Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention and to the attention of the hon. members of this House, in the west gallery we have 150 students of new Canadian classes of Orde St. School. I am sure you and the hon. members would like to give them their usual very warm welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal privilege. Yesterday there took place in the House of Commons in Ottawa some dialogue during the question period. The dialogue was quoted in the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Sun of this morning, on radio and all the media as a matter of fact. To make sure the quotations were correct, I got a copy of the remarks over the telephone today; I was read the quotation from the copy of Hansard. Mr. Speaker, the quotation is as follows:

There was a question from the Hon. George Hees. He asked:

“Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister has indicated that the government, even after several cabinet sessions, is unable to make up its mind whether to allow PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] representatives to come to Canada and take part in the crime conference in Toronto in September, and as the PLO bases its mode of operation on organized terror and the killing of innocent civilians, how can the government even consider allowing such an organization to come to Canada and participate in a conference of that kind?”

The Rt. Hon. P. E. Trudeau replied:

“Mr. Speaker, it is easy to answer how the government can even be considering it. The reason is that Mr. Grossman of the Ontario government stuck his head out and invited this conference to come to Canada in the first place.”

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That is what the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) said.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Where does this government get half a million dollars from?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I take it the hon. member for Downsview figures that’s a correct statement of fact.

Mr. Singer: Didn’t the Attorney General say that? The Attorney General said that in his estimates.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. minister continue.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will deal with that later.

Mr. Singer: The minister can make reference to it if he wants. It’s page 1363 of Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’d like to hear more interjections. The hon. member is digging a bigger hole for himself.

Mr. Singer: Oh.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Go ahead, dig it a little deeper.

Mr. Trudeau responded further on, after some dialogue:

“Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand; on the one hand, hon. members talk about co-operative federalism and, on the other, members accuse us of co-operating with a province which has extended an invitation.”

Mr. Speaker, the comments of the Prime Minister are outrageous. They are irrational, as a matter of fact.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Rubbish.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Actually, the question, as I read it here and as you heard, Mr. Speaker, was about terrorists and not why the United Nations Congress on Prevention of Crime was coming here. It’s obvious that the Prime Minister, in his irritation, was attempting to find a scapegoat, and I suppose he figured, while he was on his feet, “Um, there is a guy by the name of Grossman, eh? And he is an Ontario cabinet minister? Now that sounds like something we can make something out of.” Mr. Speaker, what are the facts?

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): The minister should be proud that the Prime Minister even knew he existed.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the first place, this function took place in 1970, five years ago, in Japan. I was a member of the Canadian delegation. The Canadian delegation consisted of a federal minister and the Attorneys General of nine provinces, and because this province is the only province which has a Correctional Services ministry, I was invited to be a member of the Canadian delegation from the Province of Ontario.

Because I was the senior provincial minister and because I had had considerable experience in the field, the federal government asked me to be the deputy head of the delegation. Because of the fact that Mr. McIlraith, who was to have led the delegation in the first place, was unable to go because he was just recovering from an eye operation I think it was, he asked a colleague of his, the Hon. Robert Stanbury to stand in for him.

The Hon. Mr. Stanbury did lead the delegation but left, I believe it was a couple of days before he was to have extended the invitation on behalf of the Canadian government. Because of the consternation of the Japanese officials and the officials of the UN, who were very much concerned about what they considered a diplomatic breach -- they were very concerned about the abrupt leave-taking of the leader of the delegation, which they take quite seriously -- I agreed to move into the breach at the request of the federal government and made the formal invitation.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that in any case the decision for the congress to be held in Ontario was made well before that meeting. If anyone has an idea that these things are just done on the basis of an invitation made at the moment and accepted at the moment, if anybody has an idea it is done that way, he is sadly mistaken.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): There was no PLO then anyway.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course there wasn’t. We will deal with that in a moment. There was no PLO. That wasn’t a problem at the time at all.

Anyway, the decision was arranged for well in advance by the United Nations and the federal government -- which was headed by -- guess who? -- one Mr. Trudeau. That arrangement had been made by them. The invitation was only a formality and, because of the absence of the federal minister, as I say, I agreed to make it.

Just to make sure the record is clear, I quote here from a wire which was drawn up by the Department of External Affairs at the time. They were announcing that:

TORONTO WILL BE SITE OF FIFTH (1975) UN CONGRESS ON PREVENTION OF CRIME AND TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS, PROVIDED OF COURSE CANADIAN INVITATION ACCEPTED . . .

Further on they point out that this wire is attributed to Solicitor General George McIlraith and Mitchell Sharp who were making this announcement. About two or three weeks later I received a letter from Mr. Stanbury in which he states,

“I want to thank you for all your practical and moral support in Kyoto. I appreciated very much having an experienced hand available and willing to advise me as well as to act as head of the delegation after my departure. I see from the press that you conveyed our invitation to the Congress to meet in Canada next time, and I trust you and I both will be still around to welcome the delegation to Toronto.”

I am still around, Mr. Speaker, but I won’t be welcoming the delegates and neither will anyone from the Province of Ontario if the PLO is included in the official delegation, I can tell you that.

Mr. Roy: That is not saying much, though.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is a cheap shot unworthy of the Prime Minister of our country.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The hon. minister can’t take it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He must think the public is pretty stupid and that they won’t understand the situation; they won’t understand in the first place that it’s a Canadian function, the invitation was extended on behalf of the federal government and that was long before the PLO were involved. It just won’t wash with the public. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister of this country owes me, the House of Commons and the people of Canada an apology for this absolute intemperate and careless treatment of the truth.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): He should resign.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: He’d better send a telegram.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Mr. Henderson: What does the hon. member for Ottawa East think about it?

Mr. Ruston: I am sure the Speaker will send for him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The provincial secretary shouldn’t go around calling the Prime Minister of Canada a liar.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): The member must control himself.

Mr. Henderson: Speak to him.

ASSESSMENT ACT CHANGE

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply at this time in greater deal to the question in the House and subsequent statements by the hon. member for High Park made on Thursday, June 26 last, regarding section 17 subsection 3 of the Assessment Act as amended in June, 1974. The hon. member suggested that the amendment introduced a new assessment procedure which has had an enormous effect, according to him, on increasing tax bills for small business and conversely, has provided substantial tax savings to tenants of larger stores, particularly in shopping centres, in short, he claims there is a potential for a shift in taxes of tens of millions of dollars from department-sized stores to small kiosk-like operations.

I would like to point out that section 17, subsection 3, pertains to the apportionment or division among tenants of assessment in all income-producing properties, not simply shopping centres, and that the apportionment is for business tax and school support purposes only. The business tenant is directly responsible for the business tax and directs that portion of the realty tax to the school board.

The owner of the property is liable for realty taxes and the Assessment Act makes no direction as to how he should divide realty taxes among the tenants. In other words, section 17(3) does not govern the method of apportioning realty taxes among tenants, this being a matter which is determined between the individual tenant and the owner in the terms of their lease. The hon. member seems to have interpreted section 17, subsection 3, to include apportionments for both realty and business taxes and has erroneously lumped together the two quite separate issues.

When the province assumed the assessment function in 1970 one of the primary goals was to achieve property tax equity through market value assessment. Since the owner of an income-producing property is purchasing not so much the bricks and mortar but rather the rental income that the property will generate the income approach to investment properties is the generally accepted method of estimating the market value of such investment properties for assessment purposes. As well, when it comes to mortgages, the most important factor taken into consideration by the lending institution is the value of the income generated from rents. Therefore, we adopted fair market rent as an appropriate yardstick of value, or base, for arriving at assessments on income-producing properties. These same fair market rents are then used in the apportionment of the assessment for each individual store operator for business tax and for school support purposes.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to review the elements that come into play in determining fair market rent. As well as contract or actual rent, fair market rent takes the following items into consideration: Location of store in the building; size of the store; value of the improvements; ratio of storefront to total area; shape of the store -- for example, a long narrow store would pay less than a square store because it is less convenient for customers.

In his statement, the hon. member for High Park referred to a number of stores in shopping centres. While he has chosen to discuss these cases I cannot, because some of them involve assessment appeals which are currently ready before the courts. Nevertheless, my staff have reviewed these cases and I can say that had the owners of these shopping centres used the method of apportionment as set out in section 17 subsection 3 for realty tax purposes, the tenants’ various portions of this tax would not have changed to the extent that the hon. member has claimed.

The member suggested that the amendment to section 17 subsection 3 radically changed apportionment procedures. This is simply not the case. The rental approach for apportionment for business tax and school support purposes is not new in Ontario. The city of Toronto has been using apportionments based on the rental approach since 1948.

In 1966, this approach was used by the city of Oshawa assessment office to apportion for business assessment purposes. The city of Guelph, in its reassessment programme in 1968, used the rental approach, again, for apportioning business assessments. The city of Sudbury, in the reassessment conducted there in 1969, also used the rental approach for apportionment, as did many other municipalities across the province prior to 1970.

This quick review of apportionment practices does, I hope, make it clear that the amendment to section 17 subsection 3 enacted by the Legislature in June, 1974, was not a radical change. More importantly, the amendment confirmed fair market rent as a procedure for apportioning assessments on income-producing properties which is in line and compatible with the overall provincial goal of achieving market value assessment.

My staff have spent the last two weeks identifying and reviewing the cases the hon. member has cited. Our information simply does not confirm that the amendment has created serious inequities on a grand scale. The amendment has, on the other hand, laid down a fair and equitable method for our own apportionment purposes across the province and, importantly, it has created for all shopping mall owners a better example to follow when they apportion realty taxes among their tenants. If now, with a clearer understanding of the scope of the amendment and a better knowledge of what the assessment procedures are, the hon. member would like to pursue the matter further with accurate information, my staff and I will be more than happy to continue our study of his allegations.

I might note however one instance which is indicative of his other examples. The member claimed a K-Mart store in the Lynden Park Mall in Brantford received a tax reduction of $150,000 in its tax bill as a result of market rent apportionment. From our review, it turns out that the total realty taxes on the entire mall were only $172,051.82 for 1975. Either the member has confused assessment with taxes paid or he needs a new calculator or perhaps a new battery in his pocket calculator or perhaps a more reliable informant.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, an interministerial study committee has been set up to review the effects of market value reassessment on taxes. By assessing income-producing properties on the fair market rental approach and establishing a uniform ratio of property tax to fair market rents, the assessment information we are providing to the committee will aid in judging the appropriate level of tax to be applied to these properties. Where the direct application of reassessed values without some adjustment factors would result in the levy of unjustly increased taxes, as I have indicated in many statements earlier, sir, appropriate factors will be applied.

Mr. Shulman: A question of privilege if I may.

Mr. Speaker: A question of privilege?

Mr. Shulman: Yes, sir. The hon. minister has suggested that I have given erroneous information to the House. I wish to say that if this information is erroneous my feelings are shared by Judge Scott of the provincial court, chairman Bingman of his own assessment appeal board and the Ontario Municipal Board, which has said: “These rules are obviously put in because the government didn’t want any appeals.”

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member doesn’t have a point of personal privilege there.

Oral questions. The hon. member for York Centre.

YORK-DURHAM SEWER LINE

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have a question of the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister advise us, if the airport does not proceed, what effect this will have on the York-Pickering sewer scheme and will it cause further delay in this scheme? At the same time, maybe the minister would say what has caused all the delay in this project which was announced two years ago and seemed to have been finalized a year ago.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as far as the airport is concerned, it will have no bearing on the York-Durham line which is now in the process of being built.

Mr. Deacon: Being built?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, some contracts have been let. Maybe the member was not aware of that. He asked what caused the delay. May I say that in the past year we have worked out, in co-operation with Metropolitan Toronto, the regional municipality of York and the regional municipality of Durham on a very democratic basis, very good working relationship agreements with them. There was a lot of discussion and a number of meetings. We did not, as some people would have us do, arbitrarily impose this on those municipalities. That’s what the delay was over in the last six months, to get these agreements signed with these municipalities. It’s a joint effort. Metro’s involved, York region’s involved and Durham region’s involved; but the airport will have no bearing on the design and construction of the York-Durham line.

Mr. Deacon: Certainly there’s no reason for not consulting municipalities since that scheme does put quite a burden on the municipalities.

Hon. W. Newman: It is under way, I was explaining to the member.

Mr. Deacon: I am glad it is under way.

NORTH PICKERING COMMUNITY

Mr. Deacon: I have a question of the Treasurer. Did the minister discuss with the then Minister of Transport in 1972 what share each government might assume in the roads and services during that period in 1972 when this whole scheme was cooked up to build the joint North Pickering community, or Cedarwood at that time, and Pickering airport? Did the minister discuss any proportions, 50-50 or what it might be, in this joint cost-sharing or was it left wide open?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Not specifics.

Mr. Deacon: Not specifics. There wasn’t any idea as to whether it would be 10-90 or 90-10 or whatever at that time?

Supplementary: What meaning did that therefore imply? What was the point in even indicating there was a joint project when there wasn’t any indication of what the proportions might be?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We didn’t get down to specifics, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t think it was necessary at that time.

Hon. W. Newman: Why doesn’t the member go and tell his friends in Ottawa that it’s too bad?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deacon: We have been, for a long while and maybe finally the members opposite are helping us. It has taken a long time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

MISSISSAUGA TRANSPORT SERVICES

Mr. Deacon: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. What is the reason for the minister’s interference or his department’s interference with the Mississauga plans for a transportation servicing scheme in that area? Why would TATOA have meetings in camera with regard to that maintenance construction project with which they have been told not to go ahead by the province?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I am not interfering with Mississauga’s plans. I don’t know whether TATOA has been holding a meeting in camera or not. I don’t keep that close a tab on TATOA. They report to me.

Mr. Deacon: Does the minister have a copy of a letter from the mayor of Mississauga?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I haven’t received it. I understand there’s a letter coming from the mayor of Mississauga, but I haven’t received it as yet. I was told there was a letter coming.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s the mail system.

THIRD WORLD GRANTS

Mr. Deacon: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Has the minister any role in connection with the matching grants for third world development? Does he have any responsibility in connection with that or should I be consulting the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler)? He has been around here.

An hon. member: On occasion.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It wouldn’t come within the purview of my secretariat, although as one of the ministers involved I am naturally interested. I would think that is a question which could be directed either to the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Chairman of Management Board of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) -- probably that’s where it belongs.

Mr. Deacon: It’s awfully hard to keep track of these ministers as they wander around the back halls. Would the Chairman of the Management Board come out from behind?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deacon: There aren’t very many ministers in the House this morning.

Mr. Speaker: We can give the hon. member an opportunity later if he wishes. Does he have further questions in the meantime?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Here comes the Chairman of Management Board now.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Here he comes.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): He’s making a grand entry.

Mr. Deacon: Would the Chairman of Management Board advise us if a meeting has yet been held, as promised by the Premier in his May 16 letter, to give a decision to the groups that have been urging matching grants for third world developments? Has any meeting yet been held, as the Premier in his letter of May 16 promised, that a meeting would be held within a few weeks? They haven’t heard yet.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): For what? Would the hon. member repeat that?

Mr. Deacon: A meeting for the groups supporting the third world development matching grants. Does the minister have any idea about that?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a meeting has been held, and I think it is currently in the hands of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, who regrettably is in the hospital at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister make clear to the House and to the public exactly what conditions he is going to set in order to meet the original commitment of the Province of Ontario to provide roads and sewers for the Pickering airport?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, did the hon. member leave a word out? I didn’t totally understand what he was asking. Would he repeat it, please?

Mr. Deans: I’ll try it again. What conditions does the minister intend to set in his discussions with Ottawa in order that he will meet the province’s original commitment to provide roads and sewers for the development of the Pickering airport?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can’t set any conditions at this time. I don’t know whether there are any conditions. We are going to meet with the federal government, I trust. I am assuming that Mr. Marchand will be contacting me to set up such a meeting. I don’t think I can set any pre-conditions. I want to hear what he has to say and we’ll go from there.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: Is it then reasonable to assume that given certain conditions as yet not determined, being met, that in fact the government of Ontario is prepared to go ahead with the Pickering development?

Mr. Roy: “Not at this time” is the answer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the contents of the letter I sent to Mr. Marchand are quite clear. I don’t see any reason to repeat that, particularly.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): They are clearly ambiguous.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, the hon. member read the Globe and Mail this morning.

Mr. Foulds: I read the letter.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Somebody read it to him.

Mr. MacDonald: The Globe isn’t the only one that’s puzzled.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary: Is it possible for the minister to more clearly define the terms at this time?

Mr. Singer: It speaks for itself.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I thought I had made it clear -- and I noticed it was in the paper this morning -- “at this time” means right now.

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

Mr. Deacon: Does the minister intend to discuss and eventually reveal to this House any reasons for proceeding with that airport? Is he going to get into the question of whether the airport is necessary or not so he can justify the expenditures that the province is required to make for services and roads if it does proceed?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the hon. member knows full well that we are not going to question whether an airport is needed or not. The expertise for such a decision lies with the federal Ministry of Transport. They are the people who had the big commission hearing; they are the ones who came out with all of the details as to the need or not. We are not getting into any sort of a technical battle with them or questioning the material they produce.

Mr. Roy: Oh, no.

Mr. Singer: Perish the thought.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have said, quite simply, that we are not going to commit and supply the funds that are required to provide the servicing to that airport at this time. That’s what we’ve said.

Mr. Deacon: A supplementary: Surely that entails some sense of need and urgency for that airport, or the need for any construction at all, in this government’s analysis of whether it is going to have any spending priorities in that direction; doesn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I don’t think so, Mr. Speaker. We have said we are not going to commit that sort of heavy funding toward providing those services.

Mrs. Campbell: Till after the election.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, what I would love to find out is the real position of that group over there on this airport, the real position. Let them give it to us, tell us right now.

Mr. Ruston: We would like to know the government’s position. The government doesn’t know its position.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t want their position according to him or to her or to him. Let them give me one answer.

Mr. Ruston: The minister doesn’t know his position.

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t the minister talk to his colleagues?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Further questions from the member for Wentworth?

Mr. Deans: May I ask the minister whether it might be reasonable to conclude that “at this time” and Jan. 1, 1976, could be termed to be synonymous?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes. Exactly.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What is significant about that date?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is that the member’s birthday, because it doesn’t mean a thing to me other than it is the new year.

Mr. Deans: Doesn’t it?

Mr. MacDonald: That’s the day the government reverts to the status quo.

Mr. Deans: That’s the day every tax goes on and all the changes are made.

An hon. member: What a sham.

Mr. Ruston: There won’t be any celebrating this New Year’s.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

UNION CARBIDE EMISSION LEVELS IN WELLAND

Mr. Deans: Can I ask of the Minister of the Environment, has he paid heed to the recent citizen protests in Welland with regard to the emission levels from Union Carbide? Has he required that there be an additional study or investigation made immediately of the amount of emission that is currently being allowed from Union Carbide? Is Union Carbide complying with the order that is currently in place? Is the minister satisfied that the order is sufficiently stringent to safeguard the health of the people in the immediate area? What does the minister intend to do about the conditions that were brought to the attention of the city council of Welland, and that the council has agreed are not satisfactory to it though it claims to have no power to correct them?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that area happens to have a very fine member who represents the area very well.

Mr. Roy: Who would that be?

Hon. W. Newman: He has been in touch with me about the matter on a personal basis. I will be meeting with both him and the city council to discuss the whole matter as soon as I get finished with my bills in the House.

Mr. Deans: That is not my question. Can the minister tell me whether, as a result of the investigations that he surely has conducted, he believes that the emission standards are sufficient to safeguard the health of the people in Welland?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that is that our air management branch is working on the situation. I can’t give the member the details. Certainly, we are always concerned about the amounts of emissions and the levels of emissions that come out of plants. We have been working on it, and as I said, we will be meeting to discuss the whole thing with the city.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since the fine member for Welland (Mr. Morningstar) has already brought it to the minister’s attention, is the minister now aware of whether or not Union Carbide is complying with the regulations and the ministerial order currently in place?

Hon. W. Newman: I can’t give the member the details of it right now, but I certainly will get the details for him if he wants them.

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. Given the announcement today of the consumer price index increase -- well yesterday, actually -- would the Treasurer be of the opinion that the 10-cent excise tax would have had an effect on that particular consumer price index report? Can the minister indicate whether the Province of Ontario is monitoring the two areas that appear to be causing the biggest difficulties, those being meat prices and egg prices -- in fact, prices of food in general? Are there any steps being taken within the province to try to ensure that the people of this province are safeguarded against unwarranted price increases?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, no, I don’t think the excise tax would reflect in the most recent consumer price index. I would be very surprised if it did. It won’t show up for a month. The normal studies of food prices are carried on, as the member well knows, by the Ontario Food Council.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Am I wrong in my recollection of the answer given some months ago by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, through its own Food Council, was also monitoring food prices, particularly prices of dairy products? What has become of that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that’s correct, Mr. Speaker. They do this through the Food Council. They’ve done it for some time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

CRIME CONFERENCE IN TORONTO

Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Could he reconcile that portion of the remarks he made earlier this morning where he said he really only extended the invitation for the crime conference to be held in Toronto as a surrogate for other people, with the remarks made by the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Clement), as reported on page 1363 of Hansard, where the provincial secretary said:

“I would like to express my appreciation to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development who, through his eloquent pleading at the fourth congress, was primarily instrumental in Toronto being chosen as the site for this year’s meeting?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have to reconcile it.

Mr. Roy: That was a cheap shot.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That was a dirty Grit shot.

Mr. Ruston: Rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. MacDonald: I didn’t think there was anything more that could be said.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have to reconcile it. I think it was very kind of my colleague to give me all that credit. I also think it is very kind of the hon. member for Downsview to keep hammering away at this issue. It will do himself and his party a hell of a lot of good. Go to it, fellows. Keep going at it. Keep shovelling it, fellows.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is he aware of a form letter that the Premier is sending out to all those who write expressing concern about the use of non-returnable bottles? In it he says:

“The government recognizes that the refillable container is the most environmentally desirable package for soft drinks.”

Then he goes on to express:

“Less obvious, perhaps, is our complementary belief that the residents of our province are entitled to a freedom of choice with regard to the types of merchandise and packaging of consumer goods.”

The minister himself, in his speech to the representatives of the soft drink industry, although a very tough speech on the surface, indicated that he is committed to a freedom of choice with regard to soft drink containers. Does this mean that he is not committed as government policy, even to the eventual elimination of non-returnable bottles?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there is anything in the Premier’s letter that is going out to people that is anything different from what I said. I said, in short, that there should be freedom of choice. What I meant by freedom of choice was that consumers should have the right of choice on the shelf.

If the member wants me to go on to elaborate, we want the number of bottles reduced.

The member has seen my statement to the industry. The Solid Waste Advisory Board has had several meetings with them and they’re on a time frame of six months, which will run out in about another two months. I know they are having meetings on a regular basis and I hope to meet with them myself for some length of time, as soon as we adjourn here for the summer, to discuss this whole matter. But there is nothing inconsistent in what I said in my statement and what the Premier said.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: My question, however, was -- is the government committed to the eventual or ultimate elimination of non-returnable bottles, or is the government committed to continually argue freedom of choice for the consumer and, therefore, we will always have non-returnable bottles in Ontario?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I think as far as government policy is concerned at this time, I made it very clear when I made the statements in the House. Certainly, at this point in time I am not planning to ban them. I’ve had my period of six months with the industry and with the stores. I’m not planning to make any distinct bans at all.

When I said “consumer choice,” I think the consumer has a right to a choice. I say that the consumers have the right to buy the most environmentally suitable bottle and they should have the right to do that. That is what I said. In many stores you cannot buy returnable bottles at this time and I want to see those bottles back on the shelf.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Why didn’t the minister just answer yes?

Hon. W. Newman: I said in my statement we want to cut down the numbers and sizes and shapes of bottles. We are working on this at the present time. We are working on wine and liquor bottles at this time too, with the Solid Waste Advisory Board.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Foulds: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered my question: Is this government committed, as a matter of policy, to the elimination of non-returnable bottles at some time in the future?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it’s a matter of government policy. It will be decided at the appropriate time and we will be announcing it at the appropriate time in the House.

Mr. MacDonald: The government is not committed then?

Mr. Foulds: They are not committed.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Gaunt: Is the minister aware of any additional comments that have been coming from the industry with respect to this problem, given the fact he has given them a six-month deadline?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if the member is asking in effect, is the industry co-operating at this point in time --

Mr. Gaunt: That’s what I’m asking.

Hon. W. Newman: -- I would say yes.

FLAGS SHOWN ON GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services who is a regular attender at these question periods but is asked very few questions.

Mr. Foulds: That is why he is a regular attender.

Mr. Roy: Yes. My question deals, Mr. Speaker, with a publication which is handed to all people who visit this building and the gallery. The matter has been brought to my attention by some school children who were visiting the gallery. One of the publications, called “Grandeur, Ghosts and Gargoyles,” that’s a publication about this building, the history of this budding --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thought it meant the opposition.

Mr. Roy: It has a picture of the building as it now stands, as I understand it. On the front it shows, on the right hand side, the Ontario flag; and on the other side, instead of the Canadian flag, it’s got the Union Jack.

I would like to ask the minister the question put to me by the students: Why is it that 10 years after we have accepted a distinct Canadian flag we still have the Union Jack on this publication; which doesn’t represent what is out there now, the Canadian flag?

Mr. Foulds: It’s part of their fight with the feds.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A matter of urgent public importance!

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Well, there is very urgent public importance to that question --

Mr. Roy: Yes, there is.

Mr. Deacon: After 10 years.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not being the artist --

Mr. Roy: The minister is on his feet, that is the best exercise he has had in a long time.

Mr. Good: He is taking his orders from John Diefenbaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not being the artist who did the design or the layout for that particular brochure, I am afraid I can’t give the member the reasons the artist would have for that, except --

Hon. Mr. White: Because it’s an historical pamphlet.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The artist happens to be a monarchist.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- that I would say it is a pamphlet based on the history of this particular building, and it may have been --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): It’s still a ghost, eh?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- that that picture is to show that was the flag that was flying at that point in time.

Before we go any further, I point out that now, and for the past few months, the brochure and the tour guides and all the things the member is talking about, have come under the Office of the Assembly rather than the Minister of Government Services. But at the time that brochure was prepared, it was my responsibility.

Mr. Roy: One supplementary: Would the minister not agree that maybe we should make it contemporary and reflect what stands today? That picture, as I see it, is the building as it exists. Would the minister not agree maybe we should bring the publication up to date -- it must be some 10 years behind -- and show what in fact exists out there, the Canadian flag?

Mr. Turner: It is a history.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member might wish to put that recommendation forward to you as the chairman of the Board of Internal Economy.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

LOAN SHARKING

Mr. Shulman: I have a question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Is the Attorney General aware that another gentleman who is involved in the loan sharking business in Toronto, one Jack Hovey, has been rubbed out --

Mr. Roy: I thought we had passed legislation to stop that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Shulman: -- and that his common law wife has been informed that she is in mortal danger? Does the minister not think it’s time we finally called a royal commission into the problem of organized crime in this province?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): I didn’t hear the name of the person the member referred to.

Mr. Shulman: Jack Hovey.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Jack Hovey; no, I wasn’t aware of that he had been --

Mr. Roy: How much did the member owe him?

Mr. MacDonald: As far as the minister is concerned, he has never been rubbed in.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- that he had been killed. I don’t accept the statement that the deceased -- I take it the member means the person is deceased -- had, in fact, called for police assistance. I will check into it and see if, in fact, that is the case. But I am not aware of the situation. Could the hon. member tell me when his friend was rubbed out?

Mr. Shulman: I will send the minister the information.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member for Essex- Kent was first.

PROCESSING PLANT STRIKE

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, and it has to do with the strike at Wheatley. I asked him a question in regard to it on June 24. It involves the terminal warehouse and Omstead’s processing plant. There are hundreds of acres of fresh bean crop, and the farmers have no place to store this crop. They are now making arrangements to store it in the United States. Is the minister aware of this, and has he done anything since June 24 about trying to get this strike settled, or making some other arrangements for the storing of these goods so that we don’t lose them all?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member referring to a question he asked here in the House at that time? I was under the impression that my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth), had replied to it. Maybe the hon. member wasn’t present at that time. On the other hand, I could be incorrect.

Mr. Ruston: No, sorry, I have been here at every question period. The hon. minister did not reply.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will check that out with my colleague. I was under the impression he had answered.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich- Riverside.

VANDALISM AT PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Natural Resources regarding vandalism and hooliganism in provincial parks, which I drew to his attention over a month ago. What steps has the minister taken to prevent a repetition of the intolerable conditions encountered by families at the Wheatley Provincial Park on May 16, and which is continuing, especially on weekends?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has attracted my own personal concern and my own personal involvement. I have to say to you sir, that the rowdyism and vandalism in our provincial park system is not decreasing, particularly -- and the member has made reference to it -- on the long weekends, three or four times a year. This year we added 25 additional conservation officers to my stuff, and 15 of these people were framed in riot control and are presently working right in the parks system.

In addition, I have had discussions with the Solicitor General. We have been getting tremendous and increased co-operation from the Ontario Provincial Police. In addition to this, I have suggested that possibly the Judy LaMarsh commission could look at the problem within our provincial parks system, and may comment on what direction we should go in her examination of violence within the media and violence within this province.

It’s an area that is causing me personally some deep concern, and I want to indicate to the members of this House it’s an area that I would continue to press for improvements.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Did I hear the minister correctly that he had suggested that the particular matter, which is a grave matter, be referred to the LaMarsh commission on violence in the media, and how does the minister relate provincial parks to media? Are there TV outlets at every campsite?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the member misunderstood me. She is looking at violence in the media. When she is looking at this, it is possible that in her public meetings throughout this province, violence and rowdyism in our provincial parks system may come forward, and I would welcome her comments as to how we can fight that.

Mr. Singer: Maybe she could inquire into the rubbing out.

Mr. Roy: The minister is expanding the commission, is he?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kent.

HOUSING INSPECTION FOR MIGRANT WORKERS

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Is the minister aware that in the county of Kent there are a great many migrant farm workers, whose housing has to be inspected before they can be inhabited? Last year this inspection was carried out under the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), but this year it’s not available.

This year there are a lot more applications for inspection than there were last year. This is a concern to the migrant worker. They will be unable to move into this housing if it isn’t inspected, I am informed.

Mr. Good: Get down and inspect it.

Mr. Spence: What is the minister going to do?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I take it from the hon. member that he’s concerned that there is a delay in the inspection?

Mr. Spence: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll do something about that this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

SUNDAY TRUCKING

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Now that he has lost another tussle before the Canadian Transport Commission in that it has granted permission for Alltrans Express and Kwikasair to do unlimited trucking on Sunday -- it should be obvious to the minister that we cannot rely on the Canadian Transport Commission to protect us from Sunday trucking -- when will he bring in legislation which will protect the people of Ontario from Sunday trucking, particularly on Highway 17, where the situation is just impossible if Sunday trucking is continued or allowed to expand?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the question should more appropriately be addressed to the Attorney General because I would not be bringing in that sort of legislation.

As I have indicated before, we have had some discussions in attempting to find out how we can control trucking on our highways. I think it is fair to say, although we are very quick to point to Sunday trucking, Sunday trucking itself is not the major problem. It’s the whole weekend and, especially, on a long weekend, the return traffic coming in on Mondays is a problem.

It’s not a very easy one to solve by simply saying that we should ban the trucks. That’s an easy solution, to ban them. But there is the effect it is going to have on the economy of this province by just banning the trucks, and picking a Sunday when probably it is more important to control it on Mondays. We are trying to develop some legislation but the cure-all the member seems to have, of passing legislation and banning everybody, isn’t going to work.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

DRIVER TRAINING

Mr. Good: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, arising out of an inquiry from a constituent. Is the minister concerned -- and I would ask him if this is correct -- that there are no facilities in the province to give driver training to people wanting to learn how to ride a motorcycle, either through high school driver training or a public commercial enterprise giving driver training in that regard? Secondly, is it correct that one cannot get a temporary driver’s licence to learn how to drive? One can only get that after passing the written test and it’s only good to go to the driver’s test. If one fails the driver’s test, one can’t even get the bike back home again legally without getting a truck to pick it up. Is the minister concerned about the lack of training facilities?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t believe there are any training facilities or driver education programmes as they relate to teaching someone to drive a motorcycle; none that I know of in the province anyway. We have made some changes in the licensing requirements and I think we have successfully overcome the problem the member has just related -- that is, taking the motorcycle down to the examination. We’ve changed that now and there is a special permit available which will allow them to take the motorcycle out and practice, if one will, other than on the city streets. They can now get a special licence. I don’t have all the details but we made that change some time ago.

Mr. Good: Could the minister look into it more thoroughly and get an up-to-date report? I understand there is no temporary licence they can get during the period of trying to learn how to drive a motorcycle. They have to do it more or less illegally.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I’ll get the details for the member, but I think that’s been taken care of.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

TIMMINS GOVERNMENT BUILDING

Mr. Ferrier: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Government Services growing out of the mini-budget statement of the Treasurer on Monday. Has the leaseback agreement for the construction of the new government office complex in Timmins been signed? If so, with whom? When will the actual construction get under way to stimulate the economy and provide jobs in the area?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, no leaseback agreement has been signed. The working drawings and specifications for the Timmins building are in progress now and have been for some time. The contract documents will not be completed until, perhaps, late August. We expect to be advertising for tenders for the construction of this building on a leaseback basis in very early September.

It will, I believe, be the latest of the five projects we will be proceeding with. There is no reason for it to be later than the others other than the contract documents, the working drawings, are not as far advanced on the Timmins building as they are on some of the others.

Mr. Ferrier: As a supplementary, could I infer from what the minister has said that it would likely be late fall or early winter before all the papers could be signed and work could actually get under way?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes. I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, whether we can actually get construction under way before fairly late this year.

Mr. Foulds: After the election.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, it’ll be after the election, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Foulds: Because of the opposition member’s speech.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the member for York Centre.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

Mr. Deacon: A question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Is the minister having difficulty in selling the Wintario lottery tickets and if not, why is he spending thousands of dollars on advertising like this?

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, the minister is not selling Wintario lottery tickets --

Mr. Haggerty: Come on! He has got his name on it.

Mr. Ruston: His name’s on it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Ontario Lottery Corp. obviously feels it’s necessary to share the names of those who have been successful as part of the ongoing promotion of a very successful game called Wintario.

Mr. Ruston: Why does the minister need a full page ad?

Mr. Deacon: A supplementary: Since the press takes care of publicity with regard to the winners without charging for it as in these advertisements, would the minister not agree that a more important priority for a presentation and advertising programme would be to provide some money to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board so it can do something to show the benefits available to the public there?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is doing a very good job discharging its responsibilities.

Mr. Deacon: They haven’t got any money.

Mr. Turner: That is nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I would think that’s not the case. I think if the hon. member were to direct the question to the Attorney General he’d be quite impressed by the tremendous effort made by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board with which this minister is familiar, to advertise --

Mr. Singer: How does he know?

Interjections by ion, members.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- the existence of the board and the procedures of the board. Why doesn’t he ask the Attorney General what has been done by that board to make sure the services of that board are widely known throughout Ontario? The public is entitled to know who some of these winners are. If the member reads his mail the way I read my mail, there has been some concern --

Mr. Ruston: Some.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- with respect to this particular area --

Mr. Deacon: The press lists the names of winners at no cost.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- and the Ontario Lottery Corp. is very anxious to publicize the winners as part of the ongoing --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- promotion of the game.

Mr. Deacon: Would the minister not agree that it doesn’t need a full-page ad to tell us? Is he concerned about that? Isn’t the minister concerned about waste in government?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.

FINANCING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Is the minister in a position to indicate what progress, if any, has been made in negotiations with the federal government for possible implementation of the Camp committee recommendation on checkoffs in income tax filing to broaden the financing of the political parties?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I haven’t had any recent correspondence with the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Speaker. The latest I had from him in about the third week of June, I think, indicated that he is concerned about the very points we had discussed earlier, particularly this matter of checkoff. We are still discussing it and I guess it is fair to say I am not satisfied that any further progress has been made.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary: What is the hangup, since all the minister wants on income tax filing returns is an indication as to which party the filer is willing to have a $2 contribution made on his behalf? All he is getting is the information that X number of people want this to be done on their behalf. Since it doesn’t involve money, what is the hangup? It doesn’t involve money as far as the federal government is concerned.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The indication made by the Hon. Ron Basford to me, sir, was that inasmuch as they are dealing with 10 provinces and not just with Ontario, they would want to have some kind of general acceptance of this principle. I think there may also be some misgivings -- I hope I am not reading too much into our discussions on this -- about the application of a political party name on an income tax return form.

I have read with some interest a study done in the United States just recently on the system they have there for contribution to presidential campaign funding along the same lines of this checkoff arrangement that has been proposed by the Camp commission. I understand that after some detailed analysis of the problems there that they too, in the Internal Revenue Service of the United States, shied away from the designation by actual parties in the federal contribution programme of the IRS. At this stage, they don’t do it.

I think this may be some reason for the misgivings which I sense are there, but, in any event, the discussions will be ongoing and, as I have indicated earlier in this House, we will perhaps be able to get to grips with the problem and resolve it in the next few months.

Mr. MacDonald: A final supplementary if I may: Does the Province of Ontario not have control by agreement of at least the one sheet that is added to the filing? If that is the case, why can it not be on that one sheet, which is information that Ontario receives?

Hon. Mr. Meen: One has to remember, Mr. Speaker, that the form to which the hon. member for York South refers is the tax credit programme which is unrelated in many respects to the tax payable, whereas the programme which has been recommended by the Camp commission would have the checkoff deductible from tax payable. It may well be, therefore, that our form is not appropriate for the tax checkoff system.

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong. The proposal of the Camp commission is that the taxpayers indicate that they want a contribution to be made by this government on their behalf and there is no deduction at all on the actual form. The minister is mixing it up with the rebate.

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, I am not.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East. Order, please. This has become a debate now and it is not a question and answer.

CULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. As the Minister of Culture and Recreation in this province, I wonder if he agrees with the statement from a number of his colleagues in the federal Conservative caucus, called the Chateau group, whose apparent cultural policy is as follows: That therefore there will be a united and strong country created by the assimilation of all newcomers and the assimilation of all unassimilated pockets of long-time residents? Does the minister agree with that cultural policy?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Assimilation is not the policy of this government. Integration is the policy of this government and it is multicultural. I don’t agree with the use of the word “assimilation.”

Mr. Speaker: I think I erred a moment ago. The hon. Minister of Revenue had a response to the member for York South which I should have allowed.

FINANCING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Hon. Mr. Meen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I feel it appropriate I should respond. The form which we are using is indeed our tax credit form. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, for us to include on that form some kind of designation on the tax credit end of things, that is, per se, inasmuch as it would have to be carried over then into the income tax section of the rest of the form and that would carry with it the party designation. We are still struggling with it.

The hon. member for York South is shaking his head but the fact of the matter is that things are rarely as simple as one may think. This turns out to be not as simple as first blush would appear.

Mr. MacDonald: Don’t get into that school-teacherish attitude. The minister should go back and read the Camp commission report. It doesn’t affect the tax form and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We are still working on the problem and hopefully can resolve it.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. McNeil, from the standing resources development committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill 14, the Environmental Assessment Act, 1975;

Bill 15, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act, 1971;

Bill 16, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Mr. Speaker: Shall these bills be ordered for third reading?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverside): The committee of the whole House for Bill 14.

Mr. Speaker: I think, since there is more than one, we had better separate them. Shall Bill 14, the Environmental Assessment Act, be ordered for third reading?

Mr. Renwick: No Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: The committee of the whole House, Mr. Minister. That’s the only place there is for it to go.

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Bill 15, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Bill 16?

Mr. Renwick: Committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ONTARIO HERITAGE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that section 68 of the Act applies where a building or structure is designated by a bylaw under a public or private Act as a building or structure of historic or architectural value.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Handleman, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Insurance Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to permit the farm fire mutuals to write insurance on agricultural property without the necessity of obtaining a premium note from the policy holders. In substitution for the premium note will be a trust fund to be established and maintained by those farm mutuals electing to no longer write business on the premium note plan. This bill is in furtherance of a request of the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association and its 54 member companies.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, sir, I want to ask for clarification on a ruling which you made, not on the ruling itself but on the application of the ruling to future debate and to future bills reporting back. Last evening it was ruled by you, properly I presume, that a reasoned amendment was out of order at the time of the second reading of Bill 21.

Clerk of the House: Just that reasoned amendment.

Mr. Deans: Just that reasoned one? Then I want to be clear: I am correct in assuming that another reasoned amendment, a substantive motion of some kind, would be in order at second reading of a bill reported back from the private bills committee? Thank you. It was only that reasoned amendment? Thank you very much.

Would the Speaker answer me? The Clerk answered me. Maybe the Speaker had better answer me, too.

Mr. Speaker: I was going to answer, yes. I think the Clerk has delivered you the reason but in that particular case yesterday, it was out of order for the reasons announced. That’s not true of all reasoned amendments in such cases. We can probably clarify it more.

Mr. Deans: Thank you.

OTTAWA-CARLETON DETENTION CENTRE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have raised a motion on a matter I consider to be of urgent public importance and I want to explain to you and to the House why I feel the matters of the House should be adjourned to discuss this matter.

I would bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that on June 5, 1975, there was a breakout from the Ottawa-Carleton regional detention centre and at that time seven inmates, some extremely dangerous, were able to escape; since that time three of the inmates are still at large. Following the breakout, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter), I understand, went down to Ottawa and reviewed the situation.

I think it was agreed by all parties involved at that time that the reason for the breakout was, first of all, that there was a failure in design which must be changed in the regional detention centres. It was mentioned at that time about the fence being too close, and requiring meshing. It was mentioned at that time as well about security matters inside the detention centre.

Apparently the most important failure in relation to the escape was a staffing problem at the regional detention centre. On the night of the escape, as I understand it, there were only seven guards in the entire complex. The union had been suggesting that there be something like 16 men per shift. It was my understanding at that time that the minister had agreed that there should be something like 10 to 12 guards on duty per shift.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention, first of all, dealing with security in the regional detention centre, that none of the security corrections have been made since the time of the escape. Apparently the only security matter that has been added was some radar contraption in the basement having something to do with closed circuit television. All security failures in the regional detention centre inside and outside dealing with the fence have not been corrected.

More importantly, I am advised that the staffing problem at the regional detention centre has deteriorated even from the time of the escape back to June 5. I am advised that there has been an attempt on the part of the government or on the part of the people in charge of the centre to hire additional guards. I am informed that some three or four people have been hired, but none has shown up. I am informed also that some of the guards have quit. It is my information that one of the guards has quit, four are presently in the process of giving their resignations and a number of the other guards are in the process of looking for other jobs.

The problem there is that the guards who are left are having to work additional time overtime and what is happening is that many are booking off sick. The problem appears to be that instead of having the 10 or 12 complement of men per shift we have situations where on June 30 apparently there were only seven guards on duty. I am advised that in relation to the night shift sometimes the number of people on duty is even lower than this.

I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of my colleagues, because sometimes if there are only seven guards on duty for something like 125 or 140 inmates, both in the maximum and the minimum security, that type of situation is what encourages escapes in the first place. I bring it to the attention of the House in order that this matter might be looked into so that we might discuss it. This matter has been under review apparently by the ministry for some two years and the problem still exists.

I point out that at the time of the escape one of the guards was seriously injured and could have been killed. It was only an act of God that the gun misfired. I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, so that this matter may be looked into. I bring this to the attention of the House so that we can get some answers from the ministers. I bring this to the attention of all my colleagues here so that we can get some action now so that the people in the Ottawa-Carleton area can be satisfied that adequate measures are being taken at the regional detention centre and so that what happened on June 5 will not be repeated.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is of urgent public importance and I bring it to the attention of the House accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: Each of the other parties may have five minutes to explain why they do or do not consider this a matter of urgent public importance. The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, a matter or urgent public importance must have, by my sense of it at least, a fairly universal application. It must apply to more than one area. I think this probably does apply to more than one area. While the specific example used by the member for Ottawa East is the matter of the Ottawa-Carleton detention centre, we have no direct knowledge that the conditions that exist there do not exist in other detention centres.

I think there is a genuine concern among the public at this point about the escapes that have taken place from that detention centre and from other detention centres, not only in the Province of Ontario but across the country. I think the concern ranges all the way from a sense of uneasiness to outright fear in some particular communities and to anger in others. I think the concern reflects the frustration of citizens about the adequacy of the procedures used within detention centres to ensure that persons who are duly sentenced for crimes are kept within the confines of the institution to which they have been sentenced and that there is a sufficient amount of care taken to ensure that they are not able to leave at will.

I think the minister has to be very wary that he doesn’t somehow or other feel that his institutions are immune to the problems of other jurisdictions. While the minister may feel -- and may feel quite rightly -- that his institutions are no different and may be better than institutions in other jurisdictions, I think the public’s sense of concern at this point is worthy of some discussion in this Legislature. I think it is worthy of a discussion by the minister to explain what the procedures are going to be to meet the conditions at Ottawa-Carleton and, not only that, but to say what he intends to do to try to ensure that proper steps are being taken to ensure that not only what happened there, but what might well happen in other institutions, cannot occur.

I do think, therefore, that the matter before us is a matter of urgent public importance. I think it has general application. There is no doubt that the public is concerned. If members of the public were to be asked on the street or in their homes or in their places of business or work whether they felt that the measures brought out by the recent comments of the member for Ottawa East are of importance to them, I think they would say yes.

Mr. P. Taylor: They are quite important.

Mr. Deans: I think that’s the test. I don’t think any member of the Legislature could deny that the public certainly is vitally concerned --

Mr. P. Taylor: They are nervous.

Mr. Deans: -- about the escapes, about the reasons for the escapes and about the adequacy or otherwise of the precautions that are taken to ensure that further escapes cannot take place.

I urge you, sir, to rule that this is a matter of urgent public importance and that adequate time be allowed for a suitable debate to find solutions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister.

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member for Ottawa East is expressing his concern at the institution there and the concern of the people in Ottawa. I would share his concern if the information he was given was, in fact, true.

Mr. Roy: Well, I have verified it.

Hon. Mr. Potter: But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Ottawa East perhaps should get himself a new stooge. I think perhaps he is misled with some of the information which has been handed to him.

There is no question there was an outbreak of several prisoners in Ottawa several weeks ago. At that time, I explained to the House some of the reasons why the escape was possible, the main point being it was a mistake in judgement. If the guard hadn’t unlocked the door when he shouldn’t have, it wouldn’t have happened.

At the same time we pointed out that we did have an inquiry into the facility. There were some changes that we recognized had to be undertaken and they are being done as quickly as possible.

Mr. P. Taylor: Nothing has been done.

Hon. Mr. Potter: We also demonstrated that there was a shortage of staff. Since that time, 16 additional complement have been added to the institution and we are trying to hire these people as quickly as possible. As a matter of fact, one started work this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member isn’t doing it intentionally but, as I say, he is being misled. He said to this House that on June 30 there was a staff of seven people and one receptionist in charge of the jail.

Mr. Speaker, on June 30, there was a superintendent, a deputy superintendent, two assistant superintendents, a temporary absence co-ordinator, a storeman, four office staff --

Mr. Roy: Were they there all day?

Hon. Mr. Potter: -- four summer staff, an office manager, 10 correctional officers, class 1 and 2, and two correctional officers class 4. That’s one hell of a lot more than seven.

Mr. P. Taylor: What about after 5 o’clock?

Mr. Roy: How long were they there?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure we have all kinds of people here who consider themselves authorities on correctional institutions, just as they consider themselves authorities on health, environment or what may be.

Mr. Henderson: And elections.

Hon. Mr. Potter: They must appreciate that at night, when all the prisoners are locked in their cells, we have a much smaller staff. The staff is usually eight. There is no need for more than that in these types of institutions.

Mr. Singer: That’s closer to seven than the other estimate.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Recently, in the last six months, I have been touring the province. I have been in every institution with the exception of five in this area. Yesterday, I wasn’t in the House because I was in Sarnia, Windsor and Chatham. It’s odd that we sit here this morning and listen to the comments of the two members who have spoken about the concern being expressed about people escaping from jail. It’s true; but yesterday when I met in Windsor with all of the judges, they commended this government for the correctional services that are provided.

Mr. Deans: That is not in dispute at the moment.

Mr. Ferrier: That is in western Ontario, not in the Ottawa area.

Hon. Mr. Potter: They said that on many occasions.

Mr. Henderson: Judge Clunis is part of the Liberal Party.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I find the same thing, Mr. Speaker, when I visit other parts of the province.

Mr. Singer: What was that again?

Mr. Henderson: I said Judge Clunis was part of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I’m not suggesting, for one minute --

Mr. Singer: Keep the member for Lambton in order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor for another 30 seconds.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I’m not suggesting for one minute that our programmes are perfect -- far from it -- but certainly we’re far ahead of most other jurisdictions. There is no question we have a shortage of staff in some areas but my concern is greater in the area of probation than it is in the institutions.

Mr. Singer: Probably the best in the world.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Several of our institutions could stand more staff. We’re doing the best we can to get them, and we will get them, but Mr. Speaker, I see no need to waste the time of this House by debating this any further.

Mr. Roy: Wasting the time of the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have to rule on two matters. First of all, whether the motion is in order; and of course due notice was given in writing to the Speaker according to our standing orders.

The next is a matter of whether or not it can be considered of urgent public importance. This is, as you can understand, very difficult. I think the member for Wentworth put it very well, that this particular incident applied to one particular area. The hon. minister has explained what happened at that time and possibly since. I can see where there could be concern that such matters have to be very tightly controlled and the concern could be, perhaps, beyond the borders of that particular area.

I am willing to be a little easy on this and put it to a vote of the House, as I must do anyway, because I must ask the question which I shall do in a moment, shall the debate proceed? I’ll be guided by your response.

I will now put the motion: Shall the debate proceed?

Those in favour of the debate proceeding will say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Mr. Singer: Your ruling is good but your hearing isn’t.

Mr. Speaker: No, I was prepared to rule either way, I assure you.

Do we wish the members called in?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East had proposed that the ordinary business of the House be set aside for the sake of an emergency debate.

The question that has to be decided at the present time is, shall the debate proceed?

The House divided on the motion that the ordinary business of the House be set aside for the sake of an emergency debate, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes	Nays
Bounsall Burr Campbell Deacon Deans Ferrier Foulds Gaunt Germa Good Haggerty MacDonald Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Riddell Roy Rushton Samis Singer Spence Taylor--20	Beckett Belanger Bernier Carruthers Downer Drea Eaton Evans Gilbertson Grossman Havrot Henderson Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Hodgson (York North) Kennedy Kerr Lane Leluk Maeck McKeough McNeil Meen Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Potter Rhodes Root Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Turner Villeneuve Wardle Wells White Winkler Wiseman Yaremko--38

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 20, the “nays” 38.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 13th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I have no opening remarks on these estimates, but we have prepared 2½ pages of notes as to what we think is appropriately dealt with in lay language under the various votes, which might be helpful.

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

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that in the absence of our critic today I actually am acting as the economic critic for our party.

I am very interested in going into this matter of the administration programme of this minister, the one who has been talking so much about government leadership and restraint in spending. I’ve heard a lot, as we all have about cutting back on expenditures. Although we thought his predecessor was the great spender, his increase in spending in 1973-1974 to 1974-1975 was a mere 24 per cent. This minister has achieved in his ministry administration, an increase in expenditure of 28 per cent. That surely is quite an addition to the inflationary pressures that he is making and is not showing much of the restraint in government spending he has talked so much about.

It’s certainly disappointing that the Treasurer isn’t giving some example to the rest of his colleagues. I’m sure we’ll hear the reasons for this, from the minister as we get into each part of the vote, but I think that’s a point. A 28 per cent increase in spending in his own ministry administration is something he certainly should give us some explanation about.

For some months, ever since that April budget came out, I’ve been looking into the whole question of the future credit of the province -- the Treasury side of this ministry -- and its ability to meet its obligations in the future.

When I started to look into the analysis of debt, I was astonished to see how the province has somehow presented the fact that its net debt is around $4.7 billion at the end of the coming year. When you analyse how they got that net debt the figure of $4.7 billion, Mr. Chairman, you realize they must be showing tremendous amounts on the asset side, realizable assets that would bring them down to a net debt position of that amount, because the gross debt of the province is considerably above that. In the year 1973-1974, it ended up at about $9.4 billion. With the deficits the province is now incurring under the leadership of this present Premier (Mr. Davis) and his colleague, the Treasurer, we’re going to have a tremendous increase in financial requirements and I think people are going to look at what that debt position is with some greater care.

If you start to look at how they bring the net debt down, Mr. Chairman, you realize that they list as assets major amounts that are advanced to corporations which the government his set up as an offset. I could understand it if these advances were to revenue-producing corporations standing on their own feet, such as Ontario Hydro, but it’s different when these advances are made up in large part as advances to such corporations as the University Capital Aid Corp., the Education Capital Aid Corp., the Ontario Housing Corp. and to many organizations, most of which actually are a drain on the province’s revenues. In fact there are substantial amounts each year set aside to cover deficits in the operating costs of these so-called assets.

Surely it’s misleading for the province to repost its debt position in the way it is doing so. I’m sure, as we come forward into a period when the province has to go to the market, there will be plenty of questions asked about these so-called assets. I would think that the government should be much more open in its analysis of its actual capital asset position and indicate that indeed most of these se-called assets are really something that should be written off as other government expenses are when it comes to public buildings. They should be written off and not shown as something which we can expect to realize in the future.

I can’t imagine the province seizing the assets of the University of Toronto, or the assets of the board of education in North York or others, if they do not meet obligations incurred here. These organizations are the children of the province; they’re dependent upon the province for their income. The taxpayers have to add substantially to the revenues of these corporations for them to meet the obligations to the public.

Therefore, I think it’s misleading to show, as the province now does, a net debt position which is really meaningless. It should be showing its debt as a gross debt position and certainly not showing anything as an asset that isn’t truly a self-supporting, revenue-producing asset, such as I concede that Hydro is. I can understand and agree with this policy with regard to the washing through of all the Hydro accounts.

Another point I want to bring up, Mr. Chairman, is the problem we are facing in the future in Treasury because of the decline in captive accounts. It’s not a bad trend in my mind. It’s actually a good thing that in the future we will have to go to market instead of having different pension funds that in effect the province can lean on. The province is depriving these groups of normal return on their funds because of the fact that their pension funds are a captive source of funds for the province.

A terrible conflict of interest has occurred in these funds -- the teachers’ superannuation fund, the Ontario municipal employees’ retirement fund, the Canada Pension funds. Certainly it has been the province’s right to have these moneys available, but we should not think that is going to carry on forever.

The Canada Pension fund, which I think provides 56 per cent of provincial borrowing needs and is larger in Ontario than in any other province as a source of funds, certainly is not going to last for much longer. In 1980 or so, there will be more money going out from the province than coming in from the Canada Pension Plan, and the fact is that that source of funds will dry up. It will be necessary for the province to go to the market for its borrowings. We will have to then pay whatever the market is demanding or requiring to be competitive with other demands for capital. I would think the minister should cut free of other funds -- as he is now doing with the Ontario municipal employees’ fund -- so they can make their own judgements. Those who expect to benefit from the funds have the right to run their own funds, to completely control them, instead of being dependent upon the province to manage the funds; especially when the province has been in such a conflict of interest position.

I also want to bring out the matter of the economy and the dispersion of opportunities in this province. This is very much a part of the Treasurer’s responsibility in the area of economics, knowing what can be done to disperse growth away from an area such as the “golden horseshoe.” Much has occurred in the past in this area and at a great cost. There are increasing costs and these are of increasing concern to people living in this area. The deprivation of opportunity has also been of much concern to areas away from the “golden horseshoe.”

I am interested to know what the ministry’s studies show as to what could be done to disperse opportunities. Why do we have to have all the government ministries located in high cost real estate around Toronto? Why isn’t there economy, as well as advantages in as far as being aware of what is going on in other parts of the province; first of all in dispersing government departments away from this “golden horseshoe” area itself? Why should the Ministry of Agriculture and Food be at Bay and Bloor? Why couldn’t the Ministry of the Environment be in Sudbury? Why couldn’t Natural Resources be in Timmins? Why couldn’t these ministries be run at a much lower cost for space in areas other than Toronto, and sub-lease those buildings to provide for job opportunities in areas away from Toronto? To do so would do much to do what this government has stated in the past it has wanted to do, and that is to disperse Opportunities to other parts of Ontario.

One of the things done by Mr. Frost, when he was Premier of this province -- which I felt was a fine project and proved to be of great benefit to this province -- was a major highway going from Windsor to Cornwall and on to Quebec. Highway 401 proved to be a tremendous boon to economic development all along its route. Has the minister -- have his advisers given him -- any ideas about what such a new project or highway transportation link could do to northern Ontario by making it the link between eastern and western Canada that it should be?

At the present time, some 75 per cent of all highway transportation between the east and the west goes through the United States, not because it is a shorter distance -- it is, in fact, several hundred miles longer -- but because our own routes are so inadequate. We have failed to make use of the terrain; we have not only deprived that part of Ontario of the economic benefit that would be provided by having transportation going through northern Ontario, we have also been prevented from opening up opportunities in that part of the province which might well be made available.

For example, tourism is a very brief activity in northern Ontario. It doesn’t go on for much of the year, and if, added to tourism, there was the movement of freight between east and west on a highway -- which is a very important medium for freight movement -- it would supplement the loss or replace a lot of the economic activity which took place when the railway shut down in such points as Nakina and other parts of northern Ontario. Along that northern route of the railways, over the top of Lake Nipigon, not only is the countryside of a very good type as far as construction ease is concerned, it also is an area where there is a tremendous need for economic opportunity. I would be interested to know if the ministry has done any studies on that type of major new thrust or programme which could do so much to provide opportunities to parts other than just this “golden horseshoe.”

It is interesting that this government has chosen at this particular time to challenge the federal government on the need for that second airport at Pickering. It is something, of course, we have agreed with and urged them to do for some time. The real reason I am sure, that this minister wanted that second airport or something to happen east of Toronto, back in 1972 when he contrived this scheme with the Minister of Transport, was to provide for an economic thrust east of Toronto.

What has the minister done to provide a much more important, valid and significant thrust for development in the eastern part of Ontario? I would be interested to hear what his advisers have in their minds as an alternative to such a thing as Pickering which was an artificial, unnecessary type of economic stimulant.

I am sure the people in the Whitby-Oshawa area, who felt that Pickering airport would be a great thing, would be much happier if a far more necessary and sensible type of stimulating economic activity was developed for that part of the Toronto-centred region. For example, even moving the Ministry of Health out there might be one thing that would do something. If you moved it well beyond the Bowmanville area into the Cobourg-Port Hope area, it would be something that would at least provide a new thrust or development in that area and a strong base or underpinning for economic activities.

Together with the Treasury and Economics aspects of this ministry, I’m very interested to know what this ministry is doing to try to untangle the increasing snarl taking place in regional offices of the government throughout the province. It is the ministry responsible for intergovernmental affairs; it’s the ministry responsible for dealing with the municipalities; but in doing so it has continued to increase its control -- central control -- right here in Toronto at Queen’s Park.

This ministry and other ministries have set up regional offices, few of which have similar locations, few of which keep in touch with each other and so all the communications still flow into Toronto and back out again. These regional offices are not doing the job they could do. Surely it is this ministry which should assume the responsibility for giving leadership to co-ordinate the provincial activities in these various regions of the province where regional offices have been set up. Give them budgets; give them authority and responsibility so that the tremendous volume of correspondence and activity which now has to flow back and forth between the regional offices and Toronto, Queen’s Park, is made unnecessary.

The stories we hear of confusion within the ministry itself, to say nothing of the other government ministries, are really terrible to hear. They’re wasteful and if this minister is really concerned about getting efficiency in government, I would hope he would give some leadership to organizing these regional offices so they really are provincial regional offices with authority and with the opportunities to provide much better service to the regions they are intended to serve.

With regard to this whole matter of municipal government we in this party still feel municipal affairs is one of the most important ministries we could have and therefore should be on its own. We feel this ministry should show a much faster move toward unconditional grants than it has. We notice that in this year’s budget it’s up to 13 per cent of grants from the provincial government to the municipalities and school boards -- unconditional grants up from 10 per cent to 13 per cent but it is still a pittance compared to what it should be.

The idea that the only way to control local government is to make grants conditional is a pretty antiquated approach to getting responsible spending in government. Certainly it is local people who should and could be much more responsible and provide much greater value for the tax dollar than any carefully controlled provincial government programmes directed from Queen’s Park. A percentage type of grant is an incentive to a municipality to spend more money whereas unconditional grants, combined with a system of comparative evaluation as to how other municipalities are spending the moneys provided them, would give them an incentive to weigh carefully every expenditure because there would be no one else picking up the cost.

For example, instead of making bridge grants of 15 per cent for the construction of bridges on highways, if, in the case of a bridge estimated to cost $1 million the province said, “There is your cheque for $750,000 and it’s up to you to build that bridge up to the specifications but as economically as you can,” the region or the local municipality would make every effort to get the really best value because every dollar they saved would be a dollar saved from the local taxpayer’s tax bill. That’s where the real pressure should come, from the local people. By the system of comparative evaluation and making those evaluations public, it would be possible for municipal voters, councillors and administrators to see what others are doing, compare openly what results are obtained for the tax dollars and provide almost a competitive system of government.

I think it’s the only possible way we are going to get government expenditures of a responsible and efficient manner instead of the system in the past where there has been competition on the part of municipalities to get more grants out of Queen’s Park on a percentage basis where in effect only a fraction of a dollar gets a dollar’s worth of benefit for the municipality.

It seems to me that it’s much more important for us to get our grants out from the province on a per capita basis based on the assessment per capita, which would be some reflection of the ability of the area to raise funds on its own. There is some recognition by such a method of differing availability of funding in different parts of the province. This would be an unconditional grant system of per capita grants, using the assessment per capita formula -- and maybe some other adjustments will be necessary.

In a system where the total funds go in unconditionally, it would make a tremendous difference to giving our local governments real authority and real responsibility. By a system of evaluation operated here at Queen’s Park, instead of direction operated from Queen’s Park, we would do a great deal to restore again the autonomy that is so important to good government in this province.

Those are the main points I wanted to bring to the attention of this House with regard to the minister’s estimates. We’ll look forward to getting into these matters in greater detail further on in the estimates.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We don’t have a quorum.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Clerk to check the number of members.

Mr. Deans: It’s bad enough having to sit here without having to sit alone.

The Chairman ordered the bells to be rung for four minutes.

Clerk of the House: There is a quorum present, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I don’t really care too much whether anyone listens, as long as they stay; it doesn’t worry me.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): You don’t like an empty House.

Mr. Deans: You are right. I don’t really like to hear my voice echoing around the empty chamber.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): How about when somebody else is speaking?

Mr. Deans: I don’t like to hear anyone else’s voice echoing around an empty chamber either.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Can I go to lunch now, please?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Wentworth has the floor.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): May I?

Mr. Deans: Since the minister said “please,” he can go for lunch.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thanks very much.

Mr. Deans: He might as well go.

Mr. Chairman: Will the member for Wentworth come back to business?

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak for two or three minutes, I suppose, about regional government as the sort of main thrust of what we want to say about the estimates. Before starting, though, I do want to make some passing reference to three other matters.

The member for York Centre raised the matter of economic disparity. He didn’t go into very much detail, but he did indicate his concern with regard to it. I think the concern that he feels is a concern probably expressed by a great many people in the Legislature. In fact, I think it is probably a concern that’s felt by a great many people not in the Legislature.

While we here talk from time to time about economic disparity in the Province of Ontario, the lack of economic opportunity and the inability of certain sectors of the province to be self-sustaining economically and to provide jobs and opportunities for the advancement for the people who reside there, for some reason or other nothing ever happens. We talk about it here every year -- sometimes more than once.

Many of us speak about it as we go about the province. We generally find that these matters are raised in eastern Ontario and northern Ontario as opposed to Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Deacon: More of the same.

Mr. Deans: When I travel in the eastern and northern parts of the province it is not uncommon to have the citizens of those areas come to me and complain, not so much about what is happening to them at that precise moment but about the neglect of the government over the years in terms of trying to bring about some kind of economic stimulus to the areas where they live, where they were brought up and where they hope to raise their children.

I can recall having a discussion in this House with the previous minister, now the Minister without Portfolio from London South (Mr. White), with regard to some of the things that could have been done. One thing in particular could have been done by the province to stimulate one of the two areas that need it the most. I remember two or perhaps three years ago -- my colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) says it was three years ago -- discussing in this House the whole Nanticoke development as it pertains to the Steel Co. of Canada, Texaco and Ontario Hydro. I remember pointing out my concern about developing that area further, rather than exercising what I consider to be government prerogatives and meeting with the companies involved and discussing at length the government’s attitude toward the needs for development in other parts of the province.

What I thought would have made sense would have been for the government to have had discussions with those companies, which are without question economic stimulators; they provide great numbers of jobs, bring about untold secondary development and under normal circumstances provide stability for the areas in which they locate. I can remember suggesting that the government ought to sit down with them before their plans go any further, and that the government ought to say to them: “There are two areas in the province where it would be of much more value to the province as a whole for you to locate.” And if they are good corporate citizens, concerned as much about the growth of the Province of Ontario as they are about their own growth, if they feel a sense of commitment to the overall economic future of the Province of Ontario, they should have been prepared to listen.

I suggested that these two areas -- one would be located somewhere between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury and the other would have been down on the St. Lawrence toward the Cornwall area -- were the two areas of the province where there was a sufficient evidence of economic stagnation at that time, a sufficient evidence of an inability of the areas to grow economically and provide for the people of the Province of Ontario, and that kind of tough discussion between this province and those major corporations would have made abundant good sense. Well, I can remember the arguments --

Mr. Deacon: The member should have organized the plans for them.

Mr. Deans: I can remember the arguments; how the government of Ontario doesn’t enter into any attempt to influence big business in its decisions, and, after all, the corporate boardroom has much more knowledge of the economics of the company, and therefore they shouldn’t be expected to sacrifice in order to ensure that the Province of Ontario has a better and more equally distributed future.

I can remember one argument about their not being able to locate either in the north shore area or down in the eastern part of the province because they had to bring their coal in by boat, and if they went to the eastern part of the province, the coal from the US would have to go through the Welland Canal. I pointed out that right now the coal going to the Steel Co. of Canada and to Dofasco had to go through the Welland Canal, if in fact it was the case that the coal comes from other than the Lake Ontario area. I then went on to point out that if it was the reverse, if the coal had to be taken from an area east of the Welland Canal, then of course it would have to go through the Welland Canal to get up to the Sault Ste. Marie area, and so therefore that argument didn’t hold any water.

Let me tell you something funny that occurred. After three years of discussion about that particular project, after numerous talks across the floor of the House and speeches outside of the House, I went to Peterborough one day. I notice the head of Liberal research isn’t here at the moment, Mrs. Rowlands, but she was there. In fact, others were there too. I was sitting on a panel with the Hon. John White and we got talking about economic disparity and the lack of economic opportunity, and I raised this with him on the panel. I said to him: “Don’t you think, John, sir, that maybe it would have made good sense to have put a little pressure on those companies; that maybe you made a mistake when you just acquiesced to the decisions of the boardroom, when you failed to exercise your responsibilities to the people of the Province of Ontario.” I may not have put it exactly that way, but that was the intent.

Do you know he said that if they had to do it again they wouldn’t do it? He said to me that if that kind of project was put forward again for that location, given everything they now know, they would have tried to put it elsewhere -- that it isn’t the best location in terms of the economy of the Province of Ontario.

That’s exactly what we tried to tell you all the way through the debate about the location. Not only are you depriving other parts of the province of the opportunities for economic development by not taking initiatives with regard to the locations of major industry, but you’re doing another thing -- you’re overburdening the already densely populated, highly developed areas. The area from Oshawa to St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, Welland -- whatever you want to call it -- is already very highly developed. It is already very densely populated.

The costs of providing services to those areas are becoming extremely high. If we continue to encourage major economic expansion in those areas then, of course, we are faced with the very things that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) is constantly complaining about -- high land costs, high servicing costs, high transportation costs. Those are the problems.

So, if you’re going to remould the Province of Ontario with any kind of economic development in mind, then you’re going to have to take hold of it where it really begins. I suggest to you that people move toward industry -- particularly primary industry -- people move toward primary industry as much as primary industry moves toward people. In the case of secondary industry, of course, it’s a little different. For instance, in the case of retailing and wholesaling it may be much more economical to locate in the more densely populated market areas; in fact, economical to the point of being uneconomical to do otherwise.

But in the case of primary industry, people will move to those locations where industry is located, provided they’re reasonable. Nobody can tell me that the areas we were suggesting were unreasonable. Therefore, if the government had taken the kind of initiative back in 1969 and 1970 and 1971, they would have served the public. If they had only been tough. If they had had some plan of attack.

They could have sat Stelco and Dofasco and Texaco and Ontario Hydro down and said: “Look, you can do great things for the Province of Ontario. You have an opportunity to play a major role in new development in this province. You can help us rewrite the economic growth patterns. And we’re asking you, we’re even telling you, that these are the places we want you to be. Now, sit down with us and let’s work out the details of how it can be done.”

But it’s too damn late for the former Treasurer, the member for London South, to then sit on a panel some years later and say publicly, as he did in Peterborough, that maybe they made a mistake.

I suggest to you that if you’re going to have any impact of any kind in this province, if you believe the government is to play a definite role, if you think government is more than just a caretaker and a handler of money -- where they take it in at one end and they dish it out at the other to try to create some kind of equality -- if you think the government can be a planning agency, if you think the government has a responsibility to act as does a board of directors in corporate terms to ensure what is in the best interests of the entire province, then you’ve got to be tough about the way you approach these kinds of things.

There are periods in the history of companies, when they take those kinds of major expansion plans and put them into action. In the case of the companies that I was speaking about I suggest he may have missed the boat. It may well be that by not acting when he should it will be some considerable period of time before the opportunity again arises.

I want to tell him, contrary to what my colleagues in Saskatchewan thought 30 years ago, a shoe factory isn’t going to work. That is not going to create the kind of economic stimulation and job opportunity and stability that is necessary. It has to be something fundamental; it has to be something basic; it has to be something from which flow secondary and tertiary development and secondary and tertiary industry. That’s why it is entirely possible that for one generation of young people the inability of this government to grasp the significance of what was happening and to act on it may well have cost them the opportunity to have a reasonable lifestyle in a location in the province other than the densely populated parts here in the “golden horseshoe.”

For heaven’s sake, pay attention to what these major corporate bodies are now doing. Sit down with them, make the conditions tough enough, encourage them all you will, but make it clear that the interest of the Province of Ontario, followed by the interest of the country as a whole, is the primary concern of this government, and that if it costs a small percentage point on the profit margin to be located in a spot other than what they might consider to be optimum for rate of return purposes, then so be it. Surely it is better to do those things and make those kinds of decisions now than at some other point to have to take the income from them and from all of the other people in the Province of Ontario and try to find a way to distribute it.

I suggest to the minister that that is something that we, if we were the government, would have moved to do and which we will move to do, if we are given the opportunity. It is difficult and it brings a lot of headaches, but it is worthwhile and it is the only way to act.

I want also to make comment about something that struck me the other day. I was in the United States two weekends ago at a wedding in the area of Newark, New Jersey. It is not the most pleasant place in the world frankly, but I had to be there because that is where the wedding was. As I drove down and back from the US it hit me very hard when I suddenly realized the impact of the gasoline prices in the Province of Ontario on tourism. I made the calculation as I drove back. On the way down, I didn’t notice because I had already filled my gas tank. Then I crossed the border and I realized the saving that was afforded to me. Even though the gallon was smaller, I realized the saving that I had from driving in the US at 55 mph with cheaper gasoline. On the way back, let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, I filled my gas tank in Buffalo.

I thought to myself as I sat at the border of all of the American citizens who come here for vacations. I wondered just how many of them will be psychologically affected in terms of whether they will come or not. It is not the dramatic numbers of dollars; it is the psychological effect. How many of them, knowing the high cost of gasoline in the Province of Ontario, will decide to stay in Maine or in New York state or in Ohio or in Pennsylvania? I think a significant number will. I think they will decide to see their own country instead of coming here. They would like to come, but the psychology of the whole thing tells me that when they think of those extra dollars on the overall trip, they don’t add it up and decide whether it is significant or otherwise, they just say it costs too much and they don’t come.

I think the federal government made a terrible mistake. I think the provincial government began to play a hand in it some two years ago when it first went to the negotiating table. While I’m prepared to concede that the effects of these increases are much more dramatic on the residents of the province, both in terms of heating and in terms of transportation -- we should address ourselves first to that -- and we should assure our own citizens of the cheapest possible gasoline and heating prices -- I want to tell you the impact of what happened in Ottawa will be felt by many sectors of the economy. I suspect they’ll be felt fairly dramatically by the tourism sector of this economy in the Province of Ontario.

I want to tell you that I think -- and you may argue with me -- we did have the power to set the retail gas price in the province. I understand the federal government has the authority and power to impose an excise tax. I understand when they did it there was nothing the Province of Ontario could do to stop the excise tax being imposed but the Province of Ontario has the jurisdiction, the full jurisdiction, to determine the retail price at which that product would be sold.

I think you took the easy way by dealing with the later increase and by establishing the prices the way you did. I think you should have made the confrontation then. You should have said the retail price will not rise beyond the price in effect on the day of the budget; that the excise tax has to be absorbed by the corporations. Then, the corporations not only would have been hanging on your door, they would have been in Ottawa banging on their door, too. They would have been in Ottawa screaming at them, “If you take that tax from us, we have to absorb it in the retail price of the gasoline in the Province of Ontario. For heaven’s sake, think it through again.”

I think, psychologically and from the strategic point of view, that would have made a great deal more sense than what you did. The confrontation now is between the government of Ontario and the federal government, certainly. It is also between the major oil companies and the government of Ontario when it could have been between the major oil companies and the government of Canada, where it rightfully belongs. I think, from the point of view of strategy alone, the decision you arrived at was the wrong decision.

I would suggest to you it may not, even yet, be too late to change it. I think we have an obligation in the Province of Ontario to protect the consumer. Since the Ministry of Treasury and Economics plays the largest part in consumer protection -- notwithstanding the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman ) -- since the decisions on taxing policy and the decisions on budgetary policy rest with the Minister of Treasury and Economics, obviously, it’s in this ministry that those kinds of decisions had to be made.

Consumer protection goes far beyond simply saying that the product advertised will live up to the standards which have been established. Consumer protection stretches all the way to ensuring that no one will gouge the public in this province. For years we’ve been asking, every single day of the week for weeks on end; less than a year ago we asked in a series of questions, on a variety of topics, who protects the consumer in the Province of Ontario? All the way from rental costs through to the price of meat on to taxation policies, who protects the consumer?

I want to tell you that the mini-budget, welcome though it was by many people, was not really adequate protection for the consuming public in the Province of Ontario. I want to suggest to you that what you did was only a tiny step and my worry about it is that every single measure which has been brought in by this government in 1975 is destined to end at the end of the year or before.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): It will be a tough year next year.

Mr. Deans: The retail sales tax decrease ends at the end of 1975.

Mr. Gaunt: And the home buyer grant.

Mr. Deans: The home buyer grant ends at the end of 1975.

Mr. Deacon: It will all be over in 1975.

Mr. Deans: The recent elimination of sales tax on new automobiles ends at the end of 1975. You are going to have to show me somewhere, somehow, in the projections of your ministry, where you expect those additional dollars to come from, given the increase in the consumer price index announced yesterday. You are going to have to show it to me.

I read with interest your prepared statement on the consumer price index. The question I asked today related to a part of the statement -- and I appreciated receiving it -- with regard to the 10-cent excise tax. I noticed that will mean an increase of one-half of one per cent in the consumer price index this month when it is finally prepared.

When you take that and add to it what without question will be an increase in the cost of oil and petroleum products; what in most municipalities have been substantial increases in taxation; the reimposition of the sales tax in the Province of Ontario on purchases of normal commodities; the elimination of the $1,500 home buyer grant; and the reimposition of the sales tax on new cars in the Province of Ontario -- I have to ask, where do the dollars come from that are going to pay for all of this?

Who in the province is going to be able to afford it on Jan. 1, 1976?

Are you simply delaying the inevitable? Are you being honest with the public of the province? Are you prepared to tell them what it is going to mean in dollars when these taxes are reintroduced or reimposed and when the benefits and grants that have been bestowed temporarily are finally removed? I think that is really where it is at this point. It’s a little bit like the five-year diminishing grant that is available to regional municipalities, it’s all good and well to say we are going to absorb a lot, of the costs with this grant, but who tells the consuming public who pay the taxes what it costs them when the grant no longer is available?

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if this would be a suitable time for me to conclude these introductory remarks and I could proceed further at another time.

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply reports progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I call the business for Monday and before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to table the answers to questions 28 and 29 on the order paper.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): What about my question?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Maybe it is there; I don’t know. What is the number. No. 11? Okay, I’ll get it for the member.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday I am informed that Bills 14, 15 and 16 will be printed on the order paper and we will call them as the first order of business on Monday.

Mr. T. Deans (Wentworth): Just out of curiosity, if I may ask a question before the adjournment motion, will we return to these estimates? Can we be reasonably sure of sufficient time to conclude at least the opening comments?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: On Monday?

Mr. Deans: At some point.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would think that if necessity warranted, yes, we would. However, I would remind the hon. member that there are two other and very minor bills to be dealt with that have now been introduced and that I would hope to call too. Unless the standing committee that is currently sitting or the other one that will sit on Monday do not report, then we might well return to these. As a matter of fact, if that were to occur on Monday I would call these estimates at the conclusion of that business on Monday.

Mr. Deans: Thank you very much.

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

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.