Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved second reading of Bill 122, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Conway: I would like to rise to participate in the debate on this most interesting bill. I, as so often is the case, had no intention to speak prior to the supper hour --

Mr. Maeck: Those were usually good decisions, too.

Mr. Eaton: Stick by your first decision.

Mr. Roy: We prevailed upon him.

Mr. Conway: -- but as is often the case, one is spurred on in this assembly by good debate and, I must say, the hon. member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), in his remarks just before the supper hour, made me think perhaps this would be an opportunity to participate in a matter that affects to some degree the position and situation of all members of this House.

I want to say to the House this evening that since I think this is rather an individualistic kind of debate, my comments will be offered, to quote the phrase of my good friend from Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), as a private member. I will be speaking in this particular regard as a private member.

What I like about this sort of bill and the debate it engenders is that it provides one of those rare opportunities when we can focus rather sharply upon the role and status of both the Legislature and the members. After almost two and a half years of membership in this particular assembly, I have now begun to form some rather serious impressions and overall attitudes with respect to the Legislative Assembly in Ontario.

The single most serious concern I have in this regard relates to the fact that this assembly, not unlike the federal Parliament in Ottawa, suffers -- in regard to the matter that is before us tonight as in many other housekeeping matters -- from the significant fact there has been a one-party dominance of this assembly for lo these many years.

An hon. member: For too long.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just half-way through, just half-way done.

Mr. Conway: While I realize there’s a certain partisan flavour to that remark, speaking for a moment as a quasi-political scientist, I do think there are some very serious implications of one-party dominance in this kind of an assembly, as there are in Ottawa.

As my friend from Essex South implies, there is however, a particular joy for those of us elected in 1975, as I know there is for many of those members here -- I see for example the member for Peterborough (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Mancini: Great joy.

Mr. Conway: I know he would share with me the sense of the new sunshine of what we would almost regard as institutionalized minority government.

An hon. member: I think he’d agree. He’ll be gone next time too.

Mr. Conway: It is interesting this debate should occur at this point in time, because as many observers will note, the MPP in Ontario is very much in the news these days.

Before getting involved in the specifics of Bill 122, I must say that, like all members, I bring a certain particular and personal bias to the debate. My bias is very preferable to the financial regard as it’s put forward in this particular legislation, because I am presently only 26 years of age, and am of single status.

An hon. member: We’ll change that.

Mr. Conway: I must say, I’m quite prepared to appreciate the --

Mr. Roy: Officially, of course.

Mr. Conway: Officially, as the member for Ottawa East says.

An hon. member: Do you think either will change?

Mr. Conway: Like a few members here, I am slightly younger than the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) and the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil).

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In more ways than one.

Mr. Conway: The former member for Kent-Elgin is no longer here, he was always a useful foil in this regard. But I must say that quite frankly --

Mr. Maeck: What is this?

Mr. Conway: The member for Parry Sound says, “What is this?” As someone who is of that particular category, I can quite frankly and honestly say I am very pleased with the indemnity as it presently sits. I would go one step further in suggesting that I could, because I am delighted to be involved in this particular endeavour, and given the nature of my personal ego and ambition on a very localized scale, probably participate in this --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: How local is the province of Ontario?

Mr. Conway: -- regard for one half the indemnity that is presently offered. “From my particular point of view” is an important statement of bias.

An hon. member: We’ll take care of that right away.

Mr. Conway: The corollary of that must be -- and I feel it very keenly, because since my election two and a half years ago, I have really begun to wonder how some -- particularly members on this side of the House -- manage to survive given the present financial arrangements. I truly don’t know how some of you do it, given the very major financial challenges that members face in both their constituency and legislative activities. I say that quite honestly and quite candidly.

For an opposition member who is married, of middle age, with a family of two or three --

Mr. Foulds: You’re talking about me.

Mr. Conway: I may very well be speaking of the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Martel: Four or five.

An hon. member: He’s just overactive.

Mr. Conway: It is a real credit to many of the members who have endured the really regrettable levels of indemnity and salary that have been offered here over the past years.

As something of a prologue or introduction to what I think is a very important matter, I thought, with your indulgence, I would review what is, for most of us in modern Canadian political science, a rather standard text written by a very famous Canadian academic, Norman Ward. It’s entitled, “The Canadian House of Commons Representation.” It was published some many years ago, in 1950, in the Canadian government series. But in that particular book, there is a very fascinating chapter, appropriately and I think very relevantly entitled, for tonight’s discussion, chapter six, “The Payment of Members.”

Mr. Foulds: Chapter six, what verse?

Mr. Conway: We’re not quite to that stage yet. I thought it might be very interesting to review, not necessarily for the edification of hon. members present, but perhaps for certain members of the gallery --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Take your time.

Mr. Conway: -- and members of the general public who, I think, might be, if nothing else, guided to this very useful text --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: How do you manage to strut without ever moving from your place?

Mr. Foulds: Dennis, that is the best line you’ve had in four and a half years.

Mr. Conway: The only honest answer I can give to the hon. Minister of Health is --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You do it sitting down.

Mr. Conway: -- having watched you for two and a half years, I cannot imagine a more notable master.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You have been here for two years and three months. Don’t make it any worse than it is.

Mr. Martel: Not the good old days anymore.

Mr. Conway: One of the interesting concepts that is before us in Bill 122 is the very simple word, and notion of, indemnity. I remind hon. members to think for a moment about the notion of a sessional indemnity, which is what we are really here to amend this evening. It is of course, clearly and quite obviously, not a salary but, in Ontario as in certainly all of Canada, we have developed a system of payment for members which seeks not to pay on any regular basis a salary, but still, today, offers an indemnification to the hon. members for the time lost from their normal course of activity.

Professor Ward in his text, makes a very interesting and useful reference to the first system of indemnification employed in this province. It is quite interesting inasmuch as it lays the responsibility for the indemnification of members not with the consolidated revenue fund, not with any of the centralized financial authorities, but, most interestingly, with the particular and individual constituencies -- and that, to the extent the individual constituencies were to afford the indemnity for the hon. members, a particular assessment was to be levied in each and every constituency for that specific purpose.

Mr. Foulds: Sort of like a parish and clergymen.

Mr. Conway: One wonders what good fortune many of us would have if today we had to return to Don Mills, to Brock, to Port Arthur, and, yes, to Renfrew North, to have our various and sundry constituencies allocate the revenues that provide at least a fair level of subsistence. I thought that was an interesting historical precedent.

Being a Liberal, I thought it also interesting that one of the more prominent Liberals of another day, John Stuart Mill in his essay on representative government, had this to say about the payment of members:

“The business of a member of Parliament, assuming that the member was to be paid,” and the Hon. Mr. Mill did not approve at all of payment for the individual members, “but that the business of being a member of Parliament would therefore become an occupation in itself, carried on like other professions, with a view chiefly to its pecuniary return, and under the demoralizing influences of an occupation essentially precarious.”

I thought that too was an interesting comment upon the development of a tradition for the indemnification of hon. members of this and other assemblies.

Mr. Ward in his text -- this is now some 27 years old and I think it is rather interesting given the press comment of today at any rate -- notes on page 101 that “members of Parliament have always shown an understandable diffidence in discussing and repairing the indemnity law.” I think that too is an interesting comment about how certain situations and conditions continue to obtain in a later day.

[8:15]

I thought it was also interesting when we looked at that particular aspect of payment of members, how certain other of the perks developed. They are quite frankly being discussed here in this bill and in Bill 123 which is to follow quickly.

It is interesting to note as Professor Ward does, how certain of the perks developed in regard to members of Parliament and the Legislature. I know all members will be very happy to know, given the purity of our present cause, that the rail pass which we all hold so dear has its origins in some very serious influence peddling by all the major rail companies, not so very long ago. That, too, I think says something about the tradition that has evolved over the years.

Mr. Mancini: A railway pass for every member.

Mr. Conway: One of the interesting notions that no longer has relevance in the tradition, but is, I think, quite interesting, is the members’ indemnity. The conditions and the contortions into which it forces individual members relates to the previous situation where members’ indemnity was more or less directly related to their attendance in this assembly. One shudders to think of what implications that might have, even at so late a date.

I think it would be interesting to review just for a moment an earlier indemnity Act which contained the statement that “ ... a member ill at the place in which the session was held was entitled to his full indemnity”; and “ ... that he was at his place where the session was held, whenever he was within 10 miles of such a place.” This provision may throw some hitherto unsuspected light on the annual complaints in the Legislature regarding the inaudibility of debate. Those who had the misfortune to be stricken 11 or more miles from the place, on the other hand, received no such emolument under the Act.

Those are some of the traditions and some of the vagaries which continue under the present situation.

In my own personal recollection, one of the tragedies that often attends the matter of paying members, has been the matter of how it is perceived by the public and particularly by the press.

Mr. Martel: Oh, the press. My God!

Mr. Conway: The member for Sudbury East earlier this evening in reference, I think, particularly to one hon. member of the gallery, commented with some sense of deep chagrin that there is just some continuing failure of that august body to fully appreciate the conditions that give rise to such a bill as Bill 122. I just want to say that in my own mind I guess, being somewhat of a pragmatist and somewhat cynical in that regard, I suggest it has always been so and ever will it be so. It is not a particularly easy situation to translate to the general public.

As far as the press is concerned, I can only record by way of quotation, a remark made in a prominent journal almost a hundred years ago when a particular member of the gallery noted in regard to a debate such as the one we are having tonight, and I quote: “Yes, ‘tis pleasant to think as I sit in the gallery, / They agree upon one thing, and that is their salary.”

Some things again, as far as this debate is concerned, don’t change or alter considerably. I think politicians and particularly members of this House have been their own worst enemies in this regard. They have, I think, allowed the government, albeit under previous majority circumstances to browbeat their very legitimate requests for and, in fact, needs for, improved indemnification. I think with the advent of minority government in 1975 there has been a trend to at least improve this situation.

This trend, I must admit, was not altogether improved by the Camp commission which has been referred to earlier this evening. I, too, am concerned as is the hon. member for Sudbury East, about the fact that countless thousands of dollars were allocated to that particular commission to do the very specific thing we are here to do tonight. Of course, the bill, like the commission, chooses not to do that at all.

It is interesting that one of the major contributions of that particular commission was the foisting upon this Assembly of a very considerable internal bureaucracy under which members of this Assembly continue to labour, a bureaucracy which is growing, a bureaucracy which has understandably delineated clearly its own particular interest, an interest which is clearly outlined by the various and sundry perks which are given to senior officials within that bureaucracy.

The Camp commission did not very clearly make a judgement on the most important topic I feel it had to comment upon, insofar as the indemnification of members is concerned. That, of course, is the process by means of which that salary or that indemnity will be adjusted from time to time. Like the hon. member for Sudbury East, I concur entirely in the opinion that there should be a system, a mechanism devised and implemented to regularize a process of adjustment insofar as members’ salaries are concerned.

I think we must acknowledge, as the Camp commission hastened us to acknowledge, that there is no longer any justification for the notion and the concept of indemnity and the part-time status that members of a previous day enjoyed. This is understandably and very obviously a full-time occupation, John Stuart Mill notwithstanding. It concerns me deeply that still today in 1977 there are many who would discuss this salary matter in the context of what was offered in 1965 and in 1970 and would suggest how lucky some of us are who were elected in 1975 to have the very considerable perks in salary and benefits we now have.

While understandable, I think that is unacceptable inasmuch as it fails to acknowledge fully the fundamental change that has taken place in the time frame of my good friend from Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) who likes to say that from about 1967 to 1968 the role of the member within this assembly changed fundamentally. I don’t yet see within the debate and within the general context of members’ salaries a full-blown acknowledgement that this is now for most members a full-time occupation.

It concerns me deeply that change under these conditions can be a very slow and arduous process. I was reading over the supper hour the Camp commission report -- I think it’s the fifth commission report. Just to show you, Mr. Speaker, how terribly slow this can move under certain conditions, it was about 1869, according to the Camp commission, that the first mileage allowance at 10 cents per mile was struck. That was 1869. That mileage allowance was not changed until 1954. I think that’s a rather serious indictment of the system. Change does not move in this particular area, it seems, with a particular dispatch.

Mr. Martel: The cabinet does all right.

Mr. Conway: The member for Sudbury East says, and I think rather properly so, that if one is a member of the government, particularly of the cabinet, certainly of certain boards and commissions, then the arduous financial realities of a modern day can be mitigated to some degree. Surely the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) is proof positive of the beneficial emoluments that go with being a member of the Treasury bench.

Hon. B. Stephenson: What did he do now?

Mr. Martel: If you aren’t in the big 26, you’re out of luck.

Mr. Conway: One of the things that concerns me in this regard as well is to what extent there has been any commitment or any discussion outside of the few reports. I must say as a member I don’t particularly like the idea of paying thousands of dollars to strike a commission to investigate, among other things, the indemnities and the perks, if you will, of members of the assembly, and then for them then not to make a specific recommendation in terms of adjustment.

I don’t particularly like that. I think it was a clear and obvious part of theft mandate. To their credit, they did recommend four options for adjustment but they very carefully avoided a definitive statement or choice of any of those options. Quite frankly, I think that was a certain dereliction of their responsibility.

I do not like the situation we are forced into, for whatever reason I care not to imagine, of striking another group of consultants to go out and investigate the conditions under which in financial terms we labour, so that they can come back and recommend what we know ourselves is true and eminently recommendable.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, any bona fide consulting firm wanting to maintain good relations with this assembly, and with the government generally, coming back and recommending something less than the present rate? It seems to me there is a certain qualification in their mandate. There is a certain sense that their interest might be served if what they perceive to be, is in their interest perhaps, and is also in the member’s interest in terms of a final recommendation. That’s my own point of view. It may not be shared by others.

I know quite frankly, if I were a consulting firm charged with that responsibility, I rather think, being somewhat politically minded, there might be in the back of my mind a very clear understanding of what the recommendation would have to offer. I don’t like that as a process. I think that is an abdication of responsibility as I think there was abdication of responsibility in the Camp commission. I think their mandate was clear as far as the adjustment requirements were concerned. Every member in this House knows that is a very serious question; there can be no question about that.

Perhaps the most significant direction and perhaps the most unfortunate turn of events in recent memory -- which I resent very strongly -- was the attitude adopted by the hon. Premier (Mr. Davis) about two years ago, in September 1975.

Mr. Mancini: A less than honourable position.

Mr. Conway: He took it upon himself, as only one member of the assembly, particularly during an election campaign when his prime ministerial powers, although not completely eroded were certainly qualified, not as leader of the lame duck government, but as only one member of this assembly --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Is that a request or a direction?

Mr. Conway: -- to promise to an electorate which has yet to make a decision --

Mr. Roy: An electoral promise is what it was.

Mr. Conway: -- that he would restrict, if elected, the salaries of members of the next house to the levels at which they were presently pegged. I think that is a fair comment on the way government and that particular cabinet not only view the whole question but, more importantly, how that government and how that cabinet view the role and the supremacy of this Legislature. If one-party dominance, particularly under the aegis of an oppressive Tory mentality, has done one thing, it has been clearly to reduce the role of this assembly in those matters which bear directly upon the responsibilities and the role of each and every member.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is all right for you to talk. You have not got chick nor child.

Mr. Conway: I think that’s an unfortunate and, I hope, not to be repeated dereliction on the Premier’s part, because I know him to be an eminently fine, decent, honourable member of this assembly.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Keep on, now you’re making sense.

Mr. Conway: But I cannot condone for one moment the actions of the Premier or any other Premier when those actions are of such a nature as to say such things during an election campaign.

Mr. Roy: Right.

Mr. Conway: I suppose the only mitigating factor was: Who believes politicians during an election campaign?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We’re back to 1975. Two years have gone by.

Mr. Roy: But you’re limiting your remuneration to the opposition, not to the government.

Mr. Conway: I guess to the Premier’s credit, as far as election promises are concerned, outside of appointing our good friend from Elgin as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the freeze on members’ salaries is about the only other election promise I can ever remember the member for Brampton keeping. To that extent he must be commended.

But I think, Mr Speaker, that is a serious dereliction on the Premier’s part; and I hope one not to be repeated in this assembly by any other member, least of all, by the Premier of any other government in the future. Clearly, decisions of this nature are the responsibility of this assembly and of all the members who are affected by the decisions taken in this respect.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Are you for or agin?

Mr. Roy: He is for it but he is showing the cynicism to the people on that side. That is what he is doing.

Mr. Conway: The member for Oxford asks, rhetorically no doubt, for or agin? Well, I want to assure the member for Oxford --

[8:30]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Just plain old Oxford.

Mr. Conway: -- that certainly I favour, not for my own interests but for your interests --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Of course not, of course not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is only for you, Albert.

Ms. Conway: -- because, Mr. Speaker, I know what dentists make.

Mr. Martel: Orthodontists.

Mr. Conway: Orthodontists.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: And I cannot imagine anything more punishing to the Hon. H.A.P., DDS, MPP for Oxford, anything more punishing than that horribly lamentable indemnity or salary of -- what is it? $42,000 and a car.

An hon. member: Dentists can make that part-time.

Mr. Conway: I can’t imagine anything more devastating to his long-term financial interest than the present condition under which he and the member for Brock (Mr. Welch) and the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr), as members of the executive council, are forced to labour.

An hon. member: Punishing.

Mr. Conway: Those of us over here hear from time to time the quiet emanations --

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I would resign if I was over there.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Now we know what you are all about, Harry.

Mr. Conway: -- the quiet emanations of the member for Burlington South who, while very careful not to speak on behalf of the ministry, emotes certain feelings which I suspect are very sincerely in favour of an improvement in his salary. Knowing the good works that he’s done for the province, that he continues to do on our behalf with Dow Chemical and others, I want to see that particular member and his indemnity resolved.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That boy in the front row is making twice as much as I am -- dabbling in a little law in Ottawa, dabbling in a little politics at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Roy: But you are making twice as much as these guys are.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Oh, they’re all school teachers.

Mr. Conway: And I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that as a private member I see certain things happening in this assembly that I don’t particularly like.

Mr. Kerrio: How are we going to vote on this one, Sean?

Mr. Mancini: Putting Parry Sound in northern Ontario was one of them.

Mr. Eaton: There’s a guy who puts all his mileage in round figures.

Mr. Conway: I notice in the Camp commission, volume one, page 33, the following comment, and it leads me to a discussion or brief I want to direct to this particular and I think very sensitive area, for me at least as an individual member. The Camp commission report volume one notes: “There seems to be a general concern among members, and within the government as well, that select committees are getting somewhat out of hand, and as a consequence their expenditures are getting somewhat out of control.”

Mr. Kerr: Where are you going? Are you going to Israel or Sweden?

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I realize I have to tread carefully here as a private member

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, you better be careful.

An hon. member: Oh, let yourself go.

Mr. Conway: One of the things I see happening is I hear the hon. Tories from Ontario fulminating in the back concessions, while those wretched Liberals in Ottawa are stealing the Treasury blind, ably and happily abetted by those Tories as well. Because I haven’t heard anything but quiet agreement from the hon. member for High River and others with respect to the indexing of members’ pensions. I find that personally indefensible. I haven’t heard the Tories, outside of the erstwhile Colin Brown from London, lament about their particular involvement in that scheme. So let the hon. members opposite cast their net more widely than their partisan arms would presently allow, let them in their denunciation of certain federal members in Ottawa he careful to include their dearly beloved federal Tory friends.

An hon. member: They try, they try.

Mr. Conway: Because, you see, what the hon. Tories in Ontario are trying to say --

Mr. Eaton: Talking about all the payola up there --

Mr. Maeck: What is this, a filibuster?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Will the member please continue and can we have a little less interruption?

Mr. Kerrio: You didn’t think you were going to stop him, did you?

Mr. Roy: They are all coming from that side.

Mr. Eaton: The only ones here; where are your fellows?

Mr. Kerrio: Joe McTeer, stick it in his ear.

Mr. Maeck: Sean, stick to the bill.

Mr. Conway: The member for Parry Sound says, “Stick to the bill.” I think in all sincerity these matters do directly impinge upon the principle of the bill, and that is the role of the members and how they are paid.

The Tories opposite, and the Premier not the least among them, like to strut around the province and say; “You know, the federal government has indexed the pensions of their members, and the Quebeckers,” -- ah, but for certain members opposite, how the National Assembly, for whatever inviting personal reasons, presents even more of an ogre since it’s a provincial jurisdiction -- those spendthrifts would give away the entire purse. if allowed to do so. While the federal MPs and the Quebec MNAs have paid themselves handsomely, we Tories, parsimonious protectors of the Ontario public purse, oh, no, we wouldn’t allow any such thing.”

Mr. Martel: At 45 grand.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: You forced us into it. You pushed us.

Mr. Conway: What has happened? The member for Brock, perhaps the most eloquent missionary of that ideal, gives a bill-blown dimension to the regrettable double standard which is necessarily involved in that principle. What happened? What have we got in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: You speak with forked tongue.

Mr. Conway: We’ve got very low indemnities, to be sure. But, look across the way, and there they are -- the people’s choice. A minority choice, but there they are.

Mr. Maeck: Right.

Hon. Mr Kerr: Ad infinitum.

Mr. Conway: What do the sprained flippers on the government back benches have? They might have for their loyal and happy obedience to the front-bench executive council, the chairmanship of the Niagara Parks Commission.

Mr. Makarchuk: With travelling allowances.

Mr. Conway: With travelling allowances.

Mr. Makarchuk: Over and above their regular allowances.

Mr. Conway: Over and above their regular allowances.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Let the member for Brantford send me a card from Sweden.

Mr. Conway: They might belong to the St. Lawrence Parks Commission, wondrous and multitudinous good deeds for the people of Ontario. We have various and sundry parliamentary secretaries.

Mr. Roy: With cars.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: With their old cars.

Mr. Conway: I won’t say with cars because I see the member for Middlesex nodding his head. I know how he feels.

Mr. Roy: The use of a car.

Mr. Conway: Certainly he does not, as I recall on one particular occasion, take advantage of his car, and I give him great credit for that. But they’re all receiving $5,000 for what, other than the clear titular nature of their position, I yet have no idea. They give no answers in the House --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They introduce bills.

Mr. Conway: -- and there is no opportunity for members to question them in the absence of their minister. How some of us opposite would relish the opportunity to ask -- I won’t be particular -- certain parliamentary secretaries to comment upon the general directions of their ministries. I doubt not at all that certain of those parliamentary secretaries could do so with almost cabinet aplomb and success. I suspect it’s fairly thin soil beyond the first PA or two.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Depends on the question.

Mr. Roy: The member for Renfrew South is looking at you with beady eyes out there.

Mr. Yakabuski: The member for Ottawa East doesn’t want an increase. He is here only two days a week.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: I do more here in two days than the member for Renfrew South does in the whole week.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order. Would the members for Renfrew South and Ottawa East please refrain from talking to each other, except outside in the corridors.

Mr. Eaton: Step outside, fellows.

Mr. Roy: Parliamentary assistant, what a laugh!

Mr. Yakabuski: He doesn’t need an increase.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order. Would the member for Renfrew North please continue?

Mr. Conway: As a matter of interest, the member for Renfrew South has, as I think have the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Rhodes), the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) and many members of the government, jokingly cast disparagement at my friend from Ottawa East for his less than regular attendance from time to time.

Mr. McNeil: Four days a week. Is that “from time to time”?

Mr. Conway: Let me say to hon. members opposite, to the extent it’s worthy of any comment, that is not something about which we would individually want to make public comment. I can recall, as a member coming in in 1975, a particular member who sat just about directly opposite in the back row not being here a great number of days. Far be it from me to make a judgement as to why he was not here.

Mr. Roy: Weeks at a time.

Mr. Conway: We know one obvious and clear reality. Taking my good and honourable friend from Ottawa East as an example, how could any distinguished member of the bar continue to afford himself and his family any level of subsistence on the indemnity that is offered him here in the Legislative Assembly? The member for Renfrew South, I think, very understandably, expresses a concern in this regard.

Mr. Roy: Just like your colleague.

Mr. Conway: Well, I know his particular concern. I would we all had such financial resources and such positions as parliamentary secretaries. But some of us are poor working men.

Mr. Roy: That’s right, we’ve got to earn our living.

Mr. Conway: Some of us are professionals working on a part-time basis --

Mr. Kennedy: When are you going to say something?

Mr. Conway: -- to supplement an income which would lead under other conditions down an unhappy road to Tory-inflicted penury.

Mr. Makarchuk: They’ve done it for the rest of Ontario and they want to do it to us.

Mr. Martel: It’s called class. It’s a class system.

Mr. Conway: What happens when we do not lace this matter in a forward, above-board honourable way, is certain accommodations are evolved over time which in all candour I do not think reflect generously or positively upon this House collectively or on members individually. Speaking as a private member, one observation I have to make is that under the salary scales of the 1960s and 1970s the indemnity levels afforded to members in this House leave many members no other choice but to avail themselves of the select committee work. This work is available for all kinds of good reasons, independent of these other considerations. As an individual private member it is my observation the regrettable salary posture adopted by years of Tory reactionary rule has led to an unfortunate but real and serious perversion of much of the select committee principle in this Legislature and in this province. Members of the opposition particularly want to do a good and honourable job for this province and for their constituency.

Mr. Kennedy: Your time has expired. Your time has expired.

Mr. Conway: Well, time may very well be out while you can sit and pontificate as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) --

Mr. Kennedy: Your time has run out and you haven’t said anything yet. Are you for it or against it?

Mr. Conway: -- doing what good for the people of Mississauga South and the people of this province I cannot imagine. I think this has to be said on behalf of the average back-bencher. I suspect the hon. member for Mississauga South is as hide-bound --

Mr. Kennedy: At least he is an amateur compared to you.

Mr. Conway: -- a Tory in this regard as John Strachan ever was.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, are you going to buy that? I’ve heard of interjecting but that is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: Tell the member for Renfrew North to talk to the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Niagara Falls and Mississauga South please pay attention to the member for Renfrew North, who has the floor?

Mr. Kerrio: Do your stuff, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Do your job, Mr. Speaker, and stop that foolishness.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could I please ask all members to respect the Chair and to respect the member who is speaking? Only the hon. member for Renfrew North has the floor.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, the natives opposite are nettled and restless, and well they should be.

Mr. Kennedy: I can’t stand it.

Mr. Roy: The truth hurts, eh boys?

Mr. Conway: I see the member for Mississauga South handing out an olive branch and suggesting we should speak to the bill. Well, the fact of the matter is, for such members lately arrived, --

Mr. Kennedy: Olive branch? I was throwing a cannon at you.

Mr. Conway: -- there is a very significant debate in this regard.

Mr. Kennedy: We don’t grow olives in Mississauga South.

Mr. Conway: When I see the member for Mississauga South sitting over there with the member for Brock, I think in those personalities the Family Compact is reincarnated.

Mr. Makarchuk: Right on, Sean, right on.

Mr. Conway: Let me say this, that the members of the government run around the province saying they have given retrenchment and financial control under the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and the rest of them, and have given a new dimension to this province. Let the truth of the matter in this particular and important regard be well known. They haven’t had the guts. They haven’t had the intestinal fortitude to face the question as it should be faced, frontally, honourably before the people of this province and before the press and others in this assembly. I, as one private member, not so long arrived, do not like being part of the general condition as it exists. The natives opposite thump their desks very unhappily about what I have been saying about general conditions and yet I see --

Mr. Kennedy: I never touched the desk, I never even put my foot on it like the hon. member for Sudbury East does.

Mr. McClellan: You leave him alone.

[8:45]

Mr. Conway: -- the member for Parry Sound sitting over there looking at me and saying why don’t I speak to the principle of the bill. As I see this bill, it is --

Mr. Maeck: That was half an hour ago.

Mr. Conway: -- the principle of the role of the member and how he is to be paid. I want to say before concluding that those hon. members, and that one in particular, were --

Mr. Maeck: Who? Me?

Mr. Conway: -- part of a small group, honourably and justifiably constituted, that not so very long ago forwarded and saw to the passage of a minute in the Board of Internal Economy --

Mr. Mancini: Shame!

Mr. Conway: -- which would allow me, as a private member, to apply my $4,200, or whatever, as an out-of-town allowance --

Mr. Roy: Shame! Shame!

Mr. Conway: -- to the securing of a mortgage --

Mr. Roy: Who is taking advantage of that, I wonder.

Mr. Conway: -- on my private property in Toronto. I want to say again, as a private member, in regard to this bill, I find that repugnant in the extreme.

Mr. Roy: Anybody got nerve enough for that?

Mr. Conway: Not that I cannot understand, for a moment, the very justifiable concerns that have led certain members to want a change to be made. As has been said, “Why should we pay the $4,200 in that regard to Cadillac Fairview, or some hotel, when we have got property that we would like to buy in this province, this town, or city? And why can we not do it that way?” Nowhere in that pure virtuous Tory mentality has there been any appreciation of a salient significant fact, which should surely dictate that the principle fundamental to that discussion, the principle that makes that a most repugnant doctrine, is that it is clearly the application of public money for private gain.

Mr. Eakins: Mike Cassidy was the first to do it.

Mr. Yakabuski: Wait until he hands back the $80,000, Elie.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Conway: If I am here for 10 more years, God forbid, why should I expect the taxpayers of Ontario, for the next 10 years, to allow me, at their expense, to build --

Mr. Roy: You are not taking advantage of that, are you, Paul?

Mr. Conway: -- $40,000 worth of equity in a property that is mine, after my term has expired?

Mr. Speaker: Could I ask the member for Renfrew North to return to the principle of this bill?

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, surely that is some very relevant and recent comment on how the Tories in 1977 view things in this particular and specific regard.

Mr. Mancini: They’ll never live that one down.

Mr. Conway: They have got a nominalist’s capacity to hair-split and it is high time that this government and the members opposite understand the very important principle that members of this assembly, individually and collectively, have certain rights and responsibilities as members, which cannot in future be avoided or abdicated to royal commissions, to Hickling-Johnston or to whatever. There is a principle at stake here, and that is, we have got a responsibility to acknowledge the role of full-time members of the assembly.

Mr. Martel: Without plums.

Mr. Conway: If anything should be done as a concomitant to this bill, it surely should be the removal of those various members opposite, particularly on the back benches, from all of those boards and commissions where they are able to derive revenues which I feel do not, in any way, relate to their responsibilities as, in the modern day, members of this Assembly.

Finally I would recommend to members opposite -- particularly the serious and puzzled-looking member for Parry Sound, who I thought very eloquently commented about certain of these attitudes about a week ago, and I would encourage the chief government whip to crack a little tighter around certain members sitting in the bench immediately before him -- that there is a principle involved in Bill 122 and it is, simply, the principle of the supremacy and independence of Parliament.

Clearly when it comes to salaries, indemnities and perks we must face the reality that it is a difficult decision for us to make. There must be an adjustment process, which has been cleverly avoided by both the government and certain agencies struck by it, to determine an acceptable process. No future bill of this kind should be allowed, and in fact the member for Sudbury East may be contemplating certain things to remove the unfortunate condition from this bill that never again should we, as members of this assembly, be faced with the unfortunate and invidious task of raising our own salaries on such a purely ad hoc basis.

I think surely that is an important responsibility, not one to be blithely dismissed as is so often the wont of the Tories opposite; and surely we must, at this debate or very nearly in the future, come to some firm resolution about the mechanism that will allow a regular adjustment to the indemnities or salaries afforded members of this House.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a very few words in support of the bill. I guess this is the second time I’ve been in the House when we have debated a bill giving ourselves a raise in pay. I am always disturbed and unsettled by the debates, because they always take place hurriedly, they always heckle one another in a kind of defensive manner that is frankly unbecoming the dignity of the chamber or the seriousness with which we approach our jobs.

I want to say that I have worked in the pulp mills and on the railroads of this province. I have worked as an academic teacher and I have worked in this Legislative Assembly. I know a good many people who work in a wide range of professions. I want to say proudly as a member of this Legislature, with a very few notable exceptions there is no harder working group of people than the members of this assembly. I say that without embarrassment, and about members of all parties.

We have, it is true, a small number of slackers in this assembly; but the percentage is, I put to you, far less than it is in almost any other profession or group of working people I have encountered. So I make no apologies in rising to support this bill.

One of the ironies in all this is that the last job I held before being elected to this Assembly was that of a high school teacher. With the raise that we will be receiving when this bill passes, I will still be paid less as a member of this Assembly than I would be as a high school teacher with the experience that I would have had at this stage; and a high school teacher is not the highest paid of the professions --

Mr. Roy: It’s not.

Mr. Foulds: -- nor is it the lowest, it is approximately average.

I want to make and emphasize two points that have been made previously by speakers. I think the job of a person in the Assembly is a full-time job, and that we should not have to pad it, in the way that it is padded often on the government side, through appointments of back-bench members to agencies, boards, commissions and parliamentary assistantships; --

Mr. Martel: At $2,000 a year.

Mr. Foulds: -- and of opposition members, if I may say so, to select committees --

Mr. Martel: Nickel and diming.

Mr. Foulds: -- that occasionally may not have matters of pressing public importance to debate, discuss or discover. We should therefore not try to get through the back door what we cannot get through the front door, and pad our incomes unnecessarily in that way.

Finally, I want to say, in concurrence with the member for Sudbury East who spoke before supper, and the member for Renfrew North who just spoke, that we must find a mechanism that reviews members’ salaries adequately and annually. I don’t think that should be a private and hidden mechanism, like the federal indexing is, which quietly slips a raise through as it did two or three weeks ago. I think that the raise, when it comes, should be public; and it should be seen to be presented as objectively as possible and not be seen, as it is today unfortunately, as a smash and grab on the store.

Mr. Roy: Just before Christmas.

Mr. Foulds: I just want to finish by saying I support the bill. I am proud to do so. I am proud to be a member of this Assembly, not merely because of my colleagues in this Assembly, but also to represent the people of my riding. Frankly, leaving aside my own capabilities or qualifications, I can see no more important function in this society than representing electors and to try through government to right the wrongs and social and economic ills of the present day.

Mr. Yakabuski: I rise to comment on this bill this evening. I think one has to put himself in other shoes and look at it from different directions. I’m sure all of us can give many reasons why there should be an increase in members’ salaries and allowances. On the other hand, the very thing that governments at all levels over the past months, and this government over the past four or five years, have been talking about is restraint.

In the industrial sector, the manufacturing sector, the post office or whatever, all we hear today is demands for increases. Farmers in rural Ontario are terribly upset about a 5.7 per cent increase in Hydro rates, and justifiably so. Everybody is upset about increases, whatever shape or form they take in 1977. It goes all the way back to about 1972 when spiralling inflation became rampant in this country. Those are some of the reasons why, perhaps, most of the members of this Legislature will support this bill. I want to go on record as saying I’m opposed to this bill. I’m very disappointed that the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the NDP did not rise in this House during this debate and carry the load for their members.

Mr. Martel: Neither did the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Yakabuski: At the same time, it’s common knowledge that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) and the leader of the other party (Mr. Lewis) have been hounding the Premier for weeks for this increase.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s a lot of bullshit.

Mr. Yakabuski: That is not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that is distortion and I’ll not accept it.

Mr. Yakabuski: That is not distortion.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, that member will withdraw that comment.

Mr. Yakabuski: It’s common knowledge.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: It is cheap and it is unwarranted.

Mr. Lawlor: If you are against it, say so.

Mr. Kerrio: He said so.

Mr. Martel: That is uncalled for and it will not be tolerated. That is garbage.

Mr. Yakabuski: He can call it what he may.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat?

Mr. Martel: I will not accept that, Mr. Speaker. I will not sit down until he withdraws that comment about my leader and about the leader of the Liberal Party. I’ll not accept it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Sit down. The Speaker said “order,” so you’re supposed to sit down, you kook.

Mr. Martel: He’ll withdraw that or we won’t move. I tell you that now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We won’t move anywhere if we don’t get some order.

Mr. Martel: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but that guy is not going to get away with that nonsense. I’ve had enough crap from that jackass.

[9:00]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order. First of all, would the hon. member withdraw that comment?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for having said he was a jackass but I call them as I see them; and when somebody makes that kind of statement, I am not going to withdraw it. I am sorry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the second time, would the hon. member withdraw that?

Mr. Martel: All right, Mr. Speaker, on your request, I will withdraw my comment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It has been suggested by the member for Sudbury East that the member for Renfrew South made comments regarding the other leaders. Would the member for Renfrew South withdraw those comments?

Mr. Yakabuski: Well, Mr. Speaker, I might alter them to read “vigorous representation.”

Mr. Martel: No. He will not alter them. He will withdraw them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Yakabuski: I will not withdraw “vigorous representation.”

Mr. Lawlor: You’ll modify them; you’ll change them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order! Would the hon. member withdraw those comments?

Mr. Yakabuski: I withdrew the comment “hounding,” and I modified it to read “vigorous representation.”

Mr. Martel: No, Mr. Speaker. That’s not correct, and we will not accept it here this evening. You will ask him to withdraw it --

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

Mr. Kerrio: Both hon. members.

Mr. Martel: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the hon. members take their seats?

Mr. Martel: He’s nuts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It almost appears that we have come to grave disorder; and if the members can’t control themselves, I will have to ask for a recess.

Mr. Martel: I can control myself. Make him withdraw that, totally.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said “order.” If the members can contain themselves, we will continue.

Mr. Martel: No. He’ll withdraw it totally. He won’t alter it; he’ll withdraw it totally.

Some hon. members: Call a recess.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope all the members will contain themselves. I am quite satisfied with what the member for Renfrew South stated.

Mr. Martel: No, I am not buying it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it and from listening to the discussion, I consider it more of a debate, and I would say to the members of the House that I will acknowledge that and ask the member for Renfrew South to continue.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: No, let me speak to the point of order. There is no justification from the member for Renfrew South to either suggest that the leader of the official opposition or the leader of the third party in fact vigorously pursued, as he is now trying to say, an increase in the members’ indemnity any more than the government side of the House.

Mr. Eaton: It’s just an interpretation.

Mr. Kerrio: It’s a cheap shot.

Mr. Martel: As I stand here, Mr. Speaker, I will not accept that allegation against the leader of the official opposition or the leader of my party. That’s totally untrue and I will not accept it. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I ask you to ask that member to withdraw that totally from his statement --

Mr. Warner: He doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Mr. Martel: -- not unequivocally but totally -- to withdraw the allegations he made about Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party, my leader. I will not accept his garbage. I just won’t.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: I am asking you to make that a member withdraw those statements, Mr. Speaker, because I am not prepared to accept that he suggests that it was the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party who vigorously pursued the Premier to bring an increase in salaries to all members of this Legislature. If he doesn’t withdraw, Mr. Speaker, we will not continue until he withdraws that statement. I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East is entirely out of order. We are dealing with second reading of Bill 122, where everybody has an opportunity to express his views about the bill that’s before us. He has an opportunity to participate later in the debate. He has an opportunity to vote as he sees fit.

Mr. Warner: That member shouldn’t mislead the House.

Mr. Speaker: Every member of the Legislature has an opportunity to be heard. It’s my understanding that the hon. member for Renfrew South has the floor, and I will listen to him now and nobody else.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Martel: Yes, there is.

Mr. Speaker: We are dealing with second reading of Bill 122. Will the hon. member take his seat; take your seat, please.

Mr. Martel: He made an allegation against the leader of this party which I am not about to accept.

Mr. Speaker: That’s your tough luck.

Mr. Martel: Well no it isn’t.

Mr. Speaker: You will take your seat or I will name the hon. member right here and now.

Mr. Martel: No, he cannot make a statement with that allegation against the leader of this party.

Mr. Speaker: I name the hon. member right now. Will the hon. Sergeant at Arms --

Mr. Martel: You might, Mr. Speaker, but he’s out of order.

Mr. Speaker: He’s not out of order at all.

Mr. Martel: You’d better look at Hansard.

Mr. Makarchuk: I think he’s a bloody liar myself.

Mr. Warner: He misleads the House and you know it; he misleads the House.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere will also withdraw the remark, or he too will be named.

Mr. Martel: No, don’t; don’t.

Mr. Warner: No.

Mr. Speaker: It’s not debatable at all. You can challenge my ruling, but you cannot accuse another member of misleading this House. I am asking the hon. member to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, as I stand here, he misleads this House. I’m sorry.

Mr. Speaker: I will also ask the Sergeant at Arms to escort the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere out of the House.

[Messrs. Martel and Warner were escorted from the Chamber by the Sergeant at Arms]

Mr. Lawlor: You are leaving us with no members.

Mr. Warner: You ought to call a quorum.

Mr. Bradley: You’ll get another $5,000 a year, like the member for Renfrew South.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s right; he’s parliamentary assistant now.

Mr. Bradley: Volunteer to give up the $5,000.

Mr. Roy: That’s right; why don’t you give it back?

Mr. Bradley: That’s a good point.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Renfrew South has the floor, speaking to the principle of Bill 122. I will ask him to confine his remarks to the principle of this bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Right, withdraw everything he has said so far.

Mr. Grande: And then sit down.

Mr. Lawlor: As a question of privilege, I feel mortally, personally wounded.

Mr. Roy: You got a lot of nerve to talk now, Paul.

Mr. Kerrio: You’ve outdone yourself, leather lungs.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, to take up where we left off a few moments ago --

Mr. Speaker: Could we have some order, please.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- it is my feeling that the introduction of --

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t do that, start somewhere else.

Mr. Kerrio: You should go outside.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- Bill 122 is most untimely, untimely for the reason that only last September was an increase given to the members of this Legislature.

Mr. Reid: Have you bought your condominium yet?

Mr. Swart: You knew there was going to be another one.

Mr. Reid: You have got to be the biggest hypocrite in this place.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I want to remind all members of this House that this is a parliamentary democracy. Every member has an opportunity to be heard as long as their remarks are relevant and topical. I wish you’d give every member of this House an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Swart: Incorrect or derogatory doesn’t matter.

Mr. Yakabuski: In view of the fact that a raise was --

Mr. Lawlor: Purblind, backward, retrograde or anything else.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- retroactive to last September, to come here three months later --

Mr. Lawlor: What posturing; what an actor you are; Laurence Olivier.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- and ask the people of this province to again increase the indemnity, I think is not right.

Mr. Riddell: There is nobody more hypocritical than you are.

Mr. Yakabuski: In view of the fact that we here --

Mr. Lawlor: Who are you currying favour with?

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member for Lakeshore please be quiet?

Mr. Lawlor: Somebody has to put him down.

Mr. Yakabuski: In view of the fact we in this Legislature are asking municipalities, are asking ministries --

Mr. Lawlor: Besides, Mr. Speaker, the only vitality is in the interjections.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- are asking everyone to belt-tighten in these very difficult times.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s hypocrisy of the first order.

Mr. Lawlor: When are you going to quit your job?

Mr. Yakabuski: I think if we are to get the message across to the people of this province, regardless of where they work --

Mr. Bradley: Set an example, give $5,000 back.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- then we have to set some examples; you said it, we have to set some examples.

Mr. Swart: Share the poverty your government is forcing on them?

Mr. Kerrio: What are you going to do with the five grand, give it back?

Mr. Yakabuski: The members of this House, regardless of party, regardless if they’re here for their first term or if they have been here for some time --

Mr. Lawlor: He’s picking up money on the side.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- all of those people, as candidates --

Mr. Lawlor: What hypocrisy.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- knew full well what the remuneration would be if they were elected to this Legislature.

Mr. Reid: Have you ever wondered why you are not in the cabinet?

Mr. Lawlor: You can’t raise your pay before the election, you can’t raise it after.

Mr. Kerrio: I defy you to stand there and say you’re going to give it back.

Mr. Bradley: Yes, $5,000.

Mr. Reid: You are an embarrassment to your party.

Mr. Kerrio: Come on, let me hear you say that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Niagara Falls will have his opportunity to speak in the debate.

Mr. Yakabuski: I don’t dispute the fact, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps most or all of the members in this Legislature need it or could use it. That I don’t dispute for one moment.

Mr. Foulds: Just give it back, Paul.

Mr. Yakabuski: I happen to have five boys in university or community college, three in high school, one in elementary school --

Mr. Mancini: You are taking advantage of the system.

Mr. Yakabuski: I don’t think there is anyone on any side of this House that could dispute the fact that the member for Renfrew South could use it too.

Mr. Swart: You are getting $5,000 extra.

Mr. Roy: You have a big hardware store and the whole bit, who are you kidding?

Mr. Yakabuski: I am not there four days a week, and we don’t have the kind of return we do in the law profession.

Mr. Roy: Oh yes, I would like to have the hardware store.

Mr. Yakabuski: You heard what Moishe Dayan said --

Mr. Lawlor: What did Moishe say?

Mr. Roy: You are the biggest phony in this place.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- when they defeated Egypt.

Mr. Roy: You are getting an extra $5,000 for being parliamentary assistant; you should give that back.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Yakabuski: You know what Moishe Dayan said when they defeated --

Mr. Lawlor: Sit down, Moishe.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. member take his seat? There is nothing having to do with the Middle East contained in the principle of this bill. I want to caution the hon. member that he will confine his remarks to the principle of this bill that deals with emoluments for the members of this Legislature in the year of our Lord, 1971. Moishe Dayan isn’t even mentioned.

Mr. Eaton: You should have been here when another member was speaking -- all in quotations.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your direction and I accept it. I only wish that you had been here when some of the other members of this Legislature spoke on this same bill.

I know many of us are disappointed. Most of the members of this Legislature don’t make as much money as the Ombudsman’s chauffeur, but the Ombudsman’s chauffeur knew what he was going to get when he was hired.

Ms. Reid: Oh, what a bunch of baloney.

Mr. Foulds: He also knows he can ask for a raise, you silly twit.

Mr. Yakabuski: But we too knew what we were going to receive when we stood for nomination and ran as candidates in this election, or any other one.

Mr. Foulds: And that’s all you should take home.

Mr. Reid: That is why you have been here so long and you are not in cabinet.

Mr. Lawlor: Paul, that is not fair.

Mr. Foulds: You knew you were going to get more than you are worth.

Mr. Kerrio: You haven’t said it yet.

Mr. Cooke: Just return the money; just return it.

Mr. Samis: Are you stooping to demagoguery?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. member please proceed, or sit down.

Mr. Lawlor: Preferably the latter.

Mr. Roy: The best thing that could happen is that Bill 122 would get rid of you.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, if I have to tolerate those interjections, am I not entitled to --

Mr. Speaker: You don’t have to tolerate them, just ignore them and direct your remarks to the Speaker. I hope they deal with the principle of Bill 122.

Mr. Yakabuski: As I mentioned earlier, because of the timing of this, because of the increase in September and because of asking municipalities, labour -- everyone -- to restrict their demands to the minimum, we here should do likewise.

Mr. Foulds: And we have done; it is within the AIB guidelines.

Mr. Yakabuski: And for that reason --

Mr. Reid: Since 1973 we have done that.

Mr. Yakabuski: For that reason I have to oppose Bill 122 at this time.

Mr. Kerrio: You are going to do the honourable thing, aren’t you, Paul? Commit hara-kiri.

Mr. Reid: He just did.

Mr. Swart: You already did it, eh Paul?

Mr. Yakabuski: If I have learned one thing --

Mrs. Campbell: You haven’t.

Mr. Yakabuski: -- in my years in this Legislature, it is that no one can chase a tax dollar like a socialist; no one, absolutely no one.

Mr. Foulds: You haven’t learned very much in this Legislature, have you?

Mr. Yakabuski: You remind me of the Treasurer of Saskatchewan, who borrowed $300 to --

Mr. Samis: They have a balanced budget in Saskatchewan; what have you got?

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing at all to do with this bill.

Mr. Yakabuski: When the president of Inco --

Mr. Speaker: Order! That has nothing at all to do with the principle of Bill 122. I will recognize another speaker if the hon. member for Renfrew South again deviates from the principle of this bill.

Mr. Lawlor: Perfectly right, throw him out.

Mr. Yakabuski: Well, it is unfortunate when some members are allowed to deviate and go in all directions, but I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker.

[9:15]

Mr. Lawlor: What a provocative purblind person you are!

Mr. Yakabuski: In closing I can only say, for the reasons given, that I have to oppose this bill at this time.

Mr. Riddell: What a hypocrite!

CALLING MEMBERS TO ORDER

Mr. Foulds: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, could I with great respect draw to your attention standing order 16(a), subsections 8, 9 and 11? The rule says: “In debate, a member will be called to order by the Speaker if he makes allegations against another member, imputes false or unavowed motives to another member, uses abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.”

In drawing that to your attention, may I suggest that was the point my colleague from Sudbury East wished to make with regard to the member for Renfrew South and the Speaker should rightly have called the member for Renfrew South to order when he made those allegations about the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur may indeed have a legitimate point of privilege. It is unfortunate I was not in the Chair. The only reason the member for Sudbury East was named was that he refused to take his seat when ordered to do so by the Speaker. That was the only thing I could deal with at that particular point in time. He was removed, not because he may have had a legitimate point of order or point of privilege, but because he refused to take a seat and chose to take the course of being named because he refused to do so.

The hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere was named simply because he refused to withdraw an allegation that another member was misleading the House. I don’t how what went on in the debate. You may indeed have a legitimate point of privilege. I will have to refer to the transcript of what went on earlier. I am not in a position at this time to indicate whether or not the hon. member for Renfrew South should have been called to order for remarks he made earlier. I can only deal with the situation as I found it at the time I made the ruling. I am not in a position to say whether or not you have a valid point of privilege.

Mr. Foulds: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I would ask you to review the transcript to see if the comments I made are appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: I will.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order --

Mr. Speaker: It is a point of privilege.

Mr. Roy: You may call it a point of privilege. I want to bring to your attention that I was, some time back, the recipient of a ruling from the Chair, although not from you, in relation to a similar statement about misleading. You may correct me and I may be totally out of order, but I heard the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere say “misleading” as such and not “deliberately misleading.” I want to say to you, I thought the previous Speaker had made a ruling in relation to using the term “misleading.” Misleading could be used in different ways. It could be stupidly misleading, innocently misleading or deliberately misleading. I thought it was the accompaniment of the imputation that one was deliberately misleading the House; I thought there had been a ruling on that about how far one could go in that area.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are aware that in the federal Parliament, Mr. Speaker Jerome consistently and continually allows members to use the word “misleading” as such as long as it is not coupled with the motive at the other end of it, being “deliberately misleading.” I would just bring that to your attention, so that there can be some clarification of that and whether we are going to follow the previous ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: I did have some experience with this situation when I was Deputy Speaker of this House. I have taken the position that there is a very subtle and almost meaningless difference between accusing a member of misleading the House and deliberately misleading the House. I think the notion or the imputation is exactly the same. I have always held that whether a person accused a person of misleading the House or deliberately misleading the House there was very little difference between them.

You may say that there is a subtle difference. In my own opinion I see very little difference.

Mr. Roy: I think there is.

Mr. Speaker: I want to indicate there is a difference between standing orders here, standing orders in Ottawa and standing orders in the mother of Parliaments in Westminster. A member here who feels he has been unjustly dealt with by a ruling from the Chair has every opportunity to challenge the ruling of the Chair. The only opportunity that you don’t have to challenge a presiding officer is during question period.

Over the last two or three years, there was very little difference in the opinion of the presiding officer between an accusation of deliberately misleading the House and of misleading the House. That’s how I have been guided; and until I’m challenged by the House, whose servant I am, I will continue to rule in that way.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the hon. member for St. George on the principle of Bill 122.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You may not like what I’m going to say. I would just like to say with reference to the deplorable situation in this debate in this House, that whatever may be the opinion of the member for Renfrew South, I can assure this House that my leader did not participate in the way described by the member for Renfrew South.

Some hon. members: Right on.

Mr. Riddell: I would think the government House leader would get up and verify that. If he was any kind of a man at all, he would do that.

Mr. Reid: He’s too embarrassed by that last idiotic speech.

Mr. Yakabuski: No, he’s not embarrassed.

Mr. Riddell: That’s right. He should have got up when that guy --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George is the only one who has the floor at the present time.

Mr. Riddell: What a hypocrite. He would not know how to be embarrassed.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The government House leader has been involved in no discussions with the leader of the official opposition. Let’s get that on the record right now. I have not personally been --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: Does the government House leader approve of his colleague’s remarks?

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s another matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The government House leader doesn’t have the floor, nor does the member for Huron Middlesex The hon. member for St. George is the only one I want to hear from.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is quite right. I’m sorry.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say at this time that I think the rules of this House ought to demonstrate clearly the need for dignity in debate in this august chamber and the need to recognize one another, whatever our political point of view may be, as hon. members of this Legislature.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of the language used, there is no doubt in my mind that the dignity of the leaders of both parties has been challenged in a way which I find to be totally unacceptable as a member of this House.

Mr. Grande: And he should withdraw those remarks.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to the principle of the bill, I would like to express my own dichotomy about section 2 of this bill. There is no doubt in my mind that, as part and parcel of this bill, obviously there is a provision to try to control the expenditures of the Ombudsman. There is no doubt in my mind that the Ombudsman must be subject to the control of this Legislature in his expenditures as anyone else is.

My dichotomy from the start has been that when we first tried with anguish to find a method to review his budget, we ended up with the review by the Board of Internal Economy. I do not ascribe any evil motives to the Board of Internal Economy, but the perception of review by that body is that there is the element of control of the Ombudsman by a board, members of which are three cabinet ministers. This bothers me, Mr. Speaker, in principle.

I have pointed out that one of the real problems with this type of budget is the kind of problem that a municipality faces in dealing with the budget of, for example the city solicitor; because, Mr. Speaker, the city solicitor cannot in any given year foresee what legal battles there may be facing the city during its budget period. Neither, may I suggest, can the Ombudsman, if he is carrying out his duty, see what types of investigation he may become involved in, and accordingly, it is very difficult, as I see it, for him to be able to forecast, unless there is some provision here by which, if he becomes involved in something which incurs large legal fees, there can be some accompanying protection for his office in the pursuit of his duties as set by this House.

My problem in rising to speak, as I am about this particular matter, is because I have been embarrassed by having been given information with reference to the action of the Board of Internal Economy in dealing with the supplementary estimates, and I have reacted to that information given to me.

As a member of the Ombudsman’s committee, I was never advised that the Board of Internal Economy had issued an invitation to our committee to meet with that board to discuss the estimates of the Ombudsman. I would hope that whatever message may have gone back to the Board of Internal Economy, that the board will extend this invitation again if this bill goes through in this forum, and extend it formally so that the committee may be aware of the invitation and be able to reply correspondingly to it.

The other matter that disturbed me was that I was informed, that notwithstanding the fact that the Board of Internal Economy knew that our report dealing with the matter of the management consultants would be tabled within 48 hours, the board nevertheless undertook to deal with it. Mr. Speaker, I have since been advised that my information was not correct. To that extent, while I am speaking with some concern about the role of the Board of Internal Economy as a principle vis-à-vis the Ombudsman, I do want to express my embarrassment at having reacted to the information given to me as I did, and to allay any possible suggestion that my concern results from the actions of the Board of Internal Economy.

[9:30]

It seems to me if the board did consult the Ombudsman’s committee or seek to, the board in the light of the present system did all it could do in order to keep abreast of the concerns of that committee. In closing, I have to say I still would hope between us in this Legislature we could come up with a better system of review of the Ombudsman’s budget. That there needs to be a review of the budget is undoubtedly quite valid. I am not quarreling with the review but I note here that this could be requested on a monthly basis.

I don’t think the Ombudsman or anyone else, including UTDC or any other agency of government or of the Legislature, should be permitted to overrun. There is no question about that. But I have a very real concern that if it is reviewed on a monthly basis, it might very seriously restrict the real function of the Ombudsman and it can be perceived by the public at large that the government with its majority members on the committee can preclude the kinds of investigations which we all hoped would take place when the Ombudsman was appointed and, I may say, appointed with such a very overwhelming unanimity in this House.

It’s unfortunate that some events have coloured the situation at this time. I am not prepared to say I would move an amendment because I honestly don’t know what other method we can use to process this budget with the constitutional questions involved, other than as proposed. I suppose I simply must sound a note of concern. Equally and sadly I say to you, Mr. Speaker, I trust that any further invitations or correspondence from the Board of Internal Economy to the committee would go formally to the committee because we may not become aware of the invitation extended.

Referring to the debate on the supplementary estimates in committee, there is no doubt I will have to say I was confused by certain statements which were made by the chairman of the Ombudsman’s committee with reference to material supplied to him by the Speaker and/or by the Ombudsman.

It was not clear. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, if it were not for your ruling earlier, I would use another term for what transpired at that meeting. If I used it, I would assure you I would not withdraw it. Therefore, rather than be named in this House, I shall only say I was very much confused at the statements made at that committee hearing, and I trust in future we can have a better relationship between the board and the Ombudsman’s committee as both of us try to grapple with this very vital part of our assembly business.

Mr. Makarchuk: I want to rise to talk about what happened a little while ago, and I want to set the record straight, as I see it as to my involvement in the discussions that have been carried out regarding the increase in the members’ salaries.

I want to put on record in this House the fact that the matter of an increase to the members’ salaries was discussed when we were in the session last fall, and it was agreed on the part of all groups in the House -- the government, the opposition and ourselves -- that there would be another bill introduced at this time, after the AIB, to provide an increase in salaries for the members.

I want this on the record. There was not, as was imputed or stated by the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski). any kind of lobbying on the part of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) or the leader of the New Democratic Party.

Mr. Wildman: It was a despicable remark.

Mr. Makarchuk: It was a decision that was entered into last fall. The government House leader was there; the members of the Liberal Party and the members of the New Democratic Party were there, and that was the understanding; there was no question about that.

When that kind of statement is brought out, as it was in this case earlier tonight, naturally it annoys a lot of people; it has annoyed my colleagues. I was rather surprised that the government House leader did not rise and say this was a decision that was made last fall, that this was the way the legislation was going to be brought into the House, because of the AIB --

Hon. Mr. Welch: I can only speak once on the bill. I am waiting for everybody else to speak and I’ll say it.

Mr. Makarchuk: Okay; I appreciate that. But perhaps you could pass a word on it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: But don’t nail me before I speak.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. government House leader will be given an opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I know, but look what’s happening to me. That’s twice I have been told I should be saying something; and I can only speak once.

Mr. Speaker: I will recognize you and you can explain your position personally afterwards.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I’d like to be on the record.

Mr. Cureatz: He’s out of order right now.

Mr. Makarchuk: The point I want to stress is that somewhere within this party we have, shall we say, that kind of an understanding, a discipline, a control -- and I think it’s the same with the Liberal Party -- that we understood what was going to happen; we understood what the stances or the positions were going to be, and there were no arguments involved.

But when a member of the Conservative Party rises in the House and uses the kind of terms and states there was lobbying on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, and on the part of this party, to bring in an increase in the members’ salaries, when I was prearranged, agreed on, then Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Kerrio: Exactly the way it happened.

Mr. Makarchuk: I didn’t have any intention of speaking on this bill, but then it is very difficult for an individual who is party to the discussions to stay away and not come up and say that obviously the member is wrong. He was wrong in his statement and wrong in what he has said. I can understand the chagrin and the emotional upset, shall we say, that was experienced by my colleagues when they got up. They knew the story very well, the same as most members of this House; and I’m sure the member for Renfrew South knew what that was too.

When we deal with this kind of situation -- it’s a ticklish situation; it’s a sensitive situation; it’s a situation that sort of meets the public fancy, and it’s a situation that the public hooks into and is concerned about -- somehow I feel that perhaps in this House we would have an element of honesty when we deal with this situation.

But when we have the kind of speech that was given here earlier tonight, in my opinion that was hypocrisy of the lowest order. If the member for Renfrew South feels so strongly about his pay increase, then I would suggest he not only return his parliamentary assistant’s salary of $5,000, but he also return to the government -- and I am sure the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) --

Mr. Kerrio: For a worthy charity.

Mr. Makarchuk: -- would be very happy to take the money; He can return the money that is paid to him. No member in this House, Mr. Speaker, is obligated to take the money that is paid to him. If he doesn’t like it, let him turn it back; the government can take it.

Mr. Wildman: They’ve got mortgage payments too.

Mr. Makarchuk: Right. They’ve got some mortgage payments to meet. They operate on a deficit, I gather.

I would like to just touch on one other point; that is, the matter of parity in payment to the House leaders and whips in the various parties. At this time there is a difference in the amounts that are paid to the people in the three political parties. I understand, from the discussions that were held between the leaders of the parties, that this matter will be considered and discussed in April. I want to put it on record at this time that we have been advised that this matter will be discussed in April. I personally think it is a matter that has to be sorted out, because I feel the duties carried out by the whips and leaders of the opposition party and the third party -- meaning myself -- are just as relevant and important as those of the whips and the leaders of the government party. Hopefully, that will be sorted out.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with section 2 of the bill, I would like to address myself to some of the remarks made by the member for Renfrew South.

Mr. Sweeney: Where is he?

Mr. Reid: The member, as are all members in this House, is entitled to rise in his place and either support or not support a bill before the Legislative Assembly. But when he starts imputing motives of the kind that he imputed to the leader of the NDP and the leader of the Liberal Party, he does a disservice not only to himself but to all members of the House.

Mr. Wildman: To his party.

Mr. Reid: It probably underlines the terrible trauma that we as members of this House have to go through periodically -- quite frankly, I sometimes think it is not periodic enough -- about giving the members of this assembly a pay raise.

A couple of years ago we had the Hickling Johnston report, for which we paid almost $11,000; and I am on record as saying that was $11,000 worth of taxpayers’ money that could have been spent much better anywhere else. That report indicated members of this assembly were not paid as well as truck drivers, second-year lawyers, accountants with two years’ experience and a host of other people.

I would like to draw to your attention what members of the Metro council at the city hall in the city of Toronto, get as indemnity and in expenses in a year. It has bothered me -- and I don’t have the expenses or the upkeep of other members of this House -- what members of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario are paid.

To be quite honest with you, Mr. Speaker, the actual dollar amounts don’t bother me as much as the relative position in which we find ourselves vis-à-vis the rest of the people in the economic system of the province of Ontario. That is a personal predilection. But there are members in this party, in the New Democratic Party and in the Conservative Party who are suffering financial hardship by running for election and coming to this Legislature to make a contribution to this House. As disgusted as I am with the comments from the member for Renfrew South, I would say he came here with the best intentions to serve the people of the province of Ontario as a member of this Legislature.

Mr. Wildman: Are you sure?

[9:45]

Mr. Reid: But I think it is high time we quit hiding under rocks, saying: “We are not really entitled to that kind of remuneration. We are not really worth it. We are all sewing here at great personal sacrifice.” That is fine for some of us who have our own personal fortunes, who are receiving extra indemnity as parliamentary assistants, as my friend from Renfrew South is, and for other people. But I find it somewhat offensive that a member would get up in this House and denigrate, on a very personal basis, other members of the House for their positions.

If the member for Renfrew South is opposed to the pay raise, which he obviously is, then the same option is open to him, as an hon. member of this chamber who believes in what he put before this House a few minutes ago, as was available to the former member for High Park; that is, to donate his pay raise, if he finds it does not suit him and he chooses not to take it, to some charity. I would be glad to suggest one or two.

He is entitled to his opinion. But he is not entitled to impute the kind of motives he did to the leader of the NDP and the Liberal leader, which were quite false. Having been here for 10 years, I have often wished the leader of this party was much more forward in getting raises for the members of the Legislature than he has been.

As a sidelight on the bill, Mr. Speaker, I was in the committee considering the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs today.

Mr. Wildman: That was an experience, wasn’t it?

Mr. Reid: I asked -- and it is not done any more; I realize I am old-fashioned, having been here for 10 years, as I am fond of saying, I have been here for 10 years, and it isn’t done any more, but I thought for nostalgia’s sake I would ask the minister about money: What was he doing with the money in his estimates? As usual, the minister was not prepared to answer, because nobody had ever asked him what he was going to do with the money. They will talk about great philosophies and ideologies and this project or that project and the riding, but never about what was going to be done with the money.

We learned a few interesting things. One is that a co-ordinator of six or eight or maybe a dozen Northern Affairs officers in northern Ontario -- each of whom makes, incidentally, between $14,000 and $20,000 a year -- is receiving a salary of some $30,000. That is for co-ordinating the work of some six members. They don’t have to go through an election. They don’t have to give up their weekends. They don’t have to serve seven days a week. They don’t come here at 9 o’clock in the morning and quit at 10:30 p.m., and all the rest of it. The responsibility, it seems to me, is somewhat less than what a member of the Legislature has.

My friend from Renfrew South said, “Well, you knew what you were getting when you came here.” I suppose that is some kind of argument. We usually know what we are getting into.

Mr. Roy: He didn’t know; he got the jackpot. He became a parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Reid: But surely there is some rationale for indemnifying members on a reasonable basis, concurrent with their responsibilities and the time they put in.

I want to speak specifically to section 2 of the bill that deals with the Board of Internal Economy requiring, among others that have been mentioned, select committees, the Ombudsman, the Provincial Auditor and others to provide a running balance, a monthly balance, of what is involved in the agency, board or commission with which it is dealing. The member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) has mentioned her concerns about this particular item. I’m not sure I share all of her concerns, because I think every body should he accountable when it is spending public funds. The member for St. George agrees with that; our problem is whether or not the board of “eternal” economy is the appropriate agency to be doing this.

I have that problem as chairman of public accounts. I don’t want to see the work of the Provincial Auditor restricted by the cabinet-controlled Board of Internal Economy saying, “You’re going too far afield or you’re looking into things we don t want you to look into. We’re going to restrict your budget,” so that we don’t have the funds to carry out our function.

We have just passed the new Audit Act and we put a provision in there that the chairman and vice-chairman of public accounts will be invited to the Board of Internal Economy when those estimates are going through.

The Auditor’s function must be even more independent to my mind than that of the Ombudsman. The chairman and vice-chairman are two people independent of the government because, as you know, Mr. Speaker, they are members of the opposition. Since they are there, if the estimates of the Auditor are cut, they can get up at the next meeting of the public accounts committee and say: “The estimates have been cut. They’re restricting the function of the Auditor and we’re bringing this to public attention.”

I think some mechanism like that has to be worked out for the Ombudsman. As much as I do not like his gold-plated spending -- you may have heard that phrase before, Mr. Speaker -- I still believe there should be a requirement that the Ombudsman have the opportunity to come before a more public and open body and present his case, as happened to some extent with the select Committee but only after the fact. His case should he debated before an open body with the press there and everybody else to make their own judgements.

Mr. Speaker, I owe you a personal apology because during the estimates of the Ombudsman before the general government committee -- I’ve already apologized to Mr. Fleming -- I took your name subsequently in vain in looking for a scoundrel, looking for an eminence gris, looking for the hate noir relative to the remarks that were made by the chairman of the select committee on the Ombudsman, the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. Davison), I have before me the draft transcripts of those estimates, They have not, to my knowledge, been printed in Hansard and it is because of that I have not raised the matter before.

You have ruled out the word “mislead.” We cannot accuse a member of misleading the House. My colleague from St. George, in her charity and mercy, has indicated in her remarks that the chairman of the select committee on the Ombudsman confused her. I have gone over the record of the debates in the general government committee in relation to the Ombudsman and I want to state to you, Mr. Speaker, without being thrown out, but in the strongest of terms that the member for Hamilton Centre, the chairman of the select committee on the Ombudsman, obscured, obfuscated, clouded, did not divulge information and led that committee down the garden path, having knowledge in his hands and in his possession, that led to a great many charges being made, for which I was somewhat responsible and for which I apologize to you and other members of the assembly.

The member for St. George has alluded to some of those. There was a great debate and a lot of time was wasted in that committee. The member for Hamilton Centre came before the committee on Tuesday evening, November 29; he read from a document. which he did not identify except to say that it had been written at the request of the Speaker and signed by Mr. Fleming, the administrator and secretary to the Board of Internal Economy. He then went off on a great long tirade from which I, as a member of that committee, believed the comments the member was making were a direct result of the letter Mr. Speaker had written to him, and which he indicated were the feelings and thoughts of the Speaker; that in fact the Speaker was upset with what the Board of Internal Economy had done and therefore wanted to bring these comments to the attention of the chairman of the select committee.

On numerous occasions -- and I was going to quote them, but because of time I will not -- he was asked to table the letter which he finally did without the supporting documents. He was asked where he got the letter, to which he did not reply. The committee subsequently learned, on motion by myself asking the Speaker why he wrote the letter; the Speaker’s reply was in fact that the Board of Internal Economy had asked the chairman of the select committee on the Ombudsman to come to the Board of Internal Economy and perhaps -- I’m not sure of the circumstance -- bring the committee with him so that they, together, could discuss the estimates of the Ombudsman.

The member for Hamilton Centre, who had all this information in his hands and in his control, said nothing about this. He allowed the committee to be led down the garden path, to go off on a tangent, to pass a motion which was somewhat critical of the Speaker, without informing either the general government committee, which was handling the estimates, or in fact the members of his own select committee, that he’d received this letter and that the Board of Internal Economy had asked to meet with him and the committee to discuss these estimates.

Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that I can’t say he misled the committee. I guess he didn’t, because he didn’t tell the committee, the select committee on the Ombudsman; he didn’t tell the general government committee that was dealing with this matter. Not at all. He allowed us to go on for four hours speculating, hurling accusations, when all the time he knew exactly what had transpired.

Mr. Speaker: Just a moment. This might all be very interesting and I am giving the hon. member for Rainy River a lot of latitude with regard to the principle of section 2 of this bill, but I must remind the hon. member that the amendment authorizes the Board of Internal Economy to require statements of current expenditures and forecasts of future expenditures on a monthly basis from offices, agencies, commissions and select committees whose estimates are subject to review by the board.

You can touch these in general terms, but I wish you wouldn’t get into any specifics of things that have gone on in the past. It may be useful for each and every one of us to hear what has gone on before, but I wish the hon. members would restrict themselves to the specific sections and the principle of Bill 122.

Mr. Reid: I accept your admonition, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the latitude you’ve given me. I will just wind that up by saying that because of the actions of the member for Hamilton Centre, I think he should resign as chairman of the select committee on the Ombudsman.

I would repeat that while I have some reservations about section 2 of the bill, at the moment I see no other way. A way has to be found to deal with the estimates of the Ombudsman in a much more independent way than is envisaged in this bill. However, at the moment there isn’t any other recourse. As someone who is concerned about the public purse, I find I must support the provision that the people who come under section 2 of the bill he required to give a monthly statement. I think it’s only right and proper that the Legislature should have some control over the expenditures of these bodies.

[10: 00]

Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. I will certainly support Bill 122, and I do so without apology or excuse to anyone either in this House or outside. I do so notwithstanding the critical comments that have been made here tonight and in the press.

As the member for Ottawa West, I am especially aware of the benefits provided to our federal counterparts, the members of Parliament. I am certainly very much aware of by how much they exceed the benefits we receive in this House. I therefore found it most offensive, objectionable and totally misleading that in some of the press editorials our benefits and emoluments were equated with those received by the members of Parliament in Ottawa. I do not know how we collectively could respond to some of the more critical and totally misleading editorials.

The real issue is not the sizes of the increases in our salaries, the levels of the salaries, or the benefits. Our salaries are not very high. When I resigned my position to come to this House, I had a salary that was twice the basic pay I am getting here. I know that other members in this House have taken substantial reductions in coming here.

Mr. Sargent: About three or four dozen.

Mr. Baetz: I am not complaining. The crucial question is how diligently we carry out the duties we undertook when we ran for office, and the quality as well as quantity of our work. When we sit in this House and listen to long, drawn-out debates, we know the quantity is extensive; at times I hope the quality will be equal.

The issue is not the size of the salaries or the benefits, but how well we do the work here. If we commit ourselves totally to our work, I feel the people of Ontario are getting a real bargain for their buck. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I would certainly support the bill, and with apologies towards no one.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly had no intention of speaking on this bill, and I will be very brief. The only reason I rise to make a few comments on the bill is because of the comments of the member for Renfrew South and the unfortunate incidents that followed the inflammatory remarks he made to some of our colleagues, the leader of the NDP and the leader of the Liberal Party.

Like the member for Renfrew South, I am in the same fortunate position as are many of my colleagues; we are members of a profession which, if the increases here are not commensurate to allow us to survive economically and to give us the independence required to be true representatives of the people, allows some of us the independence to be able to cushion off these sacrifices through, say, the practice of law. I don’t apologize for that; in fact, some of my colleagues on all sides of the House are able to do that. We’re in a fortunate position. Many of the members here are not. This is why these increases are necessary.

But the member for Renfrew Sooth is one of the fortunate ones who, through the good fortune of his family or otherwise, is able to have a business which allows him the extra income to be able to stand up in this House and imply, basically, the increases were not necessary and they were brought about because there was enthusiastic lobbying -- I don’t know what other word he used

-- on the part of the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the NDP. That is totally false and totally untrue; the salary increases are necessary.

When a member stands in this House and says the increases are not necessary, which he was saying, and that we’re getting this thing through because there was enthusiastic lobbying, what he is saying is that we should look carefully at what he’s done. If he feels these increases are not necessary -- and, as he has said, we knew what we were going to get when we were elected here -- what did he do about his good fortune when, totally to his surprise, he hit the jackpot? He really hit the jackpot. He was made a parliamentary assistant. Did he return it? Do I hear any of my colleagues saying he returned this money, this $5,000 he gets? Did he return it to the public purse, to the general revenues of the province, to a charity or otherwise?

This same member, who is prepared to attack various members of the House when he calls them greedy to a certain extent because the members are getting an increase that he feels is not necessary, did he return the money he got as parliamentary assistant? To my knowledge, he has not. That very same member is the first one to try to use public funds for private gain.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think the member is straying from the principle of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I’m wrong, I stand to be corrected, but I understand the member can be receiving some form of remuneration to pay off his condominium. Am I wrong?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind the member that that is not contained in this bill, if he reads section 1 carefully.

Mr. Turner: The member should speak to the bill.

Mr. Roy: I certainly appreciate your ruling that you want us to observe the limits of the bill, and I’ll be very brief; but surely when a member stands in this House --

Hon. Mr. Welch: You really want to rub his nose in it. Get it on the record. You’ll feel better.

Mr. Roy: I’ll tell you what he was trying to do; I think what so concerned the member was that it was brought to public attention that he was trying to do that, and he was embarrassed in his riding. He’s trying to make up for it by saying he’s going to stand in this House and vote against the bill. I find that total hypocrisy, coming from that member.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Show him what a big man you are.

Mr. Roy: My friend, the government House leader, says, “You like to rub his nose into it.” You bet I do. Because I really think --

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, it is very typical of you. You’ll feel better.

Mr. Roy: No, I won’t necessarily feel better. I had no intention of participating in this bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You have never missed a chance to do that with anybody.

Mr. Roy: But I want to say to the government House leader that when he gets an opportunity to speak, I take it he will comment on his colleague’s remarks and he will dissociate himself from his remarks.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I hope you teach your children respect.

Mr. Roy: I hope he will show the same kind of intestinal fortitude as the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz), who makes apology to no one and says this increase is necessary for good reason.

Hon. Mr. Welch: He is a much bigger man than you will ever be.

Mr. Roy: I felt it was important to put on the record that a member cannot come into this House and start posturing and trying to take advantage of a situation when his own record --

Mr. Sterling: Who’s posturing now?

Mr. Turner: What are you doing?

Mr. Roy: What am I doing? All I’m saying basically is that he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. When a member is prepared to attack the leader of our party for something that did not happen, you bet your boots I’ll not let him get away with it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: You tell him.

Mr. Roy: And neither would the government House leader. If I unfairly attacked his leader, the government House leader wouldn’t allow this to happen. I wouldn’t expect any less, and I am sure he wouldn’t expect any less from us.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to rise on a point of privilege. In my annoyance with the remarks made by the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski), I made some condemnation of the government House leader, for which I apologize. I realize I shouldn’t have done it. I was annoyed. I was just hoping he might dissociate himself from the remarks that were made by the member for Renfrew South --

Mr. Roy: I am sure he will.

Mr. Riddell: -- but I had no really good reason for blurting out about the government House Leader, and I apologize.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there has been enough said on this bill; but with regard to section 1, I have no qualms about standing here in my place in the Ontario Legislature, since we are the last resort as to who should vote the money for the expenditure of public funds. I did the same when I was on municipal council; if I felt my remuneration should be a certain amount I had no qualms about standing up and saying so. I’ll do the same to my people in the riding; and I will vote for section 1 without any problems whatsoever.

I would rather dissociate myself completely from the remarks made by the member for Renfrew South. I will not even comment on them. I think that was uncalled for.

However I just want to say we always seem to have this problem with people who are elected and must set their own pay. I had the same problem when I was on municipal council. The interesting part of it, I say to the government House leader, is that when I went on to municipal council our pay was $6 a meeting, and the reeve got $100 a year extra. After two meetings I think the deputy reeve and I raised the salary to $10 a meeting and insisted that the reeve get an extra $200, although I think he said $100 was enough. That was a number of years ago, but I say honestly that I never worry about that. If I am doing the job and if I can walk up and accept the cheque and feel that I am doing the job for the people of Ontario, then I have no worry about taking it.

I don’t know why people worry about this. I remember that the former member for Sarnia, Mr. Bullbrook, for whom an awful lot of people had great respect, always said we are the people who must vote, and we should never be ashamed to stand up; when you think what you are voting for is right, then you shouldn’t worry about it; and that is the way I feel about it, Mr. Speaker.

As to section 2 of the bill, I spoke about this in committee. I suppose it has some problems constitutionally. I would hope that within the next year we might iron out how we can handle the estimates of the Provincial Auditor and the Ombudsman, and I would hope we would get that solved at that time.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Very quickly, may I just say one or two things in an evening which has certainly been one of very spirited discussion with respect to this bill; no doubt tomorrow there will be some reflection with respect to what has been said.

The government made a commitment. I was authorized on Thursday, July 7, 1977, to set out the whole question. In doing so I think this speaks to the concerns that have been expressed by a number of members of the House; and it is unfortunate there have been some excessive statements made with respect to the degree by which any member of this House has pursued the implementation of this legislation.

On Thursday, July 7 -- I think this says everything; and I very much appreciate the comments of the member fur Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). because my understanding is that you can only speak once in a debate, and it is not my custom to interfere with the rights of people to express themselves, regardless of what I may feel personally about some of that expression -- but on Thursday, July 7, I stood in my place here and said: “The position of the government is that in the year ending September 30, 1977, but pro-rated effectively only on September 15, 1977, an increase of $2,400 be applied to all members’ indemnities and allowances. This is about 7.5 per cent of the average compensation of the group.”

[10: 15]

“The September 15, 1977, effective date is in line with the commitment by the Premier in September 1975 to avoid an increase in members’ indemnities for two years. This increase now proposed would over a full year of effectiveness increase the indemnity by $2,200 and increase benefits by about $200 in the form of increased life insurance, medical insurance and contributions to the legislative assembly retirement allowance fund.”

I think this is important in keeping with the spirit of the comments that have been made and the concern that has been expressed tonight. I also said at that time on behalf of the government: “It is also proposed that in the year commencing October 1, 1977, and ending September 30, 1978, there will be a further adjustment in accordance with the AIB rules.” This bill fulfils that commitment made at that time.

I think that says everything in connection with what anyone may or may not have done, and this should be seen as simply the natural completion of the evolution of time. Several questions have been raised. The hon. member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) --

Mr. Conway: He is listening.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- wherever he is, I hope is listening.

An hon. member: On CB radio.

Mr. Foulds: He is only 25 feet away.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There were two questions which he raised and I simply want to repeat them as well. He was quite properly expressing some concern about the method of review subsequently. I go back to the statement which was made on July 7 to reiterate that as the commitment: “Provision will be made for a detailed independent review about adjustment of the members’ indemnity and allowances on an annual basis, or as required, following the ending of the present wages and price guidelines.” We intend to honour that as well.

Perhaps after we get back or early in the new year we will consider the form and how we might handle that, but certainly there is no question but that that still stands. The hon. member for Sudbury East also raised a very logical question as to how we got the breakdown of the $2,400. Perhaps the simplest thing for me to do is to read the information I have in that regard. Hopefully, it fulfils his requirements there.

Members will be given a direct indemnity increase of $2,042. A further amount of $358 out of a total of $2,400, which is the total amount, is viewed as the benefit portion of the increase. Essentially the $358 represents the extra benefit which a member receives in that the legislative assembly is paying a percentage share of various side benefits.

The legislative assembly is paying all costs connected with members’ basic life insurance, which consists of 75 per cent of $17,200 at present and will increase to $19,242. The additional amount to be paid by the assembly represents a direct benefit to the member in lieu of cash. Likewise, the legislative assembly pays 85 per cent of all costs connected with long-term income protection, while the member pays only 15 per cent. The costs become higher as the indemnity increases and are again a direct benefit to the member in lieu of cash.

The legislative assembly pays six per cent of indemnity on behalf of each member into the legislative assembly retirement fund. This payment increases with the indemnity increase and is treated as a direct benefit to the member.

Finally, the 11 statutory holidays are treated as a benefit, as well as an average two weeks of holidays per member per annum.

Mr. Reid: When do we get it?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I almost hesitated to read that, to tell you the truth.

Mr. Reid: You should. We are getting cheated on that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Therefore, these matters are put together and some value is attached to them, and is subtracted from the total which amounts to the breakdown there. I hope that information is helpful in response to the hon. member for Sudbury East.

In addition, I think the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) and others for commenting on section 2; however, I think there is some misunderstanding. The House will recall that about a year or two ago, the Legislative Assembly Act was amended to provide for the reference to the Board of Internal Economy of certain estimates --

Mr. Reid: By motion.

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- by motion of this House, unanimously approved by the House --

Mr. Reid: No; the Liberals voted against it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Oh, I see.

Mr. Reid: There is a difference.

Hon. Mr Welch: Anyway, the House on majority vote referred certain matters to the Board of Internal Economy. All this new section does is to provide for the board an opportunity, a permissiveness, to ask for information on a certain basis -- that is, monthly -- and some forecasts. It doesn’t, as I read it, give any executive authority, so to speak, in itself; rather it says the board may require that those commissions et cetera, having some responsibility to report to them, might have to provide certain information on a monthly basis.

I would prefer not to get involved in a lot of the other issues that perhaps have been introduced, but rather to confine my remarks to the provision of that information, and perhaps to conclude by saying that I see what we’re doing tonight with respect to this bill as simply fulfilling the understanding which this House had last July.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 123, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I made some error prior to 6 o’clock and called the wrong bill, so that this bill has now been put into the House for discussion on second reading. If there are any members who wish to discuss it, I’d be glad to respond.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) did have some questions he wanted to raise. I’m not cognizant of those questions, so unfortunately we can’t raise them this evening.

I think he would be in agreement with the principle of the bill, although he might have some quibbles with the differences between how pensions are arrived at for back-bench members and how they’re arrived at for the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the indulgence of the House, following second reading I’d like to put the bill into committee very briefly, to look after something which was overlooked the last time this bill was reviewed; that is, to look after the widows who come under part I.

Mr. Reid: We want to amend that?

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 123, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1973.

On section 1:

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Welch moves that the bill be amended

“(a) by renumbering sections 1 to 5 as sections 2 to 6;

“(b) by adding thereto the following sections:

“(1) Subsection 1 of section 11 of the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1973, being chapter 152, is amended by striking out “one-half’ in the fifth line and inserting in lieu thereof “60 per cent.”

(2) Subsection 2 of the said section 1 is amended by striking out “one-half” in the 13th and 17th lines and inserting in lieu thereof in each case “60 per cent.”

“(c) by deleting section 5, formerly section 4, of the bill and substituting the following section therefor:

“5 (1) This Act, except sections 1 and 3, comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

“(2) Section 1 shall be deemed to have come into force on the 12th day of July 1977.

“(3) Section 3 shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of October 1977.”

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I believe most members in this party will support the bill. We’re very glad to see the government House leader has brought in the amendment dealing with widows’ spouses. This is something we’ve been looking forward to, and we will certainly support the amendment as presented by the government House leader.

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, I just want to receive some reassurance from the government House leader that the same treatment applies for widows and widowers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, it does.

Mr. Makarchuk: Then we will certainly support the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill 123, as amended, reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with amendment.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 123, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act, 1973.

THUNDER BAY COURTHOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Under standing order 28, a motion for adjournment has been deemed to have been made. I will listen to the hon. member for Port Arthur for up to five minutes.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, it’s with a certain sense of anti-climax that I rise. I apologize to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. McCague) for not being here during question period when he apparently had an answer for me.

The Thunder Bay provincial courthouse has been one of the biggest mistakes made by that ministry. I cannot believe that the present minister is deliberately hiding the facts from the Legislature or from the public, but he must shake up his ministry. The extent of negligence has been so great that if the minister does not do so, there must be an independent inquiry either through the Attorney General, a select committee of the Legislature or the public accounts committee, because the taxpayers of Ontario have been paying for a building over which the Ministry of Government Services failed to exercise adequate supervision and control.

Thunder Bay has fifth-rate facilities and we’re paying first-rate prices.

[10:30]

The building is a mere three years old. When I did a firsthand tour of the facility as late as Monday, December 5, the following conditions prevailed:

1. In the basement, which is used as a lockup, watermarks showed flooding consistently has taken place as high as four inches in the cells. The bottom part of the walls are mushy and eroding. You can wear them away with your fingernail. A plank walkway was down on the floor for the accused and the police officers, making the conducting of the prisoners from the lockup to the courtroom precarious and possibly dangerous. Every morning, I am told, the water is vacuumed up. Between three and five sump pumps are constantly on the go, and on that freezing day in December there was still one-half inch of water in one location in the basement. Cracks and heaves in the floor mean there are three different levels on that floor.

2. On the first floor, which houses the family court, a half-inch-wide crack runs the entire length of the floor of the building, making a three-quarter-inch difference in levels on the two sides of that crack. A three-eighth-inch crack runs the entire height of one inside wall -- not just along the mortar but through cement blocks as well.

3. Rain enters the third floor windows and roof, snaking the waiting room outside the criminal court.

4. One young lawyer I encountered there told me his first experience in the courthouse was watching an officer catch and kill a mouse in the building.

5. On the outside, small cracks appear in the bricks and mortar.

Mr. Wildman: How much did he get paid for that?

Mr. Foulds: I raised a number of important questions with the minister on November 15. On November 18 the minister replied, but not completely. He has not replied to my supplementary question since, and I found his taking as notice the other day unsatisfactory.

He gave the impression that the government was not paying rent by saying: “Currently, rental payments are being withheld and will continue to be withheld until the developer is prepared to correct the problem.”

Yet the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal on November 14 reported that Royal Trust Limited was still being paid as the holder of the mortgage for the builder, the mysterious and elusive John H. McCormick of Burlington, who has disappeared. Why should Royal Trust be paid directly by the government when the subcontractors have been left without pay by McCormick?

Either the minister has not had the facts given to him by his officials or he is not relaying them to the Legislature.

The building has been built on an artesian well or stream. My information is that neither steel nor cement pilings were used for foundations. Instead, mere rock foundations were piled --

Mr. Speaker: Will hon. members please keep their private conversations down?

Mr. Foulds: Instead, mere rock foundations were piled down holes in the ground which had no casings. If this is so, the building cannot be repaired, because the foundation will be shifting constantly.

The minister must table all the studies and documents relating to this project. The engineering studies, including soil tests and thorough foundation studies, must be made public.

The minister must stop all payment for the building. Surely he has ample reason as McCormick and Group Building Systems Limited has never met the terms of the contract. The minister must look at the possibilities of securing other accommodation for court facilities in Thunder Bay.

It is better to cut losses now. About $500,000 has been spent on rent, but it is better to cancel now than to spend’ $5 million more than it would cost for the 30-year period of the lease and the minimum $250,000 that it will cost in repairs, because the building will not be standing in 30 years’ time when the province will own the building.

The taxpayers of Ontario deserve more than this fraud of a building. It is not a courthouse. It is a freak tourist attraction. Pisa has its leaning tower. We have a sinking courthouse. Perhaps there should be a sign placed outside by the Ministry of Government Services, reading: “Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair.”

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister for up to five minutes.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker. I think the member mentioned the Port Arthur courthouse when he started off.

Mr. Foulds: No; sorry. Thunder Bay provincial courthouse in Fort William.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I was fully aware of the one he was discussing. There is no problem with that.

Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to know about the notice the member gave yesterday about being dissatisfied with an answer that had already been given or with an answer that hadn’t already been given. Had the hon. member ‘been in the House today, I was going to answer his question just to see what would happen about tonight’s session.

I know the hon. member is right in the interpretation he can put on the orders, but I think the intent is that a minister should be able to take a question as notice and give an answer a day or so hence, and not be in the situation in which he puts me. I was going to put him in another situation by answering the question for him to day as he put it yesterday and see what would happen.

Mr. Foulds: But the minister has had almost a month for the supplementaries I asked on November 18.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I still don’t have the answers to the supplementaries the hon. member asked.

Yesterday, the hon. member asked about the deduction in payments. I may be incorrect; when he mentioned the figures tonight, I did not have the opportunity quickly to look up what I said on November 18 or November 15. But if the hon. member will check, I think he will find that I said that $4,500 a month was being withheld but also that $9,286.15 per month is being paid to Royal Trust.

Royal Trust also is faced with solving some of the problems that were left behind by J. H. McCormick; so those payments aren’t necessarily being thrown away but are going somewhat to cleaning up some of the problems that have come in the past. I and the people who are now in the ministry are the first to admit that it is a very undesirable building, and when the member mentions water in the basement and some cracks, he is absolutely right from what I am able to find out.

It is not true that we are going to fill the basement with concrete and put an annex on the back of it. We are awaiting the results of an engineering study to determine what we should do. My people tell me that there are cracks in the walls, but those were there in the early stages and haven’t got worse during that time. That may be different from what the hon. member mentions.

He continues to mention a figure of $250,000 to repair the building. I presume he is assuming that: I haven’t seen any study that would indicate that. I guess it is a fair guesstimate that somebody made locally.

Mr. Foulds: It’s just a rough guess by one of the local contractors.

Hon. Mr. McCague: As to the soil tests. I have not been able to locate any soil tests. I have asked for them a couple of times and have not been able to locate them. I will do that, and as soon as I have them I will convey those to the hon. member. As soon as I have a study of repairs I will convey those to him. If he asks me another question before I have those, I will take it as notice and he can call another late show; I rather like these.

The House adjourned at 10:37 p.m.