Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: During the supper recess, I was pleased. that so many members were able to attend the unveiling of the portrait of Mr. Speaker Rowe. The proceedings were recorded by Hansard. Would it be the wish of the House to include this as an appendix to Hansard?

Agreed.

Mr. Warner: Point of order.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, could we have a call for a quorum?

Mr. Speaker called for the quorum bells.

On resumption:

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE FOURTH AND FIFTH REPORTS OF THE ONTARIO COMMISSION ON THE LEGISLATURE

Consideration of the March 29, 1977, Report of the Select Committee on the Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to comment briefly on the fact that these reports which we’re studying tonight are reports which belong to the members of this Legislature.

Mr. Haggerty: You’d never know it though.

Mrs. Campbell: It’s very sad to me, Mr. Speaker, that we debate this kind of a report in the dying moments, as it were, of the December session.

Last year, you may recall, in order to get anything debated at all we had to set up an ad hoc committee. We did get through some of the provisional changes in the rules and we did get some of the committees set in place. Yet here tonight we are debating again, and further, other reports of this committee; and there does not seem to be a very real concern by the members about their privileges and about services to them.

The recommendations of the Morrow committee came out of the Camp commission report in the first instance, and as a result of a study which the committee made when it went to Ottawa to look at the operation of Parliament and its committees. It is interesting that we have set up committees of this House which were intended to correspond with the committees in the federal government, as I understood it, being a member of that committee.

One of those committees to implement the discussions on the reports was the members’ services committee which I, at the moment, have the honour to chair. I don’t know whether it really is an honour to chair that committee, because we are having great difficulties in getting our members together because of the uncertainties about the subject matters with which we are called upon to deal.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that I should read into the record a letter from Mr. Speaker Jerome setting out the members’ services committee function in Ottawa so that I may then comment on the way in which these recommendations could flow if they were acceptable to government. I may say that we wrote to every Speaker in Canada, in each of the provinces, and including of course Mr. Speaker Jerome.

In a letter to me of November 16, answering my paragraph concerning a description of the function of the committee in Ottawa, he says this -- and I think it’s interesting to bear it in mind since we hear so often just how autocratic the government party in Ottawa is; however if I may just read this we may see how we can perhaps improve our services here.

“I can tell you in answer to your inquiry in the fourth paragraph of your letter that there does exist in the House of Commons a standing committee on management and members’ services.

“Its terms of reference are to be found in standing order 65-1-S as follows: On management and members services which is empowered to advise Mr. Speaker as well as the Commissioners of Internal Economy on the administration of the House and the provisions of services and facilities to members; to consist of not more than 12 members.

“The committee has been in existence for two years. It has, since its inception, been under the chairmanship of a member of the official opposition and has as its permanent witnesses the Clerk of the House and other senior officials.

“I appear before the committee from time to time as Speaker of the House, notably in connection with the study by the committee of the estimates of the House of Commons, and when the committee feels it desirable to invite me on other topics.”

I read that in because it demonstrates what seems to me to be absolutely necessary if the members’ services committee is to be able to cope with the recommendations of the Morrow report and to come back to the House with a meaningful report.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that this committee has made one report. It was, I suggest Mr. Speaker, perhaps improperly a direction to Mr. Speaker -- at least a request -- to engage the services of a parliamentary librarian in accordance with the recommendations contained in the report which is before us tonight and flowing from the Spicer report on library services. Because there is no connection at all between this committee and the Board of Internal Economy, nothing has transpired. We are not the advisers to the board; we are not the advisers to anybody other than the House, and the House adopted that report unanimously.

[8:15]

Since then, I am led to believe, consternation has been raised. There has been a legal opinion given as to what the status of a report, unanimously adopted by the House, shall have before the Board of Internal Economy. Until this can be resolved, the members’ services committee cannot usefully function on behalf of the members of this House, in my submission, because almost every single, solitary recommendation we might consider does involve, directly or indirectly, some financial implication.

I may say our committee took the step of first ascertaining whether a recommendation of this kind would call for supplementary estimates or would call for additional money up to March 31, 1978. We were assured the money is in that budget now. I suppose we have to know whether the government has a commitment to bring the library services of this establishment into line in accordance with the recommendations of the report. But on the other hand, until we do engage the services of a librarian, we aren’t going to be able to move further in this field.

This concerns me, because we have a library, and we have staff. It seems to me if we believe that library should serve the members so they may better serve their constituents, then we, as members, ought to be speaking out and asking the government for some commitment. I don’t think that’s an unfair position for us to take, having already made our first report.

As we go through the recommendations before us, the first one is the recommendation that responsibility for the legislative building be transferred to the Speaker. In my view, as a philosophy, I concurred in that recommendation at the time of the report and I have not changed my mind. I would like to say this, however, that my committee, I think all of the members of it, have expressed their deep appreciation of the attitude of the Minister of Government Services (Mr. McCague) in seeking to resolve some of the very real problems of such things as space allocation, and the matters of the provision of suitable committee rooms to carry on the essential function of this House. While I believe that in the end result there is no question in my mind that for all of the traditional reasons the House ought to be under Mr. Speaker, I feel perhaps at this point we should be asking Mr. Speaker and the Minister of Government Services to jointly chair a committee of their senior staff to try to work out the problems which will be inevitable until such time as some vacancies occur. I don’t think it’s asking too much that this senior staff be allocated to this purpose; because it is something more than a shuffle we’re talking about, there is a great deal of planning involved.

Mr. Speaker cannot oust people from this building very well. There has to be cooperation on where they end up after they leave this building. It seems to me that that might be a logical approach for an interim period, until we see how the planning goes for this building.

How many committees have we had sitting this fall? If we add the Inco committee, which is not sitting at the moment, we’ve had members’ services, statutory instruments, procedural affairs, plus estimates. Are there any others I’ve left out?

Mr. Gaunt: General government.

Mrs. Campbell: General government, that’s one of the estimates committees.

Mr. Speaker has two committee rooms which come within his jurisdiction. That, Mr. Speaker, is a pretty ridiculous situation.

Of course, the Minister of Government Services has been most generous in allocating room 228 when it’s needed, and some rooms over in the Macdonald Block when they’re needed.

Our report very clearly suggests -- in fact the recommendation is: There should be five medium-sized committee rooms and a sixth small committee room. Two adjacent medium-sized rooms should be designed to expand into one very large room.”

We consulted the Clerk of this House on the possibility of our making a recommendation through members’ services to proceed to make the necessary allocations of moneys, or to proceed to do the renovations necessary to create this one large room. There is no doubt that we have the right to make that recommendation, but I suggest that without the kind of linkage between our committee and the Board of Internal Economy we are working at cross purposes, or at least we’re working in a vacuum.

Our committee is so busy, our members are so busy, that it is very discouraging to them to sit, only to realize that there is no end result to the recommendations they make or the work they’re doing.

We have made, I think, pretty ample recommendations to protect the very real rights and privileges of the government of the province. We do believe, and we have spelled out that we believe, that justifiably the Premier (Mr. Davis) should have his office in this building and that the cabinet should have their space in the building. But we have seen this past summer what I think was one of the most regrettable battles, one that shouldn’t have had to take place at all if there had been ample space of a suitable nature for all the members of the House. I regret very much that, notwithstanding the report, no real effort seemed to be made until quite recently, in an overall picture, to try to come to grips with the needs of members.

Mr. Haggerty: You should have seen my office; and Mr. Ruston’s office.

Mr. Maeck: I don’t understand what you are referring to.

Mrs. Campbell: I will have to go back in history. As you are aware in 1975 as a result of the elections, the New Democratic Party became the official opposition.

Mr. Makarchuk: Did you have to bring that up?

Mrs. Campbell: Their leader at first stated they did not wish to have the offices which have traditionally been set apart for the official opposition.

As I understand it, space was allocated accordingly. Subsequently, the leader made it clear he had not intended quite what was said, but, in fact he did want the space although not for his own purposes.

The Liberals immediately moved out, as I suggest was our obligation, and we started seeking space from the government. We felt very strongly that was the way in which the space allocation should come. We had no quarrel with what was then the official opposition.

As you know, that was somewhat reversed as a result of the last election. At that point in time a very real, rhubarb I guess you could call it, developed, whereby we were unable to take over what was traditionally the leader of the official opposition’s area. We had to wait to try to find out how this problem could be accommodated.

Mr. Kerrio: Besides that, the socialists couldn’t believe it had happened.

Mrs. Campbell: I may say, of course, in the meantime, we were successful in pointing out we were very badly disadvantaged, space-wise, after 1975. We did obtain a suite of rooms or a group of rooms on the third floor. The Speaker at that point, not our present Speaker but his predecessor, was the one who had to make the decision. He was in no position to try to allocate space except within the areas under his control. So he allocated space to the third party, removing some of our members from that area.

I am not suggesting he could have done much other than what he did, because he had no other control of the building, but I am suggesting that should not have occurred and we should not be engaged in this kind of confrontation as members of this House.

We recommended in our report that there be allocated approximately 500 square feet per member plus secretary.

Mr. Maeck: No, no.

Mrs. Campbell: I mean the secretary would be a part of that 500, I am sorry. The 500 square feet was to include the member’s office plus the secretary, that is what I meant by “plus the secretary”.

[8:30]

Certainly I do not know of a committee that analysed this building the way we did on the Morrow committee. We went over every nook and cranny, Mr. Speaker, but the basis on which we came to this conclusion was first to look at what we thought was the need of the member; and secondly the configuration of the building itself, recognizing that there would, of course, be differences because of the building and not because of any desire to give one member any advantage over another.

The new report seems to suggest about 450 square feet instead of the 500. In the normal course I don’t think that there is a quarrel with that, except that it might be reduced from that amount; and I think a reduction short of 450 would be intolerable.

Some rooms that we looked at are under 500 and we felt they would be adequate, but once wo accept the 450, I think we are in danger of having that further cut.

We just know that members of this Legislature should not be sitting in broom closets. They should have ample space to work with dignity, to see their constituents, to see delegations; and what is more they ought to have a variety of furnishings to suit their special type of operation. It should not be psyched into such a uniformity as we witnessed in the Morrow report where we were advised that you couldn’t get shelving because it wasn’t in the specifications -- this is ridiculous.

I want to say this to the House, I am very sad that there is not a cabinet minister concerned enough with the needs of members to be here tonight. I had hoped that at least the Minister of Government Services might have been here to hear what we have to say about this building.

Mr. Ruston: Send him a telegram.

Mrs. Campbell: It fills me with concern. It may, of course, be attributable to me and not the subject matter, but I am of the opinion that if this is the expression of the government’s concern for members’ services then we are at a complete loss in our committee to proceed to make a useful contribution on behalf of the members of this Assembly; and I don’t think that is an unfair statement.

We have agreed, Mr. Speaker, that we will try to divide up the time uniformly and I have taken now, I believe, almost my half hour. But I do want to say this: coupled with tonight’s demonstration of interest, I have the gravest concern about some of those matters which we have already passed, and I am speaking of what is taking place in the private members’ hour. I thought every member of the Morrow committee felt that this was an important hour for the private member to be able to give some thrust into the philosophies and the legislative procedures of this House. I have been bitterly disappointed that the government has chosen to stonewall every human rights issue which has been raised thus far in this House, by rising not only with its 20 members but for the most part its whole group.

Mr. Kerrio: We haven’t had a free vote; we haven’t had one free vote.

Mr. Maeck: Who says so?

Mr. Kerrio: Shame.

Mrs. Campbell: I feel strongly that this is a distortion -- of the private member’s rights and privileges. Surely it is appropriate that there be free votes during private members’ hour. I congratulate both our caucus and the third party caucus because we have stood in place giving full dedication to the principle of the right of the private member.

Mr. Maeck: Tell us about the kind of bills you brought in and asked us not to veto.

Mr. Kerrio: Stonewalling.

Mrs. Campbell: Let’s take a patients’ rights bill or a freedom of information bill; those were two bills that were stonewalled.

Mr. Maeck: You knew they’d be vetoed before you brought them in.

Mr. Kerrio: You can’t justify your position, no matter what you say.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, all I’m saying is, why can’t we have enough dedication to that principle of the tight of the private member that that bill may at least go to a vote.

Interjection.

Mrs. Campbell: My own leader’s resolution was stonewalled. It seems to me that it would be a great pity if after a period of time the total opposition were to join forces and take the same position, because we would then be playing a partisan game with the tight of the individual member to be heard. I would hope, sincerely, that the government would take some note of this and that we might get to the point where we don’t whip our caucuses but allow a free vote; because that, I believe, was the intent. In debating this whole matter of 20 members standing, we were not really contemplating 20 members of one party. We were saying that there could be 20 members who rose in their places in any part of the House, in any caucus. But the way it’s working now is that 20 members and more -- every government member who’s in the House at the time -- rise.

I’m only raising that, Mr. Speaker, because of my concern that the government is not interested in the debate on these reports.

Mr. Haggerty: As shown by their absence tonight.

Mrs. Campbell: And if they’re not interested, I don’t know what a members’ services committee can do.

Mr. Maeck: How many are there? How many have you got? Don’t talk too loud; count them.

Mrs. Campbell: Just a minute; it is the government that has to say what it’s going to do about these recommendations because they involve the expenditure of money.

Mr. Maeck: Two NDPs, six Liberals; and you complain about us.

Mrs. Campbell: It is therefore for that reason that they ought to be here, at least as a courtesy to hear what is being said.

Mr. Maeck: Mention how many committees are sitting while you are up.

Mrs. Campbell: Is there a quorum, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. Speaker called for the quorum bells.

On resumption:

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, five years ago the government of Ontario appointed the Camp commission. It said it was interested in knowing how it could improve the role of the back-benchers.

After five years and five reports by the Camp commission, and three reports by the Morrow committee, we have one cabinet minister who gives a damn about the role of the back-bencher in the province of Ontario in 1977.

Mr. Sargent: He doesn’t care either.

Mr. Martel: And I must say he came in at 25 minutes to nine, which tells me that the government of Ontario, besides having its trained seals in the back row, really doesn’t give a damn about what goes on in this place.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s right.

[8:45]

Mr. Martel: As long as the government has got the bodies to vote for them when they need them, that’s as far as it goes.. Because the interest demonstrated tonight in discussing the Morrow report -- which was a unanimous report, I remind the House; in fact all three reports were unanimous -- there were no dissents whatsoever --

Mr. Maeck: Hold it. I made a dissent.

Mr. Martel: I must apologize. My friend from Parry Sound says he made a dissent. I know that in the last report which I have before me --

Mr. Maeck: That’s the one I made the dissent on.

Mr. Martel: What did you dissent on? We didn’t allow Parry Sound into northern Ontario?

Mr. Maeck: That’s how much you know about the report.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the member for Parry Sound is getting a little exercised. He will have his opportunity in a few moments.

Mr. Maeck: I am going to take it and I am going to remind you --

Mr. Martel: That’s right. That’s what it’s all about.

Mr. Maeck: -- about the members who sat in the lobby when we had the quorum call.

Mr. Sargent: There’s no quorum in the front row. They are the guys we should be talking to.

Mr. Maeck: We don’t care about the front row.

Mr. Sargent: We do. You don’t make any decisions over there.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, shall I give the whip the floor?

Mr. Gaunt: The wheels of time grind slowly.

Mr. Martel: There was not a cabinet minister here --

Mr. Sargent: You are getting pretty cocky over there.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: -- and the member for Parry Sound can get exercised as much as he wants. Those people who will ultimately make the decisions on whether they improve the role of the back bench or not weren’t here and still aren’t here. We can’t apologize for that and he can’t rationalize it away. He can pretend that we don’t know the report but we wrote as much of it as he did. Those people who make the decisions which will make the role of the backbencher meaningful aren’t here. It’s as simple as that.

They knew that this debate was on this evening. In fact we discussed it with the House leader last Tuesday evening. I suspect the member for Parry Sound is as frustrated as the rest of us at the lack of attendance here this evening, because he worked like the rest of us very hard to try to bring in a report which made sense and which gave all the back-benchers in this Legislature a meaningful role. I suspect some of his over-reaction is as a result of the frustration he experiences with not having cabinet ministers here who can make those decisions.

Mr. Makarchuk: Very perceptive.

Mr. Martel: We came in with three reports which would have changed the role here rather dramatically. We all know the cabinet. Those guys who move from the back bench to the cabinet very quickly forget what it’s like in the back bench. They forget that back-benchers need services just as cabinet ministers do, and to obtain the least of the services is a major battle.

I recall two weeks ago spending an evening with Mr. Speaker and the former minister who recently resigned and the former minister was complaining he couldn’t even get a tape recorder. He needed it to fulfil his role as a member of this Legislature, and after weeks of trying he still wasn’t in a position to obtain the use of a stenorette in home or in transit. That’s not denied a cabinet minister, if he wants it. If he needs it in his work it’s provided. What’s wrong with providing it for the back-benchers? I mean, it’s stupid.

Everything that goes on with respect to services for back-benchers is in the 19th century. You have to fight like hell to get anything, and that’s on all three sides of the House. That’s no more so on this side than it is over on that side of the Legislature. I ask those people who could make those changes possible, if they were interested in what goes on in their ranks as we are in ours, where are they --

Ms. Makarchuk: Do you believe in democracy?

Mr. Martel: -- to make those decisions which would make it easier? I think it’s time that if the member for Parry Sound is going to get up to speak that he speaks the way he did in committee. He should not come out tonight and defend the fact there are no cabinet ministers here, with the exception --

Mr. Makarchuk: With the exception of the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Martel: -- of my friend, the Minister of Housing, who like me comes from northern Ontario and shows a much greater concern.

Mr. Davidson: Rhodes showed up in the last five minutes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s a bunch of garbage and you know it.

Mr. Germa: At 25 minutes to 9.

Mr. Davidson: I said you showed up for the last five minutes of the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell).

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You can’t even tell the time, dummy.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: The Morrow committee came to the conclusion that if we were ever going to obtain --

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s a good thing John isn’t a member of the Albany Club. Every time you go there, they disinfect it afterwards.

Mr. Martel: -- services for members we were convinced that Mr. Speaker had to be in charge of the building -- totally; that we would have to go through Mr. Speaker and the Board of Internal Economy so that members wouldn’t be played off between Government Services and the Board of Internal Economy and Mr. Speaker and what not. There had to be a focus. In most legislatures you find that Mr. Speaker is totally in charge of the building and what goes on within the confines of that particular building.

Part of our problem is that it doesn’t happen here. When we need quarters for members or their staff -- and to the credit of the new Minister of Government Services (Mr. McCague), he is prepared to do it -- we have to fight to get some space. Former government ministers in that capacity really didn’t care. We fought with them continually. But the new minister, to his credit, is trying to obtain space for the members.

But if Mr. Speaker were in charge of this building, the fact that Mr. Speaker is neutral --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Is he ever I

Mr. Martel: He certainly is. I want to say he is much more neutral than some of the Speakers I have seen over the years that I have been here.

Mr. Maeck: Watch it, watch it.

Mr. Sargent: Look at the policeman over there.

Mr. Martel: I want to tell you, if he were in charge and being neutral, he would have to look after everybody’s interests in the same manner. But that doesn’t happen when it comes under Government Services. And what has been the experience around here? Forgetting the role of the private member, for one thing. Look at the building, look at what Camp wrote about the building.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Beautiful.

Mr. Martel: He couldn’t find enough adjectives to illustrate how badly this building had deteriorated -- with the paint falling off the walls.

Mr. Makarchuk: Even the pigeons departed from it.

Mr. Martel: Like rats from a sinking ship. Even the pigeons won’t stay with us -- it’s so bad.

Mr. Germa: You guys are really in trouble.

Mr. Martel: Camp wrote an entire section on the building and what has happened. Camp came in with a report in 1972, a report in 1973, a report in 1974 and the government had ample opportunity to act on it. They acted on the first two or three volumes themselves, but to slow down the process they sent the remaining two to a select committee, and it has just taken that much longer. The government uses it -- most governments do -- as a kind of vehicle which impedes the implementation of the various recommendations.

It’s a sop because the government could have acted on Camp four and five if it had wanted to. It could have improved this building. This building is supposed to be a representation of the provincial capital; this is supposed to be the capitol for this province; it’s a horrible building.

I’ve been here 10 years and down on the main floor are the same exhibits that were there 10 years ago. We have got that chunk of rock from Cobalt --

Mr. C. I. Miller: Elie, it’s a beautiful exhibit.

Mr. Martel: -- and we’ve got an old stuffed ermine, and we’ve got a few other vermin down there. It hasn’t changed in my 10 years. I suspect it was there, Murray, when you came some six years before I did. It hasn’t changed a jot. The only thing that has occurred is that the building has continued to deteriorate.

Mr. Sargent: It is a sleazy operation.

Mr. Martel: As is mentioned, interestingly enough, in other reports, we’ve built Ontario Place, we’ve built Ontario Hydro down the street --

Mr. Maeck: Minaki -- don’t forget about Minaki.

Mr. Martel: Minaki Lodge, yes -- and the province’s capitol -- the building which houses the members -- is allowed to deteriorate beyond the pale. Tonight when we could, hopefully, get from the government its indication as to whether it intended to improve conditions, nothing. We don’t even get a cabinet minister in. That’s a disgrace, because what else did we talk about?

Mr. Makarchuk: They’re all over at the Albany Club.

Mr. Martel: Not only did we talk about Mr. Speaker having jurisdiction, that this entire building should be renovated, but we should make it -- as other provinces have -- a historical building where we would show part of the history of Ontario, maybe on a rotating basis, so that the captive audiences that come here -- the students who are forced to come down here day in and day out -- might see some of the history of this province. All they see is an old stuffed mink or something down the hall and a piece of cobalt. That’s it.

The chamber itself, if one looks around, could use some improvement. It hasn’t been changed, I guess, since Moby Dick was a minnow.

Mr. Baetz: You’ve been here 10 years too long, Elie.

Mr. Martel: Well, Reuben, you won’t do anything about getting me out of here, I want to tell you.

Mr. Elgie: But what if he can?

Mr. Baetz: Great guy -- you should stay.

Mr. Martel: This building, this part of the quarters, should in fact be improved. There’s a whole series of recommendations. We made a whole series of recommendations with respect to meeting rooms. If we’d had representation come before the Inco committee last week, we wouldn’t have had a committee room big enough to hold the people.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let’s adopt the report.

Mr. Martel: Would you like to adopt the report? Move its adoption and I’ll second it. No, they won’t let me. But I’ll second it if you’ll move it, John.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ll go along with that -- you’re not much of a mover.

Mr. Martel: You may be right. There are people around who are better.

Mr. Sargent: The minister isn’t moving much on housing.

Mr. Martel: The committee rooms in my opinion are a disgrace.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Make up your mind, Eddie -- you said there were too many, now you say there aren’t enough.

Mr. Martel: You’ve got microphones that fall over if you happen to sit down at the wrong angle at the table; if you happen to joke, everything falls over. They’re dumps. I can’t describe it any better.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is because you guys spill coffee all over them.

Mr. Martel: There isn’t a municipal council in this province that has worse quarters to work in than the members of this Legislature. People come in from across the province to those committee rooms. It’s a disgrace, it really is. Wires strung along the Floor --

Mr. Makarchuk: We tell them that the Premier (Mr. Davis) is in charge.

Mr Martel: -- and you’ve got to tape the wires to the floor so they’ll stay in place. My God, it’s a disgrace.

Mr. Breithaupt: You tape the carpets down.

Mr. Martel: Yes, when the carpets tear, we tape them together. We don’t replace them -- we tape them.

Mr. Sargent: You should see John’s office.

Mr. Martel: I’ve heard of austerity, but that’s carrying it to the ridiculous.

Mr. Makarchuk: Ontario Housing is better than that.

Mr. Martel: My friend the member for Grey-Bruce makes the point. He makes the point.

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s shoddy.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if we were to go over to the cabinet ministers’ offices in other areas --

Mr. Baetz: You never will, Elie.

Mr. Martel: I was over at the Minister of Housing’s office and I sank right to my knees in the rugs. They were so deep they have to cut them. It grows, I suspect.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s okay, he sleeps on them.

Mr. Sweeney: Only three inches deep.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. That is absolutely not correct. He didn’t sink to his knees in the carpet -- he was on his knees, begging --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I don’t think the hon. member has a point of order.

Mr. Martel: The rugs are so good that I didn’t tear my pants, anyway.

Mr. Makarchuk: He didn’t admit the fact that he sleeps there overnight.

Mr. Davidson: If the minister asks him, maybe the Premier will buy him a lawn mower.

Mr. Martel: If one were to make comparisons in the facilities available for committees to meet there and one were to walk across the way to the Macdonald Block, they’re vastly different.

Mr. Sargent: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Martel: Here’s where we bring in the people of Ontario to come before committees and so on. It really isn’t a joking matter when the microphones are falling, when you tape them to the floor -- it’s ridiculous. We can spend $28 million on Ontario Place. How much for Gerhard Moog’s mausoleum down there?

Mr. Sargent: Forty-three.

Mr. Martel: Forty-three million. And we can’t renovate this building one jot.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Nationalize the building.

Mr. Martel: Or Minaki. We nationalized Minaki because it was going broke.

Mr. Makarchuk: They had to pay off a mortgage to the Americans.

Mr. Davidson: They’ve spent more on Minaki than they’ve spent on this place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: We also suggested that the Lieutenant Governor should move. The members are short of space and you’ve got 7,000 square feet of space in that corner. In this province we need to have proper quarters for a Lieutenant Governor --

Mrs. Campbell: A residence.

Mr. Martel: -- a residence, and our friend from the Liberals got rid of Chorley Park. Now we have nothing. So we take up 7,000 square feet of valuable space over here, which could be used for legislative purposes, so that Her Honour can have a half-decent place to carry out her functions. But in fact that isn’t adequate. We suggested that she should be moved out to a more suitable setting -- close to the building and make that space available to members.

Mr. Makarchuk: Sutton Place.

[9:00]

Mr. Martel: It might be committee rooms, it might be for a variety of uses, but we had to do it. Again, those people who are responsible for making the role of the back-bencher -- I hate to repeat it, but they are just not here. That is the frustration for me.

Mr. Germa: John is here.

Mr. Martel: We also talked about television. What you see up there, Mr. Speaker, was recommended on a trial basis back two years ago -- introduce TV into the Ontario Legislature. Well, look at it. The same junk, two years later. No decisions have been made, although it was recommended in report one and report three of Morrow that we should determine whether we are going to have permanent placement for those cameras. Are we going to have to suffer through the heat and those crazy lights every day? Nothing is done. Nothing is ever done.

Mr. Makarchuk: Lots of heat but no light.

Mr. Martel: It just goes on and on and on. We talked about the library; I can understand my friend from St. George being upset about the library. We had to do some unpleasant things when we brought in the report with respect to the library.

Those of us who worked on that select committee were not happy with some of the things we did to make that library into a legislative library. Three-quarters of the material hack there belongs in a library like the John Robarts; it doesn’t belong in a legislative library, which should be providing research material for members, documents, the latest legislation in other jurisdictions -- with research staff to help you find the appropriate material.

Three-quarters of it is newspapers from England, a hundred years old, all kinds of novels. What in God’s name is it doing back there? No one ever uses it.

Mr. Elgie: History.

Mr. Martel: Well, put it in a historical library then. Don’t leave it here.

Mr. Davidson: Put it in the archives.

An hon. member: It’s antique.

Mr. Martel: Oh no, it’s not. My friend is wrong. That isn’t -- well, maybe it is -- maybe I am wrong -- maybe it is a historical library, and we have no intention of bringing it into the twentieth century, making it a useful instrument for members of the Legislature and the cabinet. The cabinet is better served though, because each member has a library in their specific ministry, with research. Which brings me to the next point, research.

Mr. Hall: Colouring books, too.

Mr. Martel: I think that what goes on in Ontario for research for this side of the House, and for the back-benchers on that side of the House, is crazy.

Mr. Makarchuk: Peanuts.

Mr. Martel: It is just nuts. We have four researchers in the New Democratic caucus. I will bet you every cabinet minister has a research staff that is bigger than the combined research staff of the New Democratic and the Liberal parties in Ontario in 1977.

Mr. Sargent: How many, John?

Mr. Martel: The minister shakes his head. I would like the government to put together for me all the people --

Mr. Makarchuk: Let it be acknowledged, the only minister.

Mr. Martel: -- doing research in all the ministries. If we want a Legislature that makes sense, we have to have informed members. If we are to get away from the petty jockeying, the cheap shots, and get down to doing what we are here to do, and that is to bring in responsible legislation and have responsible criticism of that legislation, or offering of better alternatives. We cannot do it if you don’t have the research.

We have four researchers. By the formula, if you happen to be the third party by one seat, you get $1,000 a year less per member for research staff. It means that over here we have $34,000 less for research staff, because we have one fewer member. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

Mr. Maeck: Did you complain last year when you had one more?

Mr. Martel: Last year, my friend, you sat on a select committee with me, and I was one of those who advocated one researcher for every member in this Legislature. I waited for you. I knew you were going to say that. I waited.

Mr. Maeck: What did you say about the Liberals last year?

Mr. Martel: I advocated then as I advocate now, that every member of this Legislature needs a graduate university person capable of doing research, so that members are informed.

Mr. Rotenberg: You need someone to make up your mind for you, do you?

Mr. Martel: I don’t need anybody to make up my mind for me.

Mr. Rotenberg: Why don’t you do research on your own instead of speaking so much?

Mr. Makarchuk: You are a bunch of Neanderthals. You don’t believe in research. It is fine over on that side of the House.

Mr. Makarchuk: The rehash crowd over there.

Mr. Sargent: This isn’t city hall, Toronto; you’ve got to work here.

Mr. Rotenberg: Not when I was there they didn’t.

Mr. Martel: That’s right, they didn’t have any researcher, you are right. That’s obvious. They kept coming to the province to bail them but every time they were in trouble. We in northern Ontario could have used just a little bit of the money that’s squandered in Toronto.

Mr. Rotenberg: You are right. But that is in the last five years since I left.

Mr. Martel: And it was you guys who blew it. You were there with them.

Mr. Makarchuk: Remember the ditch?

Mr. Martel: I remember you.

Mr. Makarchuk: How much did it cost you?

Mr. Martel: For the province, $50 million.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: You are right, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your bringing me back to the point. I suggest that if we are going to make any type of meaningful inroads into making this a Legislature where we work from all being informed, it’s by making the improvements that we are speaking about -- research staff, an improved library, and as in the last report, maybe the critics travelling with the minister so that they see what he sees, so you don’t argue about useless junk but you get to the meat of it. it is too important and too complicated, and critics should be travelling with ministers -- as silent observers, not as spokesmen -- so that all are informed.

I think when we do that we will have a much more meaningful Legislature for all of us, be it the government and its backbenchers, or be it the opposition and the third party and its back-benchers. The roles will change significantly and we will stop being social workers in this province and maybe we will begin to be legislators.

I think that initially most of us thought we were coming here to do that. But most of us have found out over the years we have been relegated to the position of social workers -- but not professionals because we are not graduates.

Mr. Baetz: There’s nothing wrong with social workers.

Mr. Martel: Sorry, Reuben, I forgot you were here. I didn’t want to offend you, Reuben.

But that is what the role is around here, and I think it must change. It must go back to being legislators, where we try through, not individual effort on behalf of certain constituents but through improved legislation --

Mr. Baetz: Wisdom, Elie, wisdom.

Mr. Martel: -- to clear up the problem so that we help large masses of people --

Mr. Baetz: We need statesmen, Else, statesmen.

Mr. Martel: -- by new legislation or improved legislation rather than us continuing to be in the role of social workers.

I hope now that we have three cabinet ministers -- glad to see you, Harry -- they will take the message back to their cabinet colleagues and say, “Let’s tell the Legislature what we are prepared to do in the next couple of days with respect to the implementation of Morrow five so that we can make this a more meaningful place.” I leave that as a challenge to my three friends who have now joined us.

Mr. Makarchuk: Who have deigned to join us.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Why are your leadership contenders not here to tell us what they would do?

Mr. Martel: They are leaving.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I will try to control myself. First of all, let me say that my signature appears on the report as do those of other members of this Legislature --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That makes it valid. much with the approach the members of the opposition are taking in trying to convince the government to adopt the report.

Mr. Wildman: You initiated it.

Mr. Maeck: I certainly did and I agree with what is in the report. But I don’t agree with the threats that we receive from members of the opposition in trying to induce the government to adopt it. I think we could do a lot better job --

Mr. Mackenzie: Maybe we shouldn’t adopt some of the laws the government wants.

Mr. Maeck: -- if we were to point out the position of the report and ask the government to move on this matter. All we have done up to this point is antagonize everyone, including me who was a member of the committee. I just don’t understand what both opposition parties are driving at. As far as I am concerned it doesn’t make sense.

Mr. Hall: Why don’t you induce the government?

Mr. Grande: Just implement it, that is all.

Mr. Maeck: The member for St. George talked about the parliamentary library.

Mr. Mackenzie: I’ll trade offices with you, Lorne, or any other Tory.

Mr. Maeck: I don’t disagree with that. I signed that report. I agree there should be a new parliamentary library and I agree we should be updating our library. That motion that was presented to this House has come before the Board of Internal Economy on two occasions. We are looking at that.

I believe this will be instituted eventually, but there are certain things that have to be done. I have some reservations about hiring a librarian until the government has adopted the position that it is going to continue on and upgrade the whole library system. There’s no point in hiring a librarian of the calibre we’re talking about unless we are prepared to go the rest of the route and do the things that are necessary to upgrade our library.

Mr. B. Newman: That is that chicken and egg story.

Mr. Samis: That’s a circular argument.

Mr. Maeck: This requires some time. The government has not said it is not going to hire a librarian. Mr. Speaker has not said that.

Mr. Haggerty: He has not said anything.

Mr. Maeck: The Board of Internal Economy has not said that Let’s move in a proper manner and make sure that when we do hire a new librarian, they will have terms

Mr. Maeck: -- and I agree with what is contained in the report. But I disagree very of reference so that they know what they’re going to be asked to do when they’re hired.

Mr. Mackenzie: Oh, remember your rights.

Mr. Maeck: There’s really no conflict in that at all. As I say, I agree we should be updating the library. I don’t argue with that point at all.

We talked about the Minister of Government Services and space allocation and I believe the new Minister of Government Services (Mr. McCague) has been making an honest effort to find space allocation for the members. He has also included in his itinerary -- the things he is looking at -- the committee rooms. I agree with members of the opposite party that it’s very important to have proper committee rooms; if we don’t have them this Legislature is not going to operate in a proper manner.

The Minister of Government Services has already made the commitment that he’s going to look into this, that he is going to come back by February 10 with either a report or a decision. I don’t know which it is at this point in time, but one or the other --

Mr. Davidson: What’s the purpose of that committee then?

Mr. Maeck: -- so that the members will have proper space, that we will have proper committee rooms. So I don’t see that as an urgent issue. I believe it has to be done. I believe certain things have to be done. The minister has to investigate it properly and come up with a proper solution to the problem. I think that’s being done.

Mr. B. Newman: What do we do if you change ministers?

Mr. Maeck: If we change ministers, I would be very hopeful that the new minister would carry on with the program that’s been started by the previous minister.

Mr. Sweeney: You’ve got more faith than we have.

Mr. Maeck: Well, okay, what if we change Speakers?

Mr. B. Newman: But you see, we’ve done this in the past.

Mr. Maeck: It’s the same thing. I’m not against the Speaker eventually taking over this building and looking after the allocation of space and all the other things that go along with the management of this building. But I believe that right now if we were to ask the Speaker to take over this building, a lot of conversations would have to be carried on between the Speaker and the Minister of Government Services and it would delay the whole process.

Mrs. Campbell: What about my suggestion about a committee?

Mr. Maeck: I don’t see the necessity for that.

Mrs. Campbell: How do you plan?

Mr. Maeck: After all, we do have a Minister of Government Services who I think is quite capable, with his staff, of planning this. We have submitted a report indicating what we feel should be done as far as space allocation is concerned. I’m sure the minister will take that report into consideration. We’ve gone to the point where we’ve even indicated the amount of space that’s available, where it’s available, what we suggest should be used. I’m sure the minister will --

Mr. Davidson: He told us he couldn’t do anything about that. He didn’t have any say.

Mr Maeck: I don’t know what the minister told you, but I’m sure that the Minister of Government Services --

Mr. Davidson: You’d better listen to the tape.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Maeck: -- has the right to make those decisions at this particular time.

Mrs. Campbell: He can’t make those decisions, so he said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Parry Sound not pay attention to the interjections?

Mr. Maeck: That’s a good idea, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try not to do that.

Mr. Davidson: Just listen to the tape.

Mr. Maeck: I am not too interested in what happened on the tape. I’m only telling the members that the Minister of Government Services does have the right to make those decisions at this particular time.

[9:15]

Mr. Davidson: I’m glad you said that. I’m glad I got what you said. You are not interested in what he said on the tape.

Mr. Maeck: The member for St. George talked about the space allocation and what happened alter the election was concerned and the arguments that ensued between the NDP and the Liberal Party about space allocation. I only say to the member for St. George, we are all adults in this House. When the 1977 election was over, the Conservatives came in with six more members. The NDP and the Liberals came in with six fewer and, surely, they have the ability to sit down between themselves and decide on how they’re going to allocate space. Why do they need more space, when they were the losers in the last election?

Mr Wildman: You were the losers.

Mr. Maeck: The Conservatives didn’t ask for more space for their six extra members.

Mr. Davidson: You allocate space by power.

Mr. Maeck: I just don’t understand why the Liberal and the NDP parties could not get together and decide how the space was going to be allocated.

Mr. Makarchuk: It’s not “the NDP party.” It’s “NDP.”

Mrs. Campbell: Let’s do it now.

Mr. Maeck: Why don’t you?

Mr. Wildman: Because you’re the government.

Mr. Maeck: But the fact is, the members should get together and decide how the space is going to be allocated. The responsibility should not have been placed before the Speaker or anyone else.

Mr. Wildman: Why didn’t you give the Speaker control in this Legislature?

Mr. Maeck: The members opposite know how many offices they have, how much space they have. They know how many members they have and they also know they have six fewer members between them than they had before the last election.

Mr. Davidson: We also know how much space you have.

Mr. Maeck: Surely the parties have the space. It’s just a matter of getting together and deciding how they use it.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s the way you run the Legislature.

Mr. Maeck: There was no allocation of additional space to us after the last election.

Mr. Davidson: You didn’t need it. You already had too much.

Mr. Maeck: That is not so.

Mr. Samis: Compare the size of our office with yours.

Mr. Wildman: You have to get into ours with a shoehorn.

Mr. Maeck: We talked about the private members’ bills and the fact the government is voting as a party as far as private members’ hours are concerned. We talked about the fact that the government vetoed some of the private members’ bills. I would suggest to the members of the opposition that if they brought in bills that were, in effect, actual private members’ bills, they wouldn’t be faced with this situation.

Mr. Davidson: Don’t be so foolish.

Mr. Maeck: They know as well as I do that when they bring in the type of bills which they bring in, in most cases, they’re either going to be vetoed or voted against. They know that before they bring them in. They also know that they bring them in only to try to embarrass the government. That’s the only reason they bring them it. interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Maeck: If they would bring in private members’ bills that are truly private members’ bills, they would not be faced with a veto or with the government voting against them.

Interjections.

Mr. Maeck: We don’t care what the members bring in, but let them not complain to us when we decide to vote against them. That’s part of the parliamentary procedure around here, and it’s time the members opposite realized it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I’d just like to remind the members and, particularly, some of the members who are not in their own seats that it’s the tradition of this House that they must speak only from their own seat. The member for Parry Sound.

Mr. Maeck: And I can’t go by without referring to the two quorum calls that were called tonight, particularly the last one when the NDP saw fit to leave one member in his seat and leave the rest outside.

Mr. Davidson: Two.

Mr. Maeck: One.

Mr. Davidson: Two, the Speaker and I.

Mr. Maeck: He is not one of your members.

Mr. Davidson: The member for Sudbury East and myself.

Mr. Maeck: You were not here.

Mr. Makarchuk: I told him to be here. He was here.

Mr. Maeck: I specifically looked over. The only member who was there was the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the member for Parry Sound direct his remarks through the Chair?

Mr. Maeck: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What I want to draw to your attention was that there was a quorum call tonight, the second quorum call, in which the NDP had one member in his seat and eight who came in after the four-minute bell had been stopped in order to try and embarrass the other members, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party.

Ms. Davidson: Two members.

Mr. Maeck: I want that to show on the record.

Mr. Davidson: We were out looking for cabinet ministers.

Mr. Sweeney: Why was it necessary?

Mr. Davidson: A Liberal member moved the quorum call, not the NDP.

Mr. Maeck: I am sick and tired of listening to those people over there complaining about what the government does.

Mr. Sargent: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Maeck: You haven’t got a point of order either. There’s nothing out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What’s your point of order?

Mr. Sargent: The member for Parry Sound, Mr. Speaker, is misleading the House for the fact is we did not have a cabinet minister in the House. The motivation was a good one because we want to talk to cabinet ministers and there was none in the House. It was a good move on the part of the NDP. We don’t object to that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Parry Sound.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, as usual, is away off somewhere on cloud nine. I was in the House when the quorum call was made.

Mr. Sargent: No, you weren’t, John.

An lion, member: He wasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, I was right here.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think we are all offbeat a bit. I don’t really consider this a point of order. The member for Parry Sound.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed, I still want to speak to the point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Davidson: On a point of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Cambridge, a point of privilege.

Mr. Davidson: Mr. Speaker, in the member for Parry Sound’s speech, he commented at the time of the quorum call there was only one member sitting here on behalf of the New Democratic party. I would like the record corrected to show the member for Sudbury East and the member for Cambridge were in their seats at the time of the quorum call. I can’t help but put it in the context that if the member for Parry Sound cannot take the time to look around and find out what’s going on, then perhaps he shouldn’t make statements to the effect that there was only one member in his chair at the time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Parry Sound.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know now whether I am speaking to the point of order or the point of privilege --

Mr. Makarchuk: I would shut up if I were you.

Mr. Maeck: -- but I want to speak to the point of order first.

Mr. Sweeney: This is a farce, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. I will recognize the member for Parry Sound to continue his remarks.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I have been accused of misleading the House by the member for Huron.

Mr. Gaunt: On a point of order, I ask the member to withdraw that.

An hon. member: You are out of order.

Mr. Maeck: As you know, Mr. Speaker, that is unparliamentary. Nobody in this House can be accused of misleading the House and I ask the member to withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce has withdrawn it.

Mr. Maeck: He has. Fair enough. And as far as the point of privilege is concerned --

Mr. Makarchuk: Point of order. Speaking to the point of order raised by the member for Parry Sound, I think the record should be set straight. The reason a quorum call was raised in this House was the fact we were dealing with matters relating to this Legislature, how it operates, what the members’ privileges are, the whole problems of the province of Ontario. At that time, there was not one single cabinet minister listening to what was going on, and consequently that is why that quorum call was called.

An hon. member: You were not here.,

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may. This debate was called to deal with the matter of members’ privileges and I for one am appalled that we are going off on all these points. Why can’t we get back to the debate and carry on with it?

Mr. Lane: You started it.

Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to get back to the debate. Surprisingly enough, members have risen on a point of order because there were no ministers here. I must tell you it puts me in a relatively bad position as government whip that there were no ministers in this Legislature. I am embarrassed by that.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Lorne, don’t make an issue of it.

Mr. Maeck: I am making an issue of it because it’s time the ministers were in this House when an important matter is being debated.

Mr. Makarchuk: Why not? You let him carry the bloody load. You just get off your backside and get down here where the business is conducted and tell some of your friends.

Mr. Maeck: I agree with the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) that there should be someone in this House with authority listening to this very report.

I try to be honest when I speak. I am not trying to denigrate the members of the opposition. I believe if we are going to have a meaningful debate, I want ministers to know what is going on and what is contained in the report that we are debating tonight.

While I am the chief government whip, I still condemn the ministers for not being here -- at least some of them.

Mr. Germa: Let’s call a quorum.

Mr. Maeck: Actually, I am disappointed in the cabinet’s response to this debate, I really am.

An hon. member: What are we debating?

Mr. Maeck: That’s just exactly the point.

Mr. Wildman: Get the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) in here.

Mr. Maeck: I would like to talk about one further point, and that is the committee rooms. I believe the committee rooms the members now have in this Legislature -- and I agree with the member for Sudbury East -- are a disgrace. They do not have the facilities that are necessary to carry on a proper function here in the Legislature. That is why I signed the report that we are debating tonight.

In essence, to sum up, :I have not changed my mind. I’m not in disagreement with the report as it has been submitted to the House. I do take exception to one point that the member for Sudbury East made.

Mr. Baetz: Who isn’t here.

Mr. Maeck: No, he isn’t here. But he did say it was a report that was unanimous. And there was one little item in there -- it wasn’t a major item -- which I did disagree with, and it is so recorded. But it’s not a major thing.

With that I think I will conclude my remarks. I hope that before the debate is over we will have more cabinet ministers in to hear what is going on.

Mr. Gaunt: I certainly consider this to be a very important debate. As the member for St. George indicated there certainly have been some major problems with the implementation of this report, yet the subject of members’ privileges is an important matter and it should be so considered by the front bench on the other side. I think the importance of this debate and its significance in terms of government response is certainly disappointing. When we started off and continued almost until 25 minutes to 9 there wasn’t a cabinet minister in here to listen to this debate. For that, I am truly sorry and I think the government whip has expressed the disappointment very adequately.

I don’t want to take long because there are others who want to speak, other colleagues of mine who wish to participate in this debate. Since we only have approximately an hour left, I will just take a few moments.

I did want to touch on one matter which I felt other members perhaps wouldn’t mention. It is the recommendation having to do with the citizens inquiry branch. As members will know, the report recommended that the citizens inquiry branch within the Ministry of Culture and Recreation should be cut off. Its function was no longer necessary according to the members of the committee, of which I was one.

[9:30]

In that recommendation, I think it was indicated that, basically, the circumstances have changed considerably since the branch was established. It was established in 1972 under the Ministry of Government Services and then it was moved to the Ministry of Culture and Recreation on April 1, 1975. During that five-year period, the circumstances have changed. The function of the branch has changed, I suggest. That change in circumstance and function is reflected in the recommendation in the report to cease the operation of the citizens inquiry branch.

Initially the branch was set up for a logical and legitimate purpose. It certainly performed that purpose very well in the early days. But since the creation of the Ombudsman’s office and the establishment of constituency offices to assist members, those two things have substantially altered the subject and direction of public inquiries.

I was interested in what the Ministry of Culture and Recreation had to say in its annual report of 1976-77 with respect to the citizens inquiry branch. Essentially they’re saying that the citizens inquiry branch is a referral service for information regarding all Ontario government ministries and agencies. It acts as an information clearing house for all sorts of people, private organizations, civil servants, individuals and co-ordinates that information and service to other groups unable to do so for themselves.

Perhaps the most important function of the citizens inquiry branch has been the publishing of the KWIC index to the government of Ontario. The branch issues a brochure entitled Your Ontario Government, and I found that most helpful. It’s well done and it’s certainly most helpful in listing the programs, addresses and telephone numbers of all the government ministries.

The annual report mentioned that the branch processed approximately 1,380 inquiries per month, many of which were referred by government offices through Ontario. The information desk, which we all see when we go through the various government buildings, directed more than 190,000 people to government offices or personnel. That function could be performed by Government Services. Government Services would certainly be the most appropriate ministry, or it could be performed, I suppose, by the information service of Culture and Recreation -- or more appropriately, certainly in this building, at any rate, it could be performed under the jurisdiction of the Speaker’s office. So the fact that the citizens inquiry branch carries on that function certainly isn’t a reason for its existence, by any stretch of the imagination.

Then I noticed that the Wintario grants information office has become part of the citizens inquiry branch. That just underlines and underscores what I’ve really always believed about this government -- the fact that once something is created it’s never cut off. It never ceases to operate.

Parkinson’s law comes into play and if the government senses that a particular branch of government or a particular function in government is really receding in importance, they simply draw other functions to its aid and hope that it continues in perpetuity. I sense that is what is going on with the citizen’s inquiry branch. Somebody has said; “Look, this branch is falling in importance and we are going to have to cease its operation unless we can do something to beef it up.” Beef it up they did. And this is what has happened.

There is no reason in my view why the Wintario grants information office should be part of the citizens inquiry branch. Surely that function could be handled from the Minister of Culture and Recreation’s own information office, rather than funnelling it through the citizens inquiry branch.

The government certainly should take a look at that because the expenditure for the 1971-78 fiscal year is some $13,704,200. Now, not all of that is citizens inquiry branch work. There are these other functions that have come in and, of course, reflect themselves in this particular vote.

I am guessing, because I tried my best to get information as to how I could separate the functions. You simply cannot do it because these other functions are lumped in. There is not even an item shown in the estimates this year of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation as “citizens inquiry branch”, it is lumped under “community information.” I suggest that certainly that is one area where the government could save some money. I think they could perhaps perform a function that my leader suggested should be performed in government from time to time in putting forward his “sunset” motion.

When these things are created they just go on and on and grow like Topsy. Ultimately, we are dealing with an animal which bears absolutely no resemblance to the initial creation, either in function or in expenditure.

I’ll switch very briefly to a couple of points I wanted to mention. These have been alluded to during other debates at other times. I think the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has talked about this a number of times.

I want to support the member in what he said with respect to the government of Ontario making an approach to the federal government with respect to members being able to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. I think it is important in the sense that many members actually contribute legislatively, and as a service to the public of Ontario, during their best years. That being the case, it seems to me that it is unfair, and unjust, not to allow those members who perform in this place year after year to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. Because of course, if they do not contribute they cannot draw when they become 65. They cannot draw if they should become disabled prior to age 65, because under the terms of that legislation one has to contribute for at least three years before one qualifies.

I cite an example in my own party -- the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), who is a very young gentleman and who essentially got elected right out of university. If he should be fortunate enough, and I think he will be, to be around these hallowed halls for 30 years --

Mr. B. Newman: Right, as long as he wants.

Mr. Samis: Thirty? That’s not fair.

Mr. Gaunt: -- he won’t have had any opportunity, given the present circumstances, to contribute to Canada Pension. If he should happen to fall victim to a disability at the end of that 30-year period he wouldn’t qualify for any benefit under Canada Pension at all and I think that is unfair.

The same case can be made for members who come out of business and who have contributed either as an employer or as an employee and come in here. They serve their province and in so doing their CPP contributions are interrupted for the period they spend in their legislative capacity. It seems to me that it is not proper. It is not right. Surely, that’s a problem that could be resolved through some negotiation with the federal authorities. Other provinces do it, and I believe at the moment Ontario is the only province where members of the Legislature are not permitted to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan while members. I think that change should be made.

The other matter, the matter of severance benefits, is perhaps not important to some members hot I think there should be some uniformity with respect to that matter. Severance benefits apply to people who are defeated or whose ridings are redistributed out of existence, but members who do not seek re-election are not given that severance benefit. It seems to me that severance benefits should apply equally to all members whether the member chooses not to seek re-election, whether the member is defeated or whether the member’s riding is redistributed out of existence.

Mr. B. Newman: Severance is severance.

Mr. Gaunt: The severance amount may vary. I think at the present time the member who is defeated qualifies for six months’ severance pay, but if it applied to all members perhaps the government would wish to reduce that period to say three months. Frankly, I think it should be left at six, but it should apply equally right across the board, I don’t think there should be any distinction there at all.

I have taken my 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker. I make the plea to the government and to the front bench across the way that we spent a lot of time on this report; we agonized and did a lot of debating and there was a lot of discussion over certain aspects of the report. We felt basically we came up with a good report. It was a report we felt would enhance the role of the member legislatively. It would enhance his ability to perform his function effectively and more efficiently in the scheme of things. We hope that the government will give it some serious consideration and hopefully implement all or most of the recommendations it contains.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, my concerns about the situation we find ourselves in in the Legislature date right back to the time shortly after I came into this House in 1971, when we had the recommendations on how government should be reorganized. It was pointed out that the government had completely forgotten the role of the back-bench member and the non-cabinet member in their consideration of the role members should be playing. As an afterthought -- they’d completely forgotten about us -- they appointed the Camp commission, the Ontario Commission on the Legislature, in order to have a look at an area which they had completely neglected and which I suspect was never very much at the front of their minds. That Camp commission presented and made five reports to this Legislature with very little action taken on any of the recommendations.

[9:45]

When this is pointed out to the government and pounded home, and opposition members, particularly, and some of the back-benchers on the government side speak about it, what happens? The typical response of this government is, “Let’s delay it further by forming a select committee of the Legislature.” So an all-party select committee gets formed, affectionately now called the Morrow committee. The last one -- the third report of the Morrow committee is the one we are discussing here tonight. It reported. It did a fine job. It agrees on many points with the Camp commission. The points are inherently obvious. These reports now come before us; yet nothing is done.

As a back-bencher, it strikes me very much that this afterthought appointment of the Camp commission by the government back in 1972 truly reflected the government’s opinion of the back-bencher in this House; they didn’t really seriously intend to make many of the changes brought in by the Camp commission or whoever recommends it, or the changes proposed by any select committee of this House. It’s that attitude which really perturbs me, an attitude which we saw here tonight when we went for the first half-hour without a cabinet minister here and then after the next hour had gone by with only a couple more to hear -- the legitimate concerns of the members of this House, concerns which they, as an all-party committee, have seen and recommended on, a committee which was preceded by an all-party representative group outside the Legislature -- the Camp commission.

The government is really stonewalling and stalling to prevent change, twisting and turning in whatever way it can, through the formation of committees to further delay coming to grips with the problems which are obvious to everyone. Both the Camp commission and the Morrow committee agreed very strongly on one thing, and that is that the Legislature -- the legislative building in its entirety -- should be under the complete jurisdiction of the Speaker. This is what occurs in most other parliamentary Legislatures of the Commonwealth, and we in Ontario are grossly behind the times in not having this fully in place now. It is a recommendation which, when accepted and implemented, would drastically change the role and condition of the non-cabinet minister in this House, from whatever party he might come.

Mr. Foulds: Non-cabinet minister?

Mr. Bounsall: Non-cabinet ministers, yes. The Morrow committee talked about the need for upgrading this building. It quoted in its report what the Camp commission said about this building, and that report was pretty damning. I just want to quote some small sections of the Camp commission as re-reported by the Morrow committee. “This building is old-fashioned, shabby, confusing --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Drafty.

Mr. Bounsall: -- depressing, dolorous; maintenance has been piecemeal.” Mr. Speaker, the only major change --

Mr. Laughren: I thought you were describing the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes).

Mr. Bounsall: -- made in this building since the 1971 exterior cleaning was the provision of the dining room space and post office space in the lower hall -- in the basement of this building; and the installation of a carpet earlier this year. That’s all that has been done inside this building for I don’t know how long.

Mr. Foulds: The ramp.

Mr. Bounsall: If you call the installation of the elevator for those who are in wheelchairs -- and they are required to ring a bell in order to get somebody over there in order to use it -- a refurbishing and a step forward. That is hardly a major change; and it certainly is not a change that one would call anything but confusing, for which the Legislature and its building were severely criticized by both the commission and the committee.

All you have to do is walk around this building, walk over to the north wing and walk up and down the stairs that twist around the elevator shaft. They talked about the exposed wiring around this place, the cracked ceilings, the walls, the peeling paint and the poor lighting. I noticed as I came in here tonight to partake in this debate that yet another large patch of wall material had fallen off between the second and the third floors of the north wing near the elevator shaft. I thought that one of my colleagues was going to admit that he had done the pulling.

Mr. Laughren: That was me on the floor not the paint.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How high up was it?

Mr. Bounsall: But we’ve got used to the state of disrepair of this building. You bring guests in and walk them from the front to your office and you have to go by that peeling, cracked hallway, which is a disgrace. That’s just one of the examples.

Mr. Samis: After 34 years.

Mr. Bounsall: They go on to talk about the furnishings. The furnishings, they say, are “dreary, worn and ill-suited to any legislator’s needs.” The displays in the lobby and hallways are unimaginative and out of date. The only change that I’ve observed in those hallway or lobby displays is the Ontario Outstanding Athletic Achievement Award, that lump of granite which now adorns the entranceway of the hallway between here and the legislative library.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s what they call the Tory phallic symbol.

Mr. Bounsall: That certainly speaks and reinforces the unimaginative displays that are shown in our lobby and hallways here, and the report abounds with suggestions as to how to create more meaningful displays and dreary furnishings and displays in this building.

Hon. Mr. Ken: Have you got something against the Fathers of Confederation?

Mr. Bounsall: I certainly don’t think that the government’s response to refurbishing and brightening up our hallways is to take down the pictures of the Fathers of Confederation out there and give them a cleaning and hang them back up.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Why not?

Mr. Bounsall: It isn’t going to brighten up this place, I can tell you.

Mr. Foulds: Why have you taken Oliver Mowat down?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Just to get him cleaned up a bit.

Mr. Bounsall: He needed a lot of cleaning up.

Mr. Worton: Clean up your act.

Mr. Laughren: Take the Minister of Housing out too.

Hon. Mr. Welch: John Rhodes insisted.

Mr. Bounsall: Among the other key recommendations which I will touch upon that flow from this final report of the Morrow committee, is the recommendation that each member --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Why isn’t the member for St. George in the House?

Mr. Makarchuk: She is having her coffee. Interjections.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Can we have just the member for Windsor-Sandwich please?

Mr. Foulds: Call the government House leader to order.

Mr. Bounsall: The Morrow committee made a thorough investigation of the space available in this building and were able to determine that each member should have 500 square feet, all of which would fit quite competently and well within the space in this building. They did that having determined that for many members of the Legislature the amount of space which they have is in the vicinity of around 200 square feet. The government, for that portion of the building over which the Government Services still have control, may put that recommendation into effect, but I feel that the only way that’s going to be really equitably given out, so there is no arguments at any given time and that 500 square feet criterion is achieved, is to put this building under the control of the Speaker. When that’s achieved, that’s when we’ll get the implementation of the 500 square feet.

There shouldn’t be the anomalous situation in this building of having the Speaker in charge of one portion of it, Government Services in charge of another portion of it, and the Premier in charge of yet a third portion. That’s an utterly ridiculous situation to pertain in the legislative building of the province, of which we all should be able to be proud. Unfortunately the current situation around here makes us despair of this building rather than be proud of it.

The report goes on and talks, having made the inventory of space in this building, about the quite realistic increase in space that should be provided for use of the three caucuses and their support stuff; the number of meeting rooms that should be made available, and their size; and the space that should be available for the use of ministers and their parliamentary assistants. All of this fits quite comfortably into the square footage of space we have in this building.

The other area which I would like to touch upon is the legislative library and the area of research. The Morrow committee, after thorough investigation, were able to indicate that there should be a research-oriented group in the main library and recommended the immediate appointment of a new director of library research and information.

The committee on members’ services have recommended this. I suggest the response of the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck) had it a little backwards when he said we want to have fixed clearly in our minds the entire library group complement and where they might go before we hire a director. What you need to do first is hire that director so you have the advice of that person in determining what kind and size of complement is needed for the job it is intended to have the group do. I suggest that it’s backwards to have the group all thought out before you hire the director.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Order, point of order.

Mr. Maeck: I think the member has misread what I said. What I said in the debate was simply that --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I remember it clearly.

Mr. Maeck: -- there is not much point in hiring a librarian until the government has made a commitment to continue with the program of rebuilding the library. I really didn’t say what the member is saying now.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Misrepresentation.

Mr. Speaker: That’s merely an interjection to correct the record. It’s not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, but the member should resign.

Mr. Bounsall: It’s been nice to have the House leader of the government here for the last 10 minutes -- or maybe 15, was it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I have been here in spirit.

Mr. Bounsall: You were here in spirit, yes; for the first half hour of this debate that’s all the rest of your colleagues were here in as well, and for the last hour all but three of them were only here in spirit.

The recommendation that each member be provided with a research assistant is absolutely key. In reading that recommendation, it strikes me that all the opposition members need that research assistant and that certainly all the government back-benchers need that research assistant.

I am not convinced in my own mind that the parliamentary assistants need that research assistant, but if that’s what the Morrow committee has determined is required, then I certainly have nothing against that. Obviously for their own personal use, cabinet ministers with the research staff of their entire ministry at their beck and call, do not need that, but if the parliamentary assistants need research assistants as well, I certainly would not be against seeing that is provided for them as well as every other back-bencher in this House.

Mr. Laughren: Some of them over there need a lot of help.

Mr. Bounsall: The government needs to get moving on the recommendations of both of these reports -- the one from the Camp commission and the other from the Morrow committee. The government to this point, in only a very few areas, has shown itself inclined to move at all. Since early 1972 you have only paid lip service to the provision --

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is excessive, that is an excessive statement.

Mr. Bounsall: Well you have not acted upon the majority of the Camp commission recommendations, the majority have not been acted upon.

[10:00]

Hon. Mr. Welch: What does 57 say?

Mr. Bounsall: What No. 57 are you referring to?

Mr. Foulds: Call the government House Leader to order.

Mr. Bounsall: The government has moved very slowly, and the minister won’t convince me at this point. I think he’s wrong if he is trying to say otherwise -- that the government has moved on a majority of the Camp commission recommendations.

I have taken my 15 minutes, I think, Mr. Speaker, which was the agreed upon amount of time for me. I simply would like to point out, without going into any detail at all, on two of the recommendations of the Morrow committee -- that the recommendations of the Hickling-Johnson report on members’ remuneration should be implemented immediately and that the pension plan and severance benefits also be reviewed -- I think both of those should be followed up.

I just might add a personal note, that if -- if -- the next salary increase goes through -- which we hear has been in the wind and has been recommended by, I guess, the Morrow committee -- when and if it finally comes J will have reached the salary position that I had before entering the House in December 1971.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I first of all want to say that --

Mr. Davidson: I’d like to have a point of order or a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: There’s nothing out of order. Mr. Davidson: I’d like to make a point of privilege, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of privilege?

Mr. Davidson: My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is this. I have sat here and listened --

Mr. Elgie: No, you haven’t.

Mr. Davidson: Yes, far more than some of those members over there.

I’ve sat here and listened to this debate. I am a member of the members’ services committee that was appointed by this House to try to do something about the services that exist within the Legislative Assembly in the province of Ontario, and particularly this building.

Hon. Mr. Welch: What is your point of privilege?

Mr. Davidson: The minister is getting my point of privilege. My point of privilege is this.

Mr. Makarchuk: Get back to your seat if you are going to make comments, Mr. House Leader.

Mr. Davidson: Having listened to some of the debate, particularly from people over on that side, who have as recently as the last speaker suggested, not only directly through his speech but through comments from his colleagues, that the Camp commission and the Morrow committee reports have been implemented, particularly to a greater degree than myself and others seem to feel, my point is this --

Mr. Samis: Point of information.

Mr. Davidson: One of the things that we, as members of this Legislature and in this building in particular, should be concerned about is the preservation and the maintenance of this building. Now as a member of the members’ services committee I know that is one of the things we have tried to raise. It is one of the things we have tried to bring forward. And we cannot as a committee exist, because we don’t know exactly what privileges we have as a committee -- the privileges under which we were constituted We cannot do anything. But my point is this, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: I have yet to hear a point of privilege.

Mr. Davidson: You are going to get it right now.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Rhodes) wants to speak.

Mr. Davidson: I am sending to you now a handful of point that has peeled off the walls, that can be picked off the floor in many locations in this building. The preservation of this building is one of the considerations of the members’ services committee and I suggest to you that the government is not preserving this building in the manner it should.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are abusing public property.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie has the floor.

Mr. Makarchuk: And not the government offices either.

Mr. Samis: No respect for public property.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all I want to say that I am one of those who was not in my place in the House until 25 minutes before 9 o’clock, if that’s of any great satisfaction to those who have spent a considerable amount of time tonight looking around the room and making a great point of who was present and who wasn’t present for this particular debate.

I am not going to get into that. I don’t think the fact that there are those who are present and those who are not adds anything to this evening’s discussion. If each of us had to answer to our constituents for the amount of time we individually spend in our places in this House, and if our performance for our constituents were judged only on that, all of us would be in deep, deep trouble.

A great amount of the effort put forth by individual members is not necessarily in this Legislature. So I don’t think there is anything to be gained by the sort of comment that has gone on for considerable time.

Mr. Speaker, it was suggested here tonight that the content of the Morrow report, in particular that portion relating to this building and the privileges and facilities of the members, suggested that members of cabinet simply have not paid any attention. I simply want to say to you hon. members that that is not true. I certainly have made myself aware of this report. I say without any hesitation that the contents of this report have been produced as the result of a lot of committee work, and the recommendations are very worthwhile.

Not all have been implemented; the majority of them haven’t. There’s no question about that. That is not to say that those matters cannot and should not be implemented; I think they can and should be implemented. There are some excellent recommendations.

It was suggested by the hon. member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) that once a person becomes a cabinet minister on this side of the House he forgets he was ever in the hack benches. I want to say to that hon. member and others, I certainly well remember my time in the back benches, and I remember the shock I experienced when I first came to this Legislature and found myself in a little two by two office down in the north wing, with no window, questionable ventilation --

Mr. Sweeney: It’s still there.

Mr. Makarchuk: We still have them, John.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I haven’t suggested they’re not still there; I simply was drawing to the member’s attention that I well remember that space. I certainly am one of those who would he most anxious to see proper office facilities for all members of this Legislature. Because whether you are a cabinet minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Premier, the chairman of a committee or whatever extra activity you may have taken on since you came to this House, you are first and foremost a member of this Legislature. Despite the extra activities we may have taken on in our respective caucuses, all of us still have the main responsibility of working for our constituents.

Mr. Worton: No lecture, John; no lecture.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If we’re going to do that, we have to have reasonable facilities to work in, and reasonable access to the assistance that each of us needs in order to carry out our jobs. All fin saving to my hon. colleagues is that I, for one -- and I think I can speak for a great many of my colleagues in cabinet -- endorse what has been said in this report, and am prepared to take the necessary action to implement it.

Mr. Sweeney: When?

Mr. Makarchuk: When; tell us when, John.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My colleague, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. McCague). has stated that one of the requirements indicated in this particular report is the need For individual offices of 500 square feet for each member, That is going to be done. He has so stated. You’re not going to wave a wand and suddenly see everything disappear From all the 125 offices here, hut progress is being made.

I’m not going to run around the building saying, “There’s paint off the wall here; there’s paint off the wall there.” If this building has to be refurbished, and it should he, then let it be done. To sit and say, “You’re responsible over there, you’re not doing the job right, you’re not protecting the public property”; that’s fair ball, that’s understandable; that’s what you perceive as part of your role and that’s the name of this game we’re all in; the main thing in discussing this report is that all of us on both sides of this House have a responsibility to this building, to this chamber, we have a responsibility to see that each member of this Legislature is properly provided with the facilities and support he needs to carry out his responsibility.

The member for Sudbury East said, “I have turned into a social worker; I thought I was a legislator.” We know what our jobs are when we come to this Legislature, we know full well that part of our responsibility is dealing with the day-to-day problems.

Mr. Sargent: Are you lecturing us? Are you giving us a lecture?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I’m not giving you a lecture, although I must say in your particular case it wouldn’t do any harm. All I’m trying to say is that I resent to a substantial degree --

Mr. Sargent: You are talking down to us.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- the feeling that the members pass on to me that I sit over here and don’t care. That is not so.

Mr. Sargent: You are talking down to us, sit down.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I am not talking down to the members and let me tell --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- the member for Grey-Bruce, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to talk to him without talking down to him, because that is about his level most of the time.

Interjections.

Mr. Samis: Nasty. That is nasty.

Mr. di Santo: That is nasty before Christmas.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, as I look through the recommendations in the report there are a number of them that I think we really should not worry ourselves about. You know, the one that says the division bells should be less strident hut audible throughout the building. I am really not going to lose too much sleep about that.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Strident! You can’t wake up!

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am not going to lose an awful lot of sleep “that the bell for a vote should be distinguishable from the bell for a quorum and both should be distinguishable from the fire alarm bell.” I have not yet seen anybody run out of the bull ding when the division bells went.

But I would like to say to the hon. members that I am willing to support fully and endorse the contents of this report and I would like to see all of us work together to see that it gets done and get the building in good shape.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay a word of tribute to former Speaker Morrow on his contributions over the years in establishing fair play for all of us in this House.

Mr. Baetz: Long live Ottawa West, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: Don Morrow was a former great baseball pitcher. He could have played pro ball. But over the years he has always been interested in fair play for all people and I want to say, although he is not here, he was one friend all of us had on the government side.

[Applause]

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) whose experience in the science of government and in a lifetime of service for her people leads her to make a very meaningful case for the sorry mess in this, what could be the most beautiful showcase all Canada.

On the situation we have today, I would like to congratulate, Mr. Speaker, the member for Sudbury, (Mr. Germa), for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) and the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Maeck) for their contributions to this report. They are all sincere.

This tells the story pretty well. Over the years -- I have been here, I guess, for about a hundred years it seems, but --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Longer.

Mr. Sargent: -- the host Minister of Housing tells about his hardships -- that he had a very small office without any air conditioning and no window.

I guess a lot of us over here did not even have a desk when we came here.

Mr. B. Newman: Right. Desks were right in the House.

Mr. Sargent: Being a member of the opposition is a caste system we have and it has not changed.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We did our work right here.

Mr. Sargent: I think, Mr. Speaker, at this time and place -- I think time is ”a-fugiting,” but we will have to make this for all time, to the member for Parry Sound and the Minister of Housing, if they are going to be sincere in what they say, this has to be put in top priority for real action.

I am not going to get into a hassle with the Minister of Housing on how he thinks how low I am. I have always had a high regard for him as a member. If he wants to go that way, I don’t mind a bit. But if I want to have repartee with the minister on a straight across the House basis, we were friends always and I am not going to hassle with him now. Pass.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to withdraw that remark. It was uncalled for when I made it and I apologize to the hon. member. It should not have been made.

Mr. Sargent: I do thank you, John; I thank you.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is a gentleman, there is a gentleman.

Mr. Sargent: Are you pointing at George or at him?

He was a Liberal to start with, though.

Mr. Makarchuk: Don’t spoil it, Eddie.

Mr. Sweeney: That is why you have become a nice guy. You remember what your roots were.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You have to admit John Rhodes saw the light.

Mr. Speaker: Time is awasting.

Mr. Sargent: Well, I won’t be long, Mr. Speaker.

The preamble in this report, I think, sums it all up. It says: “The legislative building should be a showcase of the history and culture of Ontario. The building should he refurbished to give visitors a great awareness of both its history and its symbolic importance.

But the shabbiness of this building, as Monty brought out just a few minutes ago, and as I was showing Fred Young a minute ago in this lobby --

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker: You mean the hon. members for Cambridge (Mr. Davidson) and Yorkview (Mr. Young).

Mr. Sargent: I’ll watch that, John.

In this little library reference room we have here in the opposition lounge, the coils have fallen out, they are lying on the floor, and the seats have caved in; that’s a real showplace in there, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Makarchuk: It looks like the waiting room is a bordello, eh Eddie?

Mr. Baetz: How about the bar?

Mr. Sargent: Well, it’s really a sleazy operation; the whole thing is. it is really nothing to be proud of and I think it is a reflection on all those in Treasury the way they have let this place run down.

The elevators are a disgrace. We need new elevators in the main part of the building. Mr. Speaker, I am I in the hotel business, and I say this isn’t even a good third-class hotel operation.

Mr. Laughren: Compared with the Eaton Centre.

Mr. Sargent: If you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, although you are in charge of the operation --

Mrs. Campbell: He is not, that’s one of the problems.

Mr. Sargent: -- it’s very poor housekeeping, and that covers a lot. I put that in quotes. “Very poor housekeeping”; in the hotel business you wouldn’t get a licence to operate a beverage room.

Mr. Makarchuk: They’d have work orders against you.

Mr. Sargent: That’s right; and they would close you up damn soon.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What about the Parliament buildings in Cuba?

Mr. Makarchuk: I haven’t been down there.

Mr. Sargent: The crowded offices of the opposition are an area the minister should go down and visit some time, just to refresh his haughtiness, his arrogance, to see the way we are existing down there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s where you got your political science course, isn’t it?

Mr. Sargent: What makes you think that the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) can spend $10,000 on fixing his office up? What makes you think that we have to go past two or three secretaries to see you people? You are living in palaces like Taj Mahal over there. The member for Parry Sound has the audacity to say -- the kindest way I can say it -- he had the audacity to say that we deserved this because we were losers over here, we are losers.

Mr. Davidson: That’s what he said.

Mr. Sargent: That’s what he said, “You deserve it because you are losers.”

Mr. Worton: So we ain’t going to lose any more.

Mr. Sargent: That’s right, you can bet your boots on that. You know when he said that he struck a new high in my low, I’ll tell you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I want you to put my remark back in Hansard; I withdraw my withdraw.

Mr. Makarchuk: That one will go down in the quotes of Colombo.

An hon. member: Eddie, you have made your mark.

Mr. Sargent: I think the opulence in which you fellows operate over there is a disgusting display of wealth, of opulence. In my 13 years or 14 years here, until this week I have only had room for two chairs in my office.

An hon. member: He even had to rent his own furniture.

Mr. Wildman: Eddie, I’m ahead of you, I’ve got three chairs in my office.

Mr. Makarchuk: One of them is plugged into the wall outlet.

Mr. Sargent: So, in other words, if I may set the tone, we have a slipshod operation.

Mr. Samis: Eddie, that’s a hard one to follow.

Mr. Sargent: We can throw a stone and hit a $43 million building over there; you can spend more money on Minaki in one year, $5 million rip there, than you spent on this building in the last 10 years or 15 years, at least since I’ve been here.

Mr. Baetz: You had more fun here, Eddie.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is closer to home too, Eddie.

Mr. Sargent: You should see the way the civil service live over there, those bureaucrats; I’m convinced now that they even treat you cabinet ministers like puppets on a string, they run you guys. I had lunch with the second-top Tory in this province --

Mr. Conway: Who on earth was that?

Mr. Sargent: -- a while back, and he said it’s a disgrace the way the civil service treat cabinet ministers. They laugh at them and they look down at members of Parliament with disdain.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They get more money.

Mr. Sargent: George, they do; I’m with you on that one.

Mr. Baetz: What are you going to do with the civil servants?

Mr. Sargent: Well, up the revolution.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Are you suggesting we fire them all?

Mr. Sargent: I think it’s time that we collectively stood up and dug in and said, “Look, for once in this beautiful province, we have our own acres of diamonds, as it were, the finest in the whole world we have here, and yet we have this shoddy operation.” I travel a lot in my business and every time I go to a capital city in the United States or Canada, I make it a point to go to the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You’ve got to get into one once in a while.

Mr. Sargent: I move that be struck from the record. You see, I’ve got to do this, I can’t live on the salary you give me.

Mr. Breithaupt: If he was a civil servant he’d be all right.

Mr. Sargent: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ll give you a job.

Mr. Sargent: What bugs me is that this report says that the member of Parliament gets $4.29 an hour net.

Mr. Worton: Too much, too much.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Ontario Federation of Labour would be doing us a favour.

Mr. Sargent: Those of us in the opposition do even worse than that, because we don’t get $5,000 extra for sitting on a committee like you guys do over there. You’ve got your built-in things for all your people and you give us a shellacking all along the line.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Every four years or so.

Mr. Sargent: I thought you were asleep.

Mr. Breithaupt: The well’s starting to run a little dry over there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If you go to Ottawa, it is just turned around, eh, Ed?

Mr. Sargent: The member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) told me that in Quebec the Legislature down there gets $30,600 a year.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That is per session; and they have one in the spring and one in the fall.

Mr. Samis: It’s gone up since then.

Mr. Sargent: If I couldn’t supplement my salary, I couldn’t afford to be down here. I don’t know how some of these fellows do it, I honest to God don’t.

An hon. member: They moonlight.

Mr. Sargent: You can’t be smart when you talk about members’ salaries in this House, compared to what you’re making as a cabinet minister.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is all too low.

Mr. Conway: I remember that was once a Liberal policy.

Mr. Worton: We have to spend just as much time --

Mr. Sargent: And what bums me is I go out of here tonight and as I’m walking down to the hotel, the big limousines draw up and you guys pile in there; that bugs me.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: You’re jealous.

An hon. member: Pick us up once in a while.

Mr. Sargent: Why can’t you drive your own cars, quit all these trappings to power?

Mr. Samis: Right on, teach Claude Bennett how.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is how the Tories feel in Ottawa too

Mr. Sargent: While people can’t get jobs, you guys are running around like oil barons around there.

Mr. Makarchuk: Bloody Arabs.

Mr. Sargent: Some of you go past me and you hide down so I won’t see you.

Mr. Samis: They put Larry Grossman on a pillow.

Mr. Breithaupt: He doesn’t reach up to the window.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Can’t you park your Cessna up there?

Mr. Makarchuk: And one-way glass in the car.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Haven’t you got that car fixed since you ran into the back of one here?

Mr. Sargent: In some Legislatures they have electronic voting; you just push a button on your desk, they’re modernized.

In summary, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your time.

Mr. Makarchuk: And your tolerance.

Mr. Speaker: My time is your time.

Mr. Sargent: What this Legislature needs, in all seriousness, is a highly trained executive who has had a successful career in hotel management. We need another Gordon Carton here, a man to put this place back into shape.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You’re lobbying, you’re trying to get into the civil service.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you very much.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Speaker, after the call to the barricades from the member for Grey-Bruce, I feel that I do not have that much to contribute to the debate; however I don’t think that tonight we well be gathering at the barricades on his call. I want to speak particularly to what has been said by the Minister of Housing. He says in the first place that when we wave a wand we want things to happen immediately and so on.

That’s really not the case on the opposition side among those who want thing to happen.

I was here in 1967; I saw the conditions then and I see the conditions as they are now; basically, there have been few changes. We’ve graduated from a state where we had four members in one office to where we now have one member in one cubicle. The cubicle described earlier is exactly what members still have for working space in this Legislature. We don’t expect miracles, but how long do we have to wait for action by this government? The government is in the position to do something about it; how long do we have to wait until certain things are done to provide decent working space for the members of this Legislature?

We’re not asking for the moon, we’re not asking for anything great. Specifically what we’re asking for is reasonable working conditions for the members. Unfortunately we can’t go on strike, we can’t picket outside or something of that nature, but I think it’s not a problem to be faced and worked out by the members on this side of the House only, it’s a problem that’s faced by members on both sides of the House.

The Minister of Housing said we all have to work together to improve conditions. There’s no question about it, all of us have to work together. All of us on this side of the House have been stating, the committees have been stating, this committee has been stating; each and every one of us has something to say about the working conditions, and the members on your side of the House have said exactly identical things -- in fact they have signed the report and agreed with the contents of the report. But the point is that the government, the cabinet ministers -- the boss makes the final decisions.

I would suggest to you -- and there are two cabinet ministers present here now for a change, and it’s about time --

Mr. Conway: One and a half actually.

Mr. Makarchuk: -- I suggest that perhaps they take the message back and let’s get to work on it. We’re prepared to work on it; we’re prepared to accommodate you, I hope that you are prepared to accommodate the members on this side. When he concluded his statement, he said we all want to make this place work. I want to point out to the Minister of Housing that if he provides a place to work for the members of this House we will make it work, If he doesn’t, he’s going to have problems; he’s going to have confrontations; he’s going to have dissention and he’s going to have all sorts of things.

The nature of this Legislature has changed in the last two or three years. It’s something that has to be recognized. Perhaps some of the members of the government, like the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) are not prepared to recognize the fact. But other members are prepared to recognize the fact that the nature of this Legislature is probably going to remain this way for a long time to come. Consequently, you have to do things to accommodate the members on this side of the House as much as you have to accommodate members on the other side of the House. I hope you get to work on that.

Mr. Speaker: Under standing order number 28, a motion to adjourn is deemed to have been made. I will listen to the member for Downsview for up to five minutes.

BRIBERY CASE

Mr. di Santo: I’ve been asking for the last two weeks, a question of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) which I think is important for the administration of justice in this province. For reasons I can’t understand, the Attorney General has answered not only evasively, but has also given a misleading picture on the problem I was trying to bring to the attention of the House.

In fact, I was referring to a case of bribery involving a person named Marco Mann, one of the principals of Marel Construction, and a person named Melvin Kurtz, an employee of a construction company. In that case, the Attorney General those to prosecute the person who had received the money, rather than the person who had given the money. The reason the Attorney General gave to me in his answer was, and I quote: ”It was necessary in this case to refrain from prosecuting one or the other of the giver or receiver in order to have the evidence of one to have a successful prosecution.”

Now, Mr. Speaker, in the Waisberg report -- [10:30]

Mr. Baetz: May I rise on an order of privilege as the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General?

Mr. Speaker: You will have the opportunity to respond if you wish.

Mr. Baetz: I would just like to know, Mr. Speaker, what this intervention is all about, since it does involve the Attorney General’s office.

Mr. Speaker: Well, under standing order 28 (a), if a member of the Legislature is dissatisfied with the answer given to him by a minister, on proper notice he has the right to debate this for up to five minutes upon adjournment at 10:30.

Mr. Baetz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the explanation.

An hon. member: He gave notice at 3 o’clock, Harry.

Mr. di Santo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Probably the member wasn’t here at three o’clock.

An hon. member: Or wasn’t listening.

Mr. di Santo: Anyway, Mr. Melvin Kurtz, the person bribed, admitted to Judge Waisberg that he had received $19,500 from Marel Contractors, so there was no possibility that one of the two parties would deny that he had committed an illegality. But what concerns me is that six other people were charged and in each case the persons charged were the persons who received the money and never the persons who gave the money; and in each case the persons who gave the money were big contractors.

I think we have to look at this question in context. If we go back to 1974 we can see that the Waisberg report was published, the then Attorney General, (Mr. Welch), in an interview, cautioned against drawing any inference from the number of charges laid so far, saying more were in the works. The fact is that they never came, and we know that the present Attorney General is a personal friend of the president of Marel Contractors; and not only is the president of Marel Con tractors, Elio Muzzo, a personal friend of the Attorney General, he has been a political supporter of the Conservative Party and a financial contributor of the Attorney General’s campaign. You can find that in the statement of campaign receipts and expenses of the candidate, Roy McMurtry -- page 10, Elio Muzzo, Marel Contractors, 130 Toro Road, Downsview; and Marco Muzzo, Marel Contractors, 130 Torn Road, Downsview; contributed to the campaign of the Attorney General.

Mr Makarchuk: How much?

Mr. di Santo: It was $250 each. We don’t know how much they contributed to the previous campaign when the Attorney General was defeated, and we don’t know how much they contributed to the last campaign, but for sure I know that the Attorney General was present at the Triumph Hotel when they had the fund raising meeting in which the president of Marel Construction was one of the fund raisers for the Conservative Party at that time.

Mr. Makarchuk: There goes his leadership chances.

Mr. di Santo: The point that I want to make is this: Is it possible that the Attorney General in this case, has chosen to prosecute --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. di Santo: -- the person who received the money and that the same applied to other persons? Isn’t it possible that there is a conflict of interest?

Mr. Speaker: If nobody from the ministry wishes to reply, this concludes the matter.

The House adjourned at 10:35 p.m.

APPENDIX

TRIBUTE TO FORMER SPEAKER, RUSSELL ROWE

Ceremony outside the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Can we have your attention now? You are all aware of the reason we are gathered here, to pay tribute to a colleague of ours who is celebrating a birthday today. It is an opportunity for us to perform something we always do when a Speaker has retired. We are awfully pleased to note that Mrs. Rowe, Marge, is with our colleague Russell on this occasion I’m told that their daughters Karen and Anne, their sons, Robert and Cameron, and their daughter-in-law, Janice, are here. We also have with us Mr. Richard Miller of Mississauga who has done this fine work of art. He also painted Mr. Speaker Reuter’s portrait and his works have been exhibited internationally.

Before we get on to the formal presentations and to the unveiling, I want to remind hon. members that Mr. Speaker Rowe is the only member of the Legislature to have served as Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole House, Deputy Speaker and Speaker of the House.

Without any further ado, I would like to call on the Premier to say a few words.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join Russell on his birthday. I notice you didn’t tell us just what birthday it is that he is celebrating. He may confide in us and, in that most of the press are here, that will certainly be confidential. I can recall, Russell, when I was at your first convention, if memory serves me correctly -- and that was just a few years ago.

Time moves very rapidly. In political life one has a lot of memories, most of them good. I can recall that convention very well. Your predecessor predicted to me you would be making a very significant mark in the public life of this province, and of course that prediction came true.

For those of you who don’t remember Russell’s predecessor, his name happened to be William Goodfellow, one of the very distinguished Ministers of Agriculture of the province of Ontario who, in turn, was a great friend of another Minister of Agriculture whose portrait is somewhat further down the hall.

I would like to express my best wishes to our former Speaker and my personal thanks to hip and to his wife for the service they gave -- and I emphasize they -- and, as I said in the House, to thank Russell for the very excellent leadership he gave to the Assembly. That is a task, Mr. Speaker, that you have found is not always simple but it is one that he discharged with fairness, as I have said on occasion, sometimes looking more often to his left than his right, but nonetheless one that we appreciated.

Mr. Peterson, there are some days when I think you look more to your left than right.

Mr. Peterson: I happen to look right in front.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will tell you, if you just looked a little more in the direction of your in-laws, you would be a lot better off.

Not only did Russell do it in fairness, but he did it with dignity and was a credit to our whole system of parliamentary democracy .And so, Russell, it is a great pleasure to join all of your friends here, and most particularly your family, at this unveiling of your portrait and also to help you celebrate your birthday. Russell doesn’t know this but he is anxious, in that we can’t do it here, to treat you all to champagne and cigars at some future occasion.

I would also say to the artist that we have a lot of talented people in the municipality next door to the city of Brampton. Mr. Miller, you are in the same ranks as the late Mr. Dingle and many others who are of your profession in that municipality. It’s great to have such very distinguished people performing this sort of service. I haven’t seen the portrait, but I can only say that if it is of the same calibre of work as the one you did of Mr. Reuter, then we are looking forward to its unveiling. If it isn’t of that calibre, of course, you will have an opportunity to retouch and alter. I am sure Mrs. Rowe will give you some advice, but I have a feeling it will more than meet the very high professional standards that you set.

Once again, I express to Russell, to Marge and to his family my appreciation for the service you have given to all of us, but most important to the system we all support.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the loyal Opposition, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: To whom he’s loyal, I’m never quite sure.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier is wondering to whom we are loyal. He hasn’t noticed, going his way at all, that we are certainly very loyal to Her Majesty.

I want certainly to associate myself with all the remarks, save the partisan ones, that the Premier has ably put today about ex-Speaker Rowe. As you know, I spent some years of my life as an assistant to a Speaker of the House of Commons. I know the tremendous pressures on that office at all times, but especially in a minority situation.

We in the House are aware of the difficulties a Speaker has to deal with in bringing members to order, keeping the debate running and all the obvious things. What we don’t see are the innumerable committees he has to deal with; and also his responsibilities in connection with money spent in the building; the housekeeping matters, the visiting delegations, the requirement to represent the province and the Legislature, visiting other places, dealing with parliamentary assemblies of various kinds, and so on. These matters are a tremendous drain on the time of a person; and when he is also trying, as Mr. Speaker Rowe was always able to do, to represent his constituents and their interests, it is really -- and I say this quite sincerely -- a superhuman task. We ask too much of the people we elect to the office of Speaker.

Russell, if I may refer to you that way, you conducted yourself with dignity and you brought honour and distinction to the office. All of us in Ontario are better off because of the work you did on behalf of the democratic system in the Legislature of Ontario. Your family, I am sure, is delighted, for your own health and for their happiness, to see that you have now had a chance to gain a little relief from those onerous responsibilities. Now you’re celebrating a birthday which means you are probably almost as old as the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not quite.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier ages 10 years every time the Argonauts get knocked out of the playoffs, so I am adding a few for that reason. Remember I am from Montreal originally.

In all seriousness, thank you, ex-Speaker Rowe, for a job well done, happy birthday, sir, and may you enjoy many more years of active service to the public and to yourself, your family and friends. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Lewis, the Leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Rowe and Mrs. Rowe and everyone here: I was actually elected to this Legislature the same year as Russell Rowe, back in 1963. We have therefore served slightly more than 14 years together. If I am both not maudlin and without partisanship, I think I can say that among all the colleagues I’ve had over the years, I can’t think of a member of the Legislature, of a man, who was at once more generous, more thoughtful or more gentle. Russell Rowe, gentle is the word that comes to mind when I think of you and your contribution.

You were a Speaker of the House during a time here, it seems to me, when it was both volatile and even unruly; whatever differences some of us may have had with you from time to time, you always discharged what you felt to be your obligations with a deep and evident sincerity. If and when you decide to depart from political office, and you’ll notice I imply retirement rather than defeat, I want to say to you that you’ll leave with your colleagues at that point, a tremendous fount of goodwill and affection, a very distinguished career as an MPP and a Speaker; and now, sir, a memorable facsimile, a memorable replica to adorn the walls of this building forever.

When I look around at all the rest of you, I wonder whether any of us can have that as an affectionate memory.

Russell and Mrs. Rowe and family, thank you immensely for the contribution you have made to the Legislature. May you remain here as long as you would wish and have an excellent life thereafter.

Mr. Speaker: I would now like to call on the Deputy Speaker, Mr. Hugh Edighoffer, please. Hugh?

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, Russell and Mrs. Rowe, ladies and gentlemen: This, I think, is a very special occasion, because of course as all of you know, hangings and birthdays are significant occasions.

I have been asked to say a word or two on behalf of your 124 colleagues in the Legislature. I am most pleased to do this, and I asked all members to participate in a small memento of this occasion. I must say that all members agreed they wanted in some way to show their appreciation, and of course also help celebrate your birthday.

The members got together and decided they would pool their minimal resources and purchase a small memento to show that appreciation and help celebrate your birthday. As you will notice, behind you there are four parcels; we thought it might be fitting to show that it was non-partisan, so we have blue, red and green ribbons on all parcels. Also on this special occasion we thought, because of the restraint programs, we would go back into what was left of some of the other Hansards. You will note, as you open the parcels, that they are Hansards from your election as Speaker and re-election after that time.

I want to say, on behalf of your 124 colleagues, simply but sincerely, thank you and happy birthday.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker Rowe, will you come up, please?

As Hughie has said, we have gotten together; and there is something to commemorate your 63rd birthday.

Mr. Rowe: He is a super-sleuth. It wasn’t left to the ROMP after all.

Mr. Speaker: Would you please bring it in.

[Happy Birthday was sung]

Mr. Rowe: As you people can see, I am embarrassed.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Premier, colleagues and friends; and family -- all friends too; may I say just how overwhelmed I am with the sentiments which have been expressed here this afternoon, and I do want to thank you for them. It is not very often you get hanged on your birthday I might say.

You know, there are going to be some other people, I was just thinking as I was standing there, who are going to have to go through an exercise like this. They hang not only Speakers; so you have that to look forward to, Mr. Speaker; and sometime in the dim and distant future, Mr. Premier, they hang Premiers around here too, you know. I know there are other people in the room who would gladly take that risk -- wouldn’t they, Dr. Smith, Stephen, et cetera?

I want to thank you very much for your kind remarks. Yes, it is true, 63 years ago today my mother had a coming-out party. I know, because I was there.

I want you to know that I appreciate this, you really didn’t need to go to that length.

The happy birthday cake we will all share, I hope, in a few moments.

I want to say how honoured I feel at what is being done today, because it is not everybody who gets a chance to be hanged in the Legislature of the province of Ontario. I deem it a great honour to find a place on the wall somewhere around here, in the company of my illustrious predecessors, Mr. Reuter, Mr. Cass, Mr. Morrow, and from there on back.

I was just thinking that perhaps someday my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren, or somebody who has heard the name Rowe, will be wandering through the halls and wondering who that old fellow up there is anyway. I hope they will have a sense of pride. I certainly feel proud to have had the opportunity to be the Speaker in the province of Ontario. I look forward to, and frankly I want you to know I am enjoying, my somewhat easier life now. I’m putting my weight back on, by the way; I got a suit the other day and I may have to have it altered, but that is a good sign.

Speaking about food, I think we should get on with the rest of this business, because I understand the Speaker has arranged a certain amount of refreshment down the hall, and there is this birthday cake to participate in.

So we thank you again for gathering here for these few moments and doing me this honour, for the support you have given me in the past years, and the position you granted me. I want you to know I will always appreciate that.

I also want to indicate what a difficult job Mr. Miller must have had, we’ll see the results here in a moment. I enjoyed working with Mr. Miller during the sittings and I hope he enjoyed his work too. This is his second -- I was going to say “customer,” that isn’t a very good word -- his second hanging in these illustrious chambers and I’m sure he takes a great deal of pride in that respect too.

I want you to know I share this with not only my wife, Marj, who has been mentioned on many occasions here today, and whose hospitality many of you have partaken of at the apartment and elsewhere; but also my family. Only part of my family is here. You may have :thought they were all here, and some of the neighbours too, but not really. I’m just trying to keep up with Paul Yakabuski -- where’s Paul? When Paul and I came into the Legislature, at the same time in 1963, he had a few more than I had and I said, “Look Paul, don’t wait for me, I’m not going to have any more, I’m not trying to catch up to you.” Then he went ahead and had another one.

I also want to welcome a couple of my friends who joined us this afternoon; my campaign manager and his wife, Mr. Haynes and Mrs. Haynes; and other friends of ours, the gal who keeps my wife so well dressed at my expense, Mr. and Mrs. McMahon. I am very pleased that these people were able to join us. I think I mentioned my family, didn’t I? Half of them are here anyway. Marj said two-thirds, I really haven’t counted them lately.

I am going to cut the cake now and then I guess somebody will do the unveiling.

Thank you very much again, and we’ll look forward to a little sociability.

Mr. Speaker: I think I would be remiss if I didn’t remind all of Russ’s friends that Edith Storton, who served as the administrative assistant to not only Mr. Speaker Rowe but three other Speakers, is here and we welcome you this evening, Edith.

Marj, if you will come forward, along with Mr. Miller, and Mr. Speaker Rowe will preside over the unveiling, please.

Mr. Rowe: How do you unwrap those parcels without spoiling those Hansards, Mr. Speaker, do you know?

[Unveiling. Applause]

Mr. Speaker: We will now adjourn to Room 228 down the hall for some light refreshment, please.