The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Mr. Deans: It’s a good job we’re not allowed to ask questions of backbenchers, isn’t it? I have a question for the Premier. Does the Premier recall on Aug. 20 making a statement that there would be 1,000 jobs created by the government for young people, in co-operation with the youth secretariat and Colleges and Universities?

Can the Premier indicate how many of the jobs have been created, where the jobs are, how many people are currently employed in those jobs and whatever other information he thinks might be appropriate?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to get an update for the hon. member and will try to have it for Monday.

Mr. Deans: That certainly seems a long time. He will have it maybe on Tuesday but he’ll try for Monday.

Mr. Reid: Did he cancel today, due to lack of enthusiasm?

SALE OF LAND TO NON-CANADIANS

Mr. Deans: Can the Treasurer indicate whether there is any policy in Ontario with regard to the recent statement of the federal government that it will clear up any constitutional problems with regard to the prohibiting of sale of land to other than Canadian citizens; whether the Province of Ontario intends to have a policy with regard to the sale of land and whether the new statements by the federal government have in any way influenced the existing policy? Does the Treasurer feel that it is likely that the Province of Ontario will follow the recommendations of the select committee on economic and cultural nationalism?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney General were here, I’d let him answer the question because it has largely been in his area. I think it is fair to say, however, that Ontario was one of the applicants -- is that the right word, I say to my lawyer friend on my right? -- in the Prince Edward Island court case. We are reasonably satisfied with the results, if I can put it that way. The Prime Minister of Canada has written to the provinces and putting it in lay language has backed down somewhat from the lofty position which his government formerly held. I think that in the process of negotiation a more acceptable solution is going to be found. Obviously those solutions in law have to be found before someone would come to a practical decision as to whether we proceed with the specific recommendations of the select committee.

Mr. Deans: Is it the intention of the government to make a statement in this regard at some point between now and the opening of the next session? Is it the government’s intention, in fact, to put into place some regulations or legislation which will meet at least part way, the criteria established by the select committee, if, in fact, that is permissible by law?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I imagine at some point we will be taking a decision, but I would have to tell the member that it isn’t on the front burner at the moment.

INCO/FALCONBRIDGE BUSINESS POLICIES

Mr. Deans: A final question on behalf of my colleagues from Sudbury, who are all in Sudbury at the moment: Would the Premier consider the establishment of an all-party committee of the Legislature to review the actions of the International Nickel Co. and Falconbridge to determine whether or not their actions, with regard to the way in which they conduct business, lay people off, set prices, have their shares of the nickel and copper market, are in the best interests not only of the Sudbury basin but in the best interests of the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t really think that would be an appropriate subject for a select committee of this House. I think if the hon. members from that area have concerns and points of view, they are certainly free to express them during the Throne debate or on other occasions, but I couldn’t give the deputy leader of the opposition any encouragement that there would be a select committee to consider that.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Is the Premier satisfied that the actions of Falconbridge and International Nickel are in the economic best interests of the Sudbury basin; that it is possible, given the uncertainty of the operations, for the Sudbury council and those persons concerned with growth in the Sudbury area, to make reasonable projections and plans for the future; and doesn’t he feel that International Nickel and Falconbridge, given the markets that they have, owe it to the province and to the people there to take them into their confidence with regard to the future of the area?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s obvious that the future plans of either International Nickel or Falconbridge are important to the people of that community and important to the people of this province. If, say, the regional council in the area wished to discuss some of these things, I think that to the extent those companies could, they would share some of their thoughts with them. As far as the government is concerned, I don’t think it’s like so many things today, it is not totally predictable, and I can’t really visualize any useful purpose being served by a select committee on this subject.

U.N. ZIONISM RESOLUTION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he has given any further consideration to the introduction of a resolution that would condemn the stand taken by the United Nations which equates Zionism with racism, as we discussed yesterday? I don’t see it on the order paper.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the intent of the government was to introduce this resolution today. I have it here.

Mr. Nixon: And the Premier is going to do so?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Has the policy of the Liquor Licence Board changed recently having to do with applications from communities for special occasion permits where the community itself has not voted “yes” in a referendum?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, a number of applications have been made for sale permits in those areas and it is the view of the Board that if the people in the area wanted to have liquor sold they would have voted “yes” to a referendum. We are reviewing the situation to determine whether or not there has been a practice grown up over the years of granting them despite the “no” votes. However, no-sale permits -- special occasion permits -- are still available to people who wish to serve liquor at various functions in dry areas.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that the custom has built up over many years whereby under the government policy a community could vote “no,” and have sale permits or permits that by custom permitted sale, and that probably a lot more sports activities in this province have been financed that way than Wintario has ever touched, or ever will touch? Where did this new policy come from? Surely the old hypocrisy of Conservative policy should be supported by the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re debating the question now. Is there a question?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The hon. leader of the Liberal Party is talking about where sale has grown up by custom.

Mr. Nixon: Under this ministry.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Not under our ministry. The permits have always designated no sale. There’s no question about it.

Mr. Nixon: But the ministry has never interfered with it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There’s no question that what has grown up is the practice of either charging admission to a no-sale function or selling tickets in advance. I think the board here is trying to remove the hypocrisy which has existed in these areas for some time and is now issuing no-sale permits.

However, as I say, we are reviewing the policy and discussing it with the chairman of the board to determine whether or not, where a practice has grown up and people have become accustomed to it, it shouldn’t be continued to be honoured until the new Act comes into effect, at which time the provisions of the new Act will be rigidly enforced.

Mrs. Campbell: Who is the chairman?

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, if the Speaker will permit me. Did this no-hypocrisy policy, which is a new policy, come from the chairman or the minister? Where did it come from?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the minister does not determine policy for the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

Mr. Moffatt: In view of what the minister has said with regard to this kind of permit, is he aware that the LCBO is using a firm called the Ontario Investigation Bureau, to investigate issued permits, particularly in the area of Oshawa and Durham East, with regard to such no-sale permits? And is the minister further aware that such permits have been issued, then sales have followed and now some kind of clamp-down is being investigated by the LCBO in order to prevent further transgressions of that sort? Why this sudden change, and is the minister aware of those particular changes?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, if I was aware of any transgressions of the Act I would certainly want to see that the Act is enforced. This is a law-abiding province.

Mr. Nixon: That’s hypocrisy right there.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: When a permit is issued legally under the Act under certain conditions, those conditions should be complied with. The hon. member is asking if I am aware of certain activities of some police organization. No, I’m not aware of that, but I would assume that the job of police organizations is to uphold the law and to ensure that it’s being enforced properly, that’s all.

Mr. Moffatt: One further supplementary: The organization referred to is not a police organization, it is an outfit called the Ontario Investigation Bureau.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a question?

SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS

Mr. Nixon: I’d like to put another question on a similar subject to the Minister of Revenue. Does the minister oversee the revenues of the Liquor Control Board, that is, directly from their sales across the province, and the special application of tax for those products that are going to be dispensed under the jurisdiction of the special occasion permits that I was questioning his colleague about a few moments ago?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the answer in short is no, we do not.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary. Who does?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I honestly can’t answer the question as to who does. The figures come across my desk in terms of the estimates and the actual revenue, but we do not administer the Acts nor the collection of the taxes nor any breakdown of the manner in which the taxes are collected.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister tell me who has that responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Meen: No, I’m not sure that I can with any confidence, Mr. Speaker. I would think that it would be the Provincial Auditor and possibly the Treasurer who would have access to those figures. But I am simply making that as an assumption since they come through as fiscal figures in some part of the revenue picture of the province. Perhaps the question could be more properly directed to the Treasurer.

SPECIAL OCCASION PERMITS

Mr. Nixon: I would like to pursue this with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs. Is the minister aware that when the Liquor Licence Board issues these so-called special occasion permits and the holders of the permits go to purchase the liquor for the special occasion, that a special tax is added and that the revenue people of the province are not at all concerned that it is going to be sold for a profit, even in those communities in which the minister has said, in his new anti-hypocrisy move, that they should not be sold?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: How can the minister have it both ways? How can he have the revenue and the godliness?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, all liquor and beverages sold in the province are subject to sales tax. The sales tax is collected by the board.

Mr. Nixon: There is a special fee if it is sold for profit.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is not a special fee; it’s in lieu of the sales tax.

[10:15]

Mr. Nixon: It’s a special fee that goes into government revenues.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If an individual purchases a drink in a licensed establishment, the sales tax is added at that point. When a drink is purchased at a special occasion function the sales tax is not paid at that point. The purchaser of the liquor has paid the sales tax when he purchases his supply.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: How can the minister say that he does not permit sales in dry areas and, at the same time, he charges the special fee in lieu of sales tax on liquors purchased on the basis of the special occasion permits? May I make it clearer, Mr. Speaker, to the minister?

Mr. Speaker: I think it’s quite clear.

Mr. Nixon: How can he possibly get the special revenue for a sale when he says he doesn’t permit the sale?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there is no public sale in a dry area. That is the local option of the people in those areas.

Mr. Nixon: But the government gets the special revenues.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: When the applicants purchase their supplies, obviously they purchase them from an area outside the dry area. They cannot purchase them in that area.

Mr. Nixon: No, it is on the basis of the permit.

Mr. Gaunt: And that isn’t obvious.

GUELPH REFORMATORY ABATTOIR

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Correctional Services if the operation of the various facilities at Guelph -- and at other reformatories -- are continuing with the slaughter of cattle and the packing of meats? Are we using the labour from the reformatories for this purpose? Is the policy going to be different because of his predecessor’s decision that all of this would be cut out and the prisoners would just sit there and do whatever they do rather than have any constructive employment?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed as of this morning that the operation at the Guelph correctional centre is in operation as usual and that inmates are being employed in the programme. It is our intention to see that this operation continues. We are developing similar programmes at correctional centres such as Maplehurst.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary: Does the minister accept any responsibility for seeing that the farmers who provide the livestock for this operation are not going to be in receipt of NSF cheques, as they have been in the last month?

Hon. J. R. Smith: A meeting was arranged today, for next Tuesday, with the receivers and we intend to sit down with him to establish the full ramifications of the two liens which have been placed against the equipment at the abattoir in Guelph. We have let it be known to the receiver that we are very concerned that his first priority is the moral obligation to pay the farmers for this cattle. Representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food will also be at the meeting with the receiver.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Hold that cheque.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary to the minister: Is the minister satisfied; or does he consider it in his interest to seek information as to whether the abattoir at Guelph is going to be put on a profit-making basis?

Hon. J. R. Smith: Mr. Speaker, it is a licensing arrangement with Essex Packers. I don’t know how one equates it with a profit-making basis. Eventually, if it was going at full capacity, it would be. There has been $60,000 paid, as of September, to the inmates as remuneration. Should Essex Packers opt out through financial difficulties we’ve already had inquiries from other packing houses who will operate the plant.

Mr. R. S. Smith: It operates itself.

Hon. J. R. Smith: If it is operating at full capacity, through repayment of the licensing agreement, we should regain the full cost of the installation eventually.

SUPPLY OF FISH TO INDIAN RESERVES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, in the absence of the Minister of Health, because the Ministry of Natural Resources is also involved. How does he reconcile the statement made by his colleague, the Minister of Health, to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Mrs. Bryden) during the estimates the other night, that the Indians at the Grassy Narrows and Whitedog reserves were receiving 400 lb of fish a day, give or take, for the last six or eight months?

The statement by Chief Roy McDonald yesterday to us stated this has not been given to them for the last six or eight months, but only since September, and it is only on a hit or miss basis; that in total actual days they have received fish for only one month. How does he reconcile that?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I cannot reconcile the comments of the Minister of Health. I’m sure he’s able and big enough to reconcile his own statements. I want to point out to the hon. member that the Indians have been given the right -- and he might check this with Chief Roy McDonald -- to fish in the smaller lakes that are not contaminated with mercury.

In fact, we went so far as to provide them with motors, boats and complete fishing gear. They were in there for a specific period of time -- but because the lakes were so small we couldn’t allow them to continue. They did this on their own. In the interim, we did supply fish purchased from other commercial fishermen. We even bought some from the Fresh Water Fish Marketing Corp.

I have to tell the House that we drew the line at one point in time when they asked us to deliver the fish on a door-to-door basis. We would deposit it at one specific point where they had some interim house freezers established.

But to my knowledge and information the fish was supplied when they wanted it. I believe there was one particular time when they were out of fish -- when they felt there was no need -- because there was hardly anybody in the village. But to my information they were supplied with the fish they required.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not agree that it contributes to what his colleague called “the lack of confidence and distrust” that the Indians on those reserves obviously have for the government, when a minister down here leads us to believe that the fish is delivered regularly on a daily basis over an eight-month period -- and, in fact, it is only a very hit and miss affair? Is somebody hijacking this fish?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t accept that it’s on a hit and miss basis. I have to reiterate that we have been doing our utmost to work very closely with both reserves. I’m sure if the member went up there and met with the local people, he would find that this is correct.

TORONTO PARKWAY BELT

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services -- the realty service. I understand the parkway belt has been transferred to her authority. I wonder if the minister can give some indication when the parkway belt between Yonge St. and Bayview Ave. in the riding of York Centre will be moved north on to vacant Langstaff property, a matter of a few hundred feet, thereby removing the freeze on the properties affecting 800 jobs, 84 homes and 120 business premises, and likewise freeing these people of the threat of expropriation?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot.

Mr. Mancini: When is she going to answer a question?

Mr. Speaker: Order please; is there a supplementary?

Mr. Stong: Yes, I didn’t hear the answer. If I’ve asked the wrong minister, I’d like to direct it to the right ministry.

Mr. Reid: It’s the wrong minister.

An hon. member: The wrong minister but the right portfolio.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: My reply, Mr. Speaker, is I cannot.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Godfrey: A question to the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the defunct airport and the appended city site. Is the minister prepared to compensate in a fair manner, that is, provide additional funds to those homeowners in the North Pickering development who sold their holdings to the province under duress, at prices which do not provide replacement accommodation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the hon. member’s statement as being fact that the properties were sold under duress. I’m not prepared to make any statement at this time as to how the ministry intends to proceed with this. There will be some discussions carried on as it relates to the whole project, considering the changing attitudes in the area as to what has happened of late. But I think it’s unfair for the hon. member to stand up and blatantly state in this Legislature that those people sold under duress, unless he has positive proof that that did occur.

Mr. Reid: They certainly didn’t do it voluntarily.

Mr. Godfrey: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister not been placed in possession of many complaints from the persons who sold out under the threat of expropriation if they did not sell at that particular time? Has he not received literally dozens of letters to that effect, and has he investigated that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows full well that the complaints that he refers to have been sent to many members of this Legislature, including the present Minister of Housing and his predecessors.

He also knows that the Attorney General carried out an investigation on just such complaints, and they were discussed in some detail at a meeting of the cabinet held in Oshawa. I do believe that the hon. member, in a former capacity, was present at that meeting.

POSTAL STRIKE

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: Mr. Premier, in view of the fact that the people of Ontario are looking for leadership, and --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question?

Mr. Sargent: -- in view of the fact that there are many old people who can’t eat because they can’t get their cheques, and the country is in a mess; 185,000 students are not going to school.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the member could ask his question now.

Mr. Sargent: I know the Premier is concerned too -- would he consider -- is there some way we could suspend the rules of the House next week for an all-party consideration of ways and means; to have the Premier and all of us, take part in this -- not politically -- but to find some way that he could go to Ottawa and demand from the Prime Minister of this country that we put the postal people back to work? And we’ll get this province back on track -- because many people are going to go bankrupt in the small business area. And it is time we faced this because --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: That’s Trudeau --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been asked, I believe.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Did the hon. member discuss this in caucus? What does his leader say?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I ran into some difficulty yesterday in perhaps appearing to be in support of the candidacy of the member from Ottawa East in one of his observations. I certainly wouldn’t want anyone in that particular party to feel that I am supporting any one of the members, and I would only say to the member from Grey Bruce --

Mr. Sargent: What we are talking about is important. Don’t get smart. What’s the answer? If this is the way the Premier approaches the public, he is in trouble.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member that I think perhaps during the Throne debate -- where he will be participating in a few moments, I gather, or at some time today -- that if he has any suggestions about that --

Mr. Sargent: I hope the Premier will be around.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If I am not, I can assure him that I shall read whatever he has to say -- and any suggestions that he feels that a government in this province can make to help resolve the postal situation. I shall be delighted to hear from him.

I would only say that I don’t think it would serve any useful purpose to suspend the roles of this House and have a debate as to how the federal government should deal with that particular issue, and I say that very respectfully. I just don’t think it would serve a purpose.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

SALE OF FIREARMS

Mr. Grossman: A question of the Solicitor General. I have noticed near my home, some extensive advertising by Canadian Tire and other stores on the subject of buying firearms now while there is a sale on. In view of the pending federal legislation I wonder if the Solicitor General would consider requesting all stores, between now and the time the federal legislation becomes law, to register and record all sales of firearms? And in any event, if he would indicate that such high profile advertising of the sale of firearms in the interim would inadvisable?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take it under consideration.

I am sorry that some of the stores seem to be trying to unload their firearms at this time in a rush of sales -- I don’t think there is any need for them to do so -- I don’t see that firearms will be outlawed.

I am not so sure the suggestion from the member of St. Andrew-St. Patrick is all that practical. I don’t know what would be achieved by it, but certainly I’ll take it under consideration and see whether first of all we think it can be helpful to do so, and secondly whether there is any method on a voluntary basis that it can be accomplished. I don’t think there is any legal authority for so doing.

I would just like to add, sir, for the information of the House that I did have a meeting in my office on Monday last with the Hon. Warren Allmand and the Hon. Ronald Basford in connection with gun control. They have some very good proposals to make. They asked that I should keep the nature of those proposals confidential at this time because they have others to take into their consulting programme. But, in any event, they assured me that something would be before the federal House before Christmas.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland.

ABITIBI LABOUR NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I would ask her if she recalls her reply to a question about the termination of negotiations between Abitibi and CPU in which she said that there isn’t any settlement as yet. At present they are in a recess, as one might call it, because the negotiator for one side is off in another part of Ontario. Then when this was pursued by the member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith) who questioned the use of the word “recess”, she said, I think, that my learned colleague had been somewhat misinformed.

[10:30]

Is she aware that both Mr. Tom Curley, the vice-president of the Canadian Paper Workers Union and Mr. McLenaghen, the vice-president of Abitibi, have both stated that the talks are not recessed, that they have broken off; they have confirmed this in conversation to me?

Mr. Riddell: Question.

Mr. Sweeney: Question.

Mr. Swart: If so, is she willing to correct that statement she made two days ago, or give a further explanation?

Hon. B. Stephenson: As you well know, I have sent a note to you this morning asking for time during the question period to correct the obvious light misapprehension under which I inadvertently left this House on Wednesday. I have been --

Mr. R. S. Smith: And led this member --

Mr. Foulds: Slight?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It was slight, yes. I obviously had misinterpreted the remarks which were made to me by members of my staff. In fact, what did happen last week was that the mediator from the ministry, after discussions with both sides at the bargaining table, decided that there was little use in further negotiation at that time and he adjourned the meeting.

I would like to tell you that I have instructed the members of the staff of the ministry to bend every effort toward some future -- and not too distant future -- return to the bargaining table on both sides, because I feel that this is an important issue which must be settled for the welfare of the people, particularly of northern Ontario.

Mr. Swart: Would the Minister of Labour then recommend to the government that they use the considerable clout -- that they have in regard to agreements on cutting rights and other matters -- to bring Abitibi, the largest paper mill in the world, back to the bargaining table for the benefit of the people of Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have just said that we have instructed the staff of the ministry to use every mechanism they can to bring both parties back to the bargaining table.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I accept the indication of the minister that the other day, when she said I was wrong, that actually I was right. I accept that statement.

I would just like to ask her if she is aware that the bargaining position of Abitibi, and the offer that has been made by Abitibi, is below the guidelines that have been set by the federal government in so far as wage offers are concerned? In light of this, I would follow on the question of the previous speaker and say: is the minister prepared to indicate to the Minister of Natural Resources that Abitibi is not bargaining in good faith and that some use of the government power through that ministry should be used to bring Abitibi back to the bargaining table, to tell them to bargain in good faith?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It depends on whose interpretation of the AIB guidelines you use -- whether the Abitibi proposal was below. It certainly was not above, with that I would agree.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Six per cent, as far as I am concerned, is below.

Hon. B. Stephenson: One interpretation of the Abitibi proposal was, in fact, at the level set by the Anti-Inflation Board.

Mr. Nixon: Six per cent?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, it was not six per cent; it was eight, six, and four per cent.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Over three years.

Hon. B. Stephenson: In the strict interpretation of the AIB guidelines, those are the guidelines. There are mechanisms for moving from those specific guidelines, as well. Whether this could be considered bargaining in bad faith, I am not prepared to say at this point. But if, in fact, the members of our staff believe that it is so, I am sure that action will be taken. The negotiators --

Mr. Deans: The members of your staff have never had to believe that.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- and the mediators -- I would say to the deputy leader of the opposition that I would be very happy to talk to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) about whatever he can possibly do to help us bring both of these parties back to the table, because this is essential.

Mr. Stokes: A supplementary: Does the minister not think it would be much more productive and much more fruitful if we could get bargaining on a company basis rather than on an industry basis, where we have got one intransigent company supposedly setting the pattern? Why don’t we insist that they do it on a company basis rather than on an industry-wide basis, using one company?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this has not been the pattern in this industry. I would think that this is one of the things which should be discussed between the union and the companies and I would hope that some agreement would be reached about this.

There has been some leadership in this direction encouraged by the Ministry of Labour in this province -- by the ministry and the minister -- in the past year. There is some joint bargaining of a very fruitful nature taking place, which I hope is going to continue, and I think this pattern, having been set, will probably be followed by other employers.

EGANVILLE CREAMERY

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Given that minister’s newfound passion for the economic health and welfare of the dairy industry in eastern Ontario, I would ask the minister what, if anything, he is prepared to do to protect those jobs threatened at the Eganville Creamery by the take over of Ault Foods?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Nixon: Well?

Mr. Singer: Well?

Mr. Nixon: I thought the minister wanted to help the dairy industry. Yesterday he wanted to help them.

Hon. W. Newman: Let me say this, if it wasn’t for the negotiations of the milk marketing board and this ministry, there would be a lot more producers in eastern Ontario who wouldn’t have a market today, so don’t forget that.

Mr. Nixon: You gave help to Ault’s and they are closing down. That is how helpful you are.

Hon. W. Newman: Coming to the immediate question, yes, when Ault took over from Cow & Gate there were some changes. We tried to minimize the jobs that would be lost. We ensured that all the shippers in the area were taken care of, both the cream shippers and the milk shippers. That was one of our concerns. Cow & Gate had some problems and Ault took over, but I think I can safely say that all the producers in that area were taken care of.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Does the minister not --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That is not a supplementary. A supplementary question is based on the answer given by the minister, and another question may be placed later. The hon. member will take his seat.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Education: At what point in time will the minister personally intervene, meeting with both sides of the dispute that is going on presently with the Metro Toronto secondary teachers? And if a meeting is going to actually take place, would it be possible for it to take place this weekend?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I met with both sides in that dispute on Tuesday, as I think my friend knows.

Mr. Deans: You explained the guidelines.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certain questions were put to them, particularly the questions asking if either one of them had any suggestion as to how this dispute could be solved at this 11th hour, and no answer that was meaningful and could prevent the dispute was forthcoming. I told them I was ready to meet with them at any time they were ready to meet with me and that offer still stands. If they would like to call me and suggest that they want a meeting, I am ready at any time they would like to meet. The Education Relations Commission has made the same offer and will be assessing the situation as it develops.

Mr. Warner: Supplementary: When will the Minister of Education take the initiative?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question was asked. We are wasting time by repeating questions and getting into an argumentative session. We are wasting the question period.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Will the minister consider, over the weekend, the possibility of calling the parties together at the beginning of next week, recognizing that a settlement can’t be reached as long as they are not meeting --

Mr. Nixon: It’s the same question.

Mr. Singer: Same question. Out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a supplementary question to the minister?

Mr. Deans: Are you unable to determine the difference between questions?

Mr. Reid: Oh come on! Go and get your hair done.

Mr. Ruston: Are you changing your policy now?

Mr. Singer: He’s got no policy.

Mr. Reid: Stephen Lewis you aren’t.

An hon. member: He would love to be.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question time is just about up.

Mr. Deans: Doesn’t the minister feel it makes far more sense, given the possible consequences of a long strike, that the parties be sitting together all the time attempting to find the solution, rather than sitting apart?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe the parties have to get together. They have to get together to come to a conclusion and I think they will do that presently. My friend knows how the collective bargaining process operates and he knows that if I were to call those parties together this afternoon, they would probably tell me the same thing they told me at the meeting on Tuesday. I want to see those parties suggest that they get back to the bargaining table when one or the other has some movement to make in the position.

Mr. Deans: You’re not willing. You know it and I know it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If I listen to the deputy leader’s questions any longer I’m going to be provoked to reading back some of the comments he made about teachers’ strikes two years ago in this Legislature.

Mr. Renwick: The minister is not allowed to be provoked, he knows that.

Mr. Reid: I’m not supporting you for leader.

Mr. Speaker: We had better get on with the questions.

UNION STATION AREA LAND-USE

Mr. Givens: I would like to ask the Premier when he intends to reconvene the intergovernmental committee of which he is chairman, which committee has been lying dormant for many months, with respect to the land-use aspects and the transportation problems having to do with the railway properties around Union Station, which is of very urgent importance?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m having to go by memory here.

Mr. Reid: You’re in trouble then.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I recognize it sometimes causes some of the members opposite some difficulty, too.

I would try to recall for the member for Armourdale that at the last meeting, which was in May or June, certain decisions were made and agreed to by the two railways, Metro and the city. The basic decision was to proceed with certain of the transportation aspects -- and I think it was really the diamond at Bathurst St.; I think that was the agreement reached.

Partially at the initiative of the city of Toronto, a suggestion was made that a land-use committee be established to deal with the potential development of the area which was, by and large, described as Metro Centre.

I believe these meetings have been going on. The various parties have had representation appointed to this committee. I shall endeavour to get any information about it for the member that would be helpful. I really think it will be a process which will go on for a period of time yet, before there is anything specific to report, I shall get that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Givens: Supplementary: Does the Premier realize that if the corridor is moved this will avail us of 170 acres which will enable the construction of 10,000 residential rental accommodations immediately? If he acts on this soon, we can start construction right away.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You’ve got to be kidding.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t say whether the hon. member is right or wrong; it depends on which corridor.

Mr. Reid: He’s right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If he’s talking about the corridor which relates to the through line which is part of the freight facility of the CN or CP -- it doesn’t matter -- I think there is some doubt as to whether that alignment, as suggested at one point, would be moved.

While there is some debate as to what would be available with the alteration of the corridor there is another very basic decision which has to be made by the city of Toronto and Metro, as to what the land use should be, and whether the people who own that land are prepared to proceed with some form of development in the foreseeable future. I think the parties involved in this are still a piece away from making this determination.

As I say, the province has taken the initiative in terms of trying to resolve the transportation aspect. At the request of the city of Toronto we said the province would assist and we would have people help in the consideration of land use. But the land use question is basically the responsibility of the city of Toronto.

[10:45]

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

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have about two minutes left and there are many more new questions to be asked.

Mrs. Campbell: Are there different rules for different people?

Mr. Speaker: No, that is not right; that is an unfair statement. The Minister of Government Services may give the answer to a question asked previously.

SPACE FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICES

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Mr. Speaker, this is in response to the question asked last Friday by the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) concerning the advertisement for space for the Ministry of Revenue. The advertisement for available space in the area of Yonge St. from Eglinton Ave. to Finch Ave. was in response to a request from the Ministry of Revenue on behalf of its sales tax branch.

The present office at 85 Eglinton Ave. E. is no longer adequate for the purposes of that ministry and the location on Yonge St. is considered most appropriate for the Metro sales tax office. There have been discussions between members of my staff and of the Ministry of Revenue regarding the former Ontario Hydro building at 77 Bloor St. W., but I am informed that the Ministry of Revenue does not wish to combine the local office with its head office operations.

I might say the matter is still under review by the two ministries and no decision has as yet been made.

AID TO COSTI

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The minister was quoted in the Star on Oct. 31 as saying at the annual meeting of COSTI that immigrant aid groups in Metro should increase the number of volunteer workers and depend less on government funding, and he went on to praise COSTI for its use of volunteers. Is the minister aware that COSTI, far from epitomizing the voluntary spirit, as the minister claims, was in fact heavily subsidized by the national government of Italy; and that this was necessary because of the failure of Canadian and Ontario governments to provide settlement services for the Toronto Italian community? When the minister places volunteers, does he --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. A question is asked for information, not to debate a point the member may be particularly interested in. If there is an answer to that question, the minister may give it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if you can call it a question --

Mr. Reid: Take it as a question.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- I will take it as a question certainly and give an answer.

Mr. Reid: That’s good.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Yes, I am aware that COSTI was funded partially by the Italian government, not massively, as the member would infer. The premises that it rents, as the member knows, are owned by the Italian government. I may say that it has substantial funding through the United Appeal; that its programmes, certainly in the rehabilitation area, are funded through my ministry; and that there are a substantial number of volunteer workers, which I mentioned was very heart-warming. The message that I had then, and which I will continue to have, is that it is essential to involve the members of the community in the provision of this type of service as well. We cannot institutionalize everything, and volunteer work is very important. I may say COSTI is a very fine example of volunteers playing a part in a meaningful programme.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Your question of privilege.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if you would consider arranging to have an open house so that the public could inspect and view the offices of the cabinet ministers to see the vulgar display of opulence they have compared with what we have to use.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member take his seat? That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Sargent: Okay, a supplementary to that then: When are we going to have some decent offices for backbenchers?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Come over and see me.

Mr. Sargent: -- I have seen your office. It is the Taj Mahal.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Who is that masked man?

Mr. Sargent: I have seen your office and it is beautiful.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We know who you are. Take off that mask.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member please take his seat and the hon. minister too?

Presenting reports.

Mr. Edighoffer from the standing estimates committee, presented the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

Ministry administration programme .... $5,541,000

Occupational safety programme .... 5,663,000

Industrial relations programme ..... 2,984,000

Human Rights Commission programme ... 997,000

Employment services programme .... 2,847,000

Women’s programme ..................... 710,000

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Motions.

U.N. ZIONISM RESOLUTION

Hon. Mr. Davis moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that this House associates itself with the resolution passed by the House of Commons of Canada rejecting the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly equating Zionism with racism.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t intend to talk on this resolution at great length. I believe one or two other members will have some observations to make. As I mentioned yesterday, it has not been customary for this House to become involved in international matters, but I think the history in this province of lack of discrimination, the posture taken by all members of this House, and I think the great tradition that we have developed in this province is one that should be recalled in situations of this kind and I have no reluctance, Mr. Speaker, in urging the members of this House -- I know it will require no urging to support this resolution -- to say to the members of Parliament of this country that we concur in the position that they took on this, I think, very fundamental issue.

I would say simply, Mr. Speaker, that it’s unfortunate that these situations occur in the international field. And while it may not be our constitutional responsibility, I feel as an individual, certainly, and I think most members of this House do, that the action taken by the United Nations Assembly was regrettable. It does nothing to resolve the problems and tensions that are faced not only in the Middle East but in other parts of the world. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have no reluctance at all in moving this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: I think it would be appropriate if the seconder of the motion might speak next. The hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: In seconding the motion, I feel very strongly that the resolution of the United Nations equating Zionism with racism is racism itself. One of the most moving things I have seen in many years was the spokesman from the Israeli delegation at the rostrum in the United Nations, saying: “All I can do is consider this a scrap of paper and treat it as such.” He tore it in half and threw it on the floor.

In the mind of that man and all of the people in his nation, and the people, I suppose, who know some of the lessons of history over the last century and more, there is the feeling that the old prejudices which have scarred civilization for so long are still just really beneath the surface still. Anyone who has the idea that our level of civilization has done away with the threats of those prejudices simply doesn’t know the record of history, or what seems to lie still in the hearts of man.

The fact that internal politics and, I suppose, world politics could move the United Nations to support such a resolution with a majority is almost unthinkable to us in this community.

I commend the Premier for bringing the motion forward. There’s nothing much we can do about it except say to anybody who will listen, and who we can make listen, our abhorrence of this motion and our commitment to see that the attitudes which fostered it are buried forever.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition, I want to say that we most certainly do agree with the resolution put forward by the Premier and seconded by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I think there are a lot of people who have had serious reservations about the role United Nations has been playing in the last few years. There have been a lot of questions being asked by nations about the appropriateness of the statements that come from the United Nations. I worry that the action that was taken is going to further deteriorate the useful role that it might have been able to play in the development of world peace.

I, like the leader of the Liberal Party, can’t help wondering at what point we begin to show some common sense and understanding and stop allowing racism to become a major force in terms of the relationships between people. I think the leader of the Liberal Party put it well, as did the Premier, that the very action itself fosters and brings about racism, and that the United Nations was certainly ill-advised in adopting the resolution that they adopted. I think that the government of Canada has to be extremely careful in the support that it gives to the United Nations, if it is going to take these kinds of positions with regard to matters of such grave concern to a great number of people across the country and across the world.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, it is with some regret that I rise today. I suppose very few people in this House would have ever foreseen the day when parliaments of this nation and other nations would have to deal with a resolution of the United Nations, no less, as despicable as this resolution is. In fact, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is absolutely right when he says the resolution itself is racism. That is what makes it appropriate and proper and in order for this House to apply itself to this matter for a moment because racism cannot know any bounds and the fight against racism must cross borders, must not be delineated by any British North America Act, any constitution, or any splits of federal and provincial jurisdiction.

The fight against racism has been spoken of in these halls and in this chamber before; recently with the PLO incident of last spring. This government and this assembly showed some leadership in jumping in at an early stage in the sequence of events that led the United Nations down a despicable road which may well lead the United Nations itself to be merely a scrap of paper. It may well lead the United Nations to be a body which is supported by those who feel one way, but controlled by those who feel another way.

That latter portion of members of the United Nations is indeed successfully using that formerly august body for racist purposes, for political purposes, and for purposes that are frightening to me. I think they are frightening to a lot of people in this country and in a lot of the democracies that are funding that body at the present time.

I hope that the government of Canada will continue to speak up strongly against any moves of the United Nations which would continue down this despicable road, and that the government of Canada would continue to seriously reassess the habitat conference of next year and the fact that conferences such as that, giving a platform to those who would continue to put forward racist resolutions, would perhaps be cancelled.

There is no place in this country, I would hope, under any auspices, under any jurisdiction, under any code laid down by the United Nations or any other body, to continue to give platforms to those who would preach, forward and foster racism. I would join with this House in expressing support of the steps taken by the Parliament of Canada. I express my individual and complete disgust of the resolution of the United Nations.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, may I commend the Premier, my leader, the acting Leader of the official Opposition and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick for what they have said on this matter. It is a most serious matter. This Legislature has had, I think, a pretty good record in being loud and clear and firm about matters of this sort.

Several years ago, I had the privilege of being able to join the then member for York-Forest Hill, Mr. Dunlop, in a resolution addressed to the federal government concerning hate literature. That received, at that time, unanimous approval of this House.

The resolution here today is of great importance. When one reads the papers and reads the comments of the representative of the very small African nation who said: “I wasn’t really sure what Zionism meant.” I don’t know how he eventually voted but there he was -- and he was, a world’s spokesman on behalf of his nation -- voting on a matter such as this.

When one tries to understand the thrust of this resolution and thinks back to the days of the holocaust, the gas ovens and the final solution and that sort of thing, I think it is important that we keep on saying at Queen’s Park, in Ottawa and in every Legislature across this country that we Canadians stand violently opposed to this kind of attitude and reaction wherever it might come from. I’m happy to join with those who spoke in favour of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor- Sandwich.

Mr. Bounsall: The House, in bringing forward this resolution in support of the stand taken by our federal government, does itself proud in this matter. Zionism is not racism under any Human Rights Code. People who work in this field on a full time basis would never say, looking at the history of the Zionism movement, that it in any way could be called or referred to as racism.

I’m concerned that such a resolution should pass the United Nations. I feel it has the potential to weaken that organization; and the resolution itself does nothing to lessen the tensions which must be lessened in that area of the world if there ever is to be a long-term solution to problems continually arising there.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I’m honoured to add my small contribution to this debate and commend the people who brought the motion forward. I stand with all the members of this House in condemning the resolution which passed the United Nations; and I’m glad to see that the Ontario House will support the federal House in their stand against it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, as the chief law officer of the province I am very pleased to have the opportunity of supporting this resolution. In my view, the Zionist movement is simply based on an entirely justifiable struggle for social justice. While international politics may constitutionally lie outside the jurisdiction of this House, the apparent lack of international political morality, as reflected by the United Nations resolution, deserves our protest. At the same time, it is surely appropriate that the elected representatives of the people of Ontario express their despair over the declining usefulness of the United Nations as a forum for the pursuit of peace.

However, most important is that this Legislature express to the world, its support of the integrity and sovereignty of the Jewish national state.

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, as well as being the member for Armourdale, I happen to be the nationally-elected president of all the Zionist organizations in Canada. The tens of thousands of members and their families whom I represent would want me to thank and commend the government for bringing in this resolution, and to thank my leader for bringing up this subject yesterday and today and the acting leader of the NDP for the words he has spoken.

Our community in Ontario and throughout the country has been shaken and shocked to the marrow. I tell the House it has been thrilling for me, as a Canadian by birth, to sit here and to listen to the expressions of opinions which have taken place.

The allegation in the United Nations resolution is unwarranted; it is unjust and it is untrue. Zionism is the antithesis of racism. Zionism is an ideology broadly based on the tenets and principles of the Old Testament.

If a case can be made that Zionism is equivalent to or synonymous with racism, I suggest, with great respect, that case can be made by the Moslem and the Communist countries of the United Nations that Christianity is equivalent to racism.

Zionism fostered the national liberation movement of the Jewish people and it fostered the establishment of the state of Israel as a haven of refuge for our poor and oppressed brethren throughout the world.

It is ironic that about a million people who survived the ovens and incinerators of the concentration camps of Europe and who have stamps, marks, numbers tattooed on their forearms should now be branded with the stamp of racism both in Israel and in this country. It would be ironic to tell the relatives, the parents and the friends of the six young teenagers who were killed by a bomb yesterday in Zion Square in Jerusalem, and the 40 people who were wounded yesterday, that they are racist. I appeal to members on all sides of this House to support unanimously this motion, as was done in the House of Commons the other day.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, as one who for some years represented a ward in North York made up largely of people of the Jewish faith and as one who still represents a large body of people of that same persuasion, and as one also who has had a great deal to do with the Bund and Histadrut and other Jewish organizations, my feeling is that a condemnation of this magnitude by the United Nations does damage not only to the Zionist as such -- because not all people of the Jewish faith are Zionists -- but to all people not only in Israel but across the world who have that heritage.

Those of us who are interested in what we have, called “the brotherhood of man,” feel this deeply and we realize that here is a blow at the very concept that people around the world have been working for, not only in the Christian religion to which I belong, but in every great religion of this world. There is that deep bond calling for brotherhood everywhere and this is something which strikes at the very roots and the very heart of that concept. Today, I am certain that this House will unanimously agree to support this resolution and I call upon the members to do so.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, the governments and peoples of the western world have been subjected to great pressures and social unrest in recent times and have found it on occasion difficult to resist some of the onslaught that has been directed toward us. Yet we know, appreciate and understand that these basic principles and freedoms are the things that have established a strong fabric for our communities, our society, and one which will continue to hold true down through the years.

However, it is not without the support of governments in expressing their freedoms and beliefs that we can be assured of this continuing right and freedom of the individual, free of racism, free of bigotry. Indeed, it has been a dark day, with the event that has transpired in the United Nations.

I am afraid that the action taken there has, in fact, set the stage for the demise of the United Nations unless the free governments and countries from around the world take some positive action to reverse this tragic act that was engaged in the other day.

I feel, in fact, that the stage has now been set for the United Nations to go the way of its predecessor, the League of Nations, unless we as provincial governments and federal governments express a true and genuine interest in seeing that this type of racism is eliminated and never again graces the tables in the forum of the United Nations.

It is on this basis I am hopeful that all of the other provincial governments will take the same type of concerted action in expressing support for the government of Canada in its abhorrence of the action taken in the United Nations, and that pressures from this country and others will be brought to bear to make the United Nations aware of the error of its ways.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to endorse the resolution of the Premier, supported by my leader. When I first heard this on the television in my own community I really couldn’t believe what I had heard. To think that a body formed essentially in this world for the protection of national and human rights would pass a resolution which in itself was racist. We thought that that body’s purpose was to eliminate such concerns or such ideas, yet here we have this august body deciding all of a sudden that one national group and their aims and objectives are racist.

Yesterday it was Dachau, it was Belsen; today it is the UN. Surely we are not looking for a repetition of what we have seen and what one national group has gone through in the last world war. I hope that not only this Legislature but all legislatures across Canada -- and all countries in the free world -- take this resolution for what it is meant and raise strong objections to the passing of the UN resolution by supporting such a resolution as was presented by the Premier here this morning.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This has been a most moving debate. Because of the serious nature of the subject it has been a debate with very little rhetoric, and because of that it has been most powerful. On certain important occasions men must stand and be counted. On certain important occasions parliaments must stand and be counted. I am proud to have been a member of this Parliament that did so.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

[11:15]

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Singer and Mr. Roy be substituted for Mr. Peterson and Mr. Reed (Halton-Burlington) on the select committee appointed to consider Bills 4 and 5.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved that leave be given to introduce a bill intituled, An Act to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a statement to make with it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have nothing to add to the statement that I made last week, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I wish to remind the members that on Wednesday, Oct. 29, the matter of the demonstration at the time of the formal opening of the session and the resulting police action, was raised in this House.

At that time the Premier read a letter which he had addressed to me that day asking that my office undertake a complete investigation of the incident. The requested investigation has been completed and I have tabled my report, copies of which are being supplied to each member and to the Legislative Press Gallery.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The fifth order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Shore: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I would like to summarize for the few who weren’t here last week where we left off. I would have been pleased to see the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) here but I am sure with the pressure of his office somebody will bring forward some of the items in Hansard to him.

Mr. Nixon: I will drive them to Chatham.

Mr. Shore: In summary, first, I would again repeat that I wish to thank the Treasurer and his office. I will be meeting next week with him and/or his staff to become familiar with the internal workings. As I stated previously, to me it is very important because I believe a person who is informed can better understand the issues and debate them than one who is not informed.

In summary of the items that we started on last week, I would be touching on the subject relating to the matters in the Throne debate addressing themselves to the anti-inflation matters; the hon. minister’s statement of Oct. 30 relating to the anti-inflation; his recommended actions; the fiscal position of the province and the accountability and credibility relative to the Treasury.

One of the first things that the hon. Treasurer stated and that our leader agreed on -- and so does our party, on which there is unanimity -- was that the government believes that inflation is the foremost critical issue in the province and in this country, and appeals to the province to be resolute in its fight.

Certainly, as I have stated, our party totally agrees with this assessment. To me, even greater importance should be on the question that we, as a party, not only feel it; we want to be sure that the government of Ontario truly believes and is resolute in its fight against inflation.

In respect to that matter the provincial Treasurer has reported further to the Legislature that he believes it is grave in the current economic situation. He stated that our consumers have been hard hit in the areas of food, housing and fuel. Again, we agree with that, but as of this date and despite the document put forward on rent controls, I say with the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker -- and I say these things not only as statements -- that I hope the Treasurer or the Premier (Mr. Davis) at some time during this Throne Speech debate, will respond to some of the observations we are putting forward here today. I really believe they require attention, not only in reading form but in answer form.

As I stated, my party does not dispute the gravity of the situation, but as of this time I don’t know what is being done in relation to the problems of food, I don’t know what’s being done in relation to the problems of energy and I don’t know what is being done in relation to the problems of housing -- and these are three major factors.

Our party does not dispute the national importance of this situation. However, before the minister decided or decides -- and it isn’t too late even at this date -- to opt into the federal plan, I suggest to you, sir, that he should take advantage of his position as Treasurer of this great province to address, and to force the federals also to address themselves, not to only the rent controls, not to only the wage controls but to the three other areas that I think are of equal importance in this whole matter of inflation and economic stability. Specifically, they have not addressed the problems of fiscal and monetary policies, government expenditure policies limiting the federal and provincial growth -- and I will speak on that in a moment -- and the structural policies relating to food, energy and housing.

The government, in the minister’s statement, did state in relation to government expenditures that much has been said and much has been done. The Treasurer states that he will be bringing in a new budget early in the year. At the same time he informs us that his plan for the next fiscal year is to adopt a provincial expenditure target of holding expenditures to 10 per cent and showing revenue growth of 12 to 13 per cent.

I submit that if this government appreciated the true gravity of the situation, a budget would have been prepared for this session of the 30th Parliament, clearly demonstrating how it is planning to meet the stated targets and how these plans will affect the people of Ontario.

On this very subject it is interesting on the one hand that the minister has stated that expenditure increases will be held to 10 per cent and revenue growth will be 12 to 13 per cent, but he has not demonstrated how this is going to take place. It is also interesting to note that we should be cognizant that, just in this fiscal year, the budget has changed three times in eight or nine months.

When we start with a planned deficit of $1.2 billion -- in terms of operational expenditures alone, never mind the non-budgetary expenditures -- and we keep accumulating that to the point today where I don’t even think the minister would object to me suggesting that the operating deficit will be in excess of $2 billion, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that it is not only questionable to operate in that type of deficit position, but it is even more questionable in terms of credibility and accountability as to what in fact is going to be our fiscal position.

In addition, the Treasurer has stated that the government is determined to bring about the stated results of a 10 per cent increase in expenditures, which incidentally last year was almost 20 per cent -- and I challenge just how that’s going to happen. But he states: “The government is determined to bring about these results without any loss of efficiency or decline in the level of essential services.” Are there perhaps, therefore, millions and millions of dollars lying idle in the coffers of the government? Is there still major fat or waste? Is that the answer? Or should we perhaps insist on a clear definition of what the Treasurer means by essential services?

I don’t want to be a prophet but just by coincidence, four or five days after the Treasurer had stated -- and I challenged it -- that the government is determined to bring about these results without any loss of efficiency or decline in the level of essential services, the Treasurer spoke to the municipal bodies of Ontario where he stated that growth in school and municipal aid will be limited to five per cent.

The first question I ask the minister is how can he make a statement last week that, without any loss of efficiency or decline in the level of essential services, to municipalities and boards of education across this province which received upwards of a 15 to 20 per cent increase in grants, conditional or otherwise, last year, if there’s some truth to this statement -- and there are quotes in that statement -- might be limited to a five per cent increase?

The second question I put to the hon. minister is that we don’t know where that five per cent is going to go. Is it going to be all in conditional grants, unconditional grants, or boards of education grants? But the most significant thing that comes out of that is, what is the definition of essential services. The second thing that comes out of that is how does the government do its planning. Further, we constantly hear the Edmonton commitment being voiced. It was stated in the Treasurer’s original document of Oct. 30, wherein he stated that the municipalities would be getting the commitment under that Edmonton plan. As I understand it -- and I stand to be corrected, though I’ve tried to get the right information -- the definition of the Edmonton commitment is that the province will increase its transfers to local governments and the agencies at the rate of growth of total provincial revenue, which the Treasurer indicated would be 12 to 13 per cent.

Second, it states that the province will pass on to local governments the full benefit of any net gain in new unconditional tax sharing by the federal government and that the province will give municipalities access to funds generated by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. Assuming my understanding of this document is correct, it therefore means that, on the one hand, he is inferring that the municipalities may get a 12 to 13 per cent increase because that is the Treasurer’s projected growth, which incidentally I challenge also, but on the other hand, how can he go to the municipalities and tell them it may be five per cent? I submit that one of the reasons why he’s doing that is that last year he gave them 15 to 20 per cent and perhaps bailed out communities and municipalities. I suggest that that perhaps is unfair to municipalities. I served in municipal levels of government and the Santa Claus days that come every so often do not do anything for intelligent planning by political people in municipalities. I’ve seen it and it doesn’t work. Last year was a particular year and every three or four years these things develop. Certainly I would hope that he doesn’t mean it’s a retroactive suggestion because that is not what this document says -- or, as I read it, means.

I suggest in summation that it is time that we truly address ourselves to the real problem. The minister, in giving his report to the Legislature, questioned whether our leader fully appreciated the magnitude and seriousness of the problems we face. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that our leader does and our caucus does. The question is does the government? I say to you in all sincerity that I’m not a historian. I say to you today that the real issue is how are we now going to come to grips with these fiscal problems? All I want to know is how and when are we going to start planning fiscal responsibility? How and when are we going to start examining the budget from a priority basis? How and when are we going to give the municipalities themselves the opportunity to plan? They want to and they’re begging to.

They can’t do it when they’re notified three months and four months beforehand that here’s their handout for this year. Neither can we in the priorities of the programmes that this government wants to undertake. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect that a government that has been in power for 32 years should at least have the foresight to give the municipalities, the ministries and this Legislature the opportunity to assess what are their desires and plans, albeit they may have to change periodically, for two, three and four years down the road so that intelligent assessments can be made. That’s all I’m asking for, and I think we’re entitled to it.

[11:30]

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, members of the Legislature have obviously chosen wisely in appointing the member for Northumberland (Mr. Rowe) as the Speaker of this House. The choice has undoubtedly been based on the knowledge of his reputation for fairness, patience and understanding. Accordingly, I extend to the Speaker, without reservations, my congratulations.

Also, I would congratulate the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) and the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) for moving and seconding, respectively, the Speech from the Throne.

Further, I am pleased at the wisdom displayed by the members of the 29th Legislature, by their action in restoring to the government of Ontario one of the most fundamental principles of good democratic government -- representation by population. This principle has been substantially eroded in recent years by growing and shifting population statistics that contradicted existing riding boundaries as established by law. The enactment of the new Representation Act in the spring of this year established eight new ridings and re-aligned boundaries in many existing ridings. The statute, in fact, achieved its intended objective to give real meaning to the principle of representation by population.

One of the four new ridings established within the Metropolitan Toronto area was the riding of Oriole of which I am proud to be the representative. Geographically, the riding was carved entirely out of the original and much larger York Mills riding. Its geographic heart is found at the intersection of the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway and the Don Valley Parkway, within the borough of North York.

Historically, Oriole was the name of the small, rural mill community which was located at Leslie St. and Sheppard Ave. In fact, the community was named after Oriole Lodge, the farmhouse of George S. Henry, the Premier of Ontario from 1930 to 1934. It was called Oriole Lodge because of the numerous Baltimore oriole birds that used to migrate to the area each spring in the early part of this century. The Henry home still stands in all its majestic splendour in the modern Henry Farm subdivision located a block away from this member’s home.

While still a part of the original York Mills riding, the area was capably and admirably represented by the Hon. Dalton Bales. The Bales family is also part of the history of North York and Mr. Bales served on the then township council of North York before being elected to the provincial government in the 1960s. Mr. Bales was a very popular and effective representative who will, in fact, be most difficult to emulate.

Oriole, the sleepy rural village, has now become the bustling cosmopolitan urban riding of Oriole. The demographics of the riding disclose a population in excess of 75,000 people, the majority of who are Anglo-Saxon, yet infused with a significant number and variety of ethnic groups and cultures.

While the riding is largely one of residential land use, it is not without its institutional, commercial and industrial uses. It is to this type of riding and its constituents that I now wish to relate the programme of the government as enunciated in the Speech from the Throne. While I may direct my remarks in this parochial sense, I am confident that my views will be, in large measure, relevant to the provincial scene as a whole.

During the recent election the Conservative Party promised implementation of a rent review programme to assist people living in rental accommodation who were experiencing the devastating effects of rapidly escalating rents. In conjunction therewith, tenant security was singled out as an essential component to providing overall protection to persons locked into the rental situation. Legislation dealing with both of these critically important issues has now been introduced into the House. I am confident that, with the cooperation of the opposition parties, their enactment will be assured before year end in substantially their present form.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the regulations under the rent review legislation will incorporate therein the suggestions I raised in the House on Oct. 31 that all landlords be required to post in an appropriate common area in their facility, a schedule of rental rates as they apply to all rental units within the building or buildings. Any effort by the opposition parties to dilute, or delay, enactment of the legislation will be directly against the interests and well-being of hundreds of thousands of Ontario citizens -- including more than 45,000 people living in Oriole riding. The establishment of rental guidelines under the new rent review legislation is an important contribution at the provincial level to the federal wage price restraint programme in the anti-inflation fight. The beneficial effect of the new laws will most certainly be felt in the pocketbooks of thousands of citizens throughout Ontario who are suffering the adverse effects of inflation.

Rent review and tenant security are, in fact, an integral part of the government’s top priority anti-inflation programme. I need not elaborate on the recent action taken by the federal government to combat inflation. I point out that on Oct. 30 the hon. Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) outlined in the House the government’s anti-inflation programme that endorses and reinforces the federal government programme. This government’s posture with regard to this thorny problem is identified in his comment that: “We place highest priority on co-ordinated national action to meet a national problem. Therefore we, the government of Ontario, will co-operate fully with the federal government.”

This position recognizes and accepts the federal government’s argument that the gravity of the situation represents a national emergency that threatens the peace, order and good government of this nation. In light of this crucial, critical situation, it is distressing and regrettable to hear the leaders of the opposition parties suggest that this government is rejecting its responsibilities by opting into a national anti-inflation programme at the direct invitation of the federal government.

Prior to the dissolution of the last Legislature, the government launched a programme aimed at strengthening one of the basic tenets upon which our democratic system rests -- law and order. It’s law and order in the sense of seeking new laws, or amendments to laws, that would strengthen society’s hand in dealing with the criminal element in our society; tougher bail reform and gun control laws; reassessment of our penal system; stronger endorsation and support for our law enforcement agencies. It’s law and order in the sense of putting a check on excessive permissiveness which has emerged in the name of achieving complete freedom of the individual as enunciated in the extreme by well-meaning civil liberties groups. Such permissiveness has had a debilitating effect on our basic values and on the respect heretofore shown for laws that endeavour to protect these values.

Mr. Philip: For example?

Mr. Williams: In regard to law and order in the sense of calling a halt to the current trend toward open civil disobedience, my concern is not so much the radical activist minority groups which openly and defiantly break our laws in a display of total disrespect for our government and society, rather it is disturbing that responsible community leaders are also beginning to engage in acts of civil disobedience.

I am greatly disturbed, as are many of my constituents from all walks of life -- professionals, rank-and-file union people, labourers, business leaders, white-collar workers, homemakers -- at the present defiance by leaders in the trade unions of governments’ genuine attempts to combat inflation. It is indeed a sad commentary on our times when a publicly-recognized leader, such as David Archer, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, openly and even boastfully announces his intention to break the law and to become a martyr by offering to be imprisoned by the state. Such action not only breeds contempt for law, it invites everyone to become a law unto himself. No sector of our society is above the law. If these men believe that they should be elevated to such an exalted position, then they are inviting anarchy.

The dangerous course that has been charted by those who have such convictions must be altered. The political and social stability of this nation must continue and flourish. Respect for law and social order must prevail. No special-interest group or groups must be permitted to intimidate our governments or to make government subservient to their self-serving interests.

However, not only must special-interest groups be brought to task if their actions are not in the public interest, but government itself must be accountable for its actions. In these inflationary times, government at all levels must exercise real restraint in both the economic and administrative sense. Mr. McNeill, deputy chairman of the Bank of Montreal, while addressing a business seminar recently held in Toronto well illustrated the legitimacy of these concerns when he pointed out that the revenues of all governments in Canada taken together, with no double counting, are now equivalent to almost 40 per cent of the total national output -- $2 out of every $5 passes through government hands.

Mr. McNeill further warned that a halt has to be called somewhere if we are not to find ourselves in the position where government is no longer the servant of the people and the roles are reversed. Consider, for example, he noted, the rampant growth in the numbers of public servants. At last count, there were about 1.25 million people employed directly by governments at all levels in Canada. That comes to one person out of every seven working in Canada.

[11:45]

In order to give further emphasis to the absolute need for government to exercise restraint in spending and in expansion, let me for a few moments move the generalities to the specific. The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), in speaking to the Ontario Hospital Assoc. annual convention last month, pointed out that health care ranks as No. 1 in terms of provincial financing. It is bigger than what we spent on education at all levels.

What is even more disconcerting is the revelation made by the Treasurer that apart from the absolute size of our expenditures on health programmes the rate of increase in these expenditures is unacceptable. Ontario hospital spending will be up by 18 per cent this year and Medicare spending will be up by 15 per cent. In both cases, the rate of cost increase substantially exceeds the rate of growth in the economy as a whole. The Treasurer cited a number of factors contributing to the problem but left the Minister of Health with the responsibility for implementing significant cost-saving measures.

I humbly suggest that one consideration might be the government’s re-assessment of its policy with regard to the capitalization, structuring and operating of small community hospitals solely on the initiative of the private sector.

Government involvement and costs would, in that setting, be limited to supervisory personnel who would inspect the hospitals on a regular basis to ensure that any such hospital would operate completely within the high standards imposed by the Ministry of Health. Such facilities would supplement the role of the major public hospitals and minimize the need for the expansion of the public hospital system.

The Throne Speech emphasizes the government’s determination to provide the people of Ontario with assured energy supplies at competitive prices and with minimum harm to the environment. A select committee of the House is presently assessing the need for justification for the newly-announced increased Hydro rates to take effect in 1976. As a member of that committee I am mindful of our primary responsibility to formulate a set of recommendations which will provide hydro to the citizens of Ontario at reasonable and not inflated rates through the year 1978.

Any decision by the committee in this regard must be balanced, however, by an awareness of the need to maintain the financial integrity of Ontario Hydro in its short and long-term efforts to not only meet growing consumer needs but to provide capital plant and facilities which will meet the extraordinary needs of our people in the foreseeable future when sources of supply from other conventional energy sources have been severely curtailed if not exhausted.

During the recent election there were three other matters which emerged as central issues the campaign and which, therefore, I believe deserve comment at this time. One of the major concerns was with regard to the preservation of local autonomy for municipal governments and the need for real dialogue between provincial and municipal officials. This need is emphasized with the introduction of regional government and the two-tier system of local government such as exists within the Metropolitan Toronto area.

As one who has served as an elected official within Metropolitan Toronto over a 12-year period, I have come to appreciate the value of a senior level of government which deals with the regional issues while reserving unto the local municipalities within the region local responsibilities. Only in this way can planning be undertaken with major services being provided in a co-ordinated manner. The concept is easy to appreciate and understand. However, the manner of implementation is crucial.

The planning of new regions with local village and town components has to be brought about through the total involvement, understanding arid co-operation of the citizens directly affected by regionalization. Preservation of the local unit as established within the new region is of paramount importance. Also, many people feel that there is too much interference by the provincial authorities in local affairs -- whether they be at the regional or local level. Let me cite a perfect example.

Substantial transportation difficulties and hardships have been experienced as a result of provincial government interference with a decision by local elected representatives to build a metropolitan roadway, the Spadina Expressway. This type of blatant interference again surfaced during and since the election when the leader of the Liberal Party and more recently, with respect, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) -- expressed a desire to involve the province in another municipal issue, the completion of a metropolitan park on the Toronto Islands. This type of flagrant intrusion by provincial officials into local affairs is, in my judgement, unwarranted and deserving of repudiation and chastisement. There is no one better equipped to understand and deal with the local or regional problems than the local or regionally elected representatives.

I have to compliment the Premier (Mr. Davis) as the architect who masterfully reorganized the provincial government into a more orderly, cohesive administration. The constant monitoring of the activities of the various ministries, within their policy fields, to ensure a co-ordinated development of government programme is fundamentally sound. However, I feel that there is one notable exception to this success. I firmly believe that elimination of the former Department of Municipal Affairs was a retrograde step. There is no more onerous ministerial responsibility than being accountable for the fiscal integrity and economic stability of the province. Even a person as capable as the hon. Treasurer must find the challenge almost excessive in further assuming responsibility for interprovincial and federal-provincial affairs. I believe it is unreasonable, however to further add to such a heavy ministerial portfolio the responsibility of municipal affairs. Good municipal government is so basic and fundamental to the well-being of this province that it is deserving of the undivided attention that could be accorded it by the establishment of a separate ministry of municipal affairs.

Another major concern of Oriole constituents during the election was that of transportation. The success of the vocal minority in persuading the province, in 1971, to interfere with Metro Toronto’s decision to build the Spadina Expressway had far-reaching consequences of disastrous proportions. For example -- the Scarborough Expressway was stopped; the Leslie St. extension was shelved; the widening of Bayview Ave. was stopped; the elimination of the Lawrence Avenue diversion was rejected. In other words, road construction in Metropolitan Toronto came to a grinding halt.

It is axiomatic that a large metropolitan area cannot long survive and flourish without a balanced transportation system that gives equal attention to public and private transportation. This concept is fully recognized in Report 19 of the Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Review. The study states as follows:

“A major urban community such as Metropolitan Toronto supports a multitude of business, commercial and cultural activities, many of which rely heavily on an efficient system of facilities for the transportation of persons, goods and services throughout and beyond the metropolitan area.

“Railways and waterways carry appreciable amounts of goods to and from the urban area, and rail commuter and rapid transit lines carry significant numbers of passengers in certain corridors. But, as in virtually all urban areas, the roads form the basic system upon which persons, goods and services may be transported to virtually any place at any time. Roads are also an essential adjunct to the public transport system, providing routes for buses, trolley coaches and streetcars.

“The road system, therefore, is a community asset and to provide maximum benefit to the community it must operate efficiently with each component fulfilling as closely as possible its intended function in contributing to a fully-integrated system.”

This government, and the Premier in particular, are to be given full credit for the initiative they have taken in recent times in placing emphasis on public transportation and on seeking out new modes or methods of transportation that will hopefully improve upon and perhaps eventually replace existing conventional transportation modes.

However, I have to be critical of the fact that this commitment has been so absolute as to totally abandon the private transportation aspects of the overall system. Consequently, I feel an imbalance in the transportation system has been created that has to be remedied at the earliest opportunity.

At the present time, there are twice the number of miles of subway lines in Metropolitan Toronto as there are miles of Metropolitan Toronto expressways. The freeway network proposed for Metropolitan Toronto in the 1964 transportation plan and 1966 metropolitan plan is less than two-thirds completed. As a consequence, existing portions of the freeway systems are already overtaxed by reason of their having to take traffic that would have normally used the as yet uncompleted portions of the expressway system.

For example, the Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Plan Review, to which I have referred, points out that traffic is attracted to the Don Valley Parkway from adjoining corridors which have no freeway access to downtown. Because of this situation, the overload factor on the Don Valley Parkway today is in excess of 30 per cent. The extension of the Don Valley Parkway to Steeles Ave. will finally be under construction within the coming months. In the meantime, the extreme congestion between the north end of the parkway and Highway 7 continues to exist and to worsen almost daily.

In my judgment, the establishment of a basic expressway grid comprised of two cross-town routes and three north-south routes, as proposed in the 1964 Metropolitan Toronto Transportation Plan, makes good sense. It cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be deemed an unwarranted proliferation of expressways.

I am hopeful that those members of the Metropolitan Toronto council with vision and strength of character will have the fortitude and resolution to restore the balanced transportation system that is so desperately needed in Metropolitan Toronto. Of equal importance, I am hopeful that the provincial government will commit itself to a positive posture when asked to support any such municipal undertaking.

[12:00]

The third and most contentious issue that dominated the campaign in my riding, and I understand many other ridings, was the elementary and high school education programme under the Ministry of Education. Parental objections ranged from strong disapproval of professional development days to carpeting on classroom floors. However, the strongest and most persistent objections were related to the fundamental concerns over school curriculum, instructional technique and classroom setting.

Time and time again parents expressed to me their dissatisfaction with regard to basic programmes. Simply stated, the parents are seeking a modification of programme that would involve a stronger core curriculum, with fewer options, taught in a more structured, closed classroom setting. Parents are not satisfied, it would appear, that children in the schools are achieving well on their own initiative with minimal direction or guidance.

The validity of these complaints is borne out by the fact that some, if not all, of the community colleges are finding it necessary to establish remedial courses in mathematics and English language skills for incoming students.

Mr. Foulds: That’s one of the reasons they were set up.

Mr. Williams: It was reported earlier this year, in one college, that the number of students required to take a remedial mathematics course has risen steadily from 22 per cent in 1970 to 45 per cent in 1974.

Mr. Philip: Why didn’t you run as a Liberal?

Mr. Williams: The same college reported that with regard to English-language skills, approximately 50 per cent of the students were below an acceptable level for reading speed and comprehension, and 29 per cent were below an acceptable level for written language skills.

Another college recently conducted a test for written literacy. For the entire group of incoming students tested, the mean raw score was 49.7, corresponding to a percentage mark of 34. The author of the report stated the obvious when he remarked: “I think most observers would agree that this is a pretty dismal showing.”

Throughout the election campaign both the Premier and the hon. Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) were unfairly criticized for a poor educational system. Both men are, in fact, to be commended for the personal contribution they have made to education in Ontario. Both men stressed, with conviction and with pride, throughout the election, that Ontario has one of the best, most comprehensive, educational systems to be found anywhere on the continent. While I agree with those comments --

Mr. Foulds: You applauded too early, fellows.

Mr. Hodgson: You haven’t been to any commencements this year have you? Pretty fine bunch of students coming out.

Mr. Foulds: I agree. I am not making the criticisms, he is.

Mr. Philip: It is your Liberal colleague who is making all the criticisms.

Mr. Williams: While I agree with those comments, that answer alone is not good enough for those parents who have experienced personal disillusionment in the educational performance of their children. If there, in fact, appears to be a widespread legitimate criticism or concern expressed with regard to the educational programme, those criticisms and concerns must not go unheeded. I sincerely believe that a reassessment with a view to possible modification of programme should be considered and undertaken by the Ministry of Education.

Such a review should provide a forum for parental and student input. I know that this government is not insensitive to people’s needs and concerns and I believe that the undertaking of such a study by the government would clearly demonstrate the government’s responsiveness to the concerns of so many people.

I could well have spoken at great length on the many past achievements of this government, and, indeed I have highlighted the ambitious government programme for the future as outlined in the Speech from the Throne. At the same time, I have felt duty bound to my constituents to convey to the government their concerns and criticisms as expressed to me during the election campaign. My fervent hope is that these concerns and constructive criticism will not fall on deaf ears.

I firmly believe that this government is responsive to the people. Furthermore, this government has represented the people and will continue to represent the people in a responsible manner. I believe that on this basis this government will soon be given a clear mandate by the people to lead them into the 1980s within the framework of a free enterprise system that has clearly made Ontario the province of opportunity.

Mr. Swart: I have not yet taken the opportunity to congratulate the Speaker on his re-election and to congratulate you on being elected Deputy Speaker. I want to do that now. I also want to say to you that I intend to co-operate with the rulings of the Speaker. One thing that has concerned me as a new member in this House is the flouting, at least to some degree, of the admonitions of the Speaker. I would hope that I will not be part of any group that may be doing that.

I want to say that I am happy, obviously, to be part of the team making up the official opposition. This will be recognized by many who know that this was my eighth try to represent the NDP and its predecessor, the CCF, at a provincial or federal level of government and, therefore, my delight at being here in the House is very real. I am particularly happy to have been assigned some duties by my party in the municipal field, and to renew some associations that I have had over the years in municipal government with the Treasurer. I must say that over those years I have found him forthright and formidable. I also must say that I have sometimes found him wrong in his decisions on local government.

I want also -- and perhaps this is somewhat out of tradition -- to pay a word of tribute to the former member for Welland. I think we can say that he was a very jovial individual and that he was a hard worker for the constituents. Of course, he had to work hard, and perhaps was not very successful, because of the type of legislation that the government enacted, or did not enact, during the 24 years he was here. I have to say to those people who remember the former member for Welland, though, that you won’t be hearing anything from me about “the great country of Welland,” which were the words that he used a great deal. You won’t be hearing me using the expression, “I’ll be breaking bread with you.” Many of you will remember those expressions. You won’t be hearing me singing --

Mr. Hodgson: If you stay around 24 years it might be a good word to use.

Mr. Swart: All right, except that like the rest of the Conservative policy --

Mr. Kennedy: What is wrong with Welland?

Mr. Swart: -- there hasn’t been a county of Welland for six years. It’s now the region of Niagara.

Members won’t hear me singing, “Let Me Call You Sweetheart” -- I’m not much of a singer -- but the loss of those vocal renditions and those old homilies I think we recognize is more than balanced by the fact that the Welland member now sits on this side, on the opposition side of the House, rather than with the government of this province, the temporary government of this province.

I’m not going to take my time in this Throne Speech debate today in talking about the great riding of Welland which may have been the habit previously. I say that is self-evident. Really what I want to talk about today is the preservation of those values and the characteristics and the environment we have in the Niagara Peninsula. We have a very real multicultural area, perhaps almost more so than any other part of this province and I’m anxious that that be maintained. My colleague from Oakwood (Mr. Grande) was articulate the other day in saying what needed to be done in the education field in the education of our ethnic groups in their own tongues, if we are going to preserve the multiculturalism of this province. I subscribe to all those points he made.

We have in the Welland area a large industrial complex which has provided a great deal of employment and I am interested in maintaining that full employment which the government of this province, along with the government of Canada, has failed to do. I’m interested in preserving good agricultural land of which there is none better than that in the Niagara Peninsula and in part of my riding. I’m interested in maintaining good government and accountable government; in having a large degree of home ownership as we have always had in that area, and adequate housing. I’m interested in equitable taxation.

I want to say that in my opinion the government has simply failed to cope with the changing conditions to provide for the preservation of these things. The Conservatives have failed to face up to the hard decisions which have to be made and, instead, very often they have established a facade or a screen or even a barrier to prevent the changes from coming about which would preserve these things.

The first area I want to mention in the refusal of the government of this province to deal with a real problem is in the matter of hydro rates. We have heard something in this House and will hear a lot more about hydro rates generally. I’m not going to deal with those today; rather, I want to deal with the actions of this government in freezing the hydro commissions in the regional municipality of Niagara in the year 1970 and its failure to do anything about it since that time.

Let me tell the House the freeze was complete. When the 26 municipalities in the Niagara Peninsula were formed into 12 municipalities in 1970, the people there were told that one of the benefits of being taken into an urban area or of two urban areas being amalgamated, was they would have uniform hydro rates. But a freeze took place which was complete. The boundaries of the hydro commissions were frozen and the personnel of the hydro commissions was frozen at that time. As I say, that was somewhat annoying to the public there and, of course, this has happened not only in the Niagara Peninsula but in other regional governments formed later.

[12:15]

The people were somewhat annoyed, but back on March 30, 1971, Task Force Hydro was appointed; among other things, it was to look into the structure of hydro commissions in the regions throughout this province and to bring in recommendations. They brought in recommendations somewhat later and recommended basically a one-tier hydro commission for the Niagara Peninsula.

Of course, this was a controversial matter, so what did the government of the province do? They appointed a review committee on structure, composed of government officials, Hydro personnel and the OMEA representatives. That was in 1973, almost four years after the commissions had been frozen. That committee reported in 1974 and left the question open about what should be done about the structuring of the hydro commissions. Because they didn’t want to deal with it then, nothing was done about it and a great deal of discussion took place in regional council.

This year in particular the howls really started. Of course, this being an election year, the province had to do something about this or make some gesture; so, during the election campaign they appointed another committee. This was composed of the representatives from each of the municipalities in the Niagara region.

I was talking to one of those representatives just last week, and they think that they may be able to report by December, 1976 -- seven years since the hydro commissions were frozen. Do the government members know what this means? It means, first, that there is not now a single member of the hydro commission in the city of Thorold who has been elected -- not a single member.

Do the government members know that in the city of Thorold, and it is true to a lesser degree in quantity in the city of Welland, the people who were brought in -- and there is a large urban area that had rural hydro -- have continued to pay rates in the urban-rural district, which I believe is the terminology that is used, over the six years, that are 33 per cent higher than in the old town of Thorold, as it was at that time? In the rural part of the city of Thorold, they pay rates 48 per cent higher than in the city of Thorold.

This government has perpetuated those inequities because it was afraid to face up to the problem that confronted it. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the people are justified in being annoyed; it’s almost anger they have now with regard to this situation.

The second thing I want to mention specifically is the matter of good government and accountability, and in this respect I want to say a word or two about regional government. I have no doubt that the members sitting across the House, perhaps everyone here, would agree that perhaps 80 or 90 per cent of the people in areas which are covered by regional government, and perhaps those areas which aren’t covered by regional government also, are opposed to regional government as we have it now.

I’m aware that in any jurisdiction there is no political mileage in the reform of local government; the benefits, by and large, if there are any, are long-term. I also recognize that the old county system was outdated and something had to be done. But I also say that this government seems to have done everything it could to make regional government more unpalatable to the people in the areas where it has been imposed.

Look, for instance, at the matter of the appointment of the chairman of the regional council. He is not directly accountable to the people he represents. In Niagara region, and I am sure elsewhere, he is the single most important municipal person in the whole area. Niagara region spends something like $50 million, and his influence is greater than anyone else.

I should give you an example of the lack of the accountability of the regional chairman in Niagara. He is a very nice fellow. I have nothing against him. Of course it is a Conservative appointment and he is a Conservative, but I have nothing against him personally. He doesn’t even have a telephone listed, where the public can call him. Oh, of course he does in his office, but not at his home. I wonder how long any of us would last if we didn’t have telephones where people could reach us or other elected municipal officials?

The hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick put it in perspective the other day when he was taking a crack at Metro chairman in Toronto. He called him “my non-elected friend.” And it points out that they do not have the support that they should have, and would have, if they were either elected at large or at least represented a constituency.

I say to the members across the House, that this is one reason that regional government has not been accepted by the public. Surely, if there is a reason to say that the chairman of a regional council should not be elected, the same sort of reasoning exists that the mayor of a municipality should not be elected. And then, of course, we might as well go on from there.

Every regional government in this province should be elected, either at large or from a constituency of that region and should be accountable to the people of that region.

I briefly want to mention planning, too, as an area in which the government -- and this is connected with regional government -- has put up this screen between the people and their elected representatives. In a speech that the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) gave to the Sierra Club on Oct. 25, he made these comments about the escarpment commission which has some powers in the planning field:

“The members of the commission should be clearly aware that the public reaction in the county of Grey has been one of frustration, deep concern, and in some cases overt hostility, to what the commission is attempting to do. The content of this brief can really not properly convey the scale of the objection which is being voiced by many land owners [ -- he is talking about a brief which had been presented relative to the Escarpment commission -- ] and individuals who are involved in business associated with development.”

We will come back to that development a bit later. But I suggest that the hon. minister is missing, to a large extent, the reason for the objection by the public to much of the planning throughout this province. We have so many levels of bureaucracy that the public just can’t get through it. Of course, with the institution of regional government, we have one more.

What should be done? I mentioned this previously on the debate on the estimates of urban and rural planning: What should be done, of course, is that the province should evolve a master plan with a very real set of guidelines. It should accept the responsibility for this.

I heard the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) speaking in glowing terms about the regions and the municipalities which should be left to make these decisions. Of course, they should make the decisions primarily in their own area. But somebody has to take responsibility for planning this province and setting out the general guidelines. If the province took this responsibility to set out the general guidelines in a fairly firm way, and then left all the rest of it to the local municipalities, we could do away with two-thirds of the bureaucracy, do away with a substantial amount of cost, and have the people of this province a whole lot happier about their planning.

I say “in general” because this bureaucracy applies to more than just planning. We are going to have to downgrade regional governments, have stronger guidelines from the province and give more authority to local municipalities. I make these suggestions to the Treasurer, who is not here, that in all earnestness this would do a lot to improve the feeling toward regional government and planning in this province.

All of who are newly elected to this Legislature, I suppose, are surprised by the number of constituency cases which are brought to our attention and the workload that we have in this regard, a workload which I am very pleased to accept. Let me say that the second largest number of people that have brought problems to me are people who have problems with regard to housing. I suppose compensation cases, as everyone else finds, are No. 1 but housing is No. 2.

In my own area a 104-unit senior citizen housing plan has been held up twice. There has been a long lengthy delay which should have been resolved long ago. There are 150 couples waiting to get into senior citizen housing and this 104-unit has been held up now for almost two years longer than would normally have been the case. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, of a woman, who didn’t want me to use her name for obvious reasons, who called me and wanted to see me. I went around to see her in a fairly large apartment house in Welland. She is a very bright woman, 80 years of age, who told me that her income, and I guess it was under GAINS, was $255 a month and she was paying $165 a month for that apartment which was the best that she could get where she would want to live, where any resident would want to live. This left her $90 for everything else.

The significant part to me was that when I knocked at the door and started to talk to her she said: “Mr. Swart, will you please come into my apartment and we will talk inside where we can’t possibly be overheard by the landlord? If he thought I was complaining he might fail to renew my lease for this property.”

I can tell you also, Mr. Speaker, and this just occurred, there was almost a page of coverage in the issue of the Welland Tribune last Thursday, Nov. 6. In the centre of that page was a picture of a dead rat. The story told about a woman, Mrs. Ralph Young, who had applied for public housing some five months before because of the deplorable condition in which she was living. She is a woman whose husband has a serious heart condition and is in hospital. She lives at 42 Riverside Dr. She and her husband live on the Canada Pension and veterans’ allowance. They have four children -- 14, 12, 10 and eight years old. The rats had started to come in the house and they had killed seven of them two days before this picture was in the paper, yet there is no possibility of getting her in Ontario Housing because it isn’t there. There is no place for these people even though they live in conditions such as that.

This is the fault of this government; let’s make no mistake about it. They have the power to remedy these types of situations. Housing starts for this year, as we know, won’t be more than 55 per cent or 60 per cent of what they were two years ago. Nothing shows the distorted priorities of this government more than the Speech from the Throne. We discussed a bill just yesterday in which we are willing to give subsidies to industrial parks, where there isn’t anything like the shortage that there is of housing, and yet we are not prepared to do a thing for housing. This government is not prepared to do a thing for residential parks and residential land development, so we can get the housing that we need within this province.

[12:30]

This province has failed to move at all to deal with the housing crisis, and particularly the land development part of it.

I am convinced that those sitting on the other side of the House still think that competition still exists in the land development field. We know now that something in excess of over half of the developable land around the city of Toronto is owned by four major corporations, and it is the same throughout the whole province. We have got to look at some new ways. The old system just isn’t working in providing this developable land. The answer to it, of course, is a large massive degree of public land development.

We have the machinery. The Ontario Housing Corp. has a HOME programme, and is doing this in a minor way -- but doing it inside of regulations and laws that just simply don’t permit the benefits of it to be passed on to the public. For instance, where the house and lot are sold, the lot must be sold at market value, not at what it cost. Compare that practice to what has been done in other places within this country where they have public land development. In places such as Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg -- Winnipeg to a lesser degree -- fully-serviced lots are selling between $5,000 and $7,000.

Just two years ago I presented a brief to the Comay housing committee, and I think sitting as one of the committee at that time was the hon. member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener). I took the time to look up that brief and found that I had stated in that brief in April, 1973, that lot prices in the Niagara region and in the greater St. Catharines area, were between $8,000 and $10,000 -- up from $1,950 in 1955. I made quite an issue about that. Do the members know what the price of lots is now in the Niagara Peninsula and in the greater St. Catharines area? In less than three years from that time, the minimum price is now $20,000. It is just unrealistic to think that people can afford to buy their own home with those kinds of prices for lots.

I say to you that we have to go to public land development. It is not good enough to say that all the developable land is bought up. We have the powers of expropriation to take that land -- reimburse, of course, the people who own it -- and develop it and put it on the market. We can do this at a substantially lower price than what it is now being placed on the market. In addition to those benefits, public land development would also assist planning as well. No longer would it be the developers making the primary decisions about planning; it would be the municipalities and the government -- and development would be going to the places where it should go.

I also want to say something about property taxation. It too, of course, has had a real effect on housing. I pointed out a week or two ago, when we were discussing unconditional grants, that the municipalities in Ontario have the country’s second highest per capita municipal tax rate and the second highest debt per capita, based on 1974 figures. If we added in the increases in 1975, I would suggest that we would probably find that they were the highest.

The minister’s reply to me at that time was that the people in Ontario have a high income. I suggest that if we are a prosperous province, and we are, although we are losing some of the advantage we have had in this province, then this is all the more reason why we should have greater equality, not less. I also say that the income of the bottom quarter of the income earners in this province is nearly as low as that in any other province in this country.

I think we all know that the property tax is a most regressive tax. As I said the other day, and I admit this again quite frankly, in the last four years there has been a real move toward lessening the impact of the property tax and making it more fair, but I suggest that there has to be a greater relief and we should be moving toward that in this province. The Throne Speech gave no relief to that, and the statement by the minister to the PMLC, which is the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee, a week ago indicates that there is going to be a move backward. In fact -- and I wrote it down -- the chairman of that committee made the comment when the announcement was made by the minister that it would be a fairly devastating effect; it would be a big step backward.

I suggest that the government should take a look at what is being done in Manitoba in this regard. I am sure they are familiar with it. What I am really saying is that they should adopt some such similar programme here to what they have in effect there now or will be putting in effect this year. They are moving away from the property tax to the personal income tax and the corporation tax. This coming year two points of the provincial income tax and one per cent of the corporation tax will be released to the municipalities for their use.

The minister will say, and with some justification, that the unconditional grants given by this province are substantially greater than the amount which will be transferred by this income tax and property tax to the property taxpayers in Manitoba. But I suggest when he says that, as he did say it in a speech to the regional government of Sudbury, that he is missing the real point. What the Province of Manitoba has made clear is that this is just a start in the very substantial movement away from the property tax as a method of financing local government. They say in their budget of this past year:

“Our government believes that this tax-sharing proposal represents the basis for major and fundamental reform of local government financing. It will provide Manitoba’s municipalities with the means of introducing greater equity in their own tax structure, while at the same time maintaining their autonomy and ensuring their accountability to their taxpayers.”

This accountability is done by showing this on the income tax bill. To me, this is a really significant thing. It says that if the municipalities wish to raise their rates in 1976 or in future years, or if they wish to levy other taxes, they would be free to do so under the consensus arrangements I outlined earlier.

Talking to an official of that department out there just the day before yesterday, he said to me that if the majority of the municipalities get together and want that tax raised -- for example, to five per cent and three per cent -- the provincial government is willing to do it. Here perhaps is the first real move that has been made in this regard in Canada, and I commend it to the minister to consider it here. The steps he took a week ago today to cut back on the increase to municipalities, I say, are going to be as devastating as the chairman of that committee indicated.

I think this House should know, if it doesn’t already know, what in fact was proposed by municipal governments. Members here will likely be aware that the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee is a joint committee, composed of the municipal associations in this province, who meet with the minister responsible for municipal affairs to express their views to him, and through which he negotiates with them. They suggested, first: “The Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee, composed of municipal people, is of the opinion that the public sector must become a provincial responsibility insofar as the application of the federal guidelines apply to local authorities.” I think that is exactly what this party has been saying that the government should do.

Second, they were willing that a 10 per cent guideline should be established for the expenditure growth of local authorities, and they were willing to have the provincial government impose that guideline, with the same sort of recourse for appeal as there is to the federal guidelines. Instead of that, the Treasurer announced to that Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee that in the coming year the increase in grants would be cut as the member for London (Mr. Shore) said, to five or six per cent.

The Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee made it clear -- and I think I am right in saying that this was accepted by the minister -- that in no way could municipalities get by with an increase of less than 10 per cent in their total revenues. This would be impossible; because of commitments made in terms of wage increases, and with the price of materials going up on everything they have to buy, it would more likely be 15 per cent than 10 per cent. What does this mean if they only get an increase of five per cent in grants from the Province of Ontario? It means that they are going to have to levy at least a 15 per cent increase on the property taxes.

The minister has made a great deal in recent years about lessening the impact of the property taxes. This year the increase was something like 14 to 15 per cent in municipal taxes levied. Next year it will be at least 15 per cent and probably closer to 20 per cent. All the benefits that have been achieved in the past four years are going to be wiped out, while other jurisdictions in Canada are carrying on a progressive policy of lowering these taxes.

I say in all sincerity to the minister that he simply has to review this. It is not just the municipalities that are at stake, it is the individuals of this province who are seeing a higher levy placed on them by a regressive tax so that the progressive tax, which falls upon ability to pay, will not be as heavy as it otherwise would. It is, in every respect, a retrograde step.

[12:45]

The final item I want to mention is the matter of preservation of good agricultural land, and I will not repeat what I said on this subject under urban and regional planning.

One of the main reasons for establishing regional government was that there could be a meaningful land-use plan -- that we would preserve the good agricultural land of this province. I mentioned last week, during the discussion on urban and regional planning, the shift of growth to good farm land. In the last 10 years, something like 82 per cent of all the urban growth in this province has taken place on class I and class II agricultural land.

There were some of us who were on a regional council who were concerned that this preservation of the good agricultural land couldn’t be done unless there was strong guidance from the province in this regard. And so we wrote a letter to Mr. White -- who was then the minister of almost everything -- posing some questions to him about what we should incorporate in the regional plan for Niagara.

We wrote that letter early in the spring. Numerous telephone conversations followed with his ministry, because we didn’t get an answer to our letter. Inevitably, the officials told us: “Well, you go ahead and prepare your plan and then we’ll take a look at it”. Eventually, after much pressure, we did get some answers from Mr. White. I would just like the House to hear these answers -- the tremendously firm attitude of the government on some really pretty important matters.

“[Question:] Should the region be a growth area of the province?

“[Answer:] It is unlikely that the region will be designated as a growth area in terms of any extraordinary provincial effort or expenditures. Rather a trends rate of growth would be supported. However, the province would approve and support efforts by the region to stimulate growth in specific areas or centres as a means of structuring the overall growth of the region.”

Not a word about what centres; not a word there about good agricultural land. Then another question posed:

“[Question:] Should the intensely-productive agricultural lands be preserved? Closely related to the conservation of highly productive farm land is the question of directing future urban growth above the escarpment.

“[Answer:] The preservation of agricultural lands, particularly fruit land, would seem a very important goal. The region, in directing growth away from such areas, would be playing an important part in achieving this. The other levels of government also have roles to play and the region should attempt to identify these.”

Isn’t that a forthright statement to deal with that need? There was no statement by the government saving: “Yes, you must preserve good agricultural land: class I, class II agricultural land. You must preserve the fruit land; we only allow exceptions to that if you make application for those exceptions.” No; instead we got a vague statement.

Regional council wanted direction from the government. I can tell you that the chairman of that committee is a very fine gentleman, even if he and I may not agree on many things. His name is Bob Bell. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind me saying in this House -- it’s true -- that he said that he wanted guidelines. And when the minister wrote this fall, when the election was on, and said our region would have to pull back its urban boundaries, he said that we should have had direction from them some time ago to do so.

By and large, the municipalities are willing to abide by provincial guidelines. But the province just simply refused to provide those guidelines.

Do you know what happened after the regional council had approved the expanded boundaries?

I’m not going to go past the time of adjournment; I’ll be finished by then, Mr. Speaker.

The first thing that happened after those boundaries had been established by the region destroyed totally any preservation of good agricultural land. The first thing that happened was that we had applications to extend them further and they were approved.

I say that this is all done by this province, with such ringing statements as that of the former Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), who said in 1974:

“If we lose this province’s fruit and vegetable industry we will be subject to the unchallenged price and volume decisions of other countries. Without a local peach industry we would be at the mercy of outside prices. Compound the problem of sweet and sour cherries, plums, pears and a complete line of processed fruit and vegetables, and within a matter of years about the only thing we could afford to consume would be humble pie and that might be hard to take for some of us.”

I say to our friends across the floor that they had a bit of that humble pie on Sept. 18, and I say most sincerely that unless they change their attitude toward the preservation of agricultural lands they are going to get a much bigger dose of it in the next election when it comes up.

That ends the comments I want to make at this time, except to say this in summary, that the people of this province expect that this new government is going to take action to deal with these very real issues that are confronting them, whether it be housing, which is so serious, whether it be the preservation of good agricultural land, whether it be the matter of the expansion of Hydro at tremendous cost to the public. They are looking for these solutions, and if they are not provided by the government that is in power at this time, there is no doubt in my mind that the deterioration which has set in in its popular support will continue and will, in fact, overthrow them when the next provincial election rolls around.

Mr. Sweeney moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, may I indicate the order of business for next week? Monday afternoon we will go into committee of supply until 5, at which time we will take private members’ business into consideration between 5 and 6.

On Tuesday, it will be a combination of legislation and estimates. We will carry on, on Tuesday afternoon, with the second reading of Bill 20; and if in fact we reach second reading stage we will then go into committee of supply.

Wednesday, of course, is committee day.

May I have some flexibility for Thursday, being a combination of legislation and estimates, depending on the circumstances of that day? But certainly I would serve notice that we might have legislation Thursday, followed by estimates as well. On Friday, we will continue with this debate. Evening sessions next week will be on Tuesday and Thursday.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 12:55 p.m.