The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this time I would like to draw your attention and the attention of the members of this House to a very distinguished group of ladies, sitting in both the east and west galleries, who are here from the great riding of Huron. These ladies, Mr. Speaker, arrived at the building around 11 o’clock and were given the customary excellent tour by the tour guides. They were dined at the government cafeteria and now they are in session with us this afternoon to observe, first-hand, democracy in action.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): How did they like the food?

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Tell us who they are.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I would say that their only disappointment probably is their introduction by a member sitting on this side of the House, but we will endeavour to change that and if they choose to come back next year I will be pleased to introduce them from that side of the House.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The member must be thinking of crossing the floor.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, the ladies are representing the Huron Progressive Conservative Ladies Association.

Mi. Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce students and their teacher, Mrs. S. Halloran, from the West Toronto Secondary School who are sitting in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

The hon. Premier.

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have two relatively brief statements.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Most extraordinary. Welcome home.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, it’s welcome home, although in spite of what some people may think, Ottawa is still home. It is still part of the Province of Ontario and, in spite of various reports, I think it will be this government’s position that it should stay part of the province. However, that’s a subject for another occasion that may upset them across the House a bit.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): What was that all about?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have two brief statements to make. The hon. members will recall that the Speech from the Throne indicated the government’s determination to ensure that Ontario’s cities and streets remain among the safest and most secure in North America. That determination, I might say, is shared and endorsed by a great majority of our citizens, who have a profound respect for the rule of law and are deeply conscious of the basic decency, civility and tolerance of Ontario society, which are a vital part of the quality of life in this province.

Later in the session, the Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Clement) will be proposing certain measures with respect to this area of public interest and concern. Today I wish to inform the House of the government’s initiative in a related matter.

We are establishing a royal commission to inquire into the effects upon society of violence as depicted or portrayed in the communications industry, notably in films and on television, and to recommend to the government of Ontario what steps could be taken to counteract the influence and inhibit the presence of violence in the media.

Mr. Lewis: It has been studied to death.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am pleased to inform the House the hon. Judy LaMarsh has agreed to serve as chairman of the commission.

Mr. Lewis: That is the next best thing to running for Tories, I suppose.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I need not remind the hon. members of the unique qualifications of Miss LaMarsh for such a responsibility. As we know, Mr. Speaker, she has considerable direct experience in and knowledge of the print, television and radio media. At one time, during her distinguished public career, she was the minister responsible to the Parliament of Canada for broadcasting. As a former federal Minister of National Health and Welfare, as a member at the Ontario bar and professor of law, and as a person widely respected and admired for her qualities of common sense, wisdom and judgement, there is no one I can think of in this province more capable of serving in this capacity, and I’m delighted, Mr. Speaker, that she has agreed to do so.

Other members of the commission will be announced, after consultation with the chairman, to enable sittings to commence in May.

Mr. Lewis: We understand if the Liberals come to power they will replace Judy with Dalton.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Public hearings will be held in various locations in the province, starting in September.

Mr. Speaker, the government of Ontario shares the concern of many thoughtful parents and others at the increasing portrayal and exploitation of violence in the commercial entertainment industry. We believe there is a danger to the general society that the continuing and increasing exposure to young or impressionable minds of needless and extreme violence may have a relationship to the manifestation of violence in the community.

At the very least, the continued portrayal of violent acts and conduct in the communications media must desensitize the individual to the sufferings of others and condition the individual to consider violence as an acceptable means of resolving human conflict and differences. I am not impressed by the argument that the casual portrayal of violence does not or could not affect human behaviour. Obviously, television is deemed to influence behaviour. Television advertising for a wide range of products, such as children’s toys, non-prescriptive drugs, beer and spirits, and other consumer products is subject to regulation.

While this has been done, it seems little is being done to diminish or restrict the portrayal of violence, or casual brutality and killing, which logic suggests would also have some influence on the minds of impressionable viewers.

One study, reported last summer, indicated that the average child may be exposed to as many as 18,000 television killings by the time the child reaches adolescence.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Some are reruns.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is difficult for me to believe that this would not encourage antisocial behaviour --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): How high does the government have to build that wall to keep out American TV?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- since the very fact that it is accepted by society gives it sanction.

I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there are many causes for lawlessness and crime. That need not deter us from making sure that we do not incite and encourage it by allowing violence to be exploited in the media while, at the same time, trying to contain it through the conventional means of society.

I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that we have limited powers, as a province, to regulate television and radio programming. We do have certain responsibilities with respect to the film industry. But this aside, we have a responsibility as a government to respond to the concern of those we represent --

Mr. Deans: How about building houses?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and as a government, we are not without influence or the power of persuasion with those who do have the power to act in areas where we do not.

As with so many other public questions, we have two basic options. We can ignore this concern of parents and others and do nothing about it --

Mr. Lewis: But that is what the government is doing.

Mr. Singer: Or?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- or we can give leadership by making a thorough study of the problem, determine what we ourselves might effectively do, and doing it.

Mr. Lewis: That is leadership. That’s leadership. It has been studied to death.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recommend the second option.

The commission will have broad scope and powers to hold public hearings, conduct research, and seek the participation of all who have an interest in this subject. It will be asked to submit a final report within 18 months. The terms of reference --

Mr. Lewis: Well, it is good politics, but it is nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party may not be concerned. This government happens to be concerned about it and we are attempting to do something about it.

Mr. Lewis: It is good politics, but the government has enough studies on which to base action; it doesn’t need a royal commission. What a lot of nonsense.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The terms of reference, very briefly Mr. Speaker, are as follows:

First, to study the effects on society of the increasing exhibition of violence in the communications industry.

Second, to determine if there is any connection or a cause and effect relationship between this phenomenon and the incidence of violent crime in society.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, that’s ludicrous. Imagine the possibility of that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Third, to hold public hearings to enable groups and organizations, individual citizens and representatives of the industry to make known their views on the subject.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And fourth, to make appropriate recommendations, if warranted, on any measures that should be taken by the government of Ontario, by other levels of government, by the general public and by the industry.

Mr. Lewis: All of which have been made.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I should report very briefly --

Mr. Lewis: That’s an incredible cop-out.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order!

Mr. Lewis: I thought he really might do something.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, that’s something the opposition’s federal friends are --

Mr. Singer: Oh the Liberals, the fellows in Ottawa, it just has to be their fault.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: Silliest royal commission in years.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: I am surprised at Judy LaMarsh.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, the member shouldn’t be.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Judy will get to the truth.

An hon. member: Prime Minister LaMarsh.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t understand it.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON ENERGY

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to report briefly to the House on the meetings of Wednesday and Thursday in Ottawa related to the question of the economy, and to the discussion of the cost of energy --

Mr. Lewis: I thought that was coming.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- oil and natural gas. I might say very briefly, Mr. Speaker, the objective of the government --

Mr. Lewis: Why not wait until September?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- of the Province of Ontario was to inform the public of this province and of Canada, on what we believe would be the harmful impact on the economy which an oil and gas price increase would create at this time. We opposed then and will continue to oppose any increase in the price of gas and oil at this time, and I think, Mr. Speaker, that one can very modestly and objectively state that we, to a very great extent, achieved those objectives.

It was also encouraging to note that the Minister of Finance in his presentation recognized many of the points that the Province of Ontario had made earlier in the conference as they relate to the state of the economy and, of course, we were encouraged to hear that the Minister of Finance intends to introduce a budget some time in May.

This will give the federal government an opportunity to relate to the problems of inflation the need to stimulate the economy and -- in a constructive sense, of course, Mr. Speaker -- we offered several suggestions to the Minister of Finance as to what could be contained in his budget.

I think, Mr. Speaker, and I say this very objectively, that as a result of this conference, more serious consideration will be given to stimulating oil and gas exploration and development through means other than an across-the-board price increase.

We would look forward, Mr. Speaker, to some positive action by the federal government in terms of stimulation. We have recommended that one of the priority areas should be more funding for housing because, following our own approach in the budget, we believe this would be felt, in terms of employment, almost immediately.

We’ve also suggested ways and means of restoring a climate of investment confidence and redressing some of the imbalances that have been growing among income groups in parts of our own country and among industries, as well as creating more jobs and putting a damper on inflation. In fact what we’re saying, Mr. Speaker, is that they should follow, in certain respects at least, the general direction and the thrust undertaken by my colleague the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in this province when he introduced, a week ago, one of the most positively constructive and enlightened budgets I’ve had the pleasure of listening to here in this province.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would also say to the members of this House, so there is no misunderstanding whatsoever, that while it is not easy for the Province of Ontario at federal-provincial meetings to take a position other than one seeking compromise, Ontario has always, I think in the national interest, demonstrated this capacity. But the Premier felt, and I believe that I speak for the people of Ontario, that the position we took was not a parochial interest; that inflation, the state of the economy, and the effect that an increase in energy price would have on it at this precise moment, was of interest to the total country and not just the citizens of the Province of Ontario.

So, Mr. Speaker, while it was -- not uncomfortable; that isn’t the way to describe it -- it was different, shall we say, than the positions Ontario has traditionally taken, we took our position with the full confidence that we believed it to be in the national interest as well as the interest of the citizens of our province.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications.

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since I went to Munich to renegotiate a contract for the continuance of the intermediate capacity transit system programme --

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s what Chamberlain said.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- following the decision of the West German government to discontinue funding to Krauss-Maffei. On Nov. 13 I put before this House the situation as it then stood. I remember the day well and how different were the many reactions to the news that I brought.

Mr. Breithaupt: When the wheel fell off.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: At that time I explained our intent in terms of how government proposed to proceed with the programme to develop an intermediate capacity transit system to meet the needs of Ontario municipalities. I indicated that the Ontario Transportation Development Corp., which was to take over management of the complete development programme, was to provide me with regular reports during the transition and evaluation. I wish to make a statement today about their progress in this work, but before doing so I would like to review with the House the objectives of this programme, for we must begin with the objectives.

To many, August, 1975, the date when a research and development demonstration system was to be put into operation at the CNE grounds, became the date for a spectacular. What has been missed is the recognition of the original engineering challenge and the accomplishment that had been performed in the K-M programme, which was intended to be demonstrated at the CNE. Contrary to previous opinions, a substantial amount of progress was achieved and will turn out to be a major step toward delivering an intermediate capacity system. The cancellation of the CNE demonstration does not mean that GO-Urban is dead, regardless of what the headlines may have said in November. What it does mean is that we have had to change course to meet the programme objective; and that objective, quite simply stated; is to be able to provide municipalities with a tested, commercially viable, intermediate capacity transit system, meeting user, community and operator requirements, and produced to the greatest extent possible under Canadian leadership with Canadian resources.

I would like to say again that our evaluations in the last several weeks, which have been directed toward ensuring the continued feasibility of meeting that objective, leaves no doubt in my mind that with the exception of one criterion this objective can be reached. The one exception is time. We have lost some time in this process, and that is regrettable.

I would now like to report our progress in dealing with the acquisition of data from the Krauss-Maffei trans-urban programme as it relates to the intermediate capacity transit system programme being carried out by the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. Since last November, our staff in Munich have been receiving and reviewing technical data and reports related to both the trans-urban and transit development system programmes. All data connected with the TDS programme was provided, in accordance with an agreed schedule, prior to the end of February. Data from the transurban programme is being provided, in accordance with the termination agreement, and will be completed by July, 1975.

In the meantime, local MTC staff have received and reviewed all technical data associated with the facilities which were to be built at the CNE. This valuable research and development information has aided the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. in defining the continued course of action toward the development of the production model. intermediate capacity transit system.

In order to maintain and continue the substantial progress which we had achieved in automatic train control, OTDC has retained Standard Electric Lorenz of Stuttgart (an ITT subsidiary), who were responsible for that subsystem in the CNE contract, for ongoing use in our future development programme. This includes testing now under way at the Krauss-Maffei test track using specially equipped test vehicles. A number of engineers from ITT Canada have been active, from the outset, in the SEL programme in Stuttgart.

The costs to date for this continued effort, including, our estimates of both ministry and OTDC overheads, come to approximately $275,000. This covers data acquisition, technology review and programme administration. In addition, OTDC has committed $304,000 to carry on the automatic train control technology programme, which I have just mentioned. These figures are current estimates of all expenditures incurred during the period since Nov. 12.

While this consolidation and review of the Krauss-Maffei programme is being completed, OTDC is preparing an operational requirement document for the intermediate capacity transit system. It is also forming up the industrial team, which will conduct the future stages of the development programme in Canada leading to the completion of the K-M programme.

A Canadian system development contractor is being selected, responsible to Ontario Transportation Development Corp., who will be the prime contractor. This system development contractor will co-ordinate the endeavours of the group of sub-contractors, including many of those formerly involved in the K-M programme.

A major effort is being made during the negotiation of such contracts to increase the Canadian content in research, development and manufacture. This emphasis is being undertaken upon the advice of the board of directors of the OTDC, and of their technical advisory board. I am advised that the corporation will make a further announcement on this within a matter of weeks, and they will provide continual reports on the progress of the project to this government.

As it is now proposed, the ICTS development programme will be divided into five phases, or more properly four, since phase 5 is the provision of production tooling by industry and the installation of passenger-carrying transit service.

Phase I, which will begin with selection of the development contractor, will include complete data acquisition and programme definition activities. An important product of this phase will be an operational requirement statement, which will be co-ordinated with transit operators, such as the TTC, and with municipal planning authorities. This work will be completed by July, 1975. The TTC has already agreed to assist the corp. in this phase and future phases of the programme.

Phase 2 will be devoted to continued concept development and preliminary design of a prototype system, incorporating as much of the past work as possible. This phase will also provide detailed estimate of system costs, both operational and capital, in relation to current alternative intermediate capacity transit system technologies.

These two phases will take approximately 13 months. The result will be technical specifications, preliminary design, programme plans, schedules, and cost estimates on which to base the decision to proceed with the construction of prototype vehicles and test facilities.

I have authorized the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. to conduct phases 1 and 2, at an expenditure ceiling of $6.1 million. In addition to forming the basis for phase 3 of the programme, this work will significantly advance the technology for ICTS and conventional rapid-transit.

This programme is being integrated with parallel programmes in conventional transit being conducted within OTDC, such as the light-rail project. The results from phases 1 and 2 will form the basis of the detail design, manufacture and test of prototype hardware, which comprises phase 3, estimated to last 2½ years, including operational test activities.

Phase 3 will entail the use of a test facility to be located in a suburban location, which may have potential for future revenue service.

Phase 4 will include the manufacturing and test of pre-production vehicles which will be constructed in limited quantity, using soft tooling, to enable the preliminary testing of the revenue service production model. The operational test track in this instance can be a length of intermediate capacity transit system guideway constructed for a specific operating system. This pre-production and test phase is expected to last 18 months. The final element of the programme would be commercial production of systems for passenger carrying transit service.

When the industrial team has been selected and has had the opportunity to refine the schedules and proposed programme organization prepared by OTDC, it will be possible to confirm the various programme time-spans and to supply detailed programme cost data.

A recent report of the Metro Toronto transportation plan review has indicated a strong need for an intermediate capacity system in Toronto. During the last three months, our evaluation has confirmed to us that an intermediate capacity transit system which would provide to Ontario communities an alternative form of mobility to the automobile has become more and more important.

All municipal studies on urbanization, on energy consumption and environmental issues have convinced us that, in addition to the LRV currently being developed by Ontario Transportation Development Corp., the need for innovative intermediate capacity transit is imperative. The corporation will be continually reviewing the mag-lev aspects of the intermediate capacity transit system and will continue to research mag-lev technology.

I am not closing out the option of linear motor propulsion and a wheeled suspension system in combination, or other suitable suspension systems. The corporation’s technical advisory board reviewed the present situation during this evaluation and also reviewed what has been known as the tiger team report. Their findings have encouraged us to carry on with the option of mag-lev and to conclude that the proposal put before us by OTDC to consider a number of alternative suspension systems, including mag-lev, is the most appropriate line of progress. The technical choice of the sub-systems, magnetic or wheeled, will be ultimately an engineering decision. It must, however, conform to the needs of the municipalities.

This ministry has a commitment to provide an effective intermediate capacity transit system to municipalities and to transit operators. Transit operators and municipalities may gain confidence from this activity, for I am encouraging them to participate with the OTDC. It will be the customers’ requirements that will have to be met. This innovative intermediate capacity transit system will be one of the options available to Ontario municipalities to provide their public with the finest public systems in the world.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, does the minister have copies of that, perhaps in English?

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Does he have anything in plain English?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): And does he have a dictionary to go with those terms?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, there will be copies made available. If the hon. members opposite don’t understand it, we will have a translation.

Mr. Renwick: Please do. That goes for the public of Ontario as well.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions, the member for Kitchener.

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have a question of the Premier: I am wondering, in response to his statement with respect to the royal commission whether he can advise us how the report of the commission will be helpful in dealing with violence in an area which is not his particular responsibility, when in fact his Attorney General can’t deal with violence in hockey which is his responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have always found the Attorney General of this province able to deal quite properly with any problem within his area of jurisdiction. He does it extremely well, and the member for Kitchener knows it.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Though I have the most immense respect for Judy LaMarsh and so on and so on, why is the Premier establishing a royal commission some months hence to analyse the impact of violence on television on kids, on society and so on, when there are at least half a dozen to a dozen different North American studies which have chronicled it to death and indicated what might be done? While it is nice to have another royal commission, there is absolutely no point to it --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: -- in terms of what we already know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the leader of the New Democratic Party, unlike the official opposition, sometimes is a shade contradictory. While I recognize the official position of the New Democratic Party supports economic and cultural nationalism and while its leader likes to see this within our school system, he still, to a great extent, on many issues depends --

Mr. Lewis: There are many Canadian studies.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are not many Canadian reports. Basically, the documentation and the study have been done in the United States, and he knows it.

Mr. Lewis: We don’t know it.

Mr. Renwick: He’s fooling the people.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This will be an Ontario study related to the needs of this province in a way to create a public interest that we think will be extremely helpful.

Mr. Lewis: This is an election stunt. He is not serious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member doesn’t like it, say so.

Mr. Lewis: I thought he was serious about this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I believe the public of this province will support it.

Mr. Renwick: Will she study the violence in the National Hockey League and the WHA?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview, a supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Could the Premier tell us what possible recommendation an Ontario royal commission could make that would have a real effect on the National Broadcasting Co., the Columbia Broadcasting System, or any of the other American television sources, insofar as their portrayal of what they think is appropriate?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that once again the official position of the Liberal Party on an issue of this kind would be to sit back and do nothing, because that’s the kind of people they are.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The position here is, we know that we have limited legal power in areas of television --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For instance, the Prime Minister of Canada’s language.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but we also know that we have a responsibility in this province --

Mr. Breithaupt: Switch channels.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to the parents and others who have a concern. It can be, through public interest and persuasion, that perhaps something can be accomplished. That’s the route we’re going. We know the route those people would be going, and that is to nowhere.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): When is the Premier going to clean up the violence in organized labour?

Mr. Singer: The Premier has to claim modesty, as it has been so frequently said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Liberals would do nothing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And not even do that well.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breithaupt: We wouldn’t do it as often as the Tories do, though.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are doing it perpetually.

Mr. Lewis: If this isn’t a sham, if the government is really serious about it --

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are.

Mr. Lewis: All right. If the government is serious about it, then why doesn’t it announce the appropriation of some additional funds for OECA to provide it with the possibility of creating alternative programmes? That’s the Ontario Educational Communications Authority. It produces television shows. The Premier may have heard of it; the government established it. Why doesn’t he provide it with money to provide alternative programming, in prime time as well as Saturday mornings, to offset the violence of which he speaks, rather than just another royal commission which will mean nothing?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member knows who controls the content.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that as being a constructive suggestion from the leader of the New Democratic Party, but I also say to him it is totally unrealistic.

Mr. Lewis: There is more than just Saturday mornings.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted that he now has such great respect for the educational television in this province. It happens to be probably the finest we will find in North America, and I know that he agrees with that.

Mr. Lewis: Then use it to provide alternatives, but don’t have bogus royal commissions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We could increase funding, but I just say, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, that we don’t see that as being the answer. If the answer is not to come to grips with some other aspects of it, then I say we won’t find one. We’re looking or it, and I believe this royal commission will be helpful in the process.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Supplementary.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ll allow one more supplementary. This is developing into a debate and taking a lot of time. The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Ms. Singer: Shame. Let the record show what the Minister of Transportation and Communications has to say about OECA.

Mr. Lewis: They’ve done nicely on Saturday mornings.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, they have.

Mr. Good: I have a supplementary of the Premier.

Mr. Singer: Let the record show what the Minister of Transportation and Communications just said about OECA. Put it on the record.

Mr. Good: In conjunction with the Premier’s sudden interest in violence on TV and in light of the fact that the government does have control over movie censorship in the Province of Ontario, what steps has it taken to curb violence shown in movies in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about both, in terms of the royal commission.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The government has the power now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it’s important that there be a thorough public discussion and airing of points of view, as they relate to the amount and the kinds of violence in movies as well as in television, and this will be a part of the commission’s responsibility.

Mr. Lewis: This is a stunt and not a very credible stunt either.

Mr. Ruston: An election ploy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener, further questions?

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question with respect to the statement -- what I was able to understand of it -- from the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can the minister advise us, as part of the background for that statement, whether there have been any formal contractual arrangements entered into with Alberta or with the McDonnell Douglas Corp.? Or are those still only gentlemen’s agreements to use the soft tooling or whatever else they might have lying around when the time comes?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, at the present time, regarding the original arrangements made by those involved in the original programme -- including McDonnell Douglas, Alberta and the interest that was shown by the federal government -- at this stage, the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. is renegotiating the whole position with other interested industrial partners, if you will, as well as with Alberta and with the federal government. These discussions are going on now.

Mr. Breithaupt: If I might ask just one supplementary, Mr. Speaker: With respect to that figure of $275,000 that the minister gave to us, are those costs to the taxpayer including all of the public relations work and costs that have been associated with the trips to Germany and the costs of having our people over there since May 1, 1973?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, the amounts I am talking about here are amounts which have been incurred since the cancellation of the contract with Krauss-Maffei.

Mr. Breithaupt: Can the minister get them for me with respect to the public relations expenditures from May 1, 1973?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Those figures may be available. I will have to look into it and see. I don’t know.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister tell us whether my understanding is correct that all the ministry has been able to rescue out of the great Krauss-Maffei experiment is the possibility of an automatic system to control trains?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. I think the member knows there are a number of components which were being developed in that programme including the type of guideway that would be used, the type of vehicle that would be used in the system, the propulsion system and the command and control for the automated trains. All of these components were part of the experiment which was going on and the development programme which was going on, including the preliminary work carried out for the development of the magnetic levitation suspension system.

Mr. Singer: By way of further supplementary, is there any possibility that we will see, within our lifetime, any train run by magnetic levitation?

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): That depends on how long the member lives.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Not having any control over the Maker on the question of the member, I would say that probably in my lifetime yes, indeed, because I intend to be around longer than the member.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough West have a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: I take it that all the minister really said in the statement is that for another 13 months, beyond the six months he has already used, which will make it something more than 1½ years, the minister is going to study a continued concept development and the possibility of a prototype design without any guarantee at all? In other words, if I understand it, this statement simply says we are continuing the conceptual stuff around Krauss-Maffei without any guarantee of future development?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should say the relationship of the contract with Krauss-Maffei is over.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That was ended some time back. What we are now proposing to do and will go ahead and do is to continue the development programme of an intermediate capacity transit system. A great deal was made at the time, and has been made ever since, of the question of magnetic levitation. I am saying that from the information we have been able to receive, the technical data we have been able to gather, we find there is every real possibility of being able to develop magnetic levitation as a suspension system.

I am also saying, as I have said in the statement and have said before, there are other suspension systems which can be fitted into the various components we have already developed, to lead to the development of a much-needed intermediate capacity transit system. This programme is to continue that development programme.

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

Mr. Givens: But the minister was supposed to salvage something from that debacle. He says it is going to cost $6.1 million and 13 months to give the government prototype vehicles. What happened to the vehicles that Spar Aerospace was supposed to have developed? They were supposed to have been prototype vehicles. Didn’t the minister salvage those?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member, first of all, is erroneous when he says that Spar developed a prototype vehicle. Spar was developing and has developed a linear motor; the best in the world, by the way.

Mr. Givens: Did he salvage that motor?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That motor is part of the component. Yes, it is there. We know that’s there. The vehicle itself was developed at Krauss-Maffei in its plant and we have found that is a usable vehicle. We are going to continue to develop this programme to put the components together. The major problem has been in the suspension system and that was the mag-lev. We are going to attempt to change the suspension system, if need be, but many of those components are there and they are real and can be improved upon.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary on this question.

Mr. Germa: Can I ask the minister what other type of suspension the ministry has been experimenting with other than mag-lev?

Mr. Singer: A whole new system -- wheels.

Mr. Ruston: They’re going to use round wheels.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We have been experimenting with the addition of wheels to the linear propelled cars --

Mr. Lewis: Come on. Not really for $6.1 million?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: It costs $6.1 million for the wheel.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and motors. We have also looked at the --

Mr. Lewis: That is the most expensive wheel ever bought.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that if the leader of the New Democratic Party had been around when the first wheel was invented he would have attempted to say it wouldn’t work. There is no point in trying to answer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

MAPLE MOUNTAIN PROJECT

Mr. Breithaupt: While we are talking about recycling, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism how his Ontario Place North is coming along. What can he tell us about the Maple Mountain project?

Mr. Lewis: A big wheel in the cabinet.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the House on more than one occasion, the entire Maple Mountain project is presently in the hands of the legal authorities. The Attorney General --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It’s a great thing to be able to sit there and laugh at a serious answer because it was not this government that put the claim against the proposal of advancing Maple Mountain.

Mr. Lewis: No, it was the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot).

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It came from the native people. We have respected their claim. It’s with the Attorney General and the solicitors for the Indian groups and we are looking into it.

Mr. Lewis: About 13 months.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: When there is a decision made from that aspect of the programme we will then give it further consideration as to whether we’re going to advance it or not.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Should we take away their rights?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

EMERGENCY MEASURES ORGANIZATION

Mr. Breithaupt: I have one further question, Mr. Speaker, of the acting Solicitor General with respect to the emergency measures situation. Perhaps the minister could first of all explain if the term that is being used in the press is “lead ministry” or “lead ministry”? There seems to be a difference in view.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the member for Kitchener that is one of the unfunniest remarks he has made.

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): You can certainly tell the Liberal leader is away today.

Mr. Breithaupt: Secondly, if it is “lead ministry,” as I rather expect it is, will there really be any saving, when these other things are taken care of, to match what he proposes to save for the $1.5 million by getting rid of the emergency measures programme?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Even his own members don’t grasp it. They didn’t smile.

An hon. member: The member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) is smiling.

Mr. Lewis: He will laugh on cue.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, the emergency measures decision was brought about -- as you know, the federal government subsidized the programme, I believe, to the extent of $1.5 million per year; that sum was matched by the provincial government. We were advised some time ago that financial support was to be withdrawn by the federal government. We reviewed this situation and came to the conclusion that we, likewise, should withdraw from the programme.

The concept that the member for Kitchener mentioned is the “lead ministry” concept. I gave a statement the other day in the form of a news release -- perhaps the hon. member has not seen it; I will make it available to him -- which demonstrates how the operation is to work. It is really a financial consideration made at one point in Ottawa by virtue of their withdrawing from their participation in it and we, likewise, have had to withdraw from it too.

If the member would like a copy of that I will see that one is made available to him.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATION INDUSTRY

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier, just out of curiosity. How much is that royal commission going to cost? What are the payment arrangements for the commissioner and for others who attend?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner will be paid a per diem. I would assume the commission will have counsel. There will be a certain amount of research work and the period of time is about, as I say hopefully, 18 months. I can’t give a guesstimate. I will try to do so and work it out for, the hon. member, but I can only say, in our view, the investment will be very worthwhile. I will try to get an accurate figure if I can.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Premier resolved on the per diem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it will be the standard per diem. I believe it is $225 or $250 per day for the chairman. It’s something in that neighbourhood.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier doesn’t know?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary. The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: May I ask the Premier how he can justify a study like this when, as has already been pointed out, his government hasn’t taken any steps to deal with actual and real violence in the hockey rinks in the province --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question had to do with the cost of the investigation.

Mr. Reid: -- and why isn’t there a commission on violence in the construction industry?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It’s a different question.

The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Reid: The Premier has an answer to the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’d be delighted to answer the hon. member. When it comes to the question of hockey violence this government initiated, once again, a study --

Mr. Reid: Have any charges been laid?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I would tell the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, the study done by William McMurtry as it relates to violence in hockey at the amateur level has had a tremendous impact in this province -- not only here, in other provinces of Canada.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Reid: And what did he say about the professional leagues? He said that professional leagues were setting the example. The government hasn’t done anything about that. No charges have been laid.

Mr. Singer: Did the Premier see the game on TV yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Reid: Not one charge has been laid.

Mr. Singer: Look at the violence in that game.

An hon. member: Played in Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier a further question?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Does the member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Order, please.

The member for Scarborough West.

Interjections by hon. members.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier a further question? Since he must recognize that the price of oil and natural gas will inevitably be going up in the next three months whether done by consensus or by the federal government through legislation, effective presumably in July, what measures does Ontario intend to take to cushion the impact for the consumers of this province?

Some hon. members: Call an election!

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not as prepared as the leader of the New Democratic Party to say that it is that inevitable. As I pointed out when I was asked this question by him in a little different way -- was it last Monday or a week ago Friday? -- when he asked whether there would be legislation or a policy of limiting, controlling or rolling back prices, I pointed out that if in fact a price was imposed, a lot would depend on the manner or what form it would take -- whether there would be further royalties or a federal tax and what the amounts would be. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it isn’t helpful to deal with it in a hypothetical way at this time. I can’t answer the question because our position is opposed to it.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is the Premier arguing that there will be no price increase? I understand that may be Ontario’s stand. The Premier keeps on using the words “at this time” and “at the moment.” Suppose he continues to do that, is he arguing that there won’t be a price increase? Surely he recognizes that what the Prime Minister said was that there would be a price increase regardless, and shouldn’t the Premier he suggesting plans now to counteract it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I said, and I hope I said it very clearly, that we were opposed to a price increase. I have not said, nor am I saying, the federal government will not impose a price increase; I don’t know.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

HAZARDS IN KITCHENER AREA PLANTS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health. Has his ministry’s occupational health branch looked into or had contact with the B. F. Goodrich Co.’s various plants in Kitchener-Waterloo, the Uniroyal plants, and specifically the Morval-Durofoam plant, and has it made any reports to the minister on the use of chemicals and other substances?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, no specific reports have been made to me on those plants.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour if the industrial safety branch of his ministry has made any inspections recently of the tire and commercial products division of B. F. Goodrich, Uniroyal and the Morval-Durofoam plant in Kitchener-Waterloo??

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have a little information here dealing with the matter which the House may be interested in. The Ministry of Labour’s industrial safety branch, in co-operation with the Ontario Federation of Labour, has drawn up special guidelines for registering complaints on industrial safety. I have a copy of those here if the hon. member would like to see them.

Every complaint made under this procedure is investigated fully by the branch. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 1975, the branch received 195 union complaints from the Kitchener area. Not one single complaint came from any of the unions representing the workers at these three plants. Unions, too, have a clear responsibility to ensure the safety of their members.

The industrial safety branch inspects plants regularly; but if hazards are discovered in the interim, it is up to the union to try to eliminate them in co-operation with management. If it is unable to do so, it should use the machinery provided in the agreements with the Ontario Federation of Labour.

There were some specific questions resulting, I believe from the member’s visit in Kitchener. I have answers to them, and rather than take the House’s time I’ll pass them over.

Mr. Lewis: I have one supplementary: Could I use this occasion to ask the minister to have the industrial safety branch look into the condition of ventilation, dust, fumes and chemical usages in the Morval-Durofoam plant and report back as to whether any directions are issued?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Shall do, sir.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a question of the provincial Treasurer? In the lockup preceding the budget, one of his senior officials indicated to us that a job estimate had been made of the impact of the removal of the sales tax from production machinery and equipment. Can the minister indicate to the House the job impact that he anticipates in the first year and successive years?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Why does the Treasurer regard information like that as private information, since it is part of the basis for a particular tax policy change?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I don’t necessarily regard it as private information. I went into the design of that specific policy, simply regard it as one of the inputs which and I see no reason to table it here particularly.

Mr. Lewis: I want to understand this. The minister doesn’t see any reasons for a tax remission to the corporations of $108 million in one year and $410 million by 1977 to produce jobs? He feels no compulsion to share with the Legislature the study of the number of jobs to be produced; that is, in his hands now? He would understand, would he not, that we would regard that with some suspicion? Surely it is part of the debate. But he won’t table it? The minister won’t indicate to us any prediction or number at all?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we have produced such predictions before. The hon. member completely refuses to believe them. What is the point?

Mr. Lewis: Well, try me again -- try me again. Don’t give up so quickly.

Mr. Speaker: Any questions?

Mr. Lewis: Does the material exist, as we were told? Do the material and jobs exist? The government is putting $400 million away to create jobs. It has a study which shows how many jobs will be created. Why doesn’t the minister share that with the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, after the endorsations of the UAW, I really didn’t think it was necessary.

Mr. Lewis: It wasn’t the UAW -- the minister corrected that the other day. He admitted he was wrong. How many jobs from that programme? He knows how many it’s predicated upon. We are asking him how many.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the art of forecasting is very imprecise.

Mr. Lewis: The art of evasion is not so precise.

Mr. Singer: Modestly and objectively it is, let me say.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hon. member would recognize one kind of figure as being genuine -- the number of people he could put on the public dole in one way or another, and that would be a job of some sort or another. We propose to stimulate the economy in different ways.

Mr. Lewis: I am not going to take that. How many jobs? Why is he hiding the figures? Why doesn’t he table the study in the Legislature? It is $400 million of public money, and the minister won’t account for it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. This has developed into a debate. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No jobs, that is why -- not a job to be created.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the hon. member have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Not a job -- throwing money away.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. provincial secretary has the answer to a question asked previously.

GRAND RIVER FLOOD INQUIRY

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on March 24 the hon. member for Kitchener asked the following question:

“With respect to the Grand River flooding last spring and the inquiry that has taken place, can the minister advise as to when we might expect to receive the report of the inquiry commission?”

I have been advised that the commissioner has reported that his report will be out in the next few weeks, and certainly within a month.

May I answer another question at the same time, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly.

FACILITIES ON THE TRENT-SEVERN SYSTEM

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On March 26, the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. R. G. Hodgson) asked the following question:

“I wonder if the minister could take a look at the 1906 water agreement between the federal and provincial governments in relation to this matter and see whether that is not the vehicle for determination of fees and lockages through the canals?”

Mr. Speaker, I would advise that the order in council dated July 22, 1905, covering the transfer to the federal Minister of Railways and Canals, does not make reference to fees and charges. However, item 2 of the order in council referring to the operation of the canal reads as follows:

“That the Dominion government shall assume, operate and keep in good repair and condition for all time, the lock and three swing bridges at Lindsay, the lock at Balsam River and the lock and swing bridge at Youngs Point, together with all minor works in connection with the maintenance and operation of the locks and bridges at Lindsay, Balsam Lake and Youngs Point relieving the province from all expense and responsibility in connection therewith.”

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the canal system is operated by the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and the decision to impose fees was a decision of the federal government, not the Province of Ontario. Indeed, the Ontario government was not even consulted in this matter.

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

PORT COLBORNE TUNNEL

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Due to the slow response and full employment in the Niagara region, in particular to the construction industry, can the minister indicate to the Legislature the possible date of announcing the commencement of the construction date of the tunnel project in the city of Port Colborne?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a date as to the commencement of that project. As the hon. member knows, there will be a number of discussions that have to go on between my ministry and the federal Ministry of Transport before any decision could be made.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

HOME BUYER GRANT

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing, if I can get his attention for a moment. Can the Minister of Housing provide for the House any statistics based on the average sale price and the income level required in order to qualify for a mortgage, or any other statistics based on income levels in the Province of Ontario, to show how many people earning less than $10,000 a year will qualify for the government’s $1,500 first-time purchase homeowner grant?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, we discussed this last week in some detail. I told the member before that it’s impossible to come up with definitive answers as to how many people in a particular area will qualify. If he read the papers on the weekend, he would have noticed that there are some people who could qualify with an income ranging from $9,400 or less for a home. It’s not possible to come up at this time with a definitive answer to the question he is asking. For the fifth time, I have said that.

Mr. Deans: Has the minister conducted a study of the average price of the average house sold in the Province of Ontario last year? Can he, on the basis of that, determine the income requirements in order to qualify for a mortgage? Could he then tell me how many people earning less than $10,000 a year are likely to qualify in the year 1975 for a mortgage, to begin with, and secondly, how many in that income group will then qualify for the $1,500? That’s not that difficult.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, at this particular time I cannot define to the member exactly how many people under the family income range that he has mentioned will qualify. There are indications that some will.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question: Is the minister aware that the average single income in the Province of Ontario is less than $10,000?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s single. I’m talking about family income.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew South has a question?

ONTARIO TRUCKERS

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. It’s a difficult question and it could be in a number of parts.

Is the minister aware of the difficulties that Ontario truckers are enduring at the hands of Quebec transport authorities? Is he aware that on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River we allow Quebec truckers to travel perhaps 100 miles from Mattawa down Highway 17 to the interprovincial bridge at Portage, without demanding of them anything in the way of additional licences, etc., but that our truckers, who cross over at Portage and go eight miles within the Province of Quebec, are being asked to obtain bulk carrier licences and to pay sales tax on the vehicles and trailers?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, this is a lengthy question.

Mr. Reid: That is the longest speech he has ever made.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It sounds like an opposition question.

Mr. Yakabuski: I’m wondering if the minister could tell the House whether there is a reciprocal agreement between Ontario and Quebec to cover such situations.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have an answer?

Mr. Yakabuski: May I add, Mr. Speaker, that the situation is very serious.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member for Renfrew South that we are aware of these problems and that we have been trying to resolve them in an amicable fashion with the government of Quebec. We have not been reasonably successful. Officials from my ministry are meeting presently with officials from the Province of Quebec in the hope that we can come up with an understanding that the truckers for Ontario will receive the same treatment in Quebec as is extended to the truckers from Quebec in Ontario.

We do not want to retaliate if we can possibly avoid it. However, we are aware that it is a serious situation and we would like to think that the matter can be resolved at the political level and get an understanding between the two provinces. We are working to that end but, so far, I can’t guarantee that it’s going to be successful.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering at what stage the negotiations the minister refers to might be, because I would want to tell the House that this is not a new problem. It’s one that I have brought to the attention of his authorities over a period of three years requesting action at that level.

Mr. Breithaupt: They don’t listen to the member, do they?

Mr. Speaker: Any answer?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that we are attempting to resolve the problem by negotiation. The only alternative we have, if we can’t negotiate a resolution, is to go ahead and retaliate. We’re attempting to avoid that if we can.

Mr. Singer: Right. We will march right on to war.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

Mr. Singer: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Could he tell us how many dollars the Krauss-Maffei experiment has cost the people of Ontario, from its inception until the commencement of the programme which the minister announced today?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would have to get the figures and break them down. As the hon. member well knows, there is a substantial sum of money -- in fact, $10 million -- which will be recovered from the programme that we cancelled.

Mr. Singer: Yes, I know; but approximately how much is it to cost us?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I cannot give the member those figures today. I will get them for him and table them here.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary: Would the minister’s figures include all publicity expenses, reception expenses, trips backwards and forwards to Munich and other places -- all the expenses?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, all those expenses which have not been covered by the money that we recovered from the cancellation contract.

Mr. Givens: Supplementary: Would the minister please also include expenses and executive salaries of the OTDC -- expenses of that kind -- and public relations expenses, which the president of the corporation refuses to reveal at estimate time? And, as the minister is the spokesman for the OTDC in this chamber, would he please reveal those expenses, which we consider to be very important?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not include that in that report. I think the hon. member knows full well -- he has been told before -- that is a matter he should take up with the board of directors of Ontario Transportation Development Corp.

Mr. Singer: How does one do that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The hon. member should write them a letter.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on.

Mr. Givens: Is the minister responsible in this House or not?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the member for High Park.

Mr. Givens: Is the minister responsible in this House or not?

Interjections by hon. members.

MOPEDS

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker: Since there is now fairly common agreement, both within and without his ministry, that allowing the sale of motorized pedal cycles without a licence was an error, when will the minister be bringing in Legislation to require licensing of these contraptions?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct. I have received many communications and certainly the various editorials from around the province have been brought to my attention in which concerns have been expressed over the type of vehicle that is being put on the market as a motor-assisted bicycle. The legislation, I can tell the member, is now being reviewed. There have been submissions made to me by industry indicating their concern. In fact, we will be discussing this with them at a meeting tomorrow.

Frankly, in reviewing the legislation I am concerned about what is happening. We bad thought that we would be simply bringing in legislation that would have permitted these vehicles, which were to be -- and I emphasize -- a motor-assisted bicycle. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in the fact that a number of manufacturers have attempted to circumvent the meaning of the Act by bringing in pedal-assisted motorcycles. I am not going to allow them to be unlicensed; and it is causing me a problem.

Mr. Good: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Does the minister have access to a report from Quebec, where mopeds have been in operation for three years? The accident rate is less with motor-assisted bicycles than with 10-speed bicycles, which evidently have a poor braking system and also create greater speed than do the mopeds.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of that report. It was on the basis of some of that report that we attempted to bring in our legislation that has been passed by this House.

However, Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention -- and I will repeat again -- that certain types of vehicles are marketed in this province today that are not motor-assisted bicycles, but they are motorcycles with pedals on them. The present problem is being created by these things being sold within the meaning of the definition of a motor-assisted vehicle. It is not my intention to allow manufacturers to put these on the roads as mopeds

-- not at all. If it is necessary to change the legislation to keep them off the road as motorcycles, which they really are, I will certainly bring such an amendment to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa West.

OTTAWA TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker, I wondered if the Premier could advise the House and myself as to the present state of negotiations in the Ottawa teachers’ strike.

Mr. Lewis: They should settle today, if the member doesn’t ask any more questions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the absence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) indicates that this matter is still being negotiated at this moment in Ottawa. I would prefer to make no further comment while these negotiations are proceeding.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO ROAD PROJECT

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications -- it may be an easy one for him: Can he tell me what is the present status of the proposed road between Atikokan and Ignace? Has he taken his programme for the road system in northwestern Ontario to cabinet? Has it been approved? Has it got that far? It has been months since we have had any action.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the question which the member is asking has been asked by a number of people in that particular part of the province. I think I can only answer him as I have until now -- rather indecisively.

The development of that road is contingent upon a number of other developments which may take place in that particular area. Those matters are still being discussed at the policy field level. Until such time as we can get these things resolved and into a package, I cannot make a definite announcement on it.

Mr. Reid: Will it be announced during the election?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, if I thought it would be of assistance to me.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health: Can the minister advise us as to the results of his inquiry into alleged mismanagement of the Laurentian Hospital in Sudbury, dealing with delays in opening, construction overruns, resignation of management and those other problems?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can’t add anything more, Mr. Speaker, to my last comments. I was away for the last two days of last week and I haven’t been filled in this morning but I will find out for the member.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy has the answer to a question asked previously.

HYDRO JOB APPLICATIONS

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, last Friday specifically the member for Sudbury asked me why Ontario Hydro used a Buffalo, NY, post office box in connection with an advertisement for employment at its Bruce heavy water plant.

I am advised that during the period when mail deliveries in Toronto were uncertain, Ontario Hydro initiated a contingency mailing system. This system was set up primarily to facilitate the continuous flow of important and time-sensitive supply purchase-related mail such as tender documents, inquiries, purchase orders and so on. This system involved the use of a post office box in Buffalo, NY, with a Hydro vehicle carrying the mail to and from Toronto.

While the system was basically used for supply-related mail, some other uses were also made of it. The mailing directions associated with the Bruce heavy water plant vacancy advertisement were simply meant to give the applicants additional means by which application delays due to the strike could be avoided. This method was used infrequently for employment-related mail during the period of post office disruption and has since been discontinued in this respect altogether.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

ODC LENDING POLICY

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, if I could get his attention. Why is it that foreign-owned companies can apply for a loan through the Ontario Development Corp. and obtain that loan with relative ease, whereas a Canadian-owned company, such as J. F. Farm Machinery in Exeter, can apply for a loan and is turned down? This happens time and time again. Could the minister give me the reason that J. F. Farm Machinery would be turned down for a loan for a capital project?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the first part of the question relating to foreign companies making application for loans through Ontario Development Corp., let us get one point very clear. Not all foreign investment in this province is bad. It makes a direct contribution to the economic well-being of the Province of Ontario and the creation of jobs for the citizens of this province.

Companies come in and make application to ODC and if they follow the regulations set down and abide by them, and match the requirements as far as reporting is concerned, they will be given consideration. Foreign companies have a more difficult time in meeting the regulations than do Canadian companies.

As far as the specific company is concerned, I will have to take notice of that and review the application to see why it was refused.

May I add, Mr. Speaker, as well, that a great number of companies when complaining to their provincial members that they have been refused consideration by ODC or NODC or EODC forget to tell members that their lawyers and their accountants quite often have not responded in the period of time as requested -- even after many requests -- by ODC and its two other associated companies to provide information so that a decision can be made in their favour. There are times when applications are rejected on the basis that the information requested is not supplied.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

VENUE FOR CANADIAN OPEN

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Treasurer and Minister of Economics: Does the minister or his financial advisers agree at all with the Royal Canadian Golf Association that the financial situation in Windsor and district in the summer of 1976 -- and by district they mean the three counties of Essex, Kent and Lambton -- will be so depressed that the gate receipts at the Essex Golf and Country Club could not support the Canadian Open?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m afraid I don’t know very much about it. I happened to notice something in the Windsor paper about it. I would hope, in view of the strong stimulative action taken in last Monday’s budget, that Windsor along with the rest of the province would bounce back, and that it would be possible to hold the Canadian Open in Windsor at the Essex Golf and Country Club.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Bounsall: Would the Treasurer be willing to give that view directly to the Royal Canadian Golf Association?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would certainly be glad to take that under consideration. It is great to see the New Democratic Party supporting golf in the way that they are; and particularly at such a bastion of elitism as the Essex Golf and Country Club. It’s nice to know the side they’re on.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member will get a golf club in his backyard if he buys his leader’s house; nine holes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Everybody wants to be a Tory.

Mr. Lewis: That’s the new socialism.

An hon. member: Yes, I read something about that in the paper.

An hon. member: Hanlon had something to say about that, I think.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Fort William.

Interjections by hon. members,

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I’m sorry, we can’t hear the member.

OFFICIAL GEMSTONE FOR PROVINCE

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Would he recommend to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) that immediate recognition be given to the semi-precious jewel, the amethyst, so that we can recognize it as the gemstone of Ontario?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, shame! That’s a straight steal.

Mr. Jessiman: That would support the many letters I have written to the minister, and the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) has done the same thing. We’d like recognition given to this gemstone.

Mr. Lewis: The member for Fort William couldn’t even pronounce it when he first heard about it. He called it an amphitheatre the first time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the hon. member I had to find out what an amethyst was. I’m not in the class where I know an amethyst.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under very active, current consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

WINDSOR HOSPITAL FACILITIES

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware of his ministry’s recent proposal for far-reaching changes for the Windsor area, where the hospital centres’ Riverview unit was going to be closed; obstetrical units at Grace Hospital would be closed; and paediatric and psychiatric services at Metropolitan and psychiatric services at Metropolitan and psychiatric services at Hotel Dieu would be closed? Is the minister aware that his deputy, coming into Windsor on May 1, will be meeting only with hospital and medical officials? Would the minister consider holding public meetings so that those whose jobs may be jeopardized as a result of some of these drastic changes would likewise have an opportunity for input, and also the public?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the proposals the staff have made to try to rationalize the health care delivery system in the hon. member’s city. I am aware that they are at the discussion stage only and that no firm decisions have been taken as to what will or will not happen.

But certainly, as he knows, discussions have been going on concerning the future, particularly of Riverview, for some long time. We do feel that changes need to be made in the area. We’ve been working with the groups that are currently recognized and are dealing with the problem. There is a council down there that’s been doing a good job, in my opinion, to help us in these areas. It seems only proper that our discussions, which are still at the original stages and are not by any means concluded, should continue with those groups. There isn’t a district health planning council functioning. This would have been the logical body for making this kind of decision had one been in place.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’re running over our time. The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

EXPROPRIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Expropriations Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, this amendment will make available to the public and expropriating authorities, when mutually consented to, the services of the Land Compensation Board for the determination of value of land or interest in land taken. I am introducing this amendment at this time to assist in the resolution of certain immediate problems arising from Ontario Hydro’s acquisition of land in the Bruce area. This amendment is consistent with the recommendations in the Robinson report, which is presently under study in my ministry.

TOWN OF KAPUSKASING ACT

Mr. Havrot moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Town of Kapuskasing.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF SARNIA ACT

Mr. Singer, on behalf of Mr. Bullbrook, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

TOWN OF COBOURG ACT

Mr. Carruthers moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

TOWNSHIP OF BRUCE ACT

Mr. Gaunt moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Township of Bruce.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Wardle moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Wardle moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for London North.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Walker moves first reading of bill intituled; An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day might I introduce to you and to the members of the House 80 students from the Fenelon Falls High School, Fenelon Falls, under the able guidance of Mr. D. Murray. These students have come quite a few miles today, and only some of them are able to get in here at any one time; therefore, I wish the members to understand that while some of those students are in both galleries, the whole group is not here at this moment.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) urged members of the Legislature to “sit down for an hour and read this budget” in order, as he said, to have some hope of understanding the finances of this province. The Treasurer said -- and I quote: “The financial statements of this province reflect the integrity and they reflect the sound financial management of some 30 years of Progressive Conservative rule.”

During the past week, Mr. Speaker, I have spent many hours reading and studying the 1975 Ontario budget. I have consulted with economists, accountants and tax lawyers, with labour leaders, businessmen, municipal leaders and many others. The Treasurer may regret his advice now because, as he promised, I have learned a great deal about the finances of this province. I have also learned a great deal about the integrity and financial management of the Davis government.

Most of what I have learned is unpleasant; some of it is almost unthinkable. Of course, this is an election budget. The Treasurer has given careful attention to the superficial political appeal. He has announced measures that are designed to win or perhaps to buy votes rather than strengthen Ontario’s economy.

Certainly this budget is a clever document -- too clever by half. It’s worse than slick. It’s worse than opportunistic. It’s worse than cynical. It’s even worse than irresponsible. The only word I can think of for this budget, Mr. Speaker, is incredible. It’s simply not believable. The fine words about restraint are false; the commitment to fight inflation is hollow.

About the only believable statement appears on page 16 of the budget highlights. It reads, “Expiry of the temporary stabilization measures introduced in the budget ensures the long-run financial integrity of Ontario.”

Why wait for them to expire? Why not scrap the whole budget now and avoid endangering the provincial economy at all? This budget, more than anything previous, makes it clear that the only way to ensure the long-run, financial integrity of Ontario is to defeat the Davis government. That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what we intend to do.

The voters have seen through this government. They have seen through the smokescreen. They aren’t taken in by the trickery of this budget. It’s taken four years of this Premier but the credibility of Ontario’s 32-year-old Conservative dynasty has been destroyed. The voters simply don’t believe them any more. They are on to the Conservatives’ cynical ways and to show that, let’s just look at some of the reaction to this budget.

The Orillia Packet and Times, not exactly the staunchest Liberal paper in Ontario, ran a banner headline across its front page “Taxes Cut to Win Votes.”

The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, always a rather perceptive commentator, wrote:

“Of course, nobody would argue that even a two per cent cut in the sales tax or free drugs for pensioners or reduced income taxes for pensioners and low-income families will not please voters when they find costs reduced. But this will not prevent them from viewing the whole process with deep scepticism and from judging the Davis government accordingly.

“The size of the deficit is such that few are unaware of its significance. The timing of the benefits is so obvious that even the government must have known how they would be interpreted. To many, therefore, it will seem like a blatantly cynical attempt to buy their votes to perpetuate the Conservative regime in power. It tends to confirm that Mr. Davis and his cabinet are deeply alarmed at the political outlook and willing to try almost anything to avert defeat.”

From the Attorney General’s home town, Mr. Speaker, the Niagara Falls Review reviewed the budget this way:

“Darcy McKeough’s two per cent sales tax cut sounds sweet until one realizes that it is merely a temporary gesture until Dec. 31, when the seven per cent tax will be restored after the provincial election has been tucked away.”

And in the same cynical manner . . . The Ottawa Citizen said:

“On the opening day of the baseball season Darcy McKeough appears as the late inning relief pitcher with a mission to save the game for the Davis Tories . . . But the budget also has to do something for the economy.”

The London Free Press was similarly concerned about the Treasurer’s cavalier approach to budget making. They wrote:

“Mr. McKeough is taking a calculated gamble. He is risking more stimulation than he probably would have provided if the Davis government were not facing an election this year.”

The Owen Sound Sun-Times made this blunt assessment:

“Treasurer McKeough tried to cover the political plight of the Ontario Tories with the economic plight of the province in his budget. He didn’t cover it very well. Most of the budget items are election lures. It’s just a coincidence, of course, that the Tories expect to call an election before the end of the year and know they are in trouble with the voters.”

An hon. member: That’s for sure.

Mr. Breithaupt: Down in Essex county, where the voters are again going to demonstrate their good sense this year by electing five Liberals instead of the present number, the Windsor Star noted:

“Mr. McKeough pulled out all the stops at a time when an election cannot be long postponed and when polls indicate Conservative fortunes at a low ebb.”

The Star’s headline read “McKeough Budget Goes for Broke.” Perhaps that should be a Liberal slogan for this year. “Go for broke, vote Tory” Or we could adopt, of course, the Treasurer’s own line and use that good old one about knocking the rats off the rafters.

Mr. Speaker, from your own riding the Port Hope Evening Guide has this to say:

“Apparently . . . the Conservatives are in such bad shape that they cannot afford to be realistic. They prefer to promote an image . . . We know where the rats in the rafters are.”

Well, I’m sure, Mr. Speaker -- they weren’t referring to you personally, of course -- that if you were to choose to cross the floor to the official opposition before the next election the people of Northumberland would gladly re-elect you. Otherwise, sir, we certainly shall miss you around here.

In Hamilton the Spectator simply observed: “The budget could not be considered anything but an election document.”

The Oakville Daily Journal-Record wasn’t conned by the Treasurer either. Its editorial group wrote:

“The 1975 Ontario budget clearly is not the anti-inflationary, economic booster of a budget provincial Treasurer Darcy McKeough claims, with a straight face, that it is. And clearly it is the chock-full-of-goodies pre-election budget the Treasurer claims, with tongue in cheek, it is not . . . Politically shrewd the McKeough budget may turn out to be, but fiscally responsible it most certainly is not.”

Well, perhaps there are a couple of other places we should hear from -- perhaps the city of Brampton. And the Daily Times let it be known that their credulity had been tested beyond the reasonable limits. This is what the newspaper in the Premier’s home town said:

“There isn’t a shred of subtlety about the windfall of goodies . . . [Mr. McKeough] isn’t doing a thing for inflation except perhaps feeding it and we resent any suggestion that this budget is an inflation fighter . . . We would like to see Mr. McKeough’s reaction a month or two from now when housing prices have risen by not $1,500 a unit, but perhaps $3,000 to $5,000 a unit, to reflect the increased demand and the shortage of supply in housing.”

Finally, Mr. Speaker, from Kingston, in the heart of that blue belt of eastern Ontario where voting Tory has been a way of life for the past 32 years, the Kingston Whig-Standard gives a measure of the strength of disenchantment with the Davis government. And this is what we read there:

“The provincial budget is, in the long-term perspective, disastrous. Darcy McKeough says the budget is based on three assumptions, early economic recovery in the US, agreement within Canada to hold the price of gas and oil at current levels, and the pursuit of expansionary policies by the federal government . . . Mr. McKeough was conceding that his budget makes sense only on the assumption that the government has a right not merely to count on miracles but to count on three of them.

“In essence, Mr. McKeough is inviting the public to an autumn cruise on the Titanic and is financing the purchase of extra deck chairs on credit. The Conservative government has preached restraint. It has chosen not to practice restraint. God works in mysterious ways, but it is doubtful if the Conservatives have earned four miracles in a single year. Three are needed to make the budget work; the fourth is needed to win an election.”

Mr. Speaker, all of those assessments -- and I have quoted 12 for you -- have reached the same conclusion. That conclusion is that the 1975 Ontario budget is an attempt to con the voters. It’s a bogus budget. They don’t believe the budget. And this government’s credibility is in shreds.

Mr. Speaker, this budget reveals the Davis government’s lack of competence in economic matters, but also raises doubts about the political judgement of the “big blue machinists” whose pollsters and public relations experts were undoubtedly the directors and producers of the Treasurer’s performance here last Monday night.

If this government had had the integrity to produce a responsible budget, some voters might have been impressed. Some voters might have congratulated the Treasurer for having the courage and honesty to face up to his responsibilities. Some voters might even have taken a responsible budget as a sign that the Davis government is more interested in Ontario’s welfare than even that of the Progressive Conservative Party, but it didn’t happen. There is no sign of integrity. There is no sign of courage. There is no sign of concern for Ontario. There is no sign of a responsible budget.

Mr. Speaker, before I launch into some details of criticism of the budget, I want to review briefly the past economic performance of the Davis government, because this budget is clearly part of a pattern. This government and this Treasurer are nothing if they are not consistent. Of course, they happen to be consistently wrong. They are consistently misleading and they are consistently incompetent economic managers.

In 1971 the first Davis-McKeough budget came to light and the Treasurer claimed that one of his objectives was, and I quote, “to maintain firm control over public spending in order to contain tax levels and the generation of inflationary pressures.” Budgetary expenditures increased by $1.2 billion that year -- a jump of 15.5 per cent.

The lofty words about controlled spending were a smoke-screen. That actual spending performance was substantially different. The deficit reached a record of $1,018 million that year, an election year. Final spending estimates were more than $1 billion higher than the budgetary estimates. So much for the containing of a generation of inflationary pressures in 1971.

In his second budget, in 1972, the Treasurer promised, and I quote: “Rigorous restraint on spending will make room for expansion of the private sector activity and curb inflationary forces as the economy moves back to full performance.” He was no longer talking about those firm controls; now it was rigorous restraint. The phrase was different, but it was equally meaningless. Rigorous restraint on spending in that year translated into an expenditure increase of more than $450 million or about 7.5 per cent. The Ontario government spending increased 50 per cent more than the cost of living that year.

The Treasurer’s version of rigorous restraint applied throughout the fiscal 1972-1973 year. When it was ended, the Ministry of the Environment had overspent its budget by 35 per cent, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food had overspent by 18.5 per cent and total government spending that year was some $117 million over budget. Well, of course, Mr. Speaker, the present Treasurer was not with us as Treasurer for two budgets, but his successor and predecessor, the member for London South (Mr. White), presently part-time cabinet minister and Progressive Conservative campaign chairman, faithfully maintained the Davis government’s tradition of huge deficits and uncontrolled government spending.

In 1973, Treasurer White stated that one of his budgetary objectives was “to exercise maximum restraint in provincial spending.” Well, how did he propose to meet that objective of maximum restraint? By now, Mr. Speaker, the pattern was quite clear. He called for a spending increase of $760 million -- up 11.7 per cent from the previous year.

In place of restraint, the Treasurer of the day provided this little bit of hypocrisy, and I quote:

“I would like to focus briefly on the containment of government spending. The point has been made in previous budget statements but it deserves to be emphasized once again. In order to maintain a capacity to establish new priorities and to meet public needs, government must restrain the growth of existing spending programmes. The Ontario government is very conscious of its responsibility to limit growing spending growth.”

When all the figures were in, spending had increased by $811 million -- $51 million more than the Treasurer had estimated. Spending was up 12.7 per cent in a year when inflation in Ontario was advancing by 7.6 per cent.

In 1974, last year, this was the budget’s very first sentence: “The most important problem facing us today is inflation.” In the budget statement itself, the Treasurer didn’t have the gall to claim he was again restraining spending, but two months earlier, at a federal-provincial conference of finance ministers, he had this to say and I quote:

“I think it is important that we acknowledge the contribution of the public sector to inflation. In its ninth and 10th annual reviews, the Economic Council of Canada recommended reduced expenditure growth in the public sector. I agree with this recommendation.”

He then proceeded to define the public sector as everything but the government of Ontario, and sure enough, at budget time, he called for a spending increase of 14.2 per cent while projecting inflation in the total economy at 7.7 per cent.

Now in this 1975 budget, we see the Davis government in 1974 underestimated its spending requirements for the fourth consecutive year. In every single year since the member for Peel North (Mr. Davis) became Premier, his Treasurers have been low in their expenditure predictions. They always predict low.

Last year’s predicted spending increased by 14.2 per cent. This jumped in fact to 20.8 per cent by the year-end.

In the 1974 budget, the Treasurer told the Legislature and the public that Ontario would spend $8.341 billion in 1974-1975. In the 1975 budget we learned that actual spending was $8.726 billion. The Davis government that year overspent by $295 million.

Every year their estimates have been wrong. They haven’t been right yet. Even after 32 years of making budgets they still haven’t quite got the grip of it. In the last four budgets, the four budgets of the Davis years, Ontario’s government has overspent its own estimates -- which were already exorbitant -- by $1.5 billion, almost as much as the net cash requirements that the Treasurer admits to this year. And I will have more to say about the figures that are used there.

As economic forecasters, this government has been equally incompetent. In 1971 the Treasurer predicted 4.3 per cent unemployment for the year in Ontario. The final figure was more than one fifth higher at 5.2 per cent. The Treasurer underestimated the number of unemployed workers by 22,000 that year.

In 1972 the Treasurer’s budget was based on a projection of 3.4 per cent inflation and 6.3 per cent real economic growth. When the year was done, prices had risen more than one third faster than the Treasurer’s prediction and real economic growth was one tenth less than his forecast.

In 1973, the Treasurer of the day again underestimated the impact of inflation. His budget assumed a 4.8 per cent increase in the cost of living. In fact, this turned out to be a 7.1 per cent figure, one half higher than the Treasurer’s estimate.

Last year, faulty forecasting reached some sort of pinnacle in Ontario. The Treasurer predicted 110,000 new housing starts. The true figure turned out to be 85,500 or 22.3 per cent less than the Treasurer’s estimate.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Shame.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Treasurer predicted five per cent real growth in the gross provincial product. In fact, the economy grew almost one quarter less than that, advancing only 3.8 per cent in real dollars. And the cost of living, according to Ontario’s Treasurer, was to go up 7.7 per cent last year, more than one third less than the actual inflation rate of 10.6 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, already this brief review of the previous four budgets of the Davis government provides some indication of the nature of “sound financial management of some 30 years of Progressive Conservative rule,” referred to by the Treasurer last Tuesday during the question period.

Their spending estimates are always wrong -- always low. Their economic forecasts are always wrong -- always overly optimistic. But the story has only begun. Let’s talk about deficits.

There’s a lot to say about deficits because despite an inflation rate of almost one per cent every month, this province has had nothing but deficits since the member for Peel North became Premier.

We haven’t had a surplus since the last full year of John Robarts’ premiership in 1969-1970. In that year, revenues exceeded expenditures by about $150 million.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we received a new Premier. Mr. Robarts’ last budget had called for a budgetary surplus of $11.3 million, but before the end of that fiscal year, the member for Peel North became Premier and the budgetary surplus became a budgetary deficit -- a deficit of about $136 million.

The total financing required that year was $566 million. The next year, 1971-1972, the deficit was more than $1 billion. In fiscal 1972, it was $744 million and in 1973-1974 it was $708 million.

By March 31, 1974, the Davis government had added more than $3 billion to the provincial debt. The province’s accumulated net debt had more than doubled in four years, from $1.4 billion to $2.9 billion. Whereas it would have cost $185.03 per person to pay off Ontario’s debt in 1970, that figure had grown consistently and almost doubled to $359.74 per person by 1974. In John Robarts’ last year, it would have taken 16 weeks of provincial revenue to pay off Ontario’s debt. By 1974, it would have taken 21 weeks of revenue to pay off the debt. The effect of last year’s budget is to increase the provincial debt a further $591 million.

Here’s the record of the Davis government’s so-called sound financial management until this budget. Here’s the Davis-McKeough-White legacy of fiscal responsibility since John Robarts’ last full year.

First, expenditures more than doubled from $4.25 billion to $8.8 billion last year. Next, spending exceeded budget estimates by $1.5 billion. Next, budgetary deficits totalled $2.1 billion. Next, the province’s net debt is more than doubled. It has increased 128 per cent from $1.5 billion to $3.5 billion. Next, the net debt per capita has increased 130 per cent from $185.03 to $426.06. Then, the net debt as a per cent of the gross provincial product has increased by 42 per cent. Finally, the net debt as a per cent of budgetary revenue has jumped by more than a third, from 31.9 per cent to 42.9 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, that’s the tradition of irresponsible spending and deficits of the Davis government. That’s the rather dismal history that sets the stage for the 1975 budget.

I felt that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) put it rather well last week when, in his remarks to the South Ottawa Rotary Club, he said: “We are not called Conservatives for nothing.” You are no doubt familiar with that word, Mr. Speaker. Chamber’s 20th Century Dictionary, a volume which some Conservatives have purchased, even though it’s a little late, defines a Conservative as “one averse to change.” Although one might argue, I suppose, as to the suitability of any 20th century definition for this government, this budget certainly provides ample evidence of the Davis government’s aversion to change. It is exactly in the irresponsible pattern of its predecessors this year.

One would think, Mr. Speaker, that a government that was running some 12 points behind in the public opinion polls might reassess its past mistakes and at least try to do better. Surely this government has learned something in the course of four consecutive by-election defeats. Surely it has occurred to someone over there that the old tricks don’t work any more, that the voters are fed up with irresponsible big spending government. Yet, apparently not. This government remains blindly loyal to its past policies and seems determined to commit the same mistakes and the same blunders over and over again. Ontario’s regressive Conservative government blunders on. Well, hopefully, not for too long, Mr. Speaker. The voters have grown weary of the Davis government’s game and they are about to end it. This budget to many is just the final proof of their inability to provide competent government.

Let’s look at the present budget. True to form, there are some nice words about restraining government spending but, as in the past, there’s no action to match the words. On the very first page the Treasurer states:

“The strength of inflationary pressures constitutes the main threat to Canada’s economic stability and international competitiveness in the years ahead. [And further on he adds] I am convinced that one of the root causes of the current inflationary problem in Canada is excessive government spending and unnecessary growth in the size and complexity of the public sector.”

So far, Mr. Speaker, he seems to be on the right path, if only he has got the courage to walk it. But has he stayed on this path? Does this budget in any way attempt to implement these policies and directions to which he has paid lip service?

What about the Treasurer’s claim on page 16: “We have managed to control the growth in our spending.” Is there anything in this budget to support that claim?

There is not a single shred of evidence, Mr. Speaker, not a single indication that spending has been controlled. See for yourself. The facts are clear. There is a whole section of the budget entitled, “Government leadership and restraint.” Where’s the restraint? Where’s the leadership? Where’s the action to support the Treasurer’s sanctimonious pronouncement that “I believe that continuing restraint on spending is an obligation for all governments at this time in order to set an example of responsible leadership to the community at large.” Is that responsible leadership? Look at the figures.

The Treasurer’s version of restraint is a $1,530-million spending increase. He’s calling for an expenditure increase of 16.8 per cent. What sort of responsible leadership is that? He is increasing spending by more than $1.5 billion, or 16.8 per cent. Is it any wonder that the government has got a credulity problem? Is it any wonder that the reaction to this budget was one of complete disbelief, of incredulity?

Let’s be very clear, Mr. Speaker: The Treasurer himself is saying that “excessive government spending” is a “root cause” of the current inflation. He is increasing spending by more than $1.5 billion, by 16.8 per cent. And then he has the gall to claim that this budget “provides leadership in combating inflation” and shows “restraint in the growth of the public sector in Ontario.”

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): What hypocrisy.

Mr. Breithaupt: Sandy Baird gave an example of this approach when he suggested in a column in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record last week that the Treasurer is just like a speeding driver who knocks down a pedestrian, then jumps from his car and says cheerily to the victim: “You’re in luck. I am a doctor.”

The plain fact is that the Davis government is fuelling inflation, not fighting it. The government’s admitted deficit is $1.7 billion. The Treasurer has chosen to exercise his public trust by adding about $208 to the debt borne by every man, woman and child in Ontario. But it is he and the Davis government who will pay for this extravagance. They’ll pay at the polls before the year is out, and a Liberal government will be chosen to re-establish a sound financial programme in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer concludes that “this budget will be an important factor in restoring Ontario to its accustomed prosperity.” Perhaps the Treasurer missed the report of the Ontario Joint Committee on Economic Policy last August. He was exiled in Energy at the time. Like another well-known exile, the member for Chatham-Kent has made it back once; but with this budget he merely hastens the advent of his government’s Waterloo, and I don’t think there’ll be a return from the second exile.

Members may recognize the names of some of those who, as members of the joint committee, participated in the preparation of this report --

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): That wasn’t the member’s crack.

Mr. Breithaupt: It wasn’t?

Mr. Lewis: Was it?

Mr. Breithaupt: It was.

Mr. Lewis: Really?

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: More laboured than usual.

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, probably. I’m usually a little easier in my bons mots --

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

Mr. Breithaupt: However, yesterday was a difficult day.

Mr. Lewis: Was it?

Mr. Deacon: Get on the subject.

Mr. Breithaupt: Before I mention the members of the joint committee who participated in the preparation of this report, I should first of all refer to the name of the report; it’s entitled, “Directions for Social and Economic Policy in Ontario.”

The chairman was H. Ian Macdonald, former Deputy Treasurer. Other members included the present Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White), the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman), the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), Deputy Treasurer Rendall Dick, Cabinet Secretary James Fleck, and the Premier’s deputy, Ed Stewart. It was, in every sense of the word, a blue-ribbon budget committee.

There’s a small note at the bottom of the title page, which advises: “The following also served earlier on the committee but were not members when the final report was prepared.” The list includes such names as the Minister for Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch), the Hon. A. B. R. Lawrence and the present Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker, I guess someone must have banged the rafters. The committee, which met regularly with the Premier, had this to say:

“Stabilization of prices must be a major priority of all levels of government. The committee believes that the continued increase in prices at a more rapid rate than output constitutes a major threat to our capacity to achieve longer-run economic and social objectives.

“The committee cannot agree with suggestions that we must somehow “learn to live with” inflation. Government can make a significant contribution towards containing inflation by controlling its own spending. Over the next several years, it will be important for all levels of government to introduce measures to contain expenditures.”

This is what recommendation 19 said in that report, Mr. Speaker:

“The major long-term measure which government should undertake to control inflation is to limit its own spending growth and deficit financing. The provinces and the federal government should adopt, as a long-run target, total spending growth no greater than the overall growth rate in the economy.”

I am sure you will want to ask how does this budget stand up to those criteria? The Treasurer predicts that the economy will grow in inflated dollars this year by 12.6 per cent. He expects that his own spending will increase by 16.8 per cent. He therefore misses the target exactly by one-third. It is significant, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Did the member read the rest of the Smith report on the question of short-term counter-cyclical budgeting?

Mr. Breithaupt: I am interested particularly in this report because this was made only a few months ago and the members will recall that the Smith report has existed since 1968.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, but this report is simply a later report.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Kitchener will continue.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is significant, Mr. Speaker, that in a budget in which the Treasurer is preaching restraint and is telling “school boards and municipal councils to carefully examine their staffing, overhead and administration expenses,” not one government department has reduced expenditures from last year -- not one. In fact, there are only three ministries which even intend to hold their spending increases at less than the rate of inflation.

The Treasurer’s own ministry is budgeting for a 23 per cent spending increase; the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is planning to spend 25 per cent more this year than last.

Mr. Deacon: True to its past record.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Ministry of Labour intends to spend 27 per cent more; spending will also be up 27 per cent in the Ministry of Community and Social Services. It is going to be up 18.5 per cent in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications; spending in the Ministry of the Environment will jump by 43 per cent and the Ministry of Energy calls for a 50 per cent expenditure rise in its budget. Consumer and Commercial Relations wants to spend 17 per cent more this year than last; the budget for Culture and Recreation is up 60.5 per cent over the component parts from last year. I suppose, for some reason probably to do more with advertising than with its departmental function, the Ministry of Revenue intends to spend 37 per cent more this year than last.

The Treasurer has had the audacity to tell this House and the people of Ontario that every one of this government’s departments is pared down to fighting trim. Who can really believe that? Who can really believe that this budget is going to do anything to stop the problems of inflation? The real concern, of course, is that expressed by the Ontario Economic Council in its report of last year, “Evidence available suggests that the productivity record in the public sector has lagged and that price increases have been excessive.”

In other words, we are apparently not getting value for our money. The council made this point, particularly in respect to provincial expending on education, and this is what it wrote:

“As an increasing share of the total educational bill was absorbed by the provincial government, costs rose. . . The issue was whether the political system was structured to maximize the benefits of rising expenditures while at the same time encouraging the most efficient use of available funds. . . Rising government expenditures did not match a sufficient increase in productivity so that they were inflationary on the economy.”

The 1975 Ontario budget makes no reference to the need for higher productivity in the government sector of activity, Mr. Speaker. It makes no mention at all of the concern among taxpayers that in the area of education especially we are not getting good value.

The education empire that the Premier began building more than a decade ago is clearly in a mess. Frustrated teachers are striking; angry trustees feel powerless to cope with student and community needs; parents are worried about their children’s futures; taxpayers are losing their patience with soaring costs and students -- those people for whom the entire system was created -- are coming to the stunning realization that they are wasting their time in schools which don’t provide a solid grounding in even the basics of English and arithmetic.

This year this government will spend more than $2.7 billion on the two ministries involved; $1.7 billion in Education and slightly over $1 billion in Colleges and Universities. They will overspend their own education budget set last year by about $114 million.

Look at what we’re getting for this enormous sum. First of all, standards have deteriorated. In 1967, there were 34 acceptable grade 13 courses leading to credits for university admission. Today there are more than 800. The high school diploma granted in 1975 means little to anybody -- to the student, to the parent, to an employer, or to the university admissions group. The Minister of Education’s 172-page guide to an English curriculum for teachers was replaced in 1969 with a 20-page effort containing far more photographs than text.

Second, teacher-board relations have deteriorated. In 1972, the Legislature’s committee of inquiry into teacher negotiations was able to report, and I quote: “Negotiations have taken place over the length and breadth of this province year after year with generally satisfactory results.” But so far this year there have been 11 teacher strikes, and as we sit here 26,000 high school students in Ottawa are still out of their classes.

Third, Mr. Speaker, class size is getting bigger. Across Canada, the pupil-teacher ratio has been improving during the past two years, so that today there is an average of one more teacher for every 71 elementary and secondary school students than two years ago. But in Ontario, class size has grown during that period and there is now one fewer teacher for every 71 students than in 1972-1973.

Fourth, university professors are discovering that many new entrants can’t read or write English properly. The University of Western Ontario is now offering a remedial English course for its first-year students. The university’s decision to make grade 13 English mandatory for admission was vetoed by the Davis government.

Fifth, the dropout rate in our high schools is increasing. In 1970, 29 per cent of all students entering high school dropped out by grade 12 and 62 per cent dropped out by grade 13. Three years later, in 1973, the dropout rate had jumped to 37 per cent by grade 12 and 69 per cent by grade 13. Students themselves are losing confidence in our education system and they are leaving it in growing numbers. Like their parents, they are losing confidence in a school system that doesn’t give them a core of subjects. They are losing confidence in a system where fewer than half the elementary schools -- only 48 per cent -- provide parents and students with reports that include marks or percentages.

While students and parents have lost confidence in the system, teachers and trustees have lost all feeling of goodwill towards the Ministry of Education, with the result that bitter confrontations are becoming more and more frequent. Teachers, whose voice has been ignored in matters concerning quality of education, are left to bicker over salary levels and province-wide arbitrarily-imposed spending ceilings prevent trustees from effectively fulfilling their democratic responsibility to provide a level of education that meets community needs and desires.

The Premier and his ministers try to make much of that ceiling policy as a cost-saving measure. The implication, of course, is that irresponsible school boards need legislative guidelines from a cost-conscious provincial government. But while local school board expenditures increased 38 per cent between 1969 and 1973, administration costs within the provincial Ministry of Education more than tripled -- increasing 222 per cent.

So, Mr. Speaker, like the teachers and the students, like the parents and the trustees, taxpayers too are dissatisfied with the present education system. Despite this government’s attempt to convince the voters otherwise, trustees are not to blame for soaring costs and teachers are not to blame for declining quality. They are caught in a system that was designed and built under the direction of one minister, and that person is now Premier of Ontario. That system’s failure reflects on his judgement and his competence, and as much as anything else may result in his defeat at the next election.

The education mess, of course, doesn’t end at grade 13. The present Premier was also minister of colleges and universities for several years, and our post-secondary institutions still haven’t quite recovered from that experience. During his tenure the present Premier unleashed a spending monster that is still out of control. The present efforts to restore sanity to university and college finances are compounding already serious problems.

Post-secondary education institutions in Ontario, particularly the 17 provincially-assisted universities, are facing serious budgetary problems.

For more than a decade, university expenditures were permitted to grow without any controls and provincial government financial support was freely available to the former Minister of University Affairs and his successors. Now, without real consultation or warning, the Davis government is cutting back. Universities have been left to cope with the momentum of their past expansion and inflation however they can, though the government has stipulated that accessibility to courses cannot be restricted and tuition fees cannot be raised.

Many institutions have been forced to choose between drastic spending cutbacks and huge deficits. Commendably, most universities are starting to cut back. The University of Ottawa has cancelled its order for a new computer. Queen’s University is cutting back its staff by not replacing those who retire or leave. The Council of Ontario Universities began last December to draft some money-saving alternatives.

But as the council has warned, it will take time to achieve the necessary economies. Without mass firings, for instance, it will take time to achieve the necessary economies. Without mass firings, for instance, it will take some time to achieve a new balance between students and staff, since the annual rate of staff attrition at universities is only about seven-tenths of one per cent.

In the meantime, all but one of Ontario’s universities expects a deficit next year. I’m pleased to say that the one with which I was formerly involved -- at that point, Waterloo Lutheran University, now presently a provincially-assisted university, Wilfrid Laurier University -- has been able over the years to stay in the black in its books. I’m wondering if part of that reason wasn’t because the university in those days only received 50 per cent support, which was the federal funds, and as a result had to be somewhat perhaps more careful with its money. But in any event, it’s the only one that has been able to continue its programme with a budgetary surplus in this present year. Perhaps it’s because I’m no longer on the board of governors, Mr. Speaker; I’m not quite sure.

The University of Waterloo anticipates a $1.2 million deficit. McMaster is projecting a $1.4 million shortfall, and the University of Windsor has calculated its deficit at $4.5 million. Their borrowing activities, and those of other colleges and universities, will be in direct competition with the government of Ontario and at a higher rate of interest -- certainly evidence of a false economy.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve just received a note that I would like to share with members of the House; I’m sure that we will all be interested. I’m informed that as of 2 o’clock this afternoon the teachers and the school board in Ottawa have reached an agreement, which will be submitted to the OSSTF membership immediately.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, after 7½ weeks, I’m sure that we are all relieved, and the students and their parents, particularly, that the students will be back and classes can resume.

Mr. Lewis: The member for Kitchener should tell his colleagues that collective bargaining process can work without compulsory arbitration.

Mr. Breithaupt: I agree, of course, Mr. Speaker, that the collective bargaining process can work. I might add, that the tensions that led to this particular problem originated right here -- right at Queen’s Park -- with the policies of the present government. Certainly, I pledge to you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and of the party, that one of the first priorities of a new government will be to ensure that a school strike of this magnitude does not need to occur again.

Surely, as we look back into the comments that I’ve just been making on education, we find that an example such as this Ottawa teachers’ strike is exactly the sort of thing that we in this province cannot afford to have.

The universities’ current plight has been compounded by the Davis government’s uncontrolled spending in other areas, which will spur the inflationary spiral with an $850-million deficit this year. In addition, the Ministry of Health’s recent settlement with hospital workers has left the salaries of university hospital staff 25 to 30 per cent below those of their counterparts in other parts of the province. This difference must now be overcome by the universities themselves without, unfortunately, any substantial provincial government assistance.

What about the moneys which the universities have to spend? Fuel costs for them have risen 85.4 per cent in the past year. The cost of paper has jumped by 75 per cent. Library periodical costs, we are told, are up by 27 per cent. And this is at a time when the consumer price index is generally 12 per cent higher. The wholesale price index has risen by 23 per cent, and this government is offering the universities an extra 7.4 per cent per student. But, as Dr. D. Carlton Williams, the president of the University of Western Ontario, has observed: “Universities are not taps to be turned on and off abruptly.”

Surely, Mr. Speaker, we can all agree that highly trained academic staff cannot be retained in a financially unstable environment. Precision equipment in scientific laboratories cannot be allowed to deteriorate through inadequate maintenance. Arbitrary, short-term and direct government involvement in the use of universities’ financial affairs cannot be allowed to further undermine their autonomy and their planning capabilities.

After more than a decade of rapid expansion, it’s time for Ontario’s universities to economize, without question. Obviously, the universities of this province have to eliminate any inefficiencies which may have developed and they are going to have to be prepared to assume a somewhat more modest position in the provincial government’s spending priorities. But surely, Mr. Speaker, the Davis government’s demand for immediate drastic reductions is both unreasonable and disruptive. Our universities should not be forced to compete on the money markets to offset inflationary deficits. Tuition fees which now average some $650 per year must clearly not be raised further, nor should accessibility to post-secondary education be restricted by other means.

I am sure that all the members of the House were interested in some of the remarks which were attributed to the present Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld) over this past weekend. They were reported in the press.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, as a result of a question which I had asked of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the absence of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, we were informed that the remarks which he made were his opinion and not government policy. His opinion seemed to allow us to believe that the problems of university growth were to some extent the fault of the universities themselves. He called for a new approach which would effectively restrict admissions and an approach which would be, in our view, unsatisfactorily elitist.

We certainly believe that academic excellence is needed within our universities. We also believe that it is a responsibility of this government to ensure that there are places available for those students who are qualified to attend university. We cannot accept his approach that, since the number of students has doubled or tripled, we should, accordingly, be cutting back in the total of those who should attend universities by having the kinds of stopping of enrolment programmes which the minister, apparently, is prepared to consider. The fault, accordingly, is not the fault of the administrators of the universities. The fault, if there is a fault -- and I think there is -- is the fault of this present government.

We have a new president at York University, Mr. Speaker, a gentleman by the name of H. Ian Macdonald, a name familiar to all of us in this House because his most recent incarnation was that of Deputy Treasurer of this Province. He has charged that the absence of long-term financial planning by the Davis government means that “Ontario’s universities can only stagger from year to year under a burden of diminishing quality and declining morale.”

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, Ian Macdonald was most recently the Deputy Treasurer of Ontario, so he should know whereof he speaks. He should be aware of the real meaning and background that has led the present government to decide upon the kinds of programmes that are now being placed before us in this budget.

If, in his new position, he is now able to speak out as an independent person, although one obviously favouring the further development of higher education in Ontario, surely his experience as the Deputy Treasurer of the province is something we should consider to have led him to this conclusion, which I’ll repeat: “that Ontario’s universities can only stagger from year to year under a burden of diminishing quality and declining morale.” Mr. Speaker, if the former Deputy Treasurer thinks that there has been an absence of long-term financial planning, I presume that we are able to take his word on that subject.

Universities clearly need financial commitments far enough into the future to permit orderly planning, whether for expansion or for cutbacks. Only adjustments to offset the effects of inflation are the kinds of things which, in our view, should be negotiated annually. Certainly these crash programmes called for by the present government are wasteful. They are wasteful not only in academic personalities, but they are also wasteful in the kinds of education we are giving to the young undergraduates within the universities, and they’re wasteful indeed to our entire economic system.

The interference by the present government in the day-to-day financial affairs of universities has been both clumsy and unproductive. Their post-secondary financing formula based on student enrolment has failed to recognize that even small universities have fixed costs; indeed, this entire approach has resulted in encouragement of the costly and undesirable competitive student enrolment drives of recent years.

I have referred to the former Deputy Treasurer, Ian Macdonald, and he characterizes the Davis government’s post-secondary funding policy as “a series of short-term, year-to-year decisions of drastic consequence.” Certainly our students and our universities deserve better, That sort of non-planning, which Mr. Macdonald admits to, is clearly not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, any serious effort to combat inflation, any serious attempt to counteract the inflationary effect of an apparently uncontrolled though certainly not uncontrollable public sector, must include some measures to increase productivity. We’re simply not getting good value in the area of education, and we’re certainly not getting the value we should be in the area of colleges and universities -- and in both of those areas there are changes which obviously have to be made. But there is another area which I would refer to briefly, and that is the requirement we must have for greater productivity throughout the civil service.

Our greatest resource as a government, and a Liberal government will certainly acknowledge it as well, is our civil service. Those expensive and austere towers on Bay St., the red brick buildings at Downsview and all the offices scattered throughout the province, are crammed with talented people. They are also energetic people who have much to give to the Province of Ontario.

But this government has ignored them; it has despised them and baited them, trampled them, pushed them around, manipulated them and even used them, as we will recall over these past few months, for some political gain. They are our employees, Mr. Speaker. They are working for the people of Ontario. And when the government abuses the civil service, it abuses every citizen in this province.

The Treasurer’s promise to reduce the size of the civil service is offered in this budget as evidence of the managerial competence of the present government. This is supposed to be evidence of the responsible husbandry by the present minister and by the executive council of public funds. This, says the Treasurer is, “the cornerstone of our plan to control government costs and improve operating efficiencies.” Well, that’s baloney, Mr. Speaker, and it is not even very good baloney.

What efficiency studies has this government done? What manpower utilization studies is this across-the-board reduction based upon? When was the last time this government did any sort of efficiency study? When was the last time it did a job simplification study by working with the frontline civil servants to help them improve their own productivity?

Is there a single ministry in this government which has a management-by-objectives programme functioning? Is there a single ministry which conducts annual appraisals of its employees and their roles in our massive and impersonal organization? Why are there no career development programmes for civil servants with status below the director level? What ministry has a cost effectiveness programme to ensure that the taxpayers are getting value for their dollars?

This proposed reduction in the civil service is as unplanned and as haphazard as its growth has been. No private industry could get away with such incompetence, such a total absence of managerial ability and efficiency planning. And no government can get away with it forever either.

This government’s incompetent management, this government’s bumbling as an employer is just one more of the reasons why the voters are going to throw it out at the next election. There is evidence to suggest that the reduction of the civil service complement is much less significant than the Treasurer has indicated in his budget. He contends that the civil service complement has already been reduced by 2.3 per cent from its high point in 1974 and will be reduced a further 2.5 per cent this year. He claims on page 18 of the budget statement that the member of provincial employees in 1974 -- the high point of that year -- was 70,877.

In response to a request I had made, the Civil Service Commission had advised us that the figures which appear on page 18 of the budget which deal with the civil service complement are as of April 1 in each of those particular years.

On May 16, 1974, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) tabled an answer to a question by my colleague from Rainy River (Mr. Reid) which concerned the number of civil servants employed by the Province of Ontario exclusive of Ontario Hydro. The Chairman of Management Board reported that there were 68,620 such civil servants in 1974. However, that figure, Mr. Speaker, is some 2,257 fewer than the Treasurer claims in his budget.

The 1975 staff figure reported in the budget is therefore nine-tenths of one per cent lower as the Treasurer stated. The net reduction over the two years is 1.6 per cent, not the 4.7 per cent indicated by the Treasurer. There is clearly a serious discrepancy in the figures which have been put forward by the Treasurer and Chairman of Management Board. Just whom are we to believe? Is there a third figure -- a somewhat more accurate figure?

Why, Mr. Speaker, does the government’s figure exclude part-time employees? Why are we not told the number of casual employees? And what about that category known as project workers -- there are more than 240 of those, I am told. There is also the category known as temporary -- where are they reported?

Where, indeed, Mr. Speaker, are the contract employees alleged to number some 4,100? I understand that as of February, 1974, there were seven employees in the Kenora area who have been employed on contract for 13 years. How many others are there? Why does the government not produce these figures?

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government were to disclose the full civil service complement, it would likely approach 80,000 employees. I would appreciate receiving the information on this hidden army of 10,000 who are the ones who make up the various categories we have been referred to from time to time by the various ministries.

I suppose what we can do and what we perhaps will do is question each of the particular ministers as they appear in estimates and try to elicit the information that I have called for. How many contract employees do they have? How many temporary employees do they have? How many project employees do they have? How many casual employees do they have? And so on.

There is another inconsistency, Mr. Speaker, that adds to my concern about this promised staff reduction. The Civil Service Association has been advised by the government that 1,662 jobs will be eliminated. That’s 2.4 per cent of the existing complement reported by the Treasurer, not 2.5 per cent. One wonders just which figure is correct.

One final point on this, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Treasurer could please advise the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that the promised three per cent staff reduction has been scaled down, It must be confusing to his colleagues when the figures keep changing as the election grows nearer, but there is really no reason for the member for Carleton to have told the South Ottawa Rotary Club the day after the budget that “a three per cent cut will be achieved by attrition.”

Mr. Speaker, both within and outside the civil service, this government has demonstrated appalling insensitivity to women and the changing role of women within our society. While 1975 is almost certainly an election year in Ontario, it is also, as members will recall, International Women’s Year.

My leader’s father, the Hon. Harry C. Nixon, first became a member of this Legislature and Provincial Secretary in a new government in 1919. Harry Nixon proved the maxim that when a government is turned out -- as this present one will soon be -- good newly-elected members can also often take on senior responsibilities. The present Premier must agree with this view, in that one third of his cabinet were first elected in 1971.

Many, and indeed most, of my colleagues are prepared to serve in a new Liberal government later this year. We are, each of us, also quite prepared to stand aside if, in the opinion of the new Premier, there are others who he will ask to serve and who as yet are not members of this House.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that the gibes from across the floor from time to time, as to whether or not we as individuals are such repositories of wisdom and ability that we should presume to become members of the executive council, are really quite irrelevant and even misleading. This is especially so when one considers their source.

If we are occasionally fractious and in high individual spirits, I would suggest, sir, that a quick reading of Ontario’s history reveals that such a description of our party is fairly accurate for that of any official opposition since 1871, perhaps with the exception of the 10th Legislature from 1903 to 1905. In 1942, Andrew Brewin, writing in the Canadian Forum, commented that George Drew’s Conservatives were “inventing new ways and methods of committing political suicide.” And he said that they were also “a motley collection of misguided independents who will never be able to hold office.” Yet a year later George Drew became Premier and established a political machinery that has, to use the word of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, “ruled” Ontario for 32 years, and more than half of that first Tory cabinet came directly from private life.

Do not, therefore, presume that when the time comes later this year to repeat that transition a new Liberal government will be unable to cope, even with the mess that we will inherit. My present colleagues and our future ones will do the work we are given to do, and I trust it will be done well.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, the year 1919 was the year of electoral success for Harry Nixon. It was also the first Ontario election in which women had the franchise and their votes helped to defeat a 14-year-old Conservative government. Perhaps that bodes well for a Liberal success in this Women’s Year.

As long ago as the early 1880s, Liberal members of the Legislature were fighting for the rights of women in Ontario. One member, John Waters, introduced the first proposal to give women the provincial franchise, warning that he would introduce a woman’s suffrage bill in every session until he got it passed for as long as he sat in the House. Between 1885 and 1893, he sponsored nine measures to extend the female franchise and in 1912, five years before women finally got the vote, the Liberal leader of the day, Newton Rowell, was criticizing the Conservative government’s Speech from the Throne for omitting all references to suffrage.

Like its predecessors, the Davis government seems determined to avoid the issues that affect the changing lives of women. They seem unaware that our new concern for the status of women is primarily a consequence of changes that have already taken place in the social and economic nature of their lives, rather than an ominous sign of disruptive changes yet to come.

Women’s role in our society and our economy, as workers and as consumers, is just now being recognized. Thus, equal pay for work of equal value, equality of pensions and benefits, and equal opportunities, are among the fundamental issues that demand government action.

There are 1.2 million women in the Ontario labour force. Thirty-nine per cent of these women are the family breadwinners. One of every three workers in Ontario is female. But while women form a higher proportion of the labour force than ever before, the gap between salaries earned by men and women is growing wider.

In 1967, women employees in Ontario earned an average of $3,538 less than men. By 1973, the difference had increased to $5,259. On average, women workers in Ontario earn 22 per cent less than men, despite the existence since 1951 of the provincial Female Employees Fair Remuneration Act.

The Davis government has shown no willingness to eliminate these inequities. In spite of strong opposition arguments led by the hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), recent amendments to the Employment Standards Act still fail to recognize the principle that equal pay laws must hinge on the appraisal of work of equal value. And that employers cannot be allowed to circumvent the law by using different job titles for men and women who perform substantially the same tasks.

Instead, the government acted to penalize women for seeking equality under that Act by freeing employers of the obligation to provide transportation for female employees who work late. Why must equality mean the loss of something?

The Davis government itself is among the employers that discriminates against women. Last November, the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet spoke of the government’s “commitment to improve the status of its women employees.” Less than two months later, he negotiated and signed an agreement with 17,000 civil servants that perpetuates the long-standing differences between salaries for men and women.

Barbers get 13 cents more per hour than hairdressers, a difference of more than $270 annually, even though it doesn’t sound like a lot to start with. The highest paid tailor receives 61 cents per hour more than the highest paid seamstress -- that’s a $1,264 difference each year.

In hospitals, male laboratory assistants received $484 monthly in 1972, while female lab assistants were paid $438 per month. Male cooks received $560 each month, compared to $472 for female cooks.

Seventy-six per cent of the Davis government’s female employees earn less than $9,000 annually, but only 28 per cent of the male civil servants earn less than that amount. Eighty-four per cent of the government employees earning less than $6,000 annually are women.

The Davis government’s failure as an employer to ensure equal opportunity for women is nowhere more dramatic than in the Liquor Control Board. That agency reported last June that in its retail stores it employed 2,200 men and only two women. The entire full-time LCBO staff at that time consisted of 184 females and 3,222 males. All 500 store managers and 500 assistant store managers were men. Of the 1,255 LCBO employees earning between $10,000 and $15,000 per year, only two were women; and those earning more than $15,000 included 257 men and only one woman.

Despite pressure and talks since 1972, the Davis government has still not acted to establish a daycare centre for its Queen’s Park employees. Again, in January the government’s co-ordinator of women’s programmes admitted that “this is a crucial and wanting area, and that government action could give an example to the community of what an employer can do.” But she gave no indication as to when something will be done.

The Davis government, of course, has failed to meet the child-care needs of parents across the province. At present there are places for about 40,000 in daycare facilities, but Toronto alone needs 73,000 places and it is estimated that Ontario needs as many as 200,000 places.

One in three of Ontario’s women workers has children under the age of 16; 11 per cent have children under the age of six. But even if school lunch and after-4 programmes are included, less than two per cent of the children under the age of 14, whose mothers work, have access to child-care services.

Child care for working parents is a major social need in Ontario; it is not a frill. The social and economic opportunities available through quality child care can enable our children -- who I believe, are our greatest resource -- to realize their potential to an extent never before possible. Yet the Davis government is moving to lower standards to a level that will reduce child care in Ontario to little more than a custodial service, and that would be a tragedy. The government has stuck with this position even though its own advisory council on day care has reported that the promised costs savings are “difficult to substantiate.”

The government must also come to grips with the special child care problem that arises when schools close for teachers’ professional development days. This is just one area in which the Premier’s education system has ignored the role and rights of women.

In 1974 there were 568 male high school principals in Ontario but only 11 female principals. Of the vice-principals, there were 699 men and 29 women.

The proportion of women undergraduates in universities has increased from a Canada-wide average of 17 per cent in 1921 to 38 per cent in 1972, but projections to 1980 show no further increase.

The situation in graduate schools is even worse. The proportion of enrolled women has dropped from 26 per cent in 1920 to 22 per cent in 1973. While women received 31 per cent of the MAs awarded in Ontario in 1931, they got only 24 per cent in 1972, and women’s share of PhDs dropped from 25 per cent in 1931 to nine per cent in 1972.

The proportion of women on the full-time teaching staff of universities has not increased significantly in the past 40 years -- from 11 per cent in 1931 to 11.6 per cent in 1974. Furthermore, women are concentrated in the lower academic ranks. A task force study at the University of Waterloo in 1972 found that women constituted only five per cent of the total full-time faculty and that two thirds of this small group were at the junior level of assistant professor or below. Only 35 per cent of the male faculty were at these low levels. At Queen’s University a similar study found that seven per cent of the full-time faculty were women and 84 per cent of these, compared with 38 per cent of the men, held ranks of assistant professor or lecturer.

The Ontario Committee on Post-Secondary Education reported more than two years ago that women are one of the three most disadvantaged groups in respect of post-secondary education. The report charged that “these education institutions have done pitifully little to improve the rates of attendance and employment of women.”

These injustices in the labour force, in the civil service, in child care and in education, cry out for swift government action.

In the Davis government tradition, Ontario’s commitment to International Women’s Year has so far consisted of little more than public relations programmes.

Almost three years ago, the Legislature passed amendments to the Human Rights Code to end discrimination in pensions and employment benefits. Proclamation of these amendments has now been delayed indefinitely.

Legislation to reform marital property law, which was inadequate but at least a beginning, was allowed to die on the order paper in the last session, although we expect its return to life.

Apparently the Davis government neither wants to acknowledge that the position of women in our society has changed, nor to institute the legislative and programme changes that are needed to deal with existing problems, let alone the future.

Mr. Speaker, I have suggested that the taxpayers are not getting good value for the almost $9 billion that this government will tax out of them in the coming 12 months. I have also suggested that by applying rather basic managerial and staff development principles, the productivity of government in Ontario could be substantially increased. This approach would include the creation of a positive climate for women in the civil service.

In addition, there are several areas where a government that is sincere about spending restraint can cut costs. A good place to begin would be in the Premier’s office and the cabinet office, where spending increased from $518,571 in 1970-1971 in John Robarts’ last year to $1.99 million in 1973-1974. That is an increase of 284 per cent in three years and there is every evidence to indicate that the effectiveness of those offices has changed in reverse proportion to the increase in costs.

In the Premier’s office alone, salary costs increased from $515,000 in 1971-1972 to $796,000 in 1973-1974. That is an increase in salary costs of $281,000 in two years. The Treasurer tells us in this budget the Premier’s staff complement rose from 42 to 45 in that period. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that we’re not paying each of these three extra employees $90,000, although with this government, one can never be certain. It is also interesting to note that the average salary for each of those 45 employees in the Premier’s office in 1974 was therefore $17,688. One wonders how many get more and how many get less than the average.

The policy secretariats, or so-called super-ministries, have been a failure and a waste of money. Yet they cost more than $1 million annually. The ministers are almost never able to answer questions within their policy areas and there is no evidence of co-ordination between departments that would not be attainable without that expense.

The government should admit that these secretariats were a mistake. They’ve really served their major purpose anyway. The Premier’s leadership rivals have all faded into obscurity except, of course, for the present Treasurer whose eager pursuit of his leader’s job may diminish after his party runs a poor second later this year. The Resources Development secretary is in semi-retirement.

Mr. Lewis: A poor second?

Mr. Breithaupt: A poor second.

Mr. Lewis: What assumption is there that they will run even second?

Mr. Breithaupt: Well, we’ll see. But, in any event, to return to the fray --

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I’d be happier if they ran third.

Mr. Breithaupt: I don’t mind if they run third. All right, I’ll make it third if it would make the member for Scarborough West feel any better.

Mr. Lewis: An abject third sounds better than a poor second.

Mr. J. Lane (Algoma-Manitoulin): Both members are dreaming.

Mr. Breithaupt: An abject third it is. Fine.

The Resources Development secretary is in semi-retirement. The Justice secretary, the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Clement), is also Attorney General and Solicitor General, so he can’t be spending very much time as a super-minister.

Then, of course, there is the Social Development secretary. If it’s correct, as rumoured, that responsibility for daycare centres will be fully and completely transferred to the operating Ministry of Community and Social Services, then one wonders just what she does for that extra indemnity.

The Treasurer’s prattling about restraint in government spending is particularly grating right now when we are all being subjected to a growing barrage of government advertising as the election draws nearer. This is perhaps the Davis government’s most cynical and blatant misuse of public funds for political purposes. Certainly, advertising is a necessary part of the electoral process. Even this government has acknowledged that advertising during a campaign period must be carefully regulated, but the government’s extravagant pre-election ad campaigns with public funds make a mockery of the provisions in the new election expenses legislation.

The Peterborough Examiner has noted that, and I quote:

“In the post-Watergate era, clear and honest communication would go a long way to restoring lost faith in politicians in governments.”

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is on this basis that the government of Ontario would seek to justify annual public relations expenditures of some $115 million. However, an examination of the advertising programme conducted by Ontario’s Ministry of Industry and Tourism provides a case study in the misuse of those public funds.

The government admits that Camp Associates Advertising Ltd. got the tourist promotion account without competition and retains the account without a contract. The Camp agency, whose president was a key Conservative organizer during the last provincial election, received approximately $2.7 million in Ontario government billings in the subsequent three years. No matter how common it is, this sort of patronage has no place in our democracy. No government advertising account should be awarded without a full and fair competition. Camp Associates which, when we last checked had a staff of 11, lists only 12 accounts. These include two with the Conservative government in New Brunswick; one with the University of New Brunswick; two with the Conservative government of Ontario, including the tourist promotion account, and three with tourist-related clients in the Niagara region.

A large part of the Ontario government’s tourist promotion budget is spent inside Canada. According to figures compiled for the Liberal research office by Elliott Research Corp. Ltd., this portion of the budget was 80 per cent higher in 1971, an election year, than in 1972. A breakdown of spending by provinces within Canada is not available but it certainly appears that public funds were used for advertising in Ontario during the election year in order to benefit the party in power, and this has obviously happened again this year.

Among the Ontario government’s other advertising abuses are, first of all, a $0.5 million campaign in 1969 which assured the people of Ontario that they were covered by the new health insurance plan. The slogan “Relax, you are covered” was of little comfort to the more than 200,000 people who found they had no coverage when the plan began. A $156,000 campaign in June, 1970, consisted of 1,246 newspaper ads defending the regional government programme which was and still is being criticized in many parts of the province.

Mr. Speaker, there was a $160,000 campaign about the same time announcing that a low-cost drug programme had been implemented. Then in 1970, in the fall, we had that $430,000 campaign which blanketed the province with the slogan “Is there anywhere you’d rather be?” The government claimed the campaign was designed to attract trade to Ontario but some of us, perhaps not quite so naive, weren’t entirely convinced.

Last year, we had a $460,000 campaign, which was repeated again this year, advising residents of Ontario to fill out their tax credit forms in order to get their “fair share” by completing both the federal income tax form and the provincial tax credit form.

The current $665,000 ad campaign to promote responsible use of alcohol is simply the next one along the line. Certainly the problem of alcoholism cannot be denied but there is really no justification for expending this enormous sum on anti-drinking ads while refusing to ban ads by the liquor and beer manufacturers which encourage alcoholic consumption in the first place. The current consumer advertising is also in this class; and the current $600,000 campaign to promote seatbelt use is for a good cause but there is substantial evidence from other jurisdictions that the money will be spent to no effect.

These are examples of what I believe are an arrogant and irresponsible perversion of public funds, really, for the private benefit of the party in power and not for the enforcement or the education of the people of this province.

Just as the advertising industry must regulate itself to eliminate demand-creating promotions, governments also must adhere to strict guidelines in their own advertising. In general government advertisements should be restricted to messages which either inform residents of the steps they must take to benefit from some government programme or alert them to some danger. A government’s boasts and justifications should be channelled through the news media rather than displayed with public funds.

There are dozens of measures, Mr. Speaker, which the new Liberal government would be undertaking to attempt to bring spending under control and to reduce this government’s inflationary deficit. If the election is called soon, we will even be able to straighten out some of the mess in this budget before the next fiscal year. The greatest savings will result from a realignment of priorities within ministries rather than the outright elimination of particular programmes.

In the area of health, for instance, the largest spending department, our government will examine a whole range of cost-cutting measures which have been ignored by this government. While I cannot, of course, speak for whomsoever the new Liberal Minister of Health may be, I’m certain that he or she will examine items such as the following.

First of all, the abolition of OHIP premiums. Certainly no premiums are collected in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland or Manitoba. As the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare has stated:

“The costs of premium collection in some provinces, plus the fact that many millions of Canadians were unaccustomed to paying health insurance premiums, meant that the cost of attempting to collect premiums in some provinces did not justify the effort and within a few years the premium system was abandoned.”

Of course, there is the limitation of the number of health specialists. In larger centres like Toronto many specialists give primary care which could be provided by family practitioners at much lower cost. Once again, to quote M. LaLonde, we are tending towards an over-supply of doctors, particularly in some specialties. That’s not a very deep or very far-reaching remark, Mr. Speaker. It’s an obvious situation, one with which this province should grapple. We have to shift the focus away from care, away from extensive active treatment hospital care to alternative forms of ambulatory care.

One of the main contributing factors to the escalation in health costs has been this government’s failure to develop low-cost alternatives to high-cost services. Certainly there must be greater emphasis on preventive measures. The most obvious need is for physical fitness and recreational programmes for all ages. The high cost of automobile accidents in health care terms also demands tough action, at the very least in the area of driver education.

There has to be a revision of the present funding formula for hospitals, such as that for the per diem rate per bed which is an incentive to keep the bed occupied as the hospital can only collect money for it if it is filled. The per diem rate at North York General Hospital, for example, is $101.90 -- an astounding amount.

And, of course, the minister is going to have to look at a more sophisticated information system to provide easy access to information on what is being done in the hospital. At the present time there is very little information available which tells us where the fat is in the hospital budgets. A computer bank for the broad spectrum of management information would make it much easier to determine appropriate cost reductions.

There will likely be greater use of allied health professionals when the use of highly-paid physicians is not required. Nurse practitioners and midwives are only two examples of health professionals who could be used for certain types of care.

Better manpower planning is going to have to be looked at in the health service field as well. Certain specialties are overcrowded and others need more people. There is very little planning done on what the health manpower needs of the province will be and where they will be needed. Many doctors obviously stay in the large centres such as Toronto and generate their own business by having patients coming in for repeat visits, rather than working where they could be much better used to serve the people of this province.

Those are just some of the broad range of cost-cutting measures this government has ignored. Those are some of the alternatives which simply have been avoided and which the government shies away from implementing or even from examining.

There is another area in which cost reduction must concern all of us. The provincial government’s programme of imposing regional governments throughout Ontario is another extravagance that has to be stopped. The Premier has talked about getting economies by centralizing municipal decisions, but I believe he has been clearly proven wrong.

Mr. Deacon: He certainly has.

Mr. Breithaupt: His policy was wrong and it backfired. The dramatic increases in regional government costs are now adding to the inflationary pressures in our economy and are becoming an intolerable burden to taxpayers in these regions.

For example, in Waterloo county the cost of services taken over by the region increased 36 per cent in the first year of regional government. In one township, North Dumfries, costs increased 120 per cent. In the city of Waterloo, costs rose by 82 per cent The start-up costs in this region were $1.8 million; one quarter of this was paid by Ontario taxpayers and the remainder had to be raised locally. That balance of $1.35 million was a new burden on the taxpayers of the region. Ontario Provincial Police coverage was withdrawn, and this required 43 new regional police officers and expenses of more than $300,000.

Mr. Speaker, I should insert the comment at this point that there might have well been other increases that would have occurred whether or not regional government was put into effect. There might well have been costs -- and I have no doubt that there would be costs -- that would have naturally resulted if the entire framework had not changed at all. If all the townships, the towns or the villages had remained in the region of Waterloo, for example, then their costs would have gone up. But what we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that there is an additional burden, even beyond that reasonable increase, that must be laid at the door of regional government.

Waterloo’s experience has been felt by others right across this province. In the regional municipality of Muskoka, some residents are faced this year with tax increases of 500 per cent. We are informed by one man in Georgian Bay township who paid municipal taxes of $106 two years ago that he paid $496 on the same property last year. And we are informed, of course, that there are still more regions yet to come.

In Niagara the costs of running cities, villages and townships in 1969, the year before regional government was imposed, was $44 million. In 1970, with regional government, costs increased to $56 million, a 28 per cent increase. Regional government as well was introduced to Niagara in 1970 and the increase there was even worse. Costs grew from $21 million to $32 million in one year -- a stunning 51 per cent increase in Niagara. The costs of the regional portion of municipal government have continued to go up since 1970. Costs have been piled upon costs in the four years of regional government in Niagara; just as the annual cost of operating the regional government has jumped by 85.3 per cent, from $22 million to $41 million.

In Ottawa-Carleton, the regional municipality’s spending has risen 88 per cent in five years. The soaring expenditures affect all the taxpayers in Ontario, not just those living in the regional municipalities. The provincial treasury, Mr. Speaker, paid 47 per cent of all municipal government costs last year, which was a total of $2.7 billion. The excessive costs associated with regional government add unnecessarily to provincial government expenditures which are already at an inflationary level.

The Davis programme of implementing regional governments throughout southern Ontario, which despite a temporary hiatus is still scheduled for completion during this decade, should be abandoned. As a result, the rights of locally-elected councils to make independent decisions without Queen’s Park direction must be emphasized. The right to establish local planning goals and to implement these goals without the costly delays of Queens Park supervision must be returned to locally-elected councils. We certainly cannot support the continuation of this government’s extravagant efforts to centralize total and direct control of local government here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Speaker, we were treated today to a statement by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) with respect to certain programmes that will result from the Krauss-Maffei system that was to have resolved our particular problems within this province concerning urban transportation. We believe any government that was truly concerned about spending restraints would have abandoned the Krauss-Maffei system months ago. The government’s continuing expenditure on this wasteful and expensive technology belies any real commitment to trim the provincial budget.

Questions have been asked in the House today with respect to the total amount this project will have cost us from the date of its inception to today’s announcement. I’m looking forward to receiving that information, which was sought by the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), as it will be a very interesting commentary on the development of these kinds of programmes.

The system has been seriously discredited as a viable solution to Ontario’s urban transit problems. Even if it does work, it will be inferior to comparable but less expensive systems already in operation around the world. Urgently needed transit developments across the province are being delayed while the Premier and his Minister of Transportation and Communications continue to fritter away our tax dollars on their flying trains.

Mr. Speaker, there are a few more remarks I would like to make with respect to this particular subject before I begin what I hope will be some useful comments and criticisms on the detail involved of the budget. I must say before I adjourn the debate, Mr. Speaker, that I do appreciate particularly the attendance of the Treasurer throughout my remarks this afternoon.

Mr. Breithaupt moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Bounsall moves second reading of Bill 42, An Act to establish Matrimonial Property Rights.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill establishes certain matrimonial property rights for the spouses of a marriage quite simply, the purpose of the bill is to recognize that marriage is an equal partnership and at the time of a marriage breakup, either through a divorce or annulment, the total value of the combined assets acquired by the husband and the wife during marriage should be divided equally between them.

Mr. Speaker, the need for this arose quite clearly and was brought into sharp focus by the Murdoch case in Alberta. I think most people in Canada were shocked to find in that decision by the Supreme Court that not only was marriage not considered an equal partnership in terms of the assets of the spouse of that marriage, but that even where a person -- the one spouse in this case, Mrs. Murdoch -- had worked shoulder-to-shoulder in the business enterprise of that couple, that is the running of the farm, there was no account taken of the amount of labour which Mrs. Murdoch provided. She simply did not qualify for any of the assets which the two of them had jointly gathered as a result of her direct labours on the farm.

Chief Justice McRuer dissented in a very well-worded dissent, but in this respect, as they were considering the point of her labours on the farm, they had to view -- and he had to in his dissent -- that very narrow approach. In his dissent he said one should calculate and total up the value of the labour which the wife contributed along with her husband to the farm and some account should be taken of that labour rather than the somewhat wider view of recognizing that a marriage is a partnership. Even if one spouse’s contribution to that marriage and to that joint undertaking is simply running the home, looking after the children, providing the meals, the washing and other services, in spite of that, none of that is to be counted. None of that work, according to the courts, is worth anything.

What they are really saying is that all of that work -- in most cases, of course, on the part of the wife -- counts for nothing in terms of an asset division in the unfortunate circumstances of a divorce occurring. We are saying, Mr. Speaker, that this is not right.

Women are in a perennially and completely disadvantaged position when, upon a divorce, they find that none of their labours -- irrespective of what that labour is over the course of the years -- can be taken into account or is worth anything when the marriage breaks up and the assets of that marriage can be counted, can be enumerated on paper and some division made. She gets absolutely nothing. Not only should we look at any work she might do directly toward the business, be it a farm or shop or any other endeavour which the husband has got involved in, which is the case in most cases, but we should be looking at it in terms of dividing all of the assets equally.

The pity of the Murdoch case is that the decision which the Supreme Court made, a retrogressive decision, applies to all of Canada. Any change in the matrimonial property laws, unless a similar case can be brought through and another decision made, now rests in the jurisdiction of the provinces. And that’s a pity because most provinces can stay exactly where they are without much being said at all on division of property.

In the western provinces, I guess in Saskatchewan, there is a Homestead Act by which, if it is a homesteading situation, the wife does have a share in the house, the actual homestead. But in most provinces it is not looked after at all. We have the situation of 10 different property laws pertaining to marriage emerging across this country rather than a decision of the Supreme Court which could apply to all 10 provinces and which would clearly indicate some division of assets when a marriage breaks up.

My bill proposes that upon a divorce or annulment one simply totals up the assets of both spouses which have been acquired since marriage and one makes an equal division between the two spouses of all assets acquired since marriage -- a very simple proposal. It would require some accounting but leaves very little discretion to the judge involved.

This would, of course, include the matrimonial home. There are various proposals for dealing purely and simply with the matrimonial home quite separately. I am afraid with those proposals one might end up with the law of Ontario dealing simply with the matrimonial home and not with the total assets which both spouses in their own way have acquired since marriage. Dealing only with the matrimonial home in my opinion is not nearly good enough and is not nearly supportive of the efforts which in a marriage women continually make. That’s the principle which must be recognized in this bill; that marriage is a partnership and that the woman is an equal partner in that marriage and equally qualified to share in the assets which that partnership has jointly gained.

In speaking to it, I recognize I am phrasing it in terms of the wife being the one who doesn’t directly bring income into the family. This increasingly is not the case. The woman is working as much as the man, and in fact in some cases brings in more income than the man does; in many cases women have their own businesses. What we are saying is that when that’s the case there should still be an equal division, but in those many cases where the wife does not appear to contribute by working directly on the farm, has not put a downpayment on the farm -- such as in the Rathwell case in Saskatchewan -- irrespective of that and irrespective of whether she clerks in the store in which her husband works, her contribution to that marriage has to be recognized in an equal way.

In respect of the matrimonial home, I provided a clause in the bill where the matrimonial home cannot be sold without the consent of the other spouse except by a court order in trying to settle up the actual division which is taking place. On the matrimonial home what so often happens, or what could happen, is that the matrimonial home is sold out from under the one spouse who would most likely for some time at least want to inhabit or very much needs to inhabit that matrimonial home. So one cannot sell the matrimonial home without the consent of both spouses, but if one has to finally effect the asset settlement, the court could order that within a given time that matrimonial home be in fact sold to provide the settlement.

In thinking this over I have expanded on a couple of clauses in the bill which make it very clear what does happen. In terms of a gift or an inheritance, what I have proposed is that a gift or inheritance be not counted as an asset but any income produced or capital appreciation of that gift be taken into the division. This assumes, of course, that there is a separation of assets during marriage.

That’s a point over which there could be debate and discussion: When a marriage is formed and it’s a partnership, should there not be a completely combined financial situation? That may be a consideration; could we pass a bill that says during marriage all income must be equally shared? I don’t know how one polices that in a marriage. Really, in most marriages, certainly in my own, there is no really great excess of assets to share and everything that comes in gets spent on that family unit. If that wasn’t the case, one could pass it through legislation but I don’t see how one could enforce it.

So the bill presupposes a separation of assets. I don’t see how it could be adequately enforced. A gift or inheritance which comes to either is not included in that division of assets, but certainly any capital appreciation on that gift or inheritance is an asset which comes as a result of the marriage and during that marriage, and that should be part of the split.

In looking at the bill, I have also included a phrase in which, except by consent of both spouses in writing, no child shall share in the division of the assets upon a divorce or nullity. I think that is fair, in that upon divorce, what I am saying is that the continued operating support of the children of the marriage should be still, as it is, be the result of a decision. The custody of the children and the decision on the amount of the operating support of that child should stay where it is, a matter of the family court. Nothing should change in that respect. Whoever gets the custody of the children, when the custody is determined then the family court works out exactly what continuing operating expense should accrue to the spouse who doesn’t have the direct care and problems of feeding and clothing and bringing up of those children. That remains where it is.

We’re talking purely and simply about an equal division of the assets that have accrued during that marriage; the lump sum capital situation, if you like, divided equally. In that case there’s no reason for the children to have it. The operating funds for the children are determined in the same way as they always have been, so I see no reason for the children to share. Deliberately, including a nonsharing clause in the bill makes the division of assets at that time much simpler.

I also place a limitation on gifts. Under a bill of this sort on property rights, one could envisage a situation where the one spouse determines that their marriage is to end, and in order to circumvent the division of assets in this bill, decides that he or she will give away large portions of their individual assets. In any event, in most cases these are the combined assets which the two of them are living on. Rut in order to prevent that, I have a phrase in here which says gifts to another person or persons shall not exceed three per cent of the individual assets of that person in the year prior to the commencement of the action for divorce or nullity, based upon the highest or the greatest asset which that person has in that year.

So if a marriage is breaking up and divorce is going to result, at least in the entire year prior to the commencement of that action, there would be no way in which the one spouse can, in fact, make gifts to a third party, which they might hope to recover after. I have it for a year period, but that could be a longer period. What I really wanted to guard against in that area was one spouse giving away a lot of those assets and not having it for the division when the time comes for the division, and I’ve put it one year prior to the commencement of the action.

If one wanted to plan very carefully, one could, of course, give a lot of assets away and somehow not have the commencement of the action until more than a year after that point. But I would think that one spouse might be rather suspicious if the other spouse gave away a lot of their assets to a third party in an action with which that spouse didn’t agree. It is not likely a whole year would go by before the spouse who didn’t agree would bring some sort of action, knowing the details of the bill.

I’m easy on that particular portion. I’m interested to hear what other members have to say around that point on how one prevents this.

I might say that a lot of the ideas I had for the bill came out from the Law Reform Commission report on the division of marriage. They recognized marriage as a partnership and proposed this sort of system of accounting at the time of a marriage breakdown.

One other point certainly interests me, Mr. Speaker, and that is the common law situation. We have in the Employment Standards Act a section dealing with equal benefits. The committee setting out to look at the Human Rights Code, which had a clause, 4 (1)(g), that, dealt with benefits not necessarily needing to be equal, have reported on that. They have said virtually every benefit to a woman or man in the workplace must be equal, except for differences that relate directly to the one sex as on an actuarial basis for life insurance and pension plans. They tried to find a definition of common law in the discussion of the Labour estimates and again in that section of the Act. It was brought to their attention that one definition of common law to pertain to all particular benefits may not be the way to arrive at a definition of common law, and for particular benefits they may have to define common law in particular terms.

In the matter of two persons in a common-law relationship seeking to obtain family rates for OHIP, they simply declare that relationship; that’s the practice now, and it is accepted. It also has the advantage of indicating a date at which time the common-law situation came into existence. A date of this sort could well be that one used in clause 6 of the bill, where I talk about the same application of everything else I have said applying to a common-law relationship.

I have defined common law, not so much as I would define common law but using a definition that’s already in vogue in the Province of Ontario. In the Workmen’s Compensation Act, a common-law union is defined as a couple who have declared themselves as man and wife -- this can be checked, of course, by the date on which their family OHIP starts -- who have lived together for six years without children or for two years where there are children of that marriage. In that instance, if one spouse is killed in the work place, the death benefits that apply to a spouse apply directly in the common-law case on the basis of their definition of a union of six years without children or two years with children. I think those time periods can be shortened.

Perhaps a simple declaration that a man and wife are in fact living common law should be enough for this bill and with respect to the possible division of assets, whether it be a short period or a long period. Over a short period, of course, there wouldn’t have been many assets acquired jointly between them during marriage, so there would be very little to divide; If it lasted a long time, then there would be somewhat more.

I feel we cannot rule out common-law unions. We can find a date for them to start if they hold themselves out as living together. At least we should have in the bill the phrase in the Workmen’s Compensation Act respecting payments to the spouse of a person who has been killed in the work place. That at least should be the definition for common-law unions for all the other divisions of property for an actual married person as under the Act.

In the common-law situation, Mr. Speaker, I can envisage a case of one individual having perhaps three common-law relationships that went on for some time over the period of his or her life, and those three relationships breaking down at some point. Then, at the time of each breakdown, there would simply be a division of the joint assets they had acquired during that common-law relationship, the same as if that person had been married three times in the course of a lifetime and the division of assets occurring. Of course, the remarriage of one spouse will not affect the payment they are to receive under this division of assets.

The bill also allows for the payment to be made over a period of time; it is the one area of discretion which I do give to the judge in this case. There might be a case where one could argue that where a business enterprise is involved, a farm or a business of any sort, and division of the capital appreciation of the business since marriage would cause a real hardship to the farm or the business enterprise, that they could, be paid over a period of time. The period of time I have suggested is reasonably short, but one over which the business or the farm could continue to operate. I have suggested that the payment be not less than yearly and that there be periodic payments to. be made not less than yearly and over a period not to exceed three years from the date, of the final decree.

In summation, Mr. Speaker, the women in this province, particularly, and in our country have been disadvantaged over their property rights. They’ve tended to be in a situation, where, unless a couple worked things out very carefully between them, there’s no way in which the woman can have a share of the assets which they worked together to achieve in that partnership. We need some very immediate redress of this situation and it’s now fallen to the provinces to provide that redress and that protection to both spouses in the marriage.

I would hope that other members of this House would feel that way and see the justice of the case which basically says that irrespective of whether one spouse does not directly contribute to the farm or the business enterprise of the other spouse -- even if they contribute to the marriage only by sustaining the other spouse in the many ways they do -- when a divorce occurs, that unfortunate situation, the assets they’ve acquired between them during the marriage should be divided equally between them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend the member for Windsor West for bringing forward this bill and for establishing in his preamble, as proposed, a statement which is welcomed by people across this province. There has to be an acceptance that marriage is a socio-economic partnership of equals and since that preamble sets the tone, I have to say with some great regret that I cannot follow all of the provisions within this Act because it does seem to me that there is some real problem with parts of it.

First of all, I have come to the conclusion that we must, somehow, cause a vesting in each of the partners at the time of the marriage. This may cause problems; I recognize that, too. There are a great many women who have been fighting for this kind of reform for a long time who believe that this type of legislation is coming forward now because more and more women are supporting the family. Therefore, again, it is in essence to their disadvantage not to have a little time when they may have their money to themselves. However, that is not my point.

One looks at this and, again, we have the problem that it all takes effect only on the breakdown of the marriage. It has been pointed out that we look in this bill to the common-law relationship. One of the things I don’t think has been taken into consideration is that we have a marriage, we’ll say, and there is a desertion by one of the partners and a common-law relationship established while the marriage is, to all intents and purposes, an ongoing relationship.

This has been one of the real problems, Mr. Speaker, in the family court with judges trying to come up with an award for the wife and children and still recognizing the needs of the common-law family. This, does not really overcome that kind of a problem. It simply says that somebody is going to have to sort this darn thing out as to who is the wife, within the meaning of this bill, having in mind the provision for the two types of relationship. That is one of the reasons I say it seems to me that if we’re going to make this work, there has to be a vesting at the time of marriage. I just point that out, recognizing fully the problems which evolve from it.

As I stand here and speak to this bill, concerned as I am with real problems and looking at the way this government approaches these difficulties, it all seems so futile. This government has practised the elimination of protection without granting equality of opportunity. It is interesting that one of the newest amendments that we’ve had, which is under the child welfare legislation, is that this government has moved to make it abundantly clear that both spouses may have orders made against them for the protection of the child. But let us preserve in the concrete that piece of Dickens, the fact that the child’s religion must follow that of the father!

One of the things that isn’t taken into consideration fully, it seems to me, is the family concept of property law, because what you can get from this is that each of the spouses will have an equal division. One of them is going to be more equal than the other. One of them is going to end up looking after children probably out of their share, because that doesn’t seem to be provided for anywhere in this kind of division.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we could have an acceptance of the philosophy of the equality of the partnership in marriage, that we could at the same time regard this kind of reform as a family reform and that we could get away from that awful business of trying to make it out as a reform for women, although the need at this point in time is for the protection of women.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I do want to say that as far as I am concerned we must accept this principle, but we must work to a common vesting at the time of marriage and there must still be some provision for the protection of children within this kind of legislation as I see it. I am sorry that I can’t be quite as wholeheartedly in support as I would like to be able to be, but I trust that the person introducing this bill will recognize that my concerns are very real and that I’m not raising points simply to be disputive about it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Renfrew South.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this private member’s bill, Bill 42, An Act to establish Matrimonial Property Rights.

The member for Windsor West who introduced the bill did mention that many of the ideas used in putting together this bill came from recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. It would appear that almost all of them did. I don’t find any fault with that.

I think the bill is a beginning; it’s a start. I think this type of legislation is perhaps long past due. As a matter of fact, I believe the government is presently preparing legislation similar to this, and probably legislation that will go much further. At any rate, things and times have changed. The day we had few or no working mothers certainly differs from the Sixties and especially the Seventies, when the female partner is today probably contributing in some instances as much, and in other instances perhaps more than the male partner of the union.

So there is a great need for such legislation. Some things bother me about this bill. I think the government can use it as a basis for legislation that I understand is under consideration, but there do not seem to be enough safeguards in it, especially when it comes to disposition of the matrimonial home. I see where the Law Reform Commission recommended an exception, and it read as follows:

“If at the time the legislation is passed the wife is the registered owner, the husband will only become co-owner if there is evidence sufficient to satisfy the court that the parties have agreed that the husband should share in the ownership of the home.”

We don’t have that kind of safeguard, but I don’t think that safeguard is even enough, because let’s look at a hypothetical situation. Let’s say we have a widow who is being courted, she has a fine home worth many thousands of dollars, and during the courtship or immediately after the marriage she does agree with her husband that the home should be equally shared or, if sold, the money equally shared when the home is disposed of. But that is really no safeguard for such a widow, in my opinion.

I think the member for Windsor West used some good reasoning when he looked at the common-law situation where, it is recommended, in section 6:

“Where a man and woman hold themselves out as being man and wife and have lived together continuously for a period of at least six years without children, or continuously for a period of two years where there are children, the provisions of this Act shall apply to the man and the woman as if they were husband and wife.”

There is some kind of safeguard there. I would hope that when the Act is put together and presented to the Legislature there would be a similar safeguard for all marriage situations and not only the common-law situation. I think that clause should apply to all. I know that one can pick up a paper almost any day and read of unusual situations with regard to matrimonial disputes and the disposition of the assets, and that is why I think we have to have a time clause inserted there and certain other safeguards to ensure that neither husband nor wife is done out in any way whatsoever.

I think the rest of the bill has much merit, but as I said at the outset, it’s a start. It’s a beginning. It’s possibly too simple. I think all of us in today’s society are looking for the simple solutions to everything. I think the member for Windsor West possibly had that in mind when he worked on putting this piece of legislation together. It seems to be a simple solution. It doesn’t go deep enough. It doesn’t cover all the areas that need covering. It lacks certain safeguards, and for that reason I could only halfheartedly support him in this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker:. The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join briefly in the debate in support of the principle of the bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Windsor West.

I had occasion early in this session to write to the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) to ask what his intentions were with respect to the former Bill 117, which was introduced into the assembly by his predecessor. I understood in the reply which the present Attorney General gave to me, that a similar bill would be introduced in this session.

I think, however, I must make it clear to the House -- and the distinction is quite clear that the question of the interest of husband and wife in marital property is not dealt with in Bill 117; and presumably will not be dealt with by the government when it introduces its new bill.

I listened with interest to what the member for Renfrew South had to say about the intentions of the government -- that it may be that the bill will include provisions dealing with marital property when the new bill is introduced. Well, so be it. We will welcome it, if that is the case.

I think if I can perhaps generalize for a moment, it was rather trite law, but needed to be said when we were engaged in this kind of legal study at law school -- which is now many, many years ago -- that while you could have an agreement to marry, nevertheless, once the ceremony of marriage took place, you created a status in each of the persons to that marriage which was not subject to contract in many and most of its incidences. It might be possible, by a suitable agreement, to vary certain incidences of that status relationship, but then only with respect to property and then only in very limited ways.

It’s very strange, of course, but the feudal system was based on the conception of status of people. And the movement away from the feudal society to the kind of society in which we presently live -- if in these words it could be referred to as a latter-day version of some form of liberal democracy -- has not altered in any significant way the status created by which, in substance, the wife is considered to be inferior to the husband and dependent upon the husband.

Now, my colleague, the member for Windsor West, has modelled his bill to fill the defect which was inherent in Bill 117. I would suggest that perhaps we can go beyond the provisions of the bill, which my colleague had introduced and which, of course, I support. I support it because it reflects in substance the family law study, the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. But I want to say that I am not at all certain -- as my friend, the member for St. George, has said -- that it is possible within strict legal rules to establish criteria with respect to mutual relationships of man and woman in a married context, when they are living in the kind of society in which we are living.

I am concerned that if we try to codify the rules of that relationship in a statute, we may very well be reinforcing the remnant of a status concept of the, marriage relationship, rather than moving to a relationship of agreement. I don’t want to quote it at any great length, but in the Law Reform Commission report, they opened their foreword by saying: “More and more, marriage is being. recognized as an economic partnership in which both husband and wife have an equal stake.” But they do not carry that thought through in relation to the subsistence of the marriage, but purport only to deal with what takes place upon the dissolution of the marriage and what has been termed by those lawyers who have studied this particular problem some form of deferred community of property interest. It is deferred until the dissolution of the marriage either by nullity, by divorce or by death. Then certain consequences follow with respect to the property rights of the parties to that marriage.

That doesn’t in any way provide any support for the proposition, which I believe to be of importance, that the marriage relationship at least in one of its aspects is an economic relationship. I think it is fair to say that the Law Reform Commission attempted to say that, because, having dealt with other aspects of the marriage relationship -- the personal/private relationships, the relationship of love and affection and support -- it goes on to say on page 15 of the report:

“On a secular basis marriage can be characterized as an economic arrangement that assumes the dependency of the wife upon the husband within a legal framework that is designed to provide a remedy for the wife if the husband’s obligation to maintain her is not properly discharged.”

It is that relationship which I think has to be dealt with by agreement during the subsistence of the marriage, by agreement entered into prior to the marriage. That doesn’t mean that we can legislate what that agreement is. I think it is possible to devise an agreement which would reflect the reciprocal relations of the parties to that marriage in such a way that would encompass not only the property interest but other interests as well.

Strangely enough, I had occasion to be in England last fall and I picked up the Penguin Special, “Women’s Rights: Practical Guide” by Anne Coote and Tess Gill. In the appendix to that particular volume I found a draft of a proposed marriage contract, having nothing to do with the end of the marriage but having to do with the beginning and the inception of the marriage. I’d like very briefly, because it is of interest, to quote that agreement. It is not to say that the agreement can’t be varied -- there may be different feelings about different paragraphs in it -- but it says a number of things which I think have to be said. This suggested draft agreement, which I believe would be legally enforceable -- it would be very interesting to see whether it could be -- is as follows:

“This agreement is made on the 1st day of January, so-and-so between Gloria Smith of Manchester, England (hereinafter called the Woman) and Sam Bloggs of London, England (hereinafter called the Man).

“Whereas:

“1. The Woman and Man intend to marry.

“2. The Woman and Man wish to enter into an agreement which they intend to be legally binding upon them, as to their own respective rights within marriage, obligations towards any children of the marriage and interest in any property owned jointly and separately by them.

“3. The Woman and Man wish to establish the principle that they both have equal rights in all matters concerning their life together and their respective development as individuals and that all such matters should be settled between them in mutual agreement.

“4. The said principle shall be the guiding principle even when it conflicts with financial considerations.

“Now in consideration of the above agreement and of the intended marriage it is hereby agreed:

“1. The Woman and Man agree that each shall be entitled to retain for all purposes after the marriage their own respective names before the marriage. They agree that when they have children they will adopt a joint family name, there being no prior assumption that this should be the name of the Man.

“2. The Woman and Man shall each be entitled to work and to engage in vocational and social activities as each chooses. Should either of them who has not previously been working outside the home decide to take up an occupation or should either of them decide to continue her or his education, they agree to support each other in attaining their objectives.

“3. The Woman and Man agree to plan their lives in such a way that the Woman may combine her work and any vocational and social activities with motherhood and that the upbringing of any children of the marriage shall not disrupt or restrict the work and vocational and social activities of one party more than of the other.”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I point out that the member’s time has expired?

Mr. Renwick: May I just complete this? I only have --

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): We are ahead of time because the member for Renfrew South was very brief.

Mr. Speaker: Are we short of speakers?

Mr. Renwick: If I may, I think it would be interesting to have it on the record. It continues:

“4. The Woman and Man agree that the responsibility for the upbringing of any children of the marriage and for the domestic work of the home shall be shared equally between them.

“5. The Woman and Man agree that they shall decide jointly where the family home shall be with equal consideration as to the needs of each other. The fact that one of them may earn more than the other as a result of employment in a certain place shall not allow that one to decide where they shall live.

“6. The Woman and Man agree that they shall have equal interests in any premises occupied by them as the family home, so that if the legal title to such premises is vested in one party such title shall be held in trust for both parties in equal shares.

“7. The Woman and Man agree that all property owned separately by them before the marriage shall remain their separate property unless such property shall be occupied as the family home, in which case the above clause applies. Any property owned jointly by them before the marriage shall remain their joint property, and on sale the proceeds shall belong to them in equal shares.

“8. The Woman and Man agree that all property acquired after the marriage for their joint use shall be jointly owned. All property acquired after the marriage for the sole use of either party shall remain separate property of that party.

“9 (a) The Woman and Man agree that while they both maintain separate bank accounts the moneys in each bank account shall belong to the party whose name it is in.

“(b) Should they decide at any time to open a joint bank account, the moneys in that account shall belong to both in equal shares.

“(c) If at any time one of them is not in full-time paid employment because of childbirth or responsibilities of caring for the children of the marriage, they both shall transfer all moneys into a joint bank account but, failing this, half the moneys earned during such a period by the one who is employed shall belong to the other.

“10. The Woman and Man shall, as far as it is reasonable to do so, share equally in the management and control of any jointly held income and property.

“11. The Woman and Man agree that they shall be equally liable to meet the common expenses of the family home, including all necessary outgoings such as rent and mortgage payments, rates, electricity and the expenses of maintaining the children, in proportion to their respective incomes.

“In witness whereof the parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written.”

Mr. Speaker, in very briefly closing, it seems to me that that kind of conception of marriage is consistent with what the Law Reform Commission report stated in its foreword and which was the theme. It seems to me to be a much more reasonable approach to the problem than to provide for some Draconian solution only upon the dissolution of the marriage by death, divorce or nullity. It seems to me that that approach to the marriage relationship might well be one which could find favour in an assembly such as this and would reflect in a very real way, with whatever mutual changes the parties may wish to make to such an agreement, what the marriage relationship is all about so that it will cease to be futile, so that the agreement will subsist throughout the marriage and will apply not only throughout the marriage but will also deal with matters at the time of dissolution.

Needless to say, I support my colleague’s bill. I just wanted to put on the record this rather more different aspect of the same problem.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to just add a few comments. I found the last speaker’s description of the model marriage contract a very interesting approach and maybe it is the way that we should be dealing with the whole basic problem that the member is endeavouring to fulfil in this bill that he has brought before us.

I think he is to be congratulated in putting the matter before us. I think we have waited so long for the Conservatives to do something about it that it’s no wonder that he has decided that something has to be done to clear up the cause of very many serious hardships, not only in the breakup of marriage but in the existing marriages.

That’s what makes me lean so much toward the approach that has just been suggested of having a contract which is entered into by either party that can be amended before the marriage. But it’s clearly understood that the law provides for that type of recognition unless the two sides, before they entered into the marriage, decide to change it otherwise. Many couples may decide they’d rather work in a different way. Many believe a marriage would he stronger if each party had their very definite properties and rights and individual positions, and that the marriage would be stronger because they are kept separate. And of course that agreement does provide for that to some extent.

The one thing that I have noted in discussing this matter with others in the community is the problem that exists in existing marriages where there is a feudal relationship on the part of the wage earner with the spouse who’s at home looking after the family -- a failure to give that person the individual freedom of choice. The strength of that position is very important, in my mind, to a happy marriage. After looking at the bill, I see many little individual problems that are brought in by a bill of this sort, and I would like to mention a few of them.

For example, the question of the gifts during the previous year. Sometimes marriages have broken down very quickly, and during the previous year there’s been a substantial gift given here or there. How is that going to be accounted for in this? Why do we have to have it provided for this way? I think it’s maybe better to recognize that three per cent or 10 per cent, or something like that, may be a decision that was taken by an individual, that he or she felt they had the right to make a gift and it should be possible to make that gift.

We certainly know of the classic case of a gift by a spouse in the Windsor case of Mr. Cohen, where he made a gift and he had an unexpected result.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Everybody knows him.

Mr. Deacon: Everyone knows him. But that’s a situation where people should recognize that unless they have mutual trust there’s not much of a marriage to begin with, and Mr. Cohen is certainly paying the price himself for what happened.

One of the clauses that concerns me is this matter of payments in a period not to exceed three years from the date of the final decree. That could be very tight, because even the succession duty department recognizes five years and will stretch that to 10 years if it sees that that would be the basis of destroying the source of the income or the business that was the major asset here. I think there should be provision for some flexibility there.

Another clause I’m concerned about is the one dealing with the common-law relationship. What if couples don’t hold themselves out to be man and wife? Many don’t; but the terminology says “they hold themselves out to be man and wife or have lived together for a period of six years.” It seems to me that if they’ve lived together then this should apply. That’s something to think about, because a lot of people don’t hold themselves out as husband and wife, and the standard contract that we are thinking about here in the new legislation, which some of us feel would be appropriate, should apply if they have lived together for six years, or if they’ve lived together for two years and have children.

These are just some of the points through which, as an amateur in this matter of the law but as a pro in a matter of trying to work out a happy marriage relationship, I hope I’ve been able to contribute a little bit to the debate.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes the private members’ hour.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I would like to announce the business for tomorrow and Thursday. Because there is some urgency in regard to the tax bills, we will proceed immediately with them tomorrow. If members will write down the numbers they’ll know precisely the order they will be called in. It will be 8, 9, 19 and 20, to be followed by 10 through 15.

If perchance, following that, there is time on Thursday, I would then call order No. 16. I would give notice now that the House will sit on Thursday evening.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The bills are for tomorrow, are they?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, right through that period. Then we will return, following the conclusion of these bills, to the debate before the House.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 o’clock, p.m.