32 years of Conservative administration, if we were to stop all of the programmes that we are carrying forward to benefit our people and used our revenue that we generate today, we could wipe out the net debt in about six or seven months.

I agree no one likes debt, but if we compare the situation at the end of nine years of Liberal administration and the situation now, at the end of 32 years of Conservative administration, I am sure everyone can understand why Ontario’s credit rating is so high. The net per capita debt in Ontario is estimated at $359.74.

Mr. Speaker, this is a realistic budget, and the province is on a sound financial basis; the budget is designed to keep it that way.

Mr. Speaker, there are one or two other matters that I want to speak about while I am taking part in this budget debate.

I have mentioned this before, and I must say it is something that causes me a lot of concern; I refer to the insurance premiums that are charged to young drivers, particularly young men under 25 years of age.

Mr. Laughren: The member knows what the answer is.

Mr. Stokes: Free enterprise.

Mr. Root: I have no objection to the insurance companies collecting a high premium from careless drivers but I must say it bothers me that we have provided a driving test before we issue a driver’s licence to a young driver, that he has met the requirements of the province, that he has committed no offence, but that as soon as he goes out to buy his insurance, he is immediately penalized.

I am aware that the insurance companies have to collect the money to cover their losses, but I do not think the policy of including careful drivers who have committed no offence in the same premium bracket as traffic offenders is any way to stimulate safe driving.

Mr. Gilbertson: Hear, hear. Right on.

Mr. Root: I would like to see this whole matter reviewed to see if it isn’t possible to have young drivers sold an insurance policy at a reasonable rate.

Mr. Ruston: Only one way.

Mr. Root: If they have accidents all right, but when they go to buy insurance next time, make them pay.

Mr. Stokes: Speak to the minister about that.

Mr. Root: In other words, make the person who commits the offence pay; not the innocent careful driver who is no menace on the highway.

Mr. Stokes: Bring it up at the next Tory caucus.

Mr. Root: I hope this matter will receive consideration from the insurance people in the days that lie ahead.

Mr. Lawlor: Proclaim those sections which are about 28 years old and which you have done nothing about.

An hon. member: They certainly wouldn’t accept anything they hadn’t seen.

Mr. Carruthers: Come on, speak to those fellows over there.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker I want to refer briefly to two articles which appeared in the Toronto Star on Tuesday March 25. Under a red headline it was reported that more than 2,500 Canadians died of liver cirrhosis in 1973, and in Ontario in 1972 there were 921 deaths from this disease.

Time magazine has estimated 60 per cent of liver cirrhosis deaths in the province were attributable to heavy alcohol consumption. In the same edition of the Star, under a heading, “Death from Cancer Rarer in Mormons, US Report Says,” there was this:

“James Enstrom, of the University of California School of Public Health, told the American Cancer Society’s seminar for science writers that his study of death records from 1970 to 1972 revealed a smaller percentage of Mormons died from all kinds of cancer.”

Mr. Lawlor: Why doesn’t the member become a Mormon?

Mr. Root: To continue: “He said it had been expected that long cancer would be less because Mormon doctrine forbids smoking -- “

Mr. Lawlor: It’s one way of getting rid of cancer.

Mr. Root: -- “but he found it surprising that deaths from cancer of the stomach, rectum, pancreas, breast, uterus, and nervous system were also -- ”

Mr. Lawlor: Mohammedans drink less liquor, too.

Mr. Root: “ -- only 50 to 70 per cent of the national rate. There are some indications that Mormon habits may at least partially account for the low cancer rate. Mormons shun alcohol, coffee, tea and addictive drugs and are advised to eat a well-balanced diet.”

Mr. Speaker, these are significant figures and bear careful study. I have listened with great interest to the debates in which the leader of the NDP and the other speakers have been showing great concern about the effect of asbestos and silicosis on the health of people who work in these industries.

Yet we have figures about the effect of alcohol and possibly smoking on the health of people. There are a lot of statistics to indicate that smoking, particularly cigarettes, can have a serious effect on the health of our people. I say I couldn’t help but be concerned as I listened to the debates regarding silicosis to see members sitting in the committee smoking cigars, pipes, and so on. I wondered if they were really interested in the health of the people or whether they were interested in trying to make political hay.

Mr. Laughren: Over-eating causes problems, too.

Mr. Lawlor: We all go to hell each in our own way; let the member choose his.

Mr. Root: Let me complete my remarks and then the member can go wherever he likes.

An hon. member: That’s the way to go.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to say this but I don’t think it adds anything to the dignity of Parliament or the health of the members to have smoking in the committee. It is not allowed here in the House and I can’t understand why those of us who do not smoke have to be subjected to second-hand smoke in the committee rooms. I say that for the members’ consideration and for the consideration of the House, having consideration also for the effects that inhaling second-hand smoke can have on the health not only of members who are smoking --

Mr. Lawlor: Did the member ever think of us smokers having to be subjected to non-smokers? What kind of discrimination is that?

Mr. Root: That member would think non-smokers had no rights.

Mr. Lawlor: The speaker would think smokers have none either.

Mr. Root: There are a lot of places to smoke. He can step outside in the corridor and smoke as long as he likes, and let us get on with the business.

Mr. Lawlor: I think I’ll do that right now.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): Let him smoke himself to death. Hurrah!

An hon. member: A good idea.

Mr. Root: We must consider the effect on members who do not smoke and on the staff who sit there day after day taking down the record of the debates. I have some sympathy for the girls who sit there in committee and take down the debates and such, with a steady stream of people coming in, smoking their stogies and pipes and cigars and puffing the smoke in their faces and expecting them to deliver.

Mr. Laughren: Why does the member think they keep going out? They have a smoke.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, another matter has caused me concern. I expect all members are receiving letters from universities, from the students, asking for more provincial money. This is directly related to the budget.

I have been watching very carefully the report of the Liquor Control Board and I find that between Sept. 9, 1974, and April 30, 1975, 33 colleges and universities had applied for and secured liquor licences, dining-lounge and lounge licence; some were just lounge licences. I also found that another 10 colleges will have their licences approved as soon as their facilities are brought up to the requirements of the Liquor Control Board. That brings me up to date. In other words, 43 of our secondary educational institutions are --

Mr. Lawlor: It is a form of intoxication.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, it causes me concern that our post-secondary educational institutions --

Mr. Carruthers: Let’s have some order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, I think I am I getting through to the member and it’s finally registering.

Mr. Lawlor: He really is.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt: Keep going.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, it causes me concern that our post-secondary educational institutions are apparently using some of their facilities and their revenue to establish liquor outlets, and I say that in view of the evidence that is piling up that alcohol contributes to the health problems of many people.

Mr. Stokes: Who is selling them the booze?

Mr. Root: I receive letters from some students saying they need more money to finance their education.

Mr. Lawlor: “The time is out of joint.”

Mr. Root: I presume they are spending their money on education and not patronizing these outlets.

Mr. Lawlor: “O cursèd spite, that ever I was born to set it right!”

Mr. Root: The other fact that causes me concern is the fact that --

Mr. Lawlor: There are too many conservatives in this House; conservatives in the wrong sense of the word.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

An hon. member: That is what makes the NDP so mad. They’ll always be mad.

Mr. Lawlor: There is a good side of conservatism but that is not it.

Mr. Root: The other fact that causes me concern is the fact that down the street there are people who have paid for a licence and have established facilities to serve alcoholic beverages to people who want to partake. I must say it does cause me concern --

Mr. Lawlor: If they pay for things, it is okay.

Mr. Laughren: They pay for educational facilities too.

Mr. Root: -- to see the number of our post-secondary educational institutions that are applying for and securing liquor outlets attached to their so-called training facilities, and taking the business away from a man who paid for a licence. I am not denying anybody the right to drink, but I am wondering whether the educational institutions are the place to be providing this service.

Mr. Lawlor: We can’t smoke; we can’t drink.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, while I am speaking about education, I know the opposition from time to time suggests that the Premier, when Minister of Education, spent a lot of money in that department.

Mr. Stokes: How many liquor inspectors has the member appointed since he has been in this House?

Mr. Root: I don’t appoint anybody.

Mr. Stokes: I thought he was quite influential in that regard.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Stick to your text, stick to your text. He is just getting at you.

Mr. Root: No, he is not getting at me. I could tell him a few facts of life.

The opposition never takes time to tell the people that today, in our three levels of education, there are over two million students, and when the Conservative Party assumed office there were something like 660,000-odd. Any sensible person knows that to provide the facilities, the classrooms, for that tremendous expansion in our school population to over two million required the building of many schools and the training of thousands of teachers, and no one would suggest today that teachers should be paid salaries that were paid back in the days when the Liberal Party was in power.

Many teachers started at a few hundred dollars a year at that time. I think last year we voted over $80 million in the teachers’ pension fund alone. I was looking at the proposal for this year and it is away over $100 million; more than the total budget for the province when the Liberal Party moved out of office. Yes, education is costing a lot of money, but it has paid big dividends.

When we look at last year’s financial statements we find that income tax, succession duties, corporation tax, gasoline tax, sales tax, luxury taxes, etc., all of which are associated with prosperity, brought us in close to $5 billion. In other words, our educational programme has moved our entire population into a higher income bracket. We are able to finance the programmes and, at the same time, the federal government looks to Ontario for nearly half of its budget to provide the programmes it has, many of which are designed to assist provinces that haven’t had the good fortune to have a Conservative government for 32 years.

I am sure that when the time comes --

Mr. Lawlor: Inflation has done even more.

Mr. Laughren: He is being provocative.

Mr. Root: -- the people will say, “Well done. Carry on.”

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t be too sure of that.

Mr. Root: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the two million students in our three levels of education, their parents and friends, appreciate the opportunity that is being provided for a training that was not available when the Progressive Conservative Party assumed the responsibility of administering the provincial affairs. The people are not going to forget, in spite of the efforts of opposition members to downgrade our leader.

Mr. Lawlor: There is still hope. Even bad things come to an end sometimes.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, as I go around the province many people can’t understand why the leader of the Liberal Party and some of his supporters are wasting their time trying to smear the leader of the Conservative Party instead of telling us what they have in mind for the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: That’s hard to understand.

Mr. Root: I am also quite aware that the people of Ontario are not going to switch to a socialist form of government --

Mr. Lawlor: The government is switching; the people might.

Mr. Root: -- when Ontario, with over 32 years of Conservative government, is now recognized as the keystone in the arch of Confederation. And I say that without fear of honest contradiction.

Mr. Lawlor: They are a bunch of socialists over there.

Mr. Root: Our population has more than doubled since the Conservative Party took office. Over half of the new industries that have come to Canada have established here. Over half of the new Canadians establishing a new home have looked to Ontario as the most attractive province in all of Canada in which to establish that home, a business or an industry.

Surely the hon. members opposite are not naive enough to think that four million people, over half of all the new Canadians, were lacking in intelligence when they came to Ontario, instead of going to a socialist or a Liberal province.

Mr. Lawlor: It wasn’t because the government was here -- it was in spite of that.

Mr. Root: There are 10 provinces in Canada and two territories, and they’ve got socialist governments and they’ve got Liberal governments. But over half of the people -- who didn’t have to come here -- came to Ontario.

Mr. Lawlor: He is not saying they are naive enough to come across the ocean because they like this government.

Mr. Evans: It is the province of opportunity; that’s what it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Root: No, Mr. Speaker, when the day comes, I know that these four million people, along with the rest of us who have prospered under the sound policy we have enjoyed, will say: “This is a good government; and we’re going to continue it.”

Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about the redistribution. I want to welcome into the historic riding of Wellington-Dufferin that part of the historic riding of Peel that will join with us.

The southern part of Wellington county has had a close affinity with the northern part of Peel, particularly in my home township of Erin, or the village of Erin. At one time, the high school in Erin served part of Caledon township.

I personally have a bit of a soft spot for Peel county. It was the late Tom Kennedy who persuaded me to enter into an active political life some 32 years ago. At that time, my riding had a long tradition of supporting the Liberal Party. I, as a young man, could not see that party. They seemed to be lacking in vision. But in the late George Drew, we had a man of vision, a man --

Mr. Lawlor: It just shows what time does to a man.

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

Mr. Lawlor: This is very good, this is priceless.

Mr. Laughren: This is vintage Root.

Mr. Root: The late George Drew was a man of vision, a man who set out to promote the basic philosophy of the Conservative Party. That philosophy is to create a climate for people to run their own affairs and to expect a reasonable return for their hours of labour on their investment or their professional services.

These are the basic policies that have been pursued by the Conservative Party since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald. He, against tremendous opposition, built a railway across the country, and the people moved in and developed the country.

Mr. Lawlor: Come off it. They couldn’t stand him. They got rid of him.

Mr. Root: The Progressive Conservative Party, taking over 32 years ago after nine years of Liberal administration, used the same basic philosophy. The Liberals had cancelled power contracts, left the province short of power at a critical time in our history, and left most of the farmers groping with the same lamps and lanterns that their grandparents had used. There was no electricity to supply modern facilities.

George Drew and the Progressive Conservative Party adopted a policy of power development, of equalized rates, standardized cycles. These are policies that made it possible to attract over half of the new industry that has established in Canada following the end of World War II.

The industries provided the jobs, and one of the highest pay scales in the country. Today, Ontario has become the home of four million additional people.

Power was one thing. In my own riding of Wellington-Dufferin, when I ran my first election, 81 per cent of the farmers in Dufferin had no power. Today, practically every farmer has power -- 75 per cent in Wellington have power.

When I was elected, many of the highways were still gravel roads, and even the paved highways -- many of them -- were in deplorable condition. All of that has been changed. If the highway programme as announced by the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) this year is carried out, when these projects are completed every highway in the riding that was there when I was elected will have been built, rebuilt and resurfaced.

In addition, two new King’s highways have been added to the system in the riding. Many of our municipal roads have been brought up to a high standard through the development road programme and with changes in the grant system. It used to be dollar for dollar; now on bridges it is 4-to-1. By the graduated scale related to the amount of assessment for mile of road, the grants range all the way up to 4-to-6 and in some places 3-to-1 or 2-to-1, but in no case less than 50 per cent; plus 80 per cent on bridges.

It was a Conservative government that introduced the capital grants programme and made it possible to build new hospitals. In my own area, we have new hospitals in Orangeville, Shelburne, Mount Forest, Palmerston, Fergus, Guelph, and so on.

Rural electrification was made possible by the government paying half the cost for the rural hydro lines. I believe the figure is well over $125 million for that programme.

The capital grants programme -- this is a programme that I actively supported -- has made it possible for many of our farmers to improve their facilities and become more efficient. That programme has not only helped agriculture become more efficient, but, by the improvement of barns, drainage, construction of farm ponds, removal of fence bottoms, drilling wells, renovating stables -- to mention but a few of the items covered by this programme -- all lines of business were stimulated.

These are the types of programmes that I said are typical Progressive Conservative policies of creating a climate for people to run their own affairs and expect a reasonable return. Half the cost of municipal taxes on farmland is paid by the province. This brings the tanners’ taxes more in line with those of the people who have a good income and own their homes and not too much other property. The proposal of a $75,000 once-in-a-lifetime gift will make it possible for many of our farmers to keep their farming operation in the family.

Marketing legislation has made it possible for our farmers to bargain collectively if they so desire. Or if they are opposed to collective bargaining they can vote against the scheme. This also lets the farmer control his own destiny.

Mr. Speaker, the overall policies of the government have created a tremendous consuming market for the products of agriculture, indeed all products. This includes the more than 22 million tourists who come to the province. It provides a tremendous outlet for the products of our farms.

The latest figures I could secure were from Statistics Canada. The per capita breakdown for consumption of food based on July 1, 1973, was -- for beef 91.7 lb fresh. Multiply that by four million -- that’s the new market that’s created through the overall policies of this government. Pork, 57.6; multiply that by four million. Mutton and lamb, 3.7 lb; multiply that by four million. Eggs, 29.16 lb; multiply that by four million. Poultry 46.2; chicken 32.8; turkey 10.18, and multiply them by four million.

This is a market that wasn’t here when this government took office. Fish 13.9; that’s edible weight. Milk and cheese totalled 347 pounds per capita; multiply that by four million. That is the retail weight of the milk that is consumed per capita. The House can see the tremendous market that has been created by the overall policies of this government attracting four million new people.

Cheddar cheese I could mention -- 4.9 lb, that’s the retail weight; processed cheese, 5.5; fluid whole milk 268 lb; butter 13 lb; potatoes 154 lb; fruit 271 lb; vegetables 115.81 lb.

Multiply that by four million, and you can see that the overall policies of this government through the years have created a tremendous permanent market. It’s a market that’s here. It’s not one that can be influenced by foreign exchange or the policies of other countries. It’s here today and it’s expanding every year. For example, new arrivals in Canada, as published in the Globe and Mail on March 18, 1974, totalled 218,465. Again, more than half of the new arrivals -- 120,115 -- came to Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I put these figures in the record to indicate how the overall policies of the government have made this province the most attractive province in all of Canada in which to establish a new home or a new business or a new industry. Our province has grown by over four million people since the Progressive Conservative Party assumed office. I’m sure these new Canadians, along with the thinking people who have returned time after time, are not going to be swayed by the statements of a few politicians who would like to see the government change just for their own advantage. They know that no province under any other political philosophy has had the development and expansion, and witnessed the prosperity that we have witnessed right here in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the budget as presented by the provincial Treasurer is a good budget and will stimulate further growth and development right here in the good old province of Ontario, and I know that the people of Ontario appreciate it. I want to thank you very much for your patience in listening to me. I appreciated the comments from some of the hon. members opposite. They indicated that I was getting through to them.

Mr. Lawlor: It was a very delightful speech.

Mr. Root: Let me say this, and I’m referring to the county of Peel and my riding. My maternal ancestors pioneered in Peel county. My mother used to play the organ in the little Baptist Church down at Snelgrove. My great grandparents came from Cheltenham, Eng., and settled Cheltenham, Ont.; that’s where it got its name.

Mr. Carruthers: How about the ancestors of the member for Lakeshore?

Mr. Root: My paternal ancestors were in Wellington county before the city of Guelph was founded.

I’m sure that as a united force of electors, the counties of Wellington and Dufferin, which I’ve had the privilege of serving for 24 years, along with Peel, will join with the rest of Ontario in paying tribute to the sound policies set out in the recent budget and the record of the government whenever that day comes when the people pass judgement.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Gaunt: I hear that Wellington-Dufferin-Peel is a swing riding.

Mr. Stokes: It’s sure not a swinging riding, by the sound of the member.

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

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, it’s quite appropriate that I should follow the member for Wellington-Dufferin.

Mr. Evans: The two members are so different.

Mr. Laughren: We served on a select committee for a couple of years -- I was surprised to hear his position against alcohol; having spent that much time fairly closely with him travelling across the province, I never would have dreamed that he was averse to the consumption of alcohol.

I’m not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that he ever consumed any in my presence, but he certainly took part in signing a report which indicated that the educational facilities in the province should be opened up and that school boards should be allowed to dispense liquor if they so desire.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): It shows how broad-minded he is.

Mr. Laughren: I went back through the report to try to find a dissenting opinion and I can’t find any anywhere.

Mr. Stokes: It was unanimous.

Mr. Laughren: It was a unanimous report -- well, it was unanimous on those points. I’m a little surprised that the member feels that strongly about it.

I was surprised as well that he commented on automobile insurance.

Mr. Lawlor: He doesn’t feel that strongly; it’s just his re-election speech.

Mr. Laughren: That’s what it is.

Mr. Lawlor: Those new people in Peel have to know how he thinks.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: All this graceful old nostalgia. I like the flavour.

Mr. Kennedy: He’s the most genuine guy in the Legislature.

Mr. Laughren: Surely the member for Wellington-Dufferin knows what the solution is to the problem of high insurance rates. We’ve been telling him that for years, and there are now three examples in our western provinces of how to control automobile insurance costs for the consumers.

Mr. Carruthers: It’s well subsidized.

Mr. Laughren: It’s not well subsidized at all. The insurance rates are considerably lower in the western provinces.

Mr. Carruthers: Tell us why.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, it’s only because it’s public auto insurance that the rates are lower. That should be clear to everyone.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s because it’s done by government and not for private profit.

Mr. Carruthers: They have to increase the rates.

Mr. Lawlor: Is the member for Durham going to make another speech?

Mr. Laughren: How many of the Tory back-benchers were former insurance agents, I wonder? That might be an interesting survey that someone could make some place.

Mr. Carruthers: Good idea.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I will leave the member for Wellington-Dufferin alone. I’ve harassed him enough over the last couple of years.

Mr. G. Nixon: That’s terrible. He is a good guy.

Mr. Laughren: I won’t comment on the comments of the member for Dovercourt. I thought it was the member for Algoma speaking, and I was going to enter a debate with him.

Mr. Stokes: The member for Dovercourt’s biggest contribution to this House is, “Right on.

Mr. G. Nixon: What is the biggest contribution of the member for Thunder Bay?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member could continue right on.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, we need that firm control in the chair.

When I thought about entering the budget debate, it occurred to me that perhaps for a change I should actually talk on what a budget debate is supposed to be about -- to talk about budgetary policies and a little bit of economics. There are not too many of us socialists around who have a very strong interest in economics, Mr. Speaker. I’m one of them, and I think I should address myself to some of the economic problems as I see them.

Mr. Lawlor: Socialists are nuts about economics.

Mr. Laughren: That’s right. We should speak more about it, because as we witness what the capitalist system is doing to itself, it’s obvious that there is only one alternative.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, we bleed.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, as a member from northern Ontario it’s always tempting to talk about problems of the north, but I’m going to refrain from doing that because as all Ontario prospers so will northern Ontario prosper. We know from the former Treasurer’s (Mr. White) comments that Ontario has a triple-A economic rating. I wish the former Treasurer was here so that he could tell us how he translates a triple-A rating to the pensioners in Ontario, to the people who work at the minimum wage, to the people who live on family benefits, to the civil servants in the province who are denied free collective bargaining and indeed even access to our open democratic political process and to the students in the province who pay an increasingly higher amount of their education costs. I wish he could tell us how he translates a triple-A rating to teachers in the province who see their role being devitalized under the Davis administration.

I suspect that longevity becomes a liability after 32 years in power. It’s obvious that this government is becoming increasingly isolated from the people it is supposed to be representing. I would like to talk about some of the economic policies of the government as they apply to working people in Ontario. I am not talking about working people as some people regard working people in terms of just blue collars. I am talking about working people, whether they be teachers, whether they be civil servants or whether they be miners or farmers. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree with me that the colour of your collar has nothing to do with whether or not you are classified as a working person, but rather whether or not you employ labour or whether or not you supply labour.

If there is a common enemy in Canada today, including Ontario, we are always told that it’s the ravages of inflation. We are told that inflation discriminates against people on fixed incomes. It discriminates against people who have no bargaining power, people who are unorganized and therefore cannot keep up with the cost of living, and also is discourages thrift, saving and investment. It encourages price increases and breeds on itself through what’s known as inflationary psychology where people know that it’s better to spend their money today than wait until tomorrow because the price will be higher tomorrow.

I wonder if we have really reached the point that Dr. John Deutsch indicated we had at an Economic Council of Ontario conference in Toronto last fall when he said that it’s possible we have only unpleasant alternatives left for us, namely, we can cool inflation through unemployment or we can impose wage and price controls which are regarded as the ultimate in government intervention. Perhaps we can wait for other countries to control their inflationary rate and, in the meantime, just accept the rate of inflation and index everything so that we protect people.

I really wonder if we have brought ourselves to that point. If we have. Mr. Speaker, perhaps those cynics are right who say that inflation is really a way for governments to raise revenues without legislation; or perhaps they are the ones who say that we must now take political action in the short run or face political extinction in the long run in terms of our society as we have come to know it; or perhaps as John Maynard Keynes said -- the fellow that the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) regards as a --

Mr. Gaunt: Revolutionary.

Mr. Laughren: -- runaway Liberal, some kind of revolutionary. He said: “Don’t worry about it. In the long run we will all be dead anyway.”

So, anyway, Mr. Speaker, here we are in the last quarter of the 20th century and serious economists are talking in the midst of a whole knowledge explosion, a new age of reason, about only unpleasant alternatives. One wonders if there is an alternative, at least in the short run, to what these economists are saying. Given our economic position and our vulnerability to external influences I suspect we have fewer alternatives than most of us would like to believe.

One reason we are so vulnerable is that we have an economy that is greatly dependent on other countries. There is no short-run alternative to that, Mr. Speaker, but we must learn by our experiences to build in safeguards against that problem. We are a trading economy and one reason is that we export our resources and we import finished products.

Consequently, we import finished products at a higher price. Indeed we import finished products at whatever the rate of inflation in other countries determines the price of those finished products will be. In the long run we must export more and more of our resources in order to buy the same amount of finished products. If we are going to solve the problem we must process more and more of our resources here and manufacture them here in this province. If we can do that we will become less susceptible to inflation imported from other countries.

Mr. Deans: Absolutely.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, the Science Council of Canada indicated -- warned us very clearly -- that we are under-industrialized. I would suggest we take their advice and utilize our resources as a lever to industrializing this province. They were talking about the country as a whole but certainly this is the industrialized province of this country and we must lead the way.

The Ontario Economic Council in a background paper --

Mr. Deans: Is anyone listening out there?

Mr. Laughren: -- to the 15th annual premiers conference on Sept. 12 and 18 of last year put it this way -- I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that not even the Conservatives listen to the Ontario Economic Council but this is what it had to say:

“Relatively high reliance on trade is coupled with the dominant position of the United States. The significance of this dependence is heightened by the magnitude of auto exports. Crude and raw materials and forming increasingly larger proportions of the total Canadian export mix. This trend implies a relative lessening of the degree of processing involved in the total exports sector. [I consider that a most important quote. Further from the same report:] Recent alignments of foreign exchange rates have generally pushed the value of the Canadian dollar upward in relation to the currency values of the country’s major trading partners. The immediate consequences of this adjustment have tended to encourage a higher proportion of crude and unprocessed materials in the export mix.”

It reinforces the same point, Mr. Speaker, that we are exporting an increasing proportion of unprocessed materials.

Those comments stimulated my interest and I have dug a little bit deeper into the Economic Council’s reports to take a look at what our trade patterns are and have been.

According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which the Economic Council quoted from:

“This country is more dependent on foreign trade for its economic well-being than most of our major trading partners. Indeed as a percentage of GNP, Canadian exports are 21.2 per cent compared to 5.5 for the United States; 20.1 per cent for the United Kingdom; 19.3 per cent for Germany; 8.8 per cent for Japan and 14.9 per cent for Australia.”

Ontario’s exports in 1973 were about 23 per cent of our gross provincial product. It must be kept in mind that Ontario is supposedly Canada’s industrialized province.

What is really significant, of course, is not so much our relative importance as an exporter but rather what it is that we export. In that sense the Ontario Economic Council has this to say:

“Degree of processing has often been cited as a central issue in promoting the balanced long-term growth of the Canadian economy; i.e., semi-processed goods offer greater long-term economic growth and employment potential than does the export of raw and crude materials.”

Surely that sums it up very nicely? Even more specifically, the export of crude materials in Canada breaks down as follows between 1969-1973 in millions of dollars: In 1969 Canada exported $2,523 million of crude materials which rose to $5,152 million in 1973 for an annual growth rate of 19.5 per cent. That’s crude materials.

Mr. Deans: That’s a shame.

Mr. Laughren: That’s shameful is right.

For fabricated materials, the value of Canadian exports rose from $5,244 million in 1969 to $8,187 million in 1973 for an annual growth rate of 11.8 per cent.

For end products -- even further processed -- the value of Canadian exports rose from $5,682 million in 1969 to $8,260 million in 1973 for an annual growth rate of 9.8 per cent.

Even more alarming, Mr. Speaker, was the annual growth rate between 1972 and 1973. For crude materials the exports increased 41.6 per cent as opposed to 24.8 per cent for fabricated materials and 16.86 per cent for end products.

Mr. Speaker, it is getting worse; it is not getting better. Put simply, we are exporting jobs and importing inflation.

The Ontario Economic Council says it well:

“Data for 1973 reveals that end products, 33.5 per cent, and fabricated materials, 33.2 per cent, form the largest components in the domestic export mix. These categories represent the exports with the highest degree of processing. However, while both categories remain the largest, they are declining slightly in significance. The 1969 to 1973 annual growth rate of crude material exports was 19.5 per cent, and the food, feed, beverage, tobacco categories, 20.3 per cent, both of which reflect a low level of domestic processing and have approximately twice the average annual growth rate of end products, 9.8 per cent, and fabricated materials, 11.8 per cent.

“Crude materials, which represented 16.9 per cent of Canadian exports in 1969, now form 20.9 per cent of the export mix. This trend was particularly strong in the 1972-1973 period as the value of crude materials exported increased by 41.6 per cent. It reflected increasing demand by the US and Japan for natural resources.”

They say further on:

“The fact that this trend runs counter to the general objective of increasing the degree of processing in Canadian exports cannot be ignored. The trend appears to be continuing, especially in light of the increased significance of the Japanese export market.

“The long-term implication of such development suggests the need for further investigation.”

I would say that’s an understatement, Mr. Speaker.

While it has become somewhat of a cliché, we really still remain hewers of wood and drawers of water; or put somewhat more in contemporary terms we have become crude exporters and refined importers.

We don’t have to talk in generalities. Statistics from Statistics Canada are readily available from which to draw a very clear picture and that picture shows not only the export and import situation but who controls our economy. While most of Statistics Canada’s work is federal, we all know that Ontario is the industrial heart of this country. Despite the royal commissions, select committee and government pronouncements concerning foreign investments, nothing much has changed.

Probably the best measure of international investments is the balance of international indebtedness which are statistics provided by Statistics Canada. Between 1950 and 1973, while net indebtedness as a percentage of GNP increased only three per cent, and has been decreasing since 1961, it is still 27.3 per cent in 1973.

Of course, the type of investment should not be overlooked either; direct investment, which implies ownership, or portfolio investment, which involves debt such as bonds. Once again, from Statistics Canada and the Ontario Treasury, we find that direct investment as a percentage of the total foreign long-term investment in Canada has increased from 46 per cent in 1950 to 60 per cent in 1973. I know my colleague from Wentworth, having served on that select committee, is probably more aware than I of these statistics and I am sure will correct me if I slip on any of them.

Most depressing, Mr. Speaker, is the control of our non-renewable resources. For selected years between 1939 and 1973, in petroleum, natural gas, mining and smelting, it is as follows:

The percentage of capital employed controlled by non-residents increased between 1954 and 1973 for petroleum and natural gas from 69 per cent to 77 per cent. For mining and smelting, between 1939 and 1973, the percentage of capital employed increased from 42 per cent to 54 per cent. Although the 1973 figure of 54 per cent is less than the figures for 1963 to 1970, the fact is that of our non-renewable resources significantly more than 50 per cent is controlled by non-residents.

To complete the picture, I should include the foreign control selected Canadian manufacturing industries between 1954 and 1970 as detailed by Statistics Canada as of March 29, 1974, for the years 1954 to 1970. This is the percentage of capital employed that is controlled by non-residents in the following industries between 1954 and 1970:

Beverages, increased from 20 per cent to 40 per cent; rubber, from 93 per cent to 99 per cent; textiles, from 16 per cent to 26 per cent; pulp and paper, down from 66 per cent to 53 per cent; agricultural machinery, from 35 per cent up to 55 per cent; automobiles and parts, from 95 per cent up to 97 per cent; other transportation equipment, from 36 per cent to 70 per cent; aluminum, not available in 1954, but 100 per cent in 1970; electrical apparatus, from 77 per cent in 1954 down to 73 per cent in 1970; and chemicals, from 76 per cent in 1954 to 81 per cent in 1970. In total, the percentage of capital employed that was controlled by non-residents increased from 51 per cent in 1954 to 61 per cent in 1970. That’s how the Statistics Canada and the Ontario Economic Council see the situation.

Mr. Speaker, while I started talking about inflation, it may appear that I have wandered somewhat. I really don’t believe I have, because I believe that the ability of this country and this province to control inflation is very closely related to the success by which we can industrialize. As long as we export crude resources and import finished products, we will have little control over inflation. If, as has been suggested, we find ourselves in 10 years as a net importer of oil, we shall be even more vulnerable to the inflation of other countries. Until we can control our resources and consequently our own rate of industrialization, we are in the position of having to cope with inflation rather than defeating it.

It follows most logically that we cannot control our resources without owning them. Through the public ownership of resources we could accomplish several things. The New Democratic Party would move carefully and surely toward public ownership of our resource industries in the following manner. I think, Mr. Speaker, it’s worthwhile to let you know, and I hope you will have the patience to bear with me while I tell you exactly, what the policy of this party is on our non-renewable natural resources. I think it is important.

The natural resources of Ontario are rightfully the property of the people of Ontario. These resources have been alienated from the public by sale or lease to private corporations and have been exploited for the benefit of these explorations. The industrial underdevelopment of northern Ontario, in particular, is a direct result of our resource-based economy and has its reflection in declining populations, a lack of job opportunities for young people and women, an inadequate tax base and inadequate level of municipal health and education services.

The importance of resources in Ontario’s future development is paramount. The investment funds in raw material output generated by resource-based industries must be used to solidify and diversify the province’s industrial base, to strengthen Canadian technology, and to provide a broad and expanding tax base to support social services. The objective of the New Democratic Party is to ensure that these resources are developed in such a way as to maximize the benefits to the people of Ontario.

The exploitation of Ontario’s mineral and forest resources must be directed as part of a coherent industrial strategy for the province and not simply at the whim of the profit seekers. In order to realize the objectives of the New Democratic Party’s resource policy in the short term:

1. An NDP government would move to acquire full ownership of all resources and mineral rights by a variety of methods, including taxation and the repurchase of mineral rights at original acquisition, plus holdings costs. All reserves would become publicly owned.

2. Existing ore bodies could continue to be developed and processed by existing operators subject to the following conditions: The operator would buy the resources from the Crown at a price calculated to maximize the returns to the people of Ontario. The phasing of output would be determined according to industrial development strategy. This must take account of possible future shortages of non-renewable resources. As much as feasible, processing would take place at or near the extraction site.

3. All mining companies would be required to supply an inventory of claims held and the results of exploration work done within the province. Destructive mining practices such as highgrading would be absolutely prohibited.

4. Where it becomes impossible either to gain the full value of the resources in this fashion or to ensure operation consistent with these conditions, extraction, primary processing and ore refining operations would be brought under public ownership.

5. All future mineral exploration and the development and mining of new ore bodies would be carried out by Crown corporations.

6. New processing operations would be run by Crown corporations or as joint public private concerns, subject to the conditions that are applicable to existing operations.

7. New secondary industry in resource areas would be developed publicly, jointly, or by private industry as circumstances and priorities dictate.

8. The location of processing operations and related industries would be according to the industrial strategy.

9. In the case of forest industries, all cutting would be done through Crown corporations following negotiations, with termination of cutting rights and leases. Timber would be sold to private or co-operative processors or to new Crown enterprises if such were necessary. Present facilities could be acquired by the Crown or allowed to remain in private hands.

10. The Province of Ontario will co-operate with the other provinces and the federal government to ensure that the resource companies do not pursue a policy of divide and conquer. Our goal is to produce maximum benefits to the people of Canada from our resource industries. The practice of competing in favours granted to the multinational corporations is short-sighted and self-defeating.

11. Compensation for small shareholders, when resource rights or resource industries are brought into public ownership. It would be the policy of an NDP government to provide immediate compensation to individuals who own small holdings or corporate shares or resource rights. In the long run the NDP stands for the public ownership of our primary resource industries. It is only through public ownership that our objectives can be fully realized.

Mr. Speaker, that I consider to be a policy. This government claims that the private sector can optimize benefits to the people by exploiting our resources, and despite the promises of the private sector to stop exploration or to engage in highgrading, this government still goes on thinking the same way.

The mining industry has had a reaction to increased taxation of them in the past couple of years, in other provinces as well as Ontario. They have produced a booklet called “Super Tax” in which they decry the new levels of taxation. And the industry is saying to the people of Canada and to the people of Ontario specifically: “If you continue to tax the resource industry the way you are, you are going to do a couple of things. No. 1, you will encourage us to explore and develop someplace else. No. 2, the result of that will be decreased employment in this province or this country.” That is what they are telling us.

I did a little bit of research on that, Mr. Speaker, and I found that in the last eight years in Ontario, certainly before the increased taxation hit the mining industry, while the value of ores produced has tripled to over $2 billion a year, employment in the industry has decreased in absolute terms by 2,000 jobs.

So what the industry is telling us is that if we are not careful there will be a loss of jobs in the mining industry. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is already happening. The resource industry already is exploring and developing elsewhere, in the Third World. There they can exploit black people at wages that are below the poverty datum line laid down by the United Nations. They are using the profits from their operations in the Third World to further capitalize in this province and then they use the further profits here to further develop in the Third World.

That is a self-defeating policy and, as long as this government continues to let the private sector exploit those resources, that’s going to continue to happen.

In 1973 the federal-provincial ministers responsible for mineral policy had a meeting and they issued a statement of objectives. It’s a very interesting and commendable set of objectives. I might have set them myself, as a matter of fact. The overall goal is to obtain optimum benefits for Canada from present and future use of minerals.

I’d like to tell you what those 12 objectives were, Mr. Speaker:

1. -- these are not in any kind of priority -- “Minimize adverse effects of mineral development on the environment.” Representing a riding that borders on the city of Sudbury -- I live only a couple of miles from the superstack -- I was certainly encouraged to see that statement in there.

2. “Relate mineral development to social needs.” One would think that that would mean providing services in our mining communities. We know that they haven’t done that, but nevertheless it is an admirable objective.

3. “Strengthen knowledge base for national decision-making.” That’s more or less what I have been talking about, Mr. Speaker -- about industrial strategy.

4. “Contribute to orderly world mineral development and marketing.” The way it’s going now it’s strictly the private sector that’s doing that.

5. “Ensure national self-determination in mineral development.” I couldn’t agree more.

6. “Harmonize multiple resource development.”

7. “Improve mineral conservation and use.” Supposedly that means that they would prevent highgrading.

8. “Realize opportunities for further mineral processing.” How could one disagree with that? It means to keep more jobs here.

9. “Increase the return to Canadians from exportable mineral surpluses.” Well, why not increase the return?

10. “Ensure mineral supply for national needs.”

11. “Strengthen the contribution of minerals to regional-national development”

12. “Foster a viable mineral sector.”

Those are 12 admirable objectives, particularly considering the fact that all the provinces, including the federal government and even this government, agreed with them. Can you imagine this government endorsing those objectives? The same government that suppressed statistics on the dangers to the miners at Elliot Lake and yet they say that they are minimizing adverse effects of mineral development on the environment and relating mineral, development to social needs. There is a contradiction there, I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the same government that endorsed those 12 objectives is the same government that continually is on the defensive along with the mining industry, considering their antics regarding air pollution, in-plant pollution and unsafe working conditions.

Then, of course, there was the whole question of the activities of the resource corporations in the Third World, which I find offensive. Considering the fact that they are corporations resident in this province, I as a citizen in Ontario, don’t like that.

I guess that what we are really talking about is a challenge to the government approach to, the development of our non-renewable resources which, in turn, challenges the free enterprise system’s right to exploit those resources. Mr. Speaker, when those non-renewable resources are gone I know that our children’s children will either shake their heads in disbelief at what we allowed to happen in the squandering of our resources, just as we do at the slaughter of species such as the buffalo and so forth, or they will pay tribute to our foresight for rescuing what was left of our non-renewable resources before it was too late.

We New Democrats have somewhat of a passion for our natural resources, because they are probably the most obvious examples of untrammelled free enterprise at work. Indiscriminately exploiting natural resources and human beings, we are continually reminded by the multinational resource corporations that they are only as civilized as the laws of the country in which they are resident.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I haven’t got time to count, would you mind counting to see whether or not we have a quorum?

Mr. Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We now have a quorum. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Henderson: He is making one of the last speeches he’ll make in this House.

Mr. Deans: This week?

Mr. Stokes: It is probably the last one of his speeches the member for Lambton will ever hear.

Mr. Henderson: I don’t think so. I’m not like the member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get back to the debate. Will the member please continue with his remarks?

Mr. Laughren: Thank you. That interjection came from the member for Lambton. whose greatest contribution to northern Ontario was --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Get back to the order of business.

Mr. Laughren: I notice, Mr. Speaker, in the budget --

Mr. Henderson: After the election, he’ll be able to do as he likes. We won’t interfere with him.

Mr. Laughren: Speaking to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I noticed --

Mr. Roy: The member for Lambton has been elevated. It is not true he is the biggest drain in the province.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: -- there was no promise in the budget to take up the recommendation of the member for Lambton to flood northern Ontario. Nor was there a, promise in the budget on the recommendation of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) to put a jail car along the ONR.

Mr. Henderson: Does the member have any policies for Nickel Belt?

Mr. Laughren: The member should stand up when he says that.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that in particular the member for Timiskaming is incensed because the Premier never discusses them with him when he makes any major announcements about northern Ontario.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): The member should stick to his speech instead of blowing his top.

Mr. Laughren: I am going to predict what is going to be given to northern Ontario right now. As a matter of fact, I am going to predict this before the Premier does. I am going to send a telepathic message to the Premier right now so that he can announce this in Thunder Bay tonight. I would suggest to the Premier right now, so that he can announce this in Thunder Bay tonight, that he announce $2 million to create a multipurpose airport at Geraldton, of which $475,000 has been allocated this year. I suggest that he allocate $1.7 million to create a telecommunications network in remote parts of northern Ontario and that other projects among 20 new items be included. I would like to outline some of those specific projects, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ferrier: How come he left you down here when he has gone to the north?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be selective because there is a very long list that I would like to transmit to the Premier telepathically: Deer Falls, Red Lake, Kenora, water and sewage projects of $1,280,000; North Bay, an infra-structure and industrial park, $1,250,000; a mineral exploration assistance programme, $1 million; Pembroke and Renfrew -- who is the member for Renfrew? -- the implementation of a development strategy, $875,000.

Mr. Havrot: If we do something, the member ridicules him; if we don’t --

Mr. Laughren: Here is something that will really apply to the member for Timiskaming -- he better be careful or he will be caught up in it -- removal of derelict motor vehicles, $800,000; St. Lawrence Parks Commission project, $500,000; a new airport at Geraldton, $475,000; police protection for Indian reserves, $300,000; Attawapiskat, sewer to a hospital, $300,000; Ottawa River parkway study, $250,000; community resource centres in various locations, $220,000.

In eastern Ontario, for the eastern Ontario Tories, water and sewage projects totalling $175,000; fire protection in unorganized communities -- I am glad of that -- he has finally listened to what the member for Thunder Bay has been saying -- $150,000. That is to cover a large number of unorganized communities

The Kenora area and Indian homes for the aged, $150,000; northern Ontario consumer education -- I wonder what that is? -- $130,000; in Red Lake, a hostel accommodation, $120,000; Kenora, a hostel accommodation, $120,000; Cornwall, a rehabilitation facility for the handicapped, $120,000; a native field worker, $110,000; in eastern Ontario, a craft centre development, $100,000.

Mr. Henderson: Who is the member for Cornwall?

Mr. Laughren: Chapleau, a social services residence, $90,000. I am delighted to be able to make that announcement for the people of Chapleau.

Mr. Stokes: For the first time, yes.

Mr. Laughren: Is the member for Algoma here? Let me tell him what he is going to get. I have decreed that in Wawa he is going to get a social services resource centre to the tune of $55,000.

Mr. Carruthers: Great riding. Great member.

Mr. Laughren: Sandbanks Provincial Park, $50,000.

Mr. Stokes: Anything for Parry Sound?

Mr. Laughren: Let me look through here.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): I would like to know --

Mr. Laughren: The member may have to wait for it.

Mr. Ferrier: How about Lennox and Addington?

Mr. Laughren: Thunder Bay, a new construction project, $18 million; Cornwall, industrial park, civic centre, etc., etc., $9,960,000; Lake St. Joseph development -- are you ready for this? --

Mr. Stokes: That is in my riding.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, is it? $3 million; Dryden, an infrastructure of $2,740,000; highway 599 --

Mr. Stokes: That’s mine.

Mr. Laughren: -- $2,700,000. If there is anything wrong with these would the member for Thunder Bay let me know.

Mr. Havrot: If there is anything wrong --

Mr. Laughren: Resource access roads, $623,000; Manitou road, $1,200,000.

Mr. Stokes: Manitou, that’s in the riding of the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid).

Mr. Ferrier: How about Essex South?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, in case any of the members wandered in after I started, this is what I am doing. I’m announcing some of the moneys I have appropriated for the province.

Mr. Deans: It will take effect at 8 o’clock tonight.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I have asked the Premier to announce this tonight on my behalf. I can’t be in Thunder Bay tonight, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gilbertson: He is playing Premier.

Mr. Deans: He is predicting.

An hon. member: He is giving a speech.

Mr. Laughren: Thunder Bay, an industrial complex study, $85,000; Lake of the Woods land-use plan, $75,000 -- I’ll be selective, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deans: No, read them all.

Mr. Laughren: An integrated social services delivery system, $56,700; volunteer native probation officers, $54,000.

Mr. Havrot: Is he for it or against it?

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): He is against it.

Mr. Laughren: I am announcing these. Of course, I am for it. Life seaman’s course, $37,950.

Mr. Deans: Why should he announce it if he didn’t support it?

Mr. Roy: I don’t think there is anything in there that will save the member for Timiskaming’s seat.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: He has authorized the Premier to make this statement at 8 o’clock tonight.

Mr. Laughren: I have given him my permission to do this.

The Lake Superior north shore development, $31,500; evaluation leading to Northland subsidiary agreement, $25,000; wild rice production programme, $23,000; the Kenora jail -- you’re not going to take the jail car to Kenora now; don’t tell me that The ONR doesn’t even go there. Life skills training, $20,000; English River recreational development, $18,750; lake development planning, $17,250; teaching of homemaker services to native people, $12,450; boundary waters canoe route study, $11,500; trapper education programme, $10,000.

Mr. Roy: When is the election going to be?

Mr. Deans: When is he going to call the election?

Mr. Laughren: I have also instructed the Premier to announce tonight in Thunder Bay whether or not he is going to have a spring election, or whether he’s decided to wait until the fall, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: I’ve got a feeling it’s a spring election.

Mr. Laughren: If he chooses not to announce those things or not to announce the date of the election, he’ll have me to answer to.

Mr. Carruthers: Why doesn’t the member announce the election?

Mr. Havrot: Yes, why doesn’t he announce the date of the election?

Mr. Ferrier: Make it June 26.

Mr. Havrot: He is pretty smart. He knows everything.

Mr. Laughren: No, I want them to wait for it. I don’t want to take all of the steam out of the Premier’s announcement tonight. I have instructed him to do that.

An hon. member: Call it for June 26.

Mr. Roy: Is there enough in all those programmes to save the neck of the member for Timiskaming?

Mr. Laughren: No, there’s nothing here for Timiskaming.

Mr. Roy: I think it would take all those programmes put together to save his neck.

Mr. Speaker: Now, can we let the hon. member for North Bay continue with his remarks, please? Will the member continue?

Mr. Laughren: I did leave out one project.

Mr. Ferrier: We’re supposed to get $32 million from DREE and TEIGA for Timmins if we can believe what Andy Morpurgo told us.

Mr. Laughren: I left out one project; it’s called phase out Maple Mountain, $3.

Mr. Roy: Three dollars?

Mr. Laughren: Three dollars for Maple Mountain.

Mr. Havrot: He is going to get a dime hot dog stand in there.

Mr. Roy: That’s an improvement. Can he be bribed for $3?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, just in case you think that that allocation of money which I have instructed the Premier to announce tonight will solve all the problems in northern Ontario, I assure you it will not. I would like to talk for a moment about some of the small communities in northern Ontario which continue to suffer and continue to stagnate under this government’s policies of neglecting northern Ontario.

Mr. Havrot: Poor member, that is why. Just get a good member and they won’t have those problems.

Mr. Laughren: I’ve talked before a great deal, as has the member for Thunder Bay, about the unorganized communities in northern Ontario and how the government is doing simply nothing for them.

About a year ago the government announced that they were going to introduce legislation dealing with unorganized communities. They introduced to the Legislature Bill 102 which was to provide a semi-official status for unorganized communities in order that they could apply for grants to raise the tax revenue within the communities.

I supported the introduction to that legislation. I attended a number of meetings in the Nickel Belt area in communities where they were discussing the bill. That was over a year ago, and now the Ministry of Treasury and Economics has decided, for one reason, not to reintroduce that bill. It has not been reintroduced, and I think that is wrong. The Treasurer, when I asked him about it last week, said: “We are furthering the consultation process.” That’s a new word for stall.

Mr. Gilbertson: Don’t believe it.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, they’re using the consultation process as an excuse for their stall because they’ve had the ample opportunity of over a year to have meetings with the unorganized communities.

What’s really bothering them, Mr. Speaker, is that they thought the introduction of that bill would take off the heat. But what they didn’t realize was that the unorganized communities themselves would strike committees and become organized within their own communities to take a look at that bill. They didn’t have to look at it very long for them to realize that it promised them nothing in a specific sense. It merely said, “You form yourselves into a community council; you will be recognized by the Ontario government; you will be able to assess taxes in your community; and you will be able to apply for grants.” But the people in those communities know full well that applying for grants the way organized municipalities apply for grants does them very little good.

To be specific: Under the legislation now, an organized municipality can apply for a sewer and water grant and get up to 75 per cent subsidy on it.

Mr. Maeck: Subject to certain things.

Mr. Laughren: Can you imagine a municipality of 600 people or smaller having any kind of communal water supply or sewage disposal with a 75 per cent subsidy and then having to pick up the 25 per cent itself? There already is a lack of assessment in the community. The problem is further compounded in that assessment is based on property values and the housing values are low in most of those communities. You have a low residential assessment value and a low commercial and industrial assessment value as well, so the tax resources just are not there in those communities in order for them to be able even to absorb their share of a cost-sharing programme with the province.

The municipalities are looking at this and saying: “Given how serious our problems are, Bill 102 just is not enough.” What they are afraid of in those small communities is that their taxes will go up dramatically. They have read the horror stories about organized municipalities and the level of taxation on property, and they are very concerned that if they go into this Bill 102 scheme their taxes will skyrocket.

Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, if you will, that property tax levels in those communities have been really low. Most people in small communities like that probably don’t pay $100 a year property tax -- probably pay less. Somebody from southern Ontario might say, “In that case, they should be prepared to look at property taxation levels in cities like North Bay, Sudbury, the Soo, Thunder Bay.” But what they don’t realize is that you don’t take someone who pays $60 a year in taxes and tell him he is going to have to pay $150. They just won’t accept it.

One might say, “They have just got to, if they are going to get any services out of it.” The other side of the coin is that for a long time they have been paying the same hospital premiums and sales taxes and income taxes as the rest of us, and receiving a lot less in return for those taxes. So by and large they are not prepared to accept Bill 102 in its present form, or the way in which it died on the order paper. So I would suggest that the government take a very serious look at Bill 102 and make some changes to it when they reintroduce it. You must ensure there is a commitment in principle in that bill to provide a minimum level of services to unorganized communities.

If you want me to be more specific, Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that every municipality has the right to clean drinking water. That should be a beginning. If that involves a communal water supply, so be it. If that involves a community sewage disposal system, so be it.

Mr. Ferrier: So be it.

Mr. Laughren: But surely that is the basis on which one starts. That is where you say to those communities; “Look we do want you to share in the progress of this province, and we will make this commitment to you that we will provide you with a minimum level of services”. Surely fire protection is something to which people in every community have a right in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): They want everything free.

Mr. Wiseman: Everything free.

Mr. Laughren: No, I am not saying everything free. I am telling the House that if the government says to the people of those unorganized communities, “You are going to pay for the services your receive on the same basis as people in organized communities,” it is never going to sell Bill 102 to them; They will never buy it. Because it is permissive legislation the government is condemning the people in those communities to the same quality of life, they have had for the last 50 years. That is not good enough, and the government knows it is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, I won’t go over all the problems in those communities. I would like to give you a couple of examples --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Stokes: If the member for Prince Edward-Lennox disagrees with the member for Nickel Belt let him say so.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: No; order, please. The member for Nickel Belt has the floor.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): I have got that as well. I have been to a lot of places -- Gogama and so on. I have worked there. I know the problems.

Mr. Stokes: He agrees they have the problems --

Mr. Ferrier: The member for Timiskaming agrees with the member for Nickel Belt, as well as the member for Algoma.

Mr. Havrot: The member for Nickel Belt hasn’t grown up yet.

Mr. Ferrier: So does the member for Parry Sound. They all agree.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Maybe I could tell him a thing or two about those communities.

Mr. Laughren: I am sure I don’t know everything there is to know about the problems of those communities but I know enough. Enough to know that the problems need to be solved --

Mr. Gilbertson: A lot of people from there talk about the good conditions they have up there; the good fishing and the hunting.

Mr. Laughren: -- and enough to know that we can’t always think of ourselves. When we think about it, when the Ontario government announces increased municipal grants -- and they have staked their budget in the last couple of years on their level of assistance to municipalities -- do members realize that that level of assistance never applies to the unorganized communities? They never take part in the increased redistribution of tax revenues in Ontario. Never. They don’t get any of it. Nothing. Ask the member for Parry Sound, he will tell you. That’s not right. Surely the day is gone when we say that we are going to continue the discrimination against the unorganized communities. That is plainly and simply not good enough.

This year the Treasurer announced increased grants to northern communities. Do members know what the total came to? It was $5 million. For all of northern Ontario -- $5 million. That’s $7 per capita in all of northern Ontario. It costs more than that on milk alone in a year extra to what it costs in southern Ontario; probably many times that. So the unorganized communities have a legitimate beef and it is not good enough to say that they want these facilities without paying for them. That is just simply not true.

But I would say this, that in the years gone by the Ontario government and the rest of the people in the Province of Ontario already owe those people something. They owe those people something for a couple of reasons; 1. Because they pay the same level of income tax and sales tax and OHIP premiums as the rest of us without getting the services. 2. Let’s not forget that the people in those communities were pioneers in this province, and surely that is worth something as well. Surely it is time the people of the Province of Ontario said to the Ontario government, “We will support an infusion of funds into the unorganized communities in order to bring them up to a minimum level of services.”

I was talking not too long ago about the problems in the town of Gogama, north of Sudbury, where the water supply is polluted with nitrate; over 50 per cent of the wells are polluted with nitrate. The nitrate is a poison that comes from the sewage. There is a high water table in the town. Most of the septic tanks were built when there were no regulations applying to open-bottom septic systems, so the water table become polluted. One can’t boil water and get the nitrate poisoning out. It doesn’t do it.

The only way to do it is to distil it, apparently. If they try that they get picked up for bootlegging, so they don’t set up a still to distil their water in the community either. While I was thinking about this, I was thinking of how the people in that town still walk out of the back door to the privy standing in the back. They can’t get approval for a septic system because the lots are too small. They bought the lots from the Crown many years ago, in many cases, but they can’t get approval for any kind of septic system because there are not 15,000 sq. ft. in the lots.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s not cozy in the winter.

Mr. Laughren: No, it’s not cozy in the winter. As I said, Ontario may be a fine place to stand but it is not a place to sit at 30 deg below. I think the government should get behind these unorganized communities and provide some assistance to them, guarantee them a minimum level of assistance.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is not pleasant to have to drop your drawers and bare your buttocks to the boards with the wind whistling at 30 mph and the temperature 40 degrees below zero.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure I have convinced that Tory rump about the problems of sitting at 30 below, but I hope I have and I hope they will persuade the powers that be in the Conservative Party that something does need to be done. What the communities are lacking are not frills, they are those things that people in organized communities, in southern Ontario particularly, would never dream of doing without. There would be a scandal if over 50 per cent of the wells in Brantford were polluted with nitrate. That just wouldn’t be acceptable. Yet here we have had it for a year now.

The Sudbury and district health unit did a study on the Gogama wells. They said this --

Mr. Gilbertson: How many wells is the member talking about?

Mr. Laughren: I’m glad the member asked that. I was just going to talk about that.

Mr. Wiseman: He doesn’t know.

Mr. Laughren: Oh yes. In 1974, a water pollution survey of the private water supply in Gogama was carried out. The following summary gives the details of the survey:

“The total number of premises visited 125; the total number of chemical water samples taken, 136; the total number of private water supplies having excessive amounts of nitrates, 39; total number of bacteriological water samples taken, 141; having unsatisfactory bacteriological results, 17.

“The individuals using the 39 private water supplies with excessive nitrate contents have been notified not to use the water in preparing infant formulae because of stomach disorders among infants.”

Mr. Gilbertson: Can the member tell us the population of Gogama?

Mr. Laughren: Six hundred and fifty people.

“The individuals using the private water supplies with adverse bacteriological water results have been notified to boil or chlorinate the water for drinking and domestic purposes.”

The Sudbury district health unit is aware of the problem; the Minister of Health is aware of it; the Minister of the Environment is aware of it. I asked the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of the Environment to co-operate on a communal water supply, so that we could avoid this problem of the polluted water. The response from the Minister of the Environment -- and he above all I have condemned for his response -- was this: “Well, we are not going to do anything for Gogama until they have some form of municipal status, as is suggested under Bill 102.”

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): What difference does that make?

Mr. Ferrier: Real buck-passing.

Mr. Laughren: There are two problems there. Bill 102 isn’t even on the order paper; and even if it was, it is permissive legislation.

That’s not good enough for the Minister of the Environment to use that as an excuse for not bringing in a communal water supply. The Ministry of Natural Resources also stands condemned, I might say, because the personnel of the Ministry of Natural Resources in the town have a communal water supply. The people who are employed by the Ministry of Natural Resources and by the Ontario Provincial Police have a communal water supply and a sewage disposal system. They are on one side of the tracks and everybody else is on the other side of the tracks, literally.

What I have been urging them to do is to expand the existing system of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

They make the argument, and maybe they are right -- I’m not an engineer -- that it can’t be done; that you can’t expand that facility, you have to build a new one. But the problem is compounded by having one group of people in the community with this service and the other people not with the service. That is doubly galling to people who have a polluted water supply.

Gogama is a very picturesque community, built right on a lake, and the potential for tourism is significant. There really is good potential for tourism.

Mr. Gilbertson: I have been there.

Mr. Laughren: A couple of years ago, now that the members have got me talking about Gogama, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications built a new road between Sudbury and Timmins called Highway 144. There was no road there at all before that went to Sudbury and Timmins. When they built the road they swept two miles from the townsite instead of going in to, say, 200 yd. from the town. They built a large Esso service centre at the corner.

Mr. Deacon: They just isolated the town.

Mr. Laughren: What it has done is to isolate the community from tourism and, I think, cause a rather severe drop in business for the town’s business community. There was an old road that went down to Shining Tree and across to Elk Lake, that some members will know. That was closed and they took the bridge out. There is only one entrance to the town -- the town is divided in two by a railroad track -- and, as a matter of fact, there was a very serious fire there a year ago or two years ago.

Mr. Deacon: Obviously, the government doesn’t want Gogama to survive.

Mr. Laughren: They don’t want Gogama to survive.

Mr. Roy: They were starving to death, now they hope they will poison themselves to death.

Mr. Laughren: To be fair, Mr. Speaker, I must say, the government has agreed that they will open up that second entrance if they will form a local roads board and do their thing as well.

Mr. Roy: If they can survive that long.

Mr. Laughren: But surely it is one of the more gross examples of how the government can cause quite a serious problem in the community.

Mr. Deacon: They should never have allowed that Esso station there.

Mr. Laughren: The potential in that community is really very good. There is one other problem that occurred to me too. They decided to build some Ontario Housing units in Gogama -- I think it was eight or 10 units -- which I applauded; I thought it was a good idea. Ontario Housing got the lots surveyed and they were prepared to build the houses -- they were supposed to be built last year. Then suddenly it dawned upon them, or they realized, that the water table was polluted and they couldn’t possibly get a building permit because of the polluted water supply.

Now Ontario Housing throws up its hands and says, “We can’t build the houses because we couldn’t get a permit from the Sudbury district health unit,” which is required.

Mr. Deacon: They’re chasing their tail round and round.

Mr. Laughren: Now we have the problem being exacerbated further by not having any public housing in the community. And don t forget that the people in the community knew they were going to get public housing. The government raised people’s expectations so that they thought they were going to have public housing in the community and then the government pulled the rug on them. That’s just not good enough.

Mr. Roy: That’s what is called “sensitive government.”

Mr. Laughren: It’s insensitive government.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: One has got to be reasonable.

Mr. Roy: To be reasonable?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, it takes time. You can’t carry water and use a slop pail.

Mr. Deacon: The cheapest place for us to put housing and to provide homes for people is away from the big cities -- and we never do it.

Mr. Laughren: The inadequacies in the small communities that bother me most are those that apply to health care. In those communities there is virtually no health care, and I think that is very serious. Surely there could be a clinic set up in the various communities where nurse practitioners could travel from one community to another. We could have a dental car going into those communities on a regular basis. We could have clinics going to the schools. But none of those things happened --

Mr. Roy: The former Minister of Health (Mr. Potter) didn’t like that setup.

Mr. Laughren: There is no reason why the government with a fairly minor commitment in funds, couldn’t make a rather major change in the quality of life in those communities. It would not take a lot of money. All it would take would be a commitment to improving the quality of life there and to forget for a moment, that there are very few voters in those communities. That is really what the problem boils down to, Mr. Speaker, that the government can ignore those people and know they will never pay the electoral price because of the relatively small numbers of people in those communities.

Mr. Deacon: Instead of that they pay $180 million for land in North Pickering that nobody wants.

Mr. Laughren: That is right.

Mr. Roy: We’ll have a commission on that.

Mr. Laughren: I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to do what you can -- No, I think we are going to have the commission.

Mr. Roy: The NDP are going to have the commission?

Mr. Laughren: We are going to have the commission, yes. We will consult with the Liberals though, in case they have some good ideas on it.

Mr. Roy: How much are the NDP going to pay their commissioners?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, would this be an appropriate time for me to break?

Mr. Speaker: Do you have further remarks to make?

Mr. Laughren: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you may move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Laughren moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to say that on Thursday we will proceed with the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services, followed by the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) with his estimates.

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

Motion agreed to.

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