Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

WITHDRAWAL OF TEACHERS’ SERVICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), I wonder if the Premier could report to the House the status on the negotiations -- the protracted negotiations -- between the secondary school teachers and the York county board?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the minister, I expect, will be here shortly and could probably give to the House a more detailed description, not as to the state of the negotiations in any detail, but some of the history of it and his own activities and that of the ministry.

The parties are meeting -- I believe they reconvened at 10 o’clock this morning -- at the request of the minister, and I can only assume that negotiations are going on at this precise moment unless they are still having lunch; and I expect the minister will be here very shortly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He will be here?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I expect the minister will be here very shortly.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): It took the Premier a long time to answer that one.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was hoping the minister would be here. I would like to put another question to the Premier arising out of a section in the Speech from the Throne yesterday. Can he give the House the assurance that the proposal in the speech calling for an objective assessment of the environmental impact of public works -- and I presume private development as well -- will be used to, let’s say, either delay or change the government’s announced decisions on the Arnprior dam and also on the Hydro high tension corridor in western Ontario, coming from Douglas Point down into the Wingham area and then over to Georgetown? Can the minister give the House the undertaking that the concept envisaged in the speech, which I believe to be an excellent one, will be used to have an effect on these circumstances, which are about to go forward unless a change in policy is stated?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition as to the excellence of the concept.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Only if the government is prepared to use it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is one we are pioneering to a certain extent with this kind of proposed review agency, Mr. Speaker. It think it is fair to state that if there had been such an agency a period of time ago, some of these projects obviously would have been referred to it. I certainly can’t undertake to the member for Brant that projects already under way would be referred to any environmental review agency.

I would point out to him -- and I can’t be too specific here -- that a portion of the transmission line as it relates to the corridor referred to has been a matter of study by Dr. Solandt.

Actually, I think one could say, Mr. Speaker, that the decision --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): No, not that one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- perhaps not that line, but a part of the connection there with the 500 kv line -- to appoint Dr. Solandt to review the 500 kv corridor from Nanticoke to Pickering is in essence a form of review procedure. As I said to the press two or three days ago, it is our hope that we will have Dr. Solandt’s report very shortly. What will flow from that -- well, electricity ultimately -- in terms of suggested location, I can’t tell the House at this moment; but I think really that is one indication of how this review agency could work.

The details of the legislation, and the timing of it, Mr. Speaker, are matters of government policy. I would not want to say to the member for Brant, as it relates to projects already under way, that one can reverse the situation and have them a subject of review. There is no question in my mind that certain future transmission corridors obviously would be a matter that would be referred to such a review board.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary for clarification: Since the high tension line from Douglas Point to Bradley Junction and Georgetown is not under construction, and since it has not been reviewed by Dr. Solandt, does the Premier then mean, since it is not under construction, it will be reviewed? And since Dr. Solandt has been associated, let’s say, with the Georgetown end of it, will the Premier or his minister be asking him to review the alignment that is under discussion, particularly since the farmers have brought forward the information that the present alignment is supposedly using 80 per cent class 1 and 2 land and that an alternative alignment, even proposed by Hydro itself, uses about half that much class 1 and 2 farm land?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s the kind of thing that it would be perhaps wise to refer to the proposed environmental review board or whatever terminology is used. As I say, there is one aspect of it, and that is the connection with the 500 kv line somewhere in the area in Halton or Peel as it crosses the escarpment. I think this part of it has been a subject of some consideration, but as for the balance of the transmission line location or suggested location it might be handled very properly by the review board.

This is really what we are endeavouring to do. The only observation I make, Mr. Speaker, in that the Solandt review covered a good portion of the riding that I represent, is that one of the things we must always remember is that, while there may be better places for a transmission line, I am sure there can always be improvements which will satisfy people where the line was perhaps intended to go initially. If it is moved, I am somewhat reconciled to the problem that will be created in the new alignment that is suggested, wherever that may be. This is one of the difficulties that we face.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Hopefully there is an alternative that will not bring that problem forward.

Mr. Lewis: There are.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I can’t find any way to have that particular 500 kv line not cross the county of Peel somewhere.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It can’t be done.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And, unfortunately, I am told it is too expensive to put underground across that great county too.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, if I can, given the number of angry and anxious meetings held by the farmers with Ontario Hydro over the last several months on the line from Douglas Point to Georgetown, can the Premier give an undertaking, rather than being vague, that the line will not be proceeded with nor will Hydro continue to deal unpredictably, as they have been dealing with the farmers, on dollar amounts and routes, until the government has made an independent study -- independent of Hydro -- or reviewed it all, so that they can be appeased in a way that is not now the case?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t at this stage, without some review of it and until we see the legislation and know how it’s going to work, give that firm a commitment. I think it is obvious that it is the land of situation which the environmental review board or agency, whatever term is used, is anticipated to cover. But to say to the hon. member at this point that I can give a firm commitment, I can’t do that at this moment.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By way of further supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Cassidy: If I can turn to Arnprior --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who are you recognizing, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Then I will come back to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier, since the hearings of necessity under the Expropriations Act are going on right now, today, would he undertake to discuss the matter with the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) as a matter of some priority so that if in fact an objective hearing is decided upon, which is certainly urged by the farmers concerned, that these hearings can be stood down or stopped completely until an objective assessment is available?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly an undertaking I can give. I will discuss it with the Minister of Energy very shortly.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I can turn to Arnprior. In view of the fact that the environmental hearing board proposed by the government will not be established for some time, and in view of the fact that about $10 million out of an $82-million project has now been spent -- maybe $7 million or $8 million -- but $70 or $75 million has yet to be spent, will the Premier agree to an independent inquiry into that project because of the valid points which have been made to date about the erosion that may occur behind the dam, about the economic inadequacies of the project, and about the loss and mistreatment of farmers whose land has not yet been expropriated, but which will be flooded by work currently under construction?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give any such undertaking to have an inquiry related to those matters. I can only say to the hon. member that Ontario Hydro is aware and the government is aware of potential problems that may or may not arise, and obviously they will take these into account. But I must say to the hon. member, we do not propose to have an inquiry in that sense of the word as it relates to the Arnprior project.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary. The hon. member for Timiskaming would like a supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: Windsor West.

Mr. Speaker: Windsor West, I am sorry.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. member for Timiskaming, God forbid.

Mr. Bounsall: With reference to the original question about the line across southwestern Ontario, regarding that portion of in between Wingham junction and Kitchener, would the Premier speak to Hydro with a view to seeing that they purchase only enough land required for the power that can be transmitted along that corridor, which is two lines, rather than the three-line width which they are attempting to purchase?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that a route hasn’t been selected, so I can’t give any commitment on this at all. Quite obviously one can’t do it.

Mr. Bounsall: But the Premier knows what width they’re trying to purchase.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But we don’t know the route.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Interjection by hon. member.

WITHDRAWAL OF TEACHERS’ SERVICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Education is in his place, I wonder if he would report to the House on the status of the negotiations in York and in the Windsor area.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to.

In regard to the York county dispute between the secondary teachers and that board, talks began again this morning and are presently carrying on, with the help of a Ministry of Labour mediator, at the Ministry of Labour offices on University Ave.

In regard to the Windsor situation, this was something that came up because of a misunderstanding, a misinterpretation, a failing of the two parties to get together on the wording of the final memorandum to send the matters to voluntary arbitration.

Mr. Lewis: That’s pretty kind. The minister is in a generous mood.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The facts of the matter actually are that --

Mr. Lewis: The board is nuts. That’s the fact of the matter.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- an agreement was signed, that I and one of the Ministry of Labour negotiators wrote out on a piece of hotel paper in pencil --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Would the minister care to specify which location and the hotel?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I won’t mention the name of the hotel for fear of giving any free publicity.

Mr. Lewis: Well, they don’t have to --

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): I’ll bet they’re in the Royal York.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, they aren’t, as a matter of fact. They’re down in the town of my friend’s colleague from Windsor.

Mr. Lewis: In a non-union hotel, I might say.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The actual statement that was signed by both the board and the teachers said that because they had failed to reach any agreement, they would submit the matters still in dispute to arbitration which would be final and binding on both parties. I think there is no question that that was the intent. That was my intent, that was the teachers’ intent and I had assumed it was the board’s intent. There seems to have developed some misunderstanding after that concerning whether an award of a board of arbitration could be appealable or not. Certainly, I have made it very clear to the board that there is no question that an arbitration board set up in a dispute such as this, which is essentially a labour management dispute, is not appealable.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Does the minister think they are bargaining in good faith?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think, though, that the matter will be straightened out today. Our people have been meeting with both sides --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s the Windsor matter.

Mr. Lewis: I think he’s right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes. Our people have been meeting with both sides and I’m pretty well assured that they will now sign an agreement and will get on with the arbitration.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about York?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m just as hopeful about York.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: What about the York business? Has the minister taken part in the negotiations himself? Does he intend to do so? What is the story about these sort of secret meetings that have been reported where the minister does come forward with alternatives but says that he is not participating himself in the negotiations? Why doesn’t he participate?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well actually, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is -- and I’m sure my friend, if he’s done any of this kind of mediating, knows there are times when I can participate and there are times when I cannot -- I did, in fact, participate in the negotiations toward the end of January --

Mr. Lewis: He did indeed.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Toward the end of January when we were dealing with many of the boards and at that time --

Mr. Lewis: Why didn’t the minister appoint the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon)?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- we were attempting then to avert --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That would be total failure.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We were attempting to avert --

Mr. Lewis: They could settle a year from now.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We were, in fact, attempting to avert a walkout. Unfortunately, at the 11th hour, this just didn’t come about and at that time, as I’m sure the hon. member is very aware, I was very involved and I issued a statement at the end to both parties calling upon them to go to voluntary arbitration, which was rejected and which I also called for because they failed --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister called them both irresponsible.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, and I think they both were at that time, because they failed to prevent a walkout by going to voluntary arbitration. I don’t put the blame on either side but that didn’t come about, and I felt it would have been more responsible if the walkout hadn’t occurred --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That’s one of the problems.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and that time arbitration had come about. Once the strike took place it became obvious that for all concerned a negotiated settlement would be a much better arrangement, and certainly there is no place for me in the negotiations that were going on to arrive at a negotiated settlement. The Ministry of Labour mediator, who of course, is also part of the labour-management negotiating process of this government, has been in at all their meetings. As a matter of fact he told me that he spent more time on this dispute than he had on any major labour dispute in this province.

Mr. Lewis: It shows.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He’s still sitting at the table with them and I stand ready to be of help on the thing at any time that I can, but at the moment, I think it is best served to let both the parties, with the Ministry of Labour mediator, carry on negotiations.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Has the minister informed the board of York county in no uncertain terms that pupil-teacher ratio is a negotiable condition, as he envisages it to be in Bill 275, and should be in this dispute?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the board there. They know my personal opinions and I think it should suffice that that is the extent that I should mention at this time while negotiations are going on.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A supplementary.

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

Mr. Deacon: Since there is an indication that the York county school trustees will move to resign tomorrow if a settlement has not been reached, is he prepared to set up a trusteeship in York and get the teachers back in the classrooms pending a new election of trustees?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I hate to answer these hypothetical questions.

Mr. Deacon: I think he needs to now.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend knows too that there certainly has been no indication from the majority of trustees that they are interested in resigning at this point in time. Now, if they’re all going to tender their resignations, certainly we’ll take steps to see that a new board or new trustees are elected or appointed.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the minister in favour of mass resignations in this instance?

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the minister refuse to accept the resignations?

Hon. Mr. Wells: But I’d say we’d better wait and see. I might also --

An hon. member: Do they have the right to strike?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I might also indicate to my friend that I think the School Act says that a trustee can only resign with the concurrence of a majority of his colleagues.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: What if they all resign?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There’s also something in the School’s Administration Act that prevents everybody from resigning and leaving the board without a quorum.

Mr. Lewis: How to administer it?

Mr. Foulds: Bill 274A.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West with a supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: With reference to the situation in Windsor, in the last day or two, or even prior to that, has the minister made it very clear to the Windsor separate board that pupil-teacher ratio and working conditions are both proper subject matters for arbitration?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not been asked that question. The only question I have been asked’ is --

Mr. Foulds: He just was.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The only question I have been asked is whether the Arbitrations Act applies to the arbitration in the Windsor situation. We have offered a legal opinion to that board that it does not and that the decision of the board of arbitration is not appealable on the matter of the decision. There are still, of course, certain points of law, human rights and so forth, and any violations of those can be taken to the courts in any situation.

Mr. Bounsall: Is the minister not aware that those are the very two areas that the Windsor separate board is wishing to appeal on, should they go to arbitration?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, that has never been made known to me, Mr. Speaker. I understood there were 12 items in dispute that were appended to the recommendation or the agreement that was signed to go to arbitration, and that both parties agreed they were the matters to go to arbitration. I think they are the ones that should go.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps further discussion would only constitute a debate. The hon. Leader of the Opposition?

The hon. member for Scarborough West.

COST OF LAND FOR HOUSING

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the new Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker, what specifics he has in mind to take the land supply factor out of the cost of housing by 1976?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, we have made some general statements about our programme in the future, and obviously specifics will be announced in the House in due course.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since one of the specifics that has already been --

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The minister learns fast.

Mr. Speaker: I think it is --

Mr. Lewis: And the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development isn’t even in the House, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister give us some guarantee that the increase in housing prices in Metropolitan Toronto alone -- which have jumped from $31,357 at the time of the Throne Speech of two years ago to $46,210 at the time of the Throne Speech this week -- will now cease its upward spiral by the announcements he will make, presumably, momentarily?

Mr. Roy: Let him put his career on the line.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I will guarantee only one thing -- that my ministry will do everything possible to see that that happens.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question: Since one specific figure was mentioned in the speech and that is the funds the government is prepared to commit -- the extra funds it is prepared to commit to servicing land -- is the Minister of Housing satisfied that an extra $15 million -- I believe that was the amount --

Mr. Deacon: Municipalities haven’t money to service land.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- is in fact going to improve the stock of serviced land to the extent that it is going to stabilize prices?

Mr. Lewis: Obviously not.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will read the speech again, he will note that that was an amount of money which would be spent by my colleague, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman). When our estimates are tabled he will see the amount of money that we have in our housing programme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary; surely --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Why don’t those members pitch a tent?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, does the minister’s pledge to stabilize the price of land by 1976 mean that, with the present trends of land prices in cities like Toronto and Ottawa, which will lead to the cost of a lot at about $20,000, that will be the price at which he intends to stabilize land prices?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Stabilize at $20,000.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the House --

Mr. Lewis: No, he can’t. The whole Throne Speech was bogus.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, I can’t give the House any specifics of a programme which has not yet been announced.

Mr. Lewis: Right. There is no programme.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: When the programme is announced, our goals will be announced at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, can the minister tell us if any of the supply of land for the building of the new homes referred to in the Speech from the Throne is going to come from land presently designated as parkway belt? In other words, is the parkway belt going to be removed entirely or in part or interfered with at all?

Mr. Lewis: He doesn’t know yet.

Mr. Cassidy: He doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the administration of the parkway belt, of course, is not under my ministry.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are discussions taking place at the present time.

Mr. Bounsall: The minister is trying to get some.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: An announcement will be made in due course.

Mr. Johnston: They are going to call them parkway homes.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Why, when the minister spoke to the Toronto Real Estate Association on the auspicious occasion of his first public pronouncement --

Mr. MacDonald: His maiden speech.

Mr. Lewis: -- his maiden speech as a minister, why did the minister say that the government would join with the private sector to create more housing, using precisely the same programme that his predecessor had impugned -- had said didn’t work -- just before he resigned or just before he was moved, before he ascended or whatever he did?

Mr. Foulds: Shuffled sideways.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t think this is the occasion to repeat the speech, but for the clarification of the hon. member I did say that it is going to be a tripartite arrangement --

Mr. Lewis: Tripartite?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- between the Province of Ontario, the municipalities and the private sector, and when the programme is announced the hon. member will have an opportunity to criticize its specifics.

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Supplementary: Since it was the hon. minister who said in his speech that it was the lack of serviced land which was causing the problem in housing today in the Province of Ontario -- something which we have known here for years --

Mr. Roy: Didn’t the minister say that?

Mr. Good: -- what is he going to do about it?

Mr. Singer: That is a good question.

Mr. Cassidy: Stabilize at $25,000.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Just a mild correction. I did say that the lack of serviced land was one of the major factors in the price inflation factor. And what --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Better get the shovel out.

Mr. Roy: The minister has been reading Hansard.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- we are going to do about it, I have already stated, Mr. Speaker; we will announce a programme in due course.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Lewis: Here is a question for the Minister of Housing he can answer. Is he going to undertake --

Mr. Singer: Give him a file, he will answer that in due course.

Mr. Lewis: Is he going to use more common sense than the blunderbuss approach of his predecessor and allow for an --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: -- inquiry into the government’s expropriation of land in North Pickering and its suspension of the inquiry procedure under the Expropriations Act, which is surely unprecedented?

Mr. Breithaupt: The Minister of the Environment will be interested too.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a two-part question.

In answer to the first part, I never did begin to beat my wife; and the second part, we are studying the question with the North Pickering people at the present time. I’ve already met with them and I believe that they have agreed that the procedure we are now following is almost necessary under the circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Roy: Is the Premier proud of the minister?

Mr. Speaker: That was question No. 7 on housing. I think we’ve had enough.

Mr. Lewis: That was a separate question, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Look at what has been asked.

Mr. Deacon: Will the minister advise us then --

Mr. Breithaupt: Like an end man in a minstrel show.

Mr. Deacon: -- whether or not he will pattern his procedure with North Pickering after the procedure used in the airport, where the people have got some advances on land that has been expropriated but where they are not necessarily expropriated until there is a full inquiry and there is a decision by the inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not right.

Mr. Deacon: It is, it is.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding of the Expropriation Act that a hearing of necessity is only required, or should only be held, when there is a possibility of the hearing being allowed. Under the circumstances -- there being no plan for development, because we wish to involve the people in the area in the developing of the plan -- a hearing of necessity would simply be useless, because it wouldn’t be a plan against which they could appeal.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary --

An hon. member: He’s right.

Mr. Lewis: -- the statute requires a hearing of necessity unless the minister removes it in the so-called public interest and a hearing of necessity is to see if the expropriation conforms with the objects required. Now why has the government taken away the right to a formal hearing for all of those people whose land it is expropriating?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that question in my previous remarks.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is it true that the minister’s previous answer indicated that the people who now own the land agree with him that a hearing is not required? Surely that is nonsense?

Mr. Good: That is nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: That is nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that we have explained to them the reasons why the hearings of necessity were cancelled and they understand the reasons why. I didn’t say that they agreed necessarily with them.

Mr. Lewis: Power! Raw power.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. There have been eight or nine supplementaries, which surely must be sufficient.

The hon. member for Scarborough West.

An hon. member: Be my guest.

Mr. Bullbrook: How many questions does this fellow get?

SEMINAR ON MAINTAINING NON-UNION STATUS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Labour. Is the Minister of Labour aware that Executive Enterprises Inc., based in New York, is having a seminar on how to maintain non-union status -- a union-busting seminar or an effort to prevent unions in Ontario -- at the Royal York Hotel in April of this year and has he looked into their programme?

Mr. Bullbrook: George Meany is the guest speaker.

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): No, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that this has come to my attention.

Mr. Lewis: Well, by way of supplementary, when the minister examines it, would he look at the outline of the programme, including topics like “making unions unnecessary” and “preventing the formation of unions” -- and it’s not George Meany who is the guest speaker -- but could the minister ask himself about the --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: -- propriety of a seminar leader, K. B. Dixon, director of personnel, Hamilton Civic Hospitals, and president of the Hospital Personnel Relations Bureau for Ontario; and perhaps that makes it a little clearer to the minister why there is so much discrimination and difficulty in the hospital worker sector in this province.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: I will be glad to look at that.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Not today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If not, I believe the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville has one.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY OVERTIME PERMITS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour.

In light of the ever-rising numbers of unemployed in the automotive industry -- at General Motors and Ford, particularly -- and in light of the fact that there is a continual request of the ministry for overtime, is the minister considering either not issuing any more overtime permits, or at least hingeing the number of overtime permits being given according to some percentage of the number of unemployed in the industry?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have of course, two types of overtime permits. Some have to do with general permits which will allow 100 hours of overtime for employees for one year. We don’t think that this will have any effect at all. However, we also have special permits -- and I’m looking at this at the present time to see if it does affect employment in the area.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York South.

PRICE REVIEW OF FARM SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Since the premiers of the four western provinces decided last week at their meeting that they were going to set up a mechanism to review prices for the two major farm inputs of fertilizer and farm machinery in order to protect their farmers, is the Province of Ontario contemplating similar action here -- and if not, why not?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Well, Mr. Speaker, there is a conference on the fertilizer industry, which is a national conference, that starts here in Toronto on Monday morning next. It will last for two days. But as far as a price review of fertilizer and machinery parts is concerned -- no, we have not contemplated this.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, I return if I might by way of supplementary: Obviously the western premiers were aware of this national conference next week and deemed this to be an appropriate action for the protection of their farmers. Does the minister not think there is an obligation on the part of this government to protect Ontario farmers, or is it going to let the governments of western Canada do it incidentally to the extent they can?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, perhaps we’ll see what the results are, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the three western provinces that have NDP governments have never succeeded in anything yet, and I’ll be surprised if they do so on this.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It’s almost a political partisan reply.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: Is the minister --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Well, the hon. member for York South asked a supplementary. I will come back to him.

Mr. Lewis: But that was a political answer.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River has a supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, the minister being so sharp I hate to take him on, but I wonder if the minister can give us any indication of what his department is doing about the high cost of things like fertilizer and also twine, which I understand is in short supply? And would the minister not agree that the Province of Ontario should have a prices review board in which these prices can be reviewed by a committee of this Legislature to justify the increases in these commodities?

An hon. member: It is NDP policy -- the member has taken it up now.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, we are vitally concerned in the cost of the inputs of agricultural food production.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I believe that one of the ways to resolve the matter, as my hon. friend so rightly brings to our attention and with which we are all concerned, is to generate increased sources of supply, and how that is accomplished is the main objective that I would like to see tackled. I believe we have to recognize that for a great many years in the matter of twine, we will say, which is a commodity that very seldom is raised on the floor of this House, is a matter that simply is reflected on the low cost of production over a great many years.

With the cheap steel prices of a few years ago, Japan went into the production of wire for baling purposes. They undercut all the markets by the introduction of this cheap baler wire. The result was that many of the hemp or twine manufacturing operations just couldn’t compete and they dropped out of the business.

Along with that, plastic twine came on the market and with the shortage of energy that we are all very much aware of today, the byproducts of the oil industry are not available for the continued manufacture in volume of plastic twine.

The problem is further complicated, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that steel prices now have escalated. There is a general apparent steel shortage throughout the world. Japan is no longer interested in producing cheap wire twine for baling purposes and that product is off the market.

Now where do we go? The hemp industry is largely out of business, or at least not in a position to produce as it has been in the past, and with the apparent scarcity the price has escalated to about three times what it was a year ago. Now we are trying to get that resolved.

Largely the same thing applies as far as fertilizer is concerned and I would hope we would be able to get somewhere with that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York South has a supplementary.

Mr. MacDonald: A non-partisan supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to parallel the minister. Since a gentleman by the name of Lougheed was an enthusiastic participant in that decision involving the four western provinces, isn’t it possible that the minister might catch up with him?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Just for the record, he’s a separatist statesman.

Mr. MacDonald: Does the minister mean he is going to do nothing?

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further answer to that supplementary? If not, the hon. member for Ottawa East was on his feet previously.

INQUIRY ON BUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Labour.

Undoubtedly the minister is familiar with the evidence given before the royal commission on organized crime in the construction industry in the Ottawa area. Evidence was given that certain Montreal unions are trying to move into the Ottawa-Hull sector, using intimidation against not only union officials but certain Ottawa contractors. Has the minister considered getting together with his colleague in Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Cournoyer, and possibly working out this problem by attempting to get him to put pressure on unions to stop this intimidation against workers on the Ontario side?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did get in touch with the Minister of Labour and Manpower of Quebec on several occasions already, not only on this matter but on other matters as well.

Mr. Roy: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister to give consideration as well to discussing with that minister the fact that Ontario tradesmen are not allowed to work in the Province of Quebec, whereas the Quebec tradesmen are allowed to work in this province? Would he consider discussing that problem with them, as it is a problem not only in Ottawa-Hull but in the minister’s area of Cornwall?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: That’s right. The problem exists all along the Ottawa River, I would say. I have spoken to the Minister of Labour of Quebec.

I think it is the intention of the construction industry commission of Quebec to do away with the credit system. It is my understanding that presently there are hearings being held in the Province of Quebec and the Quebec Federation of Labour is, of course, opposing it for perhaps other reasons.

But in any event, we do correspond and it is my intention to meet with the minister fairly soon to try to resolve this problem. It is really a problem which has existed for some time, but is perhaps more acute in recent months.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

ARBITRATION BOARD FOR CAAT DISPUTE

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, a question, in the absence of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld), of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: Is the provincial secretary aware that a picket line has been set up protesting the makeup of the Public Service Arbitration Board, which was to arbitrate a dispute between the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology faculties and the Council of Regents representing the Crown?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that, but I understand that the Treasurer has a report on that.

Mr. Laughren: Well then, Mr. Speaker; if I could redirect the question to the Treasurer?

Mr. Lewis: Chairman of the Management Board.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): He’s prepared to answer it.

Mr. Laughren: Chairman of the Management Board?

An hon. member: That should be good.

Mr. Stokes: He is not the Treasurer, he is the Chairman of the Management Board.

Mr. Laughren: Is the Chairman of the Management Board aware of the picket line that has been set up and why it has been set up? And further, would he make a recommendation, or at least make a commitment, that the Public Service Arbitration Board will be reconstructed in such a way that there will be an appointment from each side in this dispute; and then that the chairman be a mutually-agreeable selection, not one appointed by the government so that it is weighted two to one in favour of the Crown?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the fact that such a picket line has been established outside of the Royal York Hotel where the meetings were arranged to begin, I believe this morning. Prior to the committee convening the picket line was established and the employees’ team that was to discuss the matters currently in dispute decided they would not, under these circumstances, continue.

Now we, as the government, are satisfied with Judge Anderson. I might say that Judge Anderson was appointed with agreement of the CSAO and the government, and I am confident that he can solve the present matter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There are only a few minutes remaining and there are numerous members who want to ask a question. I think, if the members will bear with me, I will restrict the supplementaries at this time. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce is next.

NUCLEAR ENERGY PROGRAMME

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Energy: In view of the minister’s impressive display of knowledge in the debate with Ralph Nader --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: I understand Nader wants to recycle the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: Would the minister investigate, if he is concerned enough, why the Atomic Energy Control Board in Ottawa refuses to meet with nuclear scientists in the USA on a TV debate to show the people the danger of radiation and contamination by nuclear power; and secondly, will he tell us the wisdom of investing $38 million in a new coal mine in Green county, Pennsylvania, and consorting with US Steel?

The minister is talking about cheap power, nuclear power; but a $15 billion programme is $5 million in interest today. How is that cheap power? So those three questions, I would like the minister to answer.

An hon. member: He has 30 seconds.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question, I would suggest, might better be sought by the member from some of his friends in Ottawa. I am certainly not about to answer in this House for the emanations of the Atomic Energy Control Board, which is a federal government board.

The answer to the second question, as to why we invested $38 million in a coal mine, is because we wanted the coal.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

WEEKEND ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Roy: The Minister of Energy didn’t look so good with Nader.

Mr. Stokes: Will the minister undertake to find out why a road that’s under the responsibility of his ministry is not taken care of on weekends, namely the road between Gull Bay and Armstrong? Has he had no complaints that the road is impassable on many weekends because the contract that the ministry has now doesn’t provide for weekend maintenance?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

INQUIRY ON BUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General now able to advise us on results of the police investigation into the statements made by Mr. Ab Shepherd, counsel for the royal commission on building, the inquiry which is being conducted by His Honour Judge Waisberg, concerning gifts made to senior civil servants of the Ontario Housing Corp.? Have any charges been laid, or are there going to be charges laid? Are the terms of reference given to His Honour Judge Waisberg going to be expanded and is there going to be any further investigation ordered by the government into the continuing affairs of the Ontario Housing Corp.?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of the hon. member’s question is still being investigated. I am really not prepared to expand on that at this time.

Mr. Singer: How long does this investigation go on?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Until such time as it is completed.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

STAFF UNREST AT OAK RIDGES

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. What is the Minister of Health doing about the unrest in the staff at Oak Ridges, as set out in a letter by the Civil Service Association of Ontario last week?

Mr. Laughren: Just since his appointment, too!

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have not as yet had an opportunity to see that letter, but I would be pleased to look into it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York-Forest Hill.

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Would the Minister of Transportation and Communications explain why there has been a delay in the awarding of the guideway and stations contracts for the Krauss-Maffei experiment at the CNE, which were promised for December and January?

Mr. Good: Because he’s the minister of the automobile.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take it as notice and perhaps answer later.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s a good idea.

Mr. Lewis: That shows aplomb.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

COMPENSATION OF VICTIMS OF SILICOSIS

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour regarding the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Has any agreement yet been reached with British Columbia and Quebec to enable Ontario victims of silicosis, whose exposure was in those provinces, to be compensated through the Ontario Workmen’s Compensation Board?

Mr. Stokes: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say for sure. Did the hon. member say British Columbia?

Mr. Burr: British Columbia and Quebec.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: And Quebec. Well, I know that at one point there had been negotiations with some of the provinces to try to compensate victims of silicosis, based on the number of years or months that they have lived in one province or the other. As of late, I don’t think there has been any change, but it is my understanding that the WCB are still negotiating with some of the provinces.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Roy: Could we move to extend it about an hour, Mr. Speaker? We haven’t got anything else to do this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: I might inform the hon. members that the Clerk has received a question to the Minister of Natural Resources, but the member who placed the question did not indicate his name on the question. Perhaps he would so advise the Clerk.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. White presented the Public Accounts, 1972-1973, volume two, “Financial Statements of Crown Corporations, Boards and Commissions,” and volume three, “Details of Expenditures.”

Mr. Bullbrook: What does the Treasurer think of the report of the Ontario Economic Council?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Snow presented the report of the Public Service Superannuation Board for the year ended March 31, 1973.

Mr. Lewis: They’ll never publish another report like that, now that they’re in his ministry.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): The member had better read those before endorsing them.

Mr. Lewis: That would be critical.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the standing committees of the House for the present session be appointed as follows:

1. Procedural affairs committee.

2. Administration of justice committee.

Committees 1 and 2, combined under the chairmanship of the chairman of the administration of justice committee, will function as the private bills committee.

3. Social development committee.

4. Resources development committee.

5. Miscellaneous estimates committee.

6. Public accounts committee.

7. Regulations committee.

Which said committees shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House, provided that all boards and commissions are hereby referred to committees No. 1 to 4 in accordance with the policy areas indicated by the titles of the said committees.

Public accounts for the last fiscal year are hereby referred to the public accounts committee and all regulations to the regulations committee.

All standing committees shall report from time to time their observations and opinions on the matters referred to them, with the power to send for persons, papers and records.

That there be no duplication of membership among committees No. 1 to 4 inclusive, or between committees No. 5 to 7 inclusive.

That substitutions be permitted on any committee while considering estimates referred to it, provided that notice of the substitution is given to the chairman of the committee prior to commencement of the meeting.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak briefly on the motion. We’re aware that, on the recommendation of the Camp commission, an additional whip has been provided for each of the parties with the understanding there is going to be a considerable increase, if we follow the recommendation of the Camp commission, in the work of the committees, something that is, in my view, desirable.

The point is that these whips are presently available. Their services will, I hope, show an improvement in the work of these committees during this session.

In specific reference to the work of the committees, I would have this to say. To begin with, the regulations committee has been shown to be completely useless. The terms of reference that have been laid down by the majority on that committee have forbidden the members to examine into the usefulness of the regulations. Their application is only as to whether the statutes to which they refer have specific authority for the promulgating of regulations.

I think you’re aware, Mr. Speaker, that that committee has been essentially functionless. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that it meets only sufficiently often so that the chairman would get the additional indemnity associated with it. In my view, that committee should have its terms of reference improved, amended and changed so that, in fact, it can review the law-making powers that apparently go to the government with the passage of certain statutes and that show themselves in the formulation of regulations.

We’re aware in many areas that the lack of regulations prohibits and retards the establishment of the concepts and principles of the laws passed by this Legislature. This apparently is a matter of policy on the part of the government, particularly in the establishment of such things as a new welfare policy. The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) is aware, I’m sure, that the postponement of the establishment of these regulations has, in fact, nullified the decisions taken by this House with regard to certain programmes that he himself has put before us. I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we should not approve the establishment of a regulations committee unless its terms of reference are brought up to date so that it can be useful.

The second thing I would like to refer to is the fact that we in this Legislature are going to be concerned not only with important legislation pertaining to education, but also with far-reaching and important legislation pertaining to health services. In both of these particularly important ministries, spending by far the largest share of our provincial budget, there are going to be new pieces of legislation brought forward, compendiums and omnibuses of old legislation with many new principles involved.

An hon. member: Omnibi!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Omnibi? Pardon me! If we are going to have our work in this Legislature restricted by the fact that important legislation, not the least of which is the proposed legislation governing the negotiations between teachers and school boards, is going to be channelled into a bottleneck in a single committee, which is apparently going to have to deal with much more important legislation than any other committee, then the associated public hearings will be inadequate.

I personally feel, Mr. Speaker, that we should establish a committee on education, and that it is a serious matter indeed that our rules have not provided for this over the last few years. I have spoken about this before, but this year it is particularly necessary, when the school administration statutes are going to be put together, when the bills pertaining to teacher-board negotiations will undoubtedly have lengthy and important public hearings.

Although a health disciplines Act is not referred to in the Speech from the Throne it is expected to be brought forward. Surely we would be wise indeed if we made an amendment now to the particular motion that the House leader has put before us, setting up committees which could meet concurrently to handle the tremendous load of important legislation which will be put before us.

I would like, further, to suggest that utilizing Wednesdays for committee work can be justified only if, in fact, we are prepared as a Legislature to send a far higher percentage of bills to standing committee so that the community at large, and experts in particular, can bring forward their own views to the members of the Legislature who have special committee responsibilities. We have been equipped with additional facilities, party by party, to accept these responsibilities.

We are going to have legislation which will fall particularly heavily on one of these committees -- the social development committee. I would suggest to the House leader that, rather than have an amendment now and a debate on it, he might very well consider taking the steps that I believe will have to be taken some time during the session to establish an additional committee to handle the volume of work expected to be sent to them.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to make just one comment in one area. I think much of what the Leader of the Opposition said is true. It may well be we are moving towards the position where we will be dealing with much more of the legislation outside of the House than we had in the past. I have argued each year that we should have free substitution on committees, not only in the areas of dealing with estimates but also in dealing with legislation.

It must be obvious to the government that the opposition, because of its numbers, can’t have a sufficient number of people in any one committee at any given time. Therefore, if there is a bill before a committee that has the responsible member not on the committee, it is extremely difficult for him to be there and to actively take part in the discussion. I have never understood why the government hasn’t agreed to allow for free substitution on any committees, providing that substitution is made prior to the beginning of the sitting on the day in which it is to be applicable.

I know last year when I raised it the Premier indicated, as did the House leader of the government, there was a possibility that that would be done. It wasn’t done. It has caused us, and I am sure it has caused the official opposition, considerable aggravation. It has even caused the government aggravation. Why not extend that section dealing with substitution to include substitution in the committees for any purpose, provided it is done prior to the beginning of the sitting on the day during which the substitution is applicable? Then we won’t have the hassle, time after time, of worrying and trying to get the appropriate person to the committee to deal with the legislation.

It seems to me to make a lot of sense. I don’t understand what possible problems it could bring about. I would ask the House leader to accept that very simple change to what he is proposing in order that we can have a more responsive and a more satisfactory working of the various committees dealing with matters that are of importance to the public.

Mr. Bullbrook: Normally, Mr. Speaker, this is a routine matter, and it goes without too much debate. But during the course of the remarks by the hon. member for Wentworth, my colleague from Waterloo North (Mr. Good) said to me: “Do they want the standing committee system to work or do they not want it to work?”

Mr. Deans: Who? Me? No, no.

Mr. Bullbrook: No, the government. I speak of the government.

Mr. Deans: Oh, I’m sorry.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, without reservation, they don’t want it to work.

I stood in this House some months ago and pointed out that, in 1966, 44 per cent of all legislation went to standing committees. We had the public come before us and make significant input. Think of the Landlord and Tenant Act; think of the Expropriations Act, the Corporations Act, the University of Toronto Act; where we had the public -- lay people and experts -- come before us and assist us in passing legislation. And the legislation was all to the better because of it.

Mr. Singer: And Arthur Wishart encouraged it.

Mr. Bullbrook: And Arthur Wishart, who was then Attorney General, encouraged that type of public participation. Now, I want to tell the House what happened under this Premier. In the first year of the Davis regime, nine per cent of all legislation went to standing committees. Let me tell you what happened last year.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Shameful.

Mr. Roy: They should be ashamed.

Mr. Bullbrook: Three per cent of all bills tabled in this House went to a standing committee. The fact of the matter is -- and the answer to the member for Wentworth is -- the government doesn’t want the standing committees to work. They don’t want any public input. What they want, under the new superstructure of horizontal development put forward by COGP, is the development of some type of think tank. The now Attorney General, as Provincial Secretary for Social Development, certainly did not want, in connection with any of his legislative responsibilities, any public input.

Hon. Mr. Welch: That’s irresponsible.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is correct. He doesn’t want it. He wants to sit with Wright and these intellectuals upstairs and think in the abstract.

Hon. Mr. Welch: One hundred and seventeen of us that have been elected.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well listen, let me tell the House about the hospital situation in Sarnia. I wrote to him about it and I never even had the courtesy of a reply from him, because when it comes to something that is very practical he doesn’t know what is going on, and I really worry that the justice portfolio might become inert, as social development did under him. We had wonderful Attorneys General here. The minister knows that --

Mr. Singer: One has to go back a couple of years to find them.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- the executive assistant to the Premier was the best we ever had and he was the one who wanted this public --

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member is being very personal.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am not being personal. I’ve never been personal with the minister in my life. I don’t even know his name; I haven’t called him by name.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member is far too subjective.

Mr. Bullbrook: I called him the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. Is that personal?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member is being smart.

Mr. Bullbrook: Certainly I am being smart. I’m giving the minister the figures.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m giving him the figures that he knows about.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Make the point.

Mr. Bullbrook: Three per cent of all legislation went to standing committees. He doesn’t want the public to be involved.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Right.

Mr. Bullbrook: He wants that superstructure system --

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): The member can ask for it to go to standing committee.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- that took away, for example, from the cabinet, a very intelligent man --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: That is embarrassing to the Attorney General.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- who was sterilized by them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: He is right on, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t know why we go through this charade of establishing these committees if the government is not going to have the legislation referred to them. Hearken back, if you will, in a moment of seriousness, if that’s possible, to the planning legislation that was debated in this House after being brought in at the eleventh hour -- very significant legislation as far as development in the Province of Ontario is concerned. Did the minister have anything to do with that? I don’t think he did, no.

Mr. Roy: He wouldn’t understand it.

Mr. Bullbrook: But if you recall, we had to attempt to digest that legislation over a two-day period without any issuance of any kind. It was run through by a parliamentary assistant. I remember my colleague from Downsview sitting here and writing, in an extemporaneous fashion, amendments to the bill which were accepted by the parliamentary assistant. Why not give us the opportunity of taking our time, going down before a standing committee? Let the lawyers let the accountants who helped us in the Corporation Act, assist us. Let the lay people who assisted us in the Landlord and Tenant Act assist us again.

An hon. member: Let the public assist us.

Mr. Bullbrook: Let the public have an opportunity, as they do in Ottawa at the present time, to participate in the legislative process.

Mr. Lewis: It is fact, as I recall it, Mr. Speaker, that the Planning and Development Act did go to committee.

Mr. Singer: No it didn’t.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, with the Treasurer there.

Mr. Singer: Not to standing committee. It was here, the committee of the whole House.

Mr. Lewis: The committee of the whole House was here.

Mr. Good: No -- the amendments to the Planning Act.

Mr. Lewis: No, certainly one of those Planning Acts went to the committee.

Mr. Bullbrook: It might have been one of the three per cent.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Look ahead fellows, look ahead.

Mr. Lewis: I think I’m right, Mr. Speaker. I think I am correct.

Mr. Roy: I am telling the member he is correct.

Mr. Lewis: He is telling me I am? If the hon. member for Ottawa East is telling me I am correct, clearly I am. I think that in a sense puts the problem in a nutshell. It isn’t a matter of the percentages, because it is very rarely, if the opposition parties put the pressure on, that the government resists a bill going to committee. There are not that many bills which it refuses to send to committee and I concede that. The problem is that the government sends them to committee at the last minute when there is absolutely no time to mobilize the kind of public contribution which would make the committee process valid.

My colleague from Windsor West (Mr. Bounsall) reminded me of the Workmen’s Compensation Act amendments, which were very crucial amendments last year. They happened to come up for second reading on a Friday. Only because we had the weekend were we able to arrange for any representatives from the unions or from the injured workmen’s consultants to appear before the committee on the Monday and make representations.

There is a serious tendency developing in the government -- in fact, it’s kind of a critical failure -- to bring in legislation sufficiently late or sufficiently haphazardly so that the committee work is compressed into a matter of days without any adequate public notification at all. That’s because the government doesn’t see the committee system as a valid system. It sees it as a ritual appendage to the Legislature. If the government saw it as a valid system, this motion today would have in it provision for the kind of support staff for the committee system which would make it work.

I want to express something else that isn’t often expressed. I saw Douglas Fisher under the gallery, Mr. Speaker, and as I recall, the Camp commission has been sitting now for something more than a year; is that fair? I think it’s something more than a year; significantly more than a year. It bothers me that we come to yet another year and yet another Throne Speech debate and we are still trapped in the old system which all of us find so blessed rigid and frustrating. Nothing has changed in the operation of this agency and its adjuncts; nothing.

The business of the House is still chaotic. The committee system won’t work any better now than it did before. The legislation isn’t guaranteed in advance. All of the things that we presumed would flow from the Camp commission have not yet flowed. My colleague from Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) tells me that the commission is now dealing with the operation of the Legislature and that doubtless the next report will have something to say about the way in which this peculiar structure functions. All right, but we have another whole year on the old basis and that really cripples the parliamentary system around this place.

The House leader brings in this setup of committees again; it is absolutely no different from the previous year. Everybody knows in advance what an artificial, frustrated nonsensical piece of structure it is and we’ll go through the same confrontation in the House, the last minute ordeals, all the rest of it. The simple truth about it is, apart from the indifference and contempt that it tends to show for some opposition members -- and, I may say, for backbench government members who would like to participate -- what’s really so frustrating about it, the truth that lies behind it is that the government doesn’t see the Legislature of Ontario as an open forum to which the public should have access.

It is completely indifferent as a government to the emergence of public groups, community-centred groups, pressure groups, all over Ontario. It forces them to mass at Maple Leaf Gardens or on the lawns of Queen’s Park because there is no systematic funnel provided by this House for the expression of citizen discontent. None at all. Only at the 11th hour, under extreme pressure, will the government ever allow a group of people to gather to voice their views. But on really contentious issues, whether it’s land-use planning, regional government -- the regional government bills didn’t go to standing committees for examination; none of them -- or the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for those things there is never time because the government doesn’t see the public dimension of our role.

That’s the problem with this Legislature. It’s such a kind of self-centred apparatus; so much is focused inward and it so little appreciates that there is a world outside. This little resolution today simply reinforces all the old patterns. This is a privileged club. We open our doors only selectively. We’ll not allow the public to come as of right. They will only be here intermittently by invitation. We will not give to the members of the Legislature the kind of authority to examine legislation which they should have. We don’t believe in public accessibility to the political process. We see ourselves as the perpetuation of divine right, occasionally going to the electorate for approval but largely making decisions independent of their pressure, or forcing them to express their pressure in the most extreme fashion through public demonstration rather than the channels of normal debate.

It will catch up with the government. Its abuse of the process doesn’t matter. The government has got over 70 seats; the opposition has 40, or 41. But the public will catch up with the government because it can frustrate their interest in social issues only so long before it collapses around its ears -- whether it is North Pickering or whether it is Arnprior, or whether it is transmission corridors, or whether it is Highway 402, or whether it is the Algonquin Wildlands League.

They are all forced to work out there because the government closed this process up to them which should be theirs, including, let me remind the minister, the incorporation of the town of Durham. That is going to be his personal downfall, because even the Tories in Durham were not consulted in advance of what was done in the regional municipality; nor have they had any access to the Legislature because he would not allow them to go to standing committee, so they are forced to do battle in the courts.

Does the minister think the use of the public in that fashion -- to force the public to demonstrations and to the courts -- is the proper use of the parliamentary process? The government believes in confrontation; it has become addicted to confrontation. We, on the other hand, believe in moderation. We believe that a more conciliatory approach can be taken.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: What a facetious statement that is.

Mr. Lewis: Well, it had a faint ring of unction about it, Mr. Speaker, which I caught myself --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Talk about a credibility gap --

Mr. Lewis: Well, and a little problem of credibility. Nonetheless, that is my problem. Mine at least is solvable; the government’s is beyond repair -- and this resolution shows it yet again.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker I have listened, of course, with interest today. It is a little early in the session for me to allow the members across the way to raise any hackles on the back of my neck, but I would like to say to the leader of the Liberal Party in regard to his remarks on the standing committee on regulations, that it is a statutory requirement --

Mr. Roy: Who makes statutes?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Now just a moment, will the member let me conclude?

Mr. Roy: Okay, go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That particular situation will have to be changed that way. I assure him that I will take the suggestions that have been made today under consideration and we will bring together at the time of the commission on the Legislature’s report, those matters which we feel are necessary for the proper functioning of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I will say right now that as far as this government is concerned I think the remarks that were made by the leader of the NDP are totally “facatious.” I don’t think, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think --

Mr. Lewis: Point of order, point of order; point of personal privilege --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I don’t think, Mr. Speaker, that any government has --

Mr. Lewis: That may be fallacious, or that may be facetious, but it is not “facatious.”

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- sent more of its ministers and its committees out across this province to communicate with the people; and therefore his argument falls away short.

Mr. Lewis: Well, go back to the electors of Durham, but they won’t give the minister a vote; they won’t give him a vote.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Nor do we allow ourselves to get trapped into the sort of organizational trap that the leader of the NDP is in.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: And let me say a word about the town of Durham. I am continually and totally accessible to the people in Durham, which they know --

Mr. Lewis: The minister is not accessible; they have rejected him.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- each and every week of the year. If the member wants to continue with his kind of nonsense they will know he is lying like other people I know as well.

Mr. Lewis: Resign.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say. But I offer my co-operation on behalf of the government in the suggestions that were made.

Mr. Lewis: There go the hackles.

Mr. Roy: The minister made the same remarks last year -- last year he told us the same thing about --

Mr. Lewis: The electors of Durham will do him in.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Don’t worry.

Mr. Lewis: I am not --

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that I heard the comments of the hon. House leader but --

Mr. Lewis: It is who they vote for that worries me.

Mr. Speaker: But I think if there had been something wrong the hon. member for Scarborough West would have risen on a point of order.

Those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that a select committee of 13 members be appointed to prepare and report with all convenient despatch a list of members to compose the standing committees ordered by the House, such committee to be composed as follows:

Mr. Carruthers. chairman; Messrs. Allan, Deans, Beckett, Henderson, Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton), MacBeth, Maeck, Newman (Windsor-Walkerville), Smith (Simcoe East), Stokes, Worton and Yakabuski.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I will move the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Singer: What about the business of bills and stuff?

Mr. Speaker: We were dealing with motions. Introduction of bills.

Mr. Roy: If the government doesn’t have any bills ready, we do.

Mr. Speaker: Are there bills to introduce?

Mr. Singer: Yes, I have a bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury was on his feet with a bill.

DENTURE THERAPISTS ACT

Mr. Germa moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Denture Therapists Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, the amendment removes the dental hygienists and the dental technicians from the Denture Therapists Licensing Board and replaces them with two more denture therapists, increasing the number of denture therapists on the board to four.

In section 2, the amendment removes a requirement that the denture therapists work under the supervision of a dental surgeon. It would also allow the denture therapists to deal directly with the public, but only where the patient can produce a certificate of oral health signed by a dental surgeon or a legally qualified medical practitioner.

In section 3, the limitation period for commencing a proceeding under clause (b) of subsection 1 of section 16 of the Act is changed from two years to one year.

And in section 4, the amendment provides that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations setting fees to be charged by denture therapists.

DENTISTRY ACT

Mr. Germa moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend the Dentistry Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, this bill is complementary to the Denture Therapists Amendment Act, 1974, which would allow denture therapists to deal directly with the public.

MEDICAL COMPLAINTS PROCEDURES ACT

Mr. Singer moves first reading of bill intituled, the Medical Complaints Procedures Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a system in the Province of Ontario whereby people who believe that they have complaints about medical procedures affecting them are going to have available to them, when this bill passes, a board which can review them.

The board will consist of medical people, legal people, members of the public. The board will have the power to review and suggest remedies and/or award damages. There will be reasonable limitation periods for these complaints to be brought forward. There will be a panel of doctors maintained who will be available to give independent evidence when matters of this sort come up, and who will be available to those people who believe they have complaints to make.

These suggestions, Mr. Speaker, are not arrived at lightly, but emanate from a series of debates in the estimates of the Minister of Health over several years. The ministry has done nothing in this regard at all. The situation is difficult and presents great hazards to many members of the public who have no way of coping with what they feel on occasion are very serious personal problems. The bill will remedy many of these difficulties.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 3:25 o’clock, p.m.