Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mrs. M. Scrivener (St. David): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to draw your attention to an article published on page 5 of this morning’s Globe and Mail, which refers to the member for St. David. By its wording and presentation -- and there is no qualification -- I believe the Globe and Mail has published a statement which is misleading and inaccurate, and which implies that I am against co-operative housing. Mr. Speaker, this is not true.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It certainly is true.

Mrs. Scrivener: The article in question specifically refers to my opposition to a co-operative housing proposal in Don Vale, although, Mr. Speaker, I have publicly stated that I opposed this particular proposal on the grounds that it is badly planned, would consume valuable open space and is below the minimum standards required for similar residential development in the city of Toronto.

Mr. Lewis: The member is destructive of co-op housing. She always has been.

Mrs. Scrivener: Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It is not a question of personal privilege.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It is a debate.

Mrs. Scrivener: -- I wish to set the record straight and place the matter in proper and truthful context --

Mr. Renwick: There is no privilege involved in that. The Globe and Mail statement is perfectly accurate.

Mrs. Scrivener: -- by presenting to you a public statement which I made on Jan. 22, 1974, and an article I wrote which was published in Seven News at the end of January. These describe my reasons for not supporting the co-operative housing project in Don Vale.

Mr. Renwick: It is a perfectly accurate statement in the Globe and Mail and couldn’t have been more accurate if I had written it myself.

Mrs. Scrivener: I hope that these can be included in the Hansard record.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Globe and Mail should print a correction of its statement.

Mr. Lewis: The Globe and Mail was dead on. The member opposed that project and she is on record as opposing it.

Mr. MacDonald: It is a debate.

Mr. Lewis: She doesn’t like co-op housing or non-profit housing which the government now supports.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): The member opposite obviously did not have a good night’s sleep,

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has raised a matter which has been introduced as a point of privilege. Of course, if there was an inaccuracy or she was misquoted I think she has the right to rise on a point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: She wasn’t misquoted on it.

Mr. Speaker: Well, that’s the way.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): She just doesn’t like what they wrote.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member raised it as a point of privilege, and I’m not at all sure it was a point of privilege after having listened to her.

Mr. Deans: You’re right.

Mr. Lewis: You are right. You are a perceptive Speaker, a discerning man.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to introduce to the House a group from the adult day school YMCA, 40 College St., who are here with Mr. Lawlor to see us in the House. I would ask the House to welcome them. They are in the east gallery.

An hon. member: A fine looking bunch.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

EMERGENCY MEASURES PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, Hon. James Richardson, Minister of National Defence, in a statement last October, announced federal funds allocated to support the emergency measures programme in the provinces would be cut in half, from $3 million to $1.5 million.

This announcement was made without prior consultation with the provinces. Since then, Ontario and the other provinces have made representations to Mr. Richardson for some consultation on the future of the emergency measures programme in Canada. We’ve had no real success with our submissions.

This week the government of Canada further announced the formation of an emergency planning secretariat and an emergency planning establishment in Ottawa to deal with the federal response to natural or man-made crises of national scale, such as oil spills, storms, and nuclear and chemical contaminations. Again, the provinces had not been informed in advance of this restructuring. We are now awaiting the details of these latest proposals so that we can assess the effect on the province’s capability for dealing with these emergency situations.

In the interim, the government of Ontario has accepted my recommendation to provide the necessary funds to the municipalities to enable them to retain their present emergency measures planning capability to the end of this calendar year.

A study is now under way to determine how best to provide a more effective programme at provincial and municipal levels to deal with civil emergencies within the province, in the face of the greatly reduced support from the government of Canada. Since the impact of emergencies are always felt at the municipal level the study will undertake an analysis of a number of typical municipal programmes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Another one of those studies.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Very short; it will be ready by the middle of April.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Another $100,000 down the drain.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Is that a green paper or a purple one?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: In addition, it will examine the effectiveness of the provincial response to such emergencies. The representative area programmes being surveyed include Sudbury region, Windsor, Essex county, Metropolitan Toronto and Bruce county.

I am making this statement today, Mr. Speaker, so that the municipalities will have assurance of funding for their programmes during the current calendar year.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

EMERGENCY MEASURES PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General following the statement he just completed. Surely it would be possible, without a further study, to simply decide that the Ontario Provincial Police, with their excellent communications network and strong background in training, could assume the responsibilities that have been taken by the Emergency Measures Organization ever since the great atom bomb scares some years ago when the government was stockpiling signs on how to get to emergency shelters? Surely it’s time to abandon that programme and put the responsibility with the Ontario Provincial Police; stop the expense and stop the duplication?

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): He might even throw away the signs.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things the study, I’m sure, will find out.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why not just try?

Mr. MacDonald: It’s a study to escape the obvious.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: However, as the hon. member knows, the case of a civil emergency involves certainly more than the police. It involves the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. It involves all the local fire departments and other agencies --

An hon. member: Red Cross.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The most important ones.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Things like the Red Cross and other private or municipal agencies. I think if we can correlate these and set them up in a way they meet civil emergencies within our province, rather than a sort of wartime oriented structure we’ve had until now, then when -- heaven forbid -- we really have an emergency such as Hurricane Hazel or something like that the structure will be there and the direction will come from here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The structure is already there.

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, could the Solicitor General tell us if it is the government’s intention to keep up the cabinet bunker in Barrie, keep it well furnished and well stocked in case there is an emergency, so that all important cabinet ministers can run up to Barrie and be safe?

An hon. member: That liquor must be getting pretty well aged.

Mr. Renwick: Run up on the CN commuter train.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I didn’t realize we had that type of structure up there, but if we’re there it’s natural that we should be protected.

An hon. member: Thanks for letting us know. It’s nice to have a place to hide from the member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The cyanide pills are there.

Mr. Singer: Special passes.

Mr. MacDonald: Travel up on pogo sticks.

An hon. member: We’re going to have one at Minaki as well.

An hon. member: Put one up at Winisk.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Another study on that is certainly not required.

Mr. Singer: The minister should go and have a look at it.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing, in connection with his speech designating seven areas for special emergency housing programmes, why it was that he did not make more direct reference to those properties in Waterloo region and close to Brantford where there are thousands of acres owned by Ontario Housing which have never yet been designated for any programme use or service? Surely those communities should have been a part of the programme which the minister has designated as an emergency programme.

I would also like to ask him specifically how many dollars were allocated? It seems to me that the sum of $4 million was mentioned. Would he verify that this is the amount going along with this emergency programme?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the two questions are on two different programmes. First of all, despite the headline in the Globe and Mail, I did not specify seven urban centres -- and I’m reading the headline right in front of me. What I did specify, and very carefully stated, was that our housing action programme had designated the megalopolis area, Hamilton, Oshawa, Metro Toronto region, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay and Ottawa-Carleton. I don’t think that adds up to seven. It was very specifically couched in general terms because we have not yet reached an agreement with any of the municipalities.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Give us that again? “Very specifically couched in general terms”?

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): The member had better hone up on his vocabulary and he might understand it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: With regard to the area that the hon. Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, it has not been involved in our preliminary studies of housing action areas. I would be glad to look at it. What we are concerned with at the present time is the price crisis which exists. We are trying to get into the areas which will be the most amenable to expanded development of land, to create the oversupply that we are trying to achieve; but I will certainly take a look at the areas the hon. opposition leader has mentioned.

The second part of the question refers to my statement yesterday on non-profit housing. What I said was that in our estimates this year there is an amount of $4 million to enable us to start the programme for the first year. That will cover the 10 per cent grants, the expertise and the assistance in planning, as well as the rent supplement programme that’s encompassed in that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister would undertake to table in the House a complete list of properties that might be said to be part of Ontario Housing’s land bank. We refer frequently to the Malvern properties, which have been held for many years, and the large acreage in Kitchener-Waterloo -- I am not sure how big it is, but is it as big as 10,000 acres?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Three thousand acres

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Three thousand, yes

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Three thousand acres. And the 1,000 acres in Brantford are readily memorable because they have been referred to in the House so frequently.

Surely the idea of banking these properties near large expanding urban centres is to utilize them, through services, when the time is ripe -- and if the time was ever ripe it is now. It seems to me that the Minister of Housing ought to move into these land bank areas, to see that they are serviced and that the serviced lots are provided without further delay.

I wonder, then, if the minister could undertake to table a complete list of the land holdings of Ontario Housing not yet developed; those that might be said to form a part of the land bank such as it is?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at first glance it appears to be a reasonable request and I will certainly look into it. I can’t think of any reason right now why that information cannot be made public --

Mr. Deans: Given time, he will come up with one.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: However, I am quite sure the hon. member understands --

Mr. Lewis: It has been on the public record in bits and pieces.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- that OHC is constantly in the process of acquiring land, and I am sure he wouldn’t want us to divulge acquisition plans that are now in progress which might assist speculators.

Mr. Stokes: Way to go!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I am talking about land that has been acquired up until now.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker! Since it is now approximately 6½ months since the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced the housing action programme, which was intended to bring some 60,000 or 70,000 additional lots to market than would have come in the normal process, can the Minister of Housing tell us exactly how many additional lots so far have been brought to market by the housing action programme?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They call it the housing “action” programme?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): We are always very conservative.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I replied to a question on this a short time ago, and the hon. member knows the housing action programme is just now getting off the ground.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I may be able to take some comfort in the fact that apparently it was waiting for me to take charge. I am taking charge, and I will get on with the job as quickly as possible.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Is that why the ministry had an advertisement in the Globe and Mail at the end of February to hire a housing co-ordinator at a level of $25,000 to formulate various short-term housing programmes? I mean, not a thing has happened yet. The minister hasn’t a single plan to tell us about, the number of serviced lots or the amount of money to be invested. He has just put out advertisements for his housing coordinator. The whole policy is a sham and has been throughout.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right, all words.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t accept that. It is a comment, not a question. Yes, we have advertised for housing co-ordinators. We are appointing them. These people are to be located in local areas so they can get to work with the local municipalities.

Mr. Lewis: It is “co-ordinator” -- not plural. There was nothing plural about it.

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

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if he will table the report having to do with solid waste disposal, referred to in the newspaper this morning, which seems to reverse the opinions stated by many so-called authorities on the disposal of soft drink and other drink containers? Has he got that report available and why have we not had a copy of it here in the Legislature before we read about it in the press?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): I don’t know why hon. members don’t have a copy. I just got mine and I haven’t had a chance to study it in detail. I have just received it. I would hope to table it in the House in the very near future.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is there a possibility that the government will ever follow up on the commitment made, I believe, by the present Solicitor General in one of his previous incarnations as having something to do with the environment, when he said there would be legislation controlling the non-returnable containers which have added so tremendously to the solid waste disposal problem?

Mr. MacDonald: That is still to be studied.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Regulation.

Hon. W. Newman: Many of these things were covered in --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I haven’t read this report. The same people who talked to the Premier have talked to me, and apparently they are wrong.

I’m sorry, what is the minister going to do?

Hon. W. Newman: I didn’t know whether the hon. member wanted an answer or not. Well, certainly we are going to study the report and there will be certain things in the report that we’ll be taking action on. I haven’t had a chance to read the report. I have just had it on my desk since yesterday.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Has it been drawn to the minister’s attention that the man who did the research for the report indicates that the non-returnable bottle portion constitutes about 6.7 per cent of the solid waste and that the other 93 per cent is not being studied by the ministry in any aspect? What is the minister going to do about that?

Hon. W. Newman: In the report there are many matters that were studied and apparently in the conclusions they have recommended an ongoing study of the other matters. I said I haven’t read it in detail yet.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have no more questions, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Housing --

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): Does the Leader of the Opposition just ask questions for which I am responsible when I am out of the city. Is that how it works?

SEVERANCE PAYMENT TO AGENT GENERAL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, perhaps you will permit me just one more question.

I wonder if the Treasurer can tell the House if he was personally responsible for the decision to fire Allan Rowan-Legg and to pay him severance pay well beyond the amount permitted by the regulations and statutes of Ontario, and then to see that his campaign manager was fitted into that particular job in London, England -- since he is so anxious to answer.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Was the Treasurer over there visiting?

Hon. Mr. White: I was personally --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The question was asked once of the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler), who must of course have had something to do with those decisions.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, we have been over these jumps several times in the last several years.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have not had an answer from the Chairman of the Management Board.

Hon. Mr. White: I was personally responsible for relieving Mr. Rowan-Legg of his duties in London, England, because I didn’t think he was suitable for the kind of job I wanted done.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And the Treasurer was looking for a vacancy.

Hon. Mr. White: I had him removed here to Toronto, where an effort was made to locate him, without success. When it became apparent that we couldn’t locate him within the ministry or in any other ministry, I obtained advice from the Attorney General’s department. We were required to get outside advice, because Mr. Rowan-Legg got himself a lawyer --

Mr. Singer: The nerve of him!

Hon. Mr. White: We paid a sum of money, which I was told on the best advice of the Attorney General’s department and the outside solicitor, was less than he would have been awarded if we had taken the matter to court. Now that is the situation. And if the public accounts committee want to go into those details, they are free to do so.

Mr. MacDonald: It’s reminiscent of the way Hepburn operated.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): He didn’t even pay severance!

Hon. Mr. White: Now, insofar as Ward Cornell is concerned, he had all of the attributes; it had nothing to do with whether or not he worked for me.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He went out of sacrifice, great economic sacrifice.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: And the Leader of the Opposition must be the only person in this chamber who is not aware that Ward Cornell has done a superlative job in every way.

Mr. Renwick: The Treasurer certainly got fuelled up while he was away.

Hon. Mr. White: Everyone, including Liberals, who goes to London, England, knows this is a fact. Why he would take that job at something less than $30,000 when he was making $80,000 in his own business, I don’t know. I suppose it was for the same reason that he joined the Canadian Army during the war --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: Now, I want to say these kinds of cheap, personal shots are no substitute for Liberal policy. No wonder the hon. member is sitting over there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Does the Treasurer believe that the Provincial Auditor’s criticism of his stance in this was a cheap, personal shot? How is he going to justify the criticism that came from the Provincial Auditor that the money for the severance was above and beyond the regulations?

A further supplementary: I would like to ask the Treasurer how Mr. Rowan-Legg could have been maintained in this high and lucrative office in London, England, when he was completely incompetent, as far as the Treasurer has said, and could not be placed in government service?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. White: I think Mr. Rowan-Legg is competent in many ways. I think Mr. Rowan-Legg is probably one of the best diplomats that one could hire. I don’t think he’s a hard-hitting salesman. I wanted to change the nature of Ontario House from some kind of soft, service operation to a hard-hitting sales promotional operation --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A service centre for Tories.

Mr. Stokes: Why didn’t the Treasurer bring Stanley Randall back?

Hon. Mr. White: -- and in my view Mr. Rowan-Legg didn’t have those particular qualities. Now insofar as the Provincial Auditor’s report is concerned --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes?

Hon. Mr. White: -- I am a little bit surprised that some effort wouldn’t be made to look into the file on the subject and see that we had no recourse in the matter, based on the advice of the Attorney General’s lawyers and an outside lawyer who was retained to deal with Mr. Rowan-Legg’s lawyer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Table it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If you will permit a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Treasurer not acute enough to realize that the criticism directed in this matter is against him and not the incumbent of the post? We are not talking about the present incumbent’s qualifications at all, other than it appears that he had an office opened up for him at the decision of his friend, the Treasurer.

An hon. member: Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No way.

An hon. member: That’s cheap.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Cheap? The minister is cheap. He is incompetent.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it to be --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition should not be --

Hon. Mr. White: No wonder the NDP are the opposition around here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: No wonder this government is going to cease being the government around here.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: We don’t want any more of that.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we accept the validity of that but we reject what is being said by the minister.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Now the member for Ottawa Centre is going to spoil it all.

Mr. Lewis: Does my colleague have a supplementary?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I do have a supplementary. This is a wider question on government policy, as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the payment to Mr. Rowan-Legg, is it now government policy that in the case of secretaries, carpenters and other working people who are fired by the government, that they, too, will be paid a year’s salary or more?

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Does the member recommend that? Is he recommending that?

Mr. Cassidy: As a golden handshake?

Hon. Mr. White: I suppose if somebody gets a lawyer in certain circumstances and threatens to bring suit and we, in turn, get a lawyer, and a settlement is made, I suppose, in certain circumstances --

Mr. MacDonald: To him who hath, the more is given!

Mr. Cassidy: It is a law for the rich and another for the poor.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

An hon. member: He must be overpaid if he hires a lawyer.

An hon. member: Does the member need a lawyer, too?

Mr. Lewis: At the risk of imperilling the minister’s new-found regard for this party, could I ask him --

Hon. Mr. Davis: How does the member know it is new?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: -- to table the material on the Rowan-Legg situation since the point that fascinates me, I must say, is that he would have had sufficient grounds on which to threaten suit to inspire an out-of-court settlement? Therefore, I think we are entitled to know what the circumstances were.

Hon. Mr. White: I really do believe, if the member wants to pursue the matter further, that it should be done in the public accounts committee where there will be access to the officials who were involved in the technical detail, which I must say, were beyond my comprehension.

Mr. Lewis: All right then; that’s fine.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Housing.

As part of the housing action programme, I noticed that Mr. Martin, the co-ordinator, said that the Ontario Housing Corp. will build 17,000 units instead of 10,000 units over the next two years. My arithmetic tells me that on the part of OHC that is a burst of extravagance of 7,000 additional units over a two-year period. Does that work out to 3,500 units a year? How, may I ask, is that going to help? That’s for the whole province. How is that going to help even Metro Toronto where there are now 8,000 families on the waiting list?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Where does the member want to build them?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I believe Mr. Martin was talking about the entire OHC programme, not simply rent supplement units.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. He was talking about the whole programme.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He also may have been somewhat on the conservative side in his estimates.

Mr. Lewis: Oh!

Mr. MacDonald: What does the member expect him to be?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I have asked for those figures. The preliminary estimate I have is that we will well exceed that amount; but it is also my understanding -- and I’ll check into it -- that that is a one-year figure, not a two-year figure. They were talking about 17,000 in 1974-1975.

Mr. Lewis: I would appreciate the minister’s checking into it, because I suspect that Mr. Martin’s information is the authentic information.

I want to ask quite seriously how the minister can possibly pretend to have any housing programmes at all, of any consequence, when every figure that emerges puts us further and further behind the accepted public need? Can he consider a programme to build 50,000 to 100,000 units a year rather than 3,500 to 7,000?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I know the hon. member would like the government to build all the units in the province. Our housing starts total -- and I am not just talking about OHC -- is well in excess of the 50,000 or 60,000 that the hon. member has mentioned.

Mr. Lewis: I am talking about OHC.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: OHC is not about to build all the houses and all the units required in this province.

Mr. Lewis: I am not asking for all the housing.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We are working with the municipalities and the private sector. I have said it before. There is a philosophical difference between the hon member and myself. We are going to depend greatly on the private sector for delivery.

Interjections by hon members.

Mr. Deans: And the minister will fail because they have failed.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: However, we will have our input.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Havrot: The best in the world.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister claims credit for the fact that housing starts in the province are up. Is he aware that housing starts in Metro Toronto last year were down by 10 per cent?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: In Hamilton city they were down by 15 per cent; in London they were down by 28 per cent; in St. Catharines they were down by 10 per cent; and in Windsor they were down by 36 per cent?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Question.

Mr. Cassidy: Does he feel that that means the government is meeting the housing demand in the areas of greatest need?

Mr. MacDonald: Or his friends in the private sector?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Unlike the hon, member I prefer to look ahead and say that we will do the job in 1974-1975.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for St. George.

Mr. MacDonald: No wonder they change the ministry so often over there.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When is the Minister of Housing going to start to correct the situation criticized in the Ontario Economic Council report? When is he going to stop talking about building a unit? When is he going to actually attack the disease in this province and service the land and bring it in here to this House?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Don’t you dare bring the serviced lands in here!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Sometimes I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member listens to the preceding debate and the preceding questions.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: “Action” programme!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s exactly what we are attempting to do.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is interested in providing housing, will he move into the Saltfleet Mountain area where Ontario Housing Corp. have adequate land to build for the needs of 80,000 people --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: -- and will he put the money in that is necessary to enable it all to be serviced within the next two years? And will he put that land on the market in order that people in the area can have housing at a cost that they can afford?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’ll certainly look into that. I’ve been meeting and will continue to meet with the regional municipalities to discuss the ways and means in which we can co-operate in bringing this type of land onto the market as quickly as possible.

Mr. Lewis: He is worse than his predecessor.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I think we’ll permit --

Mr. Lewis: He is worse than his predecessor and that’s not possible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary? One more supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister tell the House if OHC has alternate plans for providing senior citizen housing in Thunder Bay, in view of the cancellation of the project in Fort William because of the cosy relationship between the chairman of OHC and the member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman)?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): That’s not true.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, I know of the cancellation of that project. I’ll look into what alternative plans they have and reply to the hon. member later.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. A supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that the needs of the senior citizens in the city of Windsor are not decreasing? Is he aware that the needs are still for well over 1,200 units and approximately 800 family units; and that at the rate Ontario Housing is attempting to remedy the situation it will never be remedied?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, I don’t accept that it will never be remedied but I will look into that one too for the hon. member and report back to him as to the progress we are making.

Interjection by an hon. member.

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

DROPPING OF CHARGES ARISING FROM ARTISTIC WOODWORK DISPUTE

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to ask of the Solicitor General, if I may, would he consider recommending to the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) that all of the outstanding charges that flowed from the Artistic Woodwork dispute be now dropped, given the fact that only 41 or 43 convictions have been found out of over 91 charges laid, and given the incredible differences of opinion and evidence that are being offered between the police on the one hand and the public on the other, often discrediting the police?

Does he not think that it has come to the point where that whole squalid episode of police involvement, particularly since the task force report is now before us, might well be rescued by a sensible and intelligent submission on his part to the Attorney General to have the charges dropped and the behaviour of the police looked into, indeed as is implied in the report in places?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has implied, these matters have been heard now for some weeks; charges have been laid, there have been convictions, there have been acquittals. I really don’t see how I could recommend to the Attorney General that the balance of those charges be dropped.

Certainly there can’t be a difference in the way we apply the laws of this province, in the way the due process of the administration of justice is carried out.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): That is something new that I just learned today.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is my understanding now, particularly in the last several hearings, that the matters are being expedited and that there are more acquittals because of a great deal of confusion in the evidence; but I really don’t see how I could make the recommendation suggested by the hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: One-sided use of law.

Mr. Reid: Isn’t it a fact that the company did hire an undercover man, someone who infiltrated the union and who was subsequently charged for causing public mischief and with other charges as a result of activities on the picket line, and whose job seemed to be to put the union in a bad light as well as doing undercover work and relaying that information to the company?

Does the Solicitor-General not feel that some charges should perhaps be laid against the company in this regard, and in view of the kind of activities this man engaged in that perhaps the charges against the rest of those people who were involved should be dropped?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the so-called undercover agent --

Mr. Lewis: So-called? He was an industrial spy.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- acted, certainly, exceeding any type of instructions that he had. As the hon. member has said he was charged. He was convicted of at least one offense. I believe there were at least two charges against him.

Mr. Stokes: Even the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) can’t swallow that.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He was dismissed by his employer. Any licence that he had has been cancelled.

Mr. MacDonald: After he had done his job.

Mr. Lewis: He got paid for his work.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Certainly if the firm was in breach of any existing law, it should be charged. I agree with that, but that doesn’t really --

Mr. Cassidy: That is sickening.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think we should alternate on the supplementaries.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is proving it is an uneven application of the law.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That doesn’t really relate to the situation as enunciated by the hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Deans: Well, more to the point, when is the Solicitor-General going to move to put an end to the use of these investigation agencies in labour disputes, and when is he going to move to make the people who hire them equally responsible for their actions, in order to ensure that we don’t have the kind of things happening on picket lines that have been occurring in the Province of Ontario at the instigation of people who have no direct interest in the dispute itself?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As the hon. member knows, we have legislation dealing with private police organizations and so-called security firms and we hope to look at that legislation this year.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is as bad as the member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko) used to be.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister aware that this man was employed by a subsidiary of an American company and that he was in here disrupting an orderly picket line and causing a lot of trouble for the people who are not even in the dispute, and he may well have instigated much of the damage that occurred?

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: How does the minister say we have legislation when the task force review which was published yesterday asked on an urgent basis for “a specific and comprehensive review of private security forces” dealing precisely with this kind of dispute? Does he not recognize that the private security sector is in a shambles and often abused, and that there are no protections for the public if they abuse it?

Mr. Deans: And no code of ethics.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No. The taskforce has said, Mr. Speaker, that our existing legislation and the regulations are inadequate and that the whole thing should be reviewed.

Mr. Lewis: Right, so don’t fall back on that.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: And we intend to do that.

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

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Treasurer, if I may, Mr. Speaker. When did the Treasurer proclaim the development controls for the Niagara Escarpment?

Hon. Mr. White: We have in the last few weeks proclaimed the development area but we have not as yet registered the development control areas within the planning area. There is an enormous amount of technical work.

Mr. Lewis: I phrased my question that way because I was afraid I had missed it. As I recall it, it was first announced on June 4, 1973. The Treasurer’s acute embarrassment at thinking that the development controls had been applied occurred somewhere toward the end of 1973. It is now March of 1974 and we still have no development controls applying to the escarpment area. What is it about this new legislation that was supposed to save the escarpment that is so difficult to apply?

Hon. Mr. White: There are controls --

Mr. Lewis: But there is still development.

Hon. Mr. White: -- and there is no development taking place. It is necessary for a developer with a proposal to go to somebody, and when he goes to that somebody the answer is, “No, not at the present time”; so there are controls and there is no development.

Mr. Martel: There’s a freeze.

Mr. Lewis: There’s a freeze.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s the same thing.

Hon. Mr. White: The reason the regulations themselves are not proclaimed is because it takes an enormous amount of technical detail. I can assure the member this is being done as fast as humanly possible and I can assure him that I did everything possible myself to have these things in place before this session started.

Mr. MacDonald: Well, we almost believe the Treasurer.

Mr. Lewis: I understand his personal agitation but when, oh lord, is it coming? That was a generic term.

Hon. Mr. White: As fast as the human beings assigned the responsibility can do it.

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

PART-TIME REAL ESTATE AGENTS

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to the registration of part-time real estate agents: Can the minister advise us how many of these part-time registrations have been accepted and what are the terms and conditions for the qualification of the people for whom these registrations have been issued?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been somewhere around 15 to 18 so-called part-time real estate salesmen registered. As the hon. member knows, it has been the policy of the registrar, and I stress policy for a number of years, not to register those individuals as salesmen unless they were inclined to be full-time except in certain sparsely settled areas in the province. There was no legislation either by way of statute or regulation giving credence to this particular policy.

Now there have been people come forward. I think of one in particular who works one hour a day in another occupation with a communication medium here in Metro and who wished to be registered, in fact passed the exam, received 80 marks, and the registrar was of the opinion that she would be part-time.

This is really what has brought this matter to our attention. She took the opinion, and perhaps quite properly, that she was not part-time in that she was working only an hour a day, five days a week in another field and was prepared to spend six, eight or 10 hours a day selling real estate. So it has been interpreted by many that the registrar has suddenly changed the policy.

The fact of the matter is that I don’t think that as a matter of policy we had the right to preclude someone such as I have described from coming forward and selling real estate as part-time. There are those who profess to be full-time and yet spend only a few hours a day because they are occupied in the home as a homemaker. There are those who work full-time six or eight months a year and spend the balance of the year perhaps retired in Florida and this sort of thing.

The part that bothers me, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of the consumer, is the question of whether the qualifications of the individual agent are being watered down and thus the consumer is suffering in the event that these part-time people are permitted. I met with the real estate association and numerous individuals. I am genuinely concerned about it and it might well be that we are going to have to define, by way of regulation, what part-time means and preclude such people from coming into the industry.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, I share the views of the minister that in the public interest, qualified persons must certainly be there. I think for any solicitor who has been involved with the various offers to purchase and sell, there are various problems that can arise. But will the minister assure us that the present real estate agents and boards within the province are made well aware of his views on this subject, because there appears to be some confusion and some particular concern that the gates are going to be widely opened to persons who may not have the qualifications that we all believe should exist.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments of the hon. member. Insofar as qualifications are concerned, before one can be an agent now one must undergo the course and receive a passing mark of not less than 75 per cent. If the person comes forward, takes that course and obtains that mark or better as the law now stands he or she is entitled to identify with a broker.

I have also pointed out to the association that, in fact, some of the brokers in this province are encouraging these people to do it. An agent can’t sell except through connection with a broker’s office. I can only conclude that some brokers do not regard this as a serious matter.

However, I am still looking at it. I’ve met with numerous real estate people including the incoming president and the outgoing president of the association. As I said earlier, perhaps by regulation we may have to define part-time and preclude those who would work, as we traditionally understand, six or eight hours a day in an industry and then go out in the evenings and sell for two or three hours a week. I think this is the thing we’re generally concerned about -- that the consumer who deals with that type of agent may not have the benefit of dealing with someone much more experienced and devoted to the profession.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury is next. The hon. member for Sudbury?

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Not on a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I understand my colleague is on a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry. I didn’t even say supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: For clarification, is it, in fact, the case that any real estate salesman has to meet standards of the ministry, or are they internal standards of the real estate profession in Ontario? Secondly, can a broker hire people without qualifications to sell for him?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think it was in July, 1971, when it became mandatory by way of regulation that before a person could qualify from that date on as a broker or an agent, as the case may be, he or she had to undergo a course. These courses for the salesmen are given at community colleges throughout the province. It’s a 90-hour course spread over three weeks. The examination is written by the salesman and he or she must obtain a mark of 75 per cent or better. If they do not, then before they can qualify they must, of course, take the course over again, unless they appeal the mark directly to the registrar.

The answer to the second portion of the hon. member’s question is no, a broker cannot hire a real estate agent unless he’s qualified by virtue of this particular course. A second extension of that is that if a person individually owns real estate he can have an employee sell it. If the member has a parcel of real estate and wishes to develop it himself, he need not be a broker and he can have his employees act as his salesmen for that particular parcel, of course.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

FIRE HAZARDS IN SENIOR CITIZENS’ HIGHRISE BUILDINGS

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: Is the minister aware of a relatively minor fire which occurred in a senior citizens’ highrise unit in the city of Sudbury, which caused confusion and fear among all residents, even in the upper levels? Is the minister aware of the particular hazard in these senior citizens’ highrise buildings? Would he consider putting in a communications system in all of these buildings in order that those people trapped on the upper levels may be directed on the proper action to take?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fire. I understand it was a relatively minor grease fire which caused no structural damage and no injury. However, any fire, no matter how small, is going to cause some consternation and confusion among elderly people. I have been advised that there is a good programme of education going on, and has been going on for quite some time, to inform the residents as to how they should behave and how they should react in case of fire. Certainly the hon. member has made a suggestion about the installation of a communications system. I will look into it and see what we can do.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview is next.

GOVERNMENT ACTION AGAINST DOW CHEMICAL

Mr. Singer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Solicitor General. Could he bring us up to date on the latest developments on the action the Province of Ontario brought against Dow Chemical and give us the latest report? Can he tell us whether or not he agrees with comments made by the Ministry of Natural Resources when this matter was questioned by the Provincial Auditor, and the ministry advised the auditor that the ministry says it does not now appear that this will happen in the near future? That is, that there will be compensation and that the suit will be settled in the near future. Would the minister care to comment on that and tell us whether he agrees with the Ministry of Natural Resources?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member ask the Attorney General.

Mr. Singer: Oh, the minister has checked out of that, has he?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As far as the present state of the suit is concerned I understand, for example, that the action has been discontinued against the American parent company.

Mr. Singer: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: That was months ago.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That was last year.

Mr. Lewis: That was last year’s answer. He needs a new one.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Now proceedings are continuing.

Mr. Singer: It has been 3½ years now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since the minister introduced it.

Mr. Lewis: Remember he took his shoe off for the first time. The first time he has taken his shoe off --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well, it’s out of my hands. As I say, the member must ask the Attorney General. As members know, Mr. Robinette is counsel. He’s a very competent counsel.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He doesn’t mind staying on as counsel.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It’s in his hands. It’s in the lawyer’s hands. It’s not in the Legislature’s hands at this time. I don’t want to make any observation as to the comment of the Minister of Natural Resources. As the hon. member knows, there’s been a decision in Ohio and I’m sure this may affect our proceedings to some extent.

Mr. Singer: The minister wouldn’t want to comment on that, no.

By way of a supplementary, would the minister agree with the comment recently made by my colleague from Sarnia that one would expect finality to this matter perhaps by the year 2000?

An hon. member: Optimist!

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think he’s pessimistic, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mark it down to 1998.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By the way, this is the Solicitor General’s year to swim in Hamilton Bay. Don’t forget.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: No, it is next year. Don’t risk it, please!

Mr. Breithaupt: He will be able to walk across it by then.

WARRANTY ON NEW HOMES

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. What has become of his warranty on new houses?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I have no warranty on new housing.

Mr. Lewis: He has nothing on housing.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The question of a warranty on residential housing has been a matter of great interest and discussion for some time. I received an invitation this past week to attend in Ottawa, at the request of Mr. Basford, along with other consumer ministers, a discussion on the question of housing warranties. Presumably he is interested in some type of federal legislation to apply right across Canada.

Mr. Deans: No, please don’t. We are sick and tired of that. Don’t get sucked into that.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, no. I won’t get sucked into that. I want to find out what Mr. Basford intends to do. Certain propositions put before him by private groups have been refused --

Mr. Renwick: The minister has the jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It may well be that this province is going to embark on warranty legislation relating to housing later on this year.

Mr. Lewis: Where housing is concerned, everything is expendable.

Hon. Mr. Clement: But at the present time I want to see what Mr. Basford’s position is at that meeting in Ottawa which, I believe, will be two weeks from now.

Mr. Renwick: The minister doesn’t have to see Mr. Basford’s position.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Does the province have a position on warranties on new housing? Is the minister going to go ahead with or without federal participation?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, why not?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I think it is such an important subject that if it isn’t --

Mr. Martel: If it is so important why doesn’t the minister move on it?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Can I not give the answer? Do you fellows not want to hear the answer?

Mr. Renwick: We are sick and tired of that answer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think this province is going to have to initiate housing warranties if the feds don’t.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: Because the minister can’t do it with words, he has to act.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I think we have to. It’s a matter of great concern. I tell the members it’s a matter of great concern and they hoot and howl. I don’t know whether they’ve got worms or what it is.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Chairman of Management Board has the answer to a question previously asked.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was asked a couple of questions some days ago, one of which the leader of the Liberal Party referred to and the answer to which I had prepared this morning. However I wouldn’t have missed that exchange for the world and I suppose we’ve dealt with it now.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, the Treasurer felt he wanted to defend the indefensible.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I would have also substantiated the support for Mr. Ward Cornell, maybe even in broader terms.

However, this question --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Probably more effectively.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Pardon me?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Probably more effectively.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’m not too sure about that, but I wouldn’t have missed the exchange in any event.

PUBLIC SERVICE ACT CONFLICT

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I was asked a question by the member for Kitchener, in regard to Mr. Douglas Wright, and the answer to that question is that section 33 of the Act referred to was amended effective Sept. 21, 1973, “and expanded to cover conflict of interest.” But the new terms of the section would still not apply to this particular situation. As the work was carried out in this particular case all within the government service, provisions of section 33 did not apply.

There was another question, Mr. Speaker, from the hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Could I have a supplementary to that answer?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How is it that the Chairman of the Management Board could allow the payments to the post-secondary committee to get so seriously out of hand to the point where probably one of the most serious criticisms from the auditor was directed in that way? Does the Chairman of the Management Board remember this matter coming before the Management Board, or was it just handled by people at another level as routine approval for expenditure far exceeding that which was envisaged when the committee was set up?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The matter is referred to Management Board by the ministry concerned and considered accordingly in regard to the responsibilities assigned.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So the Chairman of the Management Board takes responsibility for the tremendous cost of that committee and the allocation of those funds?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will accept responsibility for the decision in regard to Dr. Wright; yes.

There was another question from the hon. member for Scarborough West in regard to a name; I think I have the question which --

Mr. Lewis: I think that was answered by the press.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It was answered by the Star the next day -- but the answer, of course, was David Black.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: One of the NDP supporters?

Mr. Lewis: I don’t think so. We cancelled his membership.

He made so much money he joined another party.

Mr. Speaker: I direct that the time has now expired for oral questions. In fact it has been exceeded.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will recall, in June, 1972, this government appointed Dr. Osmond M. Solandt, former chairman of the Science Council of Canada, to inquire under the terms of the Public Inquiries Act into the routing of Ontario Hydro’s proposed 500-kv transmission line between the two generating stations of Nanticoke, on Lake Erie south of Hamilton, and Pickering, on Lake Ontario east of Toronto. This major new line will not only connect these two generating stations, but also serve to connect with other parts of Ontario Hydro’s 500-kv grid system, and with existing and future lower voltage distribution lines.

Commissioner Solandt held an initial set of public hearings in August and September, 1972, into routes then proposed by Ontario Hydro for this Nanticoke to Pickering line. During these hearings, individual citizens, municipalities, associations and other groups made submissions to the commission.

On Oct. 31, 1972, commissioner Solandt submitted an interim report in which he stated, and I quote:

The main conclusion that I have reached as a result of the evidence presented to the commission is that while Ontario Hydro has demonstrated that the preferred route which they have selected is not a completely unsatisfactory route for the proposed line, they did not produce adequate evidence to support the view that it is the best available route. Hydro’s already extensive studies must be supplemented by a much more widespread and systematic study of the entire area before it can be concluded that Hydro’s preferred route is the best available route, or that some other route is preferable.

This recommendation, Mr. Speaker, was accepted by the government, and the Solandt commission retained the Toronto firm of BHI Ltd., environmental consultants, to undertake the recommended study to determine the preferred route for the transmission line. The consultants were requested to involve the public in their work from the outset.

The report of this study, with a recommendation as to the location for the 500-kv transmission line, was submitted to the Solandt commission on Sept. 1, 1973.

In their report, the consultants recommended that the 500-kv line should follow, wherever possible, the so-called Parkway Belt West.

Following circulation of this report, the Solandt commission held a further series of public hearings in October, November and December, 1973, in order that interested parties would have an opportunity to speak to those recommendations.

After consideration of the evidence presented at these public hearings, commissioner Solandt has delivered to me his report on this public inquiry, which I now table. In it, he has put forward for consideration by the public and by this government his recommendation as to the preferred location for the 500-kv transmission line between Nanticoke and Pickering.

The inquiry by the commission, Mr. Speaker, introduced an innovative approach to public participation in seeking commentary on a major project which will have significant environmental impact on those communities through which the 500-kv corridor will traverse.

I would like at this time, sir, to express publicly the government’s thanks and my personal thanks to commissioner Solandt and his staff for their tremendous enthusiasm, dedication and the hard work which went into this report.

In my view, sir, it will long stand as a landmark experiment in public participation in matters which are not only extremely complex but also of all-pervading public concern. Copies of the commission report are being delivered to, or will shortly be delivered to the hon. members, and it will also be available through the Ontario government bookstore.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, on a matter of clarification may I ask the minister a question? Would the minister clarify for me whether or not the alignment proposed by the Solandt report accords with the alignment proposed by Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say the answer to that is no. But the hon. member can judge for himself in just a few minutes when he sees the map which is attached to the report.

Mr. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, we have a very distinguished visitor in the House this morning, a man who has served here as a member, and as a member of the cabinet, and rendered great service to this province and to this country. I refer to Mr. John Foote, VC.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Mr. Winkler moves that when the House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until Monday, March 25.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

RIGHTS OF LABOUR ACT

Mr. Drea moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Rights of Labour.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to establish a set of safeguards to protect individual members of trade unions in a number of situations:

Part two deals with the right to know the financial dealings of union officers with union funds and with employers with whom there is a relationship.

Part three deals with insider reporting, the intention of which is basically to take the labour racketeer out of the sphere of the Attorney General’s ministry and put him in the sphere of the Ministry of Labour and to take the company spy, about whom so much was heard today, out of the sphere of the Attorney General and put him as well within the sphere of the Minister of Labour, along with fines of up to $25,000.

SAFETY COMMITTEES ACT

Mr. Haggerty moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the Establishment of Safety Committees.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is hopefully to reduce the number of accidents in industry and to allow employers and employees to share in the input on safety matters throughout industry in Ontario.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Mr. Haggerty moves first reading of bill intituled An Act to relieve Persons from liability in respect of Voluntary Emergency Medical and First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to relieve persons from liability in respect of voluntary emergency first aid assistance or medical services rendered at or near the scene of an accident or other sudden emergency.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day I should like to point out to the hon. members that the present group of pages are serving their last day with us today. They have done a very good job for us. As is customary, I should like to read the names of the individual pages into the record. I might say that we do send each page a copy of Hansard later on with the names appearing there.

They are Tony Ali, Clarkson; Stephen Armitage, Toronto; Ron Bambrick, Orono; Richard Bennett, Toronto; Lisa Charters, Oakville; Emily Cole, Peterborough; Allen Goss, Nestleton; Tom Harrington, Toronto; Richy Haus, Weston; Krissy Howe, Oakville; Bruce Manors, Oakville; Martha Milne, Kincardine; Ian Mitchell, Weston; Marcia Morris, Islington; Scott Perkin, Mississauga; Denise Ryan, Toronto; Susan Skolnik, Willowdale; Michael Walkington, Scarborough; Charles Williams, Brampton, and Cathryn Willson, Dutton.

Orders of the day.

MUNICIPAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine, in the absence of Hon. Mr. White, moves second reading of Bill 8, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before the member of the Liberal Party begins, could the minister say a few words about the general federal-provincial agreement and what other projects we can expect shortly arising out of it, in addition to the one which is specifically facilitated by this bill?

Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps if the hon. minister wishes to make those comments before he comments finally after all members have spoken, it would be acceptable.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I gave a general outline when I introduced the bill. I think it would be more in order if I heard from the official opposition party first. Then I can answer the spokesman for the NDP in the course.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, the comments I would make on this bill follow generally the views that the member for Ottawa Centre has just raised. We have seen in the Throne Speech the announcement with respect particularly to the decision by this government to enter into this form of agreement with the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Certainly it’s pleasing to all of us to see that the city of Cornwall has received the amount of $14 million as the first beneficiary of this particular kind of developmental programme entered into with the federal government.

When one can see the future of a city like Cornwall with the development of an industrial park, the civic centre and also some tourist and recreational areas, then I think it is apparent that in an area such as Cornwall that has had some serious unemployment and job opportunity problems in the last few years this programme is most welcome and I believe most worthwhile. I too am interested, of course, in the future development of this land of a programme because there are a number of other communities, notably in northern Ontario, that can, and I hope will, benefit from the experience of the Cornwall project.

The minister announced in bringing forward this bill for first reading that this item will allow the general legislation to be changed so that future agreements can be entered into by the provincial government, presumably whenever certain projects are thought to be worthwhile. I would appreciate hearing from the minister just what the general terms and conditions are going to be that will allow municipalities to consider whether or not they too would be able to enter into these kinds of developmental projects.

In addition, I would appreciate hearing from the minister, if he is able to tell us this, what other municipalities particularly are developing plans, or at least preliminary stages, hopefully to take advantage of this kind of project. Is there a fixed amount of money that is available to us or will each project be looked upon on its own merits and funds made available on whatever basis it may be from the federal government?

Then, finally, can the minister tell us the length of the term that these programmes are expected to be available, so that municipalities will be able to know how and when they will be able to take advantage of this kind of a project?

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

Mr. Cassidy: I have a number of questions about this as well, Mr. Speaker. I think the comments that are made in the material that was released at the time of the signing of the Cornwall agreement are really rather an indictment of what has been happening in regional development in the province over the last seven or eight years, let’s say, since the introduction of the Design for Development policy back in 1966.

Here’s what the federal and provincial governments agreed to say about eastern Ontario and about northern Ontario when the agreement was signed last month in Cornwall. They mention the fact that Ontario is among the most prosperous of the 10 provinces and on an overall basis. But then they say in fact:

The rate of development of northern Ontario and a significant portion of eastern Ontario has not kept pace with that in the province as a whole or in Canada generally. Unemployment rates and per capita income levels in these areas compare unfavourably with the corresponding provincial and national averages.

They refer to the relatively narrow range of economic activities in the north, consisting mainly of exploitation and export of mineral and forest products. They talk about the relative lack of processing facilities in service operations which acted as a serious constraint on the number of income and employment opportunities -- that’s in the north.

They talk about the serious lack of public services -- this is in the north. They talk about the overall consequences of that, reflected in such indicators as a rate of population growth approximately one-quarter of the provincial figure, a below-average rate of labour force participation, particularly on the part of females, and a relatively high rate of unemployment. Then, turning to eastern Ontario, the federal-provincial economists and evaluators who had participated in deciding on the outlines of this general agreement said:

The underlying cause of the region’s comparatively unfavourable unemployment and per capita income records is a decline in labour requirements of the traditionally important agricultural and forest industries, together with a relative lack of growth in manufacturing job opportunities.

While new industries have been attracted to the area of eastern Ontario, they have served largely “to counterbalance the disappearance or decline of older manufacturing establishments in the wood-using and textile fields.”

Ottawa had mitigated the region’s unimpressive economic performance because of the federal government growth in Ottawa, but Ottawa’s economic influence had been relatively localized and had been insufficient to dominate the regional totals. Tourism in eastern Ontario has not yet developed to the point where it is generating substantial income and employment opportunities outside the major centres. Within some parts of eastern Ontario there is an overdependence on a narrow range of economic activities. This lack of a diversified economic structure has frequently meant instability and unemployment.

You know, this isn’t an NDP speech, Mr. Speaker, although it certainly may sound like one. This is an official document which in fact was obviously released with the approval of the Treasurer (Mr. White) and Mr. Andras, and of the other people -- political people and bureaucrats -- who were involved in the drawing up of this general agreement.

As I am sure the Minister without Portfolio expected, we don’t intend to oppose the specific requirements of this specific bill here, but I think that he and you, Mr. Speaker, will accept that this is one opportunity, and maybe the only opportunity that we have in the Legislature to discuss not only the specific question of whether municipalities should be permitted to sign agreements relative to this new federal-provincial programme, but also relative to the government’s failure and successes in the regional developments which municipalities are now being allowed to take a part in.

I would like to remind the minister that long before he or I came into the Legislature the government launched its Design for Development programme. In fact it was back in 1966 that the then Premier, Mr. Robarts, called for good regional planning and made a number of statements about the way in which the regional planning process would work in order to encourage me less favoured regions of the province, and that, as you know, Mr. Speaker, is mainly the eastern and northern parts of the province.

Mr. Robarts talked about the need for planning and co-ordinating the timing and impacts of large and expanding investment expenditures, public investments. He talked about a central authority which could cut across both departmental lines and county and municipal boundaries in meeting and solving regional problems.

He has said that regional development policies would be instrumental aspects of a broader provincial growth policy. He has said that appropriate regional development required comprehensive planning. He spoke of the need for regional land use planning. He spoke about the planning, referring not only to land use but also to the social and economic potential of the region and its centres and an approach that would concentrate on developing these centres in the interests of the region as a whole. He spoke of the need for the regions of Ontario to develop their potential for specialization.

Mr. Robarts said that the smoothing out of conspicuous regional economic inequalities would be sought through the regional distribution of government budgetary expenditures, through the provision of technical, financial and administrative services, and through programmes selected to encourage labour mobility, tourism, agriculture, resource development, manufacturing and other forms of economic activity.

He spoke of the need of an effective two-way system of communication, and he spoke of the need for new redevelopment structures, but ones that would not disturb the existing power and authority of municipal and county councils within the regions.

That was back in 1966, Mr. Speaker, and more words have been spawned and spoken by the government about its Design for Development programme in the intervening years. If you look to the points that I have enumerated out of that original statement though, the tragic and overwhelming conclusion you come to is that in fact virtually none of those things have been done, or if they are being done it is only in the very recent past.

We have the business about the creation and then disbandment of regional development councils over that period of time. We don’t have an effective two-way system of communication. In most of the less-favoured regions -- in fact I think in all of them, apart from maybe the past year in northwestern Ontario -- there has been no attempt at programming government expenditures in line with regional development priorities. There is no broad provincial growth policy eight years after Mr. Robarts said his government was going to have it. We don’t have regional land use planning at this time. We have some abortive attempts. There are people over in the Frost block -- is it the Whitney block? -- who are working in that direction, but right now we don’t have any land use planning on either a provincial or on a regional basis.

There has been no planning of major government expenditures, which is why we have abortions such as the Arnprior dam which won’t create a single new job, and yet it’s the largest single government expenditure in eastern Ontario in the life of this Parliament. It’s why we have projects such as Maple Mountain, a ski resort in an area where for 30 or 40 days out of every ski season, as I understand it, the climate is simply unfavourable and is such as to discourage completely anybody from skiing. We have Old Fort William, an historical recreation of an old-time fur traders’ fort, a tourist attraction which was built eight miles inland from where the fort used to lie. And that’s it, Mr. Speaker; that’s it.

That is the kind of development that we are getting. There is not effective regional planning yet. I accept and understand that there are certain difficulties in all of this. I do not accept and I do not understand the kinds of delays that have taken place. The reason for those delays very simply, Mr. Speaker, is that there has not been a real commitment on the part of the government. It conjured with words, just as it conjures with words over the housing problem. It conjures with words over Artistic Woodwork. It conjures with words over the need for decent labour relations legislation. It conjures with words over the problems of teachers’ negotiations and so on and on and on.

There is no commitment as far as regional development is concerned. That is how we come to this position where almost eight years to the day after Mr. Robarts first announced the Design for Development programme, we have an implementation of regional development policy in eastern Ontario specifically, but one which comes as a result of an initiative taken not by this government but by the federal government under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.

It so happens that the amount of money involved is pitiful, $14 million for one particular community which has had more than its share of problems; $14 million after eight years. This is what is finally cranked out of the government’s regional development plans or proposals for eastern Ontario, and that’s it.

Mr. Lamoureaux, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon), and the other members from the St. Lawrence front have been aware of the problems at Cornwall. They were there when the now Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Irvine) responsible for municipal affairs was the mayor of the neighbouring municipality of Prescott. The member for Stormont (Mr. Guindon) has been a member and, in fact, a minister for most of the past eight years. Certainly my party and other parties have been’ weeping over the situation of Cornwall. There are unemployment rates of 10, 11, 13 and 15 per cent, of a very high rate of people on welfare and problem after problem in a region and in an area and in a city which, frankly, should not have suffered and need not have suffered the way it was, given adequate provincial support and adequate regional planning.

Here you have a community which for 10 years has been suffering exceptionally low growth and exceptionally high unemployment, which according to the analysis which is made available has not even been able to provide jobs for its own people. It’s had a high rate of migration of its own people and certainly hasn’t been able to provide jobs for the changing rural sector: It is the same in Glengarry county where the milk industry has declined by half over the last 10 years. The number of dairy farmers has gone down by half over that period of time.

All that has been happening in that community, and yet it’s on the major rail link between Toronto and Montreal. It’s within a day’s truck transport distance of the largest single market in Canada. A market, I believe, of probably about 10 million people is available within a day’s truck journey of Cornwall. It probably has a larger market within a day’s round trip by truck than any other city in the country, because of its position part way between Toronto and Montreal. It is in a similar position, therefore, with Brockville, Kingston and Belleville -- cities that have not suffered the same problems as Cornwall.

For that matter, it is also within a day’s truck transport distance of New York City and the entire eastern seaboard of the United States. It is, therefore, at the core of a market of not just 10 million in Canada, but of an additional 50 million or 60 million people in the United States. It has rail; it has Highway 401; it’s within an hour and 20 minutes’ drive of Ottawa International Airport and within an hour’s drive of the Dorval international airport with air freight services which are the best in Canada, and it’s on the major water transportation route for this country, the St. Lawrence Seaway.

With all of these advantages, this government has not been able to do anything for eight years until eventually the federal government comes along with the proposals for the joint programme which we’re being asked to permit Cornwall to get involved in.

One just sort of says, “Well, what gives?” What on earth is it that has made the regional policy development of the government so laggard that nothing can be done as far as that particular area is concerned?

One also has to say that this is fine as a one-shot effort. I have to assume that the particular projects which are being underwritten under this DREE agreement -- or infrastructure for the community centre, the civic centre and arena, the large industrial park and the tourist facilities -- have been well thought through in terms of Cornwall’s particular needs. I don’t profess to be an expert on those particular things.

I think it’s fair to ask the ministers that since a substantial portion of the investment is going into a single industry site -- I think that’s the phrase; in other words, preparing the site for one very large industry -- then what kinds of industry are in mind for that particular site, or is there a particular industry which is waiting in the wings until Cornwall signs this particular agreement, and which will then come forward with a major investment for that particular area?

I might remind you, Mr. Speaker, that some time last year during the debate on Stelco’s going into Haldimand-Norfolk and all the disruption that that was going to create in that area -- an area which essentially did not need growth the way it is needed in eastern Ontario -- members of this party offered a suggestion to the minister to locate the Stelco mill right in Grenville county, an area which has also suffered from declining employment. In fact, we offered it within sight of the minister’s home overlooking the St. Lawrence River in Prescott, and he refused. That should go on the record -- that the minister refused a steel mill right there on his doorstep in Grenville county. He wouldn’t go to bat for his people, let alone the people in Cornwall or anywhere else.

You know, it seems a bit perverse that the government goes along with a development down in Haldimand-Norfolk of, I’ve forgotten, $400 million or $500 million worth of investment in an area which may need a few jobs, but which essentially could be easily integrated into the Toronto-Hamilton-St. Catharines industrial complex without a need for major investment, yet at the same time it is preparing a large industrial site at Cornwall which I presume, among other things, could have accepted the steel mill which is instead going where it is less needed.

Maybe the minister can talk about that. But why on earth wouldn’t this government have gone to Stelco and said, “Look, we really do care about Cornwall. If you want to have this kind of investment and the kind of spinoffs that come from it, why don’t you bring your steel mill to Cornwall and we’ll help you? Here’s a site. It’s all ready. We’ll have it ready for you in six months. And we’ll even talk to the opposition and get their co-operation in getting the bill passed.” But no, this government doesn’t believe in that.

That raises, of course, a very fundamental question about the growth policy or growth strategy of the government. I’ve said that there is none. If there is any to speak of, it is a use of carrots and only of carrots. In other words, the government will use certain types of incentives from time to time in order to try to encourage the location of industries in areas where it feels that they ought to go. Those incentives are relatively limited; in fact, I have some figures that suggest to me that the incentives are, if anything, a bit perverse in their application, because they seem to be giving more to those who already have than to those who have not. These are figures for 1973 performance loans made by the Ontario Development Corp. and the Northern Ontario Development Corp.

I recognize there are other programmes of the ODC but, nevertheless, this is how the government seeks to help smaller entrepreneurs to locate, presumably in areas that have some need for this kind of growth:

In 1972-1973, Brantford got $580,000 worth of these performance loans, Bowmanville got $230,000, Cobourg got $280,000, Trenton got $700,000 and Belleville got $540,000 worth of these particular loans. But then we come to Cornwall, which of all the communities that I mentioned, I think everyone would acknowledge is the community that was most in need of new jobs and of new industries. Maybe it could have used a few entrepreneurs of its own. Poor old Cornwall got two loans worth only $71,000, which is a third of what Bowmanville got, a fourth of what Cobourg got and as little as a tenth of what was given to Trenton, a community which is already doing --

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Cornwall got $7.2 million from this government two weeks ago.

Mr. Cassidy: Two weeks ago? All right. The hon. minister is finally getting through to them, but it has taken an awful long time.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): He thought his seat was in danger.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. And other things are happening in Cornwall. I recognize and acknowledge that. There’s $14 million -- oh wait, is the $7 million the provincial share on this programme?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Exactly.

Mr. Cassidy: Wait a minute. That’s double counting. I’ve already given credit to the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine), and to the government for doing it. This minister can’t claim it too.

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister without Portfolio): If the hon. member can repeat himself why can’t the hon. minister?

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, they got $7 million two weeks ago. But what was the government doing for Cornwall in 1973, 1972, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967 and 1966, when the Design for Development programme was announced initially? What kind of record is it for the government that during these times, when we have had basically high employment in the province, a prosperous province, pretty high rates of growth and so forth, that the rate of unemployment in Cornwall has consistently been around nine and 10 per cent and, from time to time, has gone as high as 13 and 14 per cent? Where has the Minister of Labour been all of that time?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Well, he was on the job. It is now down to seven per cent.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, now. But it has taken nil of that time, Mr. Speaker, for that to happen.

Mr. Foulds: In one of his previous incarnations he was busy with Old Fort William.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the particular programmes mentioned in the general development agreement that is being made with the province, include this Cornwall area agreement, which I might point out is not $7 million outright. I would point out to this minister and to the Minister of Labour that, in fact, the Cornwall agreement calls for the expenditure of only $4 million in 1974-1975, of which $2 million will come from the provincial government. This isn’t a wild amount of money. When the Minister of Labour goes back to his people in the 1975 campaign -- supposing there’s a spring campaign in 1975 -- by that time the provincial government, over the life of this Parliament, will have spent the grand total of $2 million in encouraging development in Cornwall. It’s all going to be jam tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Plus the fact that we will have a very heavy industry settling down by that time.

Mr. Cassidy: They will have an announcement of a very heavy industry. This is a government that lives by announcements. I’m pleased that a heavy industry is going into Cornwall if that will mean jobs and economic development for an area that needs it. I’m pleased, naturally, by anything like this that helps a city in eastern Ontario or the region as a whole. The major investment, $8 million, however, under this particular programme won’t be until 1975-1976.

Mr. Foulds: Man does not live by announcements alone.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. And then there is a further $2 million in 1976-1977. Since the Minister of Labour mentions it, we should look at the fact that the single industry site in the westend of Cornwall, which obviously is the location for the heavy industry that he is talking about, and which is attracting $3.4 million of federal-provincial investment, will have only $900,000 of federal-provincial investment in 1974-1975. To be more specific; of $2.4 million to be spent on the trunk services, the sanitary sewers, water mains, and so on to service that site, only one-third of that amount will be spent in 1974-1975. An additional $1.1 million will be in 1975-1976, and then, finally, $400,000 in 1976-1977.

The pattern of that expenditure, Mr. Speaker, suggests to me that the heavy industry site in the westend of Cornwall will not be ready for the new industry to go into production until, at the very earliest, the beginning of 1976. While there may be construction jobs in the area prior to that, there will not be full-time permanent employment created in Cornwall until well after the 1975 election, whenever that election is to be held.

I am open to correction on these points, and I hope that the hon. member for Stormont gets involved in the debate as well as the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas. But nevertheless, it is a matter of I am tomorrow. By the time that heavy industry opens up at Cornwall it will have been a full 10 years, Mr. Speaker, from the time that the original announcement was made about what the government is going to do.

As far as eastern Ontario is concerned, there is no other indication in the federal-provincial agreement that the government has a programme or a plan for aiding other areas. I would ask, specifically, what about Pembroke? What about Smiths Falls or Perth or Smiths Falls-Perth taken together, two other locations in eastern Ontario where it would seem to me to make sense to be encouraging industrial development away from the immediate economic orbit of the city of Ottawa?

The same questions present themselves when one looks at what has been announced about the general development agreement as far as it affects northern Ontario. It is very vague, and what is said here doesn’t give me much confidence that economic development in and around the cities of northern Ontario is at all involved in what the government is talking about. It seems to me that the announcements we have had recently about economic development in the northwest of the province have come about, not as a result of government policies, but have come about simply because of the changing economic circumstances of the pulp and paper industry which have made investments in those areas now more favourable than, say, when the Design for Development for northwestern Ontario was prepared.

The forest-based industry problem in northern Ontario, whether it is northwest or northeast, will only be resolved when the government takes over the cutting operations on Crown-owned land, and when it then contracts to ensure that there is an adequate supply of wood fibre and of wood for the various uses, whether it be lumber mills or pulp or paper or further production and processing, rather than leaving this in individual hands. The hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) has told me that there are stands of timber which are rotting in northern Ontario because they happen to be on limits controlled by companies that don’t happen to have a need for them, while, on the other hand, there are industrial investments that are simply not going forward in his region because of the fact that the entrepreneurs can’t get a sufficient wood fibre guarantee. There is not that kind of commitment in the general development agreement that has been made with the federal government, obviously, because the provincial government Tories and the federal government Liberals are constantly hung up by the fact that they are so wedded to the private sector that they will not act for the benefit of the people of northern Ontario or of the rest of the province.

Then, Mr. Speaker, when you look in more detail at the rest of the programme, there are some useful comments about single industry towns, but the other material -- industrial incentives, the air strips programme, the roads programme, and the rural development programme -- all exist right now. The pattern being followed is simply the old government game; if it wants to announce something new it brings everything else in as well in order to pump up the package and make it look better than it was before.

The final reference is to something new which is special project initiatives, again very vaguely couched. The only thing I can really see it applying to is the Maple Mountain campaign and Maple Mountain proposals which have been made by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Speaker, it seems to us, in this party, the government cannot only work with incentives in ensuring growth in the less favoured regions of the province. This is the fundamental mistake being made by the government because of the fact it is wedded so completely to the private sector. If one gives a guy a few bucks, he won’t move. Give him a lot of bucks and he’s got a ripoff and that’s essentially the position of the government as it stands right now.

When incentives are given to industry they should be accompanied by part-ownership on the part of the public in the project actually being built. We should get value for money in that way and we should have public-private partnerships. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the development policy for the less favoured regions has got to be part of an overall provincial growth plan, and that doesn’t exist right now.

A growth plan will limit, will set targets for growth in the more favoured regions, particularly the Toronto-centred region, which will aim at limiting the growth of these regions, of the Toronto-centred region. It is choking on its growth right now. There is too much growth here while Cornwall and other areas in eastern Ontario are starving for lack of growth. Certainly the north is starving for lack of growth.

There are many footloose industries which are settling in the Toronto area, the Hamilton area, the Brantford, Kitchener and London areas because they are nice places for the executives to live. Or because the existing plant is there right now and it is simpler to expand the existing plant than put the new process, the new facility, in some other part of the province.

The reasons being advanced or used within industry to justify these plant locations are often pretty trivial. Sometimes, in fact, it just isn’t economic. There are economic advantages to locating in other parts of the province but they are being ignored by the management. If they are in a fairly uncompetitive field where the profit margins are pretty substantial then, in fact, there is not the incentive to cut the final dollar off their costs. Therefore, the executives don’t want to transfer out of Don Mills or out of some nice suburb in Kitchener or London, wherever the plant happens to be, and locate there.

There was the announcement the other day of the location of Philips, I think it was, which has decided to set up or establish a plant on provincially-owned industrial land in the Malvern area. The sale price of the land was something like $2 million and the price per acre was in the order of, I don’t know, maybe $25,000, $35,000, $40,000 per acre, an incredible sum by contrast with the prices charged for industrial land elsewhere in the province. The company felt it could do it rather than face the problems of developing skilled manpower and attracting the labour pool in other parts of the province.

Frankly, the problems are not insurmountable. There are lots of willing hands and willing brains in other parts of the province and the problem of developing skills can be overcome once there is a will. There are no sticks being used by the province in order to encourage companies now locating in the Toronto or Hamilton areas even to look at other parts of the province.

As part of its growth policy, Mr. Speaker, the government should not only be providing certain types of incentives to help offset any additional costs of locating in the northern part of the province or in the east. It should also be providing certain kinds of disincentives in order to make it less favourable to locate in the Toronto-centred region. Those disincentives could be in the form of an employment tax or some other kind of tax to be paid by an industry locating in this particular area, or they could well be in the form of a straight licensing of new employment opportunities being created in the Toronto-Hamilton area. Any employer then who wished to create more than, say, 25 new jobs would be compelled to seek a licence, maybe even to pay for a licence with the provincial government. The allocation of these licences would then be a part of the provincial development and growth plan.

I accept completely that under no circumstances should any government in Ontario say to an individual, “No, you can’t come to Metro.” If young people from northern Ontario or eastern Ontario want to come to Toronto to study for a few years or to work for a few years, that’s fine. I think that’s good and it’s a part of a person’s education. In many cases though, these young people as they grow up, marry and begin to have families, are saying to themselves, “We’d like to go back to Prescott, “We’d like to go back to Pembroke,” “We’d like to go back to Kapuskasing,” “We’d like to go back to Thunder Bay.” In many cases they are finding that there are not adequate work opportunities in those areas, that the cost of housing is as beyond reach in those areas that they stem from as it is in Toronto, and that they are trapped down here because this is where the jobs are.

If, in fact, Mr. Speaker, you control the creation of employment in the Toronto area, and then equally encourage those industries to locate in the less-favoured parts of the province, if that is accompanied by a planned development in areas like Cornwall and Prescott and Cardinal, like North Bay, like Sudbury, Timmins or Kapuskasing, or Thunder Bay, in order to ensure that the jobs are becoming available, that housing at reasonable cost is becoming available, that the other kinds of infrastructures are being put into the ground, that the kinds of social amenities we expect, in terms of be it arenas or cultural facilities as are being built at Cornwall, are coming on-stream, then you will see a real renaissance in the smaller communities in the less-favoured regions of the province.

But we have not seen that from the government right now and the basic and fundamental reason is because it will not -- the minister and his government -- interfere with the decisions of the private sector, even where it’s clear that the social costs of having industry continue to crowd into the Toronto area are tremendous and are growing apace day by day and week by week. You can chart it readily in that way if you look, say, at the escalation of housing prices in the Toronto area.

The other point I wanted to raise more specifically in relation to the bill, Mr. Speaker, is that this bill permits municipalities to enter into agreements with the Crown regarding regional economic development, and also with the approval of the minister -- I am not sure which minister; I suppose it’s the Treasurer -- to also enter into any ancillary or subsidiary agreements with any person as is required as a result of entering into the agreement with the Crown in right of Ontario.

Now, it waives the requirement for a local consultation in the form of a referendum, and also waives the requirement for participation in the form of the access the public has when a matter has to be approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. That is the effect of these two particular amendments. It gives the power to the municipality to pass bylaws for the effect of implementing these general development agreements and it waives the necessity to go through two established, if perhaps somewhat archaic, means of public consultation or public participation.

It seems to us that, in fact, there should be a guarantee of public involvement written into the bill at the same time that the permission is being given to the municipality to bypass the Ontario Municipal Board and to bypass the referendum. We don’t really disagree with that part of it; we do disagree with the fact that there has been no attempt by the government to find any alternative.

What this means, Mr. Speaker, is that since there is not a requirement that municipalities meet to discuss issues like this in public meeting -- there is no such requirement in Ontario law at this moment -- it means that a municipality like Cornwall or Kapuskasing or some other community like that can meet in camera, the members of council can decide what to do, they can negotiate with the provincial people, they can negotiate with the federal people, and all of that can be done with no public consultation whatsoever. Eventually, for a very brief minute or two, the council is required to meet in public session in order to actually pass the bylaws which are referred to in articles 293 and 352 of the Municipal Act and affected by this particular bill.

Now, that plainly just isn’t adequate, particularly where you have some pretty fundamental decisions being made affecting the economic future of communities which have had a lot of problems, such as the community of Cornwall.

I must accept that it runs part of a piece with the whole government approach to economic planning. There have been a number of meetings, I gather, held on the sly between the economic planners for eastern Ontario at Queen’s Park and local planning staffs and other local bureaucrats like that.

Obviously there have been meetings held with the city of Cornwall, the provincial people and the federal people, over this particular plan. But there has not been enough public consultation. I have to confess to a bit of ignorance as to what was done in Cornwall as far as public discussion of this particular proposal is concerned. My recollection is that the major. Mayor Lumley, a fine guy, sort of kept on saying, “Look, it’s coming, it’s coming, it’s coming.” As is the pattern in these depressed communities, there is a constant pattern of promises, promises, and eventually for every five promises you get one new industry or one new federal or provincial government intervention. That’s what happens.

Another community could close off the public involvement completely and it would not be breaking the law which is proposed to be passed by this provincial government.

In other words, this bill permits councils to evade local involvement. It happens that, under the way that the powers adhere in the Crown in the right of Ontario, the general development agreement signed between Canada and Ontario is not a matter of debate. It doesn’t get tabled in the Legislature. It is only obliquely -- because it happens to require a change in the Municipal Act -- that we get to debate it in the Legislature prior to the minister’s estimates, which may not come up for close to another year. I just suggest to the minister and to the government as a whole that an amendment be passed on committee stage of this bill to require public consultation at the municipal level and that the government clearly states its intentions as far as public involvement in further agreements that will be drawn up -- particularly with reference to the north, where there are many communities that are not organized -- in order to ensure that there is full public consultation prior to the entering into of agreements.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of little points I want to raise on this bill. It is, I suppose, a far-reaching bill to some extent. It brings the federal government into almost direct and yet indirect relationship with municipalities, and this is something that the province of course would never allow -- the federal government becoming involved in local municipalities.

This is something that is going to have to be expanded on in the future. I think the federal government, in more ways than this maybe, is going to have to be involved in the cities and maybe the time is not too far away when income tax and other forms of taxation will probably have to be poured back into the cities to even keep them viable. We see in the States what’s happened there to many of the cities, where they are going down and without federal aid they may not survive at all hardly.

In this plan it would appear that it will be covering eastern and northern Ontario. So, being in southwestern Ontario I don’t expect that there would be too much involved now with DREE. There are some plans administered in our own area with regard to the protection of agricultural land under ARDA, which is administered through the DREE programme, and we do get in- volved in that part.

What I am wondering about is what some of these projects may be with regard to the provincial and federal governments in the municipalities. I am assuming they could be sewage works, watermains, health centres, medical centres and recreational facilities and so forth. In the last year or so we have had a federal-provincial winter capital works programme. The money comes through DREE for those projects, and I know we have been entitled under that programme to obtain some of those funds. But as nearly as I can understand from the bill and the minister’s remarks at the introduction of it, this programme is to be funded predominantly by the provincial and federal governments and more or less with agreements, but not necessarily finances from the municipality.

Now, I am concerned with these type of things and that the eastern and northern parts of the province develop properly. I don’t think that I, as a southwesterner, if there are lots of opportunities for jobs, can sit back in my easy chair and see northern Ontario or eastern Ontario suffering from a high unemployment rate. If that happens, then they cannot buy the things we produce and then we are all in trouble. That is why I say that I am a Canadian first, and then an Ontarian. I don’t think that it is any good to me as an Ontarian to be in a rich province if somebody in Newfoundland or New Brunswick can’t afford to have the benefits of life that we have.

So we have to consider that we are all one country in that way.

Now, perhaps there are other things that could be done to get industry to come into these eastern and northern areas. The previous speaker did mention something about a tax on employees, the number of employees who would be hired if they came into already built-up areas. That might be feasible.

I think there are other areas that could be explored. One might be the amount of tax that they would pay as a corporation tax; maybe there should be a lower rate. Rather than just provide giveaway programmes, I would be more inclined to think that we should be looking at the tax structure for the number of years that they first go into these areas, and perhaps favour them with benefits in their income tax structure and items like that.

We also should be looking at the freight rate structure in these areas; that could have a major effect on encouraging industry to go into those areas.

Those are some of the items that I had wanted to mention. I think I would look forward to hearing the minister’s remarks when he winds up the speeches.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak on this?

The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I feel it incumbent upon me to say a few words about this bill, inasmuch as it does deal with the DREE programme at the federal level and the participation by the Ministry of the Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, which is responsible for the regional development programmes in the Province of Ontario.

The eastern part of the province, particularly Cornwall, at this point hasn’t reached the stage in the Design for Development programme for Ontario that would give us an overview of what might take place and what the government sees as the priorities for regional development in eastern Ontario. However, I am familiar with the way they have established their priorities in the only two economic regions in the Province of Ontario where they have been studied to the extent that this government has accepted as government policy the recommendations contained in the Design for Development for the Toronto-centred region and the economic region that is known as northwestern Ontario.

This is the kind of a bill that no one in his right mind would oppose. It is the kind of development that has been sorely needed in eastern Ontario for many and many a year. It is the kind of development that I have been advocating for northwestern Ontario for as long as I have had the pleasure to sit in this Legislature-and will continue to do so.

Because of the inability of the DREE programme at the federal level to effect the kinds of changes and to offer the kinds of incentives that really make the difference when you are trying to entice an industry, whether it be primary or secondary, to establish in any given location, one has to question the ability of that programme at the federal level to effect any kinds of change that would be meaningful. So, while we do welcome the implication of this bill, I think the jury is still out on how effective DREE has been in the past and how effective it may be in the future.

I want to refer to an article that appeared some months ago in the Globe and Mail as a result of a study that was done by Prof. David Springate, a professor of finance at the University of Tennessee, and was based on his observations on research for his doctorate thesis in business administration at Harvard University. The article had this to say, Mr. Speaker:

Grants under the Act are the main method by which the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion provides incentives for the construction or expansion of secondary manufacturing plants in disadvantaged regions. Dr. Springate looked at 31 grants made as the pro- gramme got under way in 1970 and early 1971.

He said: “Such a study can yield indicative findings.” He maintains that some of the investment decisions were pursued in considerable detail. His assessment of the investment decision process of the 31 companies, says the article, is that:

“By and large DREE’s grants did not affect the area in which companies made their plant location choices. If companies do not consider parts of the country other than those they normally would have chosen, DREE is not going to be able to disperse or direct manufacturing activity to less desirable places on a broad scale.”

[He went on further to say]:

“While incentive grants may not greatly affect plant location decisions, they may be justified if they speed up investment. But they do not have the effect of speeding up the planning. Overall, the field results suggest that grants are relatively unimportant in affecting the initial design or consideration of investment proposals, and strategic or technical factors rather than financial considerations tend to predominate at this stage.”

Indeed, it may be more accurate to say that the programme delays investment rather than promotes it, as the government takes some months to consider applications for grants.

I have had some knowledge of the incentive programme at both the federal and the provincial levels, Mr. Speaker.

On one occasion, Kimberly-Clark corporation was to establish a tissue plant someplace in the Province of Ontario where it would use the wood pulp from northern Ontario to feed this tissue plant. I think it’s accurate to say that the then Minister of Lands and Forests, the hon. member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle), and myself were trying to persuade that company that it should have an even greater degree of processing much closer to the source of the raw material. Of course, we were suggesting that that tissue plant be constructed at either Terrace Bay on the limits of Kimberly-Clark or in the Kapuskasing area based on the Spruce Falls operation of that company in the Kapuskasing area.

We were unsuccessful in our efforts. In spite of any incentives that might have been forthcoming at the federal or the provincial levels, nothing we could say or offer to them would have persuaded them to build other than where they did ultimately build the plant, and that was in Huntsville.

On asking the president of that company at that particular time what kind of incentives we would have had to offer them in order to persuade them they should build their tissue-making facility much closer to the resource, thereby providing increased economic viability for those northern communities and in the process creating more jobs. The president at that time said, “Nothing any government at whatever level, nothing that they would have done, would have persuaded us to build it other than where we did build it down at Huntsville.”

He said it was a matter of transportation costs. It was availability of labour at a price that they were prepared to pay, and much closer to their traditional markets. If this is the attitude that’s being taken by all industrial and commercial enterprises at this point in time, I think that we have to take a much more realistic look at the effectiveness of the DREE programme that we are becoming a part of here in this bill, or the programmes under the aegis of the Ontario Development Corp.

When you’re talking about the DREE programme as it affected the establishment of a processing capacity in the Timmins area, where Texasgulf has brought on stream its Kidd Creek property, it’s my understanding that that would have been done there in any event. The $8 million or so project that was provided by DREE would, of necessity, been done there in any event. When you look at some of the so-called incentive programmes under Ontario Development Corp., where $500,000 in forgivable loans in two instances were provided to Kraft to assist them in their food plants in eastern Ontario, based on raw milk that they had in such abundance there, where else would they have established the plants? When you consider the $500,000 forgivable loan that was provided to Allied Chemicals to process a sulphuric acid plant in the Sudbury region, where else would they have established an enterprise that was to use the abundance of sulphur that emanates from the operations of Falconbridge and International Nickel?

I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, just how effective this kind of programme is going to be. As I look over the information that was made available in the joint announcement released by Hon. Don Jamieson and the Treasurer, it’s a very sophisticated package whereby they do in a very, very broad sense say the kinds of things that they would hope for by way of economic development for the Cornwall region. There’s no evidence in at the present time that any real benefits are going to accrue. They do state that they are going to spend several million dollars in order to try to provide the kind of incentives. There’s no indication in the joint programme that it will be restricted to purely Canadian companies.

I have a small excerpt here from the Hansard, a record of the debates over in Ottawa. I want to refer the House briefly to comments made by Hon. Don Jamieson, who is the minister responsible for economic activity and expansion at the federal level. I would like to hearken back to things that he had to say at that time.

In the region that I know best, the Atlantic provinces, the whole area, all four provinces, are littered, quite literally, with the remnants of foreign-controlled industries that milked the region for whatever they could get out of it and then departed and left us to clean up the mess.

Now, that’s from the minister who is a co-partner in this programme that we’re speaking of in this bill that’s before us in the Legislature, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

As I say, I’m not going to oppose this bill and nobody in this party is about to do so. We are looking for any ray of hope at all by way of a concerted effort by either the provincial or the federal governments to get this whole project under way and to give the people of Cornwall the kind of economic lift that they have looked for so long. If it will provide any economic stimulus, bring them into the mainstream of activities in the province, economically, certainly we’re not going to oppose it and we would hope that it would do the kinds of things that Mr. Jamieson and the Ontario Treasurer hope to achieve.

I do see in the announcement that was made that they too are going to provide this kind of money for economic activity in northwestern Ontario. There’s no evidence that the DREE programme has been even remotely effective in northwestern Ontario to foster the kind of development that is possible with a much greater processing of the ores and the forest products right on our doorstep; and we would welcome it.

In the Hedlin Menzies and Associates Ltd. report that was commissioned by the Ministry of Natural Resources a little over three years ago, they quoted some very interesting statistics. They said that six out of every 10 jobs directly and indirectly related to the forest products industry are located in places other than where the resources are located.

This means that six out of every 10 jobs are located in southern Ontario, or other parts of Canada, with only four jobs out of the 10 located right on the doorstep of the resources.

I don’t need to tell the members what the implication of that statistic would be if we just reversed that and said six out of every 10 jobs should be located near or on the doorstep of the resources, while the other four should be located elsewhere. We would provide tens of thousands of new jobs in northern Ontario in an area where they need it so badly, where we do have a mass exodus of our youth from the area because there is a lack of job opportunities.

I’ve spoken about this on many, many occasions in the past, and I just say it for the benefit of the new minister. If this programme that we’re talking about in eastern Ontario is going to have any significant economic effect at all, we’re going to have to insist on the kind of development, the kind of processing, the kind of industrial activity taking place that will have a maximum effect on the economy. It must provide more jobs and more economic viability. There must be a better tax base that will provide the services for people who are responsible for creating this new wealth and provide them with a level of services and a lifestyle to which we feel everybody in the province is entitled, regardless of where they may live.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: I don’t want to prolong the debate unduly, Mr. Speaker. I understand there is some urgency about getting the bill through, but I do want to make a couple of specific points about the general agreement between the federal and the provincial government and the priorities that both those governments have with regard to the DREE programme. I want to make some specific references to the city of Thunder Bay.

I don’t think anyone in the province begrudges the initiatives taken for the Cornwall area, but I would like to point out to the minister that the city of Thunder Bay specifically has been in correspondence with his ministry, with the Treasurer, in regard to the use of some funding through the DREE programme for the development of an economic infrastructure in the city of Thunder Bay.

I think that if there is a second priority, it must be, as my colleague from the riding of Thunder Bay indicated, all of northwestern Ontario. Northwestern Ontario was ignored in the Throne Speech announcements. Northwestern Ontario has as great a need for sensible economic planning as any other region in the province.

The city of Thunder Bay specifically was not given any provincial assistance in terms of funding, as were other regional municipalities throughout the province. And although it can be argued that the city of Thunder Bay is not a regional government, it has some of the same problems as the regional governments have in providing services. The land territory of the city is enormous in comparison to most cities, and what were formerly rural parts of the city particularly need tremendous development in terms of sewage treatment plants, bus service, extra policing, the development possibility of industrial parks, and so on.

I would like to point out to the new minister with these responsibilities, that I have been in direct correspondence with the Treasurer, as has the city clerk of Thunder Bay, stretching back to before December, 1972. And constantly, as my colleague from Ottawa Centre has said, carrots have been vaguely held out to the city in the hope that something would be forthcoming. Finally, by about May of this year, there is the idea that the designation of Thunder Bay under the DREE programme might be used.

I would hope that the minister could make some definite commitment to Thunder Bay, which is presently outlining its proposals to the ministry. That commitment should be given to them so that the kind of problems they are facing -- over the Hydro thermal generation plant in Thunder Bay and raw sewage being disposed of directly into Lake Superior with the water intake for half of the city in almost exactly the same area -- can be quickly and readily solved before the city gets itself into the kind of environmental problems that are faced here in the “golden horseshoe.”

Mr. Speaker, people in the outlying areas of northwestern Ontario often look to the city of Thunder Bay in the way that the people in the rest of the province look to the city of Toronto. In many ways the city of Thunder Bay is the metropolitan centre for that huge land mass, that 58 per cent of the province. And it faces a number of the same problems in terms of housing and in terms of the infrastructure I talked about earlier.

I would urge the minister to consider very seriously that the city of Thunder Bay specifically be given a commitment about the brief, and the proposals it is presenting to the Treasurer with regard to the assistance the provincial government now has received from the federal government under the DREE programme. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak to this bill? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I’d like first of all, to express my appreciation at the way that the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) made his remarks very direct and brief. I will try to answer them as briefly as possible. Also I’d like to say to the member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston) and Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) I appreciate their remarks very much.

I followed to a degree the remarks that were made by the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), until he rambled on for such a long time that I’m afraid I lost the point; so I may have to come back to him at a later date. In any event, I’ll try to answer to the best of my ability.

Certainly I will answer the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) directly.

The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is to advise the members of this House that this is a general development agreement, signed by the federal government and the Province of Ontario in Cornwall on Feb. 26, for a 10-year period. It is the follow-up of further agreements that have been signed by the provinces of Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island in the past. We expect to be signing specific agreements which will come out of this bill with the municipalities affected, not only Cornwall but many others in the future.

We would like to deal, first of all, with the way that the programme operates. The federal government and the provincial government have agreed that the programme should be a programme that will increase jobs in areas of high unemployment and will also improve the quality of the job opportunities in those areas throughout the province which have had slower growth.

I think I have to go back to the statement which was prepared by the federal government and go through it to some degree, because of some of the remarks that have been made before me today. The problems which we have in northern Ontario have not been forgotten and will be dealt with very specifically by this province in the very near future in certain areas.

The federal government has said that subsidiary agreements might be developed to allow for advanced planning where a non-renewable resource is on the verge of exhaustion. It also has said there is the matter of transportation facilities that must be considered, the lack of or the inadequate transportation facilities that exist in certain areas. They particularly refer to air transport in the more remote parts. We have agreed that there is the possibility, and it should be very seriously considered by all concerned, of certain airstrips being built to develop some areas, rather the development of highways which are much more expensive in northern Ontario.

We have mentioned that people who live in isolated communities should be given consideration by the northern subsidiary agreements. However, the final form of agreement, Mr. Speaker, will depend very much on the consultations which we have to have with the local people. This is what the member for Ottawa Centre was saying before, that we apparently have this misunderstanding whereby the people have not been consulted. They certainly are consulted and have been very, very much in the instance of Cornwall.

I might add at this moment that Cornwall is delighted with the fact that we have the federal government co-operating with the provincial government and the city of Cornwall in an agreement which brings in millions of dollars, much more than what was indicated this morning by the member for Ottawa Centre. As a matter of fact my figures are this, that of $7.1 million up to approximately $8 million by the federal government, the same will be put in by the Province of Ontario and up to $4 to $5 million by the city of Cornwall over a three-year period. which is a very significant amount and will, in my opinion, be the start of a boom for all of eastern Ontario.

I want to just go through this general agreement in order that the member for Kitchener will understand, first of all what the general development agreement is all about and why it is vague in certain cases. It has to be by necessity. We recognize full well in northern Ontario that there are certain key industries, such as pulp and paper and other types of wood-using manufacturers. We know that the government must take this into consideration by subsidiary agreements with those areas that are involved.

The federal government has taken into consideration the fact that we -- that is, the province -- have an office in Thunder Bay. They have also opened a new office in Thunder Bay to take care of the problems that we know exist in northern Ontario. I think the hon. member will appreciate the fact that this opening was just a few days ago, and I believe he was there at the time.

So the general agreement itself is very important to us on the basis that we have not been satisfied in Ontario with the amount of money that has been brought into Ontario by the federal government, nor have we been satisfied with the amount of money which was spent all over Canada to assist those areas of low economic status compared with other provinces. We feel the federal government has been remiss in not having more money appropriated for Ontario.

They have given us the undertaking that in the future they will appropriate more funds for Ontario. I cannot say to the hon. members here today how much they’ll give us, but they have given us the undertaking we will get a fair share, and I believe this is a start in the right direction.

Mr. Stokes: The figure of $40 million for northwestern Ontario has been bandied about. Has the minister any information on that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This is my understanding, that this figure of $40 million has been mentioned. But what I would like to say to the members is that I don’t think any figure is firm until you get your subsidiary agreements signed. Then you know how much money is going to be spent in Ontario, as an overall amount for the province.

We want to have the subsidiary agreements establishing a set of programmes which relate to the economic development in a specific region of the province. We want them to co-ordinate the existing federal and provincial programmes involving a particular development opportunity. We also want the agreements to provide specific support not available through other federal or provincial programmes. And we want their subsidiary agreements to establish continuing pro- grammes to fill gaps in the existing range of government-funded programmes. In a broad sense, that is what the development-agreement is all about.

As far as the Cornwall agreement is concerned, and as far as the ancillary agreements which Cornwall will enter into after the passing of this bill are concerned, it will mean that of the funds that we are providing from the federal and provincial governments and from the city of Cornwall itself, the people will have the funds to establish and complete an industrial park. They will be able to establish a single-industry site which will provide, as I understand it, up to 1,200 jobs.

Mr. Cassidy: What’s the industry?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What’s the industry? Combustion Engineering.

Mr. Cassidy: Right. What kind of plant?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s a boiler-making industry which is a male-employment industry. I think the member is well aware of the facts. It’s been in the press and I am sure the member reads the press as well as I do. It’s located in Quebec and I would hope that it doesn’t cancel its plan to come into Cornwall.

Mr. Cassidy: When will construction begin and when will the plant enter production?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, it’ll begin, I suppose, as soon as we get this bill through. I would try to say to the member again, if the hon. member for Ottawa Centre would ever learn to make his point and get it over with, maybe this House could do its business in a more reasonable way. I am sick and tired of having the member for Ottawa Centre, all the time, time after time after time, say nothing for half an hour. If he could stand up and make his point and get it over with, we would have had this bill through by now. But he has been yakking up there for half an hour, saying nothing.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): That’s not so.

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

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: -- this personal attack is not justified. The minister has had the bill sitting around for months --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There is no point of order.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and for him to babyishly whine about the loss of half an hour of his precious time is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.

Mr. Renwick: The first intelligent exposition of the problems of that area for many years.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the other facilities that will be improved in Cornwall will include the dock facilities. They will include barge facilities; there’ll also be rail facilities provided at the western end of Cornwall. We’ll have a new tourism and recreation area adjacent to the industrial site. We’ll also have a complete civic centre, as I understand it, if the city of Cornwall wishes to proceed with it. We are also going to develop some of the canal lands which have been of little use to the city and to the people of that particular area.

The federal government has agreed to provide a new training institute in Cornwall which will accommodate some 800 students. I think this is a very honest attempt by the federal government and the provincial government to provide job opportunities in Cornwall and the area. I was delighted to hear that the Liberal Party has agreed to this, too, and that certainly now we are co-operating, in a fashion which I hope we will carry on.

We have had some discussions this morning about why we did not relocate Stelco from where it is proposing to locate in southern Ontario. I think it’s a matter of economics and the feasibility of what industries one can locate.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Does it make any sense to relocate a steel company when there is absolutely no way anyone can prove to me that it can be provided with its raw materials and that its transportation costs will be as equitable as they would be where the company is now; where it can get the labour and where it can get housing and all the other things that go along with it?

Mr. Foulds: Why doesn’t the government do something about housing?

Mr. Cassidy: Why doesn’t the minister look into it? There is no housing in Haldimand.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have discussed this feasibility with the company and with other companies.

Mr. Cassidy: Nonsense. The company made its announcement before even telling the government.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We are considering the feasibility of having industries locate in certain areas. If it’s feasible to do so, we will certainly assist them as far as the government is concerned.

We are not going to say to industries, “Locate in an area so that, in five years’ time, you’re out of business.” That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Mr. Cassidy: Bunch of patsies.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I cannot agree with the socialist attitudes of the NDP, which say take over. There is no way. This government, as far as I am concerned, depends on private enterprise to make the economy of our province as good as it is.

Mr. Foulds: That would destroy the policy.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Certainly we will carry on doing so, in the future.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we have done as a government, through the Ontario Development Corp. and the Eastern Ontario Development Corp., has been to assist by way of loans --

Mr. Cassidy: The government is giving welfare to corporations.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- in providing job opportunities.

Mr. Foulds: Why does the government call them incentives when it gives them to corporations and welfare when it gives them to individuals?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Our socialist friends would like the government to take over everything.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am glad they are on record. That’s just terrific.

Mr. Foulds: Corporate welfare bums.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s just terrific that they are on record as wanting to take over everything because there is absolutely no way the NDP is going to make any impression in eastern Ontario or in any other part of Ontario when its members talk such nonsense. No way whatsoever.

I would think that serious consideration --

Mr. Foulds: That’s why this government has a minority of seats in the north.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- should be given to the party philosophy before its members stand up any more.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are dealing with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Foulds: That’s why the anti-labour member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) is going to lose his seat.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As far as we are concerned the government has assisted by way of grants, and will continue to do so, to locate industries in those areas which haven’t had the growth we have experienced in certain parts of Ontario.

I want to say very briefly at this time that the member for Ottawa Centre has brought up the point of inadequate consultation with the people. How far does one go on the matter of consultation? This matter has been discussed at some length in the city of Cornwall. All the province is providing by way of this bill is allowing the municipality to enter into an agreement which will go beyond the term of the present council, in regard to a debenture debt. It does not change the fact that one must have an OMB hearing for any change of zoning and therefore I believe that it is not in the best interests of ill concerned to consider an amendment to this bill whatsoever, when the debt that is being incurred is certainly in the best interests of all the people at the local level and if there is a change in planning there will be a hearing.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say again that we look forward in the next few weeks -- maybe the next few days -- to entering into specific agreements with the federal government and with areas in northern Ontario --

Mr. Cassidy: Which ones?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am not at liberty to name the areas, but we look forward to doing that and will be doing that, I understand, very shortly, and I think at that time those areas that are affected will be as appreciative as the area of Cornwall. Thank you.

Mr. Foulds: Don’t count on it.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr. Cassidy: Committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker: Is that agreeable to the minister?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: So directed.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed with the next order of business, I beg to inform the House that, in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to a certain bill in his chamber.

Clerk of the House: The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour has assented:

An Act respecting a certain Dispute between the York County Board of Education and certain of its Teachers.

Clerk of the House: Order for committee of the whole House.

MUNICIPAL ACT

House in committee on Bill 8, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 1?

Section 1 agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy moves that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following words at the end of paragraph 74a:

Provided that no municipality shall enter into such an agreement without a programme of public consultation, including public meetings, on this proposed agreement, and such consultation shall be to the satisfaction of the minister.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I just want to raise a specific point and pursue it. We raised it briefly during the course of the debate and I think that the hon. Minister (Mr. Irvine) in fact misunderstood some of the points that I was making on that particular thing.

The minister lives a few miles away from Cornwall and is better aware than I am of the degree of public consultation that is taking place on the presently proposed $14 million plan in Cornwall, and I am willing to take his word for it that it is to the satisfaction of the minister that there has been adequate consultation in that particular area. It is a fait accompli at any rate; the agreement has been signed and it is just a matter of time now before we go ahead.

But this bill doesn’t affect only Cornwall. It is not a Cornwall bill, it is a general amendment to the Municipal Act and there will be other communities -- Blind River or Geraldton or Thunder Bay or North Bay or maybe even Pembroke or Smiths Falls -- which will be involved under this particular new set of powers. The purpose of the amendment is to affect them as well.

The minister’s reply is that people who wish to comment on the agreement will have the opportunity if a zoning change is involved. However, my concern, and our concern, is that the strategy of development assistance being adopted for that particular municipality should be a subject of public participation or public consultation, and the present state of the law would permit a municipality in fact to go through all of the stages in negotiations with the federal and provincial governments without even letting the municipality know what is happening. That is what the legal state of the law is right now, up to the point where the agreement is signed and the bylaw is passed. It is simply unacceptable in this day and age.

If you want to take an example, Mr. Chairman, from the situation at Cornwall, one of the major parts of the programme is a cultural centre and I believe an arena. Now, that’s part of the strategy in order to improve the livability of Cornwall, and therefore make it more attractive to new industries and to management and workers of new industries coming in.

Now, it may well be that people in the community have got pretty strong feelings that there are other things that they would put as their priority in improving the livability of the community. It might be a golf course. It might be a tennis court. It might be a sailing club. I don’t know -- it might be something quite different. But at any rate that’s the kind of thing that you need to discuss publicly beforehand rather than getting locked into it with the federal and provincial governments beforehand.

In addition, it seems to me that this particular requirement is necessary because of the very pronounced tendency of the federal government to want to work behind closed doors. They just have that tendency. I know that the minister is aware of it.

As a resident of Ottawa and as a former observer of the federal government, I am certainly aware of it. And this is without commenting on the fact that the provincial government is, I am afraid, subject to the same tendency, too. So, if you will, the amendment is proposed to protect against these tendencies at the various levels of government who want to work in privacy.

Now, in the copy that the minister has -- I am sorry, I seem to have lost the copy for the Liberal Party, I apologize -- I had originally suggested the amendment refer to the details of the proposed agreement, taking the words “the details” out and simply refer to it that on “the proposed agreement, there should be public consultation on the proposals made to the satisfaction of the minister.”

Now, if you will, then that becomes a statement of intent. It is up to the minister and the local council to establish whether one public meeting a few weeks before the signing of the agreement is adequate, or whether in fact there should be a series of public meetings and information provided to the public over the period of a year before the signing of an agreement.

It probably depends on the nature of the proposals, how radical or revolutionary they are, the amount of investment involved and that kind of thing. But I do hope that the minister will reconsider the points that I made before and will accept this particular amendment.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this amendment, I would encourage the minister to give it some consideration.

On this side of the House, we are concerned as I am certain the minister is, with adequate public involvement and consultation before decisions are made that develop areas into a certain way that they cannot be changed. I think that the matters of public concern are most important here.

We have seen in the past agreements entered into on occasion wherein knowledge of the local community was not as broad as it should be. And, of course, these are decisions which are going to affect not only the people who are living in the community now, but their sons and daughters and their grandsons and granddaughters. I would encourage the minister to have as much public consultation as is possible in these matters.

It seems to me that the signing of these agreements, which are going to involve substantial amounts of public funds, must always be done in such a way that the public interest is adequately served. A good way to serve that public interest is to encourage various groups within the communities to involve themselves in planning, in the making of choices as to the kinds of facilities that can best suit the community -- and of course, then in not only backing the agreements and making their communities better places in which to live, but also being able to feel that they have been part of this consultative process.

I would hope that the minister could consider this kind of an amendment. I think it would be a most worthwhile one.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I would like, Mr. Chairman, to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Ottawa Centre. I hearken back to a series of exchanges that I have had with the provincial Treasurer (Mr. White) over a number of months. It was precipitated by the action of the regional development people within his ministry to withdraw their economic support and assistance from the regional development councils across the province. When that took place, about a year and a half ago, it meant that we effectively cut off any kind of advisory capacity, any kind of consultative capacity or any kind of liaison that went with the activities of the various development councils across the province.

At that time, since northwestern Ontario had reached the stage where Phase 3 of Design for Development had been accepted as government policy and was to be implemented, there was no local presence for ongoing consultation and dialogue with the regional development branch of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs.

It was just about a week ago that the Treasurer saw fit to set up what he referred to as MAC, the municipal advisory committee, which will comprise the heads of councils of all of the northwestern region and will act wholly and solely in an advisory capacity to the minister in his responsibilities for regional and industrial development.

Therefore, it looks as though we are going to have a vehicle for that kind of dialogue. I don’t know how effective it will be. Certainly I know that the kind of response the minister had from the northwestern Ontario regional development council was meaningful and very useful; it was a vehicle that everybody in the region could identify with and feel they were a part of. But since the councils were disbanded, a tremendous void has been left. And the person who is solely responsible for the implementation of Design for Development for northwestern Ontario sits in an office in the Frost Building down here. This is the kind of consultation that has gone on since the government disbanded the regional development councils and withdrew any financial support to them.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Stokes: All I’m saying is that what my colleague is attempting to do here is to provide assurance to people in those regions that they will be given adequate opportunity for consultation before the fact, not after the fact. I’m not aware of the kind of consultation that went on with the council of the city of Cornwall, but I think it’s absolutely essential that we provide this vehicle.

The minister has already said that there has been adequate consultation, and before any decisions of this nature are taken in the future there will be complete and adequate consultation with those whose lives are likely to be affected. I see no reason why it couldn’t be incorporated in this bill. And I would hope that the minister, in view of his remarks earlier, would accept this amendment in good faith. It can do no harm, and it can do a lot of good.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am rising at this time to support the proposed amendment. Surely one of the things we have learned, or at least we hope the government will learn, is that there has to be adequate consultation with people, particularly in those areas of planning which so vitally affect their lives.

In looking at this particular piece of proposed legislation, I was very sorry that once more there seemed to be a thrust away not only from letting the people be aware, but from letting them be a part of the planning process. This is something for which I have stood personally through my whole political career and, of course, this caucus has been pointing it out in all of the regional discussions that have gone on since I’ve been in the House and I’m sure before that time.

It is certainly urgent that people once more believe that they are living in a form of democracy which is meaningful, that they are not just left in the position that their only rights are to vote every so many years, whatever they may be, having in mind the government that is relevant to that situation. It has been demonstrated that this is what the people of this province want, and surely, Mr. Chairman, it would be important that we give this kind of emphasis to legislation of this sort which is so important to the people of this province. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments from hon. members? The minister.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Chairman, I recognize full well the importance of public consultation. That’s been the philosophy of this government all along and we’re not denying that by this Act in one small way or one large way, whichever way you want to put it. It’s not denied at all. What we’re saying is that the minister will determine with the local elected people as to how much consultation has been held with the people in the area. I would hope that we agree that the local people that are elected are the ones that should determine how much public consultation is necessary.

Mr. Stokes: In many areas you don’t even have a vehicle. In this case, you’re getting one that’s a municipal council. In many areas you don’t have a legal entity, unless you’ve got an umbrella type of organization.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I recognize what the hon. member is referring to as unorganized territories. If you look at the Throne Speech carefully enough, you’ll notice that we have some plans to look after the areas, where they don’t have local elected representatives, and I expect these will come about in the very near future also.

Mrs. Campbell: It is a matter of choice, isn’t it?

Mr. Stokes: Have you been told not to accept anything from the opposition?

Mr. Cassidy: Have you got your orders again?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As far as I’m concerned this amendment doesn’t do anything but what will happen in any event. It’s the usual attempt by the NDP to bring forth an amendment which is not relevant to the whole Act at all.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It is the hard-line approach of the government to avoid consultation with the people.

Mr. Stokes: It can only reinforce what you’ve already said.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is an attempt to say the legislation is not drawn up properly.

Mr. Renwick: You need a little stiffening of the backbone when it comes to public consultation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’m saying the legislation is drawn up properly, taking into consideration that we believe in the local elected people making these decisions for their people. We believe, full well, that the minister will recognize whether or not there is full consultation at the local level. I say to the members who have supported this amendment, that it’s redundant and I reject it.

Mr. Renwick: You are redundant.

Mr. Stokes: You make me sick.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cassidy moves that section 2 of Bill 8 be amended by --

Mr. Cassidy: Hold on, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a comment or two and I have the right to.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Oh, get off it!

Mr. Cassidy: What’s wrong with you? It’s only 12:50. We’ve got a few more minutes.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre has the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: I just don’t understand it. The minister says that the government, or the minister, will determine with the council the amount of public consultation. That is precisely what the amendment says. I just don’t understand why he rejects it except for the suggestion --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Because it is not necessary.

Mr. Renwick: He doesn’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s not necessary.

Mr. Cassidy: It happens that the opposition party and the New Democratic Party, from our experience on municipal councils and in the way in which governments work in all three levels, do feel that it’s necessary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I know you are an expert in everything, but maybe there is a day when you will recognize there’s something you’re not expert in.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh! I happen to be critic in this particular area and I have a certain amount of knowledge and some experience as well. I have some knowledge about the ways in which municipal councils work. My own council back in Ottawa, for example, did have a rather bad habit of suppressing information and feeling that because they were elected they knew everything and, therefore, they would not let information out to the public that could affect other councils around the province which were dealing with questions of regional development agreements. We simply want to ensure that that doesn’t happen by putting it in this legislation.

I would hope, with the minister, that the provision of the amendment is completely redundant.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: You are trying to say that these people who are elected should not have anything to do. They should go to everybody and say --

Mr. Cassidy: I am trying to say that the process of elected government in the 1970s should involve going back to the electors, the people, on many occasions, whenever there are important things, in order to see what people feel. It may be that the elected representatives listen to the people and then say, “We reject it. We think you are wrong” and they make another decision. Right now the situation left is that they can make a decision and not go back at all to see what the people feel. They have the right or the power to impose a fait accompli.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Just look at the practicalities for once.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. What are the practicalities?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If you go back to the days when you were elected, maybe you might remember you did consult with some people before you took a certain stand on an issue. If it’s controversial, I am sure, you are going to contact a lot of people. Any responsible local council would do the same and I expect that will be done in the future.

Mr. Cassidy: I can cite examples of this Legislature and this government not doing precisely that and I can cite two examples of local councils which meet in camera.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Cassidy: They meet in camera and reach a decision on a controversial issue and then go into public session merely for the matter of passing the bylaw. The electorate wakes up the next day and finds itself with a fait accompli.

Mr. Renwick: No question.

Mr. Cassidy: I will give you one example. In the new township -- I can’t remember the name now -- which has taken in Stittsville, Richmond and Goulbourn townships, early in February, the councillors, who had been working very hard on organization, held a closed meeting at which they decided they would increase their salaries from the maximum of about $1,800 paid to the reeve of one of the constituent municipalities prior to 1974, to the figure of about $10,000 for the mayor and $6,000 for the councillors. There were rumors around the community about that but nobody could get any firm information. When the press went to the local clerk-treasurer and said, “What’s happening?” he said, “We can’t find the material.” A month later the issue surfaced when the council in public session simply passed, without comment, a bylaw that brought in those increased salaries.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Certainly that is a matter for the local people to decide.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. In two years or three years they will eventually get to an election when they can, in fact, bring their people into line. There was no consultation beforehand. I learned the local people felt generally that maybe pay levels of about two-thirds of those chosen would be reasonable; it was a very large increase from what had been paid before. It was recognized the previous level was unreasonable but that was never tested by that particular council.

There is instance after instance of that happening around the province and we are simply saying “Put it in the legislation.” Let’s hope, with you, that it is not necessary because every council will be so full of good intentions that it will do it anyway, but let’s make sure they do have the consultation that is required.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Cassidy’s amendment will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

I declare the amendment lost.

Mr. Cassidy: Before we let section 2 go I am intrigued by the suggestion by the minister that the $14 million to be spent by the two senior governments and the $4 million to be spent by Cornwall will be and I quote, “the start of an economic boom” for all of eastern Ontario. If that’s the case, where on earth has this government been for the last eight or 10 years when to start an economic boom in eastern Ontario would have cost so little money?

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, let me say this to you and to other members of the House; as far as the people of eastern Ontario are concerned they appreciate very much what this government has done for them and they will show in the next election exactly what they think about the NDP.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments or questions on this bill?

Mr. Cassidy: The NDP vote doubled at the last election in Ontario and it will double again.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the bill be reported?

Bill 8 reported.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee of the whole House rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report a certain bill without amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion.

Bill 8, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I would like to say that because of the absence of some members on March 25, I will suggest that we move the consideration of Bill 7, item 4, to the following day, the 26th, and therefore on the 25th we will resume the debate in accordance with item 1.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:00 o’clock p.m.