Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this House, 35 students from Jack Miner Senior Public School in West Hill. Would you join with me in welcoming them and their teachers to the gallery?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, would you join me in welcoming a group of students from Fern Avenue Public School?

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to introduce to the hon. members 28 members of the debating society of Mohawk College and their staff member, Mrs. Stevenson.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of the House to join with me in welcoming students from Nelson High School in Burlington.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today the distinguished member for the North Province in the Legislative Council of Western Ontario who is visiting our province for the purpose of studying all the services available to its citizens.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Western Ontario? What is this -- separatism?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What did I say?

An hon. member: Western Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Western Australia!

Mr. Cassidy: You know, the Liberals are strong there.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, the members for western Ontario here are distinguished members as well.

An hon. member: Indeed, they are.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m sure the hon. members would like to join me in welcoming the Hon. William Robert Withers who is seated, sir, in your gallery.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the hon. members would like to join with me in welcoming to your gallery up there one A. B. R. Lawrence whom many of us used to know around here.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Some of us still do.

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

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Would that he were still here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. Last Tuesday during question period the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I had an exchange on the Shouldice affair. In the course of his reply the Premier said, and I quote from Hansard: “If the leader of the New Democratic Party has certain information that I have not available to me, fine. If he would communicate this to me, etc....”

In direct response to the Premier’s request, I would like to provide further information in the form of additional Ross Shouldice correspondence. My colleagues from the Sudbury area received the material on Tuesday. I saw it that evening. This, then, is the first specific opportunity I have had to pass it on to the Premier.

On the basis of these letters, Mr. Speaker, I make no accusations or charges whatsoever, nor draw any conclusions; except perhaps save one: that a provincial inquiry into the affairs and activities of Ross Shouldice is still merited.

In the next little while, before the orders of the day although not until the Premier has had a chance to peruse the letters, I shall table the correspondence and circulate it accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: I’m not sure that is a point of personal privilege. It seems to me there are no personal privileges abrogated by the action, but the member has made his point.

Statements by the ministry.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, later today I will introduce legislation to establish the Ontario Lottery Corp. as a Crown agency to develop and manage a provincial lottery in Ontario. In creating a Crown corporation to manage this lottery we are taking advantage of the experience of other jurisdictions.

The net proceeds from the lottery will be used by the government to support programmes for physical fitness, sports, recreation and culture in Ontario. The corporation will determine the price of tickets, sales arrangements, size of the prizes and frequency of the draws.

On the basis of experience elsewhere, we expect that sales could reach $100 million within the next couple of years. After the return of about 40 per cent of that in prizes and the payment of operational expenses and sales commissions of about 20 per cent, we expect between $40 million and $50 million to be available for physical fitness, sports, recreation and cultural programmes.

To achieve these financial objectives and to ensure that we retain as much as possible of the proceeds for public use, we intend, among other things, to keep the corporation small in order to hold down overhead costs, and we anticipate a distribution and sales operation similar to that employed by the Olympic lottery.

We would not want our lottery, of course, to adversely affect the sales of Olympic lottery tickets in the province. We have had extensive discussions about this with Olympic lottery officials and we have been encouraged by them to move ahead with our plans for the Ontario lottery.

The question of provincial lotteries has attracted widespread interest in Ontario since federal legislation was amended in 1970 to permit them. Members of the House, Mr. Speaker, will recall that a provincial lottery was the subject of a thorough debate during the private members’ hour on Dec. 16 last. It was clear from the support of participants in that debate and from facts and figures compiled by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, that there is wide public support for lotteries in the province.

Residents of this province have already bought more than 840 million worth of tickets for the Olympic lottery and we have estimates that another $40 million is spent annually in the province on the Irish Sweepstakes and other large provincial and state-run lotteries.

Many social, cultural, religious and charitable organizations in the province have also made lotteries a source of funds for their important work. These will continue, of course, under the supervision of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and I am satisfied that the provincial lottery will not interfere with their efforts.

Research based on experience in other jurisdictions has shown that local lotteries are identified with local activities and have their own special attraction and participation. A province-wide lottery, therefore, will not compete directly with them. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think the Ontario lottery could provide a new source of revenue for many non-profit groups which may wish to become sales agents and sell tickets directly to the public on a commission basis. Additional revenue from this provincial lottery will be used to enhance even further the new impetus this government intends to give to a whole range of activities which will benefit all of the people of the province.

The establishment of the new Ministry of Culture and Recreation reflects the high priority this government assigns to the promotion of physical fitness, sports, recreation and cultural activities of all kinds. The lottery revenues will be used to further stimulate these programmes above and beyond the considerable expenditure that the government is already making in these areas. So we intend to move quickly on this matter and we ask for the co-operation of the House in dealing expeditiously with this legislation.

GIFT TAX ACT

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, since the coining into force on Jan. 1, 1972, of the Ontario Gift Tax Act, absolute gifts between spouses have been completely freed from tax. In his recent budget of Nov. 15, 1974, the federal Minister of Finance proposed that taxpayers be allowed to contribute toward registered retirement savings plans for the benefit of their spouses, the amount of such contribution being deductible in computing the taxpayer’s income. The government of Ontario views this change in policy as both sound in its encouragement of savings and as an improvement in equity.

Because registered retirement savings plans are a form of trust, contributions on behalf of a spouse would be taxable under the Gift Tax Act. In order to further facilitate transfers between spouses, I intend to propose to the Legislature that the Gift Tax Act be amended to exempt from gift tax, payments made to spouses through a registered retirement savings plan. This change -- and I don’t anticipate it will come in for several weeks, until such time as we have seen the federal legislation -- will be retroactive to the 1974 and subsequent taxation years.

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

FIRE SAFETY ON LICENSED PREMISES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to put a question to the Solicitor General, having to do with the verdict of the inquest held in Paris, Ont., following the death of five people in a fire in a hotel in that community. Is he prepared to make a statement of government policy which will bring some order into the present serious disarray in the fire inspection and enforcement procedures that come under at least three ministers of the Crown, but largely the Solicitor General? Has he examined the recommendations of the inquest, or those resulting from the statement by the jury, and is he prepared to recommend to his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), who is responsible for the Liquor Licence Board, that once and for all we stop using the threat of withdrawal of liquor licences as the main tool to enforce fire inspection improvement?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’ve had an opportunity to read the coroner’s verdict in respect of that inquest. I basically agree with its recommendations. The Hotel Fire Safety Act has been enforced by inspectors of the Liquor Control Board. For the most part, those inspections have been carried out properly. There has been no misunderstanding as far as the fire marshal’s office is concerned. That responsibility was given to liquor inspectors. However, there is an anomaly and I agree that it’s divided among at least three ministries. I hope to meet with my other two colleagues and make some changes.

FIRE SAFETY ON LICENSED PREMISES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question to put to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding the same matter: Since the fire marshal was in the habit of accepting the recommendations and reports from local fire inspections and passing them directly on to the Liquor Licence Board, has he had conversations with the chairman of that board toward shoring up this impossible situation until the government is prepared to correct it by means of legislation?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, yes, I have had discussions with the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board. I think we appreciate that he has been put in a very difficult situation in that his inspectors are delegated by law and by the fire marshal, and that the only licensing authority he has is with regard to the licensed premises.

The chairman of the board has no authority to do other than close down the licensed premises, except on the authority of the fire marshal, so there is an anomaly here. I will be discussing this with my colleague, the Solicitor General, but in the meantime the chairman of the board has issued orders to those who have been non-compliant that they must conform to the fire marshal’s orders by a particular date, and at that time he will review their licence applications.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the order from the chairman of the board evidently came forward after he was subpoenaed to appear before the inquest, or just immediately before, has he discussed with the chairman and the other members of the board the conduct of their responsibilities during those many months and years when work orders were not enforced and were in abeyance as much as four years, which resulted in the New Royal Hotel being very much a death trap resulting in the demise of five residents?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Since the chairman appeared at the inquest, I have discussed with him his responsibilities under the Act and those which have been delegated to his inspectors under the Act. We hope to find a way of meeting the jury’s recommendations in very short order. However, there will have to be legislation to put those recommendation into effect.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may: Given the incident that led to the inquest, is the minister satisfied in his own mind that the chairman of the board behaved appropriately in dealing with the responsibilities he now has under the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied the chairman of the board acted responsibly. I am also satisfied that the inspectors carried out their responsibilities as well as they were equipped to do. I quite readily admit that there is a defect in the present system of inspection and that that defect will be repaired as quickly as possible.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister then make clear where he feels the responsibility lies, which allowed the New Royal Hotel, an 80-year-old building, to continue its business without an operating fire alarm system and subject to unfulfilled work orders of long standing, which resulted in the death of five residents? Who is to blame?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am not about to cast blame in a situation like this. I would like to review the jury recommendations. They have attributed responsibility in certain areas. As I say, I will be discussing it with my colleague so that we can clarify the responsibilities for enforcement of the Act into one agency.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions by the Leader of the Opposition?

SOBERMAN REPORT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, I would like to ask the Premier for his comments in response to a statement made by the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Or, perhaps, if the Speaker will permit me, I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications if he is correctly reported as having said that in his view the so-called Spadina ditch should be paved as an arterial road to Eglinton? Is that correctly attributed to the minister?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I have said, having had an opportunity to look at the report of Mr. Soberman and his recommendation that there be paving in the existing Spadina corridor to the four-lane arterial capacity, that I felt this had some merit and that I would be prepared to recommend that to my colleagues in cabinet.

Mr. Lewis: Good Lord!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the Premier: What does he think of that?

An hon. member: Yes, that’s a good question.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Is that government policy?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What is the official opposition’s position?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That it be paved up to Eglinton. That is precisely what we have been telling the minister and his predecessors.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no it’s not.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Premier is attempting to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that Mr. Soberman’s recommendations have to be looked at in their total context.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This will be good. Everybody listen to him beat around the bush now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We’re always prepared to look at the recommendations from the minister, and I would say, just from a general observation, that Mr. Soberman’s recommendations are a very substantial improvement on the very ambivalent and inconsistent position taken by the Liberal Party across the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ours isn’t changed, but apparently the Premier’s is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West, a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Is this recommendation by the minister, which is a stunning reversal of everything the Premier stood for in 1971, everything he stood for in 1971 --

Mr. Singer: That is not what the Premier says. He said it was consistent.

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Mr. Lewis: -- is this acceptable to him as the Premier who made the stop-Spadina statement, as the Transit Man of the Year award winner? Is this now acceptable to him?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Man of the year!

Mr. Singer: Come now, Mr. Transit Man.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s going to get another award.

Mr. Singer: Tell us, Mr. Transit Man.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would only answer to the leader of the New Democratic Party that --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It isn’t going to change the Premier’s position.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): The member for Downsview was deputy leader two or three years ago.

Mr. Singer: I remember.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I have not myself studied Mr. Soberman’s report, but I think it’s quite obvious that the government will be studying it, and we will be assessing the recommendations from our colleague.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: Is that a repudiation of the Premier’s colleague?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No.

Mr. Singer: Where do we go now, Mr. Transit Man?

Mr. Lewis: What follows from that?

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Is he going to give back the medal?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is the Leader of the Opposition’s turn to ask a question.

Mr. Lewis: With respect, we are just resurrecting Spadina.

Mr. Speaker: I am resurrecting the Leader of the Opposition. Order please.

Mr. Lewis: The one decision of value.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member take his seat? Will the hon. member take his seat?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Oh, sit down, jungle mouth!

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Very portentous.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We don’t want him thrown out because it’s going to get better later in the day.

Mr. Lewis: Is that another “gutteral” sound from the member for Timiskaming across the way?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Is that the member’s maiden speech?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Education --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Is the Premier reversing everything, piece by piece? The election is getting closer.

THUNDER BAY TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- I want to ask the Minister of Education for a report in the situation involving the continuing strike of secondary school teachers in Thunder Bay. The minister is aware that the teachers there were working to rule, so called, during September; that they had a rotating strike during November, and have withdrawn their services, all but 30 of them, until this time. Is the minister aware that because of the semester system, a number of students have effectively lost a half year there? Is he satisfied with the four attempts at mediation? And can he indicate to the House that the ceilings that he has imposed on the spending programme of that board are in no way interfering with the settlement?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I can tell my friend very definitely the spending ceilings are not interfering with that settlement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why does the board say otherwise?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know why the board says otherwise.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe it is because it’s true.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It isn’t true. The member read the report that our financial people went up and did quite a while ago. I just want to tell my friend there is a mediator in that situation at the present time --

Mr. Lewis: Hear, hear, a good one. An excellent mediator.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and the mediator is a good one and he’s working in a very delicate situation. Let my friend stand up now and tell me what he’d like me to do, otherwise I --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: May I ask the minister why he didn’t send a good mediator up at least one of the three previous times that he undertook mediation? Does he save his good ones for when it gets serious, or what?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Every one of the mediators who have been in that situation have been good mediators. In fact, they’ve been excellent mediators.

Mr. Lewis: But this is an especially good one.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They are all special and they’re different --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That’s why the results were so good.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- and at this particular time we have a very fine mediator operating in that situation, put in there by the government of this province -- and being paid for as an impartial mediator -- to settle that matter. I have great confidence in him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Can the minister indicate to the House that there is at least a chance, by putting a good mediator into that situation, we can get the schools open for next Monday?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been hoping that those schools would be open a long time ago, but such has not been the case. I don’t know exactly why the settlement is being held up. I don’t know what the mediator is doing. I know that I have confidence in him. He’s operating up there in Thunder Bay at the present time, and I want to see that dispute over just as soon as the member does.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Good.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But we have to recognize that we have here legitimate concerns of teachers and an autonomous school board who are bargaining to get a decent settlement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Like North York. A supplementary, with your permission, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Wells: In North York they wanted us to take over the school board. Now does the member want us to do that in this situation?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Minister of Education indicate to the House what alternatives the students in the school system there have under the semester system, with the problems that he is very much aware of?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I understand that as soon as the schools are reopened the academic administration of that board and the teachers will be working to assist those students. All I can tell my friend is that save for some students who perhaps did not return to the schools after they opened again, the reports that I got from York indicate that there were very few ill effects from the strike.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, I would like to hear about Mr. Shouldice.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Lewis: I have no questions on that matter.

SOBERMAN REPORT

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications first, isn’t the reversal of Krauss-Maffei enough? I mean, is it not possible for the minister to postpone a recommendation on the Spadina corridor until the possibilities of a rapid public transit alternative are viewed? Why is the minister now committing himself to Spadina or Highway 400? Why is the minister reversing that decision now?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity -- I don’t know whether the hon. member has -- to have read Mr. Soberman’s report.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t see that the minister has to make that choice now.

Mr. Renwick: In fact he is asking for feasibility studies.

Mr. Lewis: He asks for time.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister is answering the question.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Why doesn’t he answer the question?

Mr. Speaker: He is trying.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister is attempting to answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Having read the report, Mr. Soberman, as I read this, indicates that there are really no transit alternatives to serving the northwest part of Metro. It says that in here.

Mr. Breithaupt: Surprise, surprise.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The proposal that he has made, in conjunction with a total transportation proposal which includes much public transit, is to use the existing Spadina corridor for a four-lane arterial road. He also suggests, as the members know, the extension of Highway 400 as an arterial road. He says that these --

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Singer: Oh really? Have we ever heard that before?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- can, combined with public transit facilities, relieve the problem of congestion that exists in the northwest.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He says that in the northwestern part of the city the traffic has been so congested that there is a desperate need for road improvements, and I suggest to the member that arterial routes are an improvement that I personally feel I can recommend to my colleagues as opposed to expressways in Etobicoke.

Mr. Lewis: But it is an expressway. The minister knows it is an expressway.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, it is not an expressway.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member opposite doesn’t know the difference between a four-lane road and an expressway, I am not going to try to explain it to him.

Mr. Lewis: Come on, come on.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is right, there is a difference.

Interjections by hon. members.

An. hon. member: Someone’s straining at gnats.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? Supplementary? The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: What is going to happen to all that traffic when it dumps on Eglinton Ave? There is no room and the minister is going to ruin Forest Hill village.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members want a total review of the report we can go into that now. I would suggest that the hon. member get the report and read it.

Mr. Breithaupt: We would just like to hear what the minister’s policy is.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Has the member read it?

An hon. member: No.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No? I didn’t think he had.

Mr. Roy: Get the transportation man of the year to direct traffic.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West? Supplementary? The member for Port Arthur?

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that in northwestern Ontario around the city of Thunder Bay the Ministry of Transportation and Communications designates a two-lane highway as an expressway?

Mr. Breithaupt: It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I am aware that we don’t designate it as an expressway, that is what the good people up there call it.

Mr. Lewis: Is that a slur on northerners?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I said the good people.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? What recommendations is he making to his cabinet colleagues about the extension of Highway 400?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will recommend to my cabinet colleagues that we take a very serious look to accept the proposal that Mr. Soberman has made in his report.

An hon. member: Oh no!

Mr. Lewis: The minister means pave Spadina -- extend the 400? Where is his anti-expressway policy?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am prepared to recommend to my colleagues, as I have said earlier today --

Mr. Lewis: What is happening to them over there?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- what Mr. Soberman has recommended in his report, that the 400 not be an expressway, but that it be a four-lane arterial route using many existing roads.

Mr. Lewis: Who is the minister fooling about with?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, the member doesn’t know any better.

Mr. Shulman: Who is he kidding?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Since Mr. Soberman, as I read the report, asked that a feasibility study be made is the minister jumping over him in the feasibility study and making a recommendation in advance of any such report?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should make it very clear that what I have said here today is subject to what may be recommended to us by Metro council.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s point two. The minister is learning.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The feasibility study that the member is talking about here is the feasibility of the construction of Highway 400 as an expressway all the way down.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As I said earlier, and I say it again, Metro council will have to recommend to us the acceptance of the Soberman report.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: The Ministry of Transportation and Communications is collapsing.

Mr. Singer: Bring Charlie MacNaughton back as a consultant and he will advise the minister again.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. Givens: I’d like to ask the minister: In light of the monumental recommendations of the Soberman report, does the minister not think it’s about time that he brought this House up to date and gave us a progress report on the shambles that he picked up as a result of the cancellation of the Krauss-Maffei contract and told us where he stands on that? It’s about 100 days since the ministry cancelled that. Where does the minister stand on the shambles that he picked up from that debacle?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure now -- “In light of the Soberman report....” I fail to see what the relationship is. But I can assure the hon. member --

Mr. Givens: What is the minister’s answer? That was to be his answer for Highway 400 and the Spadina Expressway.

Mr. Singer: The minister doesn’t see the relationship. He doesn’t see anything.

Mr. Lewis: It is the disintegration of the ministry’s transportation policy.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s very, very difficult to answer the questions from the Liberal caucus for the simple reason that I don’t know which policy I’m to follow and listen to.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t know whether it’s from the member for York-Forest Hill, the member for Downsview or the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell); so pick out any one you like.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre has a final supplementary on this question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have order, please, from the member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: He’s a good minister. No policy.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain how we are to put credence in his proposal for arterials on these particular routes when the minister personally intervened in order to turn the Don Valley extension from an arterial into an expressway? Won’t that happen in these two cases as well?

Mr. Lewis: Of course it will happen, and it will kill downtown Toronto.

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

Mr. Shulman: It’s 1943 all over again.

Mr. Lewis: It’s disintegration.

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

NON-RETURNABLE CONTAINERS

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the public clamour and the pressure that is put upon him from many environmental groups, is he now prepared to expand, if not reverse, his policy on ring tops, flip tops and flip tabs and ban the non-renewables, rather than this absurd step?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. leader of the NDP party --

Mr. Lewis: Just NDP.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or ND Party, if he wishes.

Mr. Lewis: Or ND Party. We are pretty sensitive about that.

An hon. member: NDP -- “No Damn Policy.”

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Scarborough West had only read the statement that I made in the House when I tabled the Solway task force report in December -- and just to refresh his memory, when I tabled the task force’s report I accepted 14 of the 16 recommendations and I also --

Mr. Lewis: Right, all the irrelevant ones.

Hon. W. Newman: Does the member want to hear what I have to say? He quite obviously didn’t listen to the statement that day. Does he want to listen today?

Mr. Lewis: I do indeed.

Hon. W. Newman: Fine. I said I would be having further meetings with industry and with union people, the glass people and all of the people concerned, in the near future to discuss this whole matter.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, a supplementary: Is the minister giving any personal consideration, with his own staff, to the successes and also the problems experienced in jurisdictions where they have banned non-returnable glass containers? What is his finding in that regard? What frightens him away from that?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there have been various routes followed in various provinces of Canada and there have been various routes followed in many states in the United States. We’ve looked at them all. There are several routes in various states.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oregon.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, Oregon is a pretty commonly known one; the deposit refund system which the member is talking about. We have other considerations in the Province of Ontario besides what they have in Oregon. We have looked at all the legislation across North America and that’s one of the reasons why we will be meeting further with the industry to discuss the total situation as far as cans and bottles are concerned.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Supplementary: Why didn’t the minister accept the recommendation that an option be given customers by making it at least compulsory that those stocking non-returnables only would also have to stock returnable containers for soft drinks? That was one of the major recommendations, short of banning them, and the minister wouldn’t even accept that. Why?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I’ve just forgotten the exact wording of the recommendation but the member has oversimplified the situation. What he is asking me now probably is, should they handle returnable bottles as well as non-returnable bottles in the store. That will be one of the things I will be discussing with the industry in the very near future.

Mr. Good: It has been five years now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since the minister has advised that the considerations with respect to this problem in Oregon are different from those in Ontario, can he give us the details as to what those differences are as they are viewed by the ministry?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, there are many differences. One is that basically they do not have to deal with the economic situation, with people and jobs and considerations that are involved, that we have in the Province of Ontario. They only have one large city in the State of Oregon. The rest of it is fairly sparsely populated. We have many different economic conditions here in the Province of Ontario from what they have in the State of Oregon.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the hon. member for Scarborough West?

POLLUTION FROM NANTICOKE AREA

Mr. Lewis: I have one further question of the Minister of the Environment. What studies can he table for us to show the effects of the environmental pollution which will emanate from Nanticoke on the city of Hamilton? What environmental studies has he done?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously the member has read the paper. Our people have been doing certain environmental testing work on it. We will make sure that any industry when it is built will be built to the environmental standards that we require, which are very high.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: The minister will recall that Dr. David Pengally, an engineer with McMaster University, indicated that the dust particles floating from Nanticoke would almost certainly raise the levels of pollution in Hamilton. Therefore it is reasonable to ask what does the minister have by way of an environmental impact study on the Nanticoke Stelco development?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, any of those developments down there, any of those companies that are going in there, will have to meet our standards, which are very high as far as emission controls are concerned from those various plants. Whether the member is talking about dust emissions or various other emissions from those plants, they will have to meet our standards. One nice thing about it is, with the standards we have in place, with these new plants that are built and the controls that can be put on, I’m quite satisfied that we won’t have any problems.

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

NORTH ATLANTIC AIR FARES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister in charge of protecting the consumer in this province, is he aware that six airlines flying North Atlantic charters have all put in identical estimates on their flights to Britain to the Canadian Transport Commission; that they have an arrangement where the lowest rate applies; and that prior to submitting the lowest rate they spent months together discussing the fare and, in fact, were price fixing? What is the minister going to do about it or what submissions is he going to put to the federal government to protect the consumers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am familiar with the case which was reported in the Ottawa Journal yesterday. Certainly I would think that airlines flying from Canada to Britain should be charged either under the Combines Investigation Act by the federal Minister of Justice or they should be looked at by my federal colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On the other hand, in any case where interests of the consumers of Ontario are affected, certainly my ministry will do everything possible, and we’ll be looking into that Situation to see if we have any jurisdiction.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Seeing that the article, I think, appeared in the Ottawa Journal of Monday or Tuesday, has the minister got in touch with his federal counterpart and put in an objection on the part of the people of Ontario that the rate that they will be paying this year is going to be something like $50 more than they were paying last year? Is he going to make objections to their ads which say they are getting a whale of a bargain this year? Has he got in touch with them and told them that yet?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, due to the fact that Mr. Mackasey’s department in Ottawa is so lax, I’ve just today been able to see Tuesday’s Ottawa Journal. I will certainly be in touch with Mr. Ouellet as quickly as possible.

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

UNITED WAY AGENCIES

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is no doubt aware that due to the high unemployment, particularly in centres tied to the auto industry, United Way agencies are in serious financial difficulty; if not now, they soon will be. What plans is his ministry making and to what extent and when will it fund those United Way agencies which are in financial difficulties?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I haven’t had any direct representations on the matter. I am aware that they are having difficulty but if there are representations made to me, I would be pleased to meet with those officials.

Mr. Bounsall: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: Is the minister saying that his ministry is not sufficiently concerned at this point to be collecting data on a province-wide basis about which areas at least, if not specific agencies, are in financial difficulty? If not, will he start collecting that data?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I didn’t say that, Mr. Speaker. The needs are great. Every day in our office we are getting larger demands from all sorts of agencies -- family services, credit counselling and so forth. What I did say -- and I would like to repeat it -- is that if there are any agencies that wish to meet with me, I would be very pleased to meet with them to explore together ways that we can help them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Carleton East.

DUTIES OF MEMBER FOR LONDON SOUTH

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Premier. Would the Premier tell the House what specific duties the hon. member for London South (Mr. White) has other than being chief minister in charge of Conservative Party election preparedness?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Don’t even reply.

Mr. Havrot: Important, is it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is important. It is the taxpayers’ money -- better than $5,000 -- that he is getting.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s better than a five per cent cut.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the great urgency and --

Mr. Breithaupt: It is urgent.

An hon. member: The minister is waiting with bated breath.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- public importance of the question; and the very sincere way in which it was asked --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: People like their money to be well spent.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I will endeavour to exercise a degree of tolerance --

Mr. Roy: The Premier’s all heart.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- recognizing the member for Carleton East hasn’t had a great deal of experience.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: But he’s got the support of all of us. The Premier is the only one who is not concerned.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the hon. member for Carleton East that when he has contributed as much to the public life of this province in his capacity as a member on the other side of the House --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the Premier mean this is a pension?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- as the member for London South in his years of service, then I will be more prepared to answer that question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. One supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The taxpayers are paying the campaign chairman.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is disgraceful.

An hon. member: The Conservatives are using public funds for political purposes.

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Roy: Is it a no-no?

Mr. P. Taylor: What I would like to know from the Premier --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The member for Carleton East is the only guy who has asked for a raise.

Mr. P. Taylor: -- is if it is now a matter of policy for his government to pay a member an additional $7,500 a year for past performance only?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The member wants a raise; that’s what it is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, once again I shall endeavour to exercise restraint.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let the Premier take us into his confidence.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for London South, not only as chairman of cabinet but as a minister without portfolio, will continue to contribute to the development and decision-making process of this government. He is one of the most able members of this House and of the government --

Mr. Lewis: Certainly of the government.

Mr. Cassidy: The competition isn’t that great.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I have no reluctance whatsoever in having him as a minister without portfolio at the salary that he is paid.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say once again to the member for Carleton East that when he has contributed as much and when he has done as much for the public of this province as the member for London South has done, then I think the question will have far greater validity.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: After all, Benoit was a creature of habit.

Mr. Lewis: Why didn’t the Premier tell that to the member for London South before he resigned?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did, I did.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for York South.

Mr. Lewis: Why didn’t the Premier tell him?

Mr. Speaker: No more supplementaries.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wanted him to stay. The members opposite should be so lucky as to have somebody like that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

ATHABASKA TAR SANDS

Mr. MacDonald: I have a question of the Treasurer in his responsibilities for intergovernmental affairs. Could the Treasurer inform the House whether or not the Province of Ontario is involved in the current negotiations to salvage Syncrude? If not, does one conclude that Ontario has lost interest in this as a source of energy supply for the future? Or are we just waiting until it collapses and we can get a better sort of arrangement?

Mr. Havrot: What would the member recommend?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question from the member For York South is, yes; we are very much involved. The Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) and I and our officials were in Edmonton last Friday. The Minister of Energy and I were out at the airport this morning at 6:45 to go to Ottawa and back. I would say that we are very much involved.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: Is it a fair question to indicate that the Province of Ontario might be involved immediately in the restructured Syncrude?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think I expressed the position of the Province of Ontario in the House on several occasions in my previous capacity. I think this is the position of the government in terms of the priorities which Ontario has and which the Ontario Energy Corp. will develop. We would not have put the tar sands, in Ontario terms, near the top of the list. The amounts of money are so very large; and there is a high degree of risk. There will be in any energy investment, in terms of technology. That would not have been one of our priorities.

Nevertheless, having said that, the Premier has made it clear to his colleagues that in his view -- indeed, as in our view -- Syncrude is very important as a building block in energy capability in this country. It is a matter of high technology -- a development of Canadian technology -- for the resources that are there. In itself, Syncrude will not increase the security of supply a great deal for Canadians. It is 125,000 to 150,000 barrels a day; and we are using as a country something like two million barrels a day. But it is important that this next building block -- GCOS being the first one -- go ahead.

Having expressed the reservations we have, if Ontario can be of any assistance in terms of negotiations in assisting the matter along, then those are the instructions which we have from the government at the moment.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia on a supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: Aside from heartfelt best wishes to all those concerned, has the Treasurer or the Energy minister considered the possibility of financial assistance, which seems to be the ultimate burden that these people are suffering at the present time?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have considered it, yes. I wouldn’t say that’s the only problem. There are other problems as well.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of one further supplementary: Could the Treasurer without disclosing undue confidences, give some idea what participation this government might consider toward the present deficit needs of $1 billion?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: He can’t.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

LAND COMPENSATION

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Can the minister assure property owners in the Douglas Point-Bradley junction power corridor that if they exercise their options under Hydro’s new land acquisition policy, they won’t he precluded from going to the Land Compensation Board?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance, and I think I should tell why. Under the Expropriations Act -- as I very sketchily understand it -- there are usually two items in dispute: the necessity for the expropriation and, secondly, the compensation to be paid if the necessities prove it.

As I understand it, the legislation is such that it’s only if an expropriation proceeding is undertaken and the discussions as to compensation to the landowner are in dispute, then, as of right, the parties can go to the Land Compensation Board.

Where there has been no real resistance to the expropriation -- “I will agree to you taking my strip, but I want the right to have fair value” -- when you get into that quasi consent situation, then I am advised that the Land Compensation Board lacks jurisdiction under the present legislation. The Robinson report on the Expropriations Act, which was filed in this House some time ago, points that out. I think it’s incumbent upon my ministry to correct that legislatively, so that in these situations where the hearing of necessity has been proved and the owner in effect says, “Fine, you can take it, but I want to negotiate or have a proper price fixed,” then I don’t think the owner should be precluded from doing so.

That’s why I say I wouldn’t want anything I said in this House to be taken by the member’s constituents or the people affected up there as prejudicing them, but I can tell members that right now it’s our opinion that under those circumstances they might well be prejudiced and the Land Compensation Board would be lacking in jurisdiction to conduct a hearing.

I am prepared to go into this at some further length with the hon. member as to how I propose to approach this problem legislatively, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Gaunt: Does the minister have some ray of hope that these people will be able in some measure or in some way, whether it be through order in council, through an amendment to the Act or whatever, to be assured some method will be found whereby they would not be put in jeopardy because they exercised their options under the new Hydro land acquisition policy, which has been some while in the development stages?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes Mr. Speaker, I think it’s incumbent upon us to assist in this type of thing. When we get into the option situation it’s then removed from being an expropriation. If the members follow my former reasoning on it, it is in effect a private sale and the board lacks jurisdiction. So what I propose to recommend to my colleagues is that we amend the Act to cover this type of situation so that people, just to comply with the Act, are not forced into the whole expropriation procedure in order that somehow they can get to the Land Compensation Board; particularly when both parties would be prepared to go there on consent.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

AIR POLLUTION IN SUDBURY

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): A question of the Minister of the Environment: Has the International Nickel Co. requested and received a further postponement of the full implementation of the abatement programme which was originally scheduled to be finalized in 1978? Have they been granted an extension to 1982?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge, but I will look into it and get back to the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Has the minister as yet been able to make any reply with respect to the correspondence sent by the Ontario Parents Council for Deaf and Hard of Hearing concerning the driver licensing requirements that presently exist for people who have a deafness or a hardness-of-hearing problem? Are those criteria going to be reviewed, and can we expect some changes so that persons who have a hardness-of-hearing problem will be able to drive safely within the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes Mr. Speaker, I received a number of letters on this particular subject from various associations and individuals, all of which -- up until this morning anyway -- I had responded to.

Yes, we will be reviewing the criteria that have been laid out. We will be meeting with these people and trying to come up with just what the hon. member has suggested, a safe level where they can be licensed to operate in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

TRAIN SERVICE FOR NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: What consideration is his ministry giving to the request by the action group of northeastern Ontario that a rapid train be put on the route between Toronto and Kapuskasing; and is he giving consideration to the LRC train that is presently being tested out?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I thought the train was proposed to run from Hearst to Toronto, not Kapuskasing.

I believe this is a matter which is being taken up with the federal Minister of Transport. Neither our ministry nor I has been involved; the request has not been made to me. It may have been made to the Ontario Northland, but I have not received any such request.

I have read of this in the paper and I understood a request had been made to the federal government to put this sort of train on either CF or CN.

Mr. Ferrier: Supplementary: In view of the fact it’s to be operated primarily by the Ontario Northland, would the minister look into the matter very carefully, and could he give us some idea as to how long it might be before a decision could be made on this, as it’s very important to those of us in the northeast part of the province?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to check with the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and find out what they have done. As I indicated earlier, I have received no information whatsoever as to where the particular request went, but I will look into it for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

PAYMENT TO EGG PRODUCERS

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that an egg producer in my riding informed me that he did not receive payment for his eggs from the egg dealer? Has the minister any responsibility for payment to the egg producer if the egg dealer refuses to pay for his produce?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I should think, Mr. Speaker, that is a question that should be more appropriately addressed to the Egg Marketing Board, and I’ll endeavour to find out the answer. I must confess I didn’t get the details. I’ll have to get them out of Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: I would ask him how he responds to the statement that Judge Beaulne made in Ottawa yesterday, that the Ontario Construction Safety Act is too lenient and should be amended to allow judges to send company directors to jail?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I didn’t see that statement, nor have I had any report on it other than what was mentioned just now. How do I respond to that? Is it under consideration? Mr. Speaker, I’m not prepared to say, “Yes, I think it is,” or “No, it’s not.”

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): No, I guess not.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I will consider the statement, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Must be a hanging judge.

Mr. Martel: Better see the judge.

Mr. Lewis: Everything the minister does is under consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. In light of the statement that was made by his colleague in regard to the establishment of a lottery, could the Treasurer tell me if this is a change in government policy, insofar as within that statement is the fact that the revenues from that government programme will not go into the general revenues fund but will be earmarked for specific programmes? Up until now it has always been the government’s answer that no revenues can be earmarked for specific programmes. This is obviously a change in government policy which is taking place --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been placed. Does the hon. minister have an answer?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think when my friend looks at the bill he will see that there is no change in government policy; rather there is a strong hint.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, we can’t look at the bill. We looked at the statement and obviously --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: My friend will have the bill in about two minutes.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is this a government statement of policy or is it just something we’re supposed to disregard?

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

Interjections by hon. members.

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURGH TOWNSHIP

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the fact that he mentioned Westinghouse and Canadian General Electric as two firms that might locate in the Spencerville industrial site in eastern Ontario, and since their factories are mainly appliance factories they could probably also go to cities in the industrial areas of Cornwall or Brockville or Ottawa, can the minister give more elaboration on the kinds of industries that might go to Spencerville? Are there negotiations under way with any firms, including Westinghouse or CGE?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, at the time I used the examples only. I in no way indicated that these were companies with which we were discussing the possibility of locating in the Prescott region whatsoever. I am not going to be dragged into disclosing at this time the people that we have had the opportunity of negotiating with in recent weeks, but I can assure the member that they are companies that will take tracts of land starting at 1,000 acres or more.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period expired a moment ago.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the standing resources development committee be authorized to sit concurrently with the House to consider the last annual report of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and that the standing administration of justice committee be authorized to sit concurrently with the House for the consideration of Bill 133, An Act to establish the Ontario Land Corp.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moved that Mr. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) be substituted for the Hon. Mr. Irvine on the social development committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP. ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Lottery Corp.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Welch: In speaking to the legislation to which reference was made earlier, in that connection I was very pleased that it was possible for certain representatives of the sports, recreational and cultural community to join us this afternoon to learn at first hand with respect to government intentions in this regard.

MUNICIPAL UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Municipal Unconditional Grants Act to allow payments to be made to municipalities due to the discontinuation of our special assistance for unduly burdensome costs for Children’s Aid Societies. The bill also provides financial assistance to municipalities to complete planning studies approved and initiated prior to April 1, 1974.

That bill, sir, and the next two bills will be taken through the legislative process by my parliamentary assistant, the member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett).

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide the district council with responsibility for official plan matters under the Planning Act. It ensures that councils of area municipalities retain their authority for subdivision control, plans of subdivision and occupancy standards.

COUNTY OF OXFORD ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of Bill intituled, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this Act is to amend the County of Oxford Act and would allow the hydro-electric systems in Burgessville, Otterville and Thamesford to be continued, although the police villages themselves have been dissolved.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Is that for seatbelts?

Mr. Laughren: Is there a cave-in on that one?

Mr. Foulds: It is for studded tires.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There are too many interruptions.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Throw him out.

Mr. Lewis: What does the Speaker mean -- too many interruptions?

Mr. Speaker: Almost one too many.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides relief from half-load restrictions for vehicles carrying milk, household liquid and gases, fuel and livestock feed. At the present time, all vehicles using half-load roads during the spring thaw are limited to 10,000 lb per axle total weight. Vehicles carrying the commodities I have mentioned are equipped with tanks and complex pumps and other devices which result in their having a very high empty weight. As a result, the load these vehicles can carry is so low as to be uneconomic and, at times, almost non-existent.

In the case of trucks collecting milk from farms the situation is further complicated by a requirement that the farmer’s tank must be emptied when the collection is made, thus resulting in overloading if the farm is located on a highway subject to half-load restrictions. Under the proposed amendments, milk trucks will be able to carry the same load in the half-load season as they do at other times of the year.

Domestic fuel delivery trucks and vehicles with two axles carrying livestock feed to farms will be permitted 16,000 lb per axle, rather than the present 10,000 lb.

ONTARIO TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP. ACT

Hon. Mr. Rhodes moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Givens: What is the minister going to do now? Go down the drain with the Krauss-Maffei project?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Listen carefully.

Mr. Laughren: He’s going to build a highway to Maple Mountain.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Underground.

Mr. Speaker, in order that the newly created Urban Transportation Development Corp. assume the activities and projects currently carried on by the Ontario Transportation Development Corp., it is necessary that powers be provided to the Ontario corporation to allow it to dispose of its assets and liabilities and to receive securities from a company called the Urban Transportation Development Corp. This latter company has been created under the Canada Corporations Act and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the OTDC.

The amendment being proposed will allow the OTDC to transfer almost all of its current property to the UTDC, whose ownership, like the OTDC, is restricted to provincial and federal governments. The amendment also allows the corporation to transfer its equity shares in the UTDC to the minister to hold for the Province of Ontario.

These steps are considered desirable to allow other governments, such as Alberta, to purchase equity in the corporation. It is also necessary to ensure the establishment of a nationally based corporation.

With the authorities provided by this amendment, the transfer of assets and liabilities from OTDC to UTDC can proceed. The Urban Transportation Development Corp. will then be in a position to negotiate the sale of shares to the governments of other provinces in Canada interested in acquiring equity shares, such as Alberta, and similarly to the government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall Mr. Gillespie proposed to invest in this corporation and send a proposal to all provincial governments early in December, in which we had agreed that OTDC would become the nucleus of this national corporation.

Mr. Givens: How many junk yards are bidding for it?

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Gillespie wants most of it.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Gillespie is another big businessman.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2 (CONCLUDED)

Clerk of the House: The second order, resuming the adjourned debate on notice of motion No. 2, respecting the report of the electoral boundaries commission, dated Dec. 5, 1973.

Mr. Speaker: When we were last discussing the bill the member for Wellington-Dufferin moved the adjournment and therefore has the floor.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Government Services asked if I would yield the floor for about five minutes, and I’m willing to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have permission to allow this change to take place? The hon. Minister of Government Services.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House. I do have another meeting I have to go to, but I did want to make a couple of comments regarding the redistribution proposals, or the report of the commission.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, I want to support the comments and suggestions made by my colleague the member for Halton West (Mr. Kerr) on Tuesday evening last. As we all know the county of Halton, which was one riding from Confederation until 1967, has been split into the two ridings of Halton East and Halton West since that time. The commission, in considering the redistribution, has recommended that the county of Halton now be divided into three ridings, Burlington, Oakville and Halton.

Mr. Speaker, based on the criteria of population in the 1971 census I have no complaint whatsoever with the recommendations of the commission as the population is reasonably evenly split between the three ridings. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, taking into consideration the community of interest and the considerations for the people of the town of Burlington, that the boundaries as recommended are the best that could be developed.

My colleague from Halton West has mentioned the proposal by the city of Burlington and by the Burlington Chamber of Commerce to have a change made to create four ridings within the county, being two ridings within the present city of Burlington, the riding of Oakville and the riding of Halton. Mr. Speaker, I believe this recommendation was also endorsed by the regional municipality of Halton.

Based on the 1971 census, as I’ve stated Ms. Speaker, the three ridings are satisfactory. If, of course, you take into consideration the changes since 1971 and the increase in population, especially in the north area of the county, I believe the four ridings could quite well be substantiated and would meet the population criteria of the commission.

However, Mr. Speaker, I understand the problems of the commission in dealing with these mailers and their limit on the number of ridings that can be created. I would make an alternative suggestion, which was also mentioned by the member for Halton West, that if the four ridings cannot be considered for the county, then in order to meet some of the requests of the municipalities and of the residents of the area, the boundary line between the Burlington and Halton ridings be Highway 5 rather than the Queen Elizabeth Way and Highway 403.

I well realize, Mr. Speaker, that this would make the riding of Burlington larger by population. However, either way it is a very compact area. It would keep the urban area of the city of Burlington within one riding and would leave the rural area north of Highway 5 with the more rural North Halton riding. I did not say North Halton accidentally, Mr. Speaker, because I do believe and would recommend that the commission consider the possibility of renaming what is now shown on their map as the Halton riding as the North Halton riding. That really is how it is referred to within the community.

I really feel, Mr. Speaker, that if the Highway 5 boundary could be accepted by the commission, it would then leave the total industrial development area of the city of Burlington within one riding; that is really the whole urban area, as I have stated before. I would just like to suggest to the commission, Mr. Speaker, that consideration be given to the recommendations of the member for Halton West and myself. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments regarding the proposed redistribution of the Ontario electoral districts. I looked at the maps and I sat down and talked into a dictaphone, so I have my thoughts well organized and I may be reading some of my comments.

I want to say that I realize that the commissioners were confronted with a very important task, having regard to the tremendous growth that has taken place in the Province of Ontario. I am sure they approached their responsibility endeavouring to arrive at what they felt was the best possible redistribution of the electoral districts having regard to all of the factors that would be involved.

However, when I received a copy of the first suggested redistribution, I was concerned that perhaps too much emphasis had been placed on the population factor and not enough on some of the other factors.

I notice in the area surrounding the riding I have the honour to represent, that the proposal would have given four members for the county of Simcoe and four to the county of Wellington; and I believe there were three for the county of Dufferin. I commented at that time that I thought that since provincial members are working with municipalities -- and I think of county councils, county road committees, county health units and so no -- it would be desirable if there would be a minimum of members for a county, and where practical a minimum of counties represented by one member.

When the second map arrived at my desk, I could see that thought had been given to that suggestion. However, I was concerned when I noted that the historic riding of Wellington-Dufferin was to be eliminated and a riding comprising part of the counties of Wellington and Peel was to be established. This caused me some concern, not from a personal point of view since at my age I probably will not be contesting more than one or two more elections.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Oh, John.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): I can understand, at his salary!

Mr. Root: That’s provided the electorate has confidence in me and my name is placed in nomination. So I am not approaching this with any personal point of view. Actually, though, I think of the taxpayers when I think of whether I should run again. If I retire they will be paying my pension and paying my successor’s salary, so I would really save the taxpayers a lot of money if I were to stay on.

Mr. Cassidy: It has been pretty expensive.

Mr. Laughren: Since the member earns more than the Premier, is he taking a five per cent pay cut? Is he taking a pay cut? He earns more than the cabinet ministers.

An hon. member: The member for Nickel Belt should stand up on his desk so we can see him.

Mr. Root: I am wondering whether the commission looked at the terms of reference, and whether they took into account the term that said there should be consideration of a community or a diversity of interest, means of communication, existing traditional boundaries of electoral districts and the size and shape of the district.

Mr. Speaker, the existing riding of Wellington-Dufferin was established over 40 years ago following the census in 1931, and this was the census the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) mentioned as that on which the riding of Brant was established. I think he said something to the effect there was the feeling that perhaps they had hived off the Liberals. Well that is probably history.

Over that 40-year period, the two counties of Wellington and Dufferin have worked together, in my opinion to great advantage for both counties. They have established the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph health unit. They had a united assessment office. They worked together planning major roads. There was co-operation between the two counties. I think of Highway 89, which during the time that I have been a member has been extended from Primrose in Dufferin through Shelburne, Mount Forest and Harriston down to Palmerston. In other words, the two counties supported this project. Just recently, Highway 25 was extended from Acton to Wellington and Dufferin to join Highway 89 at the northern end of Dufferin county.

Then with regard to development roads, I think of the Fergus-Orangeville road which was built with the support of both counties. These are but three examples, roads, health and assessment offices. The two counties have worked for 40 years with a community of interest. It would be my hope the commission would take another look at the way they have drawn the map and try to recognize as suggested in the terms of reference, the traditional boundaries of the electoral districts of Wellington and Dufferin.

I would also draw attention to clause b outlining the purposes of the commission which indicates they should take into account means of communication. The proposed riding of Wellington-Peel would extend for nearly 100 miles from the Village of Clifford in the northwestern part of the riding to the eastern part, which is some 10 miles east of Snelgrove in the county of Peel. While I would be living near the centre of the riding, I can see where this district could cause a problem of communication if a member were elected at the other end of the riding. So maybe I should really run for one or two more elections.

I know there are members of this Legislature who feel we should have exact representation by population. In fact, I was interested the other night to hear the NDP speakers, in particular, make that suggestion. One suggested they should eliminate eight rural ridings and create 16 more urban ridings. However, when one realizes that if a member were living at one end of the proposed riding of Wellington-Peel and he had a call at the other end of the riding it would mean a drive of some 200 miles to look after the problem --

Mr. Cassidy: It would take him five minutes to get to the telephone.

Mr. Laughren: We are not impressed.

Mr. Root: I know the member wouldn’t be. I wouldn’t expect he would, because he is not interested in rural Ontario.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): None of the NDP are.

Mr. Laughren: A lot of exposure there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Root: A member living in a city riding could walk across his riding in an hour. I’m glad the NDP made that interjection.

In the riding that is proposed, while one might have to drive 200 miles to serve a need in his riding, a city member could perhaps serve 40 or 50 people in the same time.

Mr. Cassidy: The next member we elect will be told to use the telephone.

Mr. Eaton: That’s the NDP way. They tell people what to do.

Mr. Root: On that point, I could tell the member we have a multiplicity of telephones.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Root: The member probably doesn’t understand rural Ontario. He can call all his constituents on one phone. We have to go through long distance exchanges in the riding. There are six or seven exchanges in the riding I have the honour to represent at the present time.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): He wouldn’t know that though.

Mr. Root: In other words, a member could serve perhaps 40 or 50 people just as easily in the city ridings as he would serve two or three in a rural riding.

These are factors I would hope the commission would take a look at before they finalize the boundaries of the electoral districts in the area. I would hope they would keep in mind the community of interest that presently exists, and that has existed for 40 years between the county of Wellington and the county of Dufferin.

I want to be frank and say that I am aware there is some community interest in the southern part of Wellington and of Dufferin with the northern part of the county of Peel. For some years the high school at Erin has served the northern part of Peel county, and the district high school at Orangeville served the northern part of Peel or Caledon as well.

I think as well of the Erin Fall Fair which is really the preview of the Royal Winter Fair. It has served both the county of Wellington and the county of Peel or Caledon. I believe the shopping centre at Orangeville serves the northern part of Peel county.

Having talked to responsible people in the field of health, I understand Dufferin not only works with the county of Wellington and Guelph with respect to health units, but also works south into the larger hospitals in the Brampton and Toronto areas. I might also say there are many people commuting to work in a southerly direction from Wellington and Dufferin and northern Peel.

Mr. Speaker, what I am suggesting to the commission is that they take another look at the map before they disrupt the community of interest that has existed between Wellington and Dufferin and to some extent the northern part of Peel. I would hope they would arrive at the proper population factors with a minimum of disturbance to the traditional community of interest that has existed for 40 years between Wellington and Dufferin.

I am not suggesting there is no affinity between the northern parts of Dufferin and Wellington with the county of Grey. For example, I think of the township of Melancthon where people in the northern part of that township attend the school in Dundalk in the county of Grey, and I believe some are attending the high school even further north. But the traditional community interest is between new Wellington and Dufferin, and to some extent the northern part of Peel. I might say there is almost a community of interest in the northern part of Minto township, around Clifford. Actually the village of Clifford is almost on the border of Wellington and Grey and Huron, and very close to Bruce as well.

Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence when the commission takes another look at the points I have raised they will draw an electoral boundary line that will recognize the points I have raised.

Let me pay tribute to the work of the commission and they way they did recognize the points I raised following the first presentation, that wherever practical there should be a minimum of members for counties and a minimum of counties or regions for members. I realize that in some areas you can achieve the right number of voters by having one member for a county. In fact that was debated here last night. In other areas, because of the population, it may be necessary to have a multiplicity of members and there may be areas where it would be necessary for a member to be involved with more than one or two counties.

These are thoughts I am sure the commission will want to consider as they make their final report. Let me repeat, I have talked to responsible people in the areas of municipal government and in the field of health in the area I have the honour to represent, and I know there is a hope that the traditional community of interest between Wellington and Dufferin, and possibly the northern part of Peel, will not be disregarded in the redrawing of the electoral boundaries.

I would make this suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to the commission: If part of Peel is to be included in any reconstruction of Wellington-Dufferin and Peel, I hope the riding might be called Wellington-Dufferin-Peel. These are historic names and I think that everyone would be pleased to see them remain on the map. There has been a community of interest, politically, since the early days of both the counties of Wellington and Dufferin and I am quite interested in that community of interest. In fact the first time I went to the poll as a poll clerk was in the first election after that riding was set up, and 19 of the 20 municipalities voted Liberal and one voted Conservative.

Mr. Cassidy: Was that after Confederation?

Mr. Root: However, the community of interest carried it through. That was the time at which the Leader of the Opposition said they “hived the Grits.” However, I have a lot of friends among the Liberals.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Even over here.

Mr. Root: They have been my best recruiting ground for 30 years and --

Mr. Laughren: We understand that.

Mr. Root: -- in 1963 and in 1967 the same community of interest existed; every municipality voted Progressive Conservative.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): A tremendous record.

Mr. Root: And so I say through the 40 years that Wellington-Dufferin has existed, there has been a community of interest; they have worked together.

I remember that first election when the Liberals went to the polls saying “It’s time for a change;” they had a change, and what a change. They fired the civil servants. They cancelled power contracts. They left the farmers with the same lamps and lanterns their grandparents had used; we had blackouts at a critical time. The teachers were left teaching with a few hundred dollars instead of the many thousands they receive today. Yes, they even sold the old cars and then turned around and bought new ones.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): We promise to do better next time.

An hon. member: They’ll buy bigger and better cars, sure.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We are not going to give them a chance.

Mr. Root: If the Liberal Party has any communication with the spirits, as it is suggested the late Mackenzie King had, I can just imagine what Mitchell Hepburn would say if he saw the present leader of the Liberal Party riding around in a tax-supported limousine, drawing a salary larger than a cabinet minister.

Mr. Haggerty: The member is back in the horse and buggy days.

Mr. Ruston: This is 1975.

Mr. Root: However, that is a bit on the side. The point that I wanted to make in these remarks is that for 40 years Wellington and Dufferin, which were put together in that redistribution, have worked together with a community of interest, politically, in health, in roads and in every way possible. I would hope that before they present a bill the commission will take another look at the map and redraw the boundaries to maintain the historic riding of Wellington-Dufferin -- and there is, as I said, also a community of interest in the northern part of Peel -- and if there is any disruption of Wellington-Dufferin, I hope that they will keep it to a minimum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Do his constituents know how much the member earns?

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

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the member who has just spoken made references to the boundaries in regard to his constituency, and as the boundaries on the eastern side of my constituency have also been redrawn since the first map, it is necessary that I should make some reference to the proposals that really started with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart). However first of all, Mr. Speaker, let me comment in accordance with other things that have been mentioned in this debate.

First of all, the other evening when he was addressing the Legislature, the hon. member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), made reference to the tolerance figures that were used in the federal redistribution, particularly in his reference to eastern Ontario. I believe that he used the figure of 15 per cent -- and I believe another member made reference to it. I distinctly recall that because of some interest on my own part at that time. Now I am aware that that statement was not correct and I’m sure the member would want to straighten the record in that regard -- because it was 25 per cent.

Mr. Cassidy: But 15 per cent in practice.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, that may be.

Mr. Cassidy: I put that on the record yesterday by looking at the federal figures -- okay?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That may be. The statement as far as the tolerance figures are concerned was wrong.

Mr. Cassidy: We acknowledge that.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That was wrong. Now let’s drop the matter at that point.

I also listened with interest to the hon. member for York-Forest Hill (Mr. Givens), which was very interesting, because I have some sort of relevant experience in my life; I know exactly how he finds himself. Following the federal redistribution in 1966 and 1967, I found myself in exactly the same situation. And one wonders --

Mr. Laughren: That was justice.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- how the surgeon used the scalpel in order to get rid of my constituency at that particular time. I had to change the course of my life somewhat, but I’m pleased to be here and representing the same general area.

Mr. Laughren: Lucky, no.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, have a look at the record and see how lucky. But I’ll admit I’ve had excellent fortune, I’ll tell you that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): More luck than brains.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: And the pluralities have been rather substantive and pleasing to myself.

Mr. Laughren: I understand.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Now Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the constituency of Grey South, as I represent it now, and Grey-Dufferin as it’s named -- which is largely, of course, the county of Grey; basically, I should say, the county of Grey -- in dealing with what the commissioners have made to be the component parts of Grey-Dufferin, I will go back now to the Minister of Agriculture and Food when he dealt with the situation as he saw it and defined what he thought was the correct interpretation for the area he represents.

I find that the ripple effect from his suggestions come as far as Grey county and do have a substantial effect on the map as it was drawn by the commissioners. I too recognize the very grave difficulty the commissioner had and I think they have done an excellent job with the problems they were confronted with.

Now when we talk about the number of people we represent, that really isn’t of great concern to me, Mr. Speaker. In my representative life I have chosen to do it in such a manner that I do see people not only from my own constituency, but from many constituencies every week. In that regard the size, then, of the constituency, isn’t all that tremendously important to me.

However, following the words of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin, and realizing what is transpiring with his constituency and suggestions that he has made -- although he wasn’t exactly definitive in regard to municipalities -- I would like to say that that would put me, if his suggestions were followed by the commission, in the position of representing a somewhat different area than I have at the moment.

I might say that I followed with interest the remarks of the hon. member for Kitchener the other evening when he read the letter -- a copy of which he was good enough to give me -- from a student by the name of Robert Barclay. Although he might show some of his political bias in the course of his remarks, nevertheless I think he did a very thorough job of researching the subject. It also conforms somewhat to the suggestions I have to place before the commission and the municipalities that I think would bring about the change in regard to the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the whole area he referred to, as well as to the riding of Wellington-Dufferin. I would imagine the total remarks of the Minister of Agriculture and Food will affect the riding of the member for Huron-Bruce somewhat. It looks to me to be a very sensible suggestion.

In Grey-Dufferin, then, as it is now called, I would suggest these changes to the map that has been drawn. They are not tremendous, although they do get awfully close to Owen Sound; wouldn’t that make a beautiful fight?

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Yes, it certainly would.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The new boundaries would include the townships of Derby, Sullivan, Bentinck, Normandy, and Minto on the west; Collingwood, Osprey and Melancthon on the east; and the balance of the southern portion would be Egremont and Proton; which would bring about the squaring of Grey county with the addition, as I said, of Melancthon and Minto on the west side.

This, I think, would be quite similar to the suggestion brought forth by the commissioners in their most recent map and would facilitate very equitably and fairly the suggestions of the other people to whom I have made reference. It does compact the county of Grey and therefore, as has been stated often in the debate, it is not as difficult to represent one major municipality as it is if a member’s area is divided between three, which makes it a difficult problem from the county point of view.

Again with my words of commendation to the members of the commission, Mr. Speaker, that would be my suggestion, provided the consideration of the other members who have spoken would be acceptable to the members of the commission.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr. Speaker There have been a lot of members taking part in the debate on this resolution, and in my participation, I want to stress very strongly that I am not -- and I emphasize “not” -- objecting to the boundaries set out in any particular area. Later in my remarks I will explain why I am not objecting, but I did want to restate that I feel very strongly on that.

I would like to mention, first of all, the makeup of the riding that I represent at the present time. It came about by redistribution prior to the 1967 election. It was taken out of a part of the riding of Essex North and a part of the riding of Chatham-Kent, and made into the riding of Essex-Kent. I suppose it was what was left over from each county because of population trends that allowed the counties of Essex and Kent to have one more representative in the Legislature.

It has been, I suppose, a relatively good riding to represent because it is more or less composed of rural townships, with urban centres either in the townships or urban municipalities within the boundaries; in total, there are 12 municipalities, seven townships rind five towns and villages.

At the time that the new riding was formed, and we started to have meetings to form our associations in the riding, many people from Kent county felt that the strings that had attached them to the city of Chatham had been cut away; they were bordering on Chatham, and I think they felt they were being thrown to the winds and were to be picked up by someone else. That always happens when a new riding is formed.

People have to make new friends and have to join together in a common interest. After a time I would suppose that the people got to know one another -- from one end to the other, which was only about 55 miles -- from the border of Windsor to Charing Cross. And I suppose the people on the border of Windsor wouldn’t have too much in common with the people in Charing Cross -- although we’re all human, and I guess we have similar problems at some time or another.

In order to get acquainted with people we did something in our riding to cement the thing together a little. I understand it was the first time it was done in the Province of Ontario. We put in a zenith telephone calling service to every exchange in the riding which allowed people to call me at my home at my expense. I think this helped considerably.

Now, with the new boundaries, we go back into Essex North, which was a riding for many years and last represented as people in this House today will remember by Mr. Arthur Reaume, who represented it for 16 years until such time as it was disbanded.

Under the new boundaries the part of Kent county that formed Essex-Kent goes into the riding of Kent-Elgin, under the new name. It includes many other municipalities in Kent county, and does make a rather long narrow, riding. The new riding of Kent is about 70 miles long; I remember one day when the member for Kent and myself checked it while driving home from Toronto.

I’m sure that since most of it is Kent county there are some similarities in problems as most are from Kent county, although it does take in four or five municipalities in Elgin.

I recall one submission made to the commission, I believe by a councillor in Tilbury East township. He was a little disturbed because he felt they were being taken out of the area they had been put in, and now were being put in another area. His submission was that the boundary line should have run north and south instead of east and west.

I suppose by doing that it could have included Tilbury East, the town of Tilbury, Raleigh township and Romney township in the riding of Chatham-Kent. If you put that in with the riding of Chatham-Kent, Mr. Speaker, it would have made that riding about 73,000 population. It would be a little larger than a normal riding where you’re dealing with one city, one town and two townships. Although the riding of Chatham-Kent is a very concise, small riding, one must consider the 58,000 people in it. The city of Chatham is the major population centre; and then there are the two townships of Chatham and Dover, and the town of Wallaceburg. They’re all quite heavily populated so it makes quite a compact riding. However, it would run over the general average for a rural-urban riding. So the commission, in its wisdom, designated that it should go into the riding of Kent.

There was a submission made by the village of Wheatley that they had more in common with the riding of Essex South. The commission accepted that in the revision of the latest map, where the village of Wheatley is now in the riding of Essex South. They are only 10 miles from the town of Leamington and that’s where their high school is. So there is a uniformity of similar conditions and interests in that area.

In Essex North, in getting a population that would be somewhat equal to other county ridings, they took in the township of Gosfield North and put it in with Essex North. That gives the riding of Essex North a population of 51,000 by taking the township of Sandwich West, the township of Sandwich South and the town of Tecumseh out of the old riding of Sandwich-Riverside.

Of course with Windsor having a population of 200,000 it made an ideal situation for having three ridings, so I think that the boundary in Windsor would appear to be almost ideal. I don’t think anyone could have done a much better job than what the final report is. I think that the commission is doing a very good job there, with some recommendations, and they did some minor alterations apparently.

However, it’s not unusual to have some townships in the county put in Essex South or Essex North. If we look back a number of years ago Senator Martin represented what is now provincially to be Essex North and along at that time, Mr. Murray Clark represented Essex South. Essex South didn’t have quite a heavy enough population, so they took, I think at that time the township of Tilbury West and the township of Sandwich South, which geographically are in Essex North, and put them in Essex South so that the population would be a little more equal. So it is not necessarily an uncommon occurrence to move one township out of its general location for provincial boundary lines.

I say, Mr. Speaker, I accept the boundary lines. I accept the challenge of a new part of Essex county to represent and I certainly will be a candidate for the nomination for our party in that area. I’m saying that I’m not afraid of what might happen in the election results. I can look back over the last eight years at the results in that area. Some will say that they don’t look very good; however, unless you have a challenge, you know, you never succeed. It’s like the church that always had the mortgage on it. That church always ran forward, but once they got the mortgage paid off then they seemed to slacken down. We still have a mortgage, so we will be out there pounding.

We don’t worry about what’s going to happen. We are just going to have to let the other fellow do the worrying, because we are here and he’s going to have to get us out. I don’t worry about any political ramifications. I’m not speaking with any political worry when I’m speaking here, because I accept whatever the commission has done.

What does concern me is, in listening to all the speakers, I really feel very deeply that we should not have anything whatsoever to do with the alignment of boundaries of the people that we are going to represent. I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps I was remiss when the original resolution came in. But I was new to resolutions as to boundary changes, although I came in under a boundary change because of a new riding that made a seat available. Some new political aspirants in our area went out for the nomination. It was very good and I think that it has been very educational to us.

It really concerns me when I think we had a commission set up to draw up boundaries. I accept them as being impartial. There have been accusations along the way saying that maybe they are not. But I do as my leader does; when we appoint a judge as the chairman of a committee which includes the chief electoral officer of the province and one professor of political science or geography frons one of the universities, I have to accept that they are non-partisan and that they will do a fair job on it. Maybe they didn’t get the maps just right the first time and maybe it was because they didn’t get the proper expertise to do that. I don’t know and I’m not saying that they didn’t.

What I really think should be done is that a wider-ranging commission should be set up for this type of thing. I think it should consist of at least seven people or maybe nine. And of those people I would think that two or three should be clerks of municipalities of a city or maybe a town and a township. There should be two judges on it, because we need legal people on it. We need people who are used to making decisions that sometimes are difficult, but they must make them. I think it would be good to have a professor of geography or political science on it. We probably should have one or two former MPPs on it, who have been from city ridings and maybe a rural-urban riding.

I think it is up to us as the members to set out the guidelines as to how many seats there should be in the Legislature, but it would be up to them to set it up. They would have public hearings. I suppose we, as independent people in the area, could probably go to a public hearing to make our submission if we so decided. But I don’t think that we should in any way be up here today speaking and saying that we want this riding done this way. I thought the worst of all was the other day when the Minister of Agriculture and Food and the member for Middlesex South got up --

Mr. Eaton: We speak for the people in our area.

Mr. Ruston: -- and they were going to set this up in their own little way. In no way, Mr. Speaker, is that what I call proper democracy.

Mr. Haggerty: Shame on the member for Middlesex South.

An hon. member: The opposition just put words in their mouths, that all.

Mr. Eaton: We spoke for the people in the area. The member for Huron didn’t consult with the people in the area.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Did the member for Middlesex South make submissions to the commission?

Mr. Ruston: If this commission would have been appointed in the way I mentioned and had an obligation to have public hearings, then they would have had this information. They would have got this information and it would have kept it out of political hands. I feel very strongly about this, Mr. Speaker, that in no way should any politician set up a riding. That’s gerrymandering at the very worst. There is nothing worse.

Mr. Haggerty: Particularly from that side.

Mr. Eaton: We speak for the people of this province. I spoke for the people in my riding.

Mr. Ruston: Let the electorate speak to the commission.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Essex-Kent has the floor.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I am saying right now that this has been an interesting debate -- and educational, mind you; a little disappointing but educational -- but I don’t see how the commission now, after reading what went on in this debate for the two days it has been on, can go back and decide they are going to start changing the ridings all over again. I would think if they did, that would be the greatest mistake they could ever make. I don’t think now they’ve any alternative but to accept this last map in general principles -- maybe with minor changes; if someone asked for a name change or some very minor change. But in no way should they sit down and then accept --

Mr. Roy: Trying to get rid of us?

Mr. Ruston: -- what has gone on here in the last two days and change the boundaries in that way. If they do, in my opinion they would be gerrymandering in the very worst way.

Mr. Roy: You bet they would, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ruston: I don’t think, Mr. Speaker, I need to say any more. I feel very strongly on this.

I think that we might talk about payments for legislative members and whether they should have a commission doing that. While I as a member am willing to accept responsibility of setting my pay, because I have to answer to the people who pay me --

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Ruston: -- I don’t think I should designate what the ridings should be. That has to be done by an independent body, and the public should have lots of input.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, are you not rotating on this?

Mr. Gaunt: No, no. They had three in a row.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have a plane to catch in about 20 minutes, could I possibly speak very briefly?

Mr. Roy: He has already spoken.

Mr. Cassidy: Not on this debate, no.

Mr. Speaker: State your point of privilege.

Mr. Cassidy: Pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Did you say you had a point of privilege?

Mr. Cassidy: I was simply asking the member if I could go first because I have to leave the House in 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Well, that is up to the member from Huron-Bruce. He has the floor; if he wants to yield the floor to you, I’ll consent to it.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): He did yield, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Gaunt: On a matter of clarification, Mr. Speaker, how are we working this particular debate? Is it a case where a member can speak twice, once on the initial resolution and then again on the second resolution?

Mr. MacDonald: They are different motions.

Mr. Speaker: We agreed on that on Tuesday. The House agreed that they would be able to speak on both resolutions if they cared to -- any member of the House.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute, the member for Huron-Bruce hasn’t yielded the floor to you yet. Now if the member for Huron-Bruce wants to speak at this time, I have to hear from him.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I’d be glad to accommodate my friend. I have some time commitments also and as far as I am concerned, I won’t be more than 10 minutes. If the hon. member won’t be more than five or 10 minutes I think I could yield to him.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. The order of speaking at the present time is as the names came in to the Speaker. Now, the name of the member for Ottawa Centre is not even on this list and he’ll have to go down a long piece in the list. There are six speakers before the member for Ottawa Centre at present.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I think if there are members who have particular commitments, we on this side are certainly prepared to allow the list to go, really, within the sequence of those who happen to be here. We have certainly no objections to a brief comment, if that is to be made by the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed by the members of the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m afraid I didn’t realize there was a list and that it was working in that way. I’ve spoken on the first resolution and my comments on that resolution stand. I just wanted to add one or two comments, really directed to the electoral boundaries commission, in relation to some of the comments made by the member for Wellington-Dufferin and some of the other Conservative back-benchers.

If I can quote what the member for Wellington-Dufferin said, he stated: “An urban member can serve 40 or 50 people as easily as a rural member can serve two or three.” There has been a consistent kind of refrain from a number of the members on the Conservative side to justify a very sharp departure from the principle of representation by population, a principle which I personally and my party, feel extraordinarily strongly about.

I want to direct my comments to the commission on the question of the difficulty of servicing an urban riding, and on what I understand is a comparison between servicing an urban riding and servicing a rural riding. I recognize that the member for Wellington-Dufferin was exaggerating or using a bit of hyperbole.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The member is accusing me of exaggerating. The point that I tried to make was that if a member was living at the west part of the proposed riding of Wellington-Peel and had a problem at the eastern part, it would take four hours to drive there and back if one was going to stay within the speed limit. I said that a member in the city, in a riding one could walk across in a hour, could serve 40 to 50 people in the same time it would take a member in a large rural riding to serve one. The member shouldn’t say that I am exaggerating. I have represented the riding and I know.

Mr. Speaker: I think the member for Wellington-Dufferin has made his point. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point is, though, that the member for Wellington-Dufferin says he can’t serve as many people as I can. The fact is that our duties down here are sufficient now that a member who is active in the Legislature, in policy-making and policy study and so on, has very little time to make contact with his constituents, whether he is a rural or an urban member. There is a very real difficulty here. I am an urban member.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): That’s ridiculous.

Mr. Cassidy: In order to carry out my duties in this Legislature I have a full-time office --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Cassidy: -- which costs about $12,000 a year, is staffed by a full-time paid person and two volunteers working half a week apiece, and we could use more people. As an urban member, I have to ask people to come to me and to make appointments on the Fridays or Saturdays when I am in my riding, when this House is sitting, and I suspect that it may be the same for many people in rural constituencies as well. They either pick up the phone -- which didn’t exist in rural areas to any appreciable extent 30 or 40 years ago -- or else they have to ask their people, if it’s particularly important, to come to them.

Granted, if there is a meeting in the western part of the member for Wellington-Dufferin’s constituency which it is important for him to be at, there is more transportation difficulty for him than there is for me. On the other hand, in the case for the member for Nickel Belt, who it is proposed will have about 60,000 constituents, he may have to spend a whole day to get to that meeting and come back, with no alternative means of access. He will have to drive; he has no bus service, no train, no plane, nothing apart from a float plane or his own automobile.

I would suggest, though, that in terms of access to the member, most of our constituents these days have telephones and they all have access to the post, which is relatively efficient despite Mr. Mackasey. They can get in touch with their member and get an answer within a few hours or within a few days. In fact, they can reach me far more quickly by telephone than they can see me in person. I suspect that may be the case with the rural members as well.

Given the way in which this province has grown up over the last, say, 15 years -- we have gone from a parish-pump type of provincial government to a very sophisticated and a very big government costing $8 billion or $9 billion a year -- most of the issues which are dealt with by this Legislature tend to touch most of the people in all of our constituencies more or less equally; whether it’s gift tax, estate tax or other taxation questions, whether it’s economic development questions or urban development questions, or questions of health, questions of the administration of justice, and so on and so on.

In the past there has been a personalized kind of intervention by members in both urban and rural areas -- perhaps particularly in rural areas -- on liquor licences, on getting a highway access, on farm loans, on the ODC, on tourism development, and maybe even in such simple things as tax rebates or getting provincial assistance. The problem there, Mr. Speaker, is that the member’s time and energies are being misused if he is being turned into a local ombudsman or welfare officer who has to intervene consistently day after day in hundreds or thousands of cases per year.

If that’s the case, if that’s what we have to do, then the member for Wellington-Dufferin has got some reason in saying that a rural member has more pressures of that nature put upon him and more demands for that kind of service than an urban member.

What we should be doing as policy makers in this Legislature, though -- apart from redistribution -- is designing our provincial services. The ministers and this House should be directing the provincial bureaucracy in order to ensure that it’s responsive and effective and that most of those cases, most of those problems, are dealt with fairly and equitably and sensibly by the civil service before they ever reach the level of the member of the Legislature. Then, at that point, if the system breaks down, the member can come in. But it shouldn’t be breaking down 10 or 20 times a day, or even 10 or 20 times a week. It is, but it shouldn’t be. I would suggest that a system of redistribution which admitted that the system was breaking down 20 times a day, would simply help to perpetuate the kinds of problems that we have right now.

A few members, myself included, have taken steps to free themselves from the perpetual pressure of constituency case work so that we can work in this Legislature in our party and with other political work. Many have not been able to find the wherewithal to do that, or for other reasons have preferred to continue to do that kind of constituency case work. But I would suggest to the commission, which I know will be reading this debate, that it is not very long now before every member will be equipped with assistance in his riding in the form of a constituency office, or some other kind of help. That’s a matter of four or five years at the outside, and the pressure of constituency case work will no longer be the factor that it is right now.

It’s for this reason, among others, the commission should not design its constituencies for a kind of horse and buggy era of representation. That’s why I say to the commission: Please treat with great reserve some of the pleas of the rural members that the population criteria be set aside in favour of shrinking still further the rural riding and making their populations even smaller. There is already a disparity which is unacceptable between urban and rural populations. Don’t make it worse.

The second point I want to make, Mr. Speaker -- I will make very briefly -- is this: We are better with the redistribution that is proposed, bad as it may be, than with the present electoral map, going into the 1975 election.

Some of the proposals that were made, say by the members from the London area, can possibly be accommodated within their immediate area without a ripple effect. To speak directly to the London case, for example, most of Middlesex county, excluding the portion that is in the member for Huron’s proposed riding, could be put into a new riding and there could be three urban ridings in the London area and one county riding that took in a substantial part of Middlesex county. That could be done without a ripple effect that spread all the way up to the Bruce Peninsula.

It may be possible to make certain accommodations like that in a short period of time, but I would strongly urge that the commission only make those changes that can be done very quickly, if it chooses to make any accommodations to this debate at all, and that it come back to us in time that we can pass the legislation for the 1975 election.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) has given a personal commitment that redistribution will be in force for this election. I sense that he and the cabinet are under pressure from Conservative back-benchers to go slow. It has been suggested for example that the urban ridings be changed, but rural Ontario be left alone. I suggest that that is an acceptable compromise and that the Premier should be asked to hold to his commitment and that the redistribution commission should hold to the timetable originally set so that before the end of February we can have the bill before us and we can make our decisions about the new ridings in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a few remarks in this debate. I wasn’t going to enter the debate, because basically I am happy with the work of the commission. I think they tried to do the very best they could with what is an extremely difficult and very sensitive task. For that I want to congratulate them.

I have to apologize to my friend from Essex-Kent. Even though I agree with the last portion of his remarks, I am afraid I am going to violate them substantially. Mainly because --

Mr. Cassidy: Those guys can never stick together.

Mr. MacDonald: He’s being a bit self-righteous.

Mr. Gaunt: I’ve been forced into this position because of the other speeches from other members doing exactly the same thing.

Mr. Roy: Which members? I don’t see any members across there.

Mr. Gaunt: After the series of speeches in defence of making Middlesex county a single-unit rural riding, and particularly after the unwarranted and unnecessary attack by the Minister of Agriculture and Food on my colleague, the member for Huron. I decided to enter the debate in defence of my colleague and to put a few facts on the record, which I hope will clarify the situation.

I am also quick to point out that I want to make a few remarks in defence of maintaining Huron-Bruce as a provincial riding, because the survival instinct in all of us is very prominent, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Besides, it’s a great riding.

Mr. Gaunt: If Middlesex and Huron counties were created as separate provincial ridings following the county boundaries of each, that could mean that Huron-Bruce would disappear. The riding was created by a redistribution under Bill 125, back in 1933, I believe. Since that time it has been enlarged once. It is, therefore, a rather historic rural riding. It is one of perhaps five or six ridings in the province that can be considered strictly rural, with no urban municipalities with a population of over 3,500. Well, this isn’t sufficient to justify its continuance. I think it is a factor, provided the riding can meet the other criteria established by the House and which were applied by the commission.

There is, therefore, a considerable concern on my past as to the ripple effect of creating Middlesex county as a district and a separate provincial riding. I can understand why the Middlesex citizens feel the way they do. It is perfectly natural and in many ways quite logical. I’m going to come back to that in just a moment.

What I can’t understand is the Minister of Agriculture and Food’s defence of the proposition. He first of all makes the point that the people of Middlesex county want it that way -- the reeves, the federation, the citizens and so on. That’s fine; well and good; no problem. Then he goes on to say that because of some perversion of my colleague, the member for Huron (Mr. Riddell), he’s trying to take over part of Middlesex county.

Mr. Roy: Hogwash! Terrible.

Mr. Gaunt: Some members of the Huron county council and others, according to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, are promoting the idea of making Huron county a single provincial riding which would assist in creating Middlesex as a single provincial riding unit. My colleague, the member for Huron, dealt with the first question on Tuesday night last, but I want to deal with the second point for a moment.

I did some checking after I listened to my friend, the member for Middlesex North, and I am told that Huron county council has never been in the position where it, formally or informally, discussed the matter of making Huron counts one provincial riding. Redistribution was discussed by Huron county council at a special August session to discuss the Mustard report. The member for Huron and myself were present at that meeting. And I want to give you what I consider to be an absolutely accurate account of what happened, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, the meeting was called to discuss the Mustard report. There were officials there from the Ministry of Health. There were many interested people. Presentations were made on the Mustard report, and that lasted most of the afternoon -- up until shortly after 4 o’clock, as I recall it. I spoke on the Mustard report and I believe my colleague, the member for Huron, made some comments as well.

Then, before county council recessed, they decided to deal with the matter of redistribution. We were asked, as the members for the area to give an account of the latest proposal with respect to the riding boundaries. The member for Huron outlined what the latest proposal of the commission had been. I did the same.

The county was concerned and wanted to submit a resolution on the matter that bad been drafted by the executive committee of county council. I want to read that to you, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is very important, particularly in view of what the Minister of Agriculture and Food said. It reads as follows:

The warden and members of the Huron county committee and executive committee wish to report to county council the following:

“1. Redistribution of provincial ridings:

“Members of the executive committee are concerned. Let it be clearly understood that the committee is only opposed on the basis of workload that will be added to the present provincial members. The protest is not a case of being against any municipality, but simply a matter of work involved in conducting business of Huron-Bruce and Huron county.

“One must bear in mind that when a second, third, or fourth county becomes involved in one riding, this adds a considerable amount of responsibility on a particular member. It is only fair to say a member of Parliament can only represent a reasonable number of constituents in any given area.

“We, in the rural areas, require strong representation at Queen’s Park and one step to ensure this representation is to have a representative serving a compact area. Therefore, executive committee recommends to Huron county council that a letter go forward to the appropriate authorities, requesting the proposed boundaries of both ridings be reconsidered as follows:

“(a) Huron-Bruce riding: The return of the area from Wellington county to Wellington county. Since our present member is already serving a portion of Bruce county it would appear reasonable to accept the addition of the township of Brant and the town of Walkerton.

“(b) Huron riding: The executive committee recommends the former Huron-Perth boundary be re-established; secondly, that the southern boundary of the Huron riding be extended to include the same area as our present federal riding of Huron-Middlesex.

“(c) In conclusion, therefore, the executive committee recommends that Huron county council forward a letter of protest in this connection to the proposed redistribution of provincial ridings for this area.”

This was endorsed by the Huron county council unanimously with one exception, the deputy reeve of Goderich, who said that he didn’t want to endorse it because that meant county council was injecting itself into provincial politics, and he didn’t think that was proper. Other than that it was unanimous.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): The Minister of Agriculture was misleading the House then?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes, he was; and I am going to come to that. I am sure he did it unwittingly.

Mr. Breithaupt: He did it, wittingly or unwillingly.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): He has no capacity to do it wittingly.

Mr. Gaunt: That was sent to the commission on Aug. 12 and was forwarded to Mr. Brian McCool, secretary to the commission, on the same date. It was acknowledged by Mr. McCool on Aug. 19.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, does that sound like Huron county council wanted Huron county as one provincial riding? Hardly.

At that particular meeting, and during that particular discussion, there were four people who asked questions about the boundary changes and about the general circumstances surrounding the proposed changes. I can recall them well, and I am sure that the member for Huron can recall them too.

There were two questions posed by a county council member, and it was the same county council member who happened to phone the Minister of Agriculture. One doesn’t need to be a Perry Mason to figure that one out. The questions which were posed to my colleague from Huron were these:

First of all, this gentleman asked my friend from Huron: “Have there been any complaints or representations made by Middlesex county or its members in reference to the proposed changes?”

My colleague said -- and I was sitting right behind him -- “I don’t know. I’m not aware of any.” If the minister, or if the member of council construes that to mean that those changes were amenable to the Minister of Agriculture and Food and to the member for Middlesex South then we’re just not talking the same language yet. I know the member for Middlesex South didn’t mention that, but the Minister of Agriculture and Food certainly did because he said he received a phone call. If the member of county council and the Minister of Agriculture and Food interpret those words as meaning that the minister was amenable to the proposed changes then I think someone should go back to school and learn the English language, because it certainly can’t be construed from the comments that were made by the member for Huron.

Then I was asked by the same county council member: “What would you think of Huron county being put into one riding?” I replied: “That’s a possibility. In that event, one of us would have to go.” Then they sort of laughed and we went on. Then he said:

“If that were proposed would you oppose it?” I said; “If county council wants it, I wouldn’t oppose it.” That’s the way it was. County council obviously didn’t want it, or at least they certainly didn’t say so in their resolution which they forwarded to the redistribution commission.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, this raises several questions, perhaps several serious questions --

Mr. Bullbrook: You bet they’re serious questions.

Mr. Gaunt: -- that I’m prepared to deal with. The question has to be why? Why did this happen? Why did this member of county council -- and I know who it was, without a doubt -- ask those questions, support that resolution by his vote and consent and then apparently turn around, according to the Minister of Agriculture, and in a rather sneaky and surreptitious manner slip off and phone the minister’s home and say that the member for Huron said the minister was agreeable to the proposed changes and I was agreeable to making Huron county one riding? That certainly wasn’t the case at all. The whole discussion didn’t even have any remote resemblance to that particular construction which has been attributed to it by the minister.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): It sounds like the minister needs a few better spies, eh?

Mr. Gaunt: That’s right.

Mr. Ferrier: The ones that he has misled him.

Mr. Gaunt: I’ll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. I’ll tell you why this happened. I didn’t want to put this on the record, but the Minister of Agriculture has left me with no choice. I think that the commission should be aware of it and I want to tell you why. The fact of the matter is that this particular gentleman is very highly motivated politically. He’s interested in getting into the provincial arena. Specifically, he wants to run against my friend from Huron, but he doesn’t want to run against him if Middlesex is part of the riding of Huron, because he’s not very well known down in Middlesex and his chances of winning are very remote. He is fairly well known in the county of Huron, and while in my view he wouldn’t stand any chance of heating my friend from Huron, in his view I’m sure that he thinks he’d stand a much better chance than he would if he were running in Huron-Middlesex.

An hon. member: Not a chance.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s why this particular event transpired, I’m sure. There’s not a doubt in the world about it.

An hon. member: It sounds like another loose nut --

Mr. Gaunt: The minister, in effect, has become the political handmaiden of that particular gentleman in this House. The commission is independent, objective and fair. They brought in their report, not only to maintain Huron-Bruce but to extend it. The minister has unwittingly forced the commission into a position where if the commission did at this point change Huron into one riding it would seen as being politically motivated, and that’s called gerrymandering.

An hon. member: He’ll lose the turkey vote.

Mr. Gaunt: The commission is too smart and independent to be drawn into that kind of situation. There is another aspect of the position of the Minister of Agriculture and Food that I find curious. He’s the one man in the Davis government who is supposed to fight for agriculture and the farmers. He has said on numerous occasions that it’s very important for fanners to have a strong organization because they don’t have the strong political clout they once had. Rural representation is slipping away as we became snore urbanized. Yet who is recommending the disappearance of a rural riding? The Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Eaton: We are fighting to retain one out of two we are losing.

Mr. Gaunt: Strange indeed I can say.

Mr. Ferrier: The Minister of Agriculture against farmers?

Mr. Gaunt: I can only conclude that the minister puts his interest of polities ahead of the welfare of agriculture.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the member surprised by that?

Mr. Eaton: The member knows better than that.

Mr. Gaunt: All right. What is the solution? There is a solution. There has to be a solution. I think there is here. It may not he entirely satisfactory to everyone. It is not entirely satisfactory to me. But I think it might be the best that can be achieved under the circumstances. I mentioned earlier that I can certainly understand and appreciate why Middlesex county wants to be a separate provincial riding. I understand that. I know about it. If I could be presumptuous enough, I would suggest that three ridings roughly 75,000 each be created within the city of London and that Middlesex be a separate riding except for McGillivray and Biddulph townships which could go into Huron. There is a precedent for that in that those two townships are part of the Huron federal riding. I’m sure that no one, particularly on that side of the House, would say that those townships are poorly represented federally. They are well represented federally.

Mr. Eaton: That’s right.

Mr. Gaunt: My friend from Middlesex South agrees. That would leave Middlesex with a riding population of approximately 55,119, which is quite acceptable. That’s quite acceptable.

An hon. member: It meets the criteria.

Mr. Gaunt: All right, let’s come to Huron, and let’s talk about Huron. My suggestion is that we return everything to Huron as it was I previously. That is Tuckersmith township, the town of Seaforth and Hullett and McKillop townships. Those would be returned. Add Biddulph and McGillivray from Middlesex, and Colborne and Ashfield townships from Huron-Bruce. These two townships have a community of interest with Goderich, which is already in Huron, and so it makes sense to make that change. That would give Huron a population of just over 40,000; Huron-Bruce, 48,978; and Grey-Bruce, 49,673. All are acceptable when one considers that there are something like 11 ridings, I believe, in the province under 50,000 -- Renfrew South, 49,171; Frontenac-Addington, 48,414; Lincoln, 48,410; Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, 47,781; Carleton-Grenville, 46,423; Victoria-Haliburton, 45,722; Lambton, 43,880; Lanark, 42,259; Prince Edward-Lennox, 41,494; Parry Sound, 40,017; and Muskoka 31,938.

Mr. Bullbrook: Just 31,000?

Mr. Gaunt: If the population figures for the three ridings of Huron, Huron-Bruce and Grey-Bruce are not satisfactory --

Mr. Bullbrook: Just 31,000. How can they do that?

Mr. Gaunt: -- then I think the commission has no other choice but also to adjust these ridings I’ve mentioned, most of which are in eastern Ontario and some of which are abutting.

An hon. member: All of which are Conservative represented.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s a good suggestion.

Mr. Gaunt: If the commission takes that view, then I’m quite prepared to see the population figures adjusted in the three ridings I’ve mentioned, including my own. But until the commission is prepared to grapple with that problem, then I see nothing wrong with the creation of the ridings I’ve suggested.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, I hope that these comments have been helpful to the commission. I hope that the commission can consider the comments I have made as well as the comments that other members have made in this particular debate. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of personal privilege. There has been a question asked repeatedly as to why Middlesex did not make a statement on the proposal from the member from Huron county. I’ll tell you why, Mr. Speaker, because in Middlesex county we never received any indication of that proposal.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While I am on my feet, I would like to make a few brief remarks if I may.

Mr. Speaker: I was under the impression that the hon. member for Huron-Bruce had completed his remarks. Is this correct? You are through?

Mr. Gaunt: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.

Mr. Turner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While I am on my feet, I would like to put a few brief remarks on the record for the hon. member for Humber (Mr. Leluk) with respect to the naming of the riding of High Park. In the absence of this member caused by his new responsibilities as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) I want to state emphatically that the member for Humber is in complete agreement for once, with the distinguished sitting member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), in that High Park be known as High Park-Swansea. A number of civic-minded organizations and individuals in Swansea have relayed their requests to the members for Humber and High Park. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker it is with a feeling of deep disappointment that I rise to speak on behalf of the people residing in the riding of Peterborough and to voice their objections to the report of the Ontario electoral boundaries commission of Nov. 18, 1974.

Mr. Speaker, I know how easy it is to stand up and criticize, but I feel the objections of the people of Peterborough riding are valid and I support them. However, I think also that we have to recognize the tremendously difficult task the commission faced in making these changes. And as the member from York Mills expressed it the other day, it is all the more difficult when you have 117 self-styled experts. However, I would like to pay tribute to the commission for the work they have done, and by and large it is a thankless task. They are not going to satisfy everybody; if indeed, they satisfy anybody.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Is the member for Peterborough satisfied?

Mr. Turner: Well, I’m just saying that I’m not.

Mr. Ferrier: Everybody says what a wonderful job they did, and then they get up to say what’s wrong in their riding.

Mr. Martel: Nobody’s happy.

Mr. Turner: Well, frankly, I wouldn’t want the job, Mr. Speaker, and I recognize that it is a difficult and thankless job. And I don’t think, with all respect, that anybody in this chamber today could do it any better.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Oh, the member for Peterborough and I could do a much better job. He and I could do a magnificent job.

Mr. Turner: I appreciate the member’s confidence. However, I doubt it.

Mr. Martel: Ask the member for Middlesex South. He thinks this was well looked after.

Mr. Turner: I would like to get on with this, if I may, and put the objections of the people of Peterborough on the record.

Mr. Martel: Those are the member’s objections.

Mr. Turner: Mr. Speaker, if I may just make this clear, once and for all.

Mr. Bounsall: Don’t smile.

Mr. Turner: I am an optimist by nature. I have here a resolution from county council.

“Peterborough county council strongly and unanimously objects to the changes that are contemplated to be made by the Ontario electoral boundaries commission now before the Legislature for consideration, insofar as Peterborough county is concerned.”

Now, the people in the various municipalities within the county have all filed their objections with me and, I presume, previously with the commission. I think if we just back up and take a look at the riding we can see where the objections are stemming from.

The proposed new district would be comprised of the city of Peterborough, the village of Lakefield, the village of Millbrook and the five townships of Cavan, Douro, North Monaghan, Otonobee and South Monaghan, for a stated population of 73,480. The remainder of Peterborough county would be included in the present riding of Hastings, to be renamed Hastings-Peterborough. When one stops and looks at the map, it makes for an unbelievable situation where we have a riding that extends from the western boundary of Peterborough county right through to Deseronto on the eastern side; and it arcs around the city of Peterborough.

What we are suggesting is that the commission did not in fact give sufficient recognition to their terms of reference. In fact, I would suggest that the commission could not give recognition to these terms of reference because, with all respect, it was really beyond their knowledge and expertise to do so.

If one stops and looks at the county, it’s apparent that it is a rather unique situation. The city of Peterborough is the major municipality in the county; it is the seat of county government as well as being the major commercial and industrial centre in the county. The vast majority of people residing within the county and not actively engaged in the role of agriculture, work, shop and do their business in the city. The city also provides a focal point of various interests for all people living within the county.

In addition, the city of Peterborough is also the centre of cultural and educational facilities for the county. All the hospitals, and by far the greater number of medical doctors and dentists, are located within the city. The city is also the centre for the whole area for communications, transportation, newspaper, radio and television. Therefore, all the people living within the county identify very strongly with the city and have very strong personal ties there. This has been recognized and supported in an editorial in the Peterborough paper, which I will quote in part:

“County council does not like what the commission plans for Peterborough. Most of the county and city form one riding now, but the commission would split off most of the northern part of the county and add it to the northern three-quarters of Hastings county as one riding. This ignores the ties between the city and the county on a political, historical, social, commercial basis and the many bonds of daily interplay between the urban and rural people.”

This has also been recognized by the city council, which passed a resolution in support of the county resolution, with the same request as the county, that the boundaries of the electoral district of Peterborough be coincidental with the county as they are now.

Since the county forms the electoral district, it has also given me, as the member for that riding, the opportunity of working closely with the county council and the city council. This is a unique situation, and I have found it a very advantageous situation to bring the thoughts of the city and the county together. I think they have worked very closely, very successfully and very effectively on this basis. I think this can also be pointed out by the co-operative efforts between the county and city in the operation of the hospitals, homes of the aged and so on.

I have met with the Peterborough county council and most of the other municipal councils in the area, and as I have just read out, the county passed a resolution to keep the electoral boundaries the way they are at present.

Many individuals residing in the county have made their views known to me, and they also support the retaining of the present electoral district of Peterborough coincidental with the boundaries of the county. I have a petition here which was gathered by an individual in one of these rural municipalities. In his own time he collected over one third of the names of the voters within that township. He did this, as I say, in his spare time. It’s not complete, but because his debate is coming up now, he gave me what he had to date. It represents one third of the voters -- over 400 people who want to stay within the present electoral boundaries of Peterborough.

Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge the commission to reconsider the electoral district of Peterborough, to reconsider what they have done, perhaps unwittingly, to make the people feel that they are being cut off from their major centre of commercial activity, social activity, cultural activity. It would be very, very difficult for anybody to service that new riding -- as I say, it extends from Peterborough on the west to Deseronto on the east, a tremendous distance.

I would also suggest that the commission take a look at the electoral district of Peterborough again, and take into consideration that Highway 28 pretty well divides the county on a north-south basis. Perhaps some consideration could be given to using that highway as a dividing line between ridings. But certainly the least change the people of Peterborough would be happy with within the riding, would be to have the riding as it is recommended by the latest changes in November, with the addition of Smith township which is completely adjacent to the city.

By far the greater majority of people residing within Smith township work in the city of Peterborough. There is a subdivision within the municipality that is serviced with water from the city, and it just doesn’t make sense to exclude those people from the riding of Peterborough. And the same is true with the township of Ennismore; they are the ones who are on the western electoral boundary of Peterborough county. I would respectfully suggest that as an absolute minimum the commission consider adopting the recommendation of Nov. 18. 1974, plus the townships of Ennismore and Smith, if they cannot reinstate the riding of Peterborough as we know it today.

I submit this respectfully to you, Mr. Speaker, for the consideration of the commission. I will be sending copies of correspondence and copies of resolutions from the various municipalities within the riding, to the commission for their further consideration. Thank you very, very much.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, following the comments of the hon. member for Peterborough, I was wondering if I could make one brief comment to reinforce what he happened to have said. I’ll just take a moment to do that, if I may.

The point was raised concerning Smith and Ennismore townships and we too were advised that there were resolutions passed by both township councils unanimously asking for this matter to be reversed. In the original redistribution, these townships were part of the proposed Peterborough riding, and there was no opportunity to make comments before the second series of boundaries came forward, because they thought that this matter was all in hand. The residents of the townships, as the member has said, are most anxious that this be returned to the proposed new riding of Peterborough, and one would hope that the commission very seriously consider this matter as they look at the review of this debate in Hansard.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Hastings.

Mr. C. T. Rollins (Hastings): Mr. Speaker, as elected member for the riding of Hastings, I would like to make a few comments on this latest proposal as it affects Hastings-Peterborough county.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to what my colleague from Peterborough has mentioned. I would like to bring to the attention of this House that the first proposal did not go to the extent that it did, and it only included the townships of Dummer. Belmont, Asphodel, Methuen and Chandos, and under that basis it was quite reasonable to accept, in view of the population of the riding of Hastings.

I listened to my colleague give the population of Peterborough, and if my information is correct, the new riding of Hastings-Peterborough would have approximately 15,000 greater population than the proposed riding of Peterborough.

Mr. Bounsall: The other way around.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): No. Hastings-Peterborough has 54,000 and Peterborough 73,000.

Mr. Rollins: Well, that’s what I said. The Hastings-Peterborough riding would have a greater population than the Peterborough riding.

Mr. Young: It’s the other way around, Mr. Speaker. Hastings-Peterborough would have 54,500 and Peterborough itself would have 73,400.

Mr. Rollins: Oh, I’m sorry. Right. Well, in any event, Mr. Speaker, this area is a large area, but there is one item of importance -- the elected people in the county of Hastings and in the county of Peterborough have carried on their responsibilities in a very efficient and capable manner. They have assisted me in the same manner that the hon. member for Peterborough has been assisted, and I feel very strongly about what has been recommended by him and also by a member of the opposition party. It’s only logical that Ennismore and Smith revert back to the Peterborough riding as proposed by my colleague. There’s growth in that area. With these two municipalities reverted back to the Peterborough riding it would leave the overall riding of Hastings-Peterborough as a very practical and reasonable solution, correcting an apparent oversight in not taking into consideration the growth of the city of Peterborough as it affects the area in the municipalities of Ennismore and Smith. And I would like to support this recommendation as an elected member for Hastings riding that this be given consideration.

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

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When we first started debating the redistribution of the ridings of the Province of Ontario, I suggested that I was not particularly thrilled about the assurance that there would be not fewer than the present 15 seats in northern Ontario. I felt then, and I feel now, that there should have been an increase in the number of seats. This party has made the point that there could have been at least one more; I personally think there could have been two more, if one considers Sault Ste. Marie, and the three seats in the Sudbury area -- Sudbury, Sudbury East and Nickel Belt -- where there could easily have been an extra seat created.

I personally was pleased with the changes that were made concerning the riding I represent -- Nickel Belt -- in that they took a couple of communities and put them in Sudbury East so that the people will be equally well served after redistribution. At one point Mr. Speaker, it looked as though the member for Sudbury East was going to be moved into the riding of Nickel Belt and I can assure you that I was more concerned about that than was the member for Sudbury East. I can imagine him bringing all his compensation cases to me as his member and asking me to solve them. That would have been a full-time job in itself.

When one looks at the riding I represent, which runs some 400 miles from one end to the other, and consists of a population of almost 52,000, it is hard to accept the fact that there are other ridings, strangely enough represented by Conservatives, with populations of 30,000 for Algoma, 31,000 for Algoma-Manitoulin, and 32,000 for Muskoka. If one looks at the size of those ridings compared to the size of Nickel Belt and compare the populations, there is no justice. It is not fair to the people in the riding I represent to have that kind of difference. When one considers the distances and the road conditions in northern Ontario, one can appreciate how difficult it is to serve those people adequately, given the size of the riding.

If one totals the populations of the three ridings in the Sudbury area versus those other three ridings I mentioned, one will find that the ridings in the Sudbury area have a population more than twice as high as that of the three Conservative ridings. That simply cannot be justified. It is not good enough to say that the population in the summer time increases in the riding of Muskoka. There are all sorts of ridings in the province where the summer population increases, and certainly Nickel Belt is one of those, although I am sure not nearly as dramatically as it does in Muskoka.

So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the commission will take another look at the sizes and the populations of the ridings in northern Ontario. I hope they will seriously consider my suggestion that there be two more seats in the north, and I hope they will seriously consider the fact that the Conservative ridings of Algoma, Algoma-Manitoulin and Muskoka are simply too small compared to the size of the ridings that some of the rest of us represent. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join this debate and make a few comments. First of all, I would like to extend my compliments to the commission. I am certain that they are doing the best they can with this very difficult task and it is going to be very difficult to please everyone.

However, I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I didn’t mention the fact that the secretary to the commission is a very old friend of mine, Major Brian S. McCool. We attended Harbord Collegiate in the years before the war. He, of all things, taught literature, and sometimes I wonder how he survived; it was quite a tough bunch of young fellows that went to Harbord Collegiate in those days.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): The member was there too.

Mr. Braithwaite: I was there. I just want to comment on the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the major was a very good teacher. During the war he had a very distinguished military career and I am certain that he is doing a very good job as secretary to the commission.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have already spoken at length on the broader issues connected with the proposed redistribution. This debate has dragged on for quite a while and I’m not going to take too long. I will confine my comments to the present and proposed ridings of Etobicoke.

Since 1963, Mr. Speaker, it has been my pleasure and my honour to represent some 90,000 people who reside in the riding of Etobicoke. Basically, that’s all of Etobicoke, Mr. Speaker, north of Eglinton Ave. with the Indian Line on the west as a boundary, Steeles Ave. on the north and the Humber River on the east.

Under the proposed redistribution, the name of the riding has not been changed, Mr. Speaker. It will still be called the riding of Etobicoke, and of this I’m glad. I’m not entirely content with, but I’m not too dissatisfied with, the proposed southern boundaries of the new riding of Etobicoke. However, I would like to comment briefly on the eastern boundaries that have been contemplated or planned for the new riding.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, the name Etobicoke is synonymous with the areas which have always been a part of the borough of Etobicoke. The people who live in the northern part of Etobicoke have problems which are unique -- problems such as the desire for better transportation; problems such as the fight that we recently won to get a GO station in Rexdale, and problems such as the noise pollution which we get from Malton airport.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, the people who live in that particular area are united as one in opposition to any enlargement of that particular facility. They are in favour of a new airport being built at once.

These are the types of problems, Mr. Speaker, that the people who live in northern Etobicoke have a common interest in. People who live in North York may or may not have an interest in some of the same problems, but I suppose it is fair to say that their problems are not the same as those of the people who live in Etobicoke.

Mr. Young: The member is going to get 1,000 New Democratic votes in that territory.

Mr. Braithwaite: Well, I’ll convert them to Liberals.

Mr. Laughren: That will be some conversion.

Mr. Braithwaite: In the past, Mr. Speaker, natural barriers such as rivers, or major highways or roadways --

Mr. Bounsall: A big step.

Mr. Braithwaite: -- have comprised the boundaries of the riding. For these reasons it would appear that the portion of North York lying east of the Humber River on both sides of Islington Ave. and south of Steeles Ave. should remain a part of a riding in North York. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the interests of this are synonymous with the interests of the borough of North York and it would appear that these people should be represented by, or should form part of, a riding which is wholly in the borough of North York.

Mr. Speaker, I said I was going to speak very briefly. I’m going to close my comments by asking the commission to reconsider its proposals as far as the riding of Etobicoke is concerned, and I would ask the commission to consider my remarks concerning the proposed eastern boundaries of the new riding.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, unlike the rest I’m not going to compliment the commission. Everyone’s complimented the commission on a tremendous job and then gone on to kick the tar out of it. I find that a little strange, Mr. Speaker, so I won’t be part of the approach.

An hon. member: Hypocrisy.

Mr. Martel: Hypocrisy, as my colleague says.

I was upset when the commission first presented its findings in late June. An interesting thing happened, Mr. Speaker. The map designated, as my colleague said, that I was going to retain my own home town, but the figures didn’t jibe. So I wrote a series of letters to the commission and on the third response they said, “We made a mistake and you are not keeping your home town.” But it showed it on the map, and ultimately, I learned that the council objected because they were putting it in the riding of Nickel Belt. That wasn’t the reason they objected. It was the only community in that direction that would remain in the riding of Nickel Belt. Nickel Belt flows towards the north and the west. They were putting the community of Capreol into that riding, separated by two other ridings, the riding of Sudbury East and the riding of Sudbury, which would have divided it from Nickel Belt.

The reason I bring that up, though ultimately over a series of letters it was reversed and we learned that it was just a mistake, was the attitude of the commission to people who wrote to them. The council was so upset with one commission letter that it wrote to the Premier, I believe, and indicated its displeasure at being so cavalierly treated by the commission and at the response from the commission to that council which had petitioned that the town remain in Sudbury East as a part of that riding, the most extreme northern part of that riding, to be precise. There was no justification and apparently it was an error. It was the response from the commission which upset the council. They just didn’t feel that they should be replied to in such a terse manner.

The statistics are bad even now though, Mr. Speaker. I did a little checking with the planning board in the city of Sudbury, for example. They’ve made another switch in my riding. It’s an interesting switch. They’ve taken two wards from my colleague, the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), and put them in Sudbury East and they’ve taken two wards from Sudbury East and transferred them to Sudbury. One would like at least to know why the move, but there is no way of finding out.

In doing that, I checked out some statistics. For example, they show in the part of the city of Sudbury called Lockerby 9,000 people and since 1971 it’s increased to almost 14,000. In fact, the statistics being used to indicate the numbers of people in that community are really out of proportion to what are really there. There are far more people than they show.

This brings me to the point my colleague from Nickel Belt raises. If one were to look at the ridings across northern Ontario in purely a political partisan way, one would see, for example, that the Tory ridings, exclusive of Sault Ste. Marie, are very, very much smaller than any other riding. We have Algoma, which has 30,147; Algoma-Manitoulin, 31,557; Cochrane North, 42,594; Kenora, 46,000; and Parry Sound, 40,000. One wonders where the commission was. In the case of my colleague, the member for Nickel Belt, it is 400 miles from one end of his riding to the other. He has to go well into the territory of Algoma and he has 52,000 people. I cover a distance of 3,500 square miles; 22 municipalities, some of them unorganized. I believe in the riding of Sudbury East there will be 65,179 people.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Oh, he is good.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The member for Algoma got half of the territory.

Mr. Martel: The electoral district of Timiskaming, on the other hand, has 48,000. Now where is the justification for the member for Algoma to have 30,000? The member for Nickel Belt who has a riding that stretches 400 miles --

Mr. Laughren: Or 20,000 square miles.

Mr. Martel: -- or 20,000 square miles -- in fact, he has 52,000.

Mr. Lawlor: The best bet is for the member for Algoma to stay nice and quiet in my opinion.

Mr. Martel: I really don’t care to divide it that way, but the real problem is the amount of staffing that goes on in this idiotic place to try to assist people. The member for Nickel Belt gets one secretary for instance, while the member with 32,000 people gets one secretary. How does the secretarial staff meet the demands placed upon it by ridings which are double and 2½ times the size of the Tory rulings in the north? That’s what bothers me more than anything. I don’t care if there are 65,000 people. The thing is that I’m given staff equal to a member who has 30,000 people. How in God’s name are we supposed to give them the same type of assistance?

Mr. Laughren: The Tories don’t want us to.

Mr. Lawlor: Of course, the member for Algoma is only half the man the member for Sudbury East is.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker knows, because I’ve written to him in the last couple of weeks since he has acquired the new duties as Speaker, to point out that in order to provide service for the people -- and that is what this place is about -- there should be some distribution of funds so that adequate services could be provided for people in those communities.

I can take five Tory ridings and they don’t equal the size of the three ridings in the Sudbury area. One wonders why the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes), for example, was left with 80,000. I could give you some of my own reasons, Mr. Speaker, but I won’t. Of course, the minister has a slightly larger staff than do back-benchers in this place.

Mr. Gilbertson: Geography has a lot to do with it. The member knows that.

Mr. Martel: Geography does have a lot to do with it. But that being the case, then I would suggest to the member for Algoma that if one looks at the map, the town of Chapleau fits ideally in that member’s riding, because he goes up to Wawa --

Mr. Gilbertson: Look, it is 100 miles from Wawa to Chapleau.

Mr. Martel: It’s 300 miles from Nickel Belt to Chapleau. So we are talking 100 miles for the member for Algoma and 350 miles for my colleague.

Mr. Young: He could take part of Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Martel: He has got double the population of the member’s riding and equal staff.

Mr. Gilbertson: How far is it from the east of my riding to Hornepayne?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Sudbury East is presenting his viewpoints.

Mr. Martel: Maybe we’ll get the member up, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: No, he’s too happy. He’s happy.

Mr. Martel: As I say, my concern is trying to provide people with service. That’s what we are here for. And with the type of distributions proposed, and no difference in staffing, then it becomes very difficult to provide those services.

Prior to these duties going to the Speaker, I had an exchange of correspondence with the minister responsible, the Minister of Government Services, and I pointed this out to him. In reply, he indicated his staff was somewhat smaller than the Premier’s. I agreed with that, because there was a difference in workloads. The same applies to members of the Legislature who have ridings that are double the size of some of their colleagues’ riding so I didn’t even bother moving into the south, but Muskoka is very near us and it has 33,000 people. Something is amiss when that type of manipulation goes on.

But there is a choice for the commission. It can, as my colleague from Nickel Belt points out, put another riding in the Sudbury area and possibly another riding in Sault Ste. Marie to cut down that area. The least that could be done by the government -- and, Mr. Speaker being responsible for this, be shouldn’t have to wait for the Camp commission to report -- is that Mr. Speaker could take it upon himself to say that in those circumstances we will provide additional staffing. Mr. Speaker, that would be greatly appreciated by those members who have large areas with unorganized townships.

One has to recognize none of the members in southern Ontario have that strange creature called the unorganized township, with anywhere from 800 to 1,800 people and no government of any description, so that the member is drawn in on every type of problem. There are no members in southern Ontario who have unorganized townships. Yet the vast majority, including my friends from Algoma and Parry Sound -- I can berate them a little because of the size of the ridings -- but nonetheless they have those problems too of the unorganized townships where they become the father confessors.

Mr. Gilbertson: Right on.

Mr. Martel: Again, they are required to work with the same amount of staff. And so you have another inequity between north and south, because in southern Ontario those types of ridings don’t exist -- or those unorganized townships. So you can understand, Mr. Speaker, why I am upset, partially because of the way in which most backbenchers are treated around this place.

Mr. Gilbertson: People love him.

Mr. Martel: That’s fine. I don’t think 55 per cent of the people can be wrong, but that’s beside the point. One has to provide them with equal services, the same as those people who are in the south. We can’t do it. For those people in the north who have much larger ridings than your own, Mr. Speaker, it too calls for additional staffing to provide services. This government won’t recognize that point and the commission doesn’t recognize the inequity of the size of the various ridings across northern Ontario. And so the whole system is very unfair.

I think the whole way that this commission was established, the fact that there was no input by the public from the beginning, indicates to me that it is just a mishmash. I would suspect that in the dead of the night what the commission did was to use doughnuts and throw them at a map. Wherever they landed was circled and that was the new riding. That might be carrying it a little far, but I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, I am not happy. I want to leave off with those remarks. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to these resolutions?

The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I have found this debate one of the most interesting of all the debates that I have listened to in this House since I joined it some three-plus years ago.

It’s true that we all are experts in our own area and we all feel that we could have drawn the redistribution much to our own liking, etc., etc. But in listening to the debates -- and I say these words, to the electoral boundaries commission -- there are three areas in which to me the proposed changes made sense generally. I refer to the London-Middlesex area as it was modified and explained by the few changes requested by the Liberal Party spokesman who is interested in the area. Those changes proposed initially by the London and Middlesex area members, with the Liberal changes added on top of that, to me make a lot of sense.

The points made by the members for both Halton East and Halton West with respect to where the boundaries of Burlington should be made a lot of sense to me.

In eastern Ontario the interesting situation arose where you had the member for Carleton wanting to add the township of Gouldourn to Carleton riding. That would make it a rather large riding. But the basis of the reasoning there was continuity of interest in the community. This was, in fact, a completely urban township and it made sense to keep that with the urban area of Carleton rather than throwing it in with this purely rural riding.

The member for Hastings (Mr. Rollins) indicated that the township of East Hawkesbury, again with a great deal of sense, seemed to fit very nicely into the riding of Prescott and Russell, rather than where it had been placed.

Having made those two changes, with the other five ridings of Lanark; Leeds; Carleton-Grenville; Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry; and Frontenac-Addington, it appears that one could very easily make four ridings out of those other five ridings as proposed, each with an average population of around 55,000. This would be a population about the size of Hastings-Peterborough, and about the same size as all of the ridings in the northern part of southwestern Ontario. To me, that sort of a change could fairly easily be made and would be more electorally consistent with what was aimed at by the com mission.

I was quite interested to hear the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) saying that representation by population is not appropriate for the Province of Ontario. That’s a rather interesting view indeed, in this day and age.

I simply have one comment to make to the electoral boundaries commission. Virtually every member has proposed changes for his or her area. I would hope that they do not take this as an invitation to spend another two or three months redrawing the electoral boundaries for the province, and therefore run us into the danger of having to fight the next election on the old riding boundaries. They should make the quick changes that they see to be appropriate -- that they feel it would be appropriate to make quickly -- and get on with the job of bringing in the bill.

Just one final comment: With respect to the comments made by the member for Wellington-Dufferin, I think it was, in respect to servicing urban constituents as opposed to servicing rural constituents, it has been my experience since being elected a member in a purely urban riding that in fact I do not travel very much about that urban riding, that I use the telephone 90 to 98 per cent of the time, and that that is the means of communication rather than person to person.

I will admit that one constituent in every 15 -- I have narrowed it down to about that, one in every 15 -- seems to think that the member is not working on his constituency case or problem unless he can actually see the member. There is that very solid and strong feeling among some constituents. I say to those constituents, “I have a riding office in a given location. I will be there on Saturday mornings. Can you come to the office?” When I didn’t have that riding office, I said, “I will be at home on Saturday mornings. Can you come to my home?”

If that person was disabled or blind or completely without transportation, even though he felt very strongly that he wanted to see me and I really wasn’t working on his problem until he had, he then found that he could in fact give me the problem over the telephone. I think we tend to pamper constituents if, every time they express the feeling that they want to see us, we feel we must get in our car and go and drive and see that person.

I suspect that in a widespread rural riding a member could probably get that person to give him the problem and case over the phone and say to the person, “Look, I will be in your area in two weeks’ time. Give me the problem now and when I am there, I will in fact drop in and see you” -- rather than feeling that one has to be continually travelling across the much vaster distances of rural ridings as opposed to urban ridings. Particularly in this day and age with people oriented toward telephones, I find that the argument about us being able to service -- I don’t quite remember the numbers -- 40 or 50 while rural members can serve four or five probably isn’t accurate.

Mr. Breithaupt: In the same time.

Mr. Bounsall: In the same time, yes. I don’t feel it justifies and is a justifiable argument for a large urban-rural population difference as we have.

My own final remark to the electoral boundaries commission, Mr. Speaker, would be one of saying that I do strongly support the proposals for the city of Toronto which would create block ridings. There have been Toronto members speaking about the queer shapes of their urban ridings, such as the face having been cut off of the dog and the dog made pregnant in terms of St. George riding, and the disappearance of the riding of York-Forest Hill as an entity into other places.

I would say to the commission, “Take the present outside boundaries of Metro; keep them the same and block the thing off in the centre throughout the whole of the Metro area in blocks or rectangles and do that job; look at the communities, and get it over with.” That seems to me something which could be done fairly quickly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to speak in this debate because I am completely happy with the disposition of what’s happened in my riding. However, you know, listening to the debate as it goes along, I said to myself that would probably presuppose that at the times when I do speak I must be unhappy. Why on earth shouldn’t a person speak once in a while if he is happy about the thing?

Also, I find I am in the rather strange position of being perhaps one of the very few voices in the House that are positive with respect to what the commission has done. I want to congratulate them sincerely, without animadversion, without reservations whatsoever, right down the board. Thank God they exist. As far as I can see, if changes had to be made in Lakeshore riding, the changes would have been the ones I would have drawn myself. They couldn’t have been better.

Mr. Bounsall: Does the member know anybody on the commission?

Mr. Lawlor: I have always felt that Lakeshore riding in the west end of Toronto was gerrymandered, and have said so in this House previously. There’s some kind of an obtuse triangle stuck up in one corner there to rattle Tory votes into the last moments of an election, but sometimes coming fairly close to reversing the good result achieved up to that point in the night as they come in. That is all being cut out and they’re following a logical, geographical, communal concept right down a stream called Mimico Creek.

Mr. Bounsall: Completely NDP riding.

Mr. Lawlor: It brings into the riding the town of Mimico, which is and always has been, since time immemorial -- since Jacques Cartier landed outside where I live type of thing -- the same as New Toronto and Long Branch; they have felt a sense of community, have worked together, they have interlacing affairs, and what affects one deeply effects the others. Mimico was off in the member for Humber’s territory previously, and I felt that was most detrimental, not only to the souls who exist there but with respect to the communal concept that was fractured in this particular regard. Now that is being rectified by a very sensible commission, indeed.

I want them to proceed. These new boundaries, I trust, despite the undertow of this debate, will go forward immediately, forthrightly, deliberately, with some alterations where the more egregious instance is. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition said to this House in his speech on this matter, we place in the hands of a non-partisan, independent commission the sovereign prerequisites of drawing these boundaries; we divorce ourselves from it; we give it the authority so to do, and then apparently we withdraw with our right hand what we have proffered with our left. It seems to me an undermining of the independent function of that commission for this kind of debate to have gone on at this length, with the prolixity and with the undertow of malice that exists in some instances, which is hardly deserving as proceeding from this House or from the members themselves.

If it is our intention to set up such commissions, independent of ourselves, to dispose in their hands the powers over matters of this kind, and then to truckle and pull back and authority, it seems to me there’s very little worth in the whole procedure. That is what has happened here in the last couple of days. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Deacon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just a couple of words. I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Lakeshore compliment the commission, and it’s interesting that there is some difference between his views and those of his colleague from York South. I share the views of the hon. member for Lakeshore with regard to the readjustment of the lines in my riding. If it had to be done in York Centre it couldn’t have been done much better than they did.

Mr. Eaton: Exactly the way the member wants it.

Mr. Deacon: But I do want to bring to the attention of the commission the matter of the Toronto wards. I support - the view taken of the Toronto ridings, that it should be done on the basis of the wards that the city of Toronto now has outlined. It’s much more in keeping with their idea of trying to strengthen common community interest.

I also want to bring to the commission’s attention the fact that Toronto Island really should be in the riding of St. George. Toronto Island lies largely east of University Ave. and that is the boundary line for St. George riding. I think those residents have a greater affinity to the riding of St. George than St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Those are the remarks I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. I do think the commission has tried to do an honest job and in most cases it has succeeded.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to this resolution? If not, this concludes the debate on this item.

CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves second reading of Bill 179, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister wish to lead off with some remarks?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement to introduce the debate. The members will recall that on May 4, 1972, the government introduced a bill to extend and regulate collective bargaining procedures for Crown employees.

Mr. Martel: The minister means to straitjacket them.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The Act was proclaimed on Dec. 29, 1972, and the parties have negotiated under its provisions since that time. Following representations from and discussions with the Civil Service Association, the Liquor Control Board, the Liquor Licence Board employees’ association and local 767 of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the government agreed to make certain amendments to the Act, and the amending bill was introduced by myself on Dec. 12, 1974.

Among the major changes proposed by the bill are the reconstitution of the grievance board and the tribunal on partisan lines, in contrast to the non-partisan nature of the present bodies; a provision for the selection of arbitration board chairman on an ad hoe basis by the nominees of the parties, as opposed to the present arrangement which provides for the appointment of a chairman by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for a two-year renewable term, and a significant modification of sections 6 and 17 to provide that certain matters, hitherto considered functions of the employer, become negotiable matters and certain other matters are subject to consultation between the parties.

It has always been the aim of this government to avoid the worst features of an adversary approach to collective bargaining. With this objective in mind, it was decided that binding arbitration should continue to be the means of resolving impasses at the bargaining table until better alternatives are developed. While it is conceded that the amendments do not need all of the changes proposed by the bargaining agents, we believe that the bill constitutes a sincere and not insignificant attempt to improve bargaining procedures, while continuing to recognize the government’s responsibility to protect the public interest.

Members will have an opportunity to express their views on the amendments as the bill goes through committee. I look forward to the discussions that will take place.

In concluding these brief remarks, I would like to assure members of the Legislature that at the conclusion of second reading I will move that the bill be sent to a standing committee for consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, it is apparent as we look at the debate on the amendments to this statute which are proposed by the Chairman of the Management Board, that while there are several basic changes with which we can agree, we regret very much that the bill does not follow the approach which we would have taken concerning the amendments to the statute that should be brought forward.

We find, of course, in reviewing the terms of this bill that the amendments will give to the association and equal voice in appointing members to the grievance board and to the arbitration board under the Act. We find as well that the association will have the right to bargain on certain additional matters, such as promotions, demotions, transfers, layoffs and the classification and job evaluation system.

While any changes in the Act may offer some form of improvement to the various procedures for bargaining with employees of the Crown in Ontario, we are certainly prepared to welcome those, although we believe that the principle of the bill follows a procedure which is not satisfactory. We believe that in these amendments the government has sidestepped what are the real issues in this situation and that the amendments are inadequate.

The Act, in our view at least, still will be unnecessarily restrictive. By merely making a strike option unavailable, the government has simply acknowledged the fact that if there is a strike in the public service that strike would be illegal. Unfortunately, that will not resolve the situations which might lead to the removal and withdrawal of services by various members of the Civil Service Association from the Province of Ontario. This will then, accordingly, not prevent a strike from occurring. It will simply make a strike illegal and this, of itself, may prove to be a provocation in the long run.

We believe that compulsory arbitration should be restricted only to certain employees whose services are essential with respect to the provision of health and safety services within the province. We admit that there are certain provincial employees who perform essential services which we cannot allow to be withdrawn from the public of this province. However, there are many other employees in the civil service who we believe should have the opportunity, as one of the options open to them, to withdraw their services -- with, of course, the exceptions to which I have referred, namely, those of health or safety of the community at large.

Mr. Martel: The elevator workers.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, it sounds like the elevator workers. That’s exactly the case.

Mr. Martel: The transit workers.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are prepared in the circumstances to acknowledge the responsibility which we have in the Legislature to intervene if such a situation cannot otherwise resolve itself. But we believe that to deny that right to the vast majority of members of the civil service in advance is unnecessary. Out of a total of approximately 67,000 full-time public servants we think, by our research at least, that there appear to be some 22 per cent, or some 15,000, who are denied bargaining rights. Most of these are denied these rights particularly because they are deemed to be in accordance with section 1(l)(m) of the Act and I quote: “Persons employed in a managerial or confidential capacity.”

This ratio of excluded persons, we feel is far too high and it appears from our research to be the highest of any jurisdiction in Canada. In the federal government service about 7.6 per cent of such persons are excluded. As we look at the provinces of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, the amount is some three per cent; in Alberta, 8.7; in New Brunswick, seven per cent; and in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, approximately 10 per cent. So Ontario’s proportion seems to be unreasonably high as one looks at the package in the first place.

Surely, the objectives of the government must be to prevent strikes, and not merely to make them illegal. We believe that this cannot be done unless there is greater freedom for negotiation provided, and if the areas of compulsory arbitration are restricted only to employees whose services are deemed to be essential.

I am pleased that the minister, the Chairman of the Management Board, has said that this bill will go to standing committee after it, no doubt, will receive second reading in the House. It is most important that before these amendments are proceeded with that the Civil Service Association and other interested persons within the province have the opportunity to appear before the standing committee where they can make their views known. It is always restrictive to have only members of the House debating issues in committee, because the input of persons who are truly expert, or who feel very deeply on particular points, should be available to the members of the House so that we indeed can make better legislation out of the legislation which is placed before us.

I regret that because of the amendments being, in our view, unsatisfactory, it is our decision to vote against the bill. We are going to oppose the bill basically because we believe that the kind of approach which the government has taken is inadequate. As I have said, the exclusions that are not in the bill -- the points which we believe should be substantially changed -- have not found favour with the government. We think that the position that has been taken by the government is incorrect. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, we will oppose the bill.

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

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet for having decided -- and letting us know so early on in the debate -- that the bill would be sent to committee outside the House. This is an opportunity for the general public and the concerned Crown employees to come in and make personal representation on each and every part of that bill. I hope to see many of them there so doing.

The CSAO will be able to come in and take a firm stand in presenting its views with respect to this bill, which so very much regulates both its activities and the activities of its members.

I applaud the minister for his decision, but the applause stops there. We are opposed to this bill. We will vote against it with a great deal of enthusiasm, because it doesn’t grant the right to strike. It continues to entrench managerial rights and retains restrictions on what is bargainable. It continues to deny I do not feel that casual or temporary employees, and thereby makes them second-class citizens in the labour markets of this province.

The bill does contain some changes, which one might say are steps forward; but there are also further disadvantages built into the bill which heretofore did not exist. The bill quite clearly excludes casual employees and temporary employees from bargaining rights. I do not feel that casual or temporary employees should be denied bargaining rights. I could say more on that topic here, but I will save my detailed remarks for discussion before the committee.

Another interesting point to me in this bill is that it excludes -- and this is definitely a disadvantage -- employees in the auditor’s office and the Office of the Assembly from being members of CSAO. Where represented, they have traditionally been represented by the CSAO. To exclude the CSAO from representing them is a little bit strange to me, particularly for employees of the Office of the Assembly. The Legislative Assembly Act specifically does not take away the right of those employees to have a bargaining agent. They can choose a bargaining agent of their choice.

Is the Chairman of the Management Board saying, “We would much prefer the employees of the Office of the Assembly to have the CUPE public service or Office and Professional Employees International Union represent the members of the Office of Assembly, rather than have the CSAO represent them?” Why is he saying, “You have the right -- we are not denying it -- to choose a bargaining agent but there is one particular bargaining agent that you cannot have, and that’s the CSAO”? I find that strange.

If they have the right to choose a bargaining agent, why deny them one particular bargaining agent? That should be their choice. I cannot understand the denial of one particular bargaining agent for that group of employees.

It also excludes the employees of the tribunal and the grievance settlement board. Not every employee of the tribunal or grievance settlement board is going to be a person in judgemental or confidential situations. I would suspect there might be the odd secretary or two around those particular activities. Why should those people be singled out and told: “You cannot have CSAO as your representative”?

Mr. Martel: Divide and conquer.

Mr. Bounsall: It confounds me. I just don’t know why that has been done. It does not follow any reason whatsoever that I can see.

Another point the bill could have covered, but doesn’t, is the elimination of all prohibitions on political activity -- which were in the original bill. It does not eliminate those prohibitions. If the CSAO as the bargaining agent of the Crown employees wants the members it represents to be able to engage in some sort of political action, those Crown employees collectively having arrived at that decision, it would be appropriate for them to so take that action. I cannot see the continued denial of political action to such a large group of people in this province.

Mr. Martel: Those at the top engage rather openly.

Mr. Bounsall: Dropping the discriminatory clauses on political activity through the mechanism of this amending bill would pave the way for the removal of the prohibitions found in the Public Service Act, sections 11 to 16 which in effect, if one follows those Public Service Act sections, prohibits even the writing of letters to editors of newspapers by Crown employees in this province.

Taking these discriminatory clauses out of the original Act would pave the way for amendments in the Public Service Act which would widen the political activity in this province which has been so very much narrowed at the moment. One cannot even write a letter to the editor without contravening a section of that Public Service Act. These employees are being denied their basic human rights in a democracy by this political activity limitation.

Mr. Martel: But Don Martyn could be the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) campaign manager during the last Tory leadership campaign. There are two sets of rules.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Windsor West has the floor.

Mr. Bounsall: The combination of the old Act which has not been amended by this amending Act and the Public Service Act certainly makes it impossible for public servants to become in any way slightly involved in any sort of political activity.

I think the bill, fails markedly as well to make any step forward in defining -- this was an opportunity to so do and the committee may see this as one of its major tasks -- the managerial or confidential capacity clauses which are there. It’s my understanding there is an excessively broad interpretation of that phrase in the original Act. Ontario has, in fact, the highest ratio of persons excluded from those eligible for collective bargaining in any jurisdiction in Canada. That section of the Act should be expanded and that section clearly defined right in the Act, so those wide interpretations and exclusions don’t continue.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, one of the major things which we resent very much, that has not been changed in this Act, is that basic right to strike which most certainly should be granted to all Crown employees. How can the Legislature justify taking away the right to strike from a receptionist at Queen’s Park, but say it is okay for a receptionist down the road at Ontario Hydro to have that right to strike? How can they take away from a custodial person working in this Legislative building the right to strike, but say it is okay down at Ontario Hydro or over at the Workmen’s Compensation Board or many other commissions that are closely related to other commissions closely related to this provincial government? It just does not make sense whatsoever.

One gets the feeling that government thinks that the Crown employees in total, all 60,000 of them, are just out there waiting, once they are granted the right to strike, to strike.

That just isn’t true. No group of employees is irresponsible. If they feel an issue strongly enough, if the negotiations get thoroughly bogged down, and if they have no alternative, they strike. They strike, in most cases most reluctantly. My impression of the civil servants in Ontario as a group is not of a group of persons who treat their responsibilities in their lobs lightly, who are irresponsible and always about to run out on some sort of a strike, or frothing at the mouth and can hardly contain themselves behind the desk or phone because they want to get out there and strike. They look to me to be a very responsible, reasonable group, a group which in fact could be trusted with the right to strike. Give them that trust. I do not see why. He must be highly suspicious of this group of very hard-working, in most cases, and very responsible people.

Mr. Martel: They should have been on strike a long time ago.

Mr. Bounsall: He must mistrust them profoundly to not allow them his trust in terms of their using that trust and that right to strike in a responsible fashion. I cannot understand the profound mistrust he must have of this group since he persists in not giving them the right to strike. In this regard I am going to quote to the House, if I may, remarks made by the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet to the Kiwanis Club of Ottawa at the Chateau Laurier Hotel on Friday, Jan. 24, 1975, in connection with the right to strike and civil servants having that right.

“Binding arbitration [the minister says] has come under increasing and expensively publicized attack by the CSAO and others who are demanding the so-called right to strike for civil servants. I say ‘so-called right’ because I cannot accept the suggestion that some fundamental freedom equivalent, say to the right of free speech or religious freedom, is at stake here. Rather it seems to me that giving an employee the power to withdraw his services in pursuit of his contract demands is or can be part of a collective bargaining process, but it is not essential to it.”

Mr. Young: Who wrote that?

Mr. Bounsall: I wonder, then, what is their fundamental solution -- and they are always in the weaker position -- if they cannot achieve anything else?

He goes on:

“In my view, it [meaning the right to strike] should be seen more as a condition of employment subject, as are other conditions, to the wider ramification of the jobs or services at issue and subject to, of course, any individual’s right to refuse employment should he not find the conditions attached to it acceptable to him.”

I can hardly believe those last words. What the minister is saying to the civil servants of Ontario is, “We are not going to give you the right to strike. And if you don’t like it, get the hell out of the civil service.” That’s what he said in that last paragraph.

Mr. Mattel: He’s talking like Powell.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s one nice attitude for the chairman of the board that must negotiate with those civil servants to have. “You don’t have the right to strike. If you don’t like it, get the hell out of the civil service.” That’s what the minister said here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Laughren: Shame.

Mr. Bounsall: If I were a civil servant I would be highly tempted to test him on that point alone.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s from 1823.

Mr. Laughren: It makes for some labour relations, eh?

Mr. Young: Who wrote it? Tell us. Surely the minister didn’t write that.

Mr. Laughren: He didn’t say that, did he?

Mr. Lawlor: It belongs back in the last century.

Mr. Young: The minister can’t believe that.

Mr. Martel: He was born 100 years too late.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, we would take some group of employees in this province, in terms of health services, safety services or protection services -- I think of the police and perhaps firemen -- and not give them the right to strike. We would have to consider, in the light of other provinces giving their hospital workers the right to strike, or not taking it away, and never having had strikes in that sector, whether we wouldn’t completely repeal the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

I would like to try giving the hospital workers in Ontario the right to strike, as they still have in some other provinces, and seeing what happens, and to trust in the integrity of the workers involved and their feelings about their jobs to bargain in such a way that they would never need to go on strike, only to take that course with great reluctance.

It works in other provinces. In some other provinces, the workers in hospitals still have the right to strike and they have not exercised it. That seems to me to be the reasonable approach to how we should be dealing with these workers.

There are some services, such as police and fire, where we would say no. But in terms of the civil servants of the Province of Ontario, what is so essential to the public good over any short period of time about any of their jobs? The liquor store employees? The typists? The custodial staff here? Sure, things get a little dirty. We might all get a little thirsty. Fewer letters might reach us -- and that would be a blessing. But we can’t call their jobs essential and we can’t deny them the right to strike. It just doesn’t make sense in relation to that group that we would deny, in the public interest, the right to strike, we would take the view of Chief Justice Woods in his report on labour relations, and we would take the view of former Chief Justice McRuer in his writings on civil rights. They both have said: “If the right to strike,” -- “that fundamental civil liberty,” in McRuer’s words -- “is taken away from a group of employees, you give to that group of employees” --

Mr. Lawlor: Does the minister know what people had to do to win that right?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Windsor West has the floor.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, I do have a problem. Being an ex-university professor, I have 50 minutes of speech planned out and if I am interrupted in it I will have to go back to the start and start all over again.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I would draw to the attention of the visitors in the gallery that the House rules do not permit any applause, or any other type of emotional outburst or laughter while you are here. We certainly welcome you here and we appreciate your interest, but we would ask that you abide by the House rules and watch and listen quietly. Thank you.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think that if you examine precedent, the last Speaker of this House did rule that chuckles were allowed in the gallery.

Mr. Bounsall: I haven’t got any chuckles written into my address here, Mr. Speaker, but I will try to ad-lib a few as I go along.

Getting back, McRuer and Woods said that if that basic right to strike is denied, we have to give them something to replace it, to ensure to those workers that they get in return, in benefits, in salary, in working conditions, something to make up substantially for that right to strike if it is to be denied. We find nothing this Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, in its original form or in the amendment Act which we have before us today, which in any way makes up for that right which has been denied them.

In fact, it is one of the worst bills I have ever seen in labour legislation anywhere, in any jurisdiction. It does not in any way give them something to substitute for the loss of that basic civil right, and it’s time we had a bill that did. I don’t object to a separate bill for the Crown employees in the Province of Ontario provided that bill fits the situation and fits the need. This bill, the original bill and this amendment bill, do not fit any need. It would be better if they didn’t have it at all than in the form which we have it.

Mr. Martel: Why doesn’t the minister ask them to take a five per cent cut in pay? He might consider that. Ask them to take a five per cent cut in pay.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, there are other disadvantages to this bill. The related sections of the old bill have some amendments in this bill. Section 6, which sets out which terms are negotiable; and section 17, which sets out which items are still exclusively the rights of management, have been slightly improved. The range of negotiable items has been increased slightly. The range of items which are exclusively management rights has been decreased.

However, in my opinion, for good labour relations in this province between ourselves and the employees who work for us and with us, sections 6 and 17 should be dropped entirely and the scope of management rights left to the two parties bargaining to negotiate, as is done in the Labour Relations Act. Certainly, to start off with, we may arrive at a position similar to the one in the bill, but as time goes on, with management rights negotiable, we might very well find that that position changes from one contract to another. Rather than the situation we are caught in, of having to go back into the Legislature and knock out a word or two here and there wherever it becomes appropriate, that should be left to the parties to decide, not written in here in legislation. This particular aspect creates one of the other major areas in which the Crown employees find themselves in a second-class position in this province. They’re having things particularly picked out and it is said to them, “This is not a matter on which you can negotiate.” One of those big matters is their pension arrangements.

Another section of the bill perpetrates the situation where the government can render non-negotiable, matters which are covered by other Acts. That’s where they can’t make the pensions negotiable because of the Public Service Superannuation Act, where there are problems in travelling expenses and living allowance, there is the Financial Administration Act. By that clause, making reference to those other Acts, the government automatically removes those from the negotiating table. That clause needs to have some good thorough looking at in committee, and I m sure we shall.

Mr. Speaker, there is much more of a general nature and by specific clause-by-clause type discussion that I could say on this Act. I think it would be most appropriate that further words spoken, at least by myself, should be made in committee where we can in a calm, cool, very thoughtful way sit down and look at every “i” to make sure it is crossed and at every “t” to make sure it is dotted.

I will save the rest of my remarks for there, except to say that the government in this amended bill has either failed to deal with or rejected completely the right to strike and it has failed to deal with or rejected completely negotiable management rights. restrictions of civil servants from political activity and numerous other changes which could have been made which have brought the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act in line with the Labour Relations Act and the bargaining conditions that most other persons in this province function under and have that right to function under.

The government in this Act has not freed at all the civil servants in Ontario and we will not be content in this party until those civil servants are free. We say to the minister, bring in an Act which, in fact, makes the civil servants free.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I just would like to make a few remarks on this bill prior to 6 o’clock, and support our House leader in the remarks that he has made in opposition to the bill.

It has become obvious since the passage of this bill originally some 2½ years ago now, when the former minister, Mr. MacNaughton, introduced it for the second time, that it was, in fact, the intention of the government to restrain the civil servants of this province to the point where most of their rights were taken away from them. At that time, the Civil Service Association was in a different position than it is today. It was not effective in its lobby to have put into effect those changes which would have made the bill humane and perhaps, one would say, in keeping with the times in which we live insofar as dealings between employer and employees are concerned.

The two previous speakers have gone over the great number of differences in this bill that still exist with the CSAO representatives. As I understand it, there are 23 different things that they have asked for that are not contained in this bill. It is obvious that it is government policy to deny the rights of other individuals to the civil servants of this province. I would certainly support, as the House leader has indicated, that civil servants within this province should have the right to strike. We would add to that that there are certain areas that we would define as essential services and where that right --

Mr. Foulds: Liquor stores, snowplough people.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s what the member would define as likely would be essential, yes; but that’s not what we would define as essential service.

Mr. Bounsall: Oh, we are glad to know that. The member don’t think snowplough people are essential?

Mr. R. S. Smith: No, they are not.

Mr. Bounsall: The House leader defined them.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is that right?

Mr. Bounsall: Yes, that’s fine.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It is all right if I have the freedom of speech, is it?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the hon. member return to the principle of the bill please?

Mr. R. S. Smith: You can’t tell whether it is NDP or NPD over there. I can’t tell the difference, really.

Mr. Martel: Now the member is calling us fascist. We are doing well. We have both degrees.

Mr. R. S. Smith: There is not much difference; there isn’t, really.

Mr. Martel: No, that’s right.

Mr. Foulds: The member needs a course in political science as well as in collective bargaining.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Yes, we are not all school teachers like the member. Some of us had to get out and --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Nipissing has the floor; and will he return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I would indicate to you that I believe the essential services that would be restricted from the right to strike would be those to do with policing, those to do with some hospital activities, and those to do with some correctional services, where in fact they are a necessity to maintain the well being of the general public as a whole; and I am sure that the Civil Service Association of Ontario would agree with that type of restriction in those areas. In those areas arbitration would have to be used in a proper way in order to facilitate agreement between that type of worker and the government.

The fact still remains that the vast majority of the civil servants in this province should have the right to strike, just as those in private industry have. And as the members to my left have indicated, there are those who are working in liquor stores and in other areas of government service that are really non-essential insofar as the day-to-day living of the people is concerned. And in fact to take away from them the right to strike is perhaps fascist, if that would suit the --

Mr. Martel: The member says that Bukator used to call us Commie, the member calls us NPD.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I can’t tell the difference between the two.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. S. Smith: There are many other areas of the bill that have been covered, such as those parts which restrict what will be part of bargaining and what will not be bargained for. Of course in that section there are a number of things that must be removed, including the right of the civil servants to bargain their pension plans, the whole question of advancement within the civil service, as well as the questions related to promotion and so forth. There is no question that these things are matters that must be left on the bargaining table, but which this bill removes.

Beyond that, the one other section that bothers all of us, particularly those of us who are politicians -- and I presume there are 117 here, whether they like it or not they are called politicians -- and that is the fact that civil servants are not allowed to take part in political activity. This is a direct removal of a freedom that I believe any citizen should have unless he is at that level of government where he is in the confidence of the cabinet or of a cabinet minister.

Mr. Laughren: They are the only ones who engage in it now.

Mr. Foulds: Even cabinet ministers aren’t in each other’s confidence.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, that’s the problem the government has, there is no question about that. But on the other hand that would eliminate a very few people at the top, who of necessity should not take part in political activity. But as has been suggested by some members, these are the only ones who are allowed to take part in political activity, and they usually do it surreptitiously to protect their employment or to please their minister. But in fact the other 68,000 or 69,000 of the civil service should certainly be given every freedom to take part in the political process of our province and of our country on the same basis as anyone else.

Mr. Speaker, it being 6 o’clock I will contain myself and finish my remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member adjourn the debate?

Mr. R. S. Smith: I won’t speak after; you can have somebody else speak.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.