The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of privilege? It is small but I wish to have it on the record. It relates to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), so perhaps I can say it.

On the 6 p.m. broadcast of Wednesday, April 23, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was interviewed on CKEY about the report of the study on sex and violence which had been a subject to some controversy. He began the interview by saying -- and I quote from the tape: “This idea of Mr. Lewis receiving stolen goods and making it public ... ”

Mr. Speaker, apart from the unpleasantness of that kind of thing coming from the minister, I just want to say very simply, as I think he knows, that the woman who wrote the report, the researcher, phoned me during the day and offered me the document. I said, “Why not?” and accepted it. I wouldn’t have thought that could be classified as stolen goods. I would think a minister of the Crown should exercise a little more caution about what he says on such circumstances.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Or have the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) charge the member.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the statement by the hon. member, I would just like to comment on the point of privilege which he has raised. Whether or not this document was the property of the government and was taken by someone else I think is a question of fact, not a question of privilege.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): There is no question of comment on this at all. It requires an apology.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: What does the minister mean by “it is a question of fact”? Is he going to charge me under the Criminal Code? What does he spout such nonsense on the air for?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: This minister and the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White) and his racism --

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, I may have a little bit of privilege here too. It seems to me that the member for Scarborough West said he hoped I was titillated by reading it when I got it in 1971.

Mr. Lewis: I didn’t say I hoped he was.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): That was slanderous.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think he had subsequently found that I did not receive it. Mr. Guindon, I believe, was the Minister of Tourism and Information at that time.

Mr. Lewis: In fact, I said that Mr. Guindon received it.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I didn’t receive it but since the member for Scarborough West received it, I wonder if he found it titillating?

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Mr. Renwick: One thing the Speaker doesn’t know how to do is to deal with questions of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: If someone else in this Legislature accused a cabinet minister of a criminal offence, he would intervene.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have no jurisdiction over what has been said outside the Legislature. I think the hon. member realizes that. I let him make his explanation and that was it.

Mr. Lewis: All right, but that is not the way to deal with it.

Mr. Renwick: The Speaker knows what a question of privilege is and he should deal with it properly.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing for me to deal with when it is said outside the Legislature. The hon. minister.

COMMODITY FUTURES

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to place before the Legislature today, the report of the interministerial committee on commodity futures trading.

This study was proposed by my predecessor (Mr. Clement) acting upon the recommendations of the Ontario Securities Commission. The purpose of the study was to examine the commodity futures market with a view to:

1. Establishing the appropriate regulatory mechanisms to control and regulate trading in commodity futures in the Province of Ontario in order to protect the customers of commodity futures brokers, and

2. To determine the desirability of encouraging the establishment of an exchange for the trading in commodity futures contracts in Ontario.

With the increasing interest among investors in trading in commodity futures contracts, my ministry was aware of the lack of regulations in Ontario and of the frauds which had been perpetrated in the United States, particularly in California, through commodity option trading.

Because of the implications of the trading and its potential effect on the price of commodities in the agricultural, mineral and forest product fields, economic planning, the application of criminal law, as well as investor protection, representatives were nominated from five Ontario government ministries. These were the ministries of: Attorney General, Agriculture and Food, Treasury and Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, Natural Resources, and Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The committee, which represented a range of disciplines, was chaired by Harry S. Bray, QC, vice-chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission, and included:

Dr. Thomas P. Mohide, director of the mineral resources branch and former president of the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange;

Martin J. Jaeger, senior economist with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food;

David E. Redgrave, executive director of the office of economic policy, TEIGA;

Edward F. Then, counsel from the criminal appeals and special prosecutions branch of the Attorney General; and

Mrs. Dagmar A. Staff, senior economist, and Barry Tocher, senior programme analyst, from my ministry.

The committee, assisted by Keith E. Boast, as study director, and Robert M. Rickover, an economist with TEIGA, examined the problems flowing from commodity trading and the regulatory solutions devised in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.

It examined the kinds of commodity contracts offered for sale in Ontario, the qualifications of the persons at present trading as brokers and as advisers, and have recommended legislation directed to a registration system concerned not only with the honesty, reputation and competence of the persons who would be permitted to act as commodity futures brokers but also the kinds of contracts which would be permitted to be traded in Ontario under the proposed Act.

The report does not find a present need for a commodity futures exchange in Ontario. However, it recommends that the proposed legislation include the regulatory framework within which such an exchange could be established.

Mr. Speaker, the report will be placed before the justice policy field committee for consideration. Copies have been furnished to all members of this House. Those who presented briefs to the committee and other interested parties will be supplied with copies. To assist in reviewing the report and its recommendations, submissions will be welcome.

While the report is not a textbook on commodity futures trading, I believe it provides a helpful review of the subject from a regulatory point of view.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REPORT ON PORNOGRAPHY

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m today filing with the Clerk a copy of a report submitted to the government in 1971 entitled, “Perspectives on Pornography.” This report, which has been variously described --

Mr. Singer: Has the minister got that stolen document?

Mr. Lewis: The minister is too much.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- as hidden, secret and even titillating, is simply a report commissioned by the then Minister of Tourism and Information (Mr. Auld) for the purpose of obtaining reliable information on which to base certain policy decisions by the Ontario Censor Board.

It has been alleged that the report makes unnecessary the royal commission on violence in the media announced by the Premier (Mr. Davis) a short time ago. I would like to advise the House that the purpose of the inquiry, although related, was certainly not the same as that of the royal commission. In a memorandum to the minister in 1970, the consulting firm engaged to conduct the inquiry and prepare the report stated:

“The goals of this inquiry are two-fold. Namely, to formulate and execute a research design disclosing,

“1. The empirically informed contentions of professions, i.e., objective criteria, and

“2. The existential content of community standards with reference to obscenity, particularly filmic obscenity, i.e., subjective criteria.”

Mr. Lewis: The existential standards. The minister is impossible.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are not my words; I end the quote.

The consultants conducted no original research.

Mr. Lewis: Nonsense! They did a complete original questionnaire.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Their primary goal was to compile and evaluate critically the information which was available at that time, that is, in 1970 and 1971, and to report to the minister without recommendations, but to formulate certain conclusions based on the research which had been done by others.

Having read the report and having witnessed some of the violence which has been produced by film makers both in North America and abroad, I am more than ever convinced that the royal commission on violence in the media is not only justified but is urgently required.

The report which I am filing today is a scholarly treatise, valuable but out of date --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It is like this government.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Five years late.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- and devoid of the kind of original research required to deal with this most serious societal problem.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Why did the government suppress it for five years? I give up on existentialism after 12 years around this place.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the question period I recognize the hon. member for Peel South.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South):. Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce in the east and west galleries students from Glen Forest Secondary School with their teachers, Mrs. Stroud, Mrs. LaRoche, Mr. Stroud and Mrs. Smith. Would the members join me in welcoming this group?

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The member for Kitchener.

ONTARIO LOTTERY

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development with respect to Wintario lottery: In the absence of the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He is absent every day.

Mrs. Campbell: It’s a continuing absence.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- if the ticket sales are as successful as we have been informed they are, can the minister advise what reason there is for the continuing advertising campaign? And will that commitment for advertising costs of some $1.5 million be able to be cut back, with some savings, if in fact the programme is otherwise so successful?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that everyone is aware of the success of the lottery. In my own community it is impossible and has been impossible even to buy a ticket. But the lottery is under the control of the lottery board and those are internal decisions. However, I will pass along that information to the minister responsible.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): Supplementary: Would the policy secretary indicate that in those cases where distributors of lottery tickets are making excessive profits because they have not followed the instructions of the lottery board to distribute the tickets properly, an investigation will be made and those people will be removed from those jobs?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the distributors are the same ones who have been responsible for the Olympic lottery. They were all appointed by the federal government. The arrangement, because it was most important to get this under way, was that we would use the same distributors. But there will be some changes made, I would anticipate.

Mr. Singer: They weren’t appointed by the federal government at all.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I would just like to make a point that they weren’t appointed by the federal government, they were appointed by the Quebec Lotteries Commission --

Mr. Singer: That’s the same thing.

An hon. member: That’s the federal government?

Mr. R. S. Smith: -- under Mr. Drapeau, who is perhaps a closer friend of the minister’s party.

An hon. member: Mr. Drapeau is a leader of the Tory party in Montreal.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mais oui. The member is informed.

Mr. Singer: A Frenchman is a Frenchman, eh?

Mr. Speaker: Are there further questions?

The member for Kitchener.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Natural Resources --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Resources Development.

Mr. Breithaupt: Resources Development, yes -- with respect to the announcement now concerning the increased cost structure which Ontario Hydro is seeking. Since the last increase was effective on Jan. 1, 1975, and there has been no increase in the cost of oil since that date, can the minister advise us if this increased cost requirement is going to destroy the third consideration of the Ontario budget with respect to the assumption of stable energy prices during 1975, or if this kind of an increase is presumed to be acceptable to the government?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the government is, of course, doing everything to avoid an increase in the cost of everything --

Mrs. Campbell: Including energy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member will appreciate that this is not 100 per cent possible in view of increases all the way down the line. However, with regard to the specific question, my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) will be here on Monday and he has already announced publicly that he will have a statement in respect of this matter.

Mr. Lewis: Somebody should be here today to answer that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Answer what?

Mr. Lewis: We’ll ask the questions.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s going before the ministry --

Mr. Lewis: That’s no answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s going before the Energy Board. They will have to justify --

Mr. Lewis: That was an answer once. No more is that an answer.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): It looks as if the Premier took one stand in Ottawa and a different one here.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There’s no question either.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Was the member for Scarborough West calm on Fraser Kelly’s programme?

Mr. Lewis: Was I calm on Fraser Kelly’s programme? Wonderfully: I was in my own home.

May I ask the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development how much of the intended increase of 30 per cent is intended for the capital requirements of Hydro and how much is a simple additional rate increase?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, would be part of the evidence presented at the hearings of the Energy Board, and to pre-empt the Energy Board in terms of the basis on which it will make its decision would be presumptuous of anyone at this stage.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I can follow it up by way of a new question.

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary: With respect to the other comment alleged to have been made by the chairman, does the minister have any comment with respect to the views set out by Mr. Taylor, who was quoted as saying natural gas prices have already doubled and probably will double again by next year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The only comment I would make on that, Mr. Speaker, is that I would hope that Mr. Taylor’s comments and his prophecies are not correct.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

POLICING COSTS IN WEST LINCOLN

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the policing costs in the township of West Lincoln. Can the minister advise the House about the situation whereby the Ontario Provincial Police apparently are policing that portion of Niagara region when in effect about $225,000 is being paid by the township officials to the regional government for police services which the township officials apparently are not prepared to accept, thereby of course resulting in a greater cost and perhaps using the resources of the Ontario Provincial Police unnecessarily?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, this matter has been touched on in the past. I think I can explain the rationale this way: In the development of the regional police force about four years ago now, I suppose, the Ontario Provincial Police at that time had jurisdiction over certain of the King’s highways, and it is my understanding that jurisdiction is being phased out -- not in one fell swoop, but gradually. Since we have a detachment at Niagara Falls, I have some connection with the situation. My understanding is that the jurisdiction will be phased out over a period of time, and the resources of the Ontario Provincial Police or a substantial portion of them will be diverted into other areas of the province that need policing. But rather than do it all at once, with the new regional police taking over and in view of the difficulties of phasing in a new large force, the OPP remained there and has retained jurisdiction over certain regionalization, which I believe occurred on Jan. 1, 1970.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, is the minister indicating that the OPP force in the village of Crystal Beach, now in the town of Fort Erie, will be also removed? Is he aware that there are about 20 officers who cover one hundred square miles and that such a move would add an additional burden to the regional police force?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am aware that for a number of years the Ontario Provincial Police had contractually provided police services to that particular part of the Niagara area. But eventually, I am certain, that will be phased out and the regional police will assume jurisdiction over the entire region. There is little point in having a regional police force if within that region you have pockets, being communities, hamlets or villages, where policing is being maintained by the OPP or a small force. It just cannot continue that way forever.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Attorney General for his comments on the opinions as reported from Mr. Hodgkins, the mayor of the township, to the effect: “The way things are working out now, we just don’t want the regional force. We will pay without argument our share to keep them out.” Does the minister not think this kind of an approach is going to require some missionary work by himself as a member in that area or, indeed, as Attorney General, so that the timetable that is expected by the government is clear and so that these matters are presumably resolved in the best interests of the taxpayers of the area?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am sorry, I didn’t catch the name or the position of the person he quoted.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mayor Hodgkins, of the township of West Lincoln.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Oh, West Lincoln. I should advise the members of the House that this matter was discussed, as a matter of fact, as recently as yesterday, not as it pertains to Niagara but as it pertains to the entire province, particularly in areas where there have been regional governments established. As members know, there is a regional government in the Ottawa-Carleton area but there is not a regionalization of the police forces in that particular area. I think there are four forces within the regional Ottawa-Carleton area maintaining police supervision at the present time.

I would also add that we would not move, or recommend a move, quickly in any particular area without sufficient lead time to those communities affected, but I can see little purpose in having a portion of an area such as Crystal Beach, which was touched on by the member for Welland South, being covered by the Ontario Provincial Police and the rest of the area by the regional police. But as I pointed out, the OPP are in other parts of the region of Niagara too, and perform a very worthwhile function there at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development: Is the cabinet considering a fundamental policy decision on Hydro’s insatiable rate of growth and constant rate increases, rather than always submitting them to the Ontario Energy Board, whose directives it largely discards and ignores anyway? Doesn’t the minister think it is time for a major policy decision on the part of the government about the way in which Hydro is to be controlled?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, except for the term “insatiable,” because if we are considering this we have to try to consider it on the basis of something a little more than making a decision in advance, I would tell the hon. member that the government is very much concerned about it, very much concerned about it. As a government we are not quite satisfied that that rate of growth is necessary and we are concerned.

One of the reasons for the appointment of the Porter commission was so that the public would have this debate out in the open and we would have all the facts placed before us, not just the legislators but the people in the streets, so that they will know precisely what the cost of growth is, whether they want that growth and all the factors that go into that.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Since, in the last hearing to the Ontario Energy Board, the board’s request that the reserve requirement be dropped by five points -- from I guess about 28 per cent to 23 per cent -- was ignored by Hydro, the board’s request that the nuclear programme be slowed down was ignored by Hydro, the board’s request that the fourth heavy water power plant at Bruce be delayed for an independent inquiry was turned down by Hydro, does the minister not think the government has to set a policy to limit Hydro’s public demands before it even gets to the Ontario Energy Board, because Hydro is out of control?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, some of the matters which the hon. member has raised do concern the government; but if he would expect a government with any sense of responsibility merely to make a decision that quickly on a matter of such extreme importance, well, we just can’t stop everything. We appreciate the problems inherent in rapid growth in the energy requirements of Hydro. We appreciate the problems but we can’t stop it as of yesterday.

What we are attempting to do is have a proper appraisal made as to the terms under which Hydro decides the kind of growth it feels is necessary, and the kinds of terms which are acceptable to the people of this province and therefore the government and therefore this Legislature. All of this, as I said previously to the member, Mr. Speaker, will be subject to a good healthy airing when the board of commission begins its hearings.

Mr. Lewis: One last supplementary: The minister will agree that the Porter commission, if I recall, is examining the requirements from 1982 on; by 1982 Hydro may have bankrupted Ontario. Does the minister recognize that if the rate of growth is slowed from seven per cent as demanded by Hydro to four per cent as most reasonable energy people would agree is legitimate, it would save --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who is “most people”?

Mr. Lewis: Most of the Pollution Probe people and, I presume, Macaulay when he came before the Energy Board to defend the public interest. Let me put it another way; since we will lose $1 billion a year in interest payments alone by 1982 in terms of how Hydro is developing -- I am sorry. If we reduced it from seven to four per cent we would save $1 billion a year by 1982 on Hydro’s cost. How can the minister forever raise qualms about what it is doing without ever moving in and taking it under control? Doesn’t he realize he has unleashed Hydro and it is beyond him now?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to be dishonest about this answer because I never have been with the members in this House. Of course, the member has raised the dilemma of governments all over the world in this respect. Of course, there will be a certain amount of development which has already begun.

For example, one of the power stations will be finished within the reasonable future and if we don’t have something on stream that power station will sit there and it will cost the people of this province millions of dollars without getting any value for it at all. Of course, there is a dilemma. In one respect a commission hearing has been called on the long-range plans; on the other hand, certain programmes are being permitted to proceed.

Mr. Lewis: Twenty-three billion dollars by 1982? It is out of control.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wouldn’t say it is out of control; we are going to find that out. I doubt whether we’d find it is out of control.

Interjection by an hon member.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It may possibly be that there is a great difference of opinion; there is, as a matter of fact. We will find out just where the line should be drawn.

There is no doubt when the commission hearings get under way, even, though they are dealing with the future, they will have some impact at least on a portion of the programme proceeding at the present time.

We would need a Solomon to be able to resolve that problem and to decide shall we turn it off completely

Mr. Lewis: No, we need a government policy, not a Solomon.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Surely the member isn’t saying to the people of this province, without having really gone fully into all of this, that we should stop the production of any further hydro energy?

Mr. Lewis: No, we should slow the rate of growth by government policy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the rate of growth has already been slowed by the very fact --

Mr. Lewis: No, it has not.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The government is abdicating its responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member will give me a chance, it has already been slowed by the fact we are having public hearings on all these things.

Mr. Lewis: No, that hasn’t touched it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And by the fact we have set up a royal commission on the future plans of Hydro.

Mr. Lewis: Hydro laughs at the government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think we have been in the forefront on this on this continent.

Mr. Speaker: Any new questions? The member for Scarborough West.

STATUS OF PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development if I may: What has happened to her review of people who are considered permanently unemployable rather than chronically or physically disabled, given the commitment back in June, 1974, by the minister that a scrupulous assessment of each of the 6,000 to 10,000 Ontarians who fell between or into these categories would be made?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, that was under consideration and review for some period of time. It is my understanding that many people in that particular category have been put into the permanently unemployable category.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister mean the disabled category?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: I think she means they have gone into the disabled category so they receive more.

Is the minister still confident in her own mind that the distinction between permanently unemployable and physically disabled is a legitimate distinction? Has it ever been given definition?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, not to my knowledge it hasn’t.

COMMODITY FUTURES

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: I was just glancing through the little study that he tabled this morning. Is he going to pay some kind of tribute to the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) as the only individual consulted? I look on page 22 and I never thought I would be saying this, but what does the minister think of these words:

“The majority of experts declare that the speculator is necessary for the continuity and liquidity of the future market. It is the speculator who absorbs the hedgers’ orders with a minimum of price disruption. The speculator is said to assist in minimizing price fluctuations rather than exaggerating them.”

Could that possibly be true?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member agree with that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, yes, I think the committee was very wise in consulting with the member for High Park. The words that the hon. member just spoke I am sure were contained somewhere in the discussions held between the committee and the member for High Park.

Mr. Ruston: New NDP policy.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are exactly his views.

MINISTER’S JOKES

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question, if I may, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Who writes his jokes in international Women’s Year?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Not the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister? He would do better if he entrusted it to me.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister recall his speech to the Welland Chamber of Commerce on March 5, 1975, in which he began, and I quote exactly: “Another definition of the optimist I like, and this is apropos of absolutely nothing -- ”

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Is that a matter of urgent public importance?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it is, as a matter of fact. The minister is right, it is. It goes like this: “A pessimist is a man who thinks all women are bad. An optimist is one who hopes they are.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister make these kinds of speeches around the province generally? Is he some kind of --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I hope the member will find it useful.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

Mr. Lewis: It is unbelievable.

Mr. Cassidy: If he were only a token male chauvinist it wouldn’t be so bad, but they are all like that.

HANDICAPPED PERSONS IN LICENSED PREMISES

Mrs. Campbell: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Is the minister familiar with the publication called “The Third Eye,” published by BOOST, blind organization of Ontario with Self-Help Tactics, in which they relate their difficulties in being served in licensed establishments? They say this:

“We contacted the board chairman [that is, the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board] when a member of his department told us that handicapped people were impaired already and that common sense should tell us that they shouldn’t be served as this would increase their impairment.”

If the minister is not aware of this situation, would he look into it?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to reply to the hon. member by saying, no, I was not aware of the publication or the allegation which has been made and, if it is accurate, I would deplore it right here. I will be looking into it and obtain further detail.

Mr. Lewis: Try looking at the intellectual impairment of the chairman, as a matter of fact.

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

ASBESTOS STUDIES

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Health. Can the minister confirm a statement attributed to Dr. J. Pimenta of the Ministry of the Environment that said:

“No medical studies are being undertaken by the Ontario government with respect to the effect of ingested asbestos.”

I believe that statement was made Tuesday evening in Thunder Bay to the city council. How does that square with the statement by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development on Monday in this House when he said:

“The government is moving more aggressively to strengthen its own activities in occupational environmental health. Greater emphasis will be placed on the prevention of known health hazards through the setting of guidelines in the search for unknown health hazards in industrial processes.”

Will the minister have examined and pursued the published research of R. D. Pontefract and H. M. Cunningham with respect to the penetration of asbestos throughout digestive tracts?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in all honesty the two statements are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is quite possible that we are not carrying out studies but we are observing studies being carried out.

Mr. Lewis: “In all honesty, not necessarily” is an interesting proviso.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The English of an engineer is often convoluted.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How about a paint salesman?

Hon. Mr. Miller: A paint salesman? Never, never.

An hon. member: Very colourful.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Very colourful, yes. In any case, I will be glad to check, first of all, the statements attributed to the doctors. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, we have been watching, with great interest, studies done in the fields of the ingestion of water-borne asbestos.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: But would the minister not think, in view of the Resources Development secretary’s statement on Monday, that simply observing present research is not aggressively making a search for unknown health hazards?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No, I don’t agree with that, Mr. Speaker. That goes on the assumption that all research will be undertaken by our ministry in all fields. That is absolutely impossible in today’s very complicated world. But we are recognized as having probably one of the best libraries and monitoring systems of any government in North America for these problems. Certainly, when we see the need to carry out specific studies we will carry them out, or endorse and back the research to do so, depending upon the need.

Mr. Foulds: A final supplementary, if I may just quickly, Mr. Speaker, because this is important to me and to my constituents. Does the minister see at the present time a need for research into this problem? Or is he satisfied enough is being carried out already independently?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, whenever technical experts disagree -- and this is one of those areas where they do -- I think the rest of us should be wary enough to keep our eyes and ears open. To jump to conclusions when there is professional disagreement is to invite disaster. Therefore, with this disagreement, I am not going to suggest that we accept any position as valid while the studies go on.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Etobicoke.

CERTIFICATION OF TRADESMEN

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. It’s a rather lengthy question. Is the minister aware that recently eight bricklayers employed with the North York Board of Education have been asked to take written tests to obtain certificates of qualification from the minister’s manpower training branch? Is the minister aware that these men have all worked as bricklayers for over 15 years, some for as many as 30 years? However, the four who have already taken the test all failed very badly.

Is the minister aware that the test is bilingual -- that is, French and English -- although most of the men in question are Italian-Canadians? While they are instructed to take an interpreter with them, the interpreter must not be a tradesman. Does the minister think it is fair that this certificate is required for employment with the North York Board of Education, even though carpenters, plasterers and other tradesmen who worked along with these bricklayers in the past, were given certificates of their trade, without tests, upon the payment of $10?

Will the minister seriously consider the use of the grandfather clause, exempting experienced bricklayers and other tradesmen from taking the test? And will the minister look into having the tests changed so that it is more practical and fair to tradesmen?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am aware of the various things that the hon. member just mentioned, because I had his letter about it; I think it was on Monday or Tuesday. I have instituted inquiries to find out all the background and all the detail. When I do that I’ll be able to give a reply to the hon. member.

But I would mention one thing. Perhaps I just inferred it from the hon. member’s question a moment ago, but it is pretty obvious to me that an interpreter of a tradesman’s choice should not be a tradesman of that trade for pretty obvious reasons.

Mr. Braithwaite: A supplementary: In reply to the minister, is the minister aware or is it not possible that the test could be in English and Italian? The other question is, as far as the test is concerned, does the minister not know that these people are working people, and although they are excellent tradesmen they know nothing about --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. These are all statements in the form of a question.

Mr. Braithwaite: I’m just finishing -- they know nothing about the architectural terms that are used in the trade?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Without getting into a debate or the details of the requirements for certification in a trade -- and I’m not a competent bricklayer, so I don’t know whether one needs to be able to read drawings or not -- I would think that that might be a requirement.

Mr. Braithwaite: After 30 years of making a living at it a person should be able to be certified.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A final supplementary from the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, may I ask of the minister: Rather than the use of interpreters, why wouldn’t the minister consider setting the exams in various languages so that the individual trying could try it in Italian or try it in Portuguese, and likewise have personnel who could mark that exam?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is being debated now. Is there any further answer?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I think at one time the ministry, in those days I guess it was the Ministry of Labour, attempted to do this, but the problem was one of supply and demand as I understand it. The system that has now been worked out means we are not required to have on staff, available at every testing place, somebody who is fluent or a number of people who are fluent in quite a number of languages.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

AWARDS FOR ADVERTISING WORK

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Chairman of the Management Board or the Ministry of Industry and Tourism which is responsible for the government’s agency of record; I am not sure which minister should take this, Mr. Speaker.

Can either minister explain the enormous springtime proliferation of media advertising for various government programmes such as Wintario, the consumer protection service, Ontario tax credits, summer job programmes, the WCB; and God knows what else? Can they give to the House some indication of the increase in spending on media advertising by the government this spring as opposed to last year when no election was in prospect?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility to establish and approve budgets; but if there are specific questions they should be directed to specific ministries.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, could the minister then perhaps, if he is going to consider these various figures, compare the 1975 spending with the 1971 spending to get perhaps a better balance than last year’s spending?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the members of the opposition will do that when the estimates are being heard.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with his supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister knows perfectly well that it is impossible to ask every minister and get a picture from them. Which minister in the government has an overall look at the spending by government departments on advertising? Who runs the plan and co-ordinates it with the political plans of the government for this year’s election?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in this regard, again I can simply say to the member that these programmes are designed by the ministries and included in their estimates. We screen them when they are before us. Again I say if there is a specific area which the member is inquiring about, he should inquire from that minister.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

AUTO INSURANCE RATE JUSTIFICATION

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is he aware of the new plan initiated in the Province of New Brunswick to force the appearance of the automobile insurance companies before a public body when they want to increase their rates and to justify their application for increase before such a public body? If he is aware of that, when does he intend to allow that kind of system to be introduced into the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, that particular plan was announced in the Speech from the Throne in New Brunswick, and I have asked my staff to obtain details. I understand the bill was introduced in their Legislature just yesterday. I am trying to obtain copies of that for use in guiding us toward our future policies in insurance development.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Always followers, never leaders.

Mr. Singer: When are we going to see the bill?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury.

ARSENIC LEVELS

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment relative to arsenic emissions in smelters in northern Ontario: Is it correct that officers of his ministry are dealing quietly and secretly with various smelters in northern Ontario? If this is true, does the minister not think it is incumbent upon him to alert the residents as to the location of these smelters so that they would be aware of the hazards to which they are being subjected at present?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we don’t go around secretly working with any company. I want to make that very clear.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister does it openly, is that right?

Hon. W. Newman: In an answer to a question in the House yesterday I said we were working with the Ministry of Health to bring in tougher emission standards on arsenic. As members know, we have had co-operation from the companies. On abatement equipment we have been telling the companies recently that we anticipate we are going to tighten up and we have been talking to the companies about what sort of abatement equipment could be put on to lower the levels.

Mr. Germa: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister then say that a statement by Louis Shenfeld, the Environment Ministry’s chief of air quality, is incorrect when he said yesterday in the Globe and Mail: “We’ve already quietly told a few what is in the wind.” He was referring to various smelters. Is that correct or not?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s not very secret, is it?

Hon. W. Newman: I don’t know how many we have talked to, but all have been notified that we are going to be bringing in tighter standards, as we do on any other emissions from time to time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is the way to keep it secret; tell it to the press.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON BUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour relating to the report of the royal commission on certain sectors of the building industry. In its summary, there are 17 recommendations dealing specifically with labour-management relations. When can we expect legislation dealing with this particular report?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the House a definite time. It is being considered under the legislation that we have under review. I can’t give a definite time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

LIMOUSINE FOR LCBO CHAIRMAN

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker. In view of the difficult financial situation in which our province finds itself at the present time, does the minister think it is necessary to maintain a chauffeured limousine for the head of his liquor division?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the question that was asked of me previously was whether or not it was worthwhile, and it was regarding the securities commission. I wasn’t aware of the fact. I knew there was a limousine with a driver for the chairman of the Liquor Control Board. I wasn’t aware of the fact that there was a uniform involved, but I’ll look into that.

Mr. Breithaupt: The minister has got so many of them that he has lost count.

Mr. Lewis: The chairman is handicapped.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

ONTARIO BULLETIN CONTENTS

Mrs. Campbell: I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. I would ask if he is familiar with the “Ontario Bulletin,” which is put out by Mr. Cornell, as I understand it. Is he also familiar with the demonstration which was shown in Britain recently? Does he really think he needs to continue this sexist kind of advertising with women in bikinis selling vacuum cleaners, as it appears here?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Shame.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to --

Mr. Lewis: It is typical of his ministry all right. Why doesn’t he tell us about the female race?

Mr. Cassidy: Are they good or bad?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that regarding the article or the publication referred to, I shall look at it. I’m not sure of the ad, but I would be more than likely correct in saying that it’s a private firm that has been on one of the trade missions, or BOM missions with our government in England. I’m prepared to look at it.

Mrs. Campbell: Is it under the minister’s aegis?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me add to the leader of the NDP that the Ministry of Industry and Tourism has taken the lead in bringing forward programmes --

Mr. Lewis: That’s what the minister deals in. He is a sexist.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s the member’s opinion. The ministry is led by a bachelor.

Mr. Lewis: He is an impossible fellow.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I can tell him that as a bachelor I have taken more direct action in regard to International Women’s Year than his party will ever take in its lifetime. The member should read the whole thing, not just what satisfies him.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Next time we’ll show men in bikinis.

Mr. Foulds: Who read “Alice in Wonderland” to the minister?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister without Portfolio in charge of manpower.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The minister of person power.

Mr. Deans: Given that further layoffs are starting today at John Inglis at Stoney Creek; given that there have been a number of plants in the Hamilton area, in fact, right across the province which have been laying off on a fairly regular basis; could the minister give us an outline of the programmes he has in place with regard to retraining and also the finding of suitable job opportunities for people in the province?

Hon. J. McNie (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, the whole subject of unemployment is one that has been preoccupying our government for the last two or three months.

Mr. Laughren: It is beyond the minister.

Hon. Mr. McNie: We’re working with the federal people. We met Wednesday this week in Hamilton, where we spent all day discussing with industry and with the union people and with training people, ways in which we could meet the needs, not only for unskilled workers who are unemployed, but also the need for upgrading these people so they could fill the jobs which are at present going begging. The budget was designed, as the member knows, to try to stimulate manufacturing in some key industries which have been involved.

We have a paper before cabinet on the whole subject of unemployment describing ways in which together with the federal government we can mitigate some of the problems. We are particularly concerned with what would happen in the event the present economic decline is sustained and unemployment insurance benefits and SUB benefits run out.

I think the answer to the member is that we are very concerned with it and we are looking for ways in which we can creatively provide alternatives for these people who have been laid off. As he knows, many of those laid off are enjoying SUB benefits and unemployment insurance benefits, but this doesn’t take the place of employment. We would like to provide alternatives if we can and this isn’t easy. I can assure him that it has a very high priority with our government and with the federal government.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question: Would the minister agree that the provision of 62,500 jobs would be of interest to him? If that could be accomplished by the expenditure of the $400 million not to be collected by the seven per cent tax on machinery and the provision of 20,000 houses might he be interested in such a programme and might he initiate it in the cabinet?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

MUNICIPAL REBATES

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware of a consulting firm which has been sending letters out to all municipalities suggesting it will check the records of the municipalities for the last 15 years to see if the province has short-changed them on any of their rebates and so forth and offering to do it on a 50-50 basis? Has he heard of this firm?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

GAS COMPANY RENTAL CHARGES

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. It is an energy question dealing not in billions of dollars but in $5 or $10 amounts.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s the sort of thing I can understand.

Mr. Burr: Yes, we hope.

Mr. Breithaupt: The only problem is there will be two million questions on one subject.

Mr. Burr: Is the minister giving consideration to an amendment to the Energy Board Act that would give the board authority to fix or control rates for equipment rented by the gas companies to consumers of natural gas?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I am going to have to advise the member that in my view that’s a question properly directed to my colleague the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Burr: He is not here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think that question can wait until Monday.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

WINDSOR HOSPITAL FACILITIES

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Will the minister assure the citizens of my community as well as the professional and other personnel of the various hospitals that before any changes are made in the delivery system in the community both the employees and the public will have an opportunity for input? The employees are quite concerned that their jobs may be in jeopardy as a result of changes contemplated by the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, first, I can assure the member there will be an opportunity for input. In fact, there has been an opportunity for input -- sometimes this is not visible to the community as a whole -- because we’ve been carrying on discussions with the individual hospitals and the hospital planning council in Windsor.

We were trying to sort out the surpluses and the deficits in the needs of the city. We were not entirely successful in gaining the support or the agreement of the local organizations. Therefore our ministry, as the member knows, two or three weeks ago issued a letter to them stating the way we would like to see it; not the way it was going to be, but the way we would like to see it. There is no question this has stimulated much more reaction than all the previous discussions we had privately with groups. That, by itself, was a good thing.

I can certainly assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be protecting people’s jobs insofar as it’s possible. I really don’t believe a single person will involuntarily lose the opportunity to work in the hospitals in Windsor as a result of the changes we are going to be making, for several reasons. First, they deserve an opportunity to change if their particular facility or service is being altered or phased out. Secondly, the attrition rate in that particular industry is high and I’m sure we can work out an arrangement with the hospitals and the other agencies in Windsor to give this guarantee to the employees, because in my opinion they deserve it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Stormont.

LIQUOR ADVERTISING

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: In view of some of his comments this week regarding alcohol and other problems connected with it, can he tell us if he has any intention of introducing new guidelines or regulations regarding the advertising of beer and spirits in this province?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we have distributed to all members a full and very detailed suggested code of procedure, and we have asked for comment. I don’t intend to introduce anything until all the comments have been received and the ideas digested and analysed. Then we will, of course, be bringing out regulations. At the present time, there is an advertising code which is the most restrictive in Canada, and if there are suggestions from the public or hon. members to make it more restrictive, I’d be certainly glad to take them under advisement.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Welch presented the annual report of the Royal Ontario Museum for the period July 1, 1973, to June 30, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

CITY OF ST. CATHARINES ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Johnston moves second reading of Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the City of St. Catharines.

SHERIDAN PLACE ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Beckett, moves second reading of Bill Pr12, An Act respecting Sheridan Place.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting Sheridan Place.

TOWNSHIP OF GOULBORN ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Morrow, moves second reading of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the Township of Goulborn.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the Township of Goulborn.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Morrow, moves second reading of Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

TOWNSHIP OF BRUCE ACT

Mr. Breithaupt, on behalf of Mr. Gaunt, moves second reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Township of Bruce.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the Township of Bruce.

REPRESENTATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moves second reading of Bill 22, the Representation Act, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, since this is a bill that is somewhat different than many that are brought before us, I wonder whether the minister could advise us if he is proposing amendments that would require the bill to go into committee or just what procedure we will follow with respect to any changes that might be contemplated by the ministry.

Hon. R. Welch (Minister of Culture and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, it was my hope that we would proceed with second reading today. I would like then to suggest that it go to committee of the whole House. There are one or two boundary descriptions we want to be satisfied with respect to, and then we would proceed to finish it up during the first part of next week.

Mr. Breithaupt: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, again because this is a somewhat different item than is usually before us, if the minister will be able to provide us with copies of those changes. Are they technical in description or are they substantive? I am sure the members would be quite interested.

Hon. Mr. Welch: At this stage, I’m only talking about satisfying ourselves with respect to one or two technical matters, and if in fact there are any changes -- and I’m not suggesting there are any at all -- certainly they would be provided to the hon. members ahead of time.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second reading of this bill, I understand that it has been traditionally attended to over the years in such matters that debate, if it occurred at all, would be of course quite brief.

We have now gone through half a dozen steps as we approach the redistribution of constituencies within the Province of Ontario. After the first report was received from the commission, there were of course a number of comments made by members on various sides of the House. We were then favoured with a second report and a number of substantial changes in the second map which was prepared.

We had the opportunity, in actually debating the report of the commission during the last several days in January of this year, to have the results of that debate returned to the commission in case there would be any final changes that the commission would accept. As I recall, Mr. Speaker, 47 or 48 members involved themselves in that particular debate, and the results in the final report, which of course was in the form of a bill, Bill 22, represented many changes that members had suggested.

In one way, I suppose, it’s rather difficult for a member to suggest particular changes because perhaps each one of us has a certain self-seeking motive as to how things might be changed. In that light, of course, we talk about our own constituencies as though they were particular preserves. But I really feel that in the debate which took place in the House on this report, members did not look particularly at their own benefit but rather at the benefit of community interest in terms of the changes, because as representatives they are perhaps somewhat more aware of their impact than members of the commission. As a result, we have a balancing between the commission and the work it did, and the input of individual members.

I suppose there is really no requirement to return to the lengthy debate which we had when the report was referred to in those last days of January, 1975. I would suggest, though, Mr. Speaker, that the three particular points referred to in that debate perhaps could be mentioned again.

First of all, the commission in another time perhaps could be much benefited in its work if there were public hearings that were to take place. The commission, of course, has available to it a large number of sources of information. However, I think that another time the instructions that go to the commission should consider, and indeed should require, that there be some obvious source of public input. It is no longer sufficient to simply ask for submissions. We must, of course, as a result see that there is the opportunity in various centres across the province for the average citizen, for various groups, for municipalities and whatever to come face to face with the commissioners.

Another thing, I think the commission should be larger next time. We should attempt to have a somewhat broader group -- perhaps seven or nine persons -- involving various facets of the community, representing northern Ontario or eastern Ontario, bringing together certain of their own particular points of view, whether they have been serving as politicians at one time or another or whether they are active in their communities and therefore able to bring, hopefully, an unbiased view to doing the best kind of job as quickly as possible.

So the matter of public hearings and the size of the commission is one thing I think we should consider another time.

The second thing, which is even more important, is the allowable differential in population. In this instance we have seen that the approach taken, based on the instructions given by the commission, has attempted to live within the 25 per cent rule which was set, when one looks at the various kinds of ridings. In my remarks on Jan. 27 I referred to the number of ridings that were involved and their differentials with respect to the Metropolitan Toronto area, with respect to northern Ontario and with respect to the other ridings that were outside of those two particular areas.

It is certainly not necessary to go over the details of those various figures, other than to suggest that a differential of perhaps 15 per cent would be the kind of goal which we think should be given to the commission as it attempts to do its work another time.

There was, of course, the other matter of the situation of boundaries within the city of Toronto. There has been much comment made on the requirements by the Ontario Municipal Board to structure the boundaries within the city of Toronto for a ward system to avoid the old kind of strip system that has historically been the case. This, we believe, should have been the case as well in the new boundaries which are set under this bill. However, the older boundaries have been accepted and this matter, while it is regrettable, is a decision which has now been accepted by the ministry.

So those are the three areas we think are ones which a commission should be involved in another time. We, of course, are very pleased that this bill has now come before us. The Premier (Mr. Davis) had, on a number of occasions, given his assurance that we would, in fact, be in a redistributed situation before the next provincial general election and, of course, this brings us one step closer to honouring that commitment. There will be eight new members who will join those of us who are successful in an election, whenever it may be called, and they of course are going to be representing various of the more quickly growing areas of the province.

The debate to which I had referred has been looked upon by the members of the commission in their final report with, I think, a great deal of favour. I believe all of the members who have joined in that debate should be pleased with the results that have generally attempted to resolve particular local issues. I am certain that none of us would be able to divide this province into 125 pieces and satisfy every member, or every proposed candidate or political party. However, I think the commission has done a good job within the terms of its recommendation. It has brought in a report which is now before us in the form of this bill and, other than the comments that I have made as to how the instructions might be improved another time, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this debate today and the putting into place of redistribution is certainly a milestone in the development of the province.

The chamber is getting a little crowded I am sure; you, sir, have to decide how to fit in eight more desks. However, I think the persons who will be responsible for that particular duty will be able to do so without too much difficulty.

We are pleased the bill has come forward for second reading and we look forward to its speedy passage.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Thank you. It is impossible, I suppose, to satisfy everyone, particularly when one is talking about the make-up of constituencies. I don’t imagine this bill satisfies everyone any more than any other redistribution bill has done in the past.

I think part of the reason probably centres on the terms of reference. On looking back on the terms of reference we approved, we obviously didn’t give sufficient consideration to what those terms of reference ought to contain. I think in the future, if we are going to have a further redistribution, as we no doubt will, we are going to have to set up a procedure whereby there will be an adequate opportunity for discussion about the terms of reference prior to their being passed by the House. I think that perhaps one of the standing committees should be charged with the responsibility of reviewing the debate that took place on this particular bill and on the recommendations of the commission. They should, to the best of their ability, come up with a set of criteria that could be used, rather broadly perhaps, as guidance for any future terms of reference.

At the time that we dealt with the government motion, I think that we probably didn’t really understand the make-up of the various ridings in the province and the problems that might develop as a result of setting out the terms as we did. The major problem I see is that of using the census of 1971. I think we obviously can’t, in a growing community, use a census that is already four years out of date to establish something which is hopefully going to last for 10 years into the future. To begin with, I think we should make it clear that we would use the most recent statistics that are available with regard to population. If they are any more than 12 months out of date, we would engage in establishing the newest statistics for the purposes of making up a redistribution bill.

The second thing is that I think we probably erred in saying what size the House must be. We tied the hands of the commission unnecessarily. The commission should be given the opportunity to come up with a recommendation in keeping with the criteria we establish. The size of the House will then naturally flow from that criteria. Rather than saying it cannot exceed a certain number and cannot be fewer than another number, we should leave that to the discretion of the commission after they have seen what the population figures and distribution of population figures show.

It is important that we have public hearings. I think we all agree on that now. It’s a cumbersome process. It tends to be time-consuming but it also is a little more democratic. There are people outside of this legislative chamber who have an interest in the boundaries of the various constituencies. It would make a lot of good sense if the opportunity was given to municipalities and to other interested groups to appear before the commission and to make formal representation with regard to changes which they see as being necessary or desirable.

I think also that the working papers of the commission should be available. It was a point that we raised during the deliberations. It probably makes sense that the commission should be in a position of justifying its decisions in the event the decisions are questioned. It makes for a very much better sense of fair play in the community at large if, when a decision of the commission is questioned or a recommendation of the commission is questioned, they be in the position to provide the background and the reasoning to the decision to place a boundary in a particular place or to move it, for whatever reason.

The whole matter of redistribution is not going to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction but I think what we have to do is to make it as non-political as possible. We have to do everything in our power to make it as non-partisan as it can be. I think that’s probably accomplished if it’s known fairly clearly from year to year the basis for the deliberations of a commission and the way in which they’re going to reach their decisions.

I think every one of us in the Legislature probably has a very strong attachment to the constituency they represent, and can think of all kinds of good reasons why certain pieces ought not to be taken out or why it ought not to be changed so drastically. But those are emotional things, in most instances, rather than logical reasoning. For most of us it’s simply a matter of finding it a little uncomfortable to deal with something we hadn’t previously had to deal with.

I think that on balance the commission’s task can be made more difficult if we cloak the deliberations they have in secrecy. I strongly urge that there be an openness about the commission’s deliberations that will make it clear to everyone who might question how they arrive at the decisions they reach.

I think perhaps you’ll hear from a number of members about their particular concerns. They’re not satisfied about the size of the ridings, in many instances. We feel the distribution on the basis of representation by population is not yet fair, and that there is still an imbalance across the province that might be able to be corrected. It seems to me, as I look at the Province of Ontario, that it’s extremely difficult to make an argument in some parts of southern rural Ontario that the constituency, were it to embrace representation by population, would be much too large; while at the same time suggesting that the constituency of my colleague the member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes) is just the right size. There’s some inconsistency in that, given that he represents a constituency probably almost as big as southern Ontario itself.

If representation by population is something we believe in as a principle, then I think we have to strive very hard to accomplish it. A voter in the rural community should have only the same degree of influence on the legislative process as a voter in the urban community.

The interest in politics of a voter in the rural community is no greater, on average, than the interest in politics of the average urban voter. It takes, in many instances, two or three urban voters to make one rural voter when it comes to going to the polls. I think there’s an imbalance there that we have to seek ways of correcting. I’m not exactly clear what they are, but that’s the reason I suggest that the standing committee be charged with this responsibility when there is no pressure, when there is no public scrutiny, and when they can have the opportunity to sit together over a period of time and review all of the procedures that have been used, the procedures that are currently used in other jurisdictions, and come up with something that will be set out as a reasonable guideline for any future redistribution.

We, of course, are not intending to oppose the bill. I think the minister understands that. I am a little worried though, about his remarks to the House leader of the Liberal Party in regard to proposed amendments that may or may not be coming forward. I would have thought, given the length of time this bill has sat on the order paper, that it would now be very clear whether these boundary definitions as set out are consistent with the recommendations of the commission and consistent with the views of the House. If there are to be any changes, then I would have thought those changes would have been well researched and it would then have been possible to tell us there are some minor things to be done in order to bring them into line with facts relating to municipal boundaries or the like.

I’d like to hear the minister tell us if he has something in mind. If it turns out not to be so, then of course nothing is lost; but if he has nothing in mind then I would wonder why we’re going into committee, as I understand we are.

The bill no doubt will be debated by other people. But with those comments, I’d like to say finally that I think in some areas the commission probably misjudged the population growth. I think in some areas the commission has set up a situation that will be difficult to manage next year, as it was two years ago, and many of the constituencies are going to be far too large.

I think my colleague the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ewen) would agree with me that another definition of bounds within that area would have made some sense. I have spoken with him privately, in a personal sense. I would have been happy to have found some reasonable way to renegotiate those boundaries, recognizing of course that not all of what’s in one riding could necessarily be in another. But that doesn’t seem to be possible.

On balance, though, we could do a better job if we better understood what the terms were to be and how the redistribution was to be conducted well in advance of any future redistribution.

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

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the commission for the effort they have made to meet the requirements set out in the terms of reference and in the representations that were made by members in the last discussion of this bill.

I also want to comment on the matter of representation by population. I think that one man, one vote, is a desirable objective, but representation is also part of the overall objectives. As I pointed out when I spoke last time, it is much easier to contact a lot of people in a compact city riding than it is in a large rural riding.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): The member does it by phone anyway.

Mr. Root: That’s the very point that I want to raise. The member for Windsor West mentioned the telephone, as did the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). I don’t think they are aware that in the riding I represent there are 12 telephone systems; most of them are rural telephones on party lines, and as far as I am concerned as a member I am not going to discuss personal problems on a party line. That may be satisfactory to a member of the NDP, I don’t know. In the cities where most people have private lines, perhaps the telephone can be used; but in a rural area one can’t do that and maintain the confidentiality of discussions with one’s member.

Two factors must be weighed in the matter of redistribution -- to try to come as close as possible to representation by population, but keeping in mind the problem of representing people. As I mentioned when I spoke the last time, in the original concept of Wellington-Peel we were given a riding 90 miles long; if a member happened to be living at one side of the riding and there was a problem at the other side, it probably would take four hours to drive between the two points.

The suggestion was made to use a telephone. As far as I am concerned, I am not going to discuss private business on a party telephone. The person in the riding who has a problem will have to drive to see me or I will have to drive to see him. I think these are factors that must be weighed along with the idea of one man, one vote.

I think that whoever does the next redistribution must have flexibility. For example, look at some of the northern ridings -- and I have been in them -- where you will fly for half a day to get to a remote community to deal with problems. You can’t say that in some of these ridings you can get down to 15 per cent as was suggested here. So I think you have to keep in mind the two factors.

In my own area, the riding of Wellington-Dufferin has a very fine member -- maybe he could be replaced by one equally fine -- representing a compact little riding of the city and two townships. The area that someone will represent, perhaps myself, will take in part of three counties and stretch for 85 miles.

As I mentioned before, we have a multiplicity of phone systems, and you just can’t do business on party lines when you are dealing with people’s personal problems. Those are the only comments I would like to make.

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

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to speak after the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin because some of what he said touches on what I wanted to say. I want to speak specifically about northern Ontario representation.

One of the ironies of this bill is that while northern Ontario representation has not been reduced in absolute terms it has been reduced in relative terms, because we have maintained only 15 seats out of 125 now, whereas we had 15 seats out of 117.

One of the ironies of that is that probably northern Ontario is the only part of the province that actually has representation by population. We have slightly more than 10 per cent of the population of the province. If we work out the percentage, we have slightly more than 10 per cent of the seats in the House.

It seems to me that while there are particular problems in rural ridings in southern Ontario, there are enormous problems in terms of communication in the ridings in northern Ontario. I wanted to get that particular point on the record, Mr. Speaker. I am a firm believer in the representation-by- population ideal. I think that it should be adhered to as closely as possible. There will always be some difficulties with that while we have a representation kind of Act.

What does disturb me about northern Ontario is that we still have one of the largest ridings in the province in Sault Ste. Marie, and the two adjoining rural ridings are not all that large in northern Ontario terms but are extremely small in population terms, extremely small, and surely a redistribution there could have taken that into account and perhaps created an extra seat in that area of the province.

The real irony about this whole argument with regard to northern Ontario is that northwestern Ontario -- those five ridings that cover 58.9 per cent of the land mass of the province -- have only 3.5 per cent of the population and have four per cent of the seats. That is as close to representation by population as we can get, so the arguments put up by the commission don’t seem to have been applied to northern Ontario nearly as generously as they have to rural southern Ontario.

I probably have one of the smallest ridings in terms of physical size in northern Ontario, and I have to travel only 75 miles from one end of my riding to the other. That’s one of the smallest, if not the smallest. It’s not the smallest in terms of population. It has a real mix in terms of rural and urban population and I want to put on the record that I think it’s as difficult to service the particular problems of an urban centre that may have cultural difficulties, language difficulties, that kind of thing, as well as all the telephone difficulties that the previous member talked about in terms of getting in touch with my rural constituents.

One positive note that I would like to mention is that I was very pleased that the commission agreed with the brief that I submitted and maintained the traditional names of the ridings of Port Arthur and Fort William, contrary to the original position taken by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman), who wanted the names changed to Thunder Bay North and South. I thought that the historic traditions --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): They should change his name.

Mr. Foulds: We’re going to, in the next election, change the name of the member for Fort William.

I thought the traditional historic backgrounds of both those ridings were quite different, and that while the city is amalgamated into the city of Thunder Bay the riding names would maintain that traditional history. With those remarks I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a few thoughts on the record pertaining particularly to only one item in the bill. That is the provision which would increase the membership in this House from 117 members to 125 members.

If one goes back through the history of this House we will see that the numbers of members in the House has fluctuated in both directions at different points in time. There seems to be no optimum number of members to have within this Legislature. If one will examine other elected Houses across this land and around the world one will find there are different philosophies and different approaches to having truly democratic elected representative government

The biggest elected House in the world is the House of Commons in Great Britain, of course, which has something in excess of 600 members. I have never visited the place but from what I understand and what I read it is completely unwieldy and too cumbersome to accomplish the work which is placed before it.

It is strange to look at the other side of the coin. One of the smallest jurisdictions in the world is the State of New Hampshire but the State of New Hampshire, surprisingly, has the second biggest number of elected members. The State of New Hampshire runs to about 485 elected members, so this, too, is a very cumbersome place. I don’t know how one would deal with 485 members in this chamber. Even the present 117 on various occasions are quite unruly and quite out of control.

I’m sure the minister will understand that my philosophy is that large numbers of elected people do not necessarily represent good government. I’m not saying that 125 is too much or that 117 is too little but no one has ever explained satisfactorily to me why we will add eight seats to the representation in this House and consequently eight more members.

I’ve had the experience of sitting in the House of Commons in Ottawa, with its 265 elected members, and I’m sure other members who have had that privilege will agree with me that the place is quite cumbersome. It’s more than twice as large as this chamber. The membership is twice as large and the place does get out of control once in a while and it is very cumbersome.

It has been suggested by various other people that one approach would be to make the provincial ridings coincide with the federal ridings as they relate to the Province of Ontario. That would give us, I suspect, an adequate number of representatives in this House and would also clear up a lot of confusion in the electorate and the various political parties as it relates to the difference between a provincial and a federal election. Coincidental boundaries, I think, is something maybe the minister should be looking at and maybe there will be another commission established in the future and we should think about that.

To relate a riding or a constituency to strictly population figures is really not realistic as well, I think. Given the large expanse of land we have in northern Ontario we cannot relate riding boundaries strictly to population densities. I’m sure anyone looking at the map of Ontario would understand that this would result in a reduction in membership from the northern part of the province and the size of the constituencies in that event would be so large as to be almost impossible.

I think serving population is a different matter, however. I had the dubious pleasure of being in the company of one Senator Mendell Rivers from the United States and he was telling me how he deals with a constituency of 300,000 voters. That’s quite a large constituency and yet a senator in the United States does cope with that kind of population within his constituency. I would not be afraid if the population figures as presently related to the division of the constituencies in the Province of Ontario were increased to something in the matter of 75,000 or 85,000. I think a member elected from such an area could service that kind of population provided he was given certain other assistance in the form of a constituency office and help within the riding that he chooses to service.

I want to put that on the record for future reference by any other commission inquiring into electoral boundaries, that more members do not necessarily mean better government. I think the more compact we can keep the house of assembly, the elected people, the more potent would be the representation. I would like the minister to respond to that suggestion and say whether it was looked into. Did the commission consider boundaries coincident with the federal boundaries? I should like an explanation of why he found it necessary to increase the representation of this House by eight members.

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

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise to say what I am going to say about the bill because, basically, I agree with the principles of it. I agree with the way in which the description was laid out about the job that was to be done, the terms of reference. I don’t do it from a personal interest standpoint. I know that the member for Kitchener indicated that some of us could have that type of interest, and certainly we could, but I think we would all be prepared to live with them. For one, my riding is disappearing. I spoke in favour of that, as did the member for Middlesex North (Mr. Stewart) who is also losing his riding.

I do have to draw to the attention of the House what I feel was a disregard in the particular area of Middlesex for the terms of reference of the commission. I feel that the people in that area have expressed their opinion very strongly. It hasn’t been listened to.

I refer to a number of things that took place during the time and of actions of the commission which I feel were very badly handled. I refer to instances of letters going out to members about proposed changes and other members not being contacted by the commission, for which there seems to be no explanation. I refer to steps that took place during the commission’s hearings when counties appeared on the scene after the first proposal to retain their entity as a county, and this was done.

In our last debate, items were brought forth as far as the areas were concerned. I think of the instance of the proposed Huron-Middlesex riding where the member for the existing riding proposed that a township -- Tuckersmith -- be brought back into his area. It was a natural thing to do because the interests were there and the commission followed suit on that proposal.

At the same time, we were proposing that type of thing for the area of Middlesex in the case of -- I’m not going to refer to the total of Middlesex -- Adelaide township, part of which goes right into and is connected to the town of Strathroy. It hasn’t a large population. It’s not going to affect a riding one way or the other politically or in total population because the population of the area is only about 2,000. But everything they do in that community ties into the town of Strathroy. Their hospital board and their area planning board all work together on these things. The roads that run from that area don’t run directly to Huron county. If you look at a map, Mr. Speaker, it is much the same instance as the case of Tuckersmith township on the north end of that riding. They are effectively cut off.

I feel that the commission erred badly in not following their terms of reference, the terms of reference being the community interest. Certainly they didn’t consider that in that case. As for means of communication, we pointed that out before and they didn’t consider it. The existing and traditional boundaries weren’t considered at all.

I have to say that I feel that the job done by the commission in that particular area in considering these things and considering the wishes of the people in that area was done badly. I know it’s a difficult job, but the simple logic was expressed and put forward -- it was there. The people in that area wrote to the commission in large numbers, as did the councils in that area, and yet they were not listened to.

I think at this point there is still an opportunity for a situation like that to be corrected, and I would urge that that situation be corrected. It’s not going to make a difference in the totals of the ridings to any great degree. It’s not going to make a political difference. I think it’s a difference that all parties could accept, and so I ask that this be given consideration when the bill goes to committee.

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

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was somewhat puzzled by the results of the commission’s work, in that really nothing changed that much. I appreciate what the member for Middlesex is saying; that overall the electoral map in Ontario is basically the way it was before, namely a small increase in the number of seats and a continued rural bias throughout the province.

I agree with most of the members who have spoken and who talked about the strict representation by population as not being very realistic. I represent a very large riding -- a very scattered riding -- one that has a population in the neighbourhood of 50,000.

I share the concern of my colleague, the member for Port Arthur, that while the number of seats in northern Ontario has remained at 15, as a proportion of the total number of seats in the province it has actually declined. That bothers me.

I personally don’t have any qualms about the number of seats in the legislature. It would not bother me if they increased substantially, because I’ve always thought that the more elected people you have, the more of a guard that is against a bureaucracy running the province or any other jurisdiction -- that the elected members will guard against that. Of course, I think that’s in the best interest of all of us. Perhaps the number of seats in the New Hampshire legislature is indeed a guard against civil servants running that state, as opposed to people who are elected to do that job.

The bill itself does not deal with the whole problem of service to the members, and there will be another chance to debate that.

I would say to the minister, however, that if the commission had wanted to keep representation of northern Ontario more equal, there were two opportunities to do that. One was in the Sault Ste. Marie area, where another seat could have been added; and another was in the Sudbury area, where the city of Sudbury could have been split into two seats if the adjoining ridings, Sudbury East and Nickel Belt, had been taken into consideration as a package. I haven’t done the exact arithmetic, but I believe they could still have maintained the guidelines that were given to the commission.

I think that that is something that we in northern Ontario have to guard against. I think that one reason we are sent down here by our constituents is to make sure that northern Ontario’s voice is always heard in this chamber. And let’s face it, as long as there are only 15 seats out of the 125, the political clout of the north will not be equal to, for example, the political clout of Metropolitan Toronto, which has twice as many members. Of course, I realize the relative populations, too, but I think that that is something we have to guard against.

Most of us admit that there are specific problems to northern Ontario. I think that decreasing that proportional representation in this chamber is not even the first step towards solving that problem. I suspect it’s too late now to effect any major change, such as additional ridings in the north, but I do think that the minister should be aware that’s how some of us from northern Ontario feel about the changes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I should like very briefly to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Sudbury about the number of seats being the same as those in the federal House for Ontario’s proportion. In other words, the boundaries being the same for the provincial ridings and the federal ridings in Ontario. But I think the time for this move would be at the same time as the introduction of the ombudsman system, because if the ombudsman system works as it seems to work in other jurisdictions it is going to do the equivalent work of several members and their assistants or their secretaries. I don’t think it would find any favour to increase the workload of the members at the present time, but to reduce it at the same time as the ombudsman system is introduced would be the ideal circumstance. I realize that the government has promised this ombudsman system. The “d” is silent, Mr. Speaker, according to my friends from Denmark, in the word ombudsman.

Because it is unlikely that these two are going to coincide, I am not optimistic that the member for Sudbury will have his ideas accepted. But I should like to reinforce his suggestion for a future commission, that if the ombudsman system has not been instituted by the time a few more years roll around, the two be considered as a package arrangement.

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

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a certain sense of déjà-vu in this debate, because most of the points have been raised before during the course of various debates that we have had on the questions of redistribution. I guess the frustrating part of it has been that the debates have had so little effect on the major points that have been raised about the redistribution as it was first proposed a few months ago.

A number of the specific problems have been resolved. Obviously, my own riding is one of them. The London area is another area which has been affected by specific representations that have been made to the commission and in this House. It seems to me that at least it is worth putting on the record for the next redistribution, which one hopes will come rather quickly, some of the problems that have existed with this one and possibly some ideas for reform or for changing the procedures.

What I would say first, Mr. Speaker, is that perhaps it is impossible for non-political people to arrive at a fair or equitable redistribution. That’s a very odd thing to say, because we have always put a great reliance in the powers of an independent, royal commission kind of status.

I just have a contrast in my mind between the Camp commission on the one hand and the problems that have been entailed with this particular redistribution commission on the other hand. If we put in a fairly balanced group of people with direct experience in politics, and in fact, with political labels attached, and have them watching each other in order to try and come up with a fair redistribution, it seems to me that the possibilities are there that we can get a better job, a more effective job done than by putting in people who are independent on the one hand but who, on the other hand, may not be seized with political realities, and may not understand the kinds of situations which have been raised in many cases during the course of these very debates.

It is a bit like the principle of what I do with my kids when there is some chocolate cake on the table and I want to make sure that it is divided fairly. If I divide it and then pass it around to them then nobody is satisfied. If I ask one of them to divide it and another one to have first choice I am sure one could not get a more fair and accurate division even with a micro metric scale for weighing. If it’s a piece of cake which happens to have the icing off one side but to have an extra dollop of icing on the other side, as the minister well knows, being a father himself, there will be the appropriate adjustments made in the division between the size of the cake without the icing and the size of the cake with the icing.

I suggest that same homely principle might apply if the next redistribution commission were to be made up of a representative of the government of the day and of each of the major opposition parties presumably with expert advice from the electoral officers office and with the sanction, if you will, Mr. Speaker, on the part of the government of the day that the opposition members would not gang up on the government member because of the fact that ultimately the government would have to bring the legislation in. If it were not seen to be fair to all three parties, there might be changes made in the House after the report was in.

I don’t think the people who have been on the Camp commission worked in that way. I don’t pretend that we may have agreed or that the government or the Liberal Party may have agreed with every recommendation, but I don’t think there has been any ganging up of two against one in any of the permutations possible. I think there has been a fair and honest effort by people who are partisan to come to some reasonable kind of solutions. It seems to me the same thing might happen if a redistribution commission, next time, were to be made on a tri-party basis rather than the basis tried this time.

Last September I put forward some comments to the commission and I was looking through my files as this debate was going on to see what had changed between September and now. The major points made then have not really particularly changed and I have to say that with regret.

On the involvement of the public, well, the public has not been involved. The commission did not involve them and this Legislature has not involved them. I guess I have to assume that now we have arrived at this stage there will be no meaningful public hearings held. I would suggest that probably the time for that has passed.

The disparity between rural and urban ridings in southern Ontario is essentially unchanged. I haven’t calculated the figures on round 3 of the commission’s proposals but the minister is aware there have been no significant changes from round 2 which would affect that disparity of about 20,000 to 23,000 voters per riding.

If I can put it on the record the rural ridings have an average population of just over 50,000, around 52,000 or so. The urban ridings have an average population of something over 70,000, around 72,000. That has basically not been changed, Mr. Speaker. Certain changes, such as the changes in the riding of Peterborough have increased the degree of disparity even more.

As I recall, I think the largest riding in the province now, in 1971 figures, would have had a population of around 82,000 or 83,000 people. The smallest one would be one of the Algomas. The smallest one in southern Ontario, the riding of Muskoka, would have about two-fifths of that number of people.

Oddly enough both of those have some vacation areas included within them and the commission defended the creation of Muskoka on the grounds that all those poor stockbrokers and company executives and other people like that who have cottages up in that area placed special demands on a member.

Just for the record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in the election of 1934 the riding which is now Muskoka was the riding of Muskoka-Ontario. It stretched down almost to the outskirts of Whitby and at that time it had 23,567 voters which I suspect is probably a larger number of electors than there will be in the election of 1975. This is one of the grotesque aberrations which has been created and which we’ve commented upon in the past.

A riding like Muskoka, in fact, has shrunk rather than expanded. In 1934 there were stockbrokers who used to go up on the Friday night trains to Bala and Port Carling, or perhaps would bravely venture out by car. The problems of the area were certainly no different than now in regard to the vacation areas, but that kind of thing has been allowed to stand by the commission as part of its general bias in favour of the rural ridings.

If the member for Wellington-Dufferin wants to argue that his riding should have 4,000 or 5,000 people fewer that my riding because of the transportation problems, I’m willing to listen to him. Or if a rural member on either side wants to argue that there should be special facilities made available to him, such as paying for an inbound WATS line to his home or to Queen’s Park so that he can serve his constituents and they can get in touch with his without having to pay toll charges, I’m certainly prepared to listen to that, because there are certain problems in servicing rural ridings that don’t exist in the urban ridings. But it does not justify a population in rural ridings which is of the order of 30 per cent to 40 per cent below the population of average urban ridings.

May I say I hope in return that the member for Wellington-Dufferin would look sympathetically on people in my situation, for example, when I point out that right now I am spending $10,000 or $12,000 per year in my riding to maintain a constituency office to look after the problems of that particular riding. There are some special financial problems, in terms of time, in terms of demands on the member and so on, in looking after an urban riding as well. Obviously these are not to be dealt with in the form of redistribution alone, but I don’t want the rural people to pretend that they have all of the problems.

We’ve talked about gerrymandering, the deliberate rejigging of seats that seems to favour one party over another in a particular area. If it existed at first, I think it has been pretty much cleaned up during round 2 and round 3. And obviously, as the minister will perceive from the way I’m talking, and the way our members and other members in this debate have talked, that is no longer at question.

It seems to me, though, Mr. Speaker, that the overall bias of a commission which favoured rural Ontario as strongly as this commission did, and as the government is doing in putting forward this bill, clearly reveals a pro-government bias there. It’s an unconscious kind of bias. I’m sure it can be dignified and justified by all sorts of high-sounding principles, but if you want to get down to the gut political realities, without sort of trying to save a particular seat, there’s kind of a general aura of protection for the government by saying that the great blue belt that has traditionally run from the Quebec border almost to Lake Huron and Lake Erie and has been held by the Tories, will not be vastly changed by this redistribution.

Mr. Laughren: It will be changed by the election.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. As the minister aware, there may be other factors at work this time around in this particular election --

Mr. Laughren: Their ship is sinking.

Mr. Cassidy: But given a normal year, given the fact that the Premier hadn’t alienated so many groups in Ontario society and so on, then that kind of protection could have insulated the Conservative government against very substantial changes and voting sentiments in the swing ridings, which tend to be located in the city.

Mr. Speaker, again for the record, and in order that we will be able to look at it next time, I’d just like to recall that in the terms of reference, which I regret to say, our party, among others, supported back on Dec. 5, 1973, the modifying factors such as community and diversity of interests, communications, topography, population trends, traditional boundaries, special geographic considerations and so on, were all held out to the commission as being of greater importance than the desire to have ridings approximately equal in population.

Secondly, the redistribution commission’s instructions allowed it to vary from the 25 per cent ceiling and floor, the variations that were to be permitted, at any time when in its opinion that was desirable. As a number of members have said it took enormous liberties with that particular freedom.

For the record, I would like to contrast the federal legislation of 1964-1965, I guess it is, which provided for the decennial census, and which should have set a model which could have been followed. In that particular case each boundaries commission -- there was to be one per province -- was told to divide its province into electoral districts so that the population of each district would correspond as nearly as many be to the electoral quota for the province.

Having been told to apply the quota, the commission was told it could depart from the strict application of the rules in the case of special geographic considerations or special problems within the community and diversity of interests. It was also told under no circumstances to vary by more than 25 per cent.

I have put on the record -- I can’t find it here -- the number of ridings which vary by more than 25 per cent in the provincial redistribution. The contrast is more marked when one looks at the number of ridings which vary by more than 15 per cent over or under. The federal redistribution commissioners in Ontario had only 14 out of about 90 ridings in Ontario more than 15 per cent higher or lower than the quota for the province; or approximately 20 per cent. The provincial redistribution commissioners couldn’t get it down to less than about 60 ridings; half the ridings in the province are more than 15 per cent higher or lower than the average population per riding.

As the minister well knows, the rural ridings are the ones more than 15 per cent or 25 per cent below their quota and the urban ridings are the ones more than 15 per cent above the quota.

Saskatchewan had a real honest-to-God blood-curdling gerrymander under Ross Thatcher. There was no question about that; it happened to lose him the election, people were so angry. Subsequently, when the New Democratic Party came into power in 1972 it brought in redistribution which has been universally acknowledged to be fair. In that case as well the commission was instructed to prepare a quotient or an average for each constituency, apart from the two or three northern constituencies. It was instructed to prepare a riding map so that each constituency corresponded as nearly as possible to the quotient established for the average population of the riding.

Having done that, it was told it could depart from strict application, again because of special geographic considerations, community or diversity of interests or physical features of a particular riding; it is pretty flat out there anyway. It is probably an easier job to do there than here. The point is that there again they were told to hold to the average population per riding except when there were substantial reasons for varying from it. Whereas, in this case, our commission was told to look at any conceivable reason why a riding should be kept as it was back in 1934, within its original boundaries, as it was, etc. Then, when it got around to it, to see if it could make it correspond in some rough way to the average population of ridings across the province.

Just for the record I would say there are approximately 14 or 15 ridings which vary by more than 25 per cent above or below the average population per riding in Ontario according to this redistribution. That figure has not been appreciably changed by the few amendments made by the committee.

I would like to make one final comment about the tendency of a community or diversity of interests to possible gerrymandering and so on. That is to talk about the strip riding system which has been retained for the city of Toronto ridings. I would say to the minister that if there is any case where the commission could be said to be acting to the direct political advantage of representatives of one political party -- that is the government -- it would have to be in the refusal to go from the strip to a block riding system for the city of Toronto ridings. There’s absolutely no question about that, Mr. Speaker. The minister has been around Toronto long enough to know that it’s been a tradition since time immemorial in the Toronto ridings that the Conservative Party has used votes from north of Bloor in order to obliterate whatever it was that the voters from south of Bloor may have wanted to do. It’s the voters from north of Bloor, where the turnout is higher and the socio-economic status is much higher, who have traditionally been involved like that.

If the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) or the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) or people like that feel, as they have claimed, that they have strong support from working class voters who basically do live south of Bloor St. in Toronto, then obviously what they should do is push the government to bring in a block riding system and then stand for the riding which includes Regent Park or stand for the riding which includes the Hydro block and the islands and the other residential districts that lie to the south and west of this particular chamber.

I’d like to put on the record, Mr. Chairman, the judgement of Mr. J. A. Kennedy, the chairman of the Ontario Municipal Board when the question of strip or block wards was before the OMB. The minister may recall that at that time the city wanted to keep the strip ward system because that was in the interests of the old-guard aldermen who then held most of those seats. It’s very similar to the situation perhaps at the provincial level. The old-guard politicians who now hold those seats for downtown Toronto would like to keep the present system as well. Mr. Kennedy said:

“These two plans, in the board’s view, represent two different schools of thought as to the proper basis for division into wards. The strip plan is based on the principle that in large municipalities it is wise to have a ward representing a cross-section of the city if possible, so that each individual member of council may be taken to represent all the divergent problems and issues representing every part of the city, having been elected in a cross-section ward, which will be affected by these various issues and problems.

“On the other hand, the principle behind the suggestion that the city be divided according to the block plan is that each alderman would have a more compact area to serve and will find in the area that he represents the special community problems that pertain to that particular area of the city. This latter approach is said to result in a greater confrontation around the council table among aldermen who represent these varying problems as they change from area to area.”

In the respectful opinion of the OMB, the block plan approach for wards is preferable to the cross-section plan since it creates a greater tendency -- indeed, a greater achievement -- in having the various conflicting problems from the different areas debated around the council table rather than having such debate occur within the conscience, so to speak, of each individual alderman. It is significant that all the opinion evidence presented by persons well qualified in the field of political science was in favour without exception of the block plan approach, for the reasons summarized above.

No person trained in political science or any other social sciences appeared to espouse the strip plan or cross-section approach. It is also not without significance that a great many ratepayers’ organizations, as well as two political parties which intended to take part in the then forthcoming municipal elections, all favoured the block plan. Indeed the only support for the city’s plan came from three aldermen who appeared to argue in support of the proposal which they had made.

For the record, the Liberals and the NDP were contesting the 1969 municipal elections but the support wasn’t just a matter of political support. The reasons for espousing a block ward system in Toronto, a city, incidentally, whose wards are almost the same in population as its ridings, were based on much broader grounds and on grounds that prevail in here as well.

I have to ask the minister, and maybe he can reply to this, could he let us be privy to the wrangling and conflicts within the conscience of a Margaret Scrivener, a George Nixon, or an Allan Grossman as they struggle with themselves to decide which side of their political personality will come to the fore and whether they will speak for north of Bloor St. or south of Bloor St. in their arguments in caucus or in this particular chamber? I’m sorry that none of them is here in order to comment on that.

I think the minister, though, can see the problems that are involved. I think he knows as well that because of the larger turnout of people from the more affluent areas of these strip ridings it means that on balance the member is liable, as we all are liable, perhaps to lean in the direction of the people who gave him or her the greatest support. As a consequence, whatever may be in the conscience or the feelings of people who come from the working-class areas of these strip ridings is not likely to have the same expression in this chamber as the feelings of the people who live up in those more affluent areas. That is the problem with the strip ward system.

I would hope that since the minister has some streaks of charity in him -- and I don’t just mean the lottery that he is conducting so publicly these days -- and a certain amount of compassion, I would hope, in his activity within the Church of England, that possibly the government might get up now and say “Yes, we’ll see whether we can’t redraft those ridings over the weekend.” I could do it for the minister in the course of about 15 minutes -- draw a dividing line in the vicinity of Bloor St. or Davenport and have ridings that are more homogeneous, and that have much more of a community of interest, a socio-economic homogeneity, and so on, by adopting a block riding system.

I have to confess, Mr. Speaker, that when I get into a car and go along College St. in this city and find the riding boundaries zipping by almost as fast as the streetcar stops, I find it very difficult to understand how it is possible for anybody to represent those people effectively. The means of communication are east-west. The areas are blobs rather than lines, in terms of the way in which they settle. All common sense as well as the expert opinion would suggest the commission should have looked at block ridings rather than strip tidings. I would hope the government would be prepared to make that change now.

All of this is uttered in a certain amount of sorrow and not in anger, Mr. Speaker, and if the debate on redistribution which has gone on for the past nine or 10 months has any effect, I hope it does have an influence in ensuring we do a good job next time, rather than the lacklustre performance we’ve had to endure on this particular occasion.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to speak before the minister replies? The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the debate that followed the tabling of report No. 2 indicated, certainly it has provided an opportunity for the members of the House to really reconsider the whole question of the representative system to which we adhere. Certainly within my short memory as a member of this House I would think the members of the Legislature, with respect to this redistribution, have had more opportunity to express their points of view on that particular subject and on their particular concerns than in any other redistribution with which I’ve been connected or with which I am familiar.

There is very little, I think, to be added to same of the points that have been quite interestingly made by members of the House -- the member for Kitchener and the member for Wentworth and the others who have spoken. The contributions to the debate on the second reading of this bill, of course, were no doubt points either raised or which should have been raised at the time of the introduction of the motion establishing the redistribution in its initial stage.

The spirit with which these comments have been made is one of hoping that when another redistribution comes before this House and the motion to establish the commission is introduced there would be an opportunity to debate these particular principles and to have these particular points of view underlined at that particular time.

I would want to join with all who have spoken to pay tribute to the work of the commission. I would think it was obvious that it hasn’t been an easy job. One of the members of the House has already indicated in his contribution to the debate this morning that it would be very difficult indeed to have everyone pleased with respect to this work.

Certain loyalties develop, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you. This is the second time that part of the riding which I was first elected to represent in 1963 has now been taken away; and certainly over the years a member of the Legislature develops a very close relationship with the people whom he is sent here to represent.

Mr. Cassidy: Was the minister the honorary fire chief down there?

Hon. Mr.. Welch: No, that distinction has never fallen to the member for Lincoln; I have never had that particular honour -- Indian chief and a number of others, but never fire chief. However, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in fact I think we all share this particular responsibility of putting fires out as far as our representative work is concerned -- certain loyalties do develop and when those breaks come, they are not easy.

We had evidence of that following the tabling of the second report. Members would rise in their place and express concerns about the fact these changes were being made and their regret that redistribution would mean that certain decisions would have to be taken with respect to areas that had formerly aligned with the established ridings over that period of time. So this is understood and these particular comments were made with much feeling at that time.

While I am making that point, I can appreciate very much the concerns expressed this morning by the member for Middlesex South. I know that if the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stewart) were here as the member for Middlesex North he would support very strongly the views expressed this morning by the member for Middlesex South.

I know by some telegrams which have arrived recently at my office since the Premier asked me to have some responsibility for the carriage of this Legislation, that if the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) were here this morning he would have some very definite points of view to express with respect to the results of the work of the commission insofar as it affected the area which he represents in the House presently as Grenville-Dundas. I am sure that if he were here he would be reading into the record this concern as it has been expressed in telegrams and by mail from those who, having studied the third report, are still not pleased with the result.

So I say that. I am also sure that any number of members -- either present today, or who would like to be here, but can’t because of some other responsibilities that are connected with their representative assignment here -- would express this concern as well.

However, I go back to the establishment of the commission itself, these three distinguished gentlemen. No one questions their integrity. No one has questioned the difficult job they have had in making these decisions as far as electoral boundaries are concerned, given their terms of reference -- which terms of reference were debated in the House at that time. In fact, they have had three reports, which are now in bill form. It was my understanding that following the publication of their first report they had over 300 submissions from the public of the province in one form or another. This response manifested itself in report No. 2. And then, of course, the debate on report No. 2 was the opportunity for the members of the Legislature to share their concern with the commission. There was the transmittal of the Hansard records of that debate to the commission, with report No. 3 being the result.

I am not able -- and I would think that you would be very surprised if I were, Mr. Speaker -- to go into all of the detail which must have influenced the commission. It was an objective commission established independent of the Legislature, but with terms of reference given to it by the Legislature. And within the framework of that particular motion the commission members addressed themselves to the responsibility which was theirs.

As I have already said, I would join with other members of the House in paying tribute to them for the work they have done, notwithstanding that everyone might not necessarily be pleased as it affects their own particular area.

As far as the rural point of view is concerned, I find that of some interest. I count myself among those sent to the Legislature to ensure that, among the interests which would be mine and the special concerns which I would express, would be those of that part of rural Ontario which makes up the Niagara Peninsula. It’s not exclusively rural; there’s a very large rural component in the great riding of Lincoln. In many of our ridings we find a very interesting blending of urban and rural components, and I think it’s very important that the rural point of view is one which is voiced in this Legislature, keeping in mind the rate by which urban development is of course evidenced here.

The whole question of the production of food, the whole question of the development of land -- all these matters are very legitimate concerns that must be kept before us. Indeed, I think it is important when one thinks about the whole concept, and someone today raised the very interesting point about balance. If we were to be very strict on the principle of representation by population, as someone suggested today, we might lose sight of some of those factors, which of course would have to modify that to some extent, and which prompted the Legislature to allow the rate of tolerance with respect to population as it affected the rural areas, the populated areas and of course the north.

Mr. Cassidy: That was grossly exceeded.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The member for Ottawa Centre makes his point that notwithstanding that, there is some question with respect to that, and I appreciate the fact that he has put that on the record because that will be something to be taken into account at another time.

I’m also interested in the comments -- and I say this just as an aside -- with respect to the population figures that are to be used. With a census in Canada only every 10 years, I suppose it’s going to be necessary to try to have redistributions as close as possible to the publication of census figures, because they can become out of date quickly. But, as I explained to the people in my area as we talk about redistribution, we are committed by our system of government to one which calls for representation by population within these guidelines and with the modifications, some of which we have made reference to. Since the last redistribution was in 1967, I believe, and the population of the province has increased substantially during the intervening eight years, it’s only natural that there would be a review of electoral boundaries to ensure as far as is practicable consistent with taking all interests into account, that we come as close to satisfying ourselves that we have a Legislature which is divided among constituencies which reflect this principle of representation.

Many other points have been raised today, and I’ve listened to them very carefully because I feel, now that this debate on second reading is coming to a conclusion, that they certainly would be of value and worthy of consideration in so far as future redistributions are concerned. I can assure the members of the House that I will draw the Premier’s attention to those particular points that have been made.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Hon. Mr. Welch: Committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

Agreed.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, at this point when we are dealing with this matter, can the minister advise us if it is his intention to provide us with the proposed amendments, perhaps before the bill is called in the early part of the week, or does he intend in fact to call the bill on Monday so that we will be made aware of what they are?

Hon. Mr. Welch: If I might respond to that, Mr. Speaker, I think the important word is “if,” because I have none in mind at the time; but if there were to be any changes, as I stated earlier, certainly I would want the hon. members to have a copy of them before they were brought in.

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. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would comment on the fact that we are fortunately now able to proceed with the continuation of the debate on the motion with respect to the budget.

It has been some days since I was able to commence my remarks with respect to this item, and I am certainly happy that this additional time has now been made available earlier than might otherwise have been the case, so that I would be able to continue.

I would thank Mr. Norman Webster of the Globe and Mail for making a necessary correction to a figure which appears on page 801 in Hansard for April 14.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s a $500,000 error.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is in the fourth last line of that first column.

I had stated that in the budget the Treasurer had added $208 to the per capita debt of Ontario, but in fact that figure covered a two-year period. The amount added by this budget is correctly stated at $139.21 per person.

The increase in this debt for the four years from 1971 to 1975 totalled $227.06. The one-year increase planned for 1975-1976 is more than half as much as that four-year amount.

Mr. Cassidy: But the member was out by $500,000, is that right?

Mr. Breithaupt: There was an error in the statement; that is correct.

Mr. Cassidy: Of about $500,000.

Mr. Breithaupt: I didn’t work out the additional figure, but in any event, Mr. Speaker, the correction for that mathematical error is now made.

But the situation is certainly a far cry from the Robarts years of 1966 to 1971, when the average debt per capita within this province was only a total of $196.26. In the four years of this present government we have multiplied our total debt almost three times from the level of four years ago.

I certainly hope, sir, that this is the only correction that will be needed in the mathematics of the first part of my reply to the budget. I must thank Mr. Webster for reading my remarks very carefully, which is apparently more than the editorial writers of the Toronto Star were able to do.

It should be obvious that funds for health service coverage must come in some form from the taxpayers of Ontario. Any investigation of removing separately collected OHIP premiums naturally would look at the savings in those collection costs and in processing expenses. If they are substantial, as I suspect, and if the matter of employer payment for employees under many of the collective bargaining arrangements can be worked out, then surely this is a matter which any cost-conscious Minister of Health should investigate.

As a result, a simple income tax surcharge might raise the necessary funds from those who can best afford to pay, and at the same time protect the pensioners and others on various allowances, while cutting out the present administrative costs.

I use this solely as an example of one item which I think is worthy of investigation. If my other remarks about savings in the costs of health care remind us of the speeches made by the former minister, the member for Quinte (Mr. Potter), then so much the better. A Liberal government would at least take these thoughts to heart and not ignore them the way this present government has ignored them.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier’s lavish Science Centre announcement in November, 1972, the magnetic levitation system has been subjected to growing attack and scepticism by responsible authorities. The government’s own figures show that the system’s operating costs -- assuming that it can ever be made to operate at all -- have increased from one cent per passenger mile, the figure used back in May of 1973, to at least three cents per passenger mile, the figure given to Toronto’s transportation committee 16 months ago.

The civil engineering costs for the test demonstration system at the CNE jumped from an estimated $6 million to $13 million. What are the cost implications for any practical application of this technology? Long after these facts became known, this government has continued to waste public money on this ill-conceived public relations version of an urban transit system.

Nobody knows even yet whether GO-Urban will ever, in fact, go anywhere. Many technical and financial questions remain unanswered. For instance:

1. The Krauss-Maffei vehicle is supposed to be propelled and levitated by a type of motor that has never before been used for ground transportation.

2. The firm chosen by the government to develop its system, Krauss-Maffei of West Germany, has never sold a magnetic levitation system to anyone and has now withdrawn entirely from the urban system development.

3. The British government has abandoned its experimental work on magnetic levitation systems.

4. A report prepared for the province by the Toronto Transit Commission, which was not made public for nine months, indicates that GO-Urban would cost more and have less potential than light rapid transit, another type of intermediate capacity system already operating in about 40 European and North American cities.

5. A report prepared for the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Board by the man who has since been hired by the province’s Deputy Minister of Housing states that light rapid transit “could be developed and therefore prepared for application at the same time as the GO-Urban system. Furthermore, there is now evidence that a light rapid transit system could be less expensive than GO-Urban.”

6. The provincial government’s own figures show, that magnetic levitation would use at least twice as much electrical energy as light rapid transit, and other estimates have indicated the power consumption of magnetic levitation could be 10 times as much as light rapid transit.

Ontario cities need a transportation system to meet today’s needs, not those of 20 or 30 years from now. There is no indication that this futuristic mode could be developed and operating in time to meet those needs. The expenditure of one more cent on this system cannot be justified.

Despite the Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough) claim to the contrary, the Davis government has not restrained its spending. There has been no credible attempt to control costs. There has been no effort to increase the productivity of government. The taxpayers are still not getting value for their money. We continue to waste money on politically-motivated advertising campaigns and redundant policy secretariats. The proposal to reduce the civil service falls somewhere between confusion and deception.

Mr. Speaker, spending is up 16.8 per cent. The deficit has been increased to $1.669 billion from last year’s level of $1.030 billion. This is a record one-year increase of 62 per cent. As the Treasurer must know -- certainly his advisers must have told him -- when governments spend more than they have, inflation is fed again.

What, then, is the sum total of the government’s programme to fight inflation which, in its own words: “Constitutes the main threat to Canada’s economic stability and international competitiveness”? It is to increase government’s spending by 16.8 per cent. It is to increase the deficit by 62 per cent. How does this square with the Treasurer’s statement: “This government has resisted the temptation to take up the current slack in the economy through increased government spending”?

The total divergence between the Treasurer’s statements and his free-spending policy might cause some voters to conclude that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. But others, including this one, suspect that he does. He still entertains the delusion that the Davis government can be re-elected if only they spend enough money. He wants to buy an election with public money. His budget is, as the Hamilton Spectator said, “an undisguised election document.” It has nothing to do with responsible financial management. With inflation running at more than 10 per cent annually, this budget just flies in the face of common sense.

That’s where the Treasurer has miscalculated. Few voters are sophisticated economic analysts, but every one of them has common sense. After the recurring scandals and indiscretions that have emanated from this government, the voters have developed a healthy cynicism about everything it does. They almost automatically expect a con job from this government, and that’s about the only expectation that this budget satisfies.

In a sense, Mr. Speaker, all this has been introductory. Now let’s take a close look at the budget itself.

On April 14, I mentioned that the Premier and the Treasurer seemed determined to mimic Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, determined to go out in a blaze of glory. But on reflection I think that my reference is to the wrong film. We have the same two actors, but their roles are in “The Sting,” and the budget they have produced is the big con.

I said earlier that the budget was an incredible document, that it cannot be believed. I have outlined some of the serious inconsistencies between the Treasurer’s statement and his policy. Now I would like to discuss the budget’s major flaw, the principal source of its incredibility. This budget is based on three assumptions. Two of them are entirely false and the third is at least very doubtful.

The first assumption is that, “the United States economy will turn around in the second half of 1975.” As part of this assumption, the Treasurer has projected that the turn-around will limit the decline in real economic growth in the United States this year to “between 3.1 per cent and 3.3 per cent.”

In fact, those expectations are two months out of date. They are from President Ford’s budget forecast in mid-February and have since been substantially revised downwards. That same budget’s statement projected 8.1 per cent unemployment in the US in 1975. Ford’s economic advisers abandoned that prediction before it was two weeks old. American unemployment hit 8.2 per cent in January, 8.2 per cent in February and 8.7 per cent in March.

The US administration has revised its projection for real economic growth this year and now officially expects a decline of 3.5 per cent.

On Thursday, two weeks ago, the US Commerce Department’s top economist stated that American unemployment will peak at more than nine per cent and that it is unlikely the US will make any substantial progress toward reducing the unemployment level until late this year. He said further that any recovery in the second half of 1975 will be sluggish.

The Treasurer’s assumption concerning American economic performance was known to be wrong before he presented his budget on that Monday night. As a result of developments since President Ford’s budget presentation, most economists, including the authoritative Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, are now predicting a decline of four per cent to five per cent in the United States real GNP this year.

The Toronto investment firm of McLeod, Young, Weir and Co. advises in its recent forecast for 1975 that:

“At the present time there can be no question that real economic activity in the US is in a state of virtual collapse. Moreover and more serious, the leading indicators do not suggest that the slide is coming to an end. Almost all the key leading indicators, such as new orders, building permits issued, housing starts, continue to head lower.”

Manufacturing rose slightly in February for the first time in six months. But retail sales in March dropped .06 per cent for the first time since November. The Conference Board in the United States, which conducts a consumer buying intention survey, warns that “if a general economic turnabout is dependent on a surge of consumer demand, it would appear that we still have some time to wait.”

Last week, the US Commerce Department predicted that the American economic slowdown will result in dramatic cutbacks of the capital investment plans in the US branch plants operating in Canada. A mid-1974 survey of Canadian affiliates of American companies forecast an increase of 19 per cent in their 1975 capital spending. By the end of the year the companies, most of them located in Ontario, had scaled down their plans and were projecting only a six per cent increase in their plant and equipment expenditures.

Ontario’s budget optimistically predicts a 17.4 per cent increase in public and private investment this year. But that prediction, like all his others, was based on the false assumption about the United States economic situation.

The Treasurer’s second assumption, that energy prices will remain stable through 1975, may not be false, but it is certainly doubtful. The Premier’s eleventh-hour conversion to a position opposing further oil and gas price increases is certainly welcome news for the people of Ontario. It is amazing what the fear of electoral defeat will do to some breeds of politician.

Last year you will remember, Mr. Speaker, he went to the federal-provincial oil price talks uninformed and unprepared. While the premiers from Alberta and Saskatchewan talked about city gate and wellhead prices, the Premier from the largest consuming province, the one who was such a competent manager, just kept nodding his head. By the time it was over he had agreed to a package that cost Ontario’s consumers nine cents a gallon for gas.

By the Treasurer’s own admission, the Premier’s acquiescence a year ago has already cost 22,000 jobs in this province, and will prevent the creation of 38,000 more this year. The agreement depleted the personal savings of every resident in the province by $10 last year, and will take $6 more from each of our bank accounts this year.

The Treasurer has calculated further that his leader’s blunder last year pushed prices 3.5 per cent higher than would otherwise have been the case. Now, this same Premier wants us to celebrate his strength and determination in protecting our interests. Well, where was he last year -- and where has he been since?

When the Premier of Alberta was campaigning for a mandate to rip off Ontario, where was our Premier? When the Premier of Alberta charged that Ontario’s petrochemical industry was trying to bleed Alberta dry, and when he characterized the consumers of Ontario as “bargain hunters,” where was Ontario’s Premier then? If the member for London South (Mr. White) wants to make speeches about politicians who are tearing this country apart, let’s hear him or anyone from the Ontario government say a few words about Premier Lougheed. Why do they avoid the central oil price issue of Alberta’s royalty structure?

Now, the Ontario Treasurer has based his entire budget on his leader’s last-ditch grandstanding. The Premier’s commitment to control oil prices is so weak that he won’t even empower the Ontario Energy Board to regulate prices within Ontario. Are we supposed to believe that this same person will keep oil prices down for all of Canada? Certainly, there is no legitimate reason to increase the gas and oil prices paid by the people of Ontario, just as there was no legitimate reason to do so last year. The greatest part of any such increase would only further swell Alberta’s already bulging coffers and those of the federal government, too.

The Premier’s deathbed repentance on oil prices, like this budget, is incredible; not believable. Everyone at the conference knew he was grandstanding for the voters back home. It was obvious as soon as they saw his companions. He took along the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development so he would seem tall, and he took along the Minister of Energy so he would seem smart. Who really expects that the other first ministers were taking the Premier’s remarks seriously?

The Treasurer’s final assumption concerns the Canadian economy, which he has predicted will grow by 2.6 per cent in 1975. Again his assumption is false. As the federal Minister of Finance announced, it seems unlikely that, on average, our national production this year will be appreciably higher than last year.

Ontario’s Treasurer should have known well before his budget that Canadian economic growth would be substantially less than the 2.6 per cent he has assumed. The Conference Board of Canada was forecasting zero growth a month ago and has projected a national unemployment rate of 8.5 per cent. The 1975 Ontario budget assumed 6.8 per cent national unemployment.

The Financial Post reported the Canadian economic predictions of 12 economists on March 22, 1975, some 10 days before the Ontario budget. Every one of them predicted a real growth rate of less than the Treasurer’s 2.6 per cent assumption. Ten of the 12 predicted a higher unemployment rate than the Treasurer has assumed.

The impact of these false assumptions on the Treasurer’s budget forecast is dramatic. It is probable that had he used the correct assumptions his forecast for economic growth in Ontario would be cut back to zero from 2.5 per cent.

His forecast for new job creation would also be cut back and his unemployment prediction would exceed six per cent. His forecast for public and private investment would also be substantially lower.

With correct assumptions, the Treasurer’s budget itself also changes dramatically. Revenues drop and the deficit soars even higher, almost certainly about $2 billion. The expenditure forecasts for municipalities, particularly for welfare payments, are also higher when accurate assumptions of high unemployment are used.

The budget is not credible. The entire document is based on false assumptions. Its economic forecast is wrong; the spending forecast is wrong; its deficit forecast is wrong. The fine words about spending restraint do not match the huge spending increase. The claim that the civil service complement is being reduced is supported by inconsistent and incomplete figures.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the only reliable statement is the one on page 16 of the budget highlights. It reads: “Expiry of the temporary stabilization measures introduced in the budget ensures the long-run financial stability 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 this government and that is exactly what we intend to do.

While we are on the subject of the budget’s incredibility, Mr. Speaker, let’s look at some of its specific measures. First, the sales tax cut. The Treasurer claims: “Savings to the consumer will be substantial.”

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Has the member any real confidence his party would improve things at all?

Mr. Breithaupt: We are certainly going to try.

How substantial are these cuts, Mr. Speaker? What are the benefits to the consumers? The effect of the sales tax decrease on retail purchases will be a reduction of 1.87 per cent but the Treasurer is predicting that inflation will be running at 9.5 per cent this year. On that basis, the total tax cut will be wiped out entirely within 10 weeks. By year end, when the tax cut expires, consumers will be 6.3 per cent behind where they were on that Monday.

Of course, the cynicism of this tax reduction, this temporary tax reduction, has been pointed out constantly since the Treasurer presented his budget. It bears repeating that clearly this government is more concerned with seeking its own re-election than with restoring long-term stability to the Ontario economy.

What sort of long-term stability could possibly result from a tax cut which lasts less than nine months? Only this short-sighted government would dare to call nine months long-term. What are the plans for next Jan. 1? Will the tax go back up to seven per cent? Or will it be up to nine per cent in order to recoup lost revenues?

The increase in GAINS payments was, of course, welcome. The payments are only 10.8 per cent over last year, barely keeping pace with inflation. Mr. Speaker, we have argued this before, and I repeat, surely Ontario’s pensioners should not have to depend upon the whims of the provincial Treasurer to maintain their buying power. These cost-of-living adjustments should be automatic, built into the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating that the Treasurer tells us in this budget that his measures will add 7,000 pensioners to the 303,000 currently receiving GAINS payments. In last year’s budget, when the GAINS programme was first introduced, the Treasurer told us, and I quote: “More than 310,000 people will receive Ontario GAINS cheques in July, 1974.” Mr. Speaker, it is now April, 1975, and the Treasurer is telling us that there will not be 310,000 receiving GAINS until next month.

Whose figures are we to believe? If there are only 303,000 pensioners receiving GAINS now, what happened to the more than 7,000 extra who supposedly started receiving GAINS nine months ago?

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer has nothing for the low-income families in Ontario. He has free drugs for even the wealthiest senior citizen but he has no prescription for the more than 400,000 children who are living in poverty right here in Ontario. In this province, 22.8 per cent of rural children are in poverty; in one-parent families headed by men, 24.6 per cent of these children grow up in poverty --

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): That is true. It’s absolutely true.

Mr. Breithaupt: In one-parent families headed by women, 65.2 per cent of children are in poverty.

Under the existing family benefits legislation in Ontario, some welfare families in Toronto have as little as 50 cents per day per person to spend on food. Actual rental rates in Toronto on average are $37 per month more than what is allowed in the legislation. While the Metro Social Planning Council has calculated that an unemployed mother living with three children would need $728 a month to function healthily, this government pays no more than $450 a month and the majority of recipients live on much less. Well, $450 a month for a mother with three children is $30 a month less than we are paying a pensioner couple whose main expenditure years have long since passed. Where’s the justice? Where’s the consistency in government policy? But then, of course, Mr. Speaker, none of those 400,000 poor children have votes.

Mr. Laughren: That’s cynical.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): How cynical.

Mr. Breithaupt: While we’re on the subject of hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, let’s take a look at the small business tax credit. It only provides help for businesses that are already doing well. There’s nothing for the businessman who is on the ropes. The tax credit is applied against a business’s increase in investment capital. In other words, it cannot be claimed unless the businessman already has sufficient retained earnings to increase his investment or unless he has a good line of credit. Is it only coincidence that small businessmen without substantial retained earnings are really in no position to donate to party coffers?

It is significant that again this year, in the budget’s measures to increase investment in productivity, there is no mention of regional disparities or economic growth in Ontario. By focusing Ontario’s growth on the Toronto-centred region, the provincial government has bled people and jobs from other parts of the province, particularly the north and east. As a result, unemployment rates in those parts of the province are unnecessarily high and unnatural inflationary demands for accommodation have been created in Toronto and nearby centres. While the area between Burlington arid Oshawa is growing at a rate of 2.6 per cent every year, the area between Kingston east is growing only half as fast, and in northwestern Ontario the population is actually declining.

This budget reveals that the Davis government still has no commitment to attract population or secondary industry to the northern or eastern parts of Ontario. There is no coordinated plan to decentralized industrial growth from Toronto. This is nowhere indicated better than by the government’s announcement last Jan. 28 that a 10,000-acre industrial park would be built near Prescott. That announcement ended more than six months of worry and uncertainty for the residents of Edwardsburgh township about the identity of the mysterious buyer who was assembling all their land. They learned, despite repeated denials by their own member, the Minister of Housing, and by the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), that the Davis government was behind the scheme from the beginning.

With typical Tory arrogance, reeves and mayors from the area were summoned to Queen’s Park and told of their future, as decided by the mandarins and political advisers in downtown Toronto. They were told that the Davis government is now competing with them for new industrial growth in eastern Ontario. They were told that all the important decisions had been made without their knowledge or assistance.

According to the Financial Times of Canada, the nine largest municipalities in eastern Ontario have about 4,200 acres of vacant serviced land in industrial parks. In Peterborough, the city will service another 100 acres within the next year. But rather than help municipalities attract industry according to local plans, the Davis government wants to build its own industrial site controlled, of course, by Queen’s Park.

The decision to buy the land and to establish an industrial park was made by four cabinet ministers only -- none of them from eastern Ontario and not, apparently, including the Minister of Industry and Tourism who is now in charge of the project. He is the same man who observed several months ago that “We’d be completely off our nut to build a new industrial park there.”

Mr. Laughren: He was right. It is self-fulfilling prophecy.

Mr. Breithaupt: The doubletalk, backtracking, lack of consultation and hopeless confusion even within the Davis cabinet are further signs of the impending collapse of a tired and bewildered government. After almost 32 years in power the Conservatives’ judgement is becoming blurred. Their priorities have become muddled. They seem to have forgotten about their decisions affecting the real people -- people who care about their future and people who care about their communities.

In the area of housing also, Mr. Speaker, this government is hopelessly confused. Less than two months ago the Minister of Housing confidently promised that Ontario would spend $550 million this year on its housing programmes. But the figure that appears in the Treasurer’s budget is $241 million less. Once again, whose figures are we supposed to believe? One figure that we do know is correct is that Ontario had the third worse performance record in Canada for housing starts in 1974.

Mr. Laughren: Shameful.

Mr. Breithaupt: In two provinces, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan, housing starts actually increased over 1973.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Yes, whose money?

Mr. Breithaupt: But not in the triple-A province, not in Ontario. Here housing starts dropped 22.6 per cent.

Mrs. Campbell: We got more money from the federal government than any other province.

Mr. Breithaupt: This is one-third worse than the national average setback of 17 per cent. Again, in the first quarter of 1975 Ontario is lagging. So what does the Treasurer propose to increase housing starts? Nothing, absolutely nothing. An almost 160 per cent increase in the budget for the Ministry of Housing results in a 5.3 per cent increase in housing starts, according to the Treasurer’s figures. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a measure of the ineffectiveness of this government’s housing programme.

While nothing is being done to eliminate the supply shortage, the Treasurer is moving to stimulate demand further through his $1,500 grant to first-home buyers. Even he must know that increasing demand without proportionately increasing supply forces prices even higher.

In the circumstances, it is perhaps fortunate that the grant itself is so seriously flawed that it will not help anybody who can’t already afford to buy a house. Home buyers cannot collect the money until after the deal is closed. That means it is not available to apply against the downpayment. The buyers must continue to arrange their own financing without any help from this government. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the only effect of this grant will be to give the $1,500 windfall gain to some of the party’s developer friends.

In this regard, I would like to quote from a recent speech from the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing which concluded:

“All I can say to you is that I feel real frustration and resentment at such callous manipulation of people who are unable to help themselves. Housing is a basic need, shelter the right of every man. Let’s remove it from the realm of political gamesmanship and put it where it belongs, the No. 1 priority of our times.”

Those are noble sentiments but totally in- inconsistent with what appears in this budget. We are supposed to be impressed by a 160 per cent increase in expenditures by the Ministry of Housing, but what impresses us even more is that last year the same ministry underspent its much smaller budget by some $13 million, or more than 15 per cent.

In fiscal 1974, this government underspent its housing budget by $49 million. In fiscal 1973, they underspent by $54 million. Are we to believe this current spending increase is anything but a public relations gesture? Are we to believe that a housing ministry that lacks sufficient imagination to spend $103 million to increase housing starts has any intention to spend its $181 million budget this year? The amount of money spent on home ownership programmes actually dropped after the advent of this new Ministry of Housing by 12 per cent, from $110 million in fiscal 1973 to less than $97 million in fiscal 1974. Add the rate of inflation to that, Mr. Speaker, and it is clear that we are making haste backwards with unprecedented speed.

In 1973 the Comay task force reported: “The dominant need of 300,000 to 400,000 families in Ontario is for housing they can afford.” Recently a study commission of the Metropolitan Toronto social service and housing committee revealed that in this city for the first time since the Second World War some families are actually homeless. Home ownership is effectively denied to all but the top 40 per cent of our income earners, and rents are exorbitant and increasing.

As the vacancy rate in our major cities slips below one per cent, two-year leases are being replaced by the one-year lease or in some cases by no leases at all. Even the president of the Urban Development Institute of Canada admits that rents are rising between 12 and 15 per cent on the average, well above the inflation rate.

Low-income families are forced to pay up to 50 per cent of their income for shelter, to the serious detriment of their families and, particularly, of their children. Already a near majority of Ontario’s residents are tenants and they find themselves in a marketplace characterized by scarcity and high rent. They are becoming well organized and vocal, effectively making the case for security of tenure and protection from excessive rent increases.

But this budget doesn’t contain a single measure to help tenants. As the Toronto Star noted, and I quote: “For the house-hunter, the renter and the home-builder, McKeough’s budget is a disappointment.”

Of course, this government has a tradition of disappointments in the housing field. Last year, for instance, the Treasurer predicted 100,000 new housing starts. But when the year ended we were 15,000 housing starts short. Where did the shortage go? The Minister of Housing told us his programmes would facilitate 31,100 housing starts last year. In fact, they resulted in fewer than 15,000 starts.

Just look at the trail of broken promises. In 1974, Ontario committed $8.5 million to the joint Neighbourhood Improvement Programme. But the Housing Ministry estimates contain only a $3 million budget for the programme, and less than $700,000 was actually approved by Management Board.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Looks good; better save some more of that.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, as we are approaching 1 o’clock I move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr. Breithaupt moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, on Monday we will proceed with this debate and the hon. member for Kitchener will conclude at that time. Following that, we will deal with the bills that we were talking about last evening, such as items 8, 7 and 12 on the order paper.

I expect on Monday I will be able to give to the House a list of the estimates to be considered in committee and in the House. On Tuesday, I expect we will finish the redistribution bill. Also, if the election expenses bill is concluded in committee -- I don’t know if it’s done now or not -- we would also deal with that.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.