The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House today to acknowledge and welcome to the Legislature, students from Woodbine Junior High School in the fair riding of Oriole, along with their teacher, Mr. Halket.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming a group of 40 students from Glenforest Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. McDevitt, in the west gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Mr. Martel: What happened to the cabinet this morning? Did they sleep in?

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

FOOD PRICE INCREASES

Mr. Lewis: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister prepared to have the Ontario Food Council conduct an investigation into the clear evidence of price increases, not to say price gouging, now documented at the Loblaws store, once called Pickering Farms and now called Ziggys, on Yonge St. in downtown Toronto?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t see the article in the paper; I haven’t had a chance. I was out at the Food Terminal this morning, talking to all the producers out there. I’ll take that question as notice and I’ll get an answer for the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is the minister willing or ready as a matter of course, where evidence of price increases that seem undue are brought to his attention to launch an investigation through the Ontario Food Council and either exercise an initiative on the part of this government or, alternatively, take the material he finds to the Anti-Inflation Board?

Hon. W. Newman: If there is any case of price gouging, I would certainly like to look into it very carefully. The member is documenting a case this morning which I haven’t had a chance to look into, but I will.

Mr. Lewis: The minister will look into it and will report?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, I certainly will.

Mr. MacDonald: In the whole operation of the Food Council with reference to the food basket, does the minister mean to say they have never come across increases which they deem to be worthy of further investigation, instead of retaining them as a secret so that nobody knows anything about it?

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t think it is a secret. It’s not a secret what the food basket costs. They do it on a regular basis and the actual --

Mr. MacDonald: There is nothing on the components; where do they get the information?

Hon. W. Newman: The general cost of the basket for a week is released as public information.

Mr. MacDonald: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, was: Has the Food Council never come across excessive price increases in the components, which are retained secret both as to the nature of the component and the store where they get the information? Have they never come across any information that they deem to be worthy of investigation for gauging?

Hon. W. Newman: Not since I have been in the ministry has it been brought to my attention in any specific case. If the member has any specific cases, I would be glad to look into them.

Mr. MacDonald: They want us to do their lob.

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: When there is a clear case of large price increases -- in this instance, having looked at it mathematically, 30 per cent to 90 per cent on a number of items in a matter of one month to six weeks -- is he ready within his ministry to intervene, to demand an explanation from Loblaws, to join with the Ontario Food Council, to do something about the price increases so that the guidelines which he supports are not entirely destroyed for wage earners whose incomes are being controlled?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all I have something in common with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, in that I have not had a chance to read the article on which the question is based.

Mr. Lewis: There was a time when the minister read the Globe and Mail each morning. It caused him such trauma in the last election.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: These days, I am sometimes busy. I don’t know whether the hon. Leader of the Opposition was in the House last night; we were asked by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) to guarantee the accuracy of press reports which sometimes is a little bit difficult.

I certainly will look at it. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, there is a cabinet committee to deal with the anti-inflation programme, chaired by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), and any evidence of that kind certainly, I think, should be referred to that committee. There is a coordinator whose position has been announced and I think that is where these things should be dealt with. If that comes to my ministry, that’s the route I would go.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Chairman of Management Board as a member, I think, of that cabinet committee dealing with inflation, will he bring the instance set out in the press this morning, of an apparent illegitimate increase in prices at one of the major Loblaws stores downtown, to the attention of the anti-inflation group in cabinet, and have it investigated and report back to the House?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to. I haven’t read it myself either.

Mr. Lewis: I am sure he hasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I was reading the Sun.

Mr. MacDonald: Have you all cancelled your subscriptions to the Globe?

Mr. Lewis: You all read Clare Hoy. You should try the Globe occasionally as an antidote.

MONEY FOR MENTAL RETARDATION BRANCH

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Community and Social Services a question? He will recall, I presume, that in the middle of 1974 when the mental retardation branch was transferred from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services, there was the promise of an additional large amount of money -- in the millions -- which would come through the Canada Assistance Plan and which the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle) then said would go in total to mental retardation? What has happened to that very large additional sum of money and why is it not reflected in additional mental retardation programmes?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: First of all, I would like to determine what additional large sum of money is involved because I am personally not aware of the amount of funding the member speaks of. Secondly, until I know what moneys are involved, I can’t say whether those moneys have been received or where they have gone. However, I would be happy to check into that.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, I would be pleased to hear. The minister may recall that at the time the amount speculated about was $25 million to $35 million in additional money. I’m given to understand that the ministry has received $41.8 million in additional money. Could the minister give us the amount and could he say what that additional money will be used for in the service of mental retardation, since the associations in Ontario have felt only a negligible increase, despite the clear and explicit undertakings made at the time? Could he find that out for us?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: As I have mentioned, I will be happy to look into that and get back to the Leader of the Opposition.

MINISTER’S VIEW OF PC PARTY

Mr. Lewis: I wanted to ask the Minister of Labour, if I could, has her faintly derogatory view of the Conservative Party in Ontario altered since she has run and become a cabinet minister?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, may I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he has misinterpreted my remarks, obviously. They have never even been faintly derogatory of the Progressive Conservative Party in this province.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member has urgent questions now?

Mr. Lewis: Perhaps the minister could put a different construction for me on her article in the Ontario Medical Review of September 1975 -- fairly recently -- in which she says to her medical colleagues: The Ontario Medical Association, like our provincial government, I have to tell you, does have a reputation across Canada for being pretty conservative, if not stuffy.”

The minister wouldn’t regard that as faintly derogatory? Perhaps charitable was what she really meant.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that that’s at all derogatory. I think perhaps it’s a plus characteristic in many circumstances.

Mr. Lewis: Now that stuffiness has been elevated to a principle, Mr. Speaker, I have no further questions.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Sanctimony always pays.

Mr. MacDonald: Macaulay said the same thing 12 years ago.

HIGHWAY SPEED LIMITS FOR GOVERNMENT VEHICLES

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps some of the stuffiness has been knocked out -- or the stuffing anyway.

I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board, in the absence of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). Can the minister advise me if there are any plans now to have provincial government vehicles follow a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit, as has been announced by various federal authorities, including the Ministry of National Defence?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be no, because I’m not aware of any plans at the moment, although I believe there have been some discussions.

Mr. Breithaupt: On the presumption that there would be some value in fuel saving and also increased safety, would the minister at least discuss this matter with his colleague to see if there is the possibility of considering such a programme?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would be delighted to pass the question along to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

SPACE FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICES

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Government Services: With respect to advertising for leasing by tender of some 17,000 to 18,000 sq. ft. of office space in the Metropolitan Toronto area, apparently for the sales tax department of the Ministry of Revenue, have there been any discussions with Ontario Hydro with respect to the possibility of using or considering space in the buildings occupied formerly by Ontario Hydro or in the New Ontario Hydro headquarters that might accommodate this requirement in order that we are not tendering for certain space, when there may be suitable space for which we directly or indirectly as taxpayers are already covering ourselves?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I would inform the member that we have actually very little space available at the present time. I’m not aware of the discussions that he’s inquiring about, but I will make further inquiries and report to him.

Mr. Sargent: Get a microphone.

Mr. Deans: On a point of privilege, if I may, the member for Grey-Bruce makes a good point. I wonder if the gentleman operating the sound system, the console at the corner --

Mr. Sargent: We can’t hear the minister.

Mr. Deans: -- could perhaps experiment a little more with it and raise the volume in order that we might hoar. It’s becoming a bit difficult.

Mr. Speaker: I think it was pointed out earlier before the session started that we were going to have some difficulties for a while with the sound system.

Mr. Deans: We understand.

Mr. Speaker: If all those who are rising to address the assembly would make a special effort to speak toward the mike I think it would be helpful for one thing and we will get the volume as loud as we can.

[10:15]

MINISTER’S DUTIES

Mr. Breithaupt: I have one brief question of the Minister without Portfolio, the mem her for Lambton (Mr. Henderson). In order that the House might have the benefit, perhaps the member might advise us just what duties he now has as he shares the burdens of government with his colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Take it as notice.

Mr. Bullbrook: Tell us that that is confidential information.

Mr. Lewis: Just tell him you cannot violate cabinet secrecy.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I would like to thank the House leader of the third party for this question.

Mr. Bullbrook: There’s a new twist, the third party.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It does give me an opportunity to respond. I know the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) suggested a couple of days ago he had a question for me. Over the past few days I have been meeting with delegations, groups of people from opposition members’ ridings.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There are 74 of them.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s a lot.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: These are people who are concerned that they are not going to have representation in the House. Just to confirm it, I haven’t met with any this morning, but yesterday I met with a delegation from the Sarnia riding, a delegation from North Bay and a delegation from London North.

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister agree to meet people from my riding as well?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am sorry, to the hon. member for Hamilton West, I met with his group last week.

Mr. Singer: As a result of all those meetings, you are wasting away. Anybody can see that.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I will be up in Bruce area next Saturday.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In addition to this, the Premier (Mr. Davis) has special responsibilities but I will leave it in his hands as to when he wishes to announce them. I say thank you to the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure about the urgent public importance of this particular discussion.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is important to all the people of Lambton county.

Mr. Speaker: That is a big share of the public.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary, does not the minister consider that that example of forthrightness and directness is not in keeping with the normal attitudes of the Conservative government of this province?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that that is the attitude taken by the member for Sarnia. I am cowed at that attitude.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Peterson: No, it is a new question.

Mr. Speaker: It is not the hon. member’s turn yet. The member for Kitchener?

Mr. Breithaupt: No, that’s all.

Mr. Speaker: All right, the member for Renfrew South?

EGANVILLE CREAMERY

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Would the minister employ the resources of his ministry to ensure that the cream producers of Renfrew county and the periphery are ensured of a market for their products after Nov. 30, when the new owners of the Eganville creamery plan on closing down that butter-making operation?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, one company, Ault, I believe it is, will be taking it until the end of November. As a matter of fact, we are negotiating this morning with another company to make sure that the producers are taken care of. I can assure the member as of now that the producers in his area will be taken care of.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: With respect to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, seeing that the purchaser of the Eganville creamery, Ault, I believe, received substantial assistance over the past year from the Eastern Ontario Development Corp., will the minister see to it that that particular beneficiary of the Ontario government’s assistance will do its best to ensure the economic viability of that creamery in the Eganville area?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t say the creamery itself would be kept open as a creamery at Eganville, but the producers will be protected to make sure that they have a market for their cream.

Mr. Conway: But surely, considering the --

Mr. Speaker: Question? This is not a debating period.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: In looking after the producer, if they are now going to have to ship their milk elsewhere will Ault have to pick up any increased transportation charges or is the producer going to have that as a further deduction from his gross income?

Hon. W. Newman: At this point in time the Ontario Milk Marketing Board has set a distance limitation on the transportation costs. I assume that Ault will have to pick up the cost of any additional transportation --

Mr. Deans: You assume or you know?

Hon. W. Newman: -- keeping in mind that the cream from the Eganville plant will probably be going to the Pembroke creamery.

EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Martel: A question of the minister of Wintario. At a Tory clambake held in Kirkland Lake in November, 1974, the cabinet promised $9.5 million in capital for transmitters and equipment to bring educational television to northern Ontario and to parts of eastern Ontario. Why has the government now seen fit to cut back the approximately $1.2 million needed for the next five years to provide ETV for northern Ontario and parts of eastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The explanation is a very straightforward one. The government, in reviewing its spending programme, had indicated to the Ontario Educational Communications Authority that funds would not be available for the present to underwrite that particular expansion. OECA then appeared before the CRTC last Tuesday to indicate the fact that this programme had been postponed, expressing the hope that the channels involved would be reserved for educational television some time in the future when we could afford it.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: Why then, in view of the fact that the government has cut back there, it is including $7,588,000 in the Ministry of Education estimates for films and so on for ETV when a good portion of this province is being denied that service, which it was promised long ago?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think this perhaps would have been an appropriate question at the time the Minister of Education’s estimates were before the House --

Mr. Martel: We didn’t know the cutback was coming.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- but, as the hon. member knows, the Ministry of Education is one of the customers of OECA, and of course there is a broadcasting obligation with respect to about 75 per cent of the population which is presently being served. Secondly, we are talking about an extension of services, but that doesn’t preclude the fact that there are other ways in order to accommodate the needs in the northwest through the availability of tapes which are sent and so on.

I would think that the hon. member would appreciate that I’ve used the word “postponed,” that we are in a period of capital constraint, and that we felt some obligation and some responsibility to indicate that at the time of the appearance before the CRTC, rather than waiting for the overall constraint package of the government to become known.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary.

Mr. Martel: Why did the government wait until Nov. 3 to advise the people responsible, who were to appear on Nov. 4, that it was cutting back the money?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Because Nov. 3 was when the cabinet took its decision.

SALES TAX REBATE ON AUTOMOBILES

Mr. Shore: I almost forgot my question, Mr. Speaker, but I think it’s coming back. Could I address my question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism; and if he isn’t the right minister, perhaps he would redirect it.

It is true, as I’ve heard, that the sales tax that has been taken off automobiles and is due to come back on Dec. 31, I’ve heard substantial complaints, including some from Sarnia and the Lambton area -- I appreciate the member for Lambton taking care of some of my constituents; I’ll take care of some of his -- that in the area of sales tax people have been going to car dealers since Oct. and trying to be assured that their cars will be delivered by Dec. 31, which is 10 weeks, and they’re finding from the car dealerships that there’s no --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the question has been asked.

Mr. Shore: Has it?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I think you’ve asked a question.

Mr. Shore: The question is, it appears that many people have no assurance that they’re going to get car deliveries --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not a question; the first part of it was a question. Is there an answer?

Mr. Sargent: It’s a damned good question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that question be directed to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) or the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough).

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa West.

Mr. Shore: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Minister of Industry and Tourism, if he couldn’t answer my question, if he would redirect it. Could I have that answer?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t see the Treasurer here.

Mr. MacDonald: The Minister of Revenue is there.

Mr. Shore: I think it is a rather important question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is an important question. The member for Revenue.

Mr. Singer: The member for Revenue -- that’s a good riding.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’ve been waiting for somebody to ask me a question since this House opened, and I get it in a backhanded fashion.

The programme is scheduled to terminate on Dec. 31, and this car rebate programme has been immensely successful. We have made it abundantly clear throughout the entire programme that it terminates on Dec. 31. It’s also very well known that --

Mr. Sargent: The used car dealers liked it too.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- delivery time for new cars is a period of roughly six weeks. This is par for the course. So, any time from now on I think a purchaser would have to be very careful to have assurance from the dealer that he was going to have delivery or at least registration available in his name by the end of December in order to be able to avail himself of the programme.

Interjections.

Mr. Shore: In view of the minister recognizing the difficulty in delivery, and in view of the fact that people don’t necessarily plan buying cars many months ahead -- I have heard this since October -- is there any chance of anyone who makes a guarantee or places an order before Dec. 31, or Nov. 1, being assured that they’ll be eligible? Some of these car dealers are at least being honest in saying that there’s no chance, but some of them are saying that there is going to be a chance -- and I don’t think it’s fair.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Shore: Would the minister answer that?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered it. They must assure themselves, or get a guarantee from the dealer, that delivery of the vehicle can be made by Dec. 31, or at least can be registered in the name of the purchaser by Dec. 31.

That may require some co-operation of an unusual nature from some of the car manufacturers in providing serial numbers to their dealers, so that registration by Dec. 31 can be accomplished. But that would fall within the four corners of the regulation as it presently stands. I do not contemplate any significant alterations of that programme, but if that were to be done, obviously it is a fiscal matter and a responsibility of the Treasury.

OVERCROWDING IN OTTAWA HOSPITALS

Mr. Morrow: I have a question for the Minister of Health. The minister will recall that during his recent visit to the city of Ottawa, he mentioned that he was going to get in touch with his counterpart, the Minister of Health in the Province of Quebec, to discuss the overcrowding of hospital facilities in Ottawa created by patients from that part of western Quebec adjacent to the city of Ottawa. Would he be in a position to inform the House if he has met with the Minister of Health in Quebec and, if so, what steps or measures his counterpart in Quebec is contemplating or taking to alleviate this situation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I haven’t met with the Minister of Health in Quebec yet; I will on Monday. The situation from our point of view is not one of dollars and cents, but of bed availability. I think we allow about 200 beds in the Ottawa area, on the average, for use for people from the other province because of their highly specialized services. And our guesstimate is that somewhere around 350 beds are in use at the present time.

With the bed situation in Ottawa being fairly aggravated, I feel it’s a responsibility of the Quebec government to make sure their own beds are available for their own people, in so far as possible. I have been a bit concerned because I have been told that up to 200 empty beds are sitting on the other side of the border.

Mr. Morrow: As I understand the minister, he is going to visit Ottawa for a couple of days next week and will be meeting with various hospital groups, as well as other health delivery groups in the city. Would the minister then undertake to bring back to the House a progress report as to what recommendation those groups are making to him to alleviate the chronic care hospital bed situation there that we all agree exists?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. I expect that when I visit Ottawa on Monday, that the Ottawa-Carleton Health Council will have some specific recommendations. When I was there in, I think it was September, I asked them to prepare some. It’s my understanding they’ll have some for me Monday. I don’t know what they are, but until I see them I can’t make any comment on them. I certainly will be able to tell the members whether I see them as acceptable or not.

[10:30]

COMMUNITY HOME PROCRAMME

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services respecting the fate of the community care proposals which, as the House may know, were designed to provide project funds for the care of paraplegics and other severely disabled people in group home settings. Since the care package proposals were approved by the advisory council to the social development minister, by the social development minister and by the previous Minister of Community and Social Services, would the minister advise the House why he found it necessary to snatch the proposal away from cabinet and subject it to further study? Would he advise this House whether he intends to recommend that excellent and urgently needed programme to cabinet for approval and, if so, when?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I suppose the member is talking about the care package? If so, the matter will be coming before the policy field within about a week’s time.

Mr. McClellan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It has already been through the mill in terms of the social development policy.

Mr. Speaker: Did the member have a supplementary question?

Mr. Deans: He’s asking it.

Mr. McClellan: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member doesn’t need to reply; we need a question.

Mr. McClellan: Is it not true that the care package proposal has already been through that route and approved? Why is the minister doing it again?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: There is no repetition; it has not been approved as far as I’m aware. I’ve discussed it at the staff level and there is a report going to the policy field for consideration and determination.

METRO CENTRE

Mr. Givens: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Would the minister tell me what ministerial initiatives he is using to revive or resurrect the developmental land-use aspects of the railway proposition around the Union Station which would enable us to construct 10,000 units of residential rental accommodation in that proposition which was then called the Metro Centre? What is he doing? Is he doing anything about that on the 170 acres of land or is he simply going to let the matter drift away to see whether somebody else is going to do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not been involved in that. I did have some involvement when the Metro Centre project was being considered. As the member well knows, the various levels of government, federal, provincial, metro, municipal -- anyone handy, I guess -- were invited to the meeting. At that time the programme appeared to be moving along but it ran into some very stiff opposition from the city of Toronto. Quite frankly, I have not been involved in any further discussions concerning it. I will be pleased to find out just where things stand and if there is some way we can get the whole project moving. Up to now I have not been involved.

Mr. Givens: A supplementary: Doesn’t the minister feel that it is important for him, having regard for the fact that if the project goes one way he can have 170 acres on which to build residential accommodation and if the project goes another way he won’t be able to build? Doesn’t he think it’s important for him to initiate that sort of initiative?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This seems to be a debating question but it should be for further information.

Mr. Givens: Answer it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t disagree with the hon. member at all but I think that the hon member well knows that until such time as we can get the co-operation and, more importantly, the agreement of the city of Toronto on what’s going to happen to that land it’s very difficult for any provincial agency simply to go in and impose its will or its desires. If we can reopen discussions that, hopefully, will be to that end certainly I’d be happy to try it.

Mrs. Campbell: Is it not a fact, that the government took the position that it would move ahead in that area to build a bridge; to enlarge the station to do all those things which would, if continued, completely erase the possibility of the use of the land for housing, or a substantial portion of it? Is that decision open to change?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the hon. member knows that this whole project involving the Metro Centre or that whole area around the Union Station has been kicked around since 1967.

Mrs. Campbell: It wasn’t kicked around in 1967.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The whole project has been in and out of committees; in and out of planning meetings; planning committees; planning boards. So many people have looked at it that it’s probably the most studied piece of property in Canada today. It’s correct that we attempted to go ahead, when I was with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, to improve the station facilities there. Our information was that they were not capable of handling the volumes that were expected to be coming into the station.

We wanted to be improving Union Station to handle the commuter traffic as well as the regular trains. We wanted to be able to make sure that that facility was there as a transportation centre. We had relative agreement on that between all levels of government and the railroads that were involved. However, the thing bogged down again.

The member is correct, there was a move being made to improve the transportation facilities there. As I responded to the hon. member for Armourdale, that has gone down the drain obviously, and if we can reopen discussions to go ahead and develop that for a better use -- and I would have to agree, housing is probably a better use -- then I’ll be happy to open up that discussion.

ETOBICOKE VALLEY LANDS

Mr. Philip: A question of the Minister of Housing please: Several days ago I sent to him, to the Premier and to five of his colleagues, a brief on behalf of the Thistletown regional residents association and 1,488 residents, The brief concerned the destruction of the valley lands in northern Ontario -- sorry, Etobicoke.

Interjection.

Mr. Philip: In my riding that’s northern Ontario.

Mr. Stokes: You sound like a Tory.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We agree that’s your attitude, my friend.

Mr. Philip: Has the minister or any of his colleagues made arrangements to meet with representatives of this group, and has he communicated with the Etobicoke council, as requested in the brief?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not communicated with the Etobicoke council. That particular material that was sent to us is in the ministry being looked at by staff at the present time. I do know it has gone, as the member has suggested, to our other cabinet colleagues, who will be discussing it. But I haven’t contacted the Etobicoke council, and I do want to thank the member for his public confession that he isn’t really sure where northern Ontario is, Thank you.

Mr. Lewis: In this caucus he will learn soon enough.

PAYMENTS TO ROBERT MACAULAY

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Energy regarding his inability last night to reveal anything much about his department.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Tell ‘em, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: I asked him two questions last night, about the amount of moneys being paid to Mr. Macaulay, the counsel for the Energy Board; and, 2, the names of the five firms in the consortium. This morning --

Mr. Speaker: Your question.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that this morning I phoned Mr. Dillon, the deputy minister of the department, and he advised me that the minister has paid Mr. Macaulay $149,000 --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We must get to the question.

Mr. Sargent: Is it true the minister has paid him $149,000 in the current fiscal year -- that’s 1974-1975 and it’s not even over yet -- or he has funnelled through to him $149,000 --

Mr. Yakabuski: That was just a retainer.

Mr. Sargent: -- at the rate of $75 an hour?

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s about the size of it.

Mr. Sargent: I say what the hell kind of a --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there an answer to the question?

Mr. Sargent: The second question is, what are the names of the five firms in the consortium with Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, let’s have the record clear; the member did not raise -- and I think if you’ll check Hansard you’ll find this to be true -- the question of payments to lawyers, in the debate last night on the natural gas allocation bill.

Mr. Sargent: You weren’t even listening last night.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh, you raised it later? All right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: In the lounge?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Yes, like after adjournment. The deputy minister did give the members the figures this morning for amounts that were paid in the --

Mr. Sargent: Why didn’t you know?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I knew; you just didn’t ask me.

Mr. Sargent: One hundred and forty-nine thousand dollars.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- in the 1974-1975 fiscal year, and they relate to three specific films -- Thomson, Rogers; Reid, Perry; and Macaulay, Perry -- which involved the work of not only Mr. Macaulay with such things as the Ontario Energy Board review in 1974 of the Hydro rates submission, but also a variety of other interventions and legal work in general carried out on behalf of the government. The total paid to the three firms is roughly $139,000 in 1974-1975.

Mr. Sargent: The second question was on the consortium; who are they?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The consortium? I haven’t had a chance this morning to look up the names. I indicated in the debate yesterday that I would look that up --

Mr. Sargent: Ask the member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. McEwen). He should know.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- and we can discuss it during the estimates of the Ministry of Energy, which I understand will be considered by the estimates committee sometime next week.

USE OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on Oct. 30 the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) asked if I was aware that the chemical Kepone was being used in the FMC Corp. plant in Burlington and if I would check to see if adequate safeguards exist for the workers.

The FMC Corp. plant at Burlington, formerly Niagara Brand Chemicals, handles agricultural chemicals. Kepone, a chlorinated hydrocarbon, is an insecticide imported from Lethelin Products Co. Inc. in New York in a gel form of one-eighth of one per cent concentration. It is used in the manufacture of ant traps.

Mr. MacDonald: You were momentarily caught there.

Mr. Breithaupt: Aren’t you glad you were asked that question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was thinking of the little crawling -- no, I mustn’t let my mind go.

Mr. Moffatt: What colour is it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was thinking that if I could build a better ant trap, maybe we could win next time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Only if you catch more ants.

Mr. Martel: And if you get a new leader.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The handling procedure at the plant is satisfactory and should not be a hazard to the health of employees.

The occupational health protection branch of my ministry is aware of the incidents arising in the United States as the result of the manufacture of Kepone. It is our understanding that improved control conditions have been directed in the manufacturer’s plant following violations of the US Occupational Safety and Health Act. In addition, restrictions have been imposed in the shipment of Kepone from this plant by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Mr. Moffatt: A supplementary: I didn’t get from the minister’s answer whether his ministry has investigated conditions in the particular plant in Hamilton in the past four months to find out if those conditions are being met in that particular plant.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can’t give the hon. member the date that we made our inspection. I would assume that perhaps it at least occurred after the question was asked and that the handling procedures are correct, but I would be glad to verify that.

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

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, two in a row?

Mr. Swart: Before I place that question, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce to the Legislature approximately 100 students from grade 10 at Eastdale Secondary School in the city of Welland, who are here with three of their teachers, Mr. Grant, Mr. Hueglin and Mr. Wraight. Would the House please welcome them?

Mr. Singer: Is that part of the question period?

Mr. Shore: Could we get an answer to that?

COMPULSORY USE OF SEATBELTS

Mr. Swart: My question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications is this: In view of the figures contained in the tabled report on motor vehicle collision facts, which show conclusively the advantages of buckling up seatbelts, and in view of the Canadian Press story, which I believe was carried last Saturday, about a report of the director of transport in Australia which showed that fatalities and injuries there were 26 per cent less than they would have been if they had not had the compulsory seatbelt law, is his government now prepared to reconsider the previous decision against compulsory use of seatbelts?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Since taking over the responsibility for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, I have been looking very seriously at many reports and information relating to the possible compulsory use of seatbelts. As of yet I have not made any recommendation to my colleagues in cabinet, but the matter is under consideration.

Mr. Young: A supplementary to the minister: I just want to ask him if he talks to his neighbour on his left, since the Minister of Health is so anxious that seatbelt legislation be passed in order to drop the cost in the hospitals and to the medical plan in Ontario?

Mr. Lewis: I think the new Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) is anxious as well.

[10:45]

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have had some very serious discussions with my colleague to my left.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Snow: To my left physically, here.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have sure got the wrong seat in this House.

Mr. Martel: He has gone all the way to the right.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The matter certainly is not dead. It is under consideration and I have discussed it with some of my colleagues independently, but I have not brought in a recommendation.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The time is just about up. We have many more questions, and we are getting repetitive. The member for Sarnia.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Bullbrook: A question to the Treasurer in his capacity as the committee chairman directing Ontario’s commitment to the anti-inflation programme.

Relative to the famous comments of his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) about pigs at the trough -- rhetoric more suited to the politics of Mississippi than Ontario -- could the Treasurer advise what he is doing in connection with the two matters that concern him: one, what is his committee doing which the federal government wouldn’t do with respect to interest rates in financial institutions coming directly under Ontario’s constitutional responsibility; and secondly, what liaison has he had with his colleague, the Minister of Labour, to direct the conciliation and mediation services in their function of responsibility to take into consideration those guidelines and press forward for some less piggery at the trough?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Perhaps answering the first question -- I have not seen the comments of my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Lewis: It is just as well. He should get a new speech writer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will be glad to have a look at them.

With respect to the second part of the question, I think the answer has to be with the conciliation officers. The mediators or the arbitrators, who from time to time may be appointed or used by the Minister of Labour, are there to bring two parties together. They are not there to impose the will of this government or the government of Canada under any programme.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why should they be called pigs at the trough when this government can do nothing about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s really not relevant to the point.

Mr. Bullbrook: Certainly it is.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, the point that the member is trying to make is that our mediators or arbitrators in some way should try to dictate settlements, and we reject that philosophy. That is not the philosophy of our labour relations Acts, and the member well knows it.

Mr. Bullbrook: Let’s get to the interest rates.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What they are trying to do is to bring two sides together.

With respect to interest rates, I think the member is well enough versed in the fact that interest rates, in effect, are set by the Bank of Canada and not by any emanation of the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is the Treasurer saying to run that the Province of Ontario has no jurisdiction with respect to the control of interest rates, for example, by loan and trust corporations -- for example, by finance corporations? Is that what he is trying to tell me?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I suppose probably we do, but I can’t think of anything --

Mr. Bullbrook: You bet your life you do!

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t think of anything more ridiculous than our suggesting to the loan and trust companies, or legislating that they are going to do something with their interest rates, when the chartered banks who are directly looked after by the Bank of Canada, are going off in another direction.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why does the Treasurer characterize people that way?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Interest rates in this country are the responsibility of the Bank of Canada, and the member well knows it.

Mr. Bullbrook: He is full of rhetoric.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member well knows it! Go and take a little course in economics.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t need a course in economics. The Treasurer could bring down the interest rates overnight if he wanted to. Instead’, he sends out speeches with remarks like that.

GOGAMA WATER SUPPLY

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Stand up, Floyd.

An hon. member: That’s a good line; where did you think that one up?

Mr. Speaker: Time is just about up; will the member continue with his question?

Mr. Laughren: Since the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) laughed, I don’t mind him directing his comments toward me.

In view of the fact that the Minister of the Environment’s predecessor, who sits on his immediate right, so miserably failed to solve the drinking water problem in the town of Gogama, would the minister review the case with the view to replacing the community tap -- which his predecessor installed -- with a communal water supply? Further, would he agree that there is no place in Ontario in 1975 for a community tap in a town of 600 people?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I understand that is in an unorganized territory, and I will speak to officials in my ministry in an attempt to solve the problem.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order if I may. As a firm believer in political dynasties, I thought it should be pointed out that the father of the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick is in the Speaker’s gallery.

Mr. Speaker: I have to get used to seeing that gentleman up there.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Morrow from the select committee on reports 4 and 5 of the Ontario Commission on the. Legislature presented a report which was read as follows:

“Your committee recommends that it have authority to sit during the interval between sessions; that it be allowed to employ such personnel as may be deemed advisable for the purpose of preparing its report; and that the committee have authority to sit concurrently with the House if it deems necessary.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, just before this motion is put, I do want to make some reference to the third aspect of that report. I will be bringing a motion in shortly to give the select committee on Ontario Hydro’s rates the opportunity to sit concurrently with the House. This does create some problems in the organization of committee time. Although I am sure we would want to deal with the matter today, I have asked my colleagues, the other two House leaders, the chairmen of all the committees which have been established and the whips to meet briefly on Wednesday morning at 9 o’clock so that we could ensure a satisfactory timetabling of all sf these committees so they wouldn’t interfere unduly with the business here in the House as well.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, to the minister in the same vein, may I ask him, in view of the fact he has a new ball game over there, and his policy is to get his members into the question period and many of the new members can’t get a shot at a question at all --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: -- why doesn’t he enlarge the question period to an hour?

Mr. Speaker: That is out of order.

Mr. Sargent: Come on now --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is not discussing the matter before us. That’s a different matter completely.

Mr. Sargent: He should enlarge the question period to an hour instead of 45 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Sargent: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: As I understand it that order is for the --

Mr. Sargent: What kind of a forum is this?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member take his seat?

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: You are going to have to do something about your authority as Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member was out of order completely. He has taken his seat now.

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett presented the annual report of the Ontario Development Corp., the Northern Ontario Development Corp. and the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. of all the loans made and of all the guarantees given for the payment of the loans, setting out the amounts and the terms of the loans, the guarantees and the individuals receiving them, by address, for the year 1974-1975.

Mr. Martel: You judge that is helpful now?

Mr. Laughren: Right after your estimates.

Hon. Mr. Parrott presented the financial reports of the University of Toronto, the University of Western Ontario for the year ending April 30, 1975, and of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute for the year ending March 31, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the select committee on Ontario Hydro’s proposed rate increase be authorized to sit concurrently with the House for the conduct of its business.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

MEDICAL DATA BANK ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish a Medical Data Bank.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to establish, just as it says, a medical data bank in which in computerized form would be stored the medical histories of persons in Ontario who wish to participate in such a data bank. The social insurance numbers would be the numbers that would be used.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day, in response to a question from the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) yesterday when I was not in the chair and for the information of all members, I am advised by the Ministry of Government Services that the Bell Telephone Co. will have completed all installations in members’ offices by Wednesday, Nov. 12. You will appreciate that a very large number of changes had been required in the telephone system, involving rather complicated technical changes.

Mr. Lewis: Don’t give us Bell Canada’s excuse.

Mr. Speaker: However, I am assured that the representatives are working this weekend.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There have been a large number of changes necessary and they’ve been working overtime, and I understand they’re working overtime this weekend. We should all be in business by Wednesday.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The second order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Grossman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed an honour to rise to participate in this debate.

I too would like to congratulate you on the office you hold and wish you well in the very difficult task that lies before you. As one who has sat both where my predecessor now sits in the gallery and where he used to sit in the House, although quite a bit to the right of where he used to sit -- at least in terms of seats in the House -- let me say that I’ve watched you from both locations. Your sense of fairness and your good humour have served you well before and I trust will stand you in good stead in this session.

The same would, of course, apply to the Deputy Speaker. His reputation precedes him, his performance in your chair, sir, has been exemplary so far, and it just shows that there is indeed one good thing about minority government.

I’d like also to congratulate the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton), who moved the address to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, and the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), my seatmate, who seconded the motion. Both of these gentlemen, like myself, are new members to this Legislature, and much to the chagrin of some opposite I think it indicates that we back here intend to make a significant and ongoing contribution to the debates in this House and to do so on well-based grounds, and on the basis of a lot of preparation.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a pleasure that you are doing it.

Mr. Grossman: It won’t be a great change, only that some of our ablest members did not make it back here. But I’m happy to say some of our ablest members did make it back here.

May I also say that I appreciate the introduction that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) made of my predecessor, my father, who’s here this morning. And, indeed, it is one of the great pleasures that I’ve experienced in the first few weeks and months around here to walk through the halls of this Legislature and be stopped quite often by those who are reminding me of the contribution my father did indeed make to these chambers over the 20 years he sat here, the good humour with which he conducted himself and the good grace and good sense he showed while he was here.

Although I will say it’s a little hard on me to hear I have large shoes to fill, I do appreciate the indulgence of the House in allowing me for just that short moment to wax on about my predecessor.

[11:00]

Indeed, I have three other predecessors in a manner of speaking, two of whom are in this Legislature as a result of redistribution. One of my predecessors is the hon. member for Armourdale (Mr. Givens) and the other is the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) who represented portions of my riding prior to redistribution. They also leave shoes to be filled. The only reason they’re not as large as those that I got from my father is that they represented only a small portion of what is now my riding.

Leonard Reilly, the overworked and underpaid chairman of the Science Centre, is another one of my predecessors.

Mr. Lewis: A pause, a tear for Leonard.

Mr. Grossman: There’s no question I have also large shoes to fill in that sense, as he represented the Oriole Park area of my riding very well for so many years. Also, in a certain sense, another one of my predecessors is the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry). As a constituent of mine, his personal popularity in Oriole Park obliged me to spend the first two weeks of my campaign convincing his neighbours that I wasn’t running against him.

Mr. Breithaupt: And did you?

Mr. Grossman: I trust members will forgive me, I will not go on long about it but I know they will be interested to hear about my riding because they are sitting in it right now.

Far removed from the furore experienced here we have some quieter areas, I assure members -- that Oriole Park area I referred to before; and the Forest Hill area. The west annex area is a quiet portion of my riding, as well, I’m happy to say -- largely, indeed solely, as a result of the brave decision to kill the intra-city expressway that this government made in 1971. I’ll have more to say about that shortly.

My riding also includes the very precious Kensington area which, I’m happy to say, is just embarking upon a massive neighbourhood improvement programme which will have the effect of shifting the importance of that area and the core of that area away from the market to the very fine residential neighbourhood that abuts it. I also have in my riding the University of Toronto -- I’ll have more to say about it and its august publication, The Varsity, in a few minutes.

One of the very fine aspects of my riding is the excellent Alexandra Park development where the residents are so well-treated and so happy that this government has had its members reap the rewards in. terms of votes in that area, in terms of open doors, and in terms of warm greetings for very many years. The needs of the people in Alexandra Park are not entirely met. There’s the Scadding Court project which will complete their needs in terms of vast recreational facilities. The aldermen for the area are working with me, the federal government and one or two ministers of this government, on this project on a day-to-day basis to see if we can’t complete this very excellent project.

One other part of my riding which members may be familiar with and may have heard of before is the Toronto Islands. There is some anticipation, quite correct, that I will be presenting a bill which will have the effect of transferring ownership of those islands from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto -- which wants to spend $5 million to pull down those homes and build some more parkland there -- to the city of Toronto which is currently in the midst of attempting to have those lands rezoned residentially. This matter has been referred to Mayor Crombie and the executive of the city of Toronto and they have indicated some interest in attempting to work out ways in which this can be accomplished.

To use the words of the Toronto Sun, the issue of retaining homes on the Toronto Islands is “an issue dose to the urban activist hearts of the NDP Metro members.” That’s all right. Nonetheless, I might add, it is close to my heart, for which I do not apologize. I’ve long felt that it’s foolhardy, indeed almost disgraceful, for the Metro Toronto parks department to be seeking to expand the island park facilities which really are not in need of expansion, at the expense of a higher priority, which has been talked about in this House for months and years, which is housing. Some time later, perhaps this matter can be reassessed.

For example, I anticipate that as being at the same time at which the yacht club leases, which are on those same islands, expire. Then we can reassess the whole situation, see if there is a housing shortage at that time, and see if the new plans brought forward by the city of Toronto planning department have created such housing in downtown Toronto that the need then shifts to parkland. But right now, it is inconceivable to me that there are still those, sitting in Metro council particularly, who are on a crusade to throw people out of their homes while we up here are doing what we can to retain housing, to find more housing, to find more money, more dollars and more locations, particularly for those who cannot find suitable affordable accommodation.

I’m obliged to say that typical of the attitude of those who would crusade to force these people out of their homes is that typified by my friend, and indeed he is my friend, the non-elected chairman of Metropolitan Toronto. Chairman Godfrey has been quoted as saying that my actions were “a political move to solidify his (that is my) position with the voters of the island.”

Perhaps if Mr. Godfrey will read the results of the election of Sept. 18, and I suppose ho’s not really used to reading election results, he will discover that I got all of 51 of the 320 votes cast on the island. He probably won’t read them. It is easy for Mr. Godfrey to describe the actions of any elected officials as “a political move.” I suppose his moves, almost by definition, are never political. Since he is insulated from the voters, then that very insulation may explain his never-ending battle to build expressways and to destroy the island homes.

I didn’t hear the Metro chairman describing the actions of the member for Armourdale (Mr. Givens) and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) as political, when they wanted, and still do in looking after their people, to continue the fight to build the Spadina Expressway. Chairman Godfrey, being one of those who believe in that, does not feel that those moves are politically biased -- moves meant to solidify anyone’s position. I do not suggest that as the motive behind the two members I have referred to. Equally it is inapplicable to ascribe those same political motives to me, simply because I’m looking after a portion of my constituents.

I do say to the Metro chairman that if I’m wrong on the issue then the voters on the island and in other places in this riding can reject me. That’s fine. I will answer to them. I will at all times do what I think is right and what I believe in. I’ve long believed in retention of those homes, and I’ll answer for it, right or wrong, but I do not think that my non-elected friend should ascribe political motives only to those that he doesn’t agree with. In any event, he can continue to look after his constituents, being the members of Metro council, while I look after mine, being the citizens of my riding, my city and my province.

It was a shock for me on the first day to come in here and look across the floor, not because I haven’t been at least behind here before, but to see the NDP having shifted over and in such great numbers. Like very many people over here, I was looking forward to the remarks of the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) and the remarks of the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Nixon) as well.

However, I was indeed distressed to hear both parties bleat about this government’s attempt to abide by and to live with the anti-inflation guidelines set out by the federal government. It’s easy for us to accept this, because it is just a watered-down version of what our federal leader was pleading for a year and a half ago.

But, I was indeed distressed that both parties opposite, rather than support the guidelines, saw fit explicitly or more often by implication to support or give solace to those who wanted to undermine those very guidelines by seeking their own peculiar particular exemptions thereto. It is not a new experience for me to hear the Liberal Party play to one pressure group or another in the hopes that by courting enough of them, sooner or later they will get over here and form a government of special-interest groups. They tried it in 1971 on the separate school issue, right through to September, 1975, when their pitch was to the civil servants.

I was particularly distressed to hear the amendment proposed by the leader of the Liberal Party in light of the quite clear need for national unity at this particular time of national crisis. It’s a clever ploy to suggest that an Ontario mechanism be set up to deal with exemptions in those wage and price guidelines. It’s clever because it carried with it the implication that those who would apply to that board would be more successful than if they were obliged to apply to be federal board. If that is the case, all the more reason that we ought not to have sectional provincial interests dealing with these applications.

The implication that the Liberal Party leaves is that by applying here in Ontario the applicants will be more successful and, therefore, somehow their party is more concerned about these groups than is this government. That is, of course, entirely net the case. It is precisely because the government of Ontario is concerned about both the short- and long-run welfare of all citizens’ groups and all citizens throughout this province and country, that it feels it is important that all persons -- not just all Ontarians -- be judged equally by the same body and with the same concern factors and on the same standards as all others.

So there may be political gain to be made by the implication inherent in the proposal for the provincial board. However, I am proud to be standing on the side of the House that treats the tender state of the economy as too fragile and important to be used for political point scoring, even in the minority situation.

The official opposition has, of course, played the same game by attempting, for example, to appear to support the position of one of the parties -- I needn’t say which -- to the labour negotiations involving Metro secondary school teachers. Of course, that sort of posture is not new to the party since it supported, in essence, price but not wage controls in the federal election of 1974. In that interesting federal election -- I remember it well -- the leader of my party, of course, was supporting complete and full wage and price controls and met his fate as a result. The result of that, of course, is that we find ourselves struggling with an even more serious problem today.

I can’t resist adding that the NDP in that same election met a heck of a lot worse fate, because it committed the most grievous sin by supporting the one but not the other; that is, price but not wage controls. My own opinion is that Mr. Trudeau supported the other, not the one. But it is interesting to quote the Leader of the Opposition when he said in the Throne debate -- I can’t quite quote as mellifluously; I’ll attempt it though:

“I think we have understood what perhaps the Conservatives in Ontario have not understood, and that is that the power of the state is so awesome that you don’t intervene lightly.”

He went on to talk about intervening only with fairness and feeling. I take him back a year and a half: Did he really suggest that price controls, but not wage controls, are not the precise type of halfway, light interfering in the economy that he so objects to today? If his party really understands that, then what were they doing a year ago when they offered, on a national basis, to intervene on only one side of the economy? I quote the hon. Leader of the Opposition: “The power of the state is so awesome that you don’t intervene lightly.”

I was also interested to hear his complaint -- and again I quote; as uncomfortable as he felt quoting John Munro, I equally feel uncomfortable:

“Either you set up a provincial review board in Ontario which scrupulously and relentlessly monitors every single price increase and rolls it backward as illegitimate, or you do what they had the courage to do in the Province of [guess where?] British Columbia; that is, to institute a price freeze, and you do it today for a minimum period of two months until things sort themselves out.”

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Until you have an election.

Mr. Grossman: That was indeed a couple of days before the election; yes, that’s true.

The other day, before they called the election, I heard the British Columbia Attorney General on CBC radio -- and I mention that to give it some authenticity -- and he said that his province had not set up a system to monitor prices since he believed that the threat of adverse publicity would do the job. Does that ring a bell? Further, he said that he has faith in the businessmen of the province to toe the line. There you have it. There it is.

The Leader of the Opposition suggested the other day that we should do what they did in British Columbia and monitor the prices. But they didn’t. Why didn’t they? Because in British Columbia apparently the NDP government can trust its businessmen but, according to the Leader of the Opposition, a similar type of businessmen in Ontario can’t be trusted. I reject that. He challenges the government to have the courage to do what they did in British Columbia, but in fact the BC government didn’t do it.

I cannot fail to refer as well to the latest position of that party regarding rent controls. Does that have a familiar ring? The Leader of the Opposition dealt at some length in his speech with the question of where or if the government ever checks facts and figures. He asked in his speech if the government ever checked the increase in profits of some of the big companies.

I wonder if the NDP, during the election, ever bothered to check the actual figures on rent increases in Metro Toronto in the past year? The recent CMHC figures show that the actual increase was 13 per cent. I don’t purport to stand here and suggest that 13 per cent was a fair or equitable increase, but it sure as heck is a lot less than 93 per cent paid by a widow in Scarborough or by a Mr. A or a Mr. B in Sudbury. It was good politics not to check the figures, or at least not to use them.

Mr. Renwick: Are you questioning the validity of the individual case figures that were used?

Mr. Grossman: Not a bit; I’m not questioning their validity.

Mr. Moffatt: He didn’t go quite that far.

Mr. Grossman: However, the member’s leader suggested that we go out and check the profits of big companies. All I say is that it isn’t that difficult for the members. They just have to call up CMHC, check the figures for actual rent increases and give us those figures.

Mr. Renwick: Are you disputing the individual cases that were brought to the attention of the electorate during the election?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: We got them from the people who paid the rent, not from CMHC.

Mr. Grossman: The CMHC figures, for the benefit of the member for Riverdale, were not the figures as they related to CMHC-supported or financed units. They were the CMHC figures, as a result of their survey -- well respected, I might add -- of all rental units in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Renwick: We weren’t talking about that --

Mr. Grossman: Of course, the 93 per cent --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will you allow the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick to continue?

Mr. Renwick: I want him to continue, but it is now 11:20 and we will have to wait until 1 o’clock before he will finish.

Mr. Grossman: I hope so.

Mr. Ruston: You can always go home, Jim.

Mr. Sargent: There is a 20-minute time limit here.

Mr. Grossman: The 93 per cent was calculated in the CMHC figure, which leads me to wonder how many people experienced a heck of a lot less than 13 per cent in order to average out that 93 per cent down to 13.

Mr. Swart: Forget about the 93 per cent.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Lewis, in his speech, talked about how easy it was --

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick that when you refer to a member of this House you refer to him by his riding name, not his surname.

Mr. Grossman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sargent: And don’t be provocative either.

Mr. Grossman: I have watched the member for Grey-Bruce a few too many days in here.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Not too many.

Mr. Grossman: Not too many. In any event, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in his speech, talked about how easy it was for the cabinet to posture themselves in more extreme positions than that of the federal cabinet ministers. At the same time, I can’t help but notice his own posture, whereby his party just recently arrived at a six per cent figure for rent increases, only after serious speculation began that our government would propose eight or 10 per cent increases. It was easy to go lower. We understand. Of course, the further proposal that we roll back rents to 1974 stands on equal footing with their price-but-not-wage control, proposed a year ago by their party.

Finally, the hon. Leader of the Opposition says, “You people over there, you are so easy with your inequities.” He then went on to state that an NDP government would strike out inequities. First, the government of Ontario can proudly stand on its record, not promises, for stamping out inequities. The government is not easy with inequities, and has moved far and long with programmes ranging right across the board, from free drugs plans, to guaranteed annual incomes, to the Human Rights Commission and so on.

The NDP understands and knows that what the government is saying is that in this emergency, if we attempt to alleviate wage inequities, that attempt will be costly, perhaps disastrous, in terms of granting large or excessive increases to establish parity. A system has been set up to resolve this problem, and those that we can afford and that fit into the guidelines, and that can present a reasonable case, will go to Ottawa.

There’s one other alternative for wiping out the inequities. The alternative, of course, is for the NDP to suggest that some of the inequities created by some excessive wage settlements in the past few years be eliminated by rolling back those wage increases. We heard the Leader of the Opposition --

Mr. Germa: How about legal fees?

Mr. Grossman: -- use John Munro’s quotation, that “some settlements, admittedly, have been excessive by any standards.” I did not hear the Leader of the Opposition suggest that this inequity be wiped out by rollbacks. Presumably then, he would wipe out these inequities by raising everyone else to those admittedly high standards, further feeding inflation, without any reference whatever to the federal board.

I’d like to refer specifically to another major concern in my riding, and that is a concern about the ultimate resolution of the traffic problems in the northwest quadrant of Metropolitan Toronto. My constituents were the direct beneficiaries of the permanent -- I underline permanent -- stoppage of the inner-city Spadina expressway. That decision has encouraged and caused literally dozens of young married people to buy homes in the central portion of my riding, determined to raise their families in what will now be a quiet, happy, valued inner-city atmosphere and area.

These people, who have had their homes and neighbourhoods saved and maintained by this government, are now being scared by the radical reactionaries into believing that the 1971 decision has been abandoned. These people have obviously neither read nor understood nor care to relate the Soberman report, which emphasized the seriousness of the traffic problem in the northwest quadrant and, as well, they have failed to understand the wide range of solutions which would, in Mr. Soberman’s opinion, not destroy those parts of the city of Toronto which were saved by the 1971 decision.

The Soberman report itself is based on the presumption that the Spadina Expressway shall not be completed. Those people who raised the scare that Spadina shall continue should refer to the Premier’s statement of Aug. 8, 1975, wherein he stated:

“First, I want to emphasize again that the heart of our urban policy is, simply put, that the government of Ontario will do all it can in practical terms to encourage the development of mass transit facilities in and between urban centres; and as well, that the government will do whatever it can to prevent decision on transportation policy which will have the effect of dumping passenger automobiles upon the downtown streets of our cities.

“This has been settled policy since the so-called Spadina decision of 1971. [That policy remains in place today.]

“I say that as assurance for those who support the Spadina decision and I say that for the information of those who still oppose it. Since the Spadina decision in 1971 some municipalities have seen fit to eliminate expressway programmes from their transportation plans. [That is a matter of record.]

“The people in the Spadina corridor have preserved their neighbourhoods and they will continue to so do. So will the people in Toronto’s east metro where the Scarborough Expressway has also been stopped.”

I’m proud that this government assumed leadership in North America and killed intra-city expressways in one fell swoop. However, the Premier, unlike those people in parties who continue to serve special interest groups, has a responsibility to all the people of this province and all the people of Metropolitan Toronto.

To quote the Premier directly out of that same statement,

“Notwithstanding that benchmark in Ontario transportation policy, we still have to move people from where they live to where they work. We still have to provide facilities that will allow people access to and egress from the city to encourage commerce, trade, recreation and enterprise. But we will not do this at the expense of the city itself, at cost to its environment and to its life at the core.”

The Premier’s Aug. 8 statement goes on to set up a vast array of rapid transit facilities, including an extension of GO Transit to Oakville, Burlington, Hamilton, Markham, Uxbridge, Claremont and Stouffville. However, specifically on the transit situation in Metro, the Premier went on to say,

“Personally, I do not mind at all if the unfinished portion of the Spadina Expressway, as it now stands, remains as a symbol of our determination to save our cities for people rather than sell out to the automobile. But while I do not mind the fact that the present half-finished portion of the expressway from Lawrence to Eglinton becomes a symbol of that, it need not, on the other band, become an artifact.

“We could use that portion of the expressway, as the Soberman report suggested and Metro council has requested, for an arterial road running between Lawrence and Eglinton. Such a facility would accommodate, as the Soberman report found, much of the local traffic which exists in the area. Further, the corridor could be used for park-and-ride facilities both at Lawrence and Eglinton for commuter transportation to downtown Toronto by subway.”

Notwithstanding the cries of those who refused to recognize responsibilities and needs of persons other than themselves, the Premier went on to dearly set out certain conditions which he felt, while solving some transit problems at the same time, would not create others.

[11:30]

Firstly, he provided that the arterial road be extended between Lawrence and Eglinton, and that it be ended with single lane ramps only. Secondly, the Premier undertook to “assist in the design and construction when necessary to park-and-ride facilities at Lawrence and Eglinton.”

Let those who say there will be no park-and-ride facilities know that this member and this government will not retreat from that commitment to work with Metro and the city of Toronto to meet the need for park-and-ride facilities at Lawrence and Eglinton.

Without taking the time of the House, may I say that the Premier’s statement went on to provide certain legal guarantees that there will be no further construction, arterial or otherwise, south of Eglinton. To those people who will always operate by way of scare tactics and cannot believe that the Premier is as up to date as their own sandal-footed spokesmen, let me say that because of their success in scaring people, I believe that some people still remain concerned about the possibility of future paving. Therefore, I would urge the Premier to see to it that the park-and-ride facilities are constructed in such a way that they would operate as a permanent road block at Eglinton to any further and future roadway extension south of Eglinton.

I would further urge the Premier to encourage the early start of the east-west transit corridor study referred to in his statement. In the event that study were to include, as I expect it will, a recommendation that the facility should be constructed along Eglinton, then I for one would strongly recommend that the facility also be constructed so as to operate across the right of way and therefore as a further road block.

Finally on this subject, may I remind both the House and my constituents that Metro has still not satisfied a proviso which reads as follows in the Premier’s statement:

“As a further proviso, should our arterial roads be placed in the Spadina corridor between Lawrence and Eglinton, we would require that Metro council develop a plan to ensure that any excess traffic generated by the new roadways will remain on other Metro arterial roads.”

I want to assure my constituents and this House that the plan must be brought forward by Metro Toronto first. When it is brought forward, it will be carefully scrutinized to see that it is not just tokenism but that it is a real and workable plan. The fact that the Premier has referred to that plan as a proviso would require that Metro apply their minds to the traffic plan, not just to letting contracts for paving. Indeed, they must apply themselves to the traffic plan before applying themselves to paving contracts.

There are a couple of other matters which have long been of concern to me and I would like to take this opportunity to refer to them. As a lawyer, like most recent graduates at the time I spent my early days of practice in the criminal courts. I have returned from time to time to have a look at the improvements or changes, and I want to comment upon the judicial procedures and what is, in fact, slow justice in our courts.

It is not unusual for accused persons to await trial for 12 or 13 months, especially when there is a preliminary hearing involved. It is not unusual for the accused to be remanded on three of four occasions. It is not unusual for the accused and his lawyer, on each of these occasions, to wait in court one or two hours until in 30 seconds he is remanded for another week or month. It is not unusual for trials to commence at 11:30 or 12 o’clock, only after 40 or 50 routine remands and adjournments have been dealt with.

Now, obviously, there are some simple partial solutions that money can buy, and I hope we have it. First, we need more Crown attorneys and we need more courtrooms and more facilities.

I have always felt that it is in the provincial judges’ courts where the majesty and importance of the courts and our procedures must and can be brought home to those who have been charged with violations of the law. To have these people dragged up from the cellar of the old city hall in Toronto and in some cases to be kept in a cage -- nothing more -- in the middle of the courtroom is no way to impress importance, majesty and fair treatment.

When the court house on University Ave. was constructed I felt then, as I do now, that a facility of that calibre should first have been constructed for the lower provincial courts rather than as a high court building for the convenience of the lawyers and judges to practice and sit in. Not only do we need these more and better courtrooms, but enough Crown attorneys to lighten the caseload of each one, in order that each of them can understand and have a real grasp of each case he must deal with, in order that he may make a sensible well-conceived, well-thought-out recommendation with regard to bail.

The recommendation of the Crown attorney is a very key consideration to the granting of bail. Too often these matters come before the courts and the Crowns doing the best they can -- and they are very excellent Crowns -- can only look over their docketed docket matters and make a quick assessment of the situation and make the best recommendation they can simply without enough opportunity to delve into each case individually.

This whole matter of bad could be substantially improved if we simply had more and better study by lightening the caseloads of these bail applications. An increase in numbers of Crown attorneys would also allow for speedier and better trials.

To solve some of these problems, I would like to see an extension of the system now being tried in some courts, to have a singular court set aside for remands and adjournments, such courts to begin sitting perhaps at 9 or 9:30 in the morning and such courts to be concerned solely with routine remands and setting dates for trial.

In this way trials need not begin at 12 but could begin in the existing courts at 10 a.m., and our excellent judges would be able to spend their entire days dealing with trials -- not clerical remands. Other and different bail courts dealing solely with the question of bail on remands ought to be established so that those courts as well are not dealing with routine remands, remands with bail questions involved, and trials all on the same docket on the same day.

I had intended to make extensive remarks on the matter of gun control. Suffice it to say, that I would only urge upon the Attorney General one thing at this time. In view of the anticipated federal legislation, I would hope that he would give some consideration to requiring in the meantime immediate registration of all sales of all firearms of any type and calibre whatsoever so as to avoid the possibility that there are those running out now and buying guns in anticipation of legislation which will restrict their right to so do. Let’s register everyone that is running in and buying those guns now.

I might also add that all the legislation I have seen so far simply does not go far enough on this matter. All of the purported intentions, in my own opinion, don’t go far enough. I can’t conceive of any reason that guns need be hidden in basements and attics, and indeed in some cases not even hidden there. Throughout the length and width of this province let those who require rifles for hunting purposes acquire them, rent them or buy them, but be required to sign them out on a Friday to be returned on a Monday so that we know where each and every gun in this province is and so that only those guns that are being used for hunting are available; and we know where they all are and we know they are locked up when they are not being used for hunting.

I just can’t conceive for a moment the need or any excuse under the guise of hunting or whatever to permit hundreds of thousands of guns to be lying around this province to make it easy for those who go off half-cocked for whatever reason and commit the horrible crimes we have seen in some of our high schools in this province.

I have one or two other matters. I want to express my complete support for the Attorney General’s (Mr. McMurtry) steps on the matter of hockey violence. Anyone who can’t tell the difference between the routine matters which arise during a hockey game and those extra amounts of untoward and uncalled-for violence is as blind as those hockey owners who apparently not only have little respect for their employees as people, they don’t even respect them as valuable assets of their own. Apparently they feel they are human chattels to be put out into the bear pit to do whatever passes for entertainment in Philadelphia or New York, at whatever expense to life or limb.

I hear often that no one was ever hurt in a hockey fight but it just isn’t so. Over the past 10 or 15 years, I guess, I have attended 70 per cent or 80 per cent of all the Toronto Maple Leaf games at Maple Leaf Gardens. I might add that was before I was elected. What is true about hockey fights is that where injuries did result from those battles, those injuries invariably resulted from those instances in which that extraordinary amount of legally questionable violence was involved. It’s easy to identify. One only need to look at the pictures in the paper the morning after.

I’m tired of hearing the moguls of that sport say they can and do police themselves. My friends opposite quite properly do not like to hear groups of oil companies, apartment owners, developers or any other business group say: “Leave us alone; we will police ourselves.” We should equally object when the subject matter of intentionally inflicted bodily harm arises. We cannot simply abdicate our responsibility by taking Clarence Campbell’s word for it that they’ll police themselves.

To drive home the importance of getting this matter under control, let me show members or refer to any issue of Sports Illustrated, the most widely-read sports magazine in North America. I have before me the Aug. 20 edition; that’s the last one that came in the mail. They have, as they always do, superstar posters for which one can write in and purchase by mail.

There are only seven hockey players you can get superstar posters for. Let me read them to you: Bobby Clarke, Phil Esposito, Tony Esposito, Bobby Orr, Bernie Parent, Brad Park and Dave Schultz. Those are the ones.

Those who don’t know Dave Schultz by his fisticuffs, by his uncalled-for punching of Ace Bailey last year, may be interested to know that Mr. Schultz got nine goals last year. Nonetheless, he is one of the superstars of hockey offered for sale throughout North America. I presume this list is drawn up in accordance with the demand and the salability of these posters. That’s shocking.

I sat at Maple Leaf Gardens when this same hockey player -- using the term loosely -- earlier this year in an exhibition game threw a clipboard at the hockey official, tackled the linesman and was thrown out of the game. He appeared the next day on the ice and nothing further has happened. I can’t believe that even Harold Ballard and John F. Bassett can’t identify that sort of behaviour and separate it from a hard, clean body check.

I feel obliged before I finish, sir, to refer to one issue. It is something I heard time and again during the election campaign in my riding with regard to this whole business of multiculturalism. Let me say that the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), displaying some depth of understanding of the situation, dealt at great length with the problem presented by language differences, particularly in our elementary schools in Toronto.

[11:45]

Working to resolve this problem is not easy. The draft report on multiculturalism in Metropolitan Toronto is only a draft report, and I have it before me. It is a very substantial volume. A lot of hard work and good thought went into this, and it is only now out for some answers from the parents involved. This report goes to 223 pages. That’s how complicated this issue is.

Mixed into all the discussions -- and this is what disturbs me -- has been the suggestion that there are those in this government and in the universities who are attempting to place quotas on the basis of racial background and that there are those in the communities of Toronto who are attempting to create a second-class citizen class in this city.

Some of the arguments being used to achieve this very great objective of bridging the language gap are invalid and in themselves encourage that type of racial problem to grow and arise where indeed it does not exist, at least in this member’s opinion, in this city right now.

One of the things that is being used to feed this is the scare tactic that suggests the now very able Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) of this province has long supported quotas for medical schools. I have pursued this matter with the minister, and let me assure this House that she at no time made any remarks supporting quotas in relationship to university admissions.

She was approached on an occasion by a reporter and she asked him three questions with regard to the University of Toronto faculty of medicine. She asked these questions in her then capacity in order to attempt to get from the public some feeling on the very difficult subject matter of entrance to the U of T medical schools. The questions are as follows:

1. Are university admission policies sufficiently closely related to the needs of the people the universities are functioning to serve?

2. Do federal government immigration policies impinge upon post-secondary educational opportunities for native-born or naturalized Canadian students?

3. Are Canadian citizens fully informed about the way in which their taxes are utilized for post-secondary education? If they are so informed, do they agree with the spending pattern now in practice?

People have taken those questions and said, “Hold on. Bette Stephenson -- as she then was -- is in favour of quotas for entrants to medical schools.” This is a very real concern and I object to any suggestion that the new Minister of Labour supported quotas. Those were questions only.

This is not a matter new to the official opposition. The then member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), on March 21, 1975, referred to this matter in this Legislature. He referred to the fact that there used to be some quotas -- and I quote Hansard for March 21, 1975:

“The intriguing thing is what happened the first year the quota went out. The dean was happy. It turned out there was some 28 per cent of the class, or perhaps there was 30 per cent that year, who were landed immigrants, largely from Asia. They were brilliant, they did fantastically well on the exams -- everything went well. This was three years ago. Everything went well until this year, when they started taking clinical classes. The professors discovered to their horror that a very significant proportion of these people, something like a third of them, could not communicate with the patients.”

He went on and on in this vein. He concluded by saying -- and I quote again:

“We have to at least ensure that the students we are letting into medicine can communicate with the public and can understand their patients’ problems.”

I continue quoting the then member for High Park on March 21, 1975:

“I want to talk about the unthinkable for a moment. I want to talk about the students who are coming from Hong Kong and Korea and Singapore and are getting in. There is a great deal of tragedy in their cases, and I have the greatest sympathy for what they have suffered in these other countries.

“They come over here with their entire family’s future depending on what they do. They do nothing but study and they get incredible marks. They get marks that our students can’t consider -- 98, 99. One lad got 100 per cent.

“The way they do that is that they don’t socialize. They don’t go out with girls. They don’t play sports. They don’t do anything but work.”

Finishing the quote for the moment, I don’t necessarily agree with that portion or any portion of his remarks, but certainly not that last one. I continue:

“I can understand their motivation, because when they succeed in getting into medicine they get a lucrative position which represents everything. They will then be able to bring in their families from those other countries and support them.”

He concludes with this paragraph:

“I can sympathize, but their problems must come secondary to ours; and ours are to educate our own students first.”

I don’t stand here and say that the then member for High Park supported quotas on a racial basis or on any basis for medical school. He addressed himself only to the problem. Likewise, I don’t ever again want to hear anyone suggesting that the now Minister of Labour supported quotas, simply and only because she suggested that there were some concerns in this area and some questions which needed to be answered.

Finally, and I talked about the University of Toronto before, I simply cannot resist finishing my remarks today on this -- and I’m sorry they have gone on so long, but there were a lot of matters on my mind and as I said before, we over here are kind of enjoying this opportunity to participate in the debate in this Legislature and we are not at all going to be shy about so doing. We have researcher 5 on this side too and we indeed, all of us over here, are our own researchers as well.

I must refer to the publication called The Varsity, published by U of T. This year their budget, which sooner or later comes out of the public purse, is some $42,000. I’m not naïve enough really to always expect fairness -- perhaps never to expect fairness, being a Tory --

Mr. Lewis: You’ll soon be telling us about the faces in the crowd. It was a favourite phrase of your predecessor.

Mr. Grossman: -- but I couldn’t resist bringing the election issues of The Varsity here today. I didn’t really mind the fact that an hour interview I had with the reporter from The Varsity resulted in an article perhaps half the size of that of my NDP opponent --

Mr. Lewis: Excellent judgement on the part of the interviewer.

An hon. member: There is real priority.

Mr. Grossman: Let me continue --

Mr. Reid: The member is sure making up for it today.

Mr. Grossman: We are allowed to speak from this side too; it is a new rule of minority government. The article also was only half the size, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, of the article on the Communist Party candidate.

Mr. Lewis: Entirely possible; the member probably had less to say.

Mr. Grossman: Is it the same good judgement? I just want to know if it is the same good judgement.

Mr. Lewis: No, but it probably means you had less to say.

Mr. Grossman: I see, not the same good judgement.

Mr. Moffatt: Anyone would say it was.

Mr. Grossman: I might say it’s about the same shot that they gave my Liberal opponent, but --

An hon. member: Perhaps the member could read it.

Mr. Grossman: I could read it, and I’m sure members would find it enlightening, but perhaps embarrassing. In any event, the point I want to make is that very few notes were taken by the reporter and I find myself quoted almost entirely throughout, with gratuitous comments thrown in between. Let me only refer to the headings on the various articles, “Beardsley” -- that was my NDP opponent -- “Veteran With A Taste For Victory.”

Mr. Lewis: Well, she came close -- pretty close.

Mr. Grossman: Close only counts in horseshoes and grenades.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Grossman: Cunningham was the Communist Party candidate who got equal coverage in the Varsity: “Professor Battling Monopolies.”

Mr. Peterson: Is the member suggesting we close down the universities?

Mr. Lewis: What is this Philistine speech the member is making about the student press? Don’t be so paranoid.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what universities are about. Let them have their fun.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick has the floor.

Mr. Grossman: Kan, the Liberal opponent: “Cut Back Expensive Education Frills.” Not bad, so far. Grossman: “Trying To Take Over From Dad.”

An hon. member: No chance.

Mr. Grossman: Well, at least I did. I would have been annoyed, but I had indeed more sympathy for my fellow candidate in St. George riding. Without going through the articles, let me just read the four headings on the articles on St. George riding candidates. Robinson, NDP candidate: “ECO-100 Mostly Bunk.” Hill, the Communist candidate: “Answer To NDP Band-Aid.” Well, not a bad heading. Margaret Campbell: “Soup’s On.” She didn’t do much better than I did.

Interjection.

Mr. Grossman: But I just have to read into the record the heading on the article for our candidate in St. George, Vasilkioti “Views From A Toilet.” So taking all things into consideration, I really wasn’t that instilled by the treatment I got.

Mr. Lewis: I should think not.

Mr. Grossman: But I trust that the reporters will be following the events of this House, this government, this Legislature --

Mr. McClellan: The member drove them out hours ago.

Mr. Grossman: -- and will not let anything interfere with their, quote, “good judgement.” So, Mr. Speaker, in concluding, may I say that I will be participating further in private members’ hour and as the debates go on and the legislation --

Mr. Peterson: The member shouldn’t feel he has to.

Mr. Grossman: I hope that a lot of people, a lot of members of this House will --

Mr. Lewis: I hope the member gets good coverage.

Mr. Grossman: -- in view of the fiasco we experienced, as we always do with enumeration, be working with me and supporting my attempts to obtain for this province a system whereby the already existing Ministry of Revenue’s assessment lists of eligible voters can be authorized for use by the enumerators when they go out and around this province. And that when they knock on a door and get no answer after two calls, be authorized to enter the person shown on the last revised assessment roll -- which can never at any time be more than 11 months old -- as the voter out of that household, subject to later revision.

It’s not a perfect system, but it is a system which is a heck of a lot better and a heck of a lot fairer than the system that has historically been employed in this province from day one.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I had some trepidation about making this speech in the House this morning, but I must confess over the last hour or so, the trepidation has entirely left my body and I feel quite at ease.

An. hon. member: Replaced by a feeling of calm.

Mr. Breaugh: Just familiarity.

I want to express perhaps some unusual thoughts from the penthouse section of the Legislature where we’re relatively free from parliamentary intrigue and the assignments of the front benches; so we can kind of think about things and reflect a bit.

[12:00]

The very first thing I want to do is thank the government of the Province of Ontario for putting three New Democrats out of four ridings in the region of Durham right into this House and right on this side. Members might recall previously there were a lot of members from another political party representing this particular region. Due, I think, in great part to the myopic perspective offered by the provincial government on regional government three of those guys are unemployed these days. Another one headed for the hills and ran in another riding and managed to survive by, I think, a little over 100 or so votes. Three of us managed to arrive here.

I think in large part, in some areas of that region, the whole issue of regional government was one that struck home to a great many people. In that regard, one of the things the three of us intend to do is what we think the members of the other side of the House should have done in the first instance. They should have taken some time to listen to the needs of those people.

In that regard, we intend to do just that -- to have some public bearings, if you like, and to hear some representations from some groups in that area -- I suspect not the least of which will be the municipal councils in that particular region. As someone who had to work under that legislation it’s a most difficult proposition. It is one which really does not represent regionalism in much else other than name and bureaucracy. It really has very little substance.

In the spring session the three of us will present to this House a private member’s bill which will reflect the needs of those people; one which will put before this House, at least in a formal way, what ought to be done in that particular region. Then I think we can no longer hear the excuse that the government doesn’t really know what the people want; the government doesn’t really know what it ought to do; and the government doesn’t really know what the real problems are.

I suspect that the government actually does know. The reason I suspect that is every time we see the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in the region of Durham he’s on a white horse and carrying a million dollar grant in the back saddlebag to bail them out. He has done that every spring when they try to set a budget. Every spring when those people say there isn’t a snowball’s chance they can finance this operation, the Treasurer has managed to find some funds; a very necessary requirement.

We are most grateful for being bailed out and my only objection really is that had the government seriously considered the ramifications of that particular form of government in that area, it would have been quite prepared to do one of two things -- either accept the financial obligation involved or abandon the concept; one of the two.

Let me move to something else which I find rather difficult. That is this area of municipal reform. I find it difficult because so much has been said on that particular topic and yet so little has been done. It strikes me, as someone who has spent considerable amounts of time and considerable effort working on a municipal council, that it’s the largest system we have, especially in terms of representation. There are more municipal councillors in this province than any other form of representation either sitting in this House or in the federal House. In terms of being most direct to the people; physically closest to the people they represent; in terms of being more directly exposed to the problems of individuals, there’s nothing we have which matches that municipal government system.

Yet it really is the tail end of the dog. It really is trying to do in a great many cases things it just cannot afford to do. It is trying to pick up the slack of a provincial government which wants to do portions of things but not all of them. It’s attempting to provide a great many services, above and beyond what was once expected of a municipal council; a vast array of them.

It is an extremely difficult job and we are finding, I think, throughout the Province of Ontario mill rates escalating at unprecedented rates simply because people at one end are demanding service. They are talking to the people they can find, their municipal representatives; but the other side of that coin really is that the municipal government can’t afford to do that kind of thing. They can’t afford to carry out so many of those operations.

Let me move to an area which I think quite obviously is a blocking point for almost everything which has happened in the Province of Ontario and it has a lot of rather serious ramifications. That’s the Planning Act. I say that it is a blockage point because it deals with people’s houses. That is the mechanism by which, for the most part, people build houses. It also deals in large measure with the building of industrial plants and commercial enterprises, many of which are faced with the obstacle course that is provided by the Planning Act.

Though I have heard the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) on many occasions say that he is going to build more houses and that he is going to expedite that process, he is rather reluctant to say how. I’ve heard a great many arguments in press releases and statements by ministers that it is all the municipalities’ fault. They don’t want to take low-cost housing and they don’t want to expedite that process. Could I remind the members of the House that the Planning Act is administered by this House and that the real powers in that Act are possessed by our own cabinet ministers of this House, not by municipalities.

In fact, all the municipalities get out of that deal is the wonderful opportunity to do all the work and to take all of the flack and not have the power of approval.

Let me suggest that if the government really wanted to build houses in the Province of Ontario one of the first items that it would do is review that Planning Act substantially. I attended a PMLC meeting recently where the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) indicated that they were doing that. He said that they weren’t going to review the mechanics of the Act but they were going to review the philosophy of the Act. That was rather an interesting announcement because those members of municipalities present at that meeting stated quite clearly that they had been under the illusion for the last year the minister was actually going to review the Act -- not have a philosophy class but actually do something. That of course is the breaking point with this government. They are quite prepared to discuss philosophy and quite prepared to talk to almost anyone but they are never prepared to do anything, even when the problems are as obvious as those contained in that Planning Act.

Could I quote just one simple example? In my own riding, almost any plan of subdivision goes through a public hearing process, particularly if it is of any significance because it almost always involves a rezoning. At a public hearing session, on hearing the needs of the people in the adjacent area and hearing the case of the developer, the poor old municipal council has to make some kind of a decision. It is usually hung right up between the needs of people who have to have houses and the needs of people who don’t want their own neighbourhood destroyed; very often that’s the dilemma.

Fools that they are, they very often make that decision and take that flak. Then it goes up to the regional government level where it gets roughly the same process again, and that seems to be a long and cumbersome process. It sometimes takes four to six months and sometimes longer; that’s about the average. That seems like a terribly difficult process but that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Once it leaves there it gets floated through 22 different ministries, in Kingston, Peterborough, Ottawa, Cornwall, Toronto, Richmond Hill, and in many cases they physically lose the plan of subdivision. Most developers that I know, who have a great tale of woe at any time but who in this particular instance have a point, have got to the point now where one of the things they do is they assign people to follow their plans of subdivision around the Province of Ontario on this merry little scheme to try to locate them in the offices of the Minister of Housing. By that, I mean physically locate it. On whose desk has it been lying for the last four weeks? Can we get him to pass it on to the next guy so that he can give his initials to that project. That whole process is not only cumbersome; it is ridiculous.

I support in a very real and meaningful way a one-time and a thorough review of all plans of subdivision and all industrial plans. Whatever you care to do, do it once, do it thoroughly, and do it locally where the people can have some say in its process. Put a check on it; that seems fair enough, but let’s not do the thing three, four and five times. Surely we could get organized enough with all of our resources and all of our money to handle that simple process.

Let me move to an area of wage controls, which in effect is what we are talking about through all of the rhetoric that has come across the House. We are really talking about identifying those areas where there are increases, and that is very simply wages. I watched in my own riding Hon. Barney Danson present to some high school students -- not very well, I might add, but he did present it to them -- his version of the federal wage and price control scheme. In the course of 20 minutes he admitted that they could certainly control wages -- no problem about that -- but they didn’t really know how they were going to control prices. He admitted that is a very difficult thing. Well, we were listening to people tell us how to control prices. Nonetheless they were going to do it.

In effect, he told those kids that their parents, and the kids themselves, ought to be quite prepared to suffer for the national good. It seems like quite a reasonable thing in some quarters, except that when he got into his limousine and went back to Ottawa in his private airplane, I don’t notice him suffering a lot. I didn’t notice him following any of those kids home to see what kind of lunch they had or whether their father was still employed. I didn’t notice any of that. The only thing I am saying about that is, admit it, it is wage control.

Tell me one other thing: Why is it always necessary that the poor guy at the bottom of the heap takes it in the neck? Why can’t there be some measure of justice put out in that process? It is fine to say that they froze some senior civil servant’s salary at $60,000 a year. I wish to heaven my salary could be frozen at $60,000 a year, and I could fill this chamber with people who would love to freeze their salaries at $50,000 or $60,000 because they haven’t made that in the last 10 years. Some measure of justice, it seems to me, is necessary there.

What I have perceived coming across the floor of the House, though, is that the government has been very happy to grab that one; it is very happy to all of a sudden become a “me-too” minority. They have found themselves something that is rather worthwhile. A government that was facing substantial unrest in its own public service sector, in teachers, in almost anything on could name, all of a sudden has found a gimmick -- a federal hammer, if you like -- that they are going to use with great abandon.

This thing has only been announced about 10 days or so and they are already lining up at the door. There are negotiations in my on riding that were proceeding quite nicely before that announcement; now they are all backed up. Let me quote the one example that I think is most ridiculous. The Metro separate school teachers had an agreement signed, sealed and almost delivered, but at the last minute they grabbed it. What is going to happen to it? No one knows. The government again is prepared to listen, but is it prepared to act? Not yet.

Let me say a couple of words about housing programmes, because one of the things we have been faced with is a most extensive public relations programme on the Ontario Housing Action Programme, and we have had the pleasure of meeting with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) -- with several of them, in fact -- in terms of what the Province of Ontario is prepared to do.

Let me propose some rather simple and basic suggestions for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be possible for the government of Ontario, in terms of trying to induce housing, to say, “There are some things that we will do. We will provide some hard services, some sewer and water services; we will put them in the ground”? That is the nub of the argument that involves lot levies in municipalities and escalating mill rates; that is where all of that comes from.

The provision of those hard services involves a major expenditure of funds at the municipal level, and not particularly in terms of forgivable loans, although that certainly is a better deal than having to run out and pay the interest rates on those loans. The fact still remains that if you construct an $8 million plant, whether the loan is forgivable or not, you are still paying off the $8 million. That is a substantial amount of money for anybody to look at.

Let me cite, in the region of Durham, perhaps the biggest foofaraw that this government has entertained to date; that is, its own North Pickering project. Let me take a look at that one and say that in my own municipality, in my own riding and in my own region there has been a lot of discussion about that. We have met with those planners, we have seen the numbers that are coming in and, quite frankly, we don’t see any way at all that that particular project, under the current rules of the game, can go anywhere but down the tube.

[12:15]

We don’t see any way at all the government can ask the people of that region to fork over the $1 million worth of social services -- social services alone -- that that North Pickering project requires. Why should they? How can the government ask the people in that area to put up the kind of money for industrial development which is necessary -- many of them have already done so -- and ask them to compete against the little golden boy -- the provincial, special status community -- it is going to stick in the middle of that area.

That’s going to cause some major problems and it’s my sense that the government would be quite happy to dump that one as well. I don’t see a lot of movement in that area except what has been normal for the last three or four years -- endless meetings, endless studies and endless talk.

While we are on that particular area of how this government functions, could we at some point in time entertain some discussion not about how large the civil service has grown or whether we are actually financing it directly as the civil servants of the Province of Ontario or contracting it out but some discussion in this House about how effective that civil service might be? Could we at some point in time discuss whether they actually tie all the things they are supposed to do and how well; could we make that process accountable to this House?

Let me move to something which is substantial in my own riding and that is the auto industry. At one time this spring we met with the Premier (Mr. Davis) and several of his assistants; there were people there from municipalities throughout the province which have auto industries. We all learned some amazing things. Something like 70 per cent of industry in the Province of Ontario is in some way related to the auto industry. I thought that General Motors of Canada was a rather large bucket in my riding. It turns out, though, that the automotive industry as a whole is a rather substantial bucket in terms of the Province of Ontario.

We heard some discussion in the question period today that that great salvation of the auto industry -- the tax rebate on new cars -- is not going to go any further than was originally intended. I am of two minds on that particular subject. First of all, it really didn’t do anything for anybody, except those fortunate people who intended to buy an automobile anyway. It gave them a break, just before an election, since we seem to be mentioning when the breaks always fall. That’s when it happened.

It really didn’t do very much for the automotive industry --

Hon. Mr. Meen: You should tell that to your friends down there on the production line in Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: -- because in those very months the government was intending to stimulate the industry the sales dropped. The only time they picked up was when they traditionally pick up, in the new model year. That’s what happened in that one.

Whatever happened that made the government of Ontario go to Germany to look for transit vehicles? It could have gone to Oshawa. It could have gone to Oakville. It could have gone to Windsor or a great many other places. When did it ever look at our own transit vehicle production sector, if you like, and ask them to design some things that the government of Ontario might use?

When did it ever -- in terms of interfering with the economy which we now appear quite happy to do -- discuss production? In my municipality we get the weirdest phenomena. That plant runs full tilt all day, every day, until it has built such a large backlog that it simply shuts down so the people who work there either work overtime or they don’t work at all.

There are strange phenomena at work there. At one point in time, we find the entire plant shut down because there were too many vehicles built. The next day we will find it is working overtime and working on weekends. Perhaps it might be considered to be the responsibility of the Province of Ontario to put some stability into that industry.

In this session we are proposing to deal with something called an Industrial Development Act, which may be -- at least on the surface it appears to be -- a needed item in the Province of Ontario. Partially because of what I said earlier about asking the municipalities to do things they really cannot afford to do, let me state now some concerns I have about that, although they may be dealt with. Could I simply ask that those areas adjacent to Metro -- and mine is one -- that are now under totally unprecedented pressures for housing -- the housing is moving in there at an unprecedented rate, and that of course is causing some serious problems in trying to keep some kind of an industrial sector going for jobs and for assessment purposes as well -- could we see that those areas are not neglected by this?

I firmly hope that it means the end of a minister making the decision as to whether somebody pays three per cent transfer tax or 21 per cent transfer tax. That kind of a disincentive, if you like, seems rather unfair.

I want to ray too that I am not particularly happy with the idea of subsidies -- of subsidizing particular industries, in that sense. I would prefer to see them given assistance. I would prefer to see them assisted in the sense that the government of Ontario tries to locate them and helps those municipalities provide services to them -- in other words, makes it a good place for an industry to go -- rather than subsidizing their operations thereafter.

Let me attempt to outline, too, a couple of rather serious problems we have in my area; they’re very specific ones as well. In the course of the election something that had been a matter of great discussion for some time in my riding -- the construction of a new senior citizens apartment centre -- was brought up.

In the spring of this year when there really wasn’t an election on, the ministry staff went to the city of Oshawa and oddly enough didn’t talk to the members of that council. They went and they talked to the media and they said there were great problems over the city’s lot levies. As members of that council we never did get any correspondence from the ministry. We had to read it in the newspaper.

During the course of the election, however, all of a sudden those problems were clarified. And that senior citizens apartment was going to be built; no question about it. I am now told that it is going to tender, the purpose of which is net really to begin construction of it but really to make the case that they can’t afford to pay the city’s levies. What I find so -- forgive the word -- awful about it all it is that project is an excellent example of a municipality that got fed up with the ministry horsing around with the needs of its people. It got fed up to the extent that it went out and actually purchased the property for that particular apartment building, handed it over, got them all happy, got all the little bureaucrats in the same room at the same time and sorted it all out. Then, of course, they all came back here and found out that it was costing money.

I find it odd that you would be asking the municipality to subsidize a provincial project. It strikes me it ought to be the other way around. It also strikes me as being most unfortunate that the people who really need some assistance in terms of housing are being used as the scapegoats in the middle of a provincial-municipal argument. In terms of cutbacks -- and we are all interested in saving money -- I really am at a loss to understand why every time this government wants to cut money it always cuts out a service to people.

In my riding we are very proud of the senior citizens’ centre we have. It was built by the people in the community, with the assistance of the municipality, with their own money -- with local tax money. They put it up. They expanded it, with some assistance from the province after great negotiation, and they run it. It works and it works extremely well, serving about 5,000 senior citizens in that area. Theirs is one of the projects hanging fire in terms of an operational grant for this year because we are thinking about cutting back government spending.

We are not slowing down the number of ads that are going in the newspapers about how great Ontario is. We are not ceasing to tell people in this particular part of the province what a great part of the province it is. We haven’t cut that one out at all. We haven’t ceased to announce constantly how great Wintario is and how we all win. But at the other end of the scale, the guy who isn’t the subject of that kind of public relations programme is suffering. Could we not at some point in time adjust that priority? Could we not look after those things?

Let me move to something that is increasingly a problem in my riding and I suspect in a great many other ridings, and that is the trend in housing to selling condominium units. That whole Condominium Act, reviewed rather recently in fact, still has major areas of great concern to individuals. What is rather cruel about it all is that that tends to be in the open market one of the last remaining areas where our people can afford to buy any kind of housing. Then they get in and find that they really don’t own that until it’s registered. They begin to find that what they were promised in the first place does not happen. They begin to find that they are part of a condominium corporation responsible if the parking lot crumbles or the plumbing doesn’t work or for the painting of units or how they are cleaned. They are into a whole mess.

We have some absolute classics of people who bought in all sincerity into units like that. The units are not working out very well. There are a multitude of problems to the extent of builders going bankrupt. Then what do they do? Having socked their money into that project initially, having spent the long wait and then finding out that the whole thing was for naught anyway, where do they go now?

I am suggesting that in that particular area of condominium conversions, even if they are new units, there are major problems. That’s not to say that we ought to exclude those rather rascally fellows, who take old apartment buildings on the verge of cracking and crumbling at that point where they run into maintenance problems and at that point where they really don’t have a first-class building anymore because they spent no money to keep it up, and decide they ought to enrol the thing as a condominium. That is still happening and that also hurts in terms of rental accommodation, as members know.

Let me move to one other area in terms, if you like, of social reforms. I like to use those old terms. They are always good. When in this province are we ever going to get to the point where we look at people’s needs as opposed to a little handout system? When are we going to stop saying to mothers on mothers’ allowance, with maybe one or two kids in some kind of subsidized units, “I don’t want you to go out and work and make a few extra bucks this week because, if you do that, I am going to cut off your mothers’ allowance. If you do that, I am going to kick you out of this unit”?

When are we going to get to some point in time when that myriad of programmes operating between the federal government and the provincial government gets sorted out so that the kind of things that happened this September, where one family getting some federal assistance got $50 to equip their kids to go to school while some people in the next unit in similar sets of circumstances, not on the federal programme, but on a provincial programme, got nothing? When are we going to make that kind of decision? When are we going to get to that particular point?

When are we going to give them the things they need as opposed to what is good showy material? When are we going to give those people, whether they might be men or women who are single-parent families, some provision of day care? That’s the very physical problem that they have -- what do you do with kids?

They say: “If I wanted to go to work, if I had the offer of a job, who will look after my children? Who will help me out in this situation? If I am lucky, I have a mother or a father or a friend in the area. If I am not, how do I fulfil my obligations to see that my children are looked after?” That’s called day care. When are we going essentially to get away from giving them handouts?

I don’t know of a social worker who doesn’t really agree that the whole welfare system is nothing but a complicated scheme of handouts from all over the map so that in the end everybody can say: “Well, we have got 19,000 programmes, dispensing millions of dollars.” That’s what we are doing about people who are that kind of a problem. When are we going to turn social workers back into being social workers instead of being accountants? When are we going to offer those people the things they need -- the counselling, the assistance?

Let me relate to you, Mr. Speaker, one simple problem of a guy that I know in my riding who has, as a lot of these people have, not just one problem but several of them. After a year and a half of arguing with Canada Manpower and the welfare department and the social services and a great many other agencies, he finally got a job. There was only one hitch. The job was not right in the city near where he lived. He had to get there. Would you believe after having spent all of that money counselling this poor guy, after having spent all of that money seeing that he doesn’t starve to death and putting some kind of a roof over his head, the whole system was about to fall down because they couldn’t figure out a way to get him from one place to another? The entire system was set to crumble. We discovered some emergency funds entailing probably about $10 a week that actually made the system work again; but it was a struggle, because he didn’t fit any of the little boxes that they are given to fill out.

[12:30]

Perhaps 50 per cent of the problems that I now get as a member of this House, and before becoming a member of this House, are in terms of labour legislation. Let me say quite flatly that in my opinion the Workmen’s Compensation Board does not work.

I don’t have any other single area with so many related problems, and some of them of a very tragic nature, and which come in on such a regular basis. If there was a stoplight that only worked on every second occasion, I would be quite prepared to recognize that it wasn’t working properly. At some point in time everything that you set up malfunctions, but the premise that I always go on is that as a rule it ought to do what it is supposed to do. It ought to provide that kind of service whether it’s a tap, or a stop light or a Workmen’s Compensation Board. It really shouldn’t become another judicial system, flapping away with its own bureaucracy and its right of appeals -- and quasi-lawyers at work. The thing ought to function. It ought to function as a Workmen’s Compensation Board. I find it most unsettling that it does not.

Let me move to another area. There is a private members’ bill in -- one of the hon. members put one in -- that deals with a very noble kind of an idea, and one that I think I really wasn’t probably as aware of as I should have been until I got involved in politics. That is, things in terms of health and safety in plants. Some plant health and safety problems are not very dramatic. They are not exotic diseases requiring extensive medical help. Some are not really the kind of earthshaking tragedy that I think has been carefully documented over the last year or two years. Some are very simple problems. The fact is that in that workplace, very simple health or safety problems have a difficult time getting resolved. It seems to me that whether that problem is one of great significance or whether it is a very simple one, there ought to be an immediate and sensible mechanism to solve that problem. If you want to be specific about it, a health and safety committee that is composed of management and labour with the power to do something.

That doesn’t seem to me to be a terribly complicated piece of legislation to draft, nor have any great, far-reaching ramifications except in those cases where it really ought to. If the argument really is shout where they pile the lumber or what kind of boots they wear, surely, without a great lengthy grievance programme, that kind of thing could be solved.

I want to summarize what I have to say about my own personal views on what the problems of the government really are. I really think it is a matter of priorities, and I guess that’s a term I learned as a municipal politician. And I probably learned it as well from some provincial politician. It really is quite true that you only have certain amounts of money to spend and the trick is in deciding how to spend it. I really think that is where things are a little mixed up on the other side of the House.

I quite agree with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) when he says that violence in hockey is an important thing. Just because you are in a hockey rink, you shouldn’t have the right to club somebody over the head with a stick. I will not argue with that. But really, in terms of priorities in the midst of maybe a record murder rate this year in the city of Toronto, in terms of all the other things that are happening around us, I fail to see where that’s the priority item; I really do.

Much has been said about Wintario funds and what a great non-tax-supported source of revenue they are. That’s the nice way to say it. The unfortunate way to say it is that it is really the legalized numbers racket in the Province of Ontario. There were times in this province when if somebody else had suggested implementing that programme we would have heard all about the Mafia. The fact that the government of Ontario has displaced the Mafia is perhaps a happy by-product. Nonetheless, that is what has happened.

Mr. McClellan: The government says there is no Mafia.

Mr. Breaugh: They took it over, nationalized the Mafia.

In a nutshell, I think you have three problems that you really should address yourselves to. One is this matter of priorities. Is it more important to provide people with little grants for this, that and the other thing, which we’re doing with great abandon? I don’t know of a riding that doesn’t have little cheques floating around from the government of Ontario. It might be Wintario, it might be International Women’s Year, it might be this, that or the other thing. A lot of money is spent on that, and a great deal of money is spent on telling the people of Ontario at their own expense how lucky they are to live in the Province of Ontario.

Could we not channel some of those funds into the basic human needs that these people have? Can we not readjust our spending priorities to address ourselves to the needs of people? Can we not get this government to be responsible to them -- not just to listen, because that’s important but it’s important to do a little more than listen to them -- to respond to them, and to provide some leadership? In this House, with this kind of a makeup, there is that opportunity to do so -- perhaps on an all-party basis; perhaps just on the basis that the government has now the obligation to put in front of us some legislation that actually works, some legislation that will be open to criticism and change.

The government has to do it now the hard way, and perhaps that’s a great opportunity. I’m not really working for your side at all, but perhaps it’s a great opportunity for the people of Ontario to have some good and some sensible legislation and to find a government that responds to their needs and actually does things as opposed to just talking about them.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to comment first that I assume this House breaks right at 1 o’clock, does it?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it does.

Mr. Shore: Could I just ask, if you’re in the middle of it, you stop and start next time, is that right?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that’s the procedure.

Mr. Shore: I just wish to inform the Speaker that I have not prepared to talk for hours, but at the same time --

Mr. Moffatt: Why not?

Mr. Shore: I’m not prepared to. I’d just like to make some points.

Mr. Moffatt: You probably will anyway.

Mr. Shore: The point is I feel comfortable that the contents of my address or comments tie in together substantially and I would feel uncomfortable to knock them out in the middle of it, so I’m going to just preamble a little bit at this time end table opportunity of continuing later. Thank you very much.

Mr. Lewis: If the member means he is going to kill time, it is a normal practice in this Legislature. Don’t feel self-conscious about it.

Mr. Shore: As a matter of fact, I do feel self-conscious about it, and if it’s any value to the House, I don’t know the protocol, if it’s the desire of the House to break and I could start next time, I’m prepared to do that too. However, if the worthy Leader of the Opposition wants to consider it killing time, I will continue.

First, I am pleased to follow our leader in responding to the Throne Speech. If I could just comment for a moment on some pleasantries, the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) was in London, Ont., the other evening, along with a former Premier, the Hon. Mr. Robarts, attending a dinner on behalf of the retired hon. member, John White, and many other worthy former members were there, including Mr. Winkler.

It was a lovely evening. I believe there were more Liberal people there, and others, than Conservatives. However, it was a worthwhile evening for me to have attended. It was interesting that during that evening our worthy mayor of the city of London, who has political leanings not of the nature of the Liberals or the Conservatives, and who apparently is a great lover of the retired member, the hon. John White -- now I’m not so sure whether the hon. John White is quite as much in love with her -- commented that she was sorry to see the hon. member retire, and also Hon. Mr. Stewart and other cabinet ministers, because she felt quite strongly that with cabinet ministers in government there were better chances of receiving favours for the city.

I would like to believe that she truly didn’t mean that. I would like to believe that the government will grant the municipalities the needs in accordance with the true needs as opposed to whether or not there happens to be a cabinet minister there. For your information, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly the intention of the elected members of London to make sure that type of attitude is carried on.

I must say further on that very point, during our leader’s speech in the Throne debate he identified many of the promises made by the government in the course of the recent election campaign. The Premier was quick to point out that the Liberal Party also made some promises, of course. We don’t deny that fact, but surely the Legislature deserves something better from the Premier than a casual tossing of the ball back to this side of the House.

In my opinion the Premier and his colleagues now form the government of this province, albeit a minority one, and he has the privilege of being in a position to appoint members and other associates to key government positions. With this privilege, of course, he has the power inherent in forming the government. He also certainly has responsibilities, I submit. One of these responsibilities is really to answer the question -- will he produce on his election promises; and perhaps more important, when and how? Particularly we in London would certainly like to know that answer.

As financial critic for our party, I accept this responsibility and challenge with deep appreciation and a determination to serve and a sincere desire to learn. I shall speak on the issues, policies and planning of all matters pertaining to the provincial Treasury and its related fiscal responsibilities. Subsequently, other members of our caucus committee will address themselves to issues pertaining to their areas of interest and responsibility.

In my view, in the years of public life which I have served locally I have taken some pride in concentrating upon and debating real issues of public concern rather than participating in confrontations on a personality basis. Some members will know, perhaps, or will learn, that I am quite capable of doing that also but I don’t believe in that type of principle. This will, hopefully, be my approach in the House and with all due respect I assume the minister, his colleagues and the other opposition critics will approach our mutual responsibilities in a similar spirit. I would like to stress that point.

As I stand here now I am reminded of the election campaign when candidates went to all-candidate meetings and public meetings and found, in many instances, there were more press and media people there than public. However, at one of these meetings one of the few participants was a plant of the Conservatives; and I suspect that of course we probably had our own plants periodically. At any rate, he said: “Hey, Shore, are you on an ego trip?” And it was a hell of a good question -- excuse me, it was a good question. Unfortunately he was smarter than I and he asked the question right at the time the time was up and I didn’t reply to it. It was just as well because I really didn’t have a massive reply.

I wish he were here now because if there is any way of getting humbled it is to come before this House and speak some time. One does really get humbled. If he were here now I could give him an answer probably; that humility comes forward at one point it time.

At this time, I wish to state publicly further, my appreciation of the offer -- and I wish he were in the House today -- made by the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) to meet with me and officials of his ministry in an endeavour to assist me in becoming better informed on matters pertaining to his ministry. I really would like to thank him for this gesture and I’m sure if he doesn’t read Hansard the few members of his caucus and party will pass that on to him. I would certainly hope this offer would be of an ongoing nature because I am firmly convinced, as I’m sure he is, that an informed House will always serve the public better.

Our leader, in his opening remarks on Tuesday, stressed certain areas of great importance in the Throne Speech. On behalf of the Liberal Party the thrust I will be concentrating on is in the areas of inflation; the minister’s statement of Oct. 30 to the Legislature on Ontario’s anti-inflation programme; his recommended actions to control inflation; and the fiscal position of the Province of Ontario generally. I am particularly concerned with the ramifications of the Throne Speech and the anti-inflation programme that he has developed.

In the Speech from the Throne, the government delineates inflation as the foremost critical issue of the province and this country, and appeals to the people of Ontario to be resolute in their fight against this inflation. All parties surely would agree with this assessment.

[12:45]

In my remarks I will address the real question, which I submit is of equal importance, if not greater, and the answer to which we as a party and the people of Ontario want to really know and to be assured of: Will the government also be resolute in its fight against inflation? That’s the real question. As I proceed, I shall make it plain that we expect the government to lead the province in this battle. We have every right to expect this, and we have every intention of assuring that we shall not be disappointed in our expectations. I’m certainly pleased that the Premier has been able to get back and perhaps will make some notes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will certainly listen. I hope you won’t be offended if I sign a few letters at the same time.

Mr. Shore: Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I just commented on your worthy trip to the city of London, Mr. Prime Minister -- Mr. Premier, I guess; I’m sorry.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not offended by the other term.

Mr. Philip: Does that mean you are starting your leadership campaign?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, only that I am not announcing.

Mr. Conway: You will make a lot of trips to London between now and the next election.

Mr. Shore: The government surely must govern, the government must lead, but the government also must listen. If the Premier and his colleagues do not have a true assessment of the real issues, if they do not have the practical and effective solutions, they should at least be prepared to listen to the members of this Legislature and take heed of what is said here.

I read with interest and a great deal of satisfaction the Treasurer’s opening remarks, under the section entitled, “Basis of Reporting” in the “Financial Report of the Province for 1975” -- which in my opinion is a massive and important document. To paraphrase: It is the constitutional principle underlying our system that the Legislature [and I stress, the Legislature] votes sums of money to certain ministries, provides for the money by authorizing the government to levy taxes and borrow, and the accounts of the government are therefore a record of stewardship and reflect accountability to this Legislature.

That, of course, is a tradition developed over 100 years or so, I understand, but I submit that it does not excuse the ministers from their obligation of listening and responding to the opinions and suggestions of the private members. With respect, I submit that this should be more than just a theory, as I feel has been the case in the recent past. It should be a responsibility, acted upon in the true spirit of the statement.

With respect to the province’s anti-inflation programme, the Treasurer has reported to the Legislature on the gravity of the current economic situation. He stated that our consumers have been hard-hit with massive price increases in areas such as food, housing and fuel -- and, I submit, shortages in many of those areas -- and warned that our demands on the economy must be limited to its capacity for growth. It is easy to find flaws in the federal anti-inflation guidelines, he told us. All these statements are substantially true. One might even say that they are self-evident.

Our party does not dispute that the problems of inflation are of national importance. However, before the minister and the government decides to opt in to a federal plan, which I submit might be interpreted as copping out of its responsibilities for the province, the minister should have the strength and determination, the political clout, to satisfy himself that this government, this House and the people of Ontario have certain assurances that this plan will work. We have the opportunity to lead in making it work, but we must have some assurance that the proposed measures will ultimately solve the problem, rather than merely alleviate the symptoms.

For example, within the federal guideline statement, it is acknowledged that there are four major areas of concern in attempting to curb inflation. I am not an economist but I have some grasp and understanding of the problem. These four that are discussed in brief in the anti-inflationary document -- and, incidentally, agreed to by the Treasurer in principle or in concept -- are: Fiscal and monetary policies must be kept in line with overall demand consistent with lower prices; government expenditure policies that limit provincial growth of the public purse must take place; structural policies -- that is addressing ourselves to the solution of the massive increase in cost of energy, food and housing and their shortages; and wage and price controls.

Our party would agree that action must be taken in all four of these areas in order to solve the problem. However, I submit there has been no meaningful direction given by the federal government, and more particularly by the provincial government, other than verbalization to this House as to how we are going to deal with the first three of these items.

It’s true we have an all-party committee set up to study energy prices, but I would submit that this route is largely a device to avoid making a tough political decision -- a decision which this government could make today; a decision which it refuses to take.

In connection with the housing problem, just a few days ago our leader asked the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) for information on his plans to improve the situation and how he planned to do it. At that time he could not or would not make a statement. “We are awaiting federal guidelines,” he said. Meanwhile, of course, yesterday a rent review action started, but we are still not addressing ourselves, I submit, to the real problem -- lack of housing.

Surely we are going to recognize quickly -- and we are going to support this concept -- and it is being recognized internationally, that rent control solves no problem. As a matter of fact, it potentially could create havoc.

An hon. member: Come off it!

Mr. Shore: I would not be surprised if you could even find blackmail going on in the housing market in the next year or so. I hope not.

Mr. Moffatt: This must be party policy.

Mr. Shore: Whose party?

Mr. Davidson: The black market.

Mr. Singer: Why are you so worried?

Mr. Moffatt: We’re not. I don’t have to worry; I am not a landlord.

Mr. Shore: Are you all through for a minute?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is quite right, it is not a long-term solution. They don’t know that over there.

Interjections.

Mr. Moffatt: It does solve the problem, though.

Mr. Shore: I think they are going to recognize it, Mr. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I doubt it.

Mr. Shore: We will try to show them. At any rate --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think they will.

Mr. Shore: No. In relation to government expenditures, much has been said of the government’s intention and what action ostensibly has been taken to date. Let’s spend a minute on this subject if we might.

The Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) spoke the other day of his pride on the cutbacks and so on. The Treasurer states he will bring down a new budget early in the new year. At that same time he informs us his plan for the next fiscal year is to adopt a provincial expenditure target, holding expenditure increases to 10 per cent and showing revenue growth of 12 to 13 per cent.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the government, to the Premier, that if this government truly appreciated the gravity of this situation as I hope they do, a budget would have been prepared for this first session of the 30th Parliament clearly demonstrating how it is planning to meet the stated targets and how these plans will affect the people of Ontario.

It is vital to municipalities and school boards across this province, and essential for effective planning and the solution of serious problems, that we, through this Legislature, have information available which will facilitate the establishment of new and changing priorities. We must consider our present situation against the background of historical development, taking into account the financial resources of this province, and I cannot place sufficient stress upon the real necessity for the Treasurer of this province to clearly outline, not only his objectives but the method by which he intends to attain them.

In recent years, massive deficits have accumulated in the budgetary transactions, not to mention the non-budgetary transactions. For the most part, the actual deficits have ultimately been far in excess of even the planned deficits.

Let us consider just for a moment the projected expenditures for 1975. The original budget came down in April. In July supplementary actions came down; in July, 1975 the actual financial report came out and on Sept. 30 an interim report came out.

It is truly surprising how massive changes can take place in two and three-month periods. To me that requires massive and important attention. It takes very little imagination to recognize this. The original budget called for a deficit of $1.2 billion and now, based on the government’s own figures and projected figures, it is $1.5 billion.

It takes, as I say, very little imagination to envisage that before this fiscal period is out the operational deficit of this province will be close to $2 billion. I’m prepared to challenge it and receive an answer to prove me wrong. That does not take into consideration the $500 million that will likely be a deficit from the non-budgetary items.

Mr. Singer: You haven’t even mentioned supplementary estimates yet.

Mr. Shore: I don’t even know what that means yet.

Mr. Singer: That’s when they spend stuff that isn’t in the budget yet.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Speaker, in my considered judgement, regardless of which party is in government power, it cannot in good conscience, I submit, alter its accountability in this way. Possibly I should not find this fluctuating deficit situation as astounding when one considers that the government found it even difficult to answer a very simple question such as: “How many staff do you have on the payroll as of Nov. 1, 1975, and how many did you have on Nov. 1, 1974?” I submit that when we have a document like this which outlines the staff position of this province very clearly here, it should not be a massive difficult situation to update it periodically.

Mr. Singer: What’s the document?

Mr. Shore: It is the Ontario budget of 1975, that’s where it is pulled from. Budget deficits are not in themselves unacceptable in certain situations, although they are frequently queried. However, a budget deficit which will in fact be up to almost two-thirds over the original anticipated budget must be subject to question and examination.

In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the credit rating of Ontario has been seriously reviewed, and I’ve now got the official version. I didn’t ask one of the questions the other day, because I had a very clear indication that it was going to be triple-A because I heard how it became triple-A. I had the greatest faith in the Province of Ontario but I heard that they were relating it to the city of New York, and that’s how we became triple-A. I hope it will continue to remain triple “A”, believe me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What I find very impressive is that a year ago when we got the triple-A a lot of the member’s colleagues really thought that was a membership in Alcoholics Anonymous or something.

Mr. Shore: No.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They didn’t think it was significant at all.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I remember it so well. The member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) was one of those who said it didn’t mean a thing and he wasn’t impressed. Then when it looked as though it might be altered, it became a very relevant problem.

Mr. Singer: How come the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) didn’t read the note of warning in the telegram?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member might find a convenient place to break his remarks and move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Shore moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House --

Hon. Mr. Davis: We thought members were applauding the House leader.

Hon. Mr. Welch: This is the first time I’ve ever been applauded for an adjournment.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before moving the adjournment of the House, I could say we will be standing adjourned until Wednesday afternoon. On Wednesday we will go into committee of supply and commence the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and we will sit Wednesday evening. The standing committee will be at work with the estimates of Labour, followed by Energy and then Housing in that order. On Thursday of next week, we’ll go back to legislation, meeting in the afternoon and the evening, when we will continue with this debate.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.