Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 am.

Prayers

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to expand on a newspaper article in this morning’s Globe and Mail which quotes me as saying that credit card holders do not have to pay their accounts until they have received itemized bills.

The mail strike has caused problems for many Canadians and business is especially hard hit. Some large companies in the credit card or revolving account business appear to be attempting to add further to the consumers’ problems by charging interest on accounts when these companies have not been able to inform consumers of the exact amount owing or the mechanism established for making payments.

My legal advisers have informed me that unless the lender has furnished the consumer with a written statement of account as provided for in the Consumer Protection Act, the consumer is not liable to pay interest charges under the provisions of the Act. Consumers do have a responsibility to keep up with their debts; people using credit cards are always issued with a receipt and, by some simple addition, could calculate the approximate payment. I would encourage consumers to keep their charge accounts and credit payments as up to date as possible. It goes without saying that unpaid bills will be even harder to pay after the strike if they are allowed to accumulate.

There is responsibility on both sides. Business should not attempt to take advantage of a situation and the consumer should not try to postpone his obligations.

DISTRIBUTION OF GAINS CHEQUES

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, on Nov. 12, I informed this House of the arrangements my ministry made for the distribution of November GAINS cheques during the mail strike to some 272,000 pensioners.

I would like to give you now a progress report at the half-way point in this massive undertaking and to ask for continued cooperation by members, municipalities and the media to ensure its successful completion.

First, outside Metropolitan Toronto 161,000 GAINS cheques have been successfully distributed for pickup at local municipal offices and at operating rural post offices. Current reports are that these cheques are moving out very rapidly. In seven major cities we have used ministry retail sales tax district offices, and by Wednesday nearly 19,000 cheques of 50,000 cheques had already been picked up.

Second, distribution in Metropolitan Toronto is a particularly difficult task. GAINS cheques were available Monday to Wednesday of this week at the St. Lawrence Market, 92 Front St. E. By Wednesday 13,000 cheques of 61,000 had been picked up. The system at St. Lawrence Market has been operating very efficiently and I am impressed that it generally takes less than three minutes for pensioners to pick up their cheques once they enter the dour.

The St. Lawrence Market distribution centre was in operation from Monday to Wednesday of this week and will be in operation again on Monday and Tuesday of next week. In anticipation of possible confusion caused by this break in the distribution procedure, my staff in GAINS made arrangements to assist those people who mistakenly arrived at the market yesterday and today. Therefore, we are using ministry cars to transport these people to the GAINS office at 77 Bloor St. W. so that they can obtain their cheques there without returning a second time.

I would also add that if institutions such as nursing homes, retirement homes or hospitals prepare lists of recipients who are unable to pick up their cheques, our staff will take the lists and deliver the cheques to the institutions the following day.

We have had excellent help from municipalities. Also, in response to my requests for co-operation from the media, I want to say we have had extensive and valuable coverage across the province. They have been extremely helpful in informing people of our arrangements and, therefore, in ensuring the success of this most worthwhile undertaking by my ministry.

We are quite prepared to repeat this service to our GAINS recipients should the postal strike continue into next month. This first experience will ensure an even smoother operation next time. In this event, we will issue details to the media and once again ask for both the members and the media’s continued support in our efforts.

In conclusion, I might add we have already made a commitment to have December GAINS cheques available at our distribution points for pickup by recipients before Christmas.

Once again I wish to thank the members, the municipalities and the media for their contribution to the success of our distribution arrangements.

Mr. Young: Could I ask the minister in respect to the picking up and delivery of credentials and cheques to senior citizens’ homes, do I understand that if the head of an organization, such as the Association of Senior Citizens’ Homes, will make a list of those who have not already picked up cheques, a car will go, pick up that list and then deliver the cheques?

Hon. Mr. Meen: That is correct.

Mr. Young: The cards are not necessary then, just the list?

Hon. Mr. Meen: In those circumstances, if the head of a home brings us a list of the intended payees and we can confirm their addresses, I think it would be appropriate for the cheques to be delivered to the homes just as though they were being delivered in the mail boxes at the home.

Mr. Speaker: That was a question for the question period, but it has been asked and answered now.

RENT CONTROLS

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Deans: Another one? That is the second one this week for this minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This morning on the electronic medium --

Mr. Roy: Which electronic -- TV or radio?

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

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This morning on the electronic medium -- the radio stations for the clarification of those who don’t know the difference --

Mr. Breithaupt: Radio is TV without the picture.

Mr. MacDonald: Don’t be so condescending in your explanations.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- it is being reported that I had agreed in the House last night to an amendment to Bill 20 which would extend rent controls to luxury apartments, to Ontario Housing units and to others.

Mr. Singer: It said it in the papers, too. That is the printed medium.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I haven’t read the papers. I want to make it very clear to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the members of this House, and to those of the media who were not present last night, that no such amendment was proposed by me, no comment was made concerning that either in the House or outside the House. The only comment made is found on page 20 of the instant Hansard -- and I will read it again -- in which I say, in part, “I am quite prepared to amend the legislation to include those units under their control;” and I am referring to the fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes and single family units.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: At no time was any reference made to any of the other exemptions which are included in the bill as it now stands. I would hope that the information which has been erroneously put out to the public will not have caused any confusion or concern.

ST. THOMAS HOCKEY COACH

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was suggested that the Ministry of the Attorney General had issued a directive to a Crown attorney, I believe in St. Thomas, to withdraw as a coach in amateur hockey -- a voluntary coach. I want to assure the House that no such directive was ever issued.

I am advised that the Crown attorney from St. Thomas in fact asked advice of our director of Crown attorneys with respect to whether or not there might possibly be a conflict of interest in relation to a prosecution he might be called upon to conduct arising out of a game in which he might have coached one of the teams. I am advised that the director of Crown attorneys simply advised the Crown attorney in St. Thomas to exercise his own good judgement and that there was, in fact, no such directive.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, I think in the provincial interest.

Mr. Speaker: Is there anything out of order at the present time?

Mr. Roy: No, but you had better listen. It’s a point I am sure you would be interested in.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have to get on. Is it something that can be handled during the question period?

Mr. Roy: No, it is not a matter for the question period, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I had better hear the hon. member then.

Mr. Boy: Mr. Speaker, it involves the --

Hon. Mr. Meen: It involves the leadership.

Mr. Roy: No, it involves the college bowl tonight and the Ottawa Geegees, and I am sure all members will join with me in wishing the Geegees the very best. They are defending Ontario’s interests in this and I would ask all members to join with me in wishing them well.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sure that’s true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I hope they do much better than the Rough Riders.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would like to rise on a point of order. I cannot have a special relationship with any of these institutions, so if this is the wish of the House I trust you will excuse the Minister of Colleges and Universities from that.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much. We will get on with the question period now.

Mrs. Bryden: May I ask the House to welcome to this sitting 35 pupils from Glen Ames Senior Public School in my riding, who are in the east gallery with Miss MacKenzie.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

DISTRIBUTION OF GAINS CHEQUES

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue, born from his statement this morning: Has the minister considered the implementation of an optional direct deposit system in the Province of Ontario which would allow the GAINS programme cheques and other cheques to be deposited, at the option of the recipients, in a bank or institution of their choice, thereby avoiding problems like the ones we are having at the moment and in some ways perhaps even reducing the total administrative costs of the programme?

Hon. W. Newman: We would have to know their bank account numbers.

Hon. Mr. Meen: One of the main problems in all of this, and of course the reason for the whole exercise, is communications; namely to obtain the information from 270,000 GAINS recipients as to the bank of their choice or to have them communicate that information to us. We did weigh a number of alternatives before we concluded that this was the best way to get cheques to the vast number of people throughout the province.

Mr. Renwick: The minister is not listening; he should listen to the question before he answers.

Mr. Deans: The minister has got me wrong. A supplementary question: Ignoring the current mail strike, does the minister think that it might be possible in the future to introduce an optional direct deposit system in the Province of Ontario? Surely to God, when he sends the cheques out every month he can put in, “Would you like it deposited in your bank?” and they can write back and tell him? That doesn’t require many brains.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I agree it doesn’t, and that is something I think we might take under advisement.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Premier, which I would have liked to ask the Minister of Education but he is not here: Given there seems to be some confusion over the role that Mr. Hartt played and the way in which he viewed his role as a fact-finder -- that he is not a mediator, not a conciliator, not an arbitrator, but simply a person who is supposed to look at and to place before the parties the facts -- and given that the role he did play has caused some problems with regard to a settlement, does the Premier not now think it might be useful if he, the Premier, and the Minister of Education -- who is just coming into the House -- might call the parties together, including Mr. Hartt, and set out clearly what it was that he in fact did?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sure the hon. member wouldn’t mind repeating his question now that the Minister of Education is here, and direct it to the Minister of Education.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to do that?

Mr. Deans: Do you want it verbatim?

To the Minister of Education: Given there is some confusion at the moment about the role played by Mr. Hartt in his role as a fact-finder -- given that he wasn’t a mediator, a conciliator or an arbitrator, and given that his responsibilities as set out in the Act were to lay the facts of the case before the parties, not to choose or to try to determine what might be acceptable -- and also recognizing that part of the difficulty we currently face is the result of that role and the way in which it was played, does the Minister of Education not now think that it might be useful if he and the Premier, or he alone, or he in conjunction with anybody else, were to sit down with both parties and the fact-finder and discuss what his role was and the conclusions he came to and how he came to them?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I don’t think that would be of any use at all now. I think what we need now is bargaining. Let’s not quibble over whether the fact-finder did or did not do the kind of job that we thought he should do. I think my friend will recall that in the Act his direct operational mode was not defined. It was left up to the Education Relations Commission, and I think they are going to have to review what fact-finders have done. Let’s not focus in on one fact-finder; there were 48 or 50 of them appointed in this province.

Mr. Deans: I am talking about the current situation.

Hon. Mr. Wells: A lot of them have brought settlements about. Let’s not zero in on the fact-finder. What is needed now is for the parties to get back to the bargaining table in this particular dispute. I think they will be doing that very shortly.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Since the minister also told us on Monday he thought they were going to get back to the bargaining table very soon, --

Hon. Mr. Wells: They were back.

Mr. Deans: -- could he give us some indication as to the current situation with regard to them getting back to the bargaining table? On Monday he was vague; now I would like to know, on Friday, whether he knows anything positively or whether he is guessing.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Let me trace the scenario for my friend. I mentioned on Monday they were considering getting back. As the member knows they had a meeting for about three hours on Wednesday which resulted in an offer by the board to have the teachers accompany them to Ottawa to talk to the Anti-Inflation Board. The teachers declined the offer; the board went.

One party to the negotiations feels that it’s at least of some value to get some determination from that board. I think the Anti-inflation Board has indicated, as the member will have noticed on television last night and from other sources, that it would be happy to be of some help in this matter.

That meeting was held yesterday. I believe the parties are talking to one another about how they can resume bargaining across the table in the very near future but I can’t tell you anything more than that. I think the parties themselves will have to make any statement about that.

Mrs. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, now that the Ottawa Anti-Inflation Board appears, according to the story in this morning’s Globe, to have taken on a new role, which is to rule on proposals rather than on signed contracts, this could create long delays in the negotiations.

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mrs. Bryden: Is the government therefore considering bringing in legislation to bypass this process and bring the public sector employees under provincial anti-inflation guidelines, which would mean there wouldn’t be these long Toronto-Ottawa/Ottawa-Toronto negotiations and we might get a settlement quicker?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, we are not, because we don’t believe it could be done any faster even if we had our own boards or our own parallel operation in this province.

Mr. Renwick: A supplementary question: In the initial statement made about the guidelines to the Minister of Education, there was a reference to a public service panel of the Anti-Inflation Board and an invitation to the province to make an appointment to that sector. Is it the intention of the government to appoint or to suggest the name of a person who would represent the public sector from the Province of Ontario on the public sector panel of the Anti-Inflation Board?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, it is.

Mr. Roy: Any name in mind?

Mr. Renwick: Got anybody in mind?

Mr. Roy: The minister has a lot of friends who don’t have jobs.

SPECIAL PROGRAMME REVIEW

Mr. Breithaupt: First of all, a question of the provincial Treasurer with respect to his statements concerning the report of the Special Programme Review Committee.

Since that committee has now reinforced criticisms made of the government over the years by the opposition parties, and since the Treasurer has requested further comments and suggestions on the report from interested parties, is the Treasurer preparing now to suggest to the government House leader that time be set aside in the House so that this Legislature might debate the contents and relevance of that report?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s a very interesting suggestion, Mr. Speaker, which I am sure the House leader will take under consideration. There is of course the Throne Speech debate; there is of course the public accounts committee.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker: In congratulating the Premier on setting up the committee on government spending and commending the Treasurer on his awareness that we are now in a financial nightmare, I would like to ask the Treasurer about the proposed layoff or retirement of 1,500 civil servants in the next four months; the report also recommends the merging of three or four of the ministries. Is the Treasurer going to follow through on a simple, fair basis? If he is going to retire 1,500 civil servants is he going to take his front row and cut them down too? Is he going to do that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the report is under consideration and we are not in a position, as I indicated yesterday, to give answers to any part of it. As decisions are taken they will be made clear to the House.

I would, however, correct the member’s thought that we are about to lay off 1,500 civil servants. As I recall, the turnover means that we hire something like 7,000 or 8,000 new civil servants a year, and it’s unlikely that it would be necessary to lay civil servants off. New ones, in certain categories, simply are not being hired. That happens to be a section of the report which is being implemented now and which has been implemented for the last eight months -- for the last year and a half, really -- in terms of the freeze and in terms of the complement reduction; and to date there have not been any layoffs.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order; our discussion is ranging far and wide here. Is this a true supplementary?

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that New York has laid off 38,000, this government is really not serious in cutting back 1,500 jobs, is it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a question.

Mr. Sargent: It’s very important. It’s in the report, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, absolutely. The member for Ottawa East, does he have a supplementary question?

Mr. Roy: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister: Without having even read this report, was it not exceedingly obvious to the minister that, for instance, he has three ministries -- that is, three policy secretariats -- that are really not needed in this province? Why doesn’t he get rid of them right away?

Mr. Speaker: That seems to be more of a suggestion than a question.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that I welcome -- and I am sure we all do on this side of the House -- the obvious enthusiasm of those in the third party for cutting costs --

Mr. Roy: Well, that is not new. We have talked about this for two years.

Mr. Sargent: You agreed to it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- by a variety of methods. I am sure that same support will continue to be exhibited to the government as we attempt to deal with the matter of costs. For example, in the health field, I say to my colleague that I blow he is going to have the support of the Liberal Party, which is entering into this with such great enthusiasm.

Mr. Roy: Most of this is our policy anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: The Treasurer has had better cracks than that. That was not his best.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Treasurer appears to be laying the ground for an attack on every programme that has been built up in the province over the last 15 years, in order to take us back --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May we have a supplementary question to the original question, please; not a debate?

Mr. Cassidy: -- is the Treasurer also intending to bring in tax amendments that will ensure that sectors of the corporate economy in particular --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: -- that have been undertaxed for many years --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s a new question.

Mr. Shore: Supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Shore: Yes, it is -- if I can recall what the original question was. In view of the minister’s statement, will the cabinet be undertaking an immediate review on this programme, and will the minister be reporting back to this Legislature, and if so, when? Could I have that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have the report under review and I think rather than a definitive report, which I don’t preclude at some point in the future as to a yes or no to each recommendation, that might happen -- but I rather suspect that the decisions will be taken, and as they are taken they will be announced, and that will happen in the fullness of time.

HOSPITAL REVIEW

Mr. Breithaupt: Since the Treasurer has referred to the Minister of Health, perhaps I might ask the minister if he is now able to provide us with the list of proposed hospitals to be closed, or whose work is to be changed around to some extent, that was requested of him yesterday during the special debate?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am not sure whether the hon. member was present during the debate or not yesterday afternoon. Was the member for Kitchener present?

Mr. Breithaupt: Not during the minister’s remarks.

Mr. S. Smith: I was present the whole time.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I must admit that the member might have had some trouble hearing me.

The fact is I stated then, and I restate now, that I have no intention of issuing that list publicly until (a) I have reviewed it; in effect, I want to talk to all hospitals; and, (b) until I have had an opportunity to discuss the problem with the hospital itself. I really don’t want any hospital to find out it’s on the list by a discussion in this chamber. I think it’s only fair that we hold preliminary discussions. No concrete decisions have been made in any sense on any hospital.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: I take it that the minister will agree that his system will be --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; just supplementaries.

Mr. Sargent: Would he agree then that his policy is to keep the list secret and he will divide and conquer? In other words, if we had collective opposition from 24 hospitals, then he would be in trouble. So he is keeping it secret and he will --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: -- knock them off one by one. Is that right?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister has already answered that question.

Mr. Sargent: I would like to know the answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the hon. minister answered the question when he stood up a moment ago.

Mr. Sargent: No, he didn’t answer me.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: This is public information and I would like to know why they can’t know that.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has answered the question --

Mr. Sargent: Let him run his chair and you run your chair!

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Kitchener have further questions? If not, we’ll move on.

Mr. Sargent: You’re always protecting the government.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary question of the minister. Given that the decision to close hospitals is a very difficult one, does the minister not feel that even politically speaking he might make it much easier if he took the members of the Legislature, especially the members affected, into his confidence and gave them prior notice of this cutback?

Hon. F. S. Miller: When in fact I start conversations with any hospital I’ll be pleased to have the individual member made aware of it.

ONTARIO COUNCIL ON UNIVERSITY AFFAJIRS

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities: With respect to the operation of the Ontario Council on University Affairs, can the minister advise us under what authority that council is presently operating, given the fact that the legislation giving them a special legitimacy was allowed to lapse?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would think that the authority is very similar to the authority under which the predecessor of that particular body operated. They are an advisory council to myself and they do not have legislative authority at this time. However, I think the important point to be considered is the fact that they are indeed an advisory body and we accept their advice on a good number of occasions.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since they have a budget and since the initial legislation of 1974, Bill 68, was given only first reading, is it the opinion of the minister that while persons have been appointed and moneys spent they are operating entirely within a framework satisfactory to the minister?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think it’s correct to say that we are still considering the possibility of legislation to change their particular status at this time. However, I am satisfied that the correct response is presently in place, I am responsible for their budget, and at estimates time I’m sure you will be able to get the information that you might wish to seek on budgets, if that’s the particular concern.

Mr. Breithaupt: With respect, it’s not a matter of finding out how they are spending their money. I am interested in the reason and the authority under which they are operating, because it would appear --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a question coming?

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes -- that duties or funding are not provided for, since Bill 68 was in fact allowed to lapse.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t detect any question in that. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Breithaupt: No, no further questions.

DAYCARE BUDGET

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) asked a question on Monday concerning the daycare capital expansion programme.

The first part of the question queried why the daycare capital expansion budget was reduced from $5.75 million to $3.35 million. In response to the hon. member I would like to point out that the figures he quoted are for the fiscal year 1974-1975. During the current fiscal year, 1975-1976, in which I think the member is interested, the amount budgeted is $9.5 million. This does not include funding under our regular capital programme, where $1 million has been budgeted.

The second part of the member’s question requested a projection of the number of new supervised daycare placements which will be created during the current fiscal year. The response to this is a total of 3,500 daycare places, with 3,000 of these spaces being funded at 100 per cent under the daycare expansion project and the other 500 being funded under our regular capital programme at a rate of 80 per cent for renovations and 50 per cent for new buildings.

I would like to question the figure of 400,000 places, which is a needs estimate attributed to the Ministry of Labour. After considerable research, I can’t accept that figure as being accurate.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a supplementary?

Mr. McClellan: I will ask a supplementary. I think first I will raise a point of order. Since the minister disputed my figure of 400,000, I have a document in my hand entitled, “Working Women in Ontario, a publication of the Ontario Ministry of Labour, Women’s Bureau, Summer 1971,” which estimates the need --

Mr. Singer: It’s not a point of order, it’s a debate.

Mr. McClellan: -- for child care in Ontario at 330,000.

Mr. Renwick: It is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think if there’s a supplementary question, we should get to that.

Mr. Deans: The minister said the member was wrong; the member is rising on a point of order.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to correct the record. If I may ask a supplementary, I had asked deliberately, not accidentally, why the 1974-1975 capital expansion budget was reduced. Why was it reduced?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I’m sorry, does the member have a question?

Mr. Cassidy: You didn’t answer the question.

Mr. McClellan: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I’ll repeat it in full.

Mr. Speaker: I’m not sure if that was included in the minister’s answer or not.

Mr. McClellan: I asked the minister originally why the capital expansion budget was slashed in 1974-1975. The minister seems to think I asked accidentally. I asked deliberately and I’d like an answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the minister could take it as notice, in case he doesn’t have the answer ready.

Mr. Deans: We want to know the answer to that.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary to that question, Mr. Speaker: If the minister has so much money in 1975-1976 for day care, can he explain why it has now taken more than a month for promises of funds for the Carleton Memorial Daycare Centre --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, that is not supplementary to the original question.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s incompetence by the minister, Mr. Speaker.

WINDSOR HOSPITAL FACILITIES

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: In reference to the reorganization of the hospital situation in the Windsor area, will the minister now make a firm commitment to accept the decision of the Windsor and Essex County Hospital Planning Council -- a decision which is expected very shortly, which appears to have a community consensus behind it, and will meet the minister’s new criterion and ratios for all types of beds in the Windsor area, a criterion which the minister is requiring?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’ve persistently asked for a solution to the problem that was community-based and that had community support. Yesterday I was accused -- or it was suggested that I had asked one hospital to change its role in Windsor and become chronic only. That was not the case. I didn’t have a chance to answer that point of our discussion yesterday. That was a suggestion, I believe from the very group the member is talking about, that the role of a hospital be changed. It was not ministry inspired in any way at all. So, without saying that I can accept it, I would be very prone to accept any programme that saved the $4 million and had community support.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: Will the minister assure us that if one of the recommendations is that the Riverview Hospital remain open, even though on a reduced basis, he will accept that recommendation?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that was inherent in my original terms of reference to the community. Our solution was to close the hospital and that resulted in quite a violent reaction, as you know. We said to the community, “Find us another way to do it;” in other words, find us a way that saves the $4 million and doesn’t involve the closure of the hospital. That is what I expect they’re coming back with.

METRO POLICE COMPLAINTS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Since the police commission of Metropolitan Toronto seems something less than enthusiastic about accepting and implementing the recommendations made by Arthur Maloney about the establishment of a new system of handling police complaints, does the Solicitor General intend to take any action to establish a system along the lines recommended by Maloney, both for Metropolitan Toronto and for other centres throughout the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as you know and as the House knows, there is another investigation presently being carried out in regard to the police of Metropolitan Toronto and their conduct and I’m waiting for that investigation to be completed. I hope then that there’ll be some combined recommendations arising out of Mr. Maloney’s recommendations and those of the police in general.

Mr. Singer: Since the Solicitor General must be aware that the investigation being conducted presently into activities of the metropolitan police department relates only to allegations about police brutality and has nothing to do with handling complaints, can the minister explain why he is not prepared to implement the plan put forward by Maloney which was so widely hailed outside the House and inside the House?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I didn’t say I wasn’t prepared to implement it. I suggested I was considering the whole matter at one time.

It may be, if this other matter is delayed, that the other will be implemented earlier.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister’s answers. In view of the Solicitor General’s comment that the hold-back in the implementation of the Maloney recommendations is because there is an investigation in Toronto, how does that affect implementation in Hamilton, Ottawa and other centres? Why doesn’t he move ahead there?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have given the reason. I wanted to look at them all at the same time but if the other report is too long delayed, it may be that implementation of this other one will be earlier.

Mr. Singer: The less done the better.

DUTIES OF ANDREW STUPARICK

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question raised yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Andrew StuParick is manager of the media studio. His function is to supervise and arrange electronic facilities on request. There is a staff of three including Mr. StuParick. The media studio, established more than a decade ago, is available to all members of the Legislature, the ministries and members of the press gallery, as outlined on page 14 of the booklet, “A Guide to Allowances and Services for Members of the Ontario Legislature,” distributed to all members last month. Members of all parties, especially those with ridings some distance from Queen’s Park, use the facilities to send messages to constituents over local radio stations.

Policy statements are made available to the electronic media in a form radio stations can use. Radio station editors make the ultimate decision on airing such material and experience has shown local newsmen insist on non-political material, a policy strictly adhered to.

Mr. Sargent: You kept it under wraps for a long time.

Mr. Roy: How can you read that with a straight face?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: No member of the Legislature has ever been refused the opportunity to record messages and reports for use by their local radio stations. However members must take the initiative and reserve studio facilities on a first-come first-served basis.

Mr. Martel: Is it not a fact that Mr. StuParick’s staff is out in front of the legislative assembly gathering material? Is it also not a fact that he has only taped Conservative cabinet ministers to date? Is it not a further fact that he signs off all his statements as though it were Andy StuParick reporting from Queen’s Park, but which is nothing but propaganda for the Tory party?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: It is a fact. Don’t tell me “order.”

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked. Is there an answer?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, Mr. StuParick’s actions are perfectly in order. He is simply recording policy statements from ministers as they are made in this House.

Mr. Sargent: He is a good guy but you have done him a disservice.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister not think it, might be more appropriate if the activities of Mr. StuParick and his staff and the media studio fell under the direction of the Board of Internal Economy rather than under a ministry?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I think it is not at all appropriate.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister instruct Mr. StuParick and his staff to await ministers or members requesting media space downstairs and to cease the recording of statements by members of the Legislature in the scrum outside this chamber because of the gross conflict of interest represented by that activity which is taking place now?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I’m sorry, I see no conflict of interest. Mr. StuParick is simply recording policy statements made by ministers of this government.

[10:45]

Mr. Martel: He has never recorded anybody but a Tory; never.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is getting into a debate now. Order, please. The member for Brantford has the floor.

Mr. Makarchuk: Would the minister consider disbanding that particular operation in view of the new economy drive of the government and stop using public funds for private purposes?

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary or a new question?

Mr. Sargent: The NDP wouldn’t do that.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member that we are using public funds for public purposes since all members of this House have access to the studio and to its facilities.

Mr. Singer: All members who make policy statements.

Mr. Breithaupt: All members are equal but some are more equal than others.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I thought the last question was new, because we had closed the other question. I didn’t realize it was a supplementary until it was asked. We’ll get on to other questions.

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Ferrier: I have a question that I’d like to ask of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister able to report any negotiations now taking place in the pulp and paper industry of this province? What role are her officials playing in seeking to get negotiations going on a widespread scale in the pulp and paper industry in the province?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I had hoped that I might announce to this House that there was a meeting being held today in Thorold between the union and the management in that specific strike. I cannot announce that because, a far as I know, that meeting is not being held today. I would hope that it will be held early next week.

My ministry is in daily contact with both parties in this dispute and we are attempting at this time to bring them back to the negotiating table.

EGANVILLE CREAMERY

Mr. Conway: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. What, if anything, is the minister prepared to do about the loss of 22 of 44 jobs at the Eganville creamery as the result of the takeover by Ault Foods?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: What is the minister prepared to do in the field of Industry and Tourism? I might say that we have worked with the communities up there to try to replace some of the lost employment that has resulted from the closing out of operations, not only in the creamery business but in others. Any assistance we can give to the municipalities will always be extended to them. Specifically, in the creamery business, I have not got a supplementary industry.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Does the minister share any concern for those losses in jobs to a community that certainly cannot afford that loss?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I certainly do, as much as the local member.

Mr. Conway: What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: What is the member doing?

Mr. Conway: I am not the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, I know.

Mr. Singer: Give StuParick a policy statement.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re wasting valuable time. The member for Lanark was trying to ask a question.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I asked you to make a ruling yesterday on questions asked by parliamentary assistants. There’s a long-standing principle that until you make that ruling you should not accept them.

Mr. Speaker: I’m not prepared to make that ruling this morning. The ruling is not quite ready yet. We’re digging into this more deeply than I had thought either.

Mr. Boy: Fine, but you shouldn’t allow him to ask questions until you make a ruling.

Mr. Speaker: In the meantime, the hon. member for Lanark has the right to ask a question.

BOTTERILL REPORT

Mr. Wiseman: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Can the minister bring the House up to date as to whether he has received a report from Dr. Botterill in regard to large animal practice? If not, could he tell us when he might expect this report as the veterinarians and the farmers in my area are very concerned about it?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that’s a good question.

Mr. Singer: Did the member ask it the way the minister wanted him to? Is that the way the minister gave it to the member?

Mr. Breithaupt: Does Andy have the answer already?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I know that Dr. Botterill is working on a report for the ministry. It is not in as yet and I can’t really tell the member when it is coming in, but I’ll try to find out for the member.

Mr. Singer: Soon?

GUIDELINES FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr. Godfrey: Mr. Speaker, I have another question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Will the minister announce when we can expect firm guidelines to be presented to prevent the use of prime agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes? When can we expect legislation to be introduced to that end?

Hon. W. Newman: In answer to that question, there will be no legislation coming in at this session to my knowledge and at this point in time. Members know my concern and my interest in preserving prime agricultural land. I’m very much concerned, as the member for Durham West well knows. I know a lot of people out there and the member also knows my concern about preserving agricultural land. I would like to assure him that in the North Pickering development alone we have 1,170 more acres of land under agricultural use now than we had when it was in private hands.

Mr. Makarchuk: Why doesn’t the minister do something about it?

Mr. Godfrey: Supplementary. Sharing the minister’s concern, would he please explain why he is letting 351 acres of prime agricultural land in the Westminster township garbage dump be taken over for garbage and taken out of agricultural production?

Mr. Roy: Tell him your concern.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, that question should be more appropriately addressed to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) --

Mr. Moffatt: That is what you used to be.

An hon. member: Don’t sound so concerned.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: I am not aware of the situation. I don’t know exactly what is happening in Westminster right now, but quite obviously our people have had their input into the actual situation.

Mr. Godfrey: Ineffectively.

Hon. W. Newman: However, that question should go to the Minister of the Environment.

CRIMES OF VIOLENCE

Mr. Ruston: I have a question of the Attorney General. Does the minister intend to advise Crown prosecutors to press charges for stiffer sentences on conviction of crimes of violence by using the Crown’s right to guide the court with suggestions and legal precedents since this procedure has been very effective in the Province of Quebec?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have communicated my concern to the Crown attorneys with respect to crimes of violence and have urged them to make aggressive representation in this respect. I assume my friend is not suggesting that the Crown attorneys are not making appropriate representations where the case desires or demands such representations.

NAPPAN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) -- and I am sorry he is not here, but I do want to put this on the record for him -- inquired about the position that I was taking as a result of the review of background material relating to Nappan Island. He asked in part in his question whether I was now prepared to put forward to the Ontario Municipal Board the right to look at the environmental considerations dealing with Nappan Island when they hear the zoning change application being held next Monday.

I want the hon. member to know that the Ontario Municipal Board hearing is not only for the zoning change application; they are also determining the modification to the official plan that has been requested by the municipality. They wish to change the designation from rural to seasonal resort. We have looked into this matter and the Ontario Municipal Board, as a result, will examine the principle of development. The environmental reports will be dealt with and taken into account at that time.

Should the OMB refuse the re-designation in the official plan from rural to seasonal residential, the zoning bylaw cannot be approved since it would not conform to the official plan designation; and since the conditions of the draft approval of the subdivision require OMB approval of the zoning bylaw, the refusal of the bylaw would effectively stop the subdivision plan.

I want to assure the hon. member that the Ontario Municipal Board will indeed be taking into consideration the environmental considerations during that hearing on Monday.

COURT CASE BACKLOG

Mr. Makarchuk: I have a question of the Attorney General. In view of the fact that there is a backlog of court cases in the provincial court in Brantford, now running at about four or five months and increasing gradually, what is the minister prepared to do in order to shorten the waiting period before the cases come to trial?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I was not aware specifically of the problem in Brantford. I know that it is a matter that is a problem in many areas of the province. I will certainly undertake to speak to the Crown office in Brantford in order to see what can be accomplished with respect to speeding up the trial process, because I certainly share his concern in this regard as delays in the trial process have a very debilitating effect in every respect of the administration of justice.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary: Could the minister indicate at this time when he would have some definitive answer as to what he will do or may not do?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I can’t give a specific time frame, but I will endeavour to discuss the matter with my agent in Brantford and get back to the member, if not to the House, within the next week.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary: Since the Attorney General commented that there are delays in several parts of the province, is he doing anything to arrange for the speedy trial of charges against certain food suppliers in North York who are alleged to have improperly refrigerated their meat -- if the newspaper reports are correct, these people are not going to be tried until January?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s some distance removed from the original question.

Mr. Singer: No, it was supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If you had listened to the Attorney General’s answer, he said he was worried about slow trial processes in several parts of Ontario and North York is part of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member knows that’s stretching it. It was a very good new question.

JURORS’ FEES

Mr. B. Newman: I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice and the Solicitor General: Is the Solicitor General aware of the financial hardship imposed in many instances on individuals called for jury duty and does he plan to raise substantially jurors’ fees?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Although that might come under the policy field, I think the question should more properly be directed to the Attorney General who is responsible for jurors’ fees.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, my colleague is talking about coroners’ juries and that is under this ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Coroners’ juries? I am sorry.

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister may change his answer.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It is sometimes a little noisy in the House, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear the word coroners’ juries.

Mr. Grande: Sometimes?

Mr. Singer: It is a supplementary answer.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We realize that coroners’ jury fees are, like other fees, not as much as we would like them to be.

Mr. Roy: They are taking a beating.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have also heard a little bit about budget constraints recently and all I can say is that the matter is under active consideration. It is one of those places where, if we have additional money, some of that money should go.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary: Is the hon. minister aware that answer has been given in this House for well over five years and it certainly can’t be under serious consideration if it has been on for that length of time?

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland -- we are just about out of time. There are still many questions.

Mr. Roy: I have just one supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Your turn may come on a new question.

Mr. Cassidy: He is running very hard, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS

Mr. Swart: A question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is the minister aware that the Liquor Licence Board is now in the process of refusing special permits or notifying volunteer community organizations that they will not be able to get special permits for events in public institutions, particularly the colleges of applied arts and technology? Is he aware of the serious detrimental effect that has on these volunteer organizations and is he prepared to recommend to the Liquor Licence Board that it reconsider its decision to refuse these special event permits?

Mr. Shore: Is that a speech or a question?

An hon. member: Sounds more like a wind bag, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That’s about five questions and this is what is taking up a lot of the time of the question period.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We will let the minister answer what he can.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are something like 170,000 special occasion permits issue in this province every year. If the hon. member would like to give me details of the two or three which, presumably, have been turned down I would be glad to look at them. I would like to remind him that the post-secondary institutions are able to apply for a licence on their own and this is the course we would recommend in most cases. However, I am prepared to look at any specific instances.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East, I believe, has a very urgent question.

JURORS’ FEES

Mr. Roy: Yes, if I can direct a question to the Solicitor General again. Knowing the importance of the coroner’s process in this province, how can he possibly say, when juries are being paid $6 a day to be on a coroner’s inquest, that it is under review? What is he waiting for to bring this into the 20th century?

Mr. Shore: It is under the anti-inflation docket, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Minimum wage.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We realize that $6 a day is not enough for jurymen. At the same time people who have served on juries over the years have done it partly as a public service.

Mr. Sargent: That’s a lot of hogwash.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: One can stretch that too far, I realize, but --

Mr. Sargent: Come on.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Do you need the money, Eddie?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- at no time has an attempt been made to pay jurors in full for the time they may lose through the public service they are doing.

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: What are you doing?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I spoke earlier of financial constraints. All of the work we do in this government is important work and it is often difficult to get the proper priorities on all of the services rendered.

Coroners’ juries and other juries are some of those matters which I think must be reviewed and should be upgraded as far as their fees are concerned. When this will happen, sir, I cannot say.

Mr. Roy: Could I ask one quick supplementary on this? Would the minister not at least review the situation of juries who are --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not really a supplementary question. That’s debating the issue.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If the minister is content with that kind of pay per hour for jurors, I am wondering if he would consider changing the name “juror” to “farmer”?

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

GOULD STRIKE

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: Can the minister indicate to the Legislature as to what progress, if any, has taken place to end the strike at Gould Manufacturing in Fort Erie?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The strike at the Gould plant in Fort Erie is, unfortunately, still going on. There was a meeting this week with a mediator from the ministry. I can’t tell you that any progress was made, nor can I tell you that progress was not made.

Mr. Ruston: Very good.

Mr. Roy: Real definitive answer.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Their negotiations are still functioning and I am hoping that they will continue.

Mr. Cassidy: She is a very informative minister.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Mr. Deans: The minister is glad the question period has expired.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. McCague be substituted for Mr. Williams on the select committee on Hydro rates.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the select committees to which bills have been referred may publish such notices as they deem necessary.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stong: I would ask the House to welcome with me a group of students in the east gallery, 25 grade 10 students from Bayview Secondary School, under the direction of Mr. Charles, from Richmond Hill in the super riding of York Centre.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, may I likewise ask the House to recognize a group who have just joined us from Our Lady of Sorrows School, some 30 grade 8 students under the leadership of Mr. T. Lynch.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the increasing number of physicians who are opting out of OHIP, the purpose of this bill is to prevent physicians and practitioners who bill patients directly from charging persons over 65 years of age or persons receiving public assistance amounts greater than that paid for the insured service under the Act.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I thought that perhaps before people went to committee work, and other assignments, I should indicate that the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor would attend in the House about 12:50 to give royal assent to those bills standing on the order paper. There may be some, particularly the new members, who would like to see this process. That will be at about 12:50 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: Was someone just starting his speech last day? Was it the member for Kitchener-Wilmot?

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I did not have a chance to begin the last day, so I will start today. It is an honour for me to rise for this purpose and to share some of my thoughts and concerns with respect to the Speech from the Throne.

That document is a statement of what the government intends to do. It is, therefore, a statement of what the government feels are its priorities and what the needs and concerns are of the people of this province. Likewise, by the issues that are not contained in that document, we have some indication of what the government feels lacks priority.

I feel that it is my responsibility in responding to the Throne speech to indicate areas where I think changes should occur, to be as constructive as I possibly can. It is surely our job as members of this Legislature to be cognizant of, to remember the things that we heard and the things that we saw during the past election campaign.

I would refer the Speaker’s attention to the fact that from time to time over the last three or four weeks, members of the government benches have been somewhat critical of members of the opposition benches when they referred, once again, to issues that were raised in the election. I find this somewhat surprising, because surely the reason why those of us who are here are here is because we were able to speak to the voters in our various ridings. Surely it is because they approved of and concurred with the points that we made. Surely it is because the issues that were raised were considered sufficiently important that they wanted their representative to come to this House and speak on their behalf.

It is not, however, the task of a member of this Legislature just to follow. It is also his or her task to lead, to provide some leadership, some motivation, some initiative. It is a task of members of this Legislature to indicate to the people of this province those areas where we think changes are required and then to move out among our constituents and indicate why we think these things should be done and to solicit their support.

The riding that I represent is a new one. Kitchener-Wilmot was carved from the two previous ridings represented by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Good) and the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt). The riding I represent is particularly important, or should be particularly important to this Legislature, because it is in many ways a microcosm, if you will, of the entire Province of Ontario. It has approximately 80 per cent urban development and approximately 20 per cent rural and small town and village development. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is the approximate proportion across this province.

It is a riding that is diversified in many ways. It has a mixture of industrial growth, commercial growth, agricultural growth and cultural growth. Its industry, for example, includes such things as electronics, meat packing, furniture making, and car part manufacturing. Many more could be included in a list. The point that I would make here is that it is by this very kind of diversity that the strength of my riding exists.

My riding is also one that is fortunate in the various cultural attainments that are presented to its people. We have a fine symphony orchestra, a good art gallery, many drama production groups and things of this nature. The people of my riding are well aware that culture plays an important part in their life.

My riding has a broad ethnic mix. It was founded originally by Mennonite and German people and to that original stock have come Polish people, Portuguese people, Italian people and a broad sprinkling of Anglo-Saxon people. In my riding we respect and we encourage the diversity, the strength and the heritage which these various ethnic groups bring to our community.

My riding is blessed with good media coverage. We have in our daily Kitchener-Waterloo Record, one of the finest small newspaper in North America, and I can say that because this newspaper has won more awards across all of North America for its various sections -- its editorial pages, its news pages and its photo pages --

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It must have supported you.

Mr. Sweeney: -- it has been indicated to it across the entire North American continent, this paper has had and will continue to have standards of high excellence.

Hon. J. R. Smith: I guess it’s Liberal.

Mr. Sweeney: We have four radio stations in our community, and we have a good television station confined not just to my community but which also has over the last few years established satellite stations to the north, centred on Wingham, and to the west, centred on the Sarnia area. The riding that I come from is represented and is inhabited by people who are hard-working, who are independent of spirit, who are not looking for a handout from anyone, who want government only to support their natural aspirations to grow to the fullness of their own potential. The people of my riding expect government to be there when they need it. They do not expect nor do they want government to be constantly interfering in their affairs.

In my riding we have one of the lowest unemployment rates of this province and we have one of the lowest welfare rates in this province. I am not suggesting that there are no needy people in my riding; there are. But the people of my riding are of the type that strive constantly to be their own master, to share with their fellow man and to consider their government to be one of support. It is in this area that I would make some comments on this document.

As I go through it, I notice that it begins with some references to the Anti-Inflation Board and certainly I and my colleagues in this party support the stand of the government which in turn is supporting the position of the federal government with respect to anti-inflation. We do regret, however, and we have so stated, the fact that this provincial government will not take initiatives on its own to make some of its own decisions with respect to the anti-inflation procedures. I read in this report a statement that this government has led the way in restraining its own expenditures over the past year.

I have to read that statement with amazement, with wonderment, and certainly with utter disbelief. If there is anything that is patently obvious in the financial affairs of this province it is surely the fact that this government has not only not led the way in exercising restraint, not only has not given leadership in exercising restraint, but has been unable to exercise restraint within its own ranks.

We can conclude only one of two things when a statement like this is printed in this document, and that is that either the government is trying to deceive or the government it totally unaware of its own deficiencies. In either case, Mr. Speaker, I would have to suggest that the government of this province is in trouble.

[11:15]

This government, this province, is not in a fiscally responsible situation. Only recently the credit rating of this government was seriously challenged. Credit raters outside of this provincial jurisdiction have drawn to the attention of this government that its deficit position in the current fiscal year approaches 10 per cent of its total budget. They have been advised that that is a precarious position to be in.

We only need to look at the experience of New York City, which went through some of the same kind of fiscal policy. We only need to look at our mother country of England to see what has happened there when it practised some of the same kinds of fiscal policies.

Fortunately, in this land of abundance and of great resources we have not yet reached the financial and the fiscal break already reached by the two examples I just mentioned. It is time for us to pull back before we do encounter financial disaster. It certainly was with pleasure that I saw introduced into this House yesterday a programme review which recommended that this government reduce its expenditures by at least $1 billion -- and in areas which have frequently been brought to the attention of this government by colleagues in my own party and in the other opposition party.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, now is the time when this government will (a) recognize the deficiencies in its fiscal policies; (b) will begin to appreciate the dangerous fiscal position that we are in; and (c) will certainly begin immediately to take steps to recommend that changes be made. Surely no longer can this government say that we do not have a fiscal problem in this province or that nothing can be done about it.

The fiscal health of this province, Mr. Speaker, will determine many of the other services which we are able to provide. It has been brought to our attention on more than one occasion during the last two or three weeks that what the government is able to do in providing social services to its people depends largely upon the fiscal resources that are available to it.

As we move on in the Throne Speech we note a reference to rent review legislation to be brought before this House. As you well know, this has already been done and we applaud that move. We spoke during the election campaign of the need for some form of review system to protect the tenants, the renters, in this province.

However, at this time I would repeat a comment that I made earlier in this House, and that is that we are talking in this legislation of review, we are not talking of control. It has been shown time and time again in other jurisdictions, both in North America and in Europe, that rigid, binding, arbitrary controls are self-defeating. They do not produce what the whole intention of housing legislation in this province is intended to produce, and that is good accommodation at prices people can afford to pay. Let us never forget, Mr. Speaker, that the whole purpose of any housing legislation -- whether we are talking of new house construction, purchased house construction or rental accommodation -- is to provide shelter and accommodation for our people.

With respect to rental accommodation, let us also appreciate that the kind of legislation that has been brought in has a universality to it that is dangerous in some ways. It suggests to us in this Legislature, and to the people of this province, that the kinds of needs and the kinds of conditions that exist in one part of the province, namely our largest urban areas, are also the same conditions and the same needs that exist in other areas. That is just not so, and the evidence exists to show that it is not so.

For example, in my own area it has been demonstrated that while wages over the past 10 years have increased in excess of 100 per cent, the cost of rental accommodation has increased only 37 per cent. It has been amply demonstrated in my own riding that roughly 60 per cent of the renters are living in duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes owned by small individual landlords who also live in that same building and who, over the last number of years, have taken great pains to keep their buildings in good repair and to charge their tenants the lowest possible rates so as to bring in at least a fair return. These people have not demonstrated that they are out to gouge their tenants or to be unfair to their tenants. As a matter of fact, their vacancy rate is so low as to suggest strongly that the people who live there approve of what is happening.

There is also evidence in my riding that owners of some smaller apartment buildings, with 12, 13 or 14 units, have been facing some precarious financial situations over the last couple of years. Only a few days ago, I was reviewing a building owned by an owner in my area who, over the last two years, has incurred annual expenses of approximately $34,000 and had an annual income of approximately $28,000. In other words, that owner is losing money at the rate of approximately $6,000 a year. Those kinds of situations need also to be brought to the attention of this Legislature, just as we have accepted so openly the examples where in fact tenants have been gouged and where landlords have in fact been unfair. I guess all I’m trying to suggest is, let’s bring a little balance into the picture; let’s appreciate that justice needs to be done on both sides of the coin.

When we talk of the rental accommodation in this province we must keep in mind that the prime cause of the present problem is the lack of purchased accommodation in this province. It is a known fact, and I am sure it can be documented by every member in this House as they walked around their ridings during the last election, that there is family after family after family living in rental accommodation who would dearly desire to live in purchased accommodation if they could.

If we can find the imagination and the initiative to provide it, to the families of this province who want to own accommodation of their own, whether it be in a single-family dwelling, in a condominium dwelling or in multiple housing -- I don’t think that particular fact is as important as the fact that they simply want to own something of their own -- if we can do that, then by that very fact we will solve the rental accommodation problem almost overnight.

Why do we have a purchased accommodation problem in this province?

I would suggest that the reasons are threefold, the first and most serious being the lack of low-cost serviced land; secondly, the financial plight of our municipalities and their unwillingness to accept more housing into their municipal areas because of the cost of hard and soft services, both before and following construction, and finally, the high interest rates on mortgages which exist in this province. All we have to do to understand that these three can be remedied is to go from this very spot, this city of Toronto, directly across the lake to the American city of Rochester and find that accommodation which is almost identical in every way -- the same size lot, the same size home, basically the same construction, in very similar residential areas -- selling at half the price of the same accommodation in this city of Toronto.

There is something drastically wrong, and what can we do about it? What can we do, for example, about the shortage of low-cost serviced land?

Let us use some initiative. Let us recognize in the whole housing area that we do, in fact, face a housing accommodation crisis in this province. Let’s accept the fact that it is, in fact, a priority. Let us remember that during wartime we found ways through wartime housing to meet our needs. Wartime houses, which were supposed to be a short-term temporary affair but which, again, many members of this House can bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, are still standing in many of communities in a good state of repair and well used. We do face a crisis and we have to solve it on a crisis basis. In terms of serviced land, for one thing, this provincial government has under its direct control upwards of 100,000 acres of land in land banks. In this fiscal year budget, there is I believe another $72 million to purchase more land. Surely the time has come to service and put on the market that land which is owned by the government, at cost -- not at market value, which simply increases that vicious circle, but rather at cost.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw to your attention that in the Malvern project, under the jurisdiction of this government, raw, unserviced land was purchased at $800 an acre. Assuming that we can get approximately four good-sized building lots out of an acre of land, plus all the other services, we’re looking at the original cost of that land, unserviced raw land, at $200 per lot. Yet that land is selling today at $36,000 a building lot.

How in the name of any kind of describable justice can the government of this province condone that kind of action? Surely the government of this province does not want to stand accused of being the most gross land speculator in the province? Yet this kind of action brings forward no other possible description.

Someone, somehow, someday -- and let it be today -- has got to break the cost of serviced land cycle. I don’t know who else can do it except this government, making a beginning at least with the land under its own control. I think another possible solution is to encourage and to permit in some of our municipalities a skip- or a hop-over kind of development with respect to land servicing. It is unfortunate that many of our private developers completely control all the developmental land around our larger centres. They control it; they control the price; they control when it’s going to come on the market because they know the pattern of development has been in a consistent circle outward from existing developments.

[11:30]

As far as I can see, the only way we’re going to break that kind of stranglehold is to skip right over the top of them and move to other land -- I’m not talking about good class 1 or class 2 farming land but lower class land -- and provide servicing there as quickly as possible. When we talk of servicing let us also appreciate the fact that one of the high costs of serviced land is the degree of sophistication and complexity which our municipalities, supported by the provincial government, demand of serviced land in this province in most areas.

Why is it necessary to have road widths of 60 ft. in small subdivisions? Why is it necessary that we have curbs and gutters; that we have sidewalks? In many areas where there is good natural drainage, why is it necessary for us to have storm sewers, extremely costly storm sewers? Why is it necessary to have underground wiring? The list is almost endless.

What we have said to the people of this province through our planning procedures, both at the local municipal level and at the provincial level, is that we will provide Cadillac-style development or we will provide nothing. It surely is an ideal worth looking toward to provide the very best for our people that we possibly can but surely we’re talking about all of our people not just a small percentage of them? If we demand servicing requirements which are so costly that we force out of the market upwards of 60 per cent of our population, that is a wrong decision and it has no justification.

At the present time in this Province of Ontario, from the government’s own statistics, 60 per cent of our families do not earn enough income to go out into the market today and buy housing. To give some example of these fantastic increases in the price of housing, may I quote one only from my own municipality:

In 1973, only two years ago, the price of a low-cost, no-frill house supported by the municipal government was $21,000. Low cost, no frills. That same house today, only two years later, now sells for $43,000, an increase in excess of 100 per cent. There is something drastically wrong when we cannot get serviced land on the market in this province to prevent that kind of scandal because almost $20,000 of that $43,000 is the price of the lot. That’s where our problem lies.

I’ve also alluded to the fact that part of our problem exists because municipalities are faced with financing restrictions and, because of that, they quite naturally try to prevent further development in their areas. We must come up with imaginative, innovative ways of helping our municipalities.

For example, it has been suggested that we allocate to our municipalities two or three percentage points of the provincial income tax to be used for these kinds of purposes. It has been suggested that in the provision of the major services -- for example, sewage treatment and water supplies -- the provincial government should share the cost with municipal governments to a much larger extent than it does now.

It has been suggested that we take a whole new look at the assessment procedures in this province and see whether or not we cannot come up with more income levied in a more equitable way, with suggestions, for example, that would place the bulk of assessment on land rather than on buildings and suggestions that would allow us to take a look at the total services provided and allocate them on a per-family basis rather than necessarily on the value of that particular home.

There are imaginative, innovative ideas around. Let us listen to them, let us examine them, let us try them out in some test cases and see if they can work, but let us not continue to go on doing the same things in the same way that have patently been proved not to be effective.

In terms of mortgage financing there is no doubt that housing mortgages of 12 per cent are crippling. Housing mortgages of 12 per cent cannot be afforded by the majority of our people, no matter what their income level is. Those have to be modified. There has been criticism from the government benches in this House that the fault lies solely with the federal government. I do not deny that part of the fault surely lies with our federal government, but part of the fault also lies with this provincial government, and perhaps it is time in this area, as in so many others, that we stand up and start solving some of our own problems in the best way we can without constantly pointing fingers at others and excusing our way out of our dilemmas and our difficulties. For example, we know that the $2 billion deficit of this province which hopefully will be eradicated over the next two or three years, is partially financed by $1.2 billion of pension funds from both the Canada Pension Plan and from the teachers’ superannuation plan. Many low-cost mortgages, say, at eight or nine per cent, could be made available to the people of this province, if that $1.2 billion of pension funds directly under the jurisdiction and control of this provincial government were allocated to the low-cost mortgage field.

If that step were taken, I predict, I prophesy, that holders and managers of ether kinds of pension funds could be persuaded to follow suit. Those holders and managers of private pension funds and union pension funds could also be persuaded, I am convinced, to direct those funds in the eight, nine or even 10 per cent area into low-cost housing financing and mortgages.

How many hundreds of thousands of homes could be built, and could be financed in this province? Let us appreciate that if we can have a tremendous upsurge in home-building in this province, it would be the greatest shot in the arm to our entire economy. We would make work for many skilled and unskilled people. We would provide production for the various facilities that are needed in the building of homes. So much would flow from it -- the manufacture of furniture and other goods that are required in homes and the various servicing that is required in homes. If we can have that tremendous upsurge in home construction, not only will we be meeting a primary need for accommodation of our people, but we will also be meeting many secondary needs, including the upsurge in the economic health of this province.

As we go on through this document, we notice that there is no mention whatsoever of the consolidating tendencies of this government which have caused so much havoc in this province, consolidating tendencies that began in 1969 with the county school boards, which caused so much alienation between teachers and trustees, between schools and parents, and which caused such high increases in costs to be generated by this provincial government as well as by local municipal governments.

We had the pattern; we had the model -- and we didn’t learn from it. Because only a short while later this government followed up with another form of consolidation which has proved to be even more disastrous -- and that is regional governments.

In my own area, in the regional municipality of Waterloo, within 15 months after regional government having been set up, the municipal employee increase was 990 persons -- from approximately 1,700 to in excess of 2,600.

Every regional municipality in this province is subsidized by the province to the tune of approximately $2.5 million a year, because despite the high increases in local municipal tax to support it, the local funds simply are not sufficient to float these disastrous regional government setups.

Just to indicate how unwise, how unthinking this government has been, the regional municipality of Waterloo was patterned almost directly after that of Niagara. At the very time that Waterloo was being created -- being set up against the opposition of almost 100 per cent of the population -- almost at that very time, Niagara was generating all kinds of its own internal problems and was saying to the provincial government: “What have you done to us?”

How can one area of this province be set up as a regional municipality, generate insoluble problems, and then the government come along and set up another model in another part of the province without having solved those problems first?

What I would allude to is that in the last quarter of the 20th century do need some changes, some modification of our municipal government setup. I do not think anyone will deny that -- but surely let us use one, two, maybe even three different forms of government. Let’s try them out. Let’s find out what works and what doesn’t work. Let’s examine whether or not the decisions which are made in terms of the sharing of responsibility are the right ones or not. Let’s find out whether or not they are financially defensible. Let’s find out whether or not the improvements we predict in services do occur.

What has happened in this province is that the government has got it into its mind that the one and only way of modifying, of improving municipal government in this province is that of regional government. I predict that they are going to have to change.

In my own regional municipality of Waterloo, the township of Woolwich has presented a documented statement to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) of the province asking for a review right now. The township of Wellesley has gone so far as to vote within its own local council to secede from regional government.

The township of North Dumfries had almost a minor revolution, if you will, within its own council to get out of regional government. It was only because of the pressure exerted by their mayor that they didn’t follow through with it.

Only three days ago the city of Cambridge had the issue on its local council table. The vote was an even split, seven to seven either to review or to secede from regional government. It was only the deciding vote of the mayor, in that case as well, that prevented the vote from carrying.

[11:45]

What I am suggesting is that wherever regional government exists in this province it is costing too much money, it is not improving services, it is alienating the people from the political system, they are fed up with it and they want at least a review. In other parts of this province they want no more regional government until we know what works and what doesn’t.

If further proof were needed, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the fact that in the latest government financial review, which was presented to this House yesterday, one of the major recommendations was that we cannot afford on economic grounds alone any more regional governments in this province. During the election, we said that time and time again and we were ridiculed for that statement, and now it has been borne out by the government’s own commission, as so often happens, if further proof were needed.

I would also draw to your attention the fact that in this document there is not one mention made of the agricultural community, the agricultural problems, the agricultural concerns of the Province of Ontario. Every one of us in this House knows, if any part of our riding is rural, that there are problems, there are concerns, there are needs, and yet the government did not see fit to include even one sentence in this document.

The average net income of the farmers of this province in 1973 was $8,000 after paying their expenses. That is less than the average industrial worker in this province earns. That’s bad enough, but in 1974, one year later, that declined by 23 per cent.

Mr. Gaunt: It will be even worse this year.

Mr. Sweeney: In 1975, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of this government has already predicted that it will further decline by at least another eight per cent. When we look at the agricultural situation in this province we see nothing but reversals in every direction. We see fewer people on the land; we see fewer family farms; we see a reduction in the production of every form of grown produce and livestock -- every single one without exception; we see more and more land being taken out of agricultural production.

The agricultural situation of this province is in dire straits and yet, in the Throne Speech, not even one sentence appeared.

Mr. Kennedy: There is higher productivity than we have ever had.

Mr. Warner: You can’t understand it.

Mr. Sweeney: Let us appreciate that at the present time it would take a young farmer a minimum of $100,000 to start up a farming operation that could in any way be economically viable. That’s a minimum -- in many cases it would probably approach $200,000. Let’s just look at the investment alone. How can we expect farmers who are already in the business to stay in it when the return on their investment is less than 10 per cent? That’s less than what they could get if they took that same money and put it into any kind of savings account. How can we expect that?

Mr. Warner: That’s part of Farm Start programme.

Mr. Sweeney: How can we expect our farmers not to accept the lavish financial offers of the land developers who come to them? How can we possibly expect them not to accept when we put them in such intolerable financial straits? I am not suggesting that there are not some farm developments in this province that are making good money, but I am talking about the average; I am talking of more than half.

If his process continues it will not be very long before Ontario, which has vast and rich agricultural resources, will in fact become the net importer of its own food. That will be a tragedy, and that day is not very far away. When we reach the point where people who are desirous of working the land, of growing our food, of raising our livestock, are driven off the land in the province by frustration, by desperation, by fiscal restraints, and finally by anger, that day will be a disaster for this province and it is surely coming.

Mr. Warner: It’s their fault -- it’s their fault.

Mr. Grossman: Isn’t everything?

Mr. Sweeney: An item mentioned in this document refers to gun control. Last spring in this province we had a tragic occurrence in one of our high schools. For years prior to that, this government was asked to do something about gun control, but it waffled, it wavered, it whiffled and whatever else. At that time they declared, “Something shall be done.” Approximately one month ago another tragic accident occurred at one of our high schools in this province, and once again our government waffled and wavered. Once again, it said: “We can’t do anything about it. It will have to be the federal government. But, of course, if they don’t do something eventually, then we will.”

I do not know, and I do not believe that anyone in this House could predict that even if we had gun control in this province whether those two tragic accidents could have been prevented. I don’t know that, but I do know that if we don’t do something now, there will be more of those accidents and the blood of those people will be on the heads of the members of this Legislature. We shall not be able to deny that responsibility.

I have to ask, why do the citizens of our province need to have dangerous weapons in their homes? Why is it necessary? I will not deny the right of the hunter to take his gun into the woods. It is something which is abhorrent to me personally but I will not deny that right to others. I will not deny that right to the sport clubs that use their guns for target practice. But are we such a lawless people, are we such a barbaric people, that we have to have within our homes weapons that have no other use than destruction? They serve no other purpose.

Perhaps the time has come for us to say to our people: “No more guns in our homes. We don’t need it and we can’t afford the tragic consequences.” Barring that, we must come forward as soon as possible with legislation which will be enforceable and which will somehow prevent these tragedies.

As I walked around my riding, I found people who were frustrated and angered by social and economic forces which they could not understand and which they did not know how to control. I say that is wrong. I found people living in inadequate housing, which breeds most of the social problems that we face today: the breakup of families, the alienation of parent and child. I say that is wrong.

I found people who were burdened by the spiralling of costs which constantly put them behind; which created much of the labour unrest we see in this province and which is endangering one of our economic lifelines -- that is our export market. That is wrong.

Surely, the time has come in this province for all of the people, particularly the members of this Legislature, to re-examine and restructure the priorities of this government. Surely, the time has come once again to allow the inherent, potential dynamism of our people to blossom forth? We are a proud province, rich in human resources, rich in natural resources, even rich in financial resources. Surely the time has come for imagination, innovation and statesmanship rather than politics to harness those resources?

As only one member of this Legislature, I personally pledge, with the help of my God and with the support of my colleagues, to do what I can to bring that about so that someday in the future we can all look back and say this 30th Parliament recognized what needed to be done, did what needed to be done and we were all proud to be part of it.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, it is both an honour and a privilege to join in this debate today. I would like to congratulate the Speaker on his election to the position. I think it represents a recognition of both his legislative abilities and his contribution to this assembly. I think I can speak for all the hon. members today, in particular those newly elected to this House, when I express my deep appreciation for the guidance and valuable assistance he has given us over the past few weeks.

It is with very considerable pride that I come before this House today representing the constituents of the great riding of Mississauga East. I would be remiss, indeed, if I did not pay tribute to some of my predecessors who represented Mississauga East before redistribution when it was the great riding of Peel South.

The hon. Thomas L. Kennedy, a former Premier of this province, represented this area and, in fact, lived in what is now Mississauga East. My immediate predecessor, the hon. member for Mississauga South, has given me much inspiration through the fine representation he has given to the citizens of Mississauga.

I should also like to pay tribute to my successor on the council of the city of Mississauga, Mr. Charles M. Murray, who was successful in a by-election on Monday last. His closest opponent, Mr. Frank Bean, has shown a commendable interest in community affairs and I congratulate him for his splendid efforts.

I am doing this, sir, because of my respect for the people who are so interested and so concerned about the politics in Mississauga today. They’ve worked very hard in order to do something to correct it.

Mr. Reed: Don’t forget Bonnie Roberts.

Mr. Gregory: Thank you very much. I am getting to that. There were three other candidates -- Mrs. Bonnie Roberts, Mrs. Della Saunders, and Mr. Bill Eadie -- whose fine efforts made this election very interesting. I certainly hope that in the year remaining in that term, the interest will remain and we will have five very interested candidates of the same calibre at that time.

[12:00]

Although ours is not a metropolitan riding, we do border on one and, therefore, our problems are partially rural and partially urban. Toronto International Airport in Malton presents a mixed blessing in Mississauga as a whole and in Mississauga East in particular. There was a great celebration when it was announced that Pickering Airport would not go ahead. The celebration in Mississauga was not so pronounced. Certainly the position of the airport has attracted considerable industry to the Malton and north Dixie area. Many large hotels owe their existence to the presence of the airport and many secondary industries are located there. These industries have contributed heavily to the tax revenue of Mississauga.

Another example of the growth of our community is the new postal terminal which is the largest in Canada. During this time of postal unrest we have the somewhat dubious honour of housing over 830,000 sq. ft. of vacant space. Some serious thought has been given to the idea of converting this 19-acre echo chamber into a convention floor. Perhaps the Liberal Party of Ontario might be interested in being the first customer.

Mr. Sweeney: After you.

Mr. Gregory: I don’t think they’d fill it. Maybe they believe that their counterparts in Ottawa will be able to settle the postal strike by that time. I would hope so.

Mr. Sweeney: Still fighting that?

Mr. Gregory: Although the international airport has brought substantial growth and progress to our area, the other side of the coin is the extreme noise factor that is imposed on the residents of our community. It is understandable that the citizens of Mississauga are concerned about any attempt to expand this facility. I was very pleased to hear the statement of our Premier (Mr. Davis) that left no doubt about his determination to prevent any runway expansion in Malton. This has been very good news indeed to the constituents of Mississauga East.

People of our community are also concerned about the preservation of our creek beds. The government’s parkway belt system for the most part will accomplish the desired effect. I would hope that consideration can still be given to extending this system to include the Etobicoke Creek which separates us and protects us from the urban sprawl of Metropolitan Toronto. The Credit River, almost certainly one of the most beautiful of the river beds in southern Ontario, should be protected through inclusion in the parkway belt system. I would hope some consideration can be given to this.

Another area of concern to us is the proposed Highway 403 which is sorely needed in Mississauga. It would provide traffic lanes to relieve the heavy congestion that is developing as a result of the home-building programmes that have been in existence for the past 10 to 15 years. The Queen Elizabeth Way is becoming jammed to the point where we are now experimenting with computerized access on the Mississauga ramps. Burnhamthorpe Rd. is rapidly approaching capacity.

The population of Mississauga has grown from 50,000 to 250,000 in about 15 years and is expected to be at about 650,000 in approximately another 20 to 25 years. It is a fact that more than 60 per cent of the work force commutes from Mississauga to Toronto each day. As a result of this, Mississauga East becomes a throughway for commuters travelling to Toronto from Hamilton, Oakville, Burlington, Milton and Mississauga itself.

Mr. Gaunt: And even Wingham.

Mr. Gregory: And even Wingham, on occasion.

Mr. Kennedy: Could the member for Huron-Bruce take another route?

Mr. Gregory: Where’s Wingham anyway? In a recent traffic study that was commissioned by the city of Mississauga and completed by the firm Kates, Peat, Marwick, it was pointed out that to provide for expected traffic in an east-west direction an additional 10 traffic lanes would require to be constructed in each direction in the Burnhamthorpe corridor -- 20 additional lanes of traffic for commuters. Highway 403 is needed very badly and needed now. I sincerely hope that this project will be given a high priority.

Approximately 45 to 50 per cent of my riding is composed of rental accommodation. In the Speech from the Throne our government declared its intention to implement a programme of rent review. The subsequent legislation is welcome. I believe that the rent review programme should be considered as a temporary measure, to be in place as long as the federal wage and price guidelines are in effect. The real problem is the need to expedite construction. Along with other measures, more incentive must be given to municipalities so that they may accept large rental projects in their areas.

My colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) has mentioned some of the problems that we have with the municipalities and the reasons that they don’t welcome additional construction. There is one that was neglected, and so often is neglected by the members on the opposite side of the House; that is, the negative aspect of many of the citizen groups in opposition to building of any type of accommodation in their area. This is something that I think can only be corrected and helped by an extreme and important educational process headed by this government.

I said the other day in my remarks that people today seem to have a “Pull up the ladder, Jack, I’m all right” attitude. I think people are going to have to be educated in the important things in life, that everyone is entitled to a place to live; and sometimes it is going to have to be done over the objections of potential neighbours.

During the recent election campaign the opposition and third party candidates spoke loudly in Peel region about how regional government was not working. Facts were twisted, half-truths were told and exaggeration was the order of the day. They said it was brought in against the wishes of the municipalities.

Mr. McNeil: Never.

Mr. Gregory: They said that the people did not want to be a part of the regional municipality. They said that regional government slowed down the legislative process and would take away some of the responsibilities of municipal councils.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s right. That’s what the people say.

Mr. Kennedy: Not in Mississauga, they don’t.

Mr. Gregory: The fact of the matter is that the council of the county of Peel requested the Province of Ontario to form a region and to change the structure so that instead of having 10 municipalities, there would be three.

Mr. Gaunt: Who voted for it?

Mr. Davidson: Did you have a referendum?

Mr. Gregory: Yes, we had a referendum just a little while ago. I will tell my friend about it in a minute.

In 1973 the report on restructuring was presented to the regions of Hamilton-Wentworth, Halton and Peel. This report was virtually unanimously accepted and endorsed by the council of the county of Peel. During the provincial election there were five ridings in the region of Peel as a result of redistribution. I am delighted to say that all five ridings elected a Progressive Conservative, three for the first time.

Mr. Gaunt: Not by much.

Mr. Gregory: Five members of the government party that brought in regional government received the confidence of the people who we were told were against regional government. It would seem to me that if the local politicians are still fighting regional government, then they are apparently not aware of what their constituents really want.

Mr. Warner: You are right.

Mr. Cunningham: They probably know better than you.

Mr. Grossman: What else is new?

Mr. Deans: Do you think there could have been other factors?

An hon. member: You’d better look at the region of Waterloo.

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

Mr. Gregory: I think when you get a reaction, Mr. Speaker, generally you have said something that has hit home.

Mr. Deans: There could have been other factors too.

Mr. Gregory: I would like to express my complete support of the initiatives of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) in the field of law enforcement. In particular, his actions in the area of hockey violence are to be commended. When fighting is accepted as part of the game, and when there is a glorification and emulation of players such as Dave Schultz, we place in jeopardy the entire concept of the sport as a source of fun and recreation.

Mr. Moffatt: Which riding is Dave Schultz in?

Mr. Grossman: Durham East.

Mr. Gregory: I think the people of this province are tired of hearing the Clarence Campbells of the game stating that they can and do police themselves. I think the people of this province are tired of hearing sports broadcasters say that violence in hockey is an integral and acceptable part of the game.

The issue of violence in general has been of grave concern to our society for many months now. There is a strong wave of support for tightening bail laws, lengthening prison sentences and establishing gun control. This being the case, there cannot and must not the exception to the rule. Violence should not be accepted and even praised in one area of life and disdained in all others.

Mr. Grossman: Let alone the question period.

Mr. Gregory: The Criminal Code prohibits assault with intent to injure. Putting on slates should make no difference to the application of the law. The hockey rink is a place where professional athletes go to work and it is as much a part of society as a factory or an office. To permit exceptions in an arena is to invite dangerous disrespect for the rule of the law and the rights of others.

I further support the Attorney General’s emphasis on the need for federal government clarification of the capital punishment issue. We must not have a law which says one thing and a cabinet which is prepared to rescind that law. So called cabinet discretion has made a complete mockery of the law and those who are responsible for enforcing it.

Another matter which is of great concern to me is that of gun control. As the hon. members well know, and as has been mentioned just previously by my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot, in May of this year a student at Brampton Centennial Secondary School went on a shooting spree which resulted in the deaths of three people rod the wounding of 13 others. Less than five months later there was a similar occurrence at a high school in Ottawa. Surely these two tragic incidents underline the absolute necessity for gun control law?

Firearms control is primarily a matter of federal jurisdiction and can best be dealt with through the Criminal Code. I am pleased that Ottawa intends to take action in this area and I hope the anticipated legislation will be brought forth in the very-near future. We must ensure that there is no repetition of the senseless tragedies which have occurred in two of our schools.

The Speech from the Throne clearly emphasizes the need for our province to work on whatever national team can be put together to find effective remedies for our current economic problems. This, surely, can be the only avenue open to a responsive and responsible government. There are those opposite who have spoken eloquently on the need for a provincial anti-inflation board to run its own anti-inflation programme. There are those opposite who believe that this government should act on its own without federal consultation and without interprovincial consensus.

Mr. Sweeney: We never said that.

Mr. Gregory: There are those opposite who believe that the only way our province can be effective in an anti-inflation thrust is by creating yet another set of guidelines, yet another set of rules and yet another bureaucracy. They advocate a complete balkanization of the federal programme --

Mr. Sweeney: You were not listening.

Mr. Gregory: -- the results of which can only be the destruction of any efforts aimed at dealing with the economic pressures attacking the country as a whole.

If they believe that is the only way Ontario can be helpful, let them say so openly to the people of this province and they will decide.

Mr. Sweeney: We have never said it.

Mr. Grossman: Oh, yes.

Mr. Gregory: The voters will choose between the polities of negative cynical criticism --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, you have.

Mr. Sweeney: Not the way he says it.

Mr. Gregory: -- and the politics of responsible government, government which is prepared to join in a co-operative effort to the national good.

I strongly believe that the posture of this government has been a responsible one. We have pledged maximum co-operation in economic action with the federal government.

The provinces have been asked to undertake a programme of rent control consistent with national standards. Ontario has moved quickly in this area. Our rent review legislation ensures that at a time when wages are limited and prices are subject to review accommodation costs will also be held to a realistic level.

Our province has suggested to the federal government ways in which the national programme can be improved and upgraded. For example, we felt that the $600 annual maximum pay increase for low wage groups should be raised and we have voiced this belief in Ottawa. The maximum was subsequently raised to $700. I still feel that this should be increased even more.

In the area of government spending control, we have stressed the need for leadership from Ottawa. The Ontario government has shown restraint in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

An hon. member: You didn’t read that report yet.

Mr. Gregory: Between 1971 and 1974, our province reduced its share of the gross provincial product, dropping from 11.3 per cent to 10.7 per cent.

[12:15]

Mr. Grossman: Not like Ottawa.

Mr. Gregory: During this fiscal year a number of measures have been implemented to ensure continuous cut-back on spending growth. This restraint programme should and must be continued and expanded in the next year. The planned extension of the civil service complement freeze and the freeze of salaries for all senior civil servants in 1976 are good examples of this government’s desire to control spending.

We must stress the need for similar fiscal leadership from Ottawa. The Ontario government is acting now in support of the national programme and the national interest. We must not succumb to the fragmented interest of any single group or individual. Achieving success through this programme will require the support and unity of all members of society, led by government.

The atmosphere of economic turmoil in which we meet today should not and must not become a forum for partisan politics and partisan disruption. The people need and want effective leadership. They gave this Legislature a mandate to remedy the economic ills and it is up to all elected members, regardless of political affiliation, to see that the goals are achieved.

I am proud to have received the confidence of the electorate in my riding. I hope, with your assistance and with the assistance of this assembly, that I will be able to carry out the mandate they have given me to the best of my ability.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the Lieutenant Governor of our province said, and I quote: “The government will deal primarily with the following critical issues: Inflation, rents, mortgage interest rates and tenant security.” There is no argument that the above mentioned issues are important; in particular, the problems of inflation and rents being most critical.

Let’s examine the government’s response to the seemingly formidable task, and while we examine, let’s keep the concept of imagination and leadership clearly in view. I’ll be coming back to both of those concepts. I would ask the members to keep them in mind.

Inflation: In the face of serious inflation and the clamour for action by the citizens of this province, the hon. Treasurer of Ontario (Mr. McKeough) announced that Ontario would opt into the federal anti-inflation programme. The greater national interest must be served by blindly accepting Ottawa’s leadership.

But the acceptance is not really as blind as it first appears, I would submit. The true Tory dogma is revealed in the Treasurer’s rhetoric, and I quote from Oct. 30: “If this wage-price spiral is to be broken,” etc. Wage-price spiral -- the suggestion clearly being that wages lead prices.

The attendant psychology to that is devastating to workers. Your wages, speaking to the workers, must be controlled so that prices can level out. If you say that often enough, you over there might actually believe it yourselves.

The truth, of the matter, and I think most of us here fully realize it, is that in a time of inflation prices lead and wages make desperate attempts to catch up. Nonetheless, this government is willing to buy the federal anti-inflation programme and all the inherent inequities. What is so curious at this point is that the government was so willing to jump into the anti-inflation programme that the federal government was offering, and yet we have heard nothing from them with regard to the inequities which we know exist. They are silent on that matter.

To be on the safe side, however, this government tossed in some of its own homegrown anti-inflation fighters. I quote from pages 10 and 11 of the report to the Legislature by the Hon. Darcy McKeough, Treasurer of Ontario, on Ontario’s anti-inflation programme, Oct. 30:

“Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to make this programme work in Ontario with only a small dose of bureaucracy but with a large dose of effectiveness. The Premier has established a special cabinet committee, chaired by myself, with the ministers of Education, Health, Labour, Housing and Energy, the Attorney General and the Chairman of Management Board. This committee will monitor the progress of the programme and make recommendations to the cabinet. As its chairman, I expect to be reporting so the members from time to time concerning the results of our work.”

Here we get to the important section, the responsibilities of the provincial co-ordinator. This is the so-called nuts and bolts of the situation. These are the little anti-inflation fighters who are going to help “monitor the overall anti-inflation programme with regard to how it’s operating in Ontario.” They will be the “main contact for all Ontario government ministries concerning the application of guidelines in their specific areas of responsibility.” The coordinator is to be the “chief liaison officer between the province and the federal government.” He will “offer liaison between Ontario and the private sector with respect to the operation programme.” It means, to this point anyway, absolutely nothing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, that’s not right.

Mr. Warner: If this government were truly concerned --

Hon. Mr. Davis: His colleagues should tell him that’s not true.

Mr. Warner: -- about inflation, and if they were truly concerned about augmenting the federal programme, why on earth would they consent to having the sales tax increased as of Jan. 1, 1976? It is my firm belief that if we had not been given a minority government situation, we would have seen a sales tax increase of greater than seven per cent; in fact, possibly either eight per cent or 10 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Where does the member have this crystal ball of his?

Mr. Warner: But, nonetheless, we haven’t heard a guarantee that it’s not going beyond seven per cent --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member going to be like Mackenzie King, communing with the spirit world?

Mr. Warner: The crystal ball I borrowed is from the hon. Treasurer, which he alluded to earlier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no.

Mr. Warner: The immediate conclusion from all of --

Mr. Gaunt: Mackenzie King took his with him though.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think he has borrowed it.

Mr. Warner: The immediate conclusion that one might jump to in the face of what we have seen from the government is that there’s a lack of concern. That’s not true. This government has managed to retain its concern for the multi-national oil corporations, and multi-national mining corporations, the car insurance corporations, Bell Canada, and many other corporate citizens too numerous to list.

Mr. Grossman: Same old speech.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Please say you’re going to nationalize -- is he going to say that?

Mr. Deans: I think so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is the member for Wentworth getting uncomfortable?

Mr. Deans: Yes, yes.

Mr. Warner: It is at this juncture that government supporters claim, “Ah, but we brought in rent controls and security of tenure.” It was done kicking and screaming -- at the insistence of the tenants of this province and their 38 representatives here. The government brought in rent control, but not within a framework of leadership.

There is still no comprehensive housing policy. There is still no stated philosophy that says shelter is a basic right for every human being. When we turn to security of tenure -- again a necessary social right so long denied and possible now through a minority government, although still not fashioned with the framework of empathy with tenants -- we find once more it is the result of pressure, not of leadership.

Otherwise, if we had leadership from this government, we would not be faced with the loophole that is provided by section 103d, subsections b and e, in Bill 26:

“Where a landlord requires possession of residential premises for the purposes of conversion to use for a purpose other than rental residential premises, or repairs or renovations so extensive as to require vacant possession of the premises, the landlord may, at any time during the currency of the tenancy agreement, give notice of termination of the tenancy agreement, provided that the length of notice shall not be less than 120 days.”

And that loophole means that those citizens of apartments No. 1 and 23 Oriole Rd., of whom the Premier (Mr. Davis) is well aware, are faced with eviction, total eviction, from both of those buildings because the owner has indicated he wishes to clear the building so that he can double or triple the rents an rent those apartment-hotel-like accommodations to the corporations which are located along St. Clair Ave.

The frustration of those tenants came to the surface. Repeated media coverage, letters to the mayor and to the Premier himself -- in fact a petition to the Premier’s office to do something -- have been to no avail. It would appear that unless this bill can be cleaned up somewhat those tenants are faced with eviction from two entire buildings so that the owner can use them to appease the needs of the corporate citizens along St. Clair Ave.

Again, there was absolutely no leadership in the framework of empathy toward those who must rent and are unable to purchase. Those are barriers which should never exist in an enlightened society. Those are barriers which most of us are faced with from time to time.

Few comments can be passed at this time regarding the mortgage interest rates, I think in all fairness, because we haven’t seen the legislation. However, I would anticipate, and I am sure that the government would go on record shortly as saying, they are quite interested in allowing the credit unions of this province to participate in passing along mortgage money to those people who are in a position to try to purchase homes; that is that the government will follow up the pleas that have been made by the credit unions to be allowed into the money market to provide a service.

I realize that that really jars the whole basic concept of banking in this country, that the handling of money must be for the purpose of profit. What the credit unions have suggested is, give them the opportunity to pass along mortgage money and they will do it at bookkeeping charges only. They anticipate an increase of one-half to three-quarters per cent only on top of the money which is available through that very treasured triple-A rating this government has.

I am hopeful the government will take that into consideration when it comes forward with its proposals about mortgage interest rates and take all of that money-lending business, or at least a good portion of it, out of the hands of those who now operate it and put it more into the hands of the credit unions. You have precedents in other provinces, in particular the Province of British Columbia where the credit unions operate quite successfully and get the support of their government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member want their problems too?

Mr. Warner: We might also consider amending the Act so that a provincial bank is established on the same basis as the provincial Bank of British Columbia, but I’m sure all of that will be revealed as the legislation comes forward.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member want the same economic problems as British Columbia too?

Mr. Warner: Already early in the life of this Parliament, and I think we come to a point of some division here, we see a pattern emerging; namely, act only in response to pressure from the public or combined opposition forces. Ottawa is just too convenient a scapegoat. It has been a scapegoat in the situation of the teachers’ strike; it certainly is in the anti-inflation programme.

The challenge to this government is pretty clear. It’s one of leadership, and I put that again not in personal terms but in one of economic leadership and social leadership, and we just haven’t seen it.

The government could start off -- and I offer here a comprehensive set of guidelines -- with a very simple, straightforward form of leadership, and then work its way up to more difficult types. Then as it goes on its examples will become bench-marks and I am sure that it will increase the pride it has in its work.

For example, they could start by keeping promises they made to the farmers. That would be an interesting place to begin. I was extremely interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) who I thought pinpointed the plea and the absolute emergency nature of the agricultural situation in this province. I applaud him for bringing to the attention of the House the very serious nature of the agricultural situation.

[12:30]

This government, of course, a long time ago talked in vague terms -- but it was quite understood by the farmers -- about a farm income stabilization programme which would come about, all in due course -- all in due time, the world evolving as it should, it would come. All they had to do was wait; and they waited and waited, and we still do not see a farm income stabilization programme.

The agricultural organizations in this province clamour for it. They have read, digested and understood the programme from the Province of British Columbia and they want it. They have asked this government -- pleaded, demanded -- and it still does not come forth.

The member for Kitchener-Wilmot pointed out the problem the young farmer faces. Members may find it quite curious that a city member -- I represent an urban riding in Scarborough -- is talking about agricultural problems, but why on earth should it be divorced? All of us have to purchase food and the less that is done about the agricultural problem, the more we pay for our food. I am extremely concerned about the agricultural problem.

I submit that the member -- if he will excuse the expression -- was being somewhat conservative in his estimate as to the cost involved for the young farmer. I submit it is closer to $0.25 million if he wishes to be involved in farming as a profession.

We don’t see a Farm Start programme in this province yet; and one wonders why, since there is precedence in so many other provinces for it. Again it is a lack of leadership. I think that’s the general theme running through all of this legislation which we are seeing and it must be repeated over and over again and perhaps eventually this government will face up to it.

Mr. Kennedy: Collective farms?

Mr. Warner: For example, if the government is really serious about fighting inflation it will not increase the sales tax. I have mentioned it before and I bring it back again and I ask the government to consider it very seriously. Perhaps it will. That legislation runs out at the end of December and the government still has some time to rectify it. It still has some time to ease the pressure and ease the burden for the citizens of this province.

If the Tories are really serious about leadership, they would stop giving groups the impression that size determines the level of their importance.

I would imagine the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) has had a presentation from the mother-led union with regard to the payments they receive. The kind of response they got back from the government was an impression -- not in definite words, not in concrete terms but an impression -- that they are important in terms of the size of their group. I submit that’s a totally wrong kind of impression for any government to give.

Their case was extremely legitimate. What they pointed out was that although the amount paid to a single mother to support a four-year-old child was $62.50 a month, a foster parent would receive, for the same child, $152.93 per month. The natural mother is being denied $90 a month.

But their pleas fell on deaf ears it would seem. Their pleas were put in the context of “You are only 350 people.” Do the Tories know what they are doing to them? They are forcing them to go out into this province and organize the 90,000 mothers who are in a similar situation; organize them and bring them down here to demonstrate in front of Queen’s Park and apply pressure through the media and so on. Why must this government continue not to react? Why must this government continue to say one is only important in terms of numbers? There is no leadership.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s not what the OSSTF said.

Mr. Warner: No social conscience. That’s a pretty damaging --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Who, me?

Mr. Warner: No, not you.

Mr. Eakins: Did the Premier hear what he said?

Mr. Mancini: Bring the Premier back. This is good stuff.

Mr. Cunningham: Why do you think he is leaving?

Mr. Eakins: This is the best part.

Mr. Warner: Now that the Premier has taken the easy ones and can depart, I will move to what are comparatively more difficult issues for the Premier to handle. Once he has mastered those easy ones, he can now move on.

Experience is available from other provinces. The government knows now by the definitive studies that have been done, including a substantial review by the Toronto Daily Star, that we in Ontario pay more for our car insurance in this province than anyone else in Canada and we get substantially less coverage.

How long must we wait for no-fault insurance and for non-discriminatory rates for drivers under the age of 25? In short, how long must we wait for leadership to bring about public car insurance?

Mr. Grossman: Dec. 11.

Mr. Warner: Tomorrow perhaps, or at least in the new year.

Mr. Dukszta: Never for the Conservatives.

Mr. Warner: We’ll wait. The miracles of minority government will unveil themselves, I’m sure.

Other provinces are making denticare a reality while Ontario waits, coddling and protecting its dentists against denticare.

Mr. Grossman: What about BC?

Mr. Dukszta: Like father, like son; no action.

Mr. Warner: How long will we wait? There is no action and no leadership.

Finally, if we want to get into the more difficult things, we reach the real heart of the matter, the issues which require real courage and leadership ability; the admission that our property tax as a base for paying for education is regressive and antiquated. What is really needed is an application of progressive income tax without the myriad of deductions -- deducting the car washes and all of those other things -- a really progressive income tax scale applied fairly and equitably and universally across the board.

A tax on profits from industry is needed to pay for education; I’m not suggesting taxes on the business, I’m talking about a tax on profits. The companies which don’t make a profit don’t pay the additional tax. I’m not talking about anything grandiose; I’m talking about one per cent, if you want particulars.

It has been shown in this country and other countries that a very small percentage of the gross national product is actually spent on education. In fact in the country of Canada, in total approximately two per cent of total gross national product is spent on education.

I’m asking for one per cent of the profits of industry to augment that portion of the tax which is taken from the income tax source to pay for education. Let’s get away from the property tax base. In the case of senior citizens or those on fixed incomes, it’s driving them out of their houses. It’s unfair, it’s regressive and it must be abolished. I’m wondering when we’re going to see leadership in that regard.

Then we get right down to the real crunch of the matter, and that is the redistribution of wealth in this province and indeed in this country. As all of us know, it’s that wealth system that helps to sustain the class society. No matter what other terms one wishes to couch it in, or no matter how one wishes to hide is, we do have a class society. There are inequities that are rampant in our society and they are not being stopped. The gap widens further.

We’ve seen in that regard almost gross indecency is this wage and price control. As all of us know, it’s really a misnomer. It’s wage control, that’s for sure; but it’s wage control mostly at the organized level and the unorganized level.

There are no minimums. The employer doesn’t have to give a raise; and the unorganized worker, I submit, isn’t going to get a raise -- or at the most a paltry sum. And at the upper levels, where are the controls?

We heard a story the other day of a director of education receiving a $5,000 increase in salary. That comes under the guidelines? It comes under the guidelines because the package applied to the total board and not to the individuals within that board. The worker at the bottom got his small sum so that the one at the top, who was already earning in excess of $30,000 a year, is able to receive an additional $5,000. He obviously needed it to keep up his standard of living.

When I prepared my notes I had not anticipated speaking with regard to the Special Programme Review Committee, whose report was tabled by the hon. Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) Nov. 20. This voluminous document found its way to my desk only yesterday. However, I perused it last night and I found some very interesting reading and I wish now to make some cursory remarks on the contents.

I turn to the last page of the statement by the hon. Treasurer, to the second last paragraph on page 5, because I find it a very curious kind of statement:

“For those who have dreams and pretensions toward ambitious new schemes of large-scale income redistribution, I would advise them to consult with Canadian taxpayers first. I see no great thirst on the part of taxpayers to undergo a forcible reduction in their standard of living to finance new income redistribution programmes. These are tough times and restraint has to be applied in the public sector, both as an example and a necessity.”

That’s an absolutely incredible statement for anyone in this age of enlightenment to make.

We’re coming back to the old business again, that in order to redistribute our wealth, somehow all of us must undergo a decrease in our standard of living. Upon what basis that is founded I have absolutely no idea, and I’m sure the hon. Treasurer doesn’t either. That’s an incredible statement to make.

I would submit that it may cause some concern to the average medical specialist in this province who’s receiving an average annual income of $100,000. A redistribution of part of his income may cause him some difficulties. He may have to fly economy instead of first-class on his trips to the south, and that will be a hardship.

But let’s get down to the heart of this matter. When we’re talking about redistributing income, there is never a suggestion that it causes any depreciation in the standard of living of those who are in the middle income bracket, which consists of the vast majority in this country. To say there is no thirst on the part of taxpayers to see a change is not consulting with the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents a substantial portion of the workers of this country. It’s an unfounded, undocumented statement. I resent it.

I move on, because my particular interest in this Legislature is with regard to colleges and universities. I move on to what has to be construed as one of the most devastating statements I have ever heard. I say at the outset that this government has made some moves in the right direction in bringing about some changes that were long needed long overdue in the system of fees and tuitions for students. It had made progress but this damaging document flies in the face of all of that progress. I am sure the government itself must feel very badly to see some of this printed material. I sympathize with the government. I am sure they are truly sorry that some of these statements have been made.

[12:45]

I quote from page 130 of the document where it says, “We propose the following guidelines be adopted: -- and I jump into the middle of that section -- “An increase in tuition fees of about 65 per cent.” It goes on to state that the average fees for universities would increase from $588 to $970.

Mr. Dukszta: Disgusting.

Mr. Warner: Almost $1,000 a year of tuition fee. If that isn’t enough, if enough harm hasn’t come to those students who can’t afford to go to university now, I turn --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would allow a brief interruption. The Lieutenant Governor is due to come in and I wonder, if I left to get her now, whether the hon. member, if he has something further to say, would move now that the debate be adjourned not later than 12:50 p.m. and then we will arrive with Her Honour. I am sure that he has more to say; so if we could have that motion that this debate be adjourned not later than 12:50 p.m. I will excuse myself now to get the Lieutenant Governor.

Mr. Warner: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I was keeping an eye on the clock, and I will be cognizant of the time.

As I was saying, as if the increase by 65 per cent isn’t sufficient, we turn to page 133 and we notice that the suggestion here, with regard to loans and grants, is that as a first step the maximum provincial grant would be decreased from $3,200 to $2,200 and the loan portion would be increased from $800 to $1,890. Absolutely astounding.

Not only does the government take the student, who can’t afford his university education in the first place, and slap him with an additional several hundred dollars for his tuition, but it makes sure he is going to be in debt, substantially in debt after he has finished university. I find it astounding.

Since I am sure we will get involved in this document in one form or another, I would appreciate statements as to how this government is going to eradicate those suggestions from the document. They are extremely destructive.

We come back to the whole business about leadership. It really doesn’t matter what subject matter we turn to; whether we talk about hospital care -- we got into what I thought was an extremely important debate yesterday; I was pleased that the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) raised the issue, because it brought to light a very serious problem about delivery of health care services throughout this province to the small communities. Again I mention that, coming from an urban riding, our health services are met by hospitals, and actually an over-abundance of medical personnel; but in the smaller communities that isn’t the case. In the smaller communities the health care seems to be deteriorating; the service is not there.

We have pleaded with this government to do two things: One, to institute community health care services in the communities; and secondly, to make sure that something is put into place, something more than adequate, before this government starts closing down hospitals. The closing down of those hospitals without any community health service being put into place is absolutely irresponsible. I commend the member for Grey-Bruce for introducing the debate yesterday.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you.

Mr. Warner: It comes down to a matter of leadership, and that particular issue brought to light the lack of leadership in health care.

In education, again we have seen --

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member is moving onto a new topic, perhaps he might move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Warner moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the legislative assembly and took her seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. P. M. McGibbon (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

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

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

Bill 1, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Bill 8, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Bill 9, An Act to amend the Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act.

Bill 10, An Act to amend the Assignment of Book Debts Act.

Bill 11, An Act to amend the Conditional Sales Act.

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

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, may I indicate what our programme will be next week.

On Monday, until 5 o’clock we will resume the consideration of the estimates of the policy field of Social Development to be followed by the Ministry of Natural Resources. At 5, of course, is the private members’ hour.

On Tuesday we will proceed with second reading of Bill 26 and then Bill 27; then, if time permits, we will do legislation in committee of the whole House, doing Bills 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 27, if, in fact, that work has been completed. Wednesday of course, is committee day. Thursday, we will go back to committee of supply estimates, the Ministry of Natural Resources followed by the policy field of Resources Development. On Friday of next week, a week from today, we will continue with the Throne debate.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to congratulate the House leader on the very fine way he runs the business of the House this year.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do have a question for the record: I recall there was a commitment made to table the papers related to the Ontario position on the federal guidelines and that some appropriate time would be set aside for debate on that matter. I wonder if the House leader would bring that back to mind at the beginning of the week and perhaps have an answer for us at that time?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to. It was my intention to discuss that early next week with my colleagues.

I appreciate very much the kind remarks made by the member for Grey-Bruce. I would want to point out that it is only possible because of the co-operation which I am receiving from the House leaders of the other two parties. Together we are doing our best and together we appreciate having the members’ compliments.

Mr. Deans: It’s like the Bermuda triangle; certain things get lost.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.