The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ESTIMATES

Mr. Speaker: I have a message from the Honourable the Administrator of the Province signed by his own hand.

By his own hand, G. A. Gale, the Administrator of the Province of Ontario, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1977, and recommends them to the legislative assembly, Toronto, March 30, 1976.

Statements by the ministry.

MILTON CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Hon. J. R. Smith: I have the answer to a question asked of me yesterday by the hon. member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed).

I am pleased to advise the House that the grand jury report of March 17 was responded to by Justice O’Leary of Hamilton on March 26, and a point that the grand jury had raised is dealt therein regarding the lack of indoor exercise facilities. It was acknowledged that there is no place other than the court in the institution and in good weather the inmates are encouraged to exercise outdoors.

The individual inmate who was formerly a student at one of the nearby deaf institutions was dealt with. He was incarcerated on March 8; sentenced on March 25. I am pleased to say that after consultation with Mr. McCarron and Dr. Reynolds, the chief psychiatrist at the Drury school for the hearing handicapped at Milton, he is being transferred today to OCI in Brampton.

The front staircase referred to is part of the courthouse and not of the jail and is therefore the responsibility of the Minister of Government Services (Mrs. Scrivener). The privacy screens have been replaced. Regarding the replacement of this facility, there are no immediate plans, but drawings have been completed for a consolidation of the Milton and Brampton jails into a new detention facility on the grounds of the Maplehurst Detention Centre at Milton. At present, there are no capital funds available for this or for its construction.

AIR STANDARDS

Hon. B. Stephenson: I have a clearer response to the question posed by the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. S. Smith) yesterday regarding arsenic levels. The guidelines which the Ministry of Health uses are those published by the threshold limit value committee of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, and they are as follows:

For arsenic trioxide in production, the threshold limit value is 50 micrograms per cubic metre; for arsenic trioxide handling and use, 250 micrograms per cubic metre. These levels are used by the occupational health branch for occupational exposure as guidelines only and the current threshold limit value is being actively reviewed by the occupational health protection branch in view of recent reports of carcinogenicity.

The Ministry of Health has been in touch with the Ministry of the Environment and the ambient standard used in Ontario for community air is in fact 24 micrograms per cubic metre. The hon. member’s question seemed to refer to ambient air and I think that probably should be referred to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr).

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTES

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to begin by exploring a matter with the Premier, if I could. Since the situation between the teachers and the board in Sault Ste. Marie is deteriorating more rapidly than one would wish -- it may well result in the schools being vacated by the end of this week -- how is the government going to deal with the extraordinary position which the teachers have taken, unlike any other, which is to ask for compulsory arbitration in advance of a strike or lockout in an effort to avoid the closing down of the schools for several weeks?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Really there are, I think, two situations that give the government great concern. The one is in the Soo and the other is in Windsor, where I understand the teachers perhaps were out today. It is a personal feeling -- and this is not a government policy decision, because it came to my attention only an hour or so ago -- that with the sort of cumulative situation in the city of Windsor the probability of the government allowing the situation to last for any lengthy period of time, in my view, would be limited.

With respect to Sault Ste. Marie, I am not familiar with the facts as yet. If the teachers have offered to go to compulsory arbitration and if that is the solution, then if the board does not go along with this sort of approach, I think the answer to the question becomes very obvious and that the members of this House will be called upon. I assume there will be a recommendation from the Education Relations Commission to deal with it and we will deal with it very expeditiously.

I think it is fair to state that at this time of year in particular, any strike that appears to be going to be prolonged would prejudice without any question the school year of the students affected. The government, I think on careful consideration, which the matter will receive tomorrow, will take steps to see that this doesn’t happen.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Just to pursue it one step further, can the Premier see whether it is possible to make Bill 109 work in the absence of strikes by giving great support to those efforts that some boards and teachers are attempting to find through, let us say, voluntary arbitration? Would it be possible, for example, in the case of the Soo to try to persuade the board even today, before its meeting tonight, to accept the voluntary arbitration suggestion of the teachers so that there is no full strike or lockout in the Soo, since the teachers would desperately like to avoid one and don’t understand the anomaly that they are driven to do it when the legislation doesn’t seem to provide support for the other alternatives?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say it’s encouraging to hear from the Leader of the New Democratic Party that, if one side does seek voluntary, binding, compulsory arbitration --

Mr. Lewis: Voluntary, binding arbitration. It’s in the bill as part of the bill.

Mr. Davis: -- as being a solution, that applies to both sides, and the government should bring pressure on whichever side did not wish to do it.

Mr. Lewis: I’m asking the Premier to do so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I’m just saying I find it interesting, because this was not always the position of that particular party; in fact, I don’t think it was even its position during the Metro strike.

Mr. Lewis: It’s part of the bill; it is one of the roots of the bill. It’s the law. The Premier supported the bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, it is not part of the bill unless both sides agree to voluntary arbitration.

Mr. Lewis: I am asking the Premier to encourage the board.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m saying I think it’s very encouraging because what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that he would support pushing either side.

Mr. Lewis: I am saying the board is intransigent in this case.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: Since the Premier mentioned the situation in Windsor, is he going to instruct or ask representatives of the Ministry of Education or someone in his own office to make sure that the board and the representatives of the teachers’ professional organization are aware of what amounts to a statement of government policy in the answer to this question, that the government does not intend to allow this strike to go on for very long? Surely he can use that in whatever way is available to him to assist in an early solution without directly using the powers of this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I hoped I had made it clear in my answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition that I was expressing a personal point of view, because this matter came to my attention just an hour or so ago. It is a matter that will be considered by cabinet tomorrow and I’m expressing a personal point of view that may become government policy. But with the history of the situation in the city of Windsor I do not believe a prolonged strike could be tolerated, and instead this thing should be brought to an end quite speedily.

If this emerges tomorrow as being, in fact, government policy, which I expect it will be, without question that will be communicated to both sides in the city of Windsor, because the academic careers of those students at this stage of the year cannot be prejudiced.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Premier prepared to bring them together?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. They met last Saturday.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the Premier send the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) into the community in an attempt to resolve the issue today so that any legislation may not be necessary tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think all of us would be pleased if we could avoid legislation. I can understand the view of the hon. member who asked the question, who would be more than pleased if somebody could solve this without that particular event taking place, and I totally understand it.

Mr. Nixon: So would we all.

Mr. McEwen: Yes or no? Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should forewarn him that I do not know whether that, in fact, will happen. I would say to him, and I think he knows, that the Education Relations Commission was there last Saturday and I believe they had a public meeting. Perhaps the hon. member was in attendance.

Mr. B. Newman: I was there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There were some 500 people there and I think the Commission got a real sense of the points of view of the community itself. I've had some calls myself from the city of Windsor, as I say, about an hour or so ago, and I think the feeling there is rather self-evident.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the acting Minister of Health: When did the Ministry of Health learn in the case of the Perth hospital in Lanark county that it had been operating at a level of 57 beds for a full year while the ministry had it down as operating at a level of 82 beds and, on that basis, made the ill- advised cuts which it subsequently had to revise?

Mr. Nixon: No wonder their budget looks so good.

Hon. B. Stephenson: The advice which was received in the minister’s office was that the hospital had been functioning at the level of about 53 beds for the year 1975. It had apparently on its own made this kind of cut and, as a result of that information, the people of Perth have been notified that the level of 57 beds will be seriously considered. There was a meeting yesterday between some officials of the Ministry of Health, the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman), and the board of governors of the hospital in Perth. Some recommendations have been made which will be very carefully considered and we shall be discussing the matter with the board of governors of that hospital.

[2:15]

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since the ministry had to know for the entire year -- it receives reports every two weeks based on the 57-bed level -- how is it that it made an error of $123,000 in respect of that hospital? When the government makes that kind of error out of sheer incompetence doesn’t the minister think she should look more favourably on their need for $75,000 more, rather than dislocate the entire community?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition impugns incompetence and I am not at all sure that this is a fact. However, I should like him to realize that --

Mr. Bullbrook: He doesn’t impugn it; he alleges it.

Mr. Deans: You are not sure --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- there will be further consultation with the interested people on the board of governors of that hospital and all of their proposals will be seriously considered.

RADIOACTIVITY IN RENFREW AREA

Mr. Lewis: Another question of the acting Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Is she aware that in the Chromasco plant a few miles outside Renfrew there have now been high radioactive counts -- sorry; in the dump which Chromasco uses outside of Renfrew high radioactive counts have now been observed and those counts are not being shared with the community of citizens in the immediate vicinity, causing great anxiety; nor have the radioactive readings within the plant to which the workers are exposed been posted. Can we ask the acting Minister of Health to move on this speedily so that the workers are told and the community is appeased?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as you well know, it is the policy of the Minister of Health to make those reports available to all of the people concerned and I am sure that this is precisely what will happen. I shall move to see what can be done about it.

Mr. Cassidy: The way you published the smoking report, eh?

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. That’s a change since Port Hope, when they weren’t made.

May I ask the minister a final question in her capacity as Minister of Labour; no doubt this will relieve her.

Why is it that the industrial safety branch refused to act on the various recommendations of its own inspectors and the recommendation of a coroner’s jury involving the death of Subash Kalia last October, 1975, and indeed showed great contempt for the observations made by the coroner’s jury in an effort to resolve the situation?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can report to you that the reports which were made at the time of that accident revealed absolutely no indication by the inspector who inspected at the time of the accident, that any prosecution should be carried out. There is obviously a discrepancy between the court transcript and the reports which we have within the industrial safety branch and those are being investigated right at the moment.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: Is the minister saying that the inspector who testified under oath that he had asked the branch to prosecute in the case of Astralite was lying under oath? Is that what she is saying, or that there is no such indication within the ministry’s record?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not state that the inspector was lying. I said that there is a discrepancy because within the ministry’s records --

Mr. Cassidy: Sure is.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- there is no statement supporting any concept of prosecution. It is within the transcript that that statement is made and we are attempting to correlate those two anomalous situations right at the moment.

Mr. Good: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Leaving aside the matter of the transcript relating to prosecution, is there indication within the industrial accident bureau regarding the original report showing that the safety guards were missing and that the coroner had ordered them to be replaced?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is no such report. As a matter of fact, that plant was inspected with some regularity. In January the inspection which was carried out resulted in five written directions, none of which related to that machine. There has never been a direction related to that machine because the guard is in place at all times except when the machine has to be cleaned.

The power must be turned off in two stages in order to open up the machine to clean it but unfortunately the workman apparently neglected to turn off one stage of the power so that there was power when he opened the machine in order to clean it.

Mr. Lewis: One final supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: How does the minister reconcile that with the clear and explicit findings of the coroner’s jury that the situation was unsafe? In fact, the coroner charged the jury saying, “The present procedures of the industrial safety branch, as presented at this inquest, lack many of the essentials for ensuring adequate safety and preventing accidents and fatalities.” How does that conform with the minister’s whitewash of what the branch did?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not whitewashing what the branch has done. I am suggesting to the member that there are photographs within the branch which show that the guard is in place on that machine and the only way in which the guard can be out of place is when the machine is opened for cleaning.

RENT REVIEW PROGRAMME

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to rent review matters. Mr. Speaker: As a result of some recent decisions, particularly in the Kitchener area, which have allowed a 17.7 per cent average increase, can the minister advise whether he is monitoring the various regional areas and the awards being granted on rental increases, particularly when it would appear that a large number of them are in excess of the eight per cent figure, which was expected? If there is monitoring, can the minister advise us what are the average awards being made after we have now had some experience with the operation of the regional offices?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, reports are being received in our headquarters establishment in Toronto from the various rent review offices. We have not calculated any average award nor do I think it would be constructive to do so since it would be very misleading. I want to point out to the hon. member that anybody who feels the rent review officer’s decision should be contested has the right to appeal to the rent review board. That has not as yet been done by anyone in this province.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the acting Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: With respect to the continuing controversy between public health nurses and the health units on salary negotiations, is the minister able to report to us at this time with respect to any conclusions which have occurred or any further input from her ministry in an attempt to resolve this problem which is affecting public health nurses in areas throughout Ontario?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the situations in which I can wear both my heads because I have been asked on --

Mr. Nixon: Hats.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I don’t mind wearing two hats; it is just having two heads that bothers me, that’s all.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes, they pinch.

Mr. Reid: You can talk out of both sides of your mouth that way.

Hon. B. Stephenson: At times just like you, Patrick.

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to address you, sir. We have had meetings with the Ontario Nurses Association regarding this matter and are attempting at this point to arrange meetings with representatives of the boards of health of Ontario in order to try to persuade the boards to come to an agreement regarding arbitration which the nurses desperately want and which we think would probably be a useful move.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: is the minister prepared to restore to those boards of health, who did not take it a year and a half ago, the offer made at that time of enough funds to provide for parity for the public health nurses? Or does the minister intend to keep the boards within the eight per cent wage guideline which has been sent out by the ministry recently?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think the stance of the ministry would depend primarily upon the response of the boards of health in regard to our request.

Mrs. Campbell: In view of the minister’s reply to the question from the member for Kitchener, is she not concerned that so far the health units have ignored these invitations to meet? What does she propose to do to encourage, as she suggested, that they should meet?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the invitations which the hon. member alludes to, I think, are the invitations from the Ontario Nurses Association. I hope the invitation from the ministry will not be ignored.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, to clarify that, I am referring to the invitation of the former deputy minister which was ignored by the health units. It’s because of this that I want to know just what kind of encouragement there’s going to be.

Mr. Speaker: Any further answer?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I can think of several. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

ELECTION PROCEDURES

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Premier: In the light of the revelations with respect to the election procedures in the last provincial election in the riding of Dufferin-Simcoe, has the Premier come to any conclusion with respect to reviewing those revelations and is he intending to consider the possibility of referring them either to a committee of the House or perhaps to the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses for further comment?

Mr. Nixon: Of course, he is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really haven’t had any report on this matter yet.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: When the Premier does get a report, why doesn’t he hold a by-election in Dufferin-Simcoe to test the mood of the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition that if there were a by-election in that particular riding, his party would run third.

Mr. Lewis: All right. Then resign and try it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And what’s more, Mr. Speaker, this party would run first.

Mr. Lewis: Resign and try it. Come on, we’re just offering you a chance to test the electorate.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: You said it about Carleton East; you said it about Cornwall; you said it about Huron-Middlesex --

Hon. Mr. Davis: How about your riding to test the electorate?

Mr. Lewis: Not a bad idea.

CO-OPERATIVE LOANS

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. My understanding is that the Co-operative Loans Act has been in place for a number of years; since I believe, the mid-1950s: Can the minister advise how relevant to the farm community today this legislation is in assisting the financing anal construction of new facilities and financing expansion?

Mr. Singer: All those farmers in Oriole are vitally concerned with this.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It’s difficult to hear. Thank you.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to hear. We do have the Co-operative Loans Act, and while I’m not exactly sure how much was paid out during the past year, I certainly will be tabling that report in the House, probably within the next month, and I'll be glad to send the member the details on this matter.

Mrs. Campbell: Why don’t you talk to him?

An hon. member: I think your colleague is opposed to it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Godfrey: A question to the acting Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the House that the closing of the Chedoke Hospital in Hamilton will not result in the closing down of the early breast cancer detection unit, consisting of thermography and mammography, in that hospital?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had meetings with representatives of the board of governors of Chedoke Hospital and with representatives of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. We have stated publicly that we are awaiting some indication and some direction from the health council of Hamilton regarding the proposed bed closures in Hamilton. When we have an opportunity to look at their recommendations, I’m sure we shall seriously consider sparing the unit which the hon. member mentioned.

Mr. Cunningham: By way of a new question to the acting Minister of Health: Recognizing the commitment that the minister made yesterday to have the Hamilton health council make this decision, I’m wondering if she would share with us, and through the House with them, the basis on which the criteria were made to close 87 beds at that hospital so that the citizens who are going to be making presentations and briefs might in fact address themselves to those arguments?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The criteria which were used were those which are used for all hospitals in all areas of the province -- a relation between the numbers of patients at risk in that area and the numbers of beds which are considered to be rational for that population. The Hamilton district health council was asked to rationalize the bed numbers within the city of Hamilton, and the recommendation, which I gather was received, was this method of rationalizing that situation. That meant that two hospitals only were to be affected by the recommendations.

It has been proposed by certain members of the McMaster staff and certain interested citizens, such as the representatives of Hamilton, that indeed another method of prorating beds throughout the entire area might in fact be more satisfactory and this way may be one of the solutions which the Hamilton district health council proposes to us. We’ll be very happy to hear any solution.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Am I to assume that the whole matter is to rest upon whether or not it should be pro-rated or whether we’re going to apply it against Chedoke? Or am I right in thinking that there is some serious question about whether the closings might take place and are appropriate?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I said that pro-rating was one of the alternatives which might be considered.

[2:30]

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Premier. What would he suggest I tell the people in Hamilton when they ask me --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ready for the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Want to start over again?

Mr. Good: Tell them you are not running again.

Mr. Riddell: Resign.

Mr. Lewis: No, he doesn't want to start over again.

Mr. Deans: No, I don’t want to start over again.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe you could try Cochrane North instead of Dufferin-Simcoe?

Mr. Deans: -- when they ask me where they are going to find employment as a result of this government’s actions? An example is as follows: As a result of the more recent cuts in terms of expenditures at McMaster and at Chedoke and at the psychiatric hospital, there will be 800 people, plus, out of work as a direct result of the government's actions, with little or no possibility of finding alternative employment. What will I tell them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows very well what to tell them. In his work in his constituency I am sure he has spent a great deal of time, as the rest of us have from time to time, looking for job opportunities for the people he represents. I am sure the hon. member will continue to function in this fashion.

Mr. Lewis: Great stuff.

Mr. Deans: There were four or five jobs advertised at the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. and in excess of 200 people applied. There is not nearly a sufficient number of opportunities now for employment. These people are looking for work; the Premier is supposed to be the champion of work --

Mr. Speaker: The question, please?

Mr. Deans: Where do I send those people to find employment?

Mr. Yakabuski: Union halls.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) and the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) replied to this question some few days ago, if memory serves me correctly --

Mr. Deans: They did not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and indicated that the Ministry of Labour was establishing a structure whereby these people who were affected would be given priority in terms of job relocation.

Mr. Deans: Two people hired so far.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, only two people may have been hired so far because there have been very few people who at this moment are without their jobs.

Mr. Deans: Out of the psychiatric hospitals, two?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the hon. member would have some degree of understanding and appreciation and recognize one very basic fact -- I am concerned about it; no one likes to see people without employment -- we are not going to solve the economic problems of this province by following the philosophy of the party opposite --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- which thinks that government should be totally responsible for the total employment programme in the province. It just cannot be done.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They want me to hire everyone. They would hire everybody. They would have another 30 research assistants.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Have you calculated the unemployment insurance costs of your programme? Several million dollars.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Middlesex. Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The member for Huron-Middlesex.

GUELPH ABATTOIR

Ms. Riddell: A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier direct a full public inquiry into the leasing of the Guelph Correctional Centre meat packing plant to Better Beef Ltd., in the light of the fact that another bid by F. C. Bradley Co. Ltd. would have paid the farmer creditors of the plant 100 cents on the dollar, instead of the Better Beef Ltd. offer of 15 cents on the dollar; and in the light of the fact that Better Beef Ltd. was convicted on 10 counts of fraud with regard to its operations two years ago; and in view of the fact that no official tenders were called and no official proposals were invited for this contract?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex would redirect his question to either the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) or the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. J. R. Smith), he will get the appropriate answer.

Mr. Bullbrook: Come on, you are the Premier of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: They can’t establish an inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to redirect the question? Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: Am I to assume --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been redirected, I believe, to the appropriate minister.

Mr. Riddell: Am I to assume that the Minister of Agriculture and Food can direct a public inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it can he assumed the Minister of Agriculture and Food may have some facts which perhaps are not known to the hon. member and which might be helpful to him.

Mr. Reid: That is unlikely.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to redirect the question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Do you want me to repeat it?

An hon. member: The Minister of Correctional Services.

Mr. Nixon: He is passing it down the line.

Mr. Riddell: As a supplementary then.

Mr. Roy: Right down the line.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We can’t go all over the playing field now. If the question is supposed to be redirected -- order, please -- who is the appropriate minister in this case?

Mr. Roy: You send them all over the place. What are you talking about?

An hon. member: The Premier.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is it the Minister of Correctional Services?

Hon. J. R. Smith: I would draw the hon. member’s attention to the statement which I made in this House at the time of the signing of the agreement with the DeJonge consortium of companies. I would just like to remind the hon. member that it is full public knowledge that we could find no legal way of paying the beef producers who are creditors of Essex Packers in full for the debts owed to them by that firm without making similar payments to the employees and other creditors.

Representatives of the Bradley group did have exploratory conversations with both myself and the Minister of Agriculture and Food. They were prepared to pay the 22 or 25 farmers in full for the bad cheques issued by Essex but we could find no legal way of doing this without giving the same equal consideration to all creditors.

Mr. Riddell: By way of supplementary, was the minister aware of the convictions of the DeJonge firm when he assigned the lease to that firm?

Hon. J. B. Smith: I made mention of this during the supplementary questions following my statement in the House.

Mr. Roy: It doesn’t bother you then?

Mr. Bullbrook: What were the types of convictions they had?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Why is it not possible to pay the other creditors the amount owing to them rather than to seek to penalize just the farmers? They do it in other jurisdictions.

Hon. J. R. Smith: There was only one proposal received and accepted by the majority of the creditors. That was from the DeJonge Group and it was overwhelmingly accepted by the creditors -- 15 cents on the dollar -- and the majority of the beef producers who were creditors also voted to accept the offer of DeJonge.

Mr. Gaunt: I have a supplementary. Why was there no long-term commitment negotiated to keep the Hamilton plant open beyond the six-month period?

Hon. J. R. Smith: One of the matters about which I had a great deal of concern was to ensure the continuation of that plant. In fact there is no legal way this ministry can ensure that continuation. The only thing we had really was the good faith of the principals of the DeJonge consortium who laid on the line $500,000 of their own assets as surety to pay the creditors through the bank.

NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. In view of the fact that the regional municipality of Sudbury is attempting to formulate its official plan which will determine the growth in the area for many years to come and would like to know what the plans of the government are for all of northeastern Ontario, when does the minister intend to table the report of northeastern development, phase 2?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Soon, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Laughren: Could he be more specific?

Mr. Deans: Very soon.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member should understand that we on this side of the House are living from day to day, not knowing what the third party is up to, so we don’t like to put timetables on anything; but very soon.

Mr. Lewis: It is Rothmans legislative tennis tournament in Hamilton.

BRADLEY-GEORGETOWN HYDRO ROUTE

Mr. Reed: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. When is the minister going to study and document the whole Bradley-Georgetown corridor situation in accord with the position taken by the former Minister of Energy in November, 1974 -- Hansard, page 5265 -- where he said:

“No route could be adequately justified unless the whole area was studied and documented.”

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think the hon. member -- and I am pleased that after six months he has awakened to this issue in that area --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I hear more about it than he does.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- has taken it out of context. I will be glad to look at the total Hansard situation. The member will know that since I came into this ministry in January, 1975, there are very few issues that have occupied more of my time than that particular one.

Mr. Gaunt: You know better than that.

Mr. Nixon: What a marvellous record you have established! Hot air and baloney.

Mr. Roy: You are a flop and you know it.

Mr. Bullbrook: You are the Jack Nicholson of this House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Halton-Burlington may have one supplementary.

Mr. Reed: Is not the present minister’s position, taken in June, 1975, authorizing a study of a portion of the Bradley-Georgetown corridor, totally inconsistent with that original position?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We’ll have to get you cue cards.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In fact, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would take the time to read Hansard, to read the things that have been said in this House, in committee and in various other places over the last 15 months, he’d realize that the position I took in June, 1975, was the only responsible one that could be taken.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, you are so self-righteous.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Given the quite astonishing continued public support for the interested citizens’ group that is forever in touch with the minister, the Premier and others, and given the express wish of the Environmental Hearing Board that a much broader inquiry be held -- oh, yes -- why doesn’t the minister reconsider the position he has taken and satisfy the interested citizens on this rather important route? It could be done in three to six months.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I suppose a year ago, if I had thought that was possible, I would have been agreeable to such a suggestion. Given the experience of the government with such commissions as its Solandt commission on the Nanticoke-Pickering and the Lennox-Oshawa lines, and the number of years involved, I didn’t think that was possible. The hon. member will know, if he’s talked to his representatives on the select committee, that they’ve been provided with a variety of figures on the cost of delays.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition will recall, when I made the announcement on June 6, 1975, that he said in this House, and it is in Hansard, that it was the right thing to do. I was faced with trying to do as much as possible to satisfy the wants and the interests of the people involved in the interested citizens’ groups while, at the same time, living up to my responsibilities to all of the Hydro customers in Ontario who have to pay for any delays which are considerable.

Mr. Reed: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Halton-Burlington has had one supplementary. The member for Huron-Bruce was on his feet earlier, I believe. Does he wish to yield to the member for Wilson Heights?

Mr. Singer: No, I have a new question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh. I think we’ll get on with new questions. We’re just about out of time. The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier).

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, come on. No way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If I may, I was going to recognize the member for Huron-Bruce because he was on his feet earlier --

Mrs. Campbell: Then recognize him.

Mr. Speaker: -- and I shall do so.

Mr. Gaunt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, thank you. Is the minister aware that two days of testimony with respect to the environmental hearing of the Bradley-Georgetown power line are missing?

Mr. Breithaupt: And they are all taped, by the way.

Mr. Gaunt: The tapes containing the two days’ hearings are missing. Is the minister aware of that? If he is, where are the tapes?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t aware of it, but if the hon. member has them, would he please return them to the Ministry of the Environment? They would appreciate it.

Mr. Reid: Hydrogate. Sidney’s shredder works again.

Interjections.

DREE-TEIGA AGREEMENT FOR TIMMINS AREA

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. I wonder if the Treasurer could report the status of the DREE-TEIGA development agreement, or sub-agreement, for the Timmins area? Can he tell us what the obstacles appear to be before getting that signed and when he expects it will be signed?

Mr. Yakabuski: The obstacles are the federal government and the local government.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Progress, I think, would be the answer to the member, Mr. Speaker.

DRINKING DRIVERS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice. Could he, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), tell us what, if anything, his secretariat is going to do about His Honour Judge Clendenning, who for a second time has announced he is going to send to jail everyone who comes before him and who is convicted of driving while their ability is impaired, even though the Criminal Code does not so provide and even though the Attorney General took a dim view of that and said so publicly?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am not in touch with this judge -- and if I was I would do so with some trepidation --

Mr. Yakabuski: Phone him up.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you just phone him?

Mr. Breithaupt: Give him a call.

Mr. Reid: We have his number.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: -- but I’m sure that the Attorney General is more used to speaking to judges than I am, and I’m sure he’ll get the answer and give it to the hon. member for Wilson Heights.

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary, is the ministry prepared to refer this matter to the Ontario Judicial Council, because it’s the second time it’s happened with the same judge?

Mr. Yakabuski: No.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’ll have to leave that up to the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker.

[2:45]

OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine asked this question:

“The executive co-ordinator for women’s programmes, in the report which was tabled last fall, drew attention to the fact that 38 per cent of the Ontario public service is women but there are no women managers in the civil service and only four per cent of the 778 civil servants designated as senior executives are women.

“I would like to ask the Treasurer if he is prepared to implement the recommendations of that report that there should be specific and separate budgets in each ministry for affirmative action to correct this imbalance?”

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I will have a further report later, but I should tell the hon. member that we have completed a programme involving the participation of approximately 600 women earning $17,000 and over employed in specialist, technical, professional and administrative fields. The employees provided information on their career objectives and, together with assessments by deputy ministers, those with the potential and desire for advancement have been identified. The women, through this process, have been added to the senior management career planning inventory and are being considered for all vacancies at the branch director and senior executive level, and work along these lines will continue.

The recommendation referred to in the question is recommendation No. 12, and that recommendation was that ministries identify specific budgets in their estimates for the affirmative action programme. Actually, we indicated to all ministries that funds for promoting affirmative action must be found from the various standard accounts classifications which apply to each vote and item. The programme may be supported by funds from many sources in the ministry, particularly in the ministry personnel programme, including training and development. It is certainly desirable for each ministry to specifically identify the funds to be used to further the affirmative action programme at the beginning of each year.

It is proposed that recommendation No. 12 and the other 24 recommendations included in the report will be dealt with in detail by the cabinet over the next two or three weeks.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: May I ask the minister if there are any women managers in the Civil Service Commission yet? The report said there was none.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Well, the one that would occur to me would be Elizabeth -- she is in charge of the pension end. I’m embarrassed; she was before Management Board this morning, as a matter of fact, with some programmes -- Miss Aboud.

SOUTH RIDEAU DEVELOPMENT

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing: In the light of the fascinating announcements by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) last week regarding the development of 6,000 acres at the South Rideau, I am wondering if the Minister of Housing can tell us if he has any secret arrangements, secret deals or secret understandings with the federal government --

Mr. Singer: And a corrupt one; secret and corrupt?

Ms. Gigantes: -- that will permit the servicing of that area to the level of development that has been announced by his colleague?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, may I assure the hon. member and all members of this House, I have no secret deals with the federal government on anything.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to know how the Ministry of Housing then proposes to service that area, when the services will have to go through the green belt and the federal government has made it quite clear that it does not approve of that development for good and sound planning reasons?

Hon. Ms. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of discussions with the federal agency, the National Capital Commission, and also with the minister on the whole subject to which the hon. member is referring -- none of which were secret, I might add, and I can produce the minutes of some of the meetings. As far as the servicing of that area is concerned, that is a matter we will have to discuss in some detail with the National Capital Commission; and we are not going to be held to ransom by them, I can assure members of that.

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister can tell us if he has any reason to believe that the federal government will permit servicing to that area?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, at the present time I would have to suggest that the National Capital Commission’s position with me has been rather firm that they would not permit servicing to that area. But, like most agencies, I think they will bend and give a little.

Mr. Lewis: Better speak to Sidney Handleman and get headlines in the Ottawa Journal.

MENTAL RETARDATION CENTRES

Mr. Stong: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is the minister aware of the apparent overcrowding situation at the Huronia Regional Mental Health Centre, wherein the residents, both male and female, are required to share the same living quarters and the same shower facilities?

Is the minister further aware that inquiries by parents of those residents have been met with inaction up to this time?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that statement as being factual.

Mr. Haggerty: He checked it out.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I know there is concern on my part and on the part of my staff in terms of taking the pressure off the larger institutions such as Huronia, Smiths Falls and so on. As a matter of fact, that was one reason for utilizing the Goderich facility as a schedule 1 facility, which would bring the residents closer to home. They are being selected from these institutions. That will have some effect on that. It will ensure more individual attention.

Insofar as response is concerned, any communication I have from concerned parents or relatives of patients in any of these institutions is given immediate response; if the member knows of any, I would be happy to receive those and see that they get my individual attention.

Mr. Stong: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the fact that the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) is closing down such institutions as Goderich going to overburden other institutions under this ministry?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary: The fact the facility at Goderich became available enabled me instantly to utilize that for a schedule 1 facility which, as I mentioned, would take some of the residents out of the larger institutions and ensure that they would have a different type of programming and more individual attention. It is a step forward in terms of taking the pressure off the larger institutions and getting the patients into the smaller community-based settings and eventually, of course, getting as many as possible into the community.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

PETITION

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the legislative rules I would like to present a petition, the opening of which begins as follows: “We the undersigned protest the drastic cutbacks proposed for the Great War Memorial Hospital of Perth and district.”

There are several thousand names on this petition and I would like to file it with the Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. McKeough tabled volumes 2 and 3 of the 1914-1975 public accounts. Volume 2, financial statements of Crown corporations, boards, commissions; and volume 3, details of expenditures.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

MEDICAL DATA BANK ACT

Mr. B. Newman moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish a Medical Data Bank.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to establish a medical data bank in which would be stored in computerized form the medical histories of persons in Ontario who wish to participate in such a data bank. The proposed bank would be operated and maintained by the provincial Ministry of Health and every public hospital would have an outlet for medical histories of persons using the hospitals. Written consent of the person concerned would be required before the record is stored in the bank and the medical history could not be removed without the written consent of that person’s legally qualified medical practitioner.

SPEAKER’S RULING

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I should announce that yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me to direct that a certain report must be tabled by the minister concerned. He showed me later that it was designated for rather wide distribution to boards and other bodies.

Order, please; order. There’s too much background conversation. It’s difficult to hear and be heard. Thank you.

However, this is beside the point, as the report was ordered by the ministry and there is no statutory or other order requiring it to be tabled in the House, it is completely outside my jurisdiction.

Another announcement: Pursuant to standing order 28(d), I wish to inform the House that the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Stong) has filed the required notice under standing order 27(g) that he is dissatisfied with the answer given by the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) to his question concerning the freezing of land at the Pickering airport site, which was asked on March 17. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to 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. Angus: I’d like to continue my remarks that I began last evening. I think it was appropriate that we broke when we did because an article in the Toronto Star of this morning has reiterated some of the comments that I made on Minaki Lodge and I would like, with your permission, sir, to continue to do so.

It seems that the Province of Ontario has spent approximately $6.3 million -- tax dollars -- on the development of Minaki Lodge in the Kenora area of this province. They are two years away from completing that project, a project that came under great criticism from a number of members from the NDP in the last Legislature as well as members of the Liberal Party.

It’s amazing that as it stands right now, with two years and $2 million to go before anyone short of the watchman can even spend a night in that facility, it’s going to cost $30,000 a month to maintain that facility. A facility, Mr. Speaker, that was designed with a golf course that was blasted out of rock and filled with Manitoba soil --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. There are too many side conversations going on. It’s very difficult to hear the speaker.

Mr. Angus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes; the hon. member may continue.

Mr. Angus: A chalet, a ski hill, a heated swimming pool -- incidentally, I discovered this morning that in constructing the facility around the heated swimming pool they used a type of foam insulation, assumedly chosen with the expertise of their consultants or their contractors, which they found shortly thereafter was not fire resistant and they had to scrape it off and replace it, at the taxpayers’ expense. That, Mr. Speaker, was the result, I would assume, of the constant paying of the consultant’s fee.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we carry on our side discussions in a somewhat lower voice please? Thank you. It’s very difficult for the hon. member to be heard.

Mr. Angus: Let me try again, Mr. Speaker.

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

The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Angus: In the July 10, 1975, interim report of the standing committee on public accounts, item No. 152, Northern Ontario Development Corp., concerns Minaki Lodge; I quote from the report:

“The committee has found that a consultants fee has been paid on a continuing basis for consultation services that have not been provided. It appears to be government practice that in sensitive negotiations with personnel, the government proceeds by paying a consultant’s fee to the affected person.”

Mr. Speaker, if the situation regarding the foam insulation sprayed in the pool area is any indication of the quality of the consultation provided, I would say that the government of Ontario should seek some kind of redress against the consultant, aside from terminating the agreement.

[3:00]

The original purchase price of Minaki Lodge was, I think -- adding up the mortgage that was assumed, plus a variety of expense -- somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.3 million. At that time the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) indicated to this House, either in October, 1974, or April, 1974, that the cabinet had approved a maximum expenditure of $5 million for the development of Minaki. It is quite obvious that it has spent that $5 million because, if I can accept the report in the Toronto Star as correct, it has spent $13 million; $5 million since the purchase and $1.3 million for the actual purchase.

That community of Minaki is a community of 300; the only school facilities are those up to grade 3. The remainder of the students have to be bused approximately two hours a day, to the community of Kenora. How in the world can the government justify expending that kind of money on a facility the residents admit they will not use because it will cost $30 a day at the minimum to utilize the facilities? They will never use it; most of the people in Ontario will never use it because it is geared for the elite, those with money.

I think if we look at the patterns of tourism in Ontario these days, people are not travelling far. They are travelling by car, they are not flying. They are travelling within their own geographic area. What geographic area is there around Minaki? Kenora, Grassy Narrows reserve -- some of the more affluent communities of Ontario. They will never be able to afford it. Even those of the middle- class and the upper middle class who have that little bit of extra money to spend are not prone to driving. They are prone to flying for those kinds of things. And there is the expense of flying into Thunder Bay, then into Kenora and then driving to Minaki; or flying into Winnipeg and then to Kenora and driving. It won’t happen.

I don’t believe the Province of Ontario should be spending that kind of money in developing a facility which will be used only by a very small minority. The ministry went wrong initially when it assumed the mortgage. I think it had a certain responsibility to do so when the principal owners were unable to follow through with it but the first place where it went wrong was it didn’t try to put it back on the so-called free enterprise market to find a Canadian buyer who had the expertise and private money to develop this facility for the elite.

I always chuckle every time various members of the government chastise us for wanting to own everything; to have everything government-run. I can see why, because their history of running things -- private corporations -- has been interesting to say the least. It has almost been incompetent because they spend and spend and spend and they never get anything opened. Can anyone imagine having the ski facilities, the swimming pool, an area for dancing, dining room, commercial facilities and convention facilities ready yet nobody can stay there because they never got around to doing the rooms first? To me, that would be a logical way of approaching it.

The chairman of Minaki Lodge said, and I quote from this article, “How in the name of God can we announce another $2 million expenditure when hospitals are being shut?” All I can do is echo that because it shows really where the government of Ontario is at and yet it spent $6.3 million over the last two or three years.

Mr. Foulds: A white elephant.

Mr. Angus: That’s money which could have been spent in providing, as I said last night, health and transportation for the communities of the north. It could be used for developing secondary industry -- real secondary industry which relies on the resources presently being raped in the north and taken to southern Ontario or the United States or foreign countries. It could have been used to provide all sorts of amenities in the northern communities which would attract individuals and companies to the north to develop secondary industry.

It could also have been utilized to protect those facilities we already have in the north: those facilities which we need so badly. It might have been used to assist the community of Ignace --

An hon. member: Right on.

Mr. Angus: -- before it came to the brink of financial disaster and in fact went into receivership with the Province of Ontario. That’s the fiscal responsibility that the province has.

Also in the field of industry and tourism, I would like to refer to the Northern Ontario Development Corp. A constituent of mine came to me about two weeks ago with a real concern. It seems that he had applied to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Northern Ontario Development Corp. for funds to develop a metal fabrication industry in Thunder Bay.

The federal people were very quick to respond, approving an offer of $42,000. As for the Northern Ontario Development Corp. -- and I have a feeling it didn’t even get as far as the corporation but was rearranged and stalled within the ministry itself -- he was told by NODC, “Sorry, but we can’t fund this, because there is no market; you would go under.” And yet within the course of three or four weeks there were two or three announcements in Thunder Bay of similar firms setting up shop.

If the ministry had been responsive as they would like us to believe, then this gentleman, who is a Thunder Bay resident who was prepared to develop a secondary industry that we need that has a market in northern Ontario -- if the ministry had been responsive, he would have been able to do so. But no, they were sluggish; they procrastinated. He is in a situation now where possibly there is no remaining market, because other people have come in from outside and taken it up.

I noticed with interest a press release from the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, dated March 29 for immediate release. It relates to the signing of a sub-agreement between the federal Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the Treasurer of Ontario, under the general development agreement between Canada and Ontario.

“The sub-agreement provides assistance in providing service utilities and industrial sites in key urban centres in northeastern Ontario. It is designed to encourage recipient communities to capitalize on existing economic advantages and to help them play a more active role in the development of industrial land in the regional municipality of Sudbury and the district of Parry Sound.”

Ironically, I received a copy of a letter that very same day from the mayor of North Bay. He had read in an article in the North Bay Nugget that the community was anxiously seeking provincial funding to develop an industrial park to provide a base for much-needed secondary industry in northern Ontario, particularly that area of northeastern Ontario. In his letter he said to me that they were most amazed because it was in my community, the city of Thunder Bay, on May 13, 1975, when the cabinet was parading around the Province of Ontario receiving briefs, that it was announced at a dinner for the former member for Fort William that a total of $1.25 million was to be awarded as a grant for the city of North Bay to install basic facilities such as water and sewage pipes for an industrial park in that community. And yet in this announcement by the Treasurer yesterday there is no such announcement confirming that that in fact will happen.

It is obvious that the Province of Ontario has once again reneged on pre-election promises, where they come out with fanfare, razzmatazz and what have you and say, “We are going to give all this money to all you people.” In fact, in Thunder Bay that day they talked about a total of $23,547,810. That’s the Ontario share. Mr. Speaker, I really wonder how much of that will ever come to the people of Ontario.

In the north we have a communications problem. As we have mentioned in the House in the last week or so, we have some real concerns about the Ontario Educational Communications Authority. Having been one of the recipients of those infamous brown paper envelopes I am very concerned about the attitude of the cabinet and the government of this land, that they have initially squashed a project which was costly to a certain extent -- I don’t believe it’s that costly -- but would provide the same type of educational opportunities and media services in the north as is now available in the “golden horseshoe.”

They originally scrapped the idea of having transmitters in Sudbury and Thunder Bay to deliver OECA programming. It wasn’t until there was very strong pressure from the community of Sudbury and the community of Thunder Bay and the surrounding areas, and until it was brought up in the House by our leader, showing that the kind of saving that was actually happening was a waste of money, that in fact it would cost $903,000 in 1976-1977 to save $503,000. The Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch) was very quick to contact OECA and ask them for another alternative and they provided him with one. I received a copy of that also, again in a brown paper envelope. I think we’re discriminating against brown just because they don’t make white envelopes that big.

However, the decision that has been made by the minister is that the microwave links which are very important, will be retained; and that the community of Thunder Bay and Sudbury will be able to receive OECA programming via the cable system. That’s all well and good, except that in Thunder Bay at the present time only 60 per cent of the population have cable. Those are the haves, the people who can afford the extra $5 a month for cable programming. It doesn’t include the large number of people within the urban centre who can’t afford cable, and it definitely does not include all the individuals in the surrounding area who would have been able to receive live transmissions from a transmitter and who do not have cable and who will never have cable in Thunder Bay, northwestern Ontario.

In the city of Sudbury they’re still a year away from cable. I would guarantee that it would be two or three or four years before the residents of Sudbury even come up to the 60 per cent figure that we have in Thunder Bay, and it won’t provide service to the other areas. It won’t allow for communities like Ignace or Atikokan to pick up the OECA signal via live air transmission.

While we feel it’s a step forward in terms of the cable system, it’s not good enough. If this is the province of equal opportunity, then we should have the educational programmes that are being produced with our money. I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we don’t get any reduction in our tax dollars up north because we don’t have OECA programmes. In fact, I would strongly suggest that we are heavily subsidizing the programming for the south, as is the case with almost everything that happens in northwestern Ontario.

I came upon one little figure on taxation that was within some confidential documents related to the Design for Development. While it’s out of date, in that it was a figure that was applicable four years ago, approximately 60 per cent of the tax dollars that were taken out of northern Ontario were returned there. So 40 per cent of our tax dollars have gone to the south and we don’t get any benefit whatsoever from that.

[3:25]

Another area that my colleagues from northern Ontario and I are very concerned about is the experimental Canadian communication technology satellite, commonly called CTS, that will shortly be in use as a means of studying the effects of satellite communications for Canada, particularly for the northern regions. It may allow individuals all over northern Ontario and all over northern Canada to receive television signals and radio communications in their homes even if they are not within the 60-mile radius of a ground station,

Lakehead University has been asked to participate, along with OISE, in doing the research study into the effectiveness of satellite educational programming as opposed to cable educational programming, as opposed to ground transmitter educational programming, as opposed to videotape packaged programming. The results of their studies, if and when it is ever funded and comes about, can open up whole new fields in the north. Teachers in northern reserves, in northern communities, would have instant access to new programming and new concepts in education. Government officials, whether provincial or federal, would have continuous contact with the more knowledgeable -- and that’s in quotes -- south.

So I urge that the Province oi Ontario consider funding this very valuable study, because if we don’t study it now we may never get quality education and services in the north.

I spoke briefly last night about Ignace and I mentioned it today. We all know -- at least, we in northern Ontario know, and I think the hon. Treasurer has some indication of what is happening in the community of Ignace, or the legal term, the corporation of the township of Ignace. At that cabinet meeting in Thunder Bay, Ignace came to the cabinet, to the Treasurer, and spoke about its problems and spoke about how difficult the situations were because of the mine to the north of it, the Mattabi mine on the shores of Sturgeon Lake, that it so dearly wanted to annex in order to get the much needed industrial tax assessment, but the ministry said no. The ministry at that time refused to give them any extra funding in terms of providing needed infrastructure required to develop accommodation and services for that major influx of mine workers, because Ignace was a bedroom community.

We have seen in the past communities like Elliot Lake, which have expanded greatly and then turned into ghost towns almost overnight. It goes to show you, Mr. Speaker, how much the government of Ontario listens to the people in the north, because the township of Ignace warned the province on May 3, 1975. that they were in financial trouble, and it was in August or September or October that Ignace went into receivership. Six months of frustrating time for the councillors; six months of worry; they didn’t know what was going to happen to their community. They are still expanding. They need more schools, they need more services, they need everything, and they don’t have the money to buy it. They don’t have the money to build it, and yet the people keep moving in. So I don’t think the history of the Ontario government in the north is very commendable.

There is a sort of feeling in northern Ontario that the province down here doesn’t know what it’s really like up there -- what the weather’s like, what the geography is like, and what the problems are. I would like to relate one particular case that I have been dealing with, and it relates to the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

There is a woman in my riding -- a very elderly woman, somewhere in her 70s -- in a slightly ill condition; she is susceptible to pneumonia. She’s on general welfare assistance and receives a supplement from the ministry. She lives in her own home and under the ministry regulations they can provide for certain renovations in order to keep the home a healthy and safe place to reside in. All last winter, last winter being the 1974-1975 winter, this woman suffered hardship because of the condition of her furnace. It was operating at something near 20 per cent or 30 per cent capacity. There were many times she found she had to leave the home during severe cold weather to go to a neighbour’s to warm up.

I remind members this is a woman who has suffered from pneumonia a number of times, aside from the fact of her age. She approached the ministry through her case worker and applied to get a new furnace. Initially she tried to get her furnace converted from oil to gas so that it would be cheaper and be done much quicker but because of the type of furnace she had it was not possible.

She applied in early spring and had continuous discussions with the ministry people in Thunder Bay and on her behalf they applied to the central office in Toronto. They agreed with her needs. They would agree that she had to have a new furnace because she couldn’t survive.

In November, I got a call from her saying that she had heard nothing; that the ministry people in Thunder Bay kept waiting and waiting for an answer from their co-ordinators in Toronto. I intervened; I wrote the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor), and asked him to intercede and I would like to thank him publicly because he did. He expedited the decision to approve the installation of a new furnace; fine, we figured, great.

The woman was asked to get two quotes and she did and submitted them to the ministry. Lo and behold, it took quite a while to get approval, even though the minister already said okay. We went back to the minister and shortly thereafter we received approval but because of the length of time it took, we were now into winter in Thunder Bay, and winter in Thunder Bay is not Toronto weather. We have consistent 30 below zero weather for week after week.

The furnace company told this woman, “To put in a furnace is going to take five days so you have to move out.” I’m not sure what they wanted her to do with her plumbing or her food stuffs but they said that was the only way they could do it because there would be no heat in that house for five days. The ministry, in its wisdom, would not provide her either with temporary heating or temporary accommodation in order that her furnace could be replaced in mid-winter.

As it stands now, when we are starting into the thaw even though we still have’ three or four feet of snow on the ground, that woman is still living in a house which has a furnace which should have been replaced a year ago. It’s that kind of unfeeling attitude of the Ministry of Community and Social Services that we on this side of the House find so distasteful.

The Ministry of Housing is an amazing group in Thunder Bay and all across the province. The chairman of the Ontario Housing Corp., Emerson Clow, in Thunder Bay a month or two ago for the opening of two senior citizens apartment buildings, lashed out at people in our community who had the foresight to object to buildings which were incompatible with their neighbourhoods. It seems that OHC’s fascination with big buildings in concentrated areas was distasteful to the residents of Port Arthur riding and the residents of my riding. Some have been successful in getting the size of the buildings reduced. Mr. Speaker, they’re not against senior citizens, as the chairman of the Ontario Housing Corp. would like people to believe, but they’re against the way that OHC does things -- the style and the attitude.

One of the property acquisition directors of OHC had the audacity two weeks ago to attempt to blackmail the council of the city of Thunder Bay. I realize that’s a harsh word, but the city of Thunder Bay had refused to grant a zoning change to OHC on a piece of property that they purchased without a conditional agreement relating to the zoning change. It was property owned by the YWCA of the former city of Port Arthur, in an area where the senior citizens did not want accommodation and in an area where the residents did not want a large building because they had already seen the undue influence of a large highrise only half a block away. They were very distressed and they fought it.

They fought it and won, and yet Ontario Housing Corp. had the audacity to go to city council and say to them, “We will not approve any more OHC units of any kind in this city until you make that zoning change.” That is not the way that a government agency should be operating, because the people who made the decision not to rezone were the elected representatives of the city of Thunder Bay, people from all parts of the city; and, I must add, a group that was not prone to citizen involvement and citizen objection.

When Mr. Clow spoke to the senior citizens at those two openings, it was as if he was blaming them, the senior citizens, and chastising them because other people in the community had objected to a building. It’s like a mother scolding her children because they have told her a story about what somebody else has done and they get heck for it.

In my riding, the same situation has occurred. In our community, we have a nursing residence, Patterson Hall Nursing Residence, attached to the McKellar General Hospital, and it has been vacant for two years. It’s a fairly large facility, which could accommodate a large number of individuals. I asked Ontario Housing to do an assessment of that facility to see whether it could be used for senior citizens’ living units, student housing or any other type of housing, because we have a very severe situation in Thunder Bay. He did; he had somebody assess it and they sent me a copy. The report was interesting, not so much for what it said, but what it didn’t say. The report forgot to mention one whole wing of the nurses’ residence. The report forgot to mention the slight difference of elevation between the ground and the elevator, which is approximately 5 ft; and when you’re looking at it in terms of senior citizens’ accommodation, whether it be for mobile senior citizens or not-so-mobile senior citizens, then you darn well look at where the elevator is.

We asked them to look at it in terms of the cost of conversion, and their report was that it was expensive to convert. Well, that’s fine. We didn’t think it was going to be very cheap. It’s a sound building. But they did not compare the cost of conversion of that facility to the cost of constructing a new facility to take care of a similar number of residents.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the Ontario Housing Corporation is one group in this province that should be eliminated, because it has never done and will never do the kind of job that is needed in terms of providing housing for certain sectors of our communities.

[3:30]

There is another item I’d like to refer to, because I would anticipate that had the former member for Fort William been more successful in the last election, we might have had another big government announcement in Thunder Bay. What I relate to is the winter sports training centre that is presently under design in Thunder Bay. This is an Olympic facility. The proposal is that it be paid for by the Province of Ontario yet used by all Canadians to develop our athletes. It will be utilized by a very few individuals; in fact, I would suggest that there’ll be only half a dozen from northwestern Ontario who would use it.

If the former member for Fort William was still here, he’d undoubtedly be spending millions and millions in that riding to build this kind of facility, when, at the same time, as I mentioned last night, we closed 107 hospital beds and 122 psychiatric beds. I look at some of the articles and pamphlets that came out of the last election sort of in retrospect, and I look at the kinds of things that have been done in the province since Sept. 18.

The slogan that was used by the former member for Fort William was “progress, not promises.” The progress that he related to was big government buildings in places where nobody wanted them or they weren’t any good. Believe it or not, he talked about 100 chronic beds. He talked about a health lab and about the progress that he had brought to us. Little did we believe in our wildest nightmares that the former member’s government would turn around after the election and cut 1,200 hospital beds, or whatever the number is, and eliminate 5,000 jobs and close health labs. It’s amazing.

There is no question whether we in the New Democratic Party support the government or not in the Throne Speech; we cannot support it because everything it has done has been against our grain. It has been against the grain of the people because people believe that services are necessary for their health, their welfare and their wellbeing. I can’t conceive of any more illogical method of doing things, particularly in the light of the fact that most of the decisions were made before this House resumed and that none of us had a true opportunity to debate and vote on those decisions. So on Monday next when we rise to vote I will be happy to vote against the government of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: I know we are all very glad indeed to hear that the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) is improving and is on his way to making a good recovery. It may be, however, that it will be some weeks before he will be able to resume his full responsibilities in this House. In the meantime, I wanted to address a few remarks to the acting Minister of Health who, according to the speaking list, will perhaps be participating in this debate this afternoon.

I think that members on all sides are very much impressed at the ability of the hon. member for York Mills (B. Stephenson). Her answers in question period, particularly during the last two days when she has been acting Minister of Health as well as Minister of Labour, indicate that she has a good grasp of the information that is available to her.

There is always a feeling on this side that, while you may not agree with her answers, she will give you one and there will be not too much fencing and fooling around. I must say that as a new minister she has made an excellent impression indeed and, since as acting Minister of Health she may have a good deal of continuing responsibility for decisions associated with this ministry, I wanted to speak very briefly for her benefit, as well as anyone else who might want to listen, about some decisions that will face her within the next few days.

I’ve had the impression, in listening as carefully as I could to her answers to questions from a number of members about the future of the hospital closings, that some further consideration is being given. I believe the alternatives that have been put forward by delegations from the communities concerned are being seriously considered and not in fact just being fenced off until the actual closing dates come along and the order from the ministry is given and, of course, must be obeyed. I hope very sincerely that as she shares this responsibility with the Minister of Health, there will be brought to bear some new thinking and perhaps some new comprehension of the meaning of these closings in the communities concerned.

May I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it’s not my intention to review for you the situation pertaining in general, but simply to bring to her attention and to other members, the matter which is my chief responsibility and that is concerning the Willett Hospital in Paris. Very briefly, sir, I will tell you that this hospital serving the community of 6,000, was established at the initiative of the local citizens back in the 1920s, built on land given by the Willett family.

All of the additions have been specifically approved by the Ministry of Health over these years. I am sure you are aware, sir, that there is a continuing debt associated with the debentures for the latest addition, so that if, in fact, the government proceeds to close the hospital, the ratepayers in Paris must continue to pay off their financial commitments for some years to come. I think, however, sir, that the need for maintaining these facilities in the local community is well accepted by most people, but I want to approach it just for a moment or two on another basis.

Because there have been a number of alternatives presented to the ministry, and the acting Minister of Health I presume will eventually now have to make the final decision, I would hope that she is aware that the need for chronic care facilities in the Brant-Brantford area, and particularly in Paris, is undoubted. While the people on all sides of this House are prepared to give reasonable support to the government in its efforts to cut costs where it is possible to do so, no one believes that it would be efficient or reasonable to, in fact, board up that building. It is a building with modern facilities. If it is not needed, in the wisdom of the Ministry of Health, as a full active treatment hospital, surely it would be the worst kind of false economy, a punitive decision directed against the community, if it were closed up in entirety and simply boarded up and left there, as some facilities in Toronto have been over recent years. I would urge her consideration and the consideration of other members in the House to see the view of the local community who, I suppose, are prepared to accept a much lower level of service although they feel that this, too, is a mistake, but they are certainly not prepared to accept the closing up of the facility in total.

I do not want to spend a lot of time on this. As I have said, it has been debated repeatedly here in the presence and with the participation of the Minister of Health, but I felt that since the decisions may now have passed in part to another individual and another train of thought will be brought to bear, I want to express in the strongest possible terms my feelings that the facility must at the very least be maintained as a chronic care facility, hopefully with emergency and outpatient provisions and with an ambulance service as well. I believe this can be done with a substantial saving of money.

It’s regrettable that the community, which has taken the initiative and paid for most of these developments themselves, will go without an active treatment hospital. As we approach the deadline of April 1, or the time immediately following April 1, when final decisions will be made, it is my strong expectation and certainly my hope that the ministry is not serious when it says that the facility will be closed completely. That is one alternative which, in my view, is not a rational one and not one which should be considered further by the acting Minister of Health or anyone else.

I must say I hope that when the member for York Mills participates in this debate she will be expressing some of her own views in this connection. This is a general debate, where I feel that all of us have the responsibility to represent some of the situations in our own constituencies which are of emergent importance for our own people and for our own taxpayers. I would, in expressing this hope, point out to you, sir, that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman) entered the debate yesterday and, instead of indicating some of his personal views having to do with the responsibilities in his ministry, took a good deal of time in this House to attack in a most strange and, in my view, irresponsible way the activities of the democratically-elected municipal councils of the townships of March and Nepean. Perhaps he felt that for political reasons he had to do that since his own seat is anything but secure and who knows when an election will face us in the minority situation we have in this House at the present time. I felt it was extremely improper -- in fact, uncalled for -- for the minister to attack the decisions of the democratically-elected councils of the areas within his own constituency.

Mr. Kennedy: What happened in caucus this morning?

Mr. Nixon: It should surely be his responsibility to support them rather than to attack them in such a political and irresponsible way. I tell the House I would have been much happier and much better served, along with the other members of this House, if the minister had picked up on that section of the Speech from the Throne which had to do with the problems associated with the alcohol situation, the booze situation, in the Province of Ontario which face all of us as members of this House. I’ll tell members that this is probably the single most pressing problem that faces us not just in this jurisdiction but, I suppose, across Canada and elsewhere.

I want to say something quite specific about it, along with my colleagues and others, because this is surely where we must discuss it and where we must come to the best possible conclusion, by way of regulation, and expressions of policy and legislation.

The minister did not deal with this except in a very peripheral way. The reference in the Speech from the Throne is simply an oblique one which makes some comment about the problems faced in this province and that the government is going to introduce legislation which will, in effect, bring about some solution. Of course, we know that that is not possible. There are no easy solutions to the problem. But, certainly, we must examine it as carefully as we can and together, as members of the House, work out the best alternatives that are available to us.

In the last year we have been treated to new legislation, revisions of the Liquor Licence Act and liquor control legislation. At the time I felt that the reviews themselves were taken in a rational way. There were several ministers involved and they asked for input not only from members of this House but from organizations arid individuals across the province. But when the new bills came forward I felt they were very inadequate indeed.

A review of procedures for decisions of the Liquor Licence Board and the Liquor Control Board would, of course, always be acceptable, particularly since in recent months and years some of these decisions have seemed to be undemocratic, certainly, and not in the best interests of the situation as most of us perceive it.

Not only do we now have new legislation but we have new personnel directing the administration of the regulations. We have a new chairman of the Liquor Licence Board; a new chairman of the Liquor Control Board. It’s big business in this province, I’m sure you’re aware, Mr. Speaker. On the markup alone we expect to net more than $300 million and, of course, this does not include the sales tax which is put on at the retail level. We are, of course, concerned with the imposition of many other taxes. At the federal level it is a very heavily taxed commodity.

In my view, it is not heavily taxed enough but the concept that many people have is that this particular government is simply in the liquor business and the more money it gets out of it the better it is for the government as far as meeting problems and difficulties with the budget is concerned. It is obviously big business. The government, through the Liquor Control Board, builds its own stores. It hires its own personnel. It buys the raw materials cheap, waters them down and marks the product up, sells it dear and then taxes it at 10 per cent.

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s called free enterprise.

Mr. Nixon: My hon. friend said that’s called free enterprise.

Mr. Drea: You are wrong; we buy it watered down.

[3:45]

Mr. Mancini: Frank should know.

Mr. Nixon: You don’t water it down, Frank?

The statistics on consumption are rather frightening, particularly when we see what has happened to the consumption of alcoholic beverages by people under the age of 21. I personally supported the lowering of the drinking age to 18 and I am still not convinced that it should be raised. There have been many people saying it should be raised at least to 19 on the basis that most young people leave high school at the age of 18 and they are not going to be of a legal drinking age at least until they are out of high school.

I think that raising the drinking age to somewhere beyond 18 will undoubtedly lead to more law-breaking. If anything, the drinking age in the community -- and I am not talking about the regulations -- has been dropping very rapidly indeed, and the indications that have been made available to us by the Addiction Research Foundation and others show very clearly that the drinking age is sinking well below 18 and is now into the 16-year-old and 15-year-old age groups and, I suppose, even lower than that.

I really don’t believe that this trend has been caused by the action of this Legislature in reducing the drinking age to 18. I think rather it has been a changing perception of drinking in the whole community. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, perhaps five years ago, when we as members of this House, let alone as parents, were almost panicky about the non-medical use of drugs and marijuana in this province. There was a feeling that there was some kind of an underground revolution in which the members of the House had very little understanding. We were prepared to vote tremendous additional sums to the Addiction Research Foundation in the hope that by making this money available hiring the best of brains and co-ordinating them in the most effective way, some kind of research would come up with an answer. Such an answer was not forthcoming, but I think this feeling of almost panic in the community in this particular way has had its effect.

There is a clear indication that the young people reaching the age where they are interested in these mood-altering drugs have lost some of their interest, particularly in the chemical drugs, and to some extent their interest even in experimenting with and using marijuana, because of the general feeling in the community that liquor is okay, it is generally accepted, it is sold through government stores, everybody in the family uses it and it is advertised heavily in every part of the media that anybody observes.

In my view the movement away from the non-medical use of drugs and even of marijuana has been toward alcohol and this, more than anything else, has been the reason for the frightening statistics associated with alcohol.

I can remember the debate perhaps five years ago when we were asked to vote additional moneys for the Addiction Research Foundation. The view was expressed by myself and others that in reading the researches done by the Addiction Research Foundation it was quite clear that some researchers felt that alcohol, compared with even some of the drugs, let alone marijuana, was far more destructive to the individual socially and physically, than even marijuana. This did not indicate that anybody in this House felt that marijuana should be legalized, but it simply was an indication that everybody realized how destructive and terribly damaging the uncontrolled use of alcohol was and is.

When we see the statistics, particularly associated with teenage drinking, and the number of automobile accidents involving people who are impaired, particularly young people under the age of 21, I do not feel that we should immediately assume that the most serious error we made was in reducing the legal age to 18. Obviously this extended the drinking age much more readily to many young people who were not accustomed or prepared to break the law. But I do believe that if we attempt to correct that by moving it upward, we will find that there will be a tremendous problem of enforcement.

I was reading in the newspapers only today that the people who own licensed premises have a terrible problem in policing even the 18-year-old age limit that we have established through the powers that we have in this House. It is very easy for young people -- younger than 18 -- to secure sufficient identification to satisfy the bartender.

I believe that the Liquor Licence Board is being as severe as it can. When its inspectors find an under-age individual in a licensed premise, then the owner of the premises is in very serious trouble indeed. The licence is often revoked or at least suspended for a period of time. So I believe the Liquor Licence Board is acting as strongly and as effectively as it can, but it is very difficult on the part of the bartenders representing the owners, the people acting in this capacity, to simply decide who has a legal right to be there and who has not a legal right to be there.

Frankly, I think these identification cards that are available from the board are a good thing. I have an 18-year-old son and I was quite surprised when he decided that he better send away for one of those identification cards. I was a little shocked, to tell you the truth, being a product of the old school, but I can remember perhaps attempting something like that before I was 21 -- to tell you the truth, and since the statute of limitations now protects me probably from prosecution. So I wouldn’t say that it’s an entirely unnatural thing to happen.

To say “All you have to do is enforce the law,” we know that that is not going to work unless we have certain tools to make the enforcement of the law practicable, so I house great misgivings about talking about the requirement of identification. Most people, certainly young people age 17 and 18, have some identification -- driver’s licence and so on -- but it seems to me that if we are going to assist the Liquor Licence Board and the tavern-keepers to enforce the law, then I personally have no objection to those identification cards which are of a type which simply can’t be passed around the table so that the whole thing is simply a joke.

The enforcement of the age limit has really very little to do with the problem that we have, because the drinking begins younger than that, and you know it if your kids are out in the community. Certainly we all know it. It is much more difficult to come up with some kind of a rational solution. There isn’t any solution, but I will tell the House this, and I have said it before and others have too, that the advertising of beer, particularly on television, and liquor in the print media has obviously got a tremendous influence on the attitude of young people. I have said this before and others have as well, we are usually treated by return mail to a lengthy defence, almost a vituperative defence from the representatives of the advertising industry saying their statistics show that advertising does not enlarge the market, it simply -- what is the phrase?

Mr. Singer: Concentrates?

Mr. Nixon: No. It has to do with varieties; that is, they are going to get people to stop drinking Golden and start drinking Blue or whatever it is. I really cannot accept that. I believe that we must not accept the judgement of the advertising industry in this connection.

If this House continues to permit beer and liquor advertising when we know the problems that are caused by the consuming public, including all of us, then we are being seriously irresponsible and derelict in our duty. It is often the government which will agree with the fact that the problem is there but the spokesman for the ministry -- and they change from time to time -- will say, “We agree with you, but what can you do? We have no control over the mails, we really don’t control television” and that sort of thing.

But I do believe that this jurisdiction, by a statement of our policy in this connection and doing what we can, urging it to the other leaders at the provincial level, urging the co-operation of the government of Canada, can achieve something in this connection. There’s no doubt that the beer advertising on television is probably the best advertising one will see. It is not offensive, but the emphasis really is very clear, and that is that if you are going to be a part of modem, vibrant, beautiful, healthy young life, then beer is the answer. I am not a teetotaller, I should say to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Drea: You have already confessed.

Mr. Kennedy: You have clarified that.

Mr. Nixon: Well, I thought perhaps I should make that clear, but I will tell you there’s no reason for us to permit this kind of continuous insidious pressure, on young people particularly, which simply identifies the use of beer, much more than anything else, with the good life. I really believe that we must take steps to stop it. I’ve heard people from all parties say that we should do this and I would suggest to you, sir, that this is something that simply has got to be undertaken.

The second part of it, in my view, has got to be in a programme of education. We have this sort of thing in the schools now but I believe it must be much more effective. I don’t think it has to be on the basis of the kind of education that perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you got in Sunday school -- and I did; you know, the worm in the glasses of alcohol. I actually had that; you perhaps know what I mean. Somebody says actually the lesson is if you drink booze, you don’t have worms.

But I tell you, sir, that with modern educational systems, presenting the factual aspects of this problem, the young people are at least going to have a balance to the attractiveness of the use of alcoholic beverages and a real warning as to what happens with their immoderate use.

There have been those that have said that, if we’re going to allow advertising to continue in magazines and on television, there should be equal time showing the real effects of alcohol and what it does do to the mentality and the personality and ability of the individual. Believe me, all of us know just exactly how offensive and disastrous this can be.

I’ve stated my views on this advertising business and education. There’s another matter pertaining to this that I want to discuss as well. Whether you know it or not, Mr. Speaker, there are still many municipalities in this province where alcoholic beverages cannot be legally sold. in my constituency, there are a number. We have a programme that sort of traditionally developed here over the years called local option. Many members represent areas where this is an archaic thing and have come under the jurisdiction of the Liquor Licence Board. There are applications for licensing certain premises and if individuals feel that that is not a good thing they can express their views in opposition and a board, subject to appeal and review, makes the decision for the benefit of the community as a whole.

But in these dry townships, as you know, Mr. Speaker, a vote is taken after a petition or on the decision of the local municipality and the campaigns -- sometimes very hot campaigns -- go forward and the people decide whether the township is to be wet or dry. These votes are going forward all the time. The Clerk of the House, who is also the chief electoral officer, has the responsibility of supervising those. He would be about able to tell us and his report indicates that many of these townships vote dry regularly. I have the honour to represent a number of them which do.

I also have the problems, as the local member, of meeting with the young people from the smaller communities in the dry townships, young people who, if they’re going to have a beer with their friends, have to get in their car or borrow their dad’s car, and drive to a nearby town, have a few beers. On the way home, they may get into trouble and they may be charged with impairment. Somebody else has made the decision that these kids are not going to have the right to drink in their own area and so they have to drive somewhere else, with the problems that I have just described. I’m not sure that’s the reason why everybody should vote yes rather than no, but it is one of the things that many people who are so dedicated against the use of alcoholic beverage in moderation perhaps don’t think of.

I’ll tell you also, Mr. Speaker, that many things have changed in the community since you and I were perhaps more independent in our activities, let’s say, in the community. When I say to my son: “Why don’t you go to a show?” he says: “It’s $3.50 a ticket, the popcorn is 60 cents, and I can’t afford to take my girl to the show. We go over to a very nice place, very well kept, and have a couple of beers.”

It’s a little shocking, to tell you the truth. He doesn’t think it’s shocking. He thinks actually to go to the show is $7, or $10 if you want popcorn as well. It’s a very big undertaking, whereas they can go and chat with their friends in very nice surroundings actually and, as long as they have learned moderation -- and I hope to God they all have -- under our laws there is nothing wrong with this. We have to realize that that part of the community is perceived differently.

[4:00]

There is another change in the community. I don’t know but I suppose the community of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, which has a number of these dry townships, is not too much different from others. I can remember, even five years ago, if you went to the Paris Agricultural Hall, which is a very fine building put up by the local citizens with some assistance from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and anybody suggested that a bar be a part of the meeting, it was just unheard of; unthinkable. That’s changed in the last five years. In the most recent renovation to the Paris Agricultural Hall, a bar has been built right in and, believe me, it is long enough so that they can have four or five bartenders in case it gets busy there. There are still people who, very properly, are quite offended at this but in general the perception of and the acceptance by the community has changed dramatically.

I’ll tell members that I know personally of people of rather mature years who always felt that the use of alcoholic beverages was somehow fairly closely associated with sin. I mean that most sincerely. They have changed their attitude and I wouldn’t make any comment about the enthusiasm of their new approach to this but let us say it is an entirely new perception. The habits of the community and the perception of the use of alcoholic beverages have changed dramatically over the last few years.

I have mentioned in this House before that there seems to be a certain cyclical aspect to this because in the early days, back in the middle of the 19th century before the legislatures and the governments of the day felt that they had to use their powers to control this, certainly the community was ‘anything but dry. In the little village of St. George near our farm, with a population of 1,000, records show that there were a number of distilleries in operation right there.

The farmers, I am told, would look forward to driving their children to school in the democrat so that they could fill up a couple of honey pails at the local distillery and go home and work hard and still be refreshed during the day. I suppose, under our standards, the country was full of alcoholics.

They were hard-working alcoholics, I suppose. Metabolism being what it is and with the exigencies of providing for big families and doing work without the benefit of all sorts of machinery probably they didn’t suffer too much -- but there was a lot of suffering and history records this. That’s why, particularly, the Methodist Church and others were so successful in preaching about the demon rum, the destruction of the family and the association with sin because it came from the teachings of the church.

It led to a very strong turn of the wheel so that many of these communities used the availability of the various statutes to decide that in their area drinking would be illegal. There are many cases showing that in one generation people would go from a very free and easy use of liquor -- locally distilled rotgut undoubtedly because there wasn’t any of this 10-years-aged-in-wood business, I’ll tell you that -- by almost all members of the family to a complete cut-off so that everybody was teetotal. The admission that anybody in the community drank was almost unthinkable. Very gradually, of course, and now not so gradually in the last five years, the wheel is making another turn indeed and we have gone back to a completely different attitude.

I just want to point out this: Associated with this changing attitude has been a change in the attitude of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations or, particularly, the Liquor Licence Board which is directly responsible to this House through the ministry. Back in the days, I believe, when Mr. Robarts was Premier, the custom of permitting special occasion permits in these areas seemed to expand. It was, of course, clear that in townships which were dry the sale of alcoholic beverages was and is illegal. There is no question about that. Yet a certain custom was established that one could ask for a permit, and even though if one read it carefully it certainly said there is no sale permitted in these agricultural halls, and particularly in the community centres -- and most communities have them now with the assistance of the government of Ontario but largely with money raised through their own efforts -- there is built up a custom of community parties of the very finest type.

The financial benefit of these parties is usually directed toward sports activities. In our own community of St. George, frankly, a very fine hockey league of many levels has been financed this way. The community finances it in this way with some alacrity, and all on the basis of special occasion permits. I have from time to time said to the people: “I am not the policeman, I am not the judge, but I am aware of what the law is, and the law says you can’t sell liquor with these permits.”

It certainly has been established in the community, not only in my area but elsewhere; and that’s really the way it has been established. But all of a sudden last November the word came out that there would be no more permits. They phoned the member. They phoned this member. I don’t know whether anybody else got phone calls but it was really something.

Sure everybody wants to stop the immoderate use of alcohol, but surely nobody is saying that the moderate use on the community level, on the basis of which the community is accepting it, should be outlawed all of a sudden by somebody reinterpreting some regulation that has nothing apparently to do with this House at all.

I know there were impassioned pleas. The reeve and a delegation from the township would travel all the way down to the Liquor Licence Board to find out directly what was wrong with this. They came back with the same answer that we got from everybody: “That’s it, buddy, there will be no liquor in that township because you voted dry.”

The thing is, Mr. Speaker, also, that there has to be, by law, three years between votes; and as a most careful examination of the legislation that I have been able to undertake and the best advice available to me is that there is no way out of that. Many of these areas had a vote just last year -- and frankly I voted yes, but when you put your pencil beside that all of the lessons from Sunday School come on you. I was able, I guess, to overcome it, but a majority were not, mostly because they could have the satisfaction of voting no and having all the booze they wanted anyway.

Really, I just think that kind of a law has got to be an anachronism and from my point of view I just think it ought to be kicked right out, and the responsibility of the Liquor Licence Board expanded with all of the review procedures made available. I know it is a foundation of Toryism that local option must never be interfered with in any way, even though they have amended the bill time and again. If it’s a private club and one has the money to belong to a private club one can go there any time. One can take guests and sign them in at any time and be served in very fine surroundings.

Mr. Ruston: Or a tourist area.

Mr. Nixon: The next amendment was if it was a designated tourist area, it doesn’t matter whether the local township votes dry or not, a licence is available. That is called the Talisman amendment, I believe.

That great, marvellous ski resort, which is the corporate headquarters of the Tory Party I understand, had a little problem getting a local township to see eye to eye with their view of modern development and it took an amendment to the liquor Act in order to fix it so that the people in the Talisman could be treated as I believe they want to be and should be treated.

So it seems to me that the hypocrisy associated with Conservative policy here has really got to be brought to an end. It may be that I can’t persuade them that local option is not as good as it was in 1926 or whenever it was --

Mr. Drea: You voted for it last year.

Mr. Nixon: All right, but surely we’ve got to reach some kind of an accommodation with the problems that the people in these areas face. Believe me, they are not glassy-eyed drunks who simply want to have lots of cheap beer and hand it out to under-age kids or something like that. We don’t have to worry about that. I submit that we do not. But there should be some kind of accommodation. The least we should do is have an amendment -- and I wish the minister was here, because I have communicated with him about this; but I understand one of his advisers is here who knows quite a bit about this.

I would hope that we would have an amendment introduced in this House so that at least, at the discretion of the Liquor Licence Board on the application of a township, the right to have another vote would be granted before that three-year limit is up. Because in many instances, within a few months of the most recent vote this regulation, while it wasn’t changed, was enforced in a different way; and it is not fair to the people concerned.

I would say to the Speaker and the parliamentary assistant that I would hope we will have a bill for discussion on that basis; and it should never be brought forward as anything having to do with the statement in the Speech from the Throne about the reform of it. This is simply a stop-gap correction for a situation that is simply unsupportable and that I, as one member, want set right.

Mr. Worton: Okay, Frank?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I wish that during these remarks I could have laid before you a clear and easy solution to the problems of alcoholic beverages, but I have indicated to you the way I feel that the mood of the community is changing. Not only is there a much broader and, I think, a healthier acceptance of it, but I think there is a much better awareness of the tremendous dangers and the destructiveness of the use of alcoholic beverages.

I think we can reflect that in this House by establishing a policy designed to ban advertising having to do with beer and liquor in this province in every way we can and by a programme of education which will be effective and which I believe should be mandatory.

I also ask that the government give immediate consideration to solving this problem in the communities that I have brought to your attention, and I feel sure, with the reasonable attitude they show to some of these practical matters, that a solution can be achieved.

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

Mr. Drea: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After I make a few introductory remarks, I would appreciate it if the former Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nixon) would stay for a few moments and perhaps I could reply to some of the matters he raised.

It has always been my tradition to say a few words about the riding and the borough I have the honour to represent. I wish to commend the Minister of Government Services (Mrs. Scrivener) for the decision, in a period of restraint, to recognize the priorities of Scarborough in the fact that a massive new courthouse, one that will be 10 storeys high, will be built across from the town centre. It is one that will encompass the county courts, the provincial courts -- both criminal and family -- as well as various administration of justice offices.

I say this for two reasons, Mr. Speaker. First of all, because of your partial connection with the borough through some old friends, I’m sure you are aware of the fact that within a decade Scarborough will be the largest municipality in this province. Certainly it is a mark of the foresight of the Minister of Government Services, of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and of those responsible for the administration of justice that the borough has been selected as the first place where there will be truly a suburban court complex, one that is away from downtown.

Certainly I believe the newspaper publicity that followed the announcement of the Ministry of Government Services about the courthouse, saying that this confirmed a downtown for Scarborough, also shows foresight by the province, because one of the difficulties in the suburban areas until this time has been the lack of a very clear and identifiable downtown or civic area as contrasted to that of the older cities and other urban areas.

[4:15]

Mr. Roy: You are very lucky. They are having the courthouse in the Holiday Inn in Ottawa.

Mr. Drea: Well if the people in Ottawa would make the decisions that the people in the southern part of Scarborough make they too would have a brand new 10-storey courthouse, my friend.

Mr. Roy: What you’re suggesting is you’ve got to be Tory to get a courthouse.

Mr. Drea: That’s right, that would be a step.

Mr. Roy: That’s a great approach, vote Tory.

Mr. Drea: It’s very successful, Albert. I think it’s very significant that the first new courthouse built in the province in a period of restraint is going you know where.

Mr. Roy: Because you’re a Tory.

Mr. Reid: A great philosophy of government.

Mr. Moffatt: A great addition.

Mr. Reid: That’s why you’re closing down the hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: I don’t know of any hospital closings in the borough of Scarborough, but perhaps we’ll come to that in a moment.

Mr. Roy: That’s quite an admission.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to just touch on one other matter in the borough of Scarborough. As you know, one of the experiments by the Toronto Transit Commission has been an express bus from the Town Centre to downtown Toronto, using a rather unconventional route. Because it’s an express bus, it goes down the Don Valley Parkway; it obviously doesn’t pick up passengers in between. This is a very heavily subsidized run. It is of great benefit to the people of the borough of Scarborough because the existing bus lines, quite often, by the time they feed into the Warden Ave. subway, take as long to get to the subway as the subway does to get downtown.

In view of the fact that the Town Centre at the moment doesn’t have any direct transportation, this express bus service leaving to downtown Toronto was indeed, quite frankly, a very beneficial thing for a great number of commuters in Scarborough. It seems now that the Toronto Transit Commission in its time of restraint feels that this is a frill. At the moment, I am informed by the mayor of Scarborough, the TTC is cutting the service back just to rush hour. They also plan, if their restraints continue, to discontinue the service altogether.

I would suggest that a transportation body such as the TTC that can afford to pay its general manager more than the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) is paid by this Legislature, a municipal transit authority that wants to shoot $500,000 on silly neon tubes and other forms of art in subways, is very far off its role in society when it wants to go on paying exorbitant salaries to its top management --

Mr. Cunningham: How much did courthouses get?

Mr. Mancini: Ask him about the Lieutenant Governor’s suite.

Mr. Reid: Have you looked at the Wintario grants lately?

Mr. Drea: -- when it wants to continue a procedure to make the interior of its subway stations more attractive at the expense of suburban riders. I would certainly hope that the regional transportation authority, which doesn’t have any direct control over the Toronto Transit Commission, but certainly is in a position to give some advice, reminds the TTC that its obligation is not to pay high salaries to its bureaucrats and not to put up all kinds of paintings that nobody else wants to buy in subways.

Mr. Kerrio: Look who’s talking.

Mr. Reid: Don’t you think you should clean up your own backyard first?

Mr. Drea: Its function is to deliver people in the most expeditious manner, at the most reasonable rate and with the best service available. I would certainly hope that that is brought to the attention of the TTC.

I was very pleased to hear the remarks of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) this afternoon. Apparently there has been considerable change in thinking within that party. I took the opportunity while he was speaking of getting the Hansard of July 8, 1975. At that time we were talking about the Liquor Control Act, Bills 45 and 46, if I recall. At that particular time he was telling us that he personally thought the legislation should have been liberalized. That is a quote from page 2509.

Mr. Nixon: If I may, will the member permit a question?

Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. Nixon: Does he not think that improving local option -- that is, removing it -- is not a liberalizing approach?

Mr. Drea: If you would have held your question until I was finished with the next sentence --

Mr. Kerrio: That might be two hours.

Mr. Moffatt: You might have forgotten it.

Mr. Drea: -- what I was going to say is the local option question is one that I want to just hold for a moment, because there are some improvements already along the way to that extent.

Mr. Nixon: Good.

Mr. Drea: I don’t regard the local option question as a matter of liberalization of the Liquor Control Act, no I don’t. That’s a mechanical procedure, it is not even the longer, and I think that your --

Mr. Nixon: That’s the cornerstone of the Tory party.

Mr. Drea: Just a minute. The member’s arguments for easing the present time limits on local option votes are proof that it is a mechanical venture at a particular time with regard to circumstances only at that time. If I recall the thrust of his speech, he was saying that what people will do in March or April, 1976, they may deeply regret, because there may be a social problem or at least the feeling of a social problem, in December or January, 1977, and they should have the right to change again.

Mr. Nixon: The government changes the rules right after. It changes the rules of the game.

Mr. Drea: No, we haven’t, not on local options.

Mr. Nixon: Certainly it did.

Mr. Drea: We will come to local options. In any event, I was very pleased to see that the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk now almost shares my view on the alcohol problem.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, I am not that liberal.

Mr. Singer: Come on now; be careful.

Mr. Reid: That is almost libellous.

Mr. Drea: Back in June he was gung ho. He wanted wine in the parks, and wine at the picnics. We don’t hear about that today.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, yes I do.

Mr. Drea: Very good.

Mr. Mancini: Get your story straight.

Mr. Drea: My story? Do you want to read Hansard or are you capable of reading without subtitles?

Mr. Nixon: You read it; it is a good speech.

Interjections.

Mr. Drea: I am very glad that less than a year has passed --

Mr. Nixon: And you are still here.

Mr. Drea: -- to hear the sentiments concerning alcohol by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk-

Mr. Nixon: No, no. Get it right.

Mr. Drea: -- particularly the problem dealing with the under-21-year-old drinkers and with the causes of it, although I don’t go as far as he does with advertising. But certainly I agree with him that there is no single solution to the problem of the under-21 drinking, the under-18 drinking, or the under-18 drinking. I agree with his proposition that society has changed a very great deal in a very short period of time. I am not so sure that society is prepared to go back in a cyclical operation as quickly as it got into this, nor do I think it is really capable of doing so.

I think it is ludicrous to suggest that the mere reduction of the drinking age to 18 produced the tremendous amount of consumption, either real or imagined, that there is among teenagers today. The reason I underlined “real or imagined” is, it is very difficult to get really adequate statistics on the under-18 drinker, while I at the same time every parent in this province, or virtually every one, is profoundly concerned about the fact that they have the feeling about or they know or they have heard about either their children or the children down the street.

I think there has to be something that goes beyond whether we raise the age or whether we put education programmes into the schools for young people. I feel it is ludicrous to suggest that a 17- or an 18- or a 19-year-old should be made aware of the abuse and the potential for abuse of alcohol when he is used to coming home and in the last five or six years, his very formative years, finding mommy and daddy are having one or two before supper to get through the stress of the day, and one or two afterwards to make television or whatever else is going on in the household more friendly.

I think it is asking a very great deal of young people to sit in a health class and to listen to information about the abuse of alcohol and the potential for it, when every member in this House today knows that in the past five or six years on going into somebody’s house the offer of some refreshment has changed from tea or coffee into, “Do you want a drink?” in fact, if you visit someone’s house today, other than very early in the morning, it is very rare that you are offered tea or coffee. The first question is, “Do you want a drink?”

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: What has your answer been?

Mr. Bain: Just say you don’t want it.

Mr. Reid: What are you opting for?

Mr. Drea: What am I opting for? I’m the one who put tea, coffee and milk in bars, my friend, and don’t forget it.

Mr. Singer: I had forgotten. I must admit.

Mr. Reid: We will put that on your tombstone.

Mr. Drea: Well, you certainly never bought any.

Interjections.

Mr. Drea: You certainly never indulged. But I think it’s a bit unfair, and I agree with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that of the particular attitudes and the particular social trends of all of society, somehow the only thing we are concerned about is the implications and the practices that are adopted by the younger people.

I was very grateful to the member for the praise of the Liquor Licence Board, that they have been ruthless in terms of enforcing the legislation against consumption in a licensed premises by anyone under 18 years, or the purchase of it. I agree with him. I think we have gone about as far as we cars go.

One of the difficulties is that in the hotel business there is a double standard, and I think we should look at it in exactly that light. If the hotel, for any reason, is found to have served someone under the age of 18, the penalties are enormous and the repercussions almost instant. By the same token -- and I want to make myself clear, I am not commenting upon the validity of the judges’ decisions -- but I think we have to take into account what happens to the offender, the 16- or 17-year-old, the boy or the girl who went in and purchased that alcohol. It may very well be that they are charged, but when they go to the provincial court, there isn’t a provincial judge in this province who is going to sentence them to jail, because if there were it would be raised the following day, or that afternoon, right on the floor of this House. Secondly, deep down within himself or herself, the provincial judge knows that even on the imposition of a very substantial fine the parent or somebody else is going to pay it. He knows this.

They already know that the probation services of this province are stretched almost to the limit, and telling a young person to go to a place two or three or four times in a month, is neither a punishment nor a deterrent in the future. So we do have a double standard, and quite frankly, it’s no one’s fault; on paper it looks the same.

I suggest that one of the things that we have to do in the field of enforcement is to come up with a sufficient deterrent that will at least be an attempt to keep younger people out of licensed premises. I suggest that one of the difficulties is that the young person now knows that the parents and society and, indeed, even the courts regard this much the same as the last speaker did, as something that was part of our society or part of growing up or what have you -- at least it wasn’t the end of the world.

To a parent who finds his teenage daughter with marijuana or some other form of drug, or has even heard that she is associating with someone who uses it, it is the end of the world. They want to get them to a psychiatrist, they want treatment, they want everything. If the boy or the girl comes home and they have had two, three, four or five beers, all right, the parent levies some action, but it is not the end of the world. It is something that is acceptable in our society and is considered part of growing up.

I think this puts another unfair burden upon younger people. In short, it is one of the few offences they can do in society to show their independence and the punishment is not terribly substantial.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the last time that I spoke in this debate -- and I think you were in the chair, because I congratulated you on your forbearance, your patience, your demeanour and so forth -- I said that I was in favour of raising the age. I am. I am in favour of raising the age for one reason, I think it should be out of the high schools. I think that, indeed, this has become a substantial problem, because it is very difficult -- pardon?

Mr. Moffatt: Move it to 66.

Mr. Drea: Move it to what?

Mr. Moffatt: To 66.

Mr. Drea: Well, we could take your attitude and drop it to six, too.

Mr. Moffatt: I didn’t say that, I said 66.

Mr. Drea: The difficulty in the high schools today is that pretty generally the grade 13 people are over the age of 18, or at least in that reasonable position that they are entitled to go out, if they choose, at their lunch and have a beer or something with their sandwiches. By the same token, most of the children in the school are not. Also, Mr. Speaker, and you are a parent as am I, it is becoming increasingly difficult, particularly with young ladies, to tell the difference between a 15-, 16-, 18- or 19-year-old, and the same way with young men.

There is not a school principal in the province who doesn’t want the age raised or at least enough to keep it out of the high schools. They want to go back to high-school dances without alcohol, and I don’t think that that is an unreasonable request.

[4:30]

In my borough, in the borough of Scarborough, at a high school where my children go, they cannot have school dances any more because of the alcohol problem; and the problem does not relate to the students or the teachers but to people coming in at 9 or 9:30 loaded to the gills.

Mr. Nixon: They could hire cops to keep them out.

Mr. Drea: As a matter of fact one of the things that the teachers will tell you which strikes right at the roots of what the hon. member was saying, is that when they do find a student, particularly a 15- or 16-year-old, who has had too much to drink, and they call the parents, they get abuse from the parents for bothering them to come down and get the kid. This is a most frustrating and heartbreaking thing for a teacher who has given up his Friday or Wednesday night to supervise a school dance.

Mr. Nixon: You’ve got to be careful when you say that happens every time. Surely that is the rare occasion?

Mr. Drea: Well, talk to the teachers who have to go there --

Mr. Nixon: It is kind of a generalization.

Mr. Drea: -- talk to the teachers who have done it for years. Indeed it is a problem.

Mr. Speaker, coming back to the deterrent, I am very glad to see the Law Reform Commission -- at least the federal one -- is talking in this direction; and I would certainly hope that the federal Minister of Justice acts on one of its suggestions, which is that instead of jail sentences, community work projects should be assigned under the auspices of the federal Criminal Code. Indeed, while not being a solicitor, I understand that under the present legislation it apparently would be extremely hazardous for a provincial judge to give a work assignment in lieu of a sentence because the person, if he didn’t like the work assignment, could immediately appeal that sentence. Therefore, the sentence would be null and void, and the person could not be brought in again, tried and given an alternative punishment.

I certainly hope that the federal government moves in the area of community work assignments. I think this might balance the scale somewhat. After all, for a proprietor or an employee -- and remember the employee, although he is not going to lose his licence, certainly is in for a very substantial fine; and invariably an employee who is convicted in court of supplying alcohol to somebody under the age of 18 simply does not work in that establishment again -- the penalties on that side are substantial.

I don’t think that the penalties on the other side, because of youth and the problems of adolescence, should be that substantial. But I suggest they should be somewhat more than they are now. Because right now, for practical purposes, what is involved is a bawling-out by the parents, a second bawling-out by the parent who has to go to court, and the promise to be good.

I think that work assignments in the community might reinforce the attitude that there are responsibilities towards society; one of them is to obey the law, and that if you do not obey the law, at least you can reconcile yourself to doing adequate work in the community. I think that indeed would be a deterrent and I think it would balance the scales.

Coming to the question of local option and special-occasion permits, as you know, one of the regulations that was part and parcel of the liquor control legislation last year did provide, if the municipalities wanted it, for an almost immediate lessening of the time from three years to two. As a matter of fact, one of the things the hon. member didn’t mention is the tremendous cost to a small municipality of having a vote. As a first step toward modernizing local option while still respecting the principle, we were prepared to allow the local option ballot to be conducted at the same time as the municipal one; in other words, every two years. We have taken the first step.

I can sympathize with the particular problems of the member in that you can get a special-occasion permit in your area to give it away. If you want to sign a statutory declaration with the Crown and say you are giving it away and definitely not selling liquor, you can get a special-occasion permit. In short, community groups are being forced -- if you want to put it that way -- to break the law. I have much more regard for community groups. I don’t think they break the law.

I suggest that on something as personal as alcohol no two people, not even in this particular House today, agree on any two facets of alcohol; perhaps they do in principle but certainly not on the mechanisms. On a thing that personal, which has to do with one’s environment, culture, religion, education, attitude, economics, what have you, I suggest the only responsible way in the areas still left under local option is that they remain under local option. To do otherwise would be to change the rules of the game.

I am not going to suggest that when one is in a dry area or a no-sale area everything is virtually cut off and one has to motor down the road to find an oasis. I recall that the former member for High Park used to pursue this from time to time because a great deal of his riding was a no-sale area. Members will recall that during the last Legislature there was a vote there and it remained dry yet the beer trucks roll in upon request to the households. The truck from the LCBO would deliver to a household even though this was a no-sale area. One didn’t have to leave home to buy. The former member for High Park, great crusader as he was, would always come forward charging and I would reply to him very simply, “All right, just give it to us in writing and we will stop the practice.” He pulled back because the consequences were obvious.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and I agree, that local option is indeed the root of Toryism in this province. I find it very strange that the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk --

Mr. Nixon: Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Drea: Oxford?

Mr. Nixon: Part of Oxford.

Mr. Drea: Part of Oxford?

Mr. Nixon: Oxford; part of Norfolk, part of Brant.

Mr. Drea: Let me keep getting it straight. I am just thinking of all these dry areas where never again will a permit be issued.

Mr. Nixon: What kind of a stupid threat is that?

Mr. Drea: I am not; I am making a facetious one. You’re the one who is sitting here. You are the one who has insulted every community group in your riding.

Mr. Nixon: All right. I am sorry. Your sense of humour eludes me sometimes because you are quite capable --

Mr. Drea: You sat there. You stood there not half an hour ago and insulted every community group in your riding. You hinted very strongly that they were applying for no-sale liquor permits and certain things took place. You suggested that very strongly.

Mr. Nixon: Will the assistant permit a question? Is he aware that the Liquor Licence Board did not even have our township down as a dry township and were awarding the sale permits as if it had voted wet? What kind of an organization has he got down there? It has been very convenient for many people.

Mr. Reid: He must be running it.

Mr. Drea: I can reply that if it hasn’t been down it --

Mr. Nixon: They were breaking no laws.

Mr. Drea: If it hasn’t been down until today as a dry it certainly will be down in about 15 minutes as a dry area.

Mr. Nixon: You finally got around to fixing it.

Mr. Drea: I do not like negligence. I never approve of negligence or carelessness.

Coming back to the local option thing and the principle of Toryism and the hypocrisy the member suggests, I suggest that it’s the other way around. When he opened his speech he attacked my minister. He said he was trying to interfere with local autonomy and a democratically-elected council. What is more democratic than to let the people in an area decide whether they want liquor? Whether they want it sold? Whether they want stores? Whether they want hotels? What is more democratic? You can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Nixon: You changed the rules after the vote. That is why they have to have another.

Mr. Drea: We didn’t change any rule.

Mr. Nixon: You certainly did.

Mr. Drea: You probably changed them by bringing to the attention of the Liquor Licence Board that it was a dry area. You did, now suffer.

Mr. Nixon: I certainly did not. Your voting procedure is completely out of whack. You are going to have to amend it. What about an amendment? Will you recommend one to your minister? Do you talk to him?

Mr. Drea: As a matter of fact, I would suggest to you despite the fact that you say I am capable of doing certain things, it’s not in the form of an amendment; it is certainly not in the form of a draft yet because it could be done by regulation. It could be done.

Mr. Nixon: The way you do most of this is by regulation.

Mr. Drea: No.

Mr. Nixon: Yes.

Mr. Drea: That is not true.

Mr. Nixon: Except you want to save Talisman or you want to do a favour to the private clubs.

Mr. Drea: No.

Mr. Nixon: You are the one who has it both ways. Yet you allow people to vote local options so that certain people can drink. Now you call that democratic? I think you are out of touch.

Mr. Drea: No. No, you have misread the whole thing. Once again, when we introduced the legislation last year, one of the commitments to this House --

Mr. Nixon: Was that there would be --

Mr. Drea: Just a moment. Control yourself. Restrain. Having confessed to being a teenage tippler, why, just cool it an hour later.

Mr. Nixon: No, no. It was 21 in those days, Frank.

Mr. Drea: You mean you were 20? I thought you were 19.

Mr. Nixon: You are drawing conclusions.

Mr. Thea: Well, in any event you were an under-age tippler at one time.

Mr. Nixon: For medicinal purposes.

Mr. Drea: I would have thought it was for romantic, but we won’t go into that.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t need that kind of stimulation.

Mr. Drea: There is the concept of the local option, particularly in regard to the area that does not want a large number of licenced premises, may indeed only want one or may indeed only want special occasion permits for a community hall for a special community function. There is the feeling that because of certain developments in the area, because of other considerations, that the time period now indeed is a bit too long. Now, as I say, we have already offered. That was done through the municipal-provincial liaison committee last year. This was brought to their attention. Would they like liquor votes every two years if they could be conducted on a municipal ballot which would save money?

At that particular time they said they did. Unfortunately some of the people who were prominent in that committee the last time are no longer prominent in it. Certainly we have moved that far. I can assure the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk-Oxford and all of western Ontario, or wherever those places are, that that is under active consideration. But I would be less than frank with you were I to say that I don’t really think that you can have votes every six months.

Mr. Nixon: I thought you were Frank all the time.

Mr. Laughren: Please be move than frank.

Mr. Drea: I am just warming up.

Mr. Nixon: How about an application to the board?

Mr. Drea: What?

Mr. Nixon: How about an application to the board by a motion of the council so that they could consider the possibility of special circumstances?

Mr. Drea: I think we would be inclined to consider that.

Mr. Nixon: Let’s do that.

Mr. Drea: No, no. There may be some considerations under there. I would think that most people agree in principle with your position. I think the other thing that we have to realize is that where people are delayed a long time in a vote by the artificial restraint, there is a tendency by the community group to come in and to ask for a “no sale” permit and hope that nobody casually drops in from the provincial police or nobody complains.

Mr. Nixon: Or the individual does as they used to do -- brings a bottle and puts it under the table.

Mr. Drea: That’s right, and neither one of those particular practices is, I think, within the meaning of the operative word in liquor policy in this province which is “control”, because first of all the local authorities are not aware of the fact that alcohol is being consumed by a large number of people, and secondly, when people feel they are having an illicit drink, I think, being human, they tend to drink a little bit harder or longer. I must say that as a statesman and as a suggestor, the former leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario is doing much better as a back-bencher than he ever did when he had the big microphone in front.

Mr. Reid: That is certainly worthy of you, Frank.

An hon. member: Is that nice, Frank?

Mr. Drea: I meant it very much as a compliment. After all he was --

Mr. Laughren: Always the hired gun, aren’t you, Frank?

Mr. Drea: Never. I haven’t said a word about the other fellow yet. I was going to be nice to him but you are dissuading.

Mr. Swart: You will never catch him yet.

Mr. Nixon: We have been in here since 2 o’clock.

Mr. Drea: The other fellow?

Mr. Nixon: You and me.

Mr. Thea: Yes, the vanishing breed.

Mr. Nixon: Hurry up.

Mr. Drea: That’s all with liquor. You can leave. One last reply to the member which concerns advertising. I share his concern about the volume, the attractiveness, the scope of beverage alcohol advertising in this province, particularly on TV, which is beer.

[4:45]

Mr. Laughren: If you don’t stop tampering with the free enterprise system you’re going to destroy it, Frank.

Mr. Drea: First of all, the alcohol beverage industry is neither free nor enterprising nor anything else.

Interjection.

Mr. Drea: One of the problems we have with it is that it is probably the most socialist of all industries; its prices are regulated, its practices are regulated and it is a monument to the inability of any government to tinker with the free enterprise system.

Mr. Bain: So you’re going to let it be a free open market then?

Mr. Moffatt: Liquor at every grocery store.

Mr. Bain: Anybody can sell their own, brew their own, do whatever they want with it.

Mr. Drea: You can brew your own now. You don’t even know the Act.

Mr. Bain: I said sell it. Sell it and brew it.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, coming back to the advertising, one of the difficulties -- and I recall in this province, because I was part of the lobby at that time from the publishing industry -- I can recall when print advertising was banned in this province.

Mr. Nixon: Leslie Frost.

Mr. Drea: Oh, the member’s father had something to do with that. Institutional ads were permitted. I’m sure some of the older members of the House can recall the days when Red Cap would tell you how to buy a used car. There would just be a little Red Cap down at the bottom. One of the great difficulties with print advertising is the court decisions that say you cannot ban a publication that has that advertising in it provided it was produced elsewhere.

I am very proud to have been part of the lobby. The lobby included labour, it included all the printing trade unions, and it included periodical publishers in this province. The thickest periodical in this province is Weekend Magazine from Montreal. It is just loaded. Why, it is half as big again as a telephone hook. And all of that work was going into the Province of Quebec.

You will recall when the senior Mr. Bennett banned alcohol advertising in the Province of British Columbia. Time magazine took him to court and the court came down and said Quebec is where Time is published and that Time had every right to carry that advertising and to be sold in the Province of British Columbia.

Again, with television, I can recall when there was no beer advertising on television. I think too the members should remember the distillers have stayed away from television advertising both in the United States and here, and to a large degree I compliment them on that. But I can recall the National Soccer League games in downtown Toronto, when they used to bring the truck over from channel 2 in Buffalo. They used to hire Eddie Fitkin, who couldn’t have found Buffalo if he had to go back with the truck. Labatts sponsored it. For four hours the people in Buffalo were deprived of any TV at all; it was aimed into the Toronto market. This was being done all the time.

I suggest that an attempt to ban advertising in Ontario in isolation would not work, particularly in the more densely populated areas where access to television signals, to radio broadcasts and to print from other jurisdictions is available. Now, the suggestion has been made that it is up to the provinces to get together with the federal government to discuss this problem rationally and to come up with an efficient solution. For the past couple of years that the Liquor Control Board -- not the Liquor Licence Board, the Liquor Control Board -- has been meeting. I think you have seen an improvement in the quality of the beer advertising on TV.

Mr. Nixon: They’re great ads.

Mr. Drea: As a matter of fact, the one that I like the best really is the one that features the two geriatrics, Madame Benoit, the fat lady and the old colonel, or whatever his name is, from Carlsberg.

Mr. Nixon: Are they on a trampoline?

Mr. Drea: No, she is talking about the quality of the yeast in her bread and he says he uses it in his beer. They munch bread and beer together, and since both are obviously way up there, obviously this is not intended for the youth market. As a matter of fact, quite frankly, having had a lot to do with keeping Mr. Rimstead afloat in his commercials, I enjoy Mr. Rimstead’s commercials.

Mr. Martel: Not you, Frank. Not you.

Mr. Drea: I enjoy his commercials. I don’t think they imply --

Mr. Nixon: Nobody says that those are bad commercials. I think they’re the best commercials selling anything. But they sell, and that is what we are talking about.

Mr. Drea: I’m not so sure that Mr. Rimstead --

Mr. Nixon: Oh, they’re just on for entertainment, are they?

Mr. Drea: I’m not so sure that Mr. Rimstead sells to the younger set. The ones that bother me are the Molsons ads, particularly the jock ads which are offensive to females -- Charlie and the boys all going around together in their second childhood --

Mr. Nixon: A little pick-up ball -- pick-up ball.

Mr. Drea: -- also the Labatts commercials which feature the happy young couple coming home. Presumably they’re a couple; they live together.

The one I find most offensive, and I think something has to be done about it, is the one where the middle-aged man on Labatts is coming home on the bus and he’s in terrible shape. He’s standing; his face is very hot; he’s obviously worked all day or at least stood in line at the unemployment insurance wicket for a considerable period of time. When he gets to the door, there is wifey with two right there on the tray. And then he retreats to his beautiful back yard and he feels so refreshed.

Interjection.

Mr. Drea: When is the last time your wife met you at the door with two bottles of beer?

Mr. Martel: There has never been a first time.

Mr. Drea: I agree with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. I think that is the kind of advertising that we’re trying to get at.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a joint committee of the provinces that meets with the CRTC to discuss these problems. There has been some progress made -- I would be the last to disagree with the member -- but not enough.

In terms of the hard liquor ads and the wine ads in the magazines, one of the difficulties in this country is that there isn’t a broad enough national advertising market to sustain many Canadian periodicals. Thus, those there are are virtually saturated with alcohol ads.

I think that is a fact of life of having to live in Canada. If those ads were to be discontinued, then I suggest some government is going to have to face up to that very, very difficult task of replacing that revenue for those magazines without getting into state-supported periodicals and all of the things that go with that. But I do appreciate the concerns of the member for Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk-Oxford and somewhere.

Mr. B. Newman: Scarborough?

Mr. Drea: Not quite yet. The last time he came there, he stayed out of my riding. He went right around it. Block by block. He’s a nice friendly fellow.

Mr. B. Newman: You mean that regional government hasn’t included Scarborough yet?

Mr. Drea: Regional government? What’s that?

Mr. B. Newman: Brant-Haldimand-Norfolk --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: Metro.

Mr. Spence: Aren’t you allowed in there, Frank?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, turning to a couple of other topics -- it seems to me that there has to be considerably more responsibility in society, particularly in regard to some of the activities where we, as individuals, do have control over our own destiny. One that I would like to talk about is in the field of insurance, particularly automobile insurance.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, please do.

Mr. Drea: I am not going to read off, although I just happen to have it here, all the sins of British Columbia. Just be quiet and I won’t go bang, bang.

Mr. Moffatt: Who read it to you?

Mr. Swart: Saskatchewan and Manitoba, of course too.

Mr. Eaton: Just mention BC.

Mr. Drea: Sure. They’re getting ready to bail out. Here come the parachutes.

Mr. Eaton: Just mention British Columbia and they all get excited.

Mr. Martel: Are you not running again, Frank?

Mr. Drea: Sure I am --

Mr. Martel: What for?

Mr. Drea: -- absolutely. The member’s leader said I would run third the last time. I always like making a liar out of the leader of the NDP.

Mr. Martel: My leader?

Mr. Drea: The member’s leader.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member continue his debate please.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would be glad if you could bring some decorum to the democratic left.

Mr. Martel: What does that mean?

Mr. Drea: I want to talk about the concept of compulsory insurance in this province.

Mr. Martel: In auto insurance.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we can no longer, as a society, really afford the tremendous costs that accrue to the rest of society because of automobile accidents. Not just in terms of the economics, which are either picked up by OHIP, or perhaps, for someone who is utterly incapacitated, by some form of social assistance, but also in terms of the unfairness --

Mr. Moffatt: Explain that.

Mr. Thea: If you are hit by a non-insured driver whom nobody can find, there’s going to be no court judgement; there’s going to be nothing. So you’re going to have to go.

Mr. Laughren: I was referring to your comment that social assistance in Ontario incapacitated people. You’re quite right.

Mr. Drea: I did not say that.

Mr. Bain: You did so, check Hansard.

Mr. Martel: We want to correct it, so you can correct it tomorrow Frank.

Mr. Laughren: That sounded just terrible.

Mr. Drea: Were you the one who has just spoken?

lnterjections.

Mr. Bain: Yes, I’ve got to get involved to correct your erroneous statements.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: We all volunteer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

Mr. Bain: The comment you refer to was that social assistance in this province incapacitates people.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. members will allow the hon. member to continue his remarks.

Mr. Laughren: Tell him to stop being provocative.

Mr. Bain: The problem is we are the only ones listening.

Mr. Drea: My friend, if I spoke as poorly as the man who made that last interjection, I wouldn’t dare be up on my feet.

Mr. Laughren: You should sit down.

Mr. Drea: As long as I’m here this afternoon, my friend, you sit there and listen or there’s the door and you can leave.

Mr. Laughren: Always the hired gun.

Mr. Moffatt: Shoot from the hip.

Mr. Bain: Continue, we await your next words.

Mr. Laughren: You haven’t changed since your days in Sudbury, Frank.

Mr. Drea: Never.

Mr. Laughren: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, coming back to insurance, it seems to me to be utterly unfair that a person who deliberately chooses not to buy insurance for a payment of $60 --

Mr. Young: That’s not insurance.

Interjections.

Mr. Drea: -- can receive the right to operate a motor vehicle in this province.

Mr. Martel: Your government did that.

Mr. Drea: A motor vehicle that can do a tremendous amount of damage. I don’t want to talk about the economics of it now, I want to talk about the human problem.

Mr. Laughren: Tory free enterprise.

Mr. Drea: I must admit I was very outraged today -- or yesterday -- reading in a newspaper that a man who drives an Oldsmobile Delta said he drives in fear because he cannot afford automobile insurance. The man can afford an Oldsmobile Delta and all the gas it takes to drive a fancy one like that: all of the car washes and all of the oil and all of the finance payments and what have you. Surely the time has come for compulsory insurance in this province.

Mr. Laughren: No fault and public.

Mr. Drea: If we cannot have compulsory insurance because there are those irresponsible enough to want to take a chance --

Mr. Bain: What were the contributions?

Mr. Drea: -- I suggest that instead of paying $60 into the unsatisfied judgement fund --

Mr. Young: That’s not insurance.

Mr. Drea: -- because I cannot see why the people who are responsible -- we subsidize that to a degree and that’s fair because we might be a hit by a stolen car or by somebody who vanishes. That’s a form of insurance protection; the part on one’s driver’s licence.

It seems to me the time has come when $60 is far too low a fee for that type of thing. I would suggest that perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) -- I hope he is listening -- next week might raise that fee to $150 as a start and that in his subsequent budgets he might bring it up to $300 or $400.

Mr. Swart: First change it into public auto insurance and we’ll have the host.

Mr. Drea: If you brought in public automobile insurance in this province you’d bankrupt us almost as much as you did British Columbia. You blew your brains out in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Drea: Public automobile insurance in this country is D-E-A-D; and the guy who buried it was Barrett and all the rest of them out there.

Mr. Swart: It will come back. I heard that for Saskatchewan; I heard that for Manitoba too; but the Liberals and Tories kept it.

Mr. Drea: Not in British Columbia. It’s game over and your fellow is out there taking a subsidy, cap in hand, saying: “Please let me have a job; please let me back in.”

Interjections.

Mr. Drea: The voters were not misled by you. They turfed you out. The flagship sank with virtually all hands.

Interjections.

Mr. Swart: All the Tories sank.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order.

Mr. Drea: You were building the promised land out there and the only thing that happened is you went on the reef; you fell apart; you broke apart; your captain is still on the shore and looking for work.

Mr. Swart: How many Conservatives have they got out there?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: That’s the government.

Mr. Swart: I convinced him.

Mr. Laughren: You’re in the right party, Frank. What’s going to happen in Ontario?

Interjections.

Mr. Bain: Do you believe in Social Credit principles?

Mr. Young: What happened to the Tory party in British Columbia?

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the hon. member would direct the question to the Chair, rather than to the member.

Mr. Drea: I’d be very glad to answer but I want to get this over with in about 10 minutes. I can tell you what happened to the Tory party --

Mr. Martel: It wouldn’t take that long to tell us.

Mr. Swart: They are not in coalition with the Liberals like you are doing here.

Mr. Drea: In a coalition with them? We’re not in a coalition with them. They just hang on our coat-tails; it’s not our problem.

Mr. Swart: What’s your problem?

Mr. Drea: The same thing happened to the Conservative Party in British Columbia as has happened to the NDP in the Province of Quebec. Some time you and I shall have a very nice discussion about it. They are calibres that equate to each other. I suppose that will bring up from Charlie Boy, or whatever his name was from last night, that we’re destroying the fragile country again.

[5:00]

To come back to the question of insurance I suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Treasurer, that the fee for the unsatisfied judgement fund for somebody who deliberately eschews insurance goes up to $150 and then to $300. If someone is deliberately going to say: “I am better than everybody else, I do not have to accept my responsibilities, I do not have to pay my debts, and yet I am going to accept ail of the privileges.” I think the time has come. Why should he pay $60? Why should he be allowed to buy an insurance policy that lapses after 30 days? Certainly I don’t want to change the time payments on insurance. I know that people when they renew, and renewals come at a particular time of the year, it is very expensive, and there are families. I think payment on time is very acceptable.

Mr. Martel: Overly expensive.

Mr. McClellan: Why is it so expensive?

Mr. Martel: Overly expensive.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: Overly expensive?

Mr. Martel: Right.

Mr. Drea: After the experiment that you people did out there? After the experiment --

Mr. Young: Come off it, Frank. Tell us about Saskatchewan insurance.

Mr. Drea: The greatest experiment there ever was. They are going to write books about what you did in British Columbia -- books, books, books.

Mr. Martel: You are right.

Mr. Drea: They won’t be doing what the member for Brant-Haldimand, whatever it is -- Brant-Oxford-Norfolk -- was saying about the worm in the, glass at Sunday School. In future the books are going to be this high. Little kids are going to be given the books about the Barrett experiment in Canada, in British Columbia.

Mr. Swart: It was the Conservative-Liberal coalition in BC, the same as here, that caused your extinction. Now the Tories and Liberals have all jumped to Social Credit.

Mr. Drea: And you are going to have substantial problems in saying that you people had nothing to do with it. It was in a place west of the Rockies.

Mr. Swart: And you know what the Conservatives will use as their text book, 10 and 20 years hence? They’ll use democratic socialist legislation --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, I don’t think we should have a debate back and forth across the House. Let’s have the hon. member finish his speech.

Mr. Martel: We’re ten years behind in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East --

Mr. Martel: You remember the Machiavellian scheme?

Mr. Speaker: -- order.

Mr. Drea: The what?

Mr. Martel: The Machiavellian scheme on medicare.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member continue with his remarks please.

Mr. Young: He is being provocative.

Mr. Drea: Listen, I was even trying to be nice to the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) today, except he didn’t come.

Mr. Martel: He was playing tennis.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I want to come to two other aspects of legislation in our own ministry. One of the particular problems that is going to face this Legislature one way or another in a relatively brief period of time, and I say this in the utmost seriousness, is the question of film classification or censorship. Without commenting upon the merit of certain court decisions that I feel almost lay open the doors to a concept of the direct election of judges, we may have to face in this province in the very near future a totally new concept in the rating or the censorship or the classification of film.

I can truthfully say that I don’t think there is anyone in this House who really is enthralled with the principle of censorship. My personal opinion is that I really couldn’t care less what you want to see. However, there is an obligation to society and, repugnant as the concept of censorship is when considered in isolation, it is very essential in our society today.

As you know, I had a great deal to do with the amendments to the Theatres Act that were passed in the last House. I am very pleased that at that particular time, there was a dissenting voice in this chamber as to the need to extend the jurisdiction of the theatres branch to 8mm film and videotape. Indeed, were the circumstances the same today and we still had that tawdry, carnival-like atmosphere on Yonge St., which was really the exploitation of sex for the sake of sex and the dollar, I am sure there wouldn’t be a dissenting voice today.

One of the interesting things in the assumption of that jurisdiction by the theatres branch was the suggestion by the solicitors for many of the -- I suppose I should call them porno houses; they never really did feature hard-core pornography. Nonetheless, the suggestion was there that you could see something that you couldn’t see in a first-run theatre. The suggestion was that their clientele and their operations be treated differently within the law. Their argument was that they appealed to a peculiar and a particular segment of society that expected much more than those who frequented the more conventional movie houses where most of the population attend. We destroyed that argument by saying that if there is going to be a law and a classification and rating system, it was just as applicable to the patrons of Cinema 2000 and other places that people are not so prone to discuss, or where the films aren’t reviewed, as indeed to those going to any of the Odeon, 20th Century or Famous Players theatres.

What concerns me a great deal these days is that the movie industry has turned full circle. It is now some of the first-line distributors who are suggesting that we should no longer censor or classify films on the grounds that if they are distributed by a first-class organization and shown in first-run houses therefore they are of such overwhelming artistic content that they deserve an exemption from the things we would take out of something if it was being shown in one of the 16mm theatres downtown, or on videotape or in some other cubbyhole; that such films as the “Emmanuelle I” are artistic by virtue of the fact that a first-rate cinematographer did the photography on it; that the contents should no longer be of any particular concern to us.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker -- and I would hope that we have the full support of the House on this -- that the same standard that applies to the types of film and to sexploitation, the exploitation of violence or other peculiar aberrations that are being featured in Cinema 2000 or any of the 8mm or the 16mm places, is going to have to prevail on the first-run movie house. Whether you pick up some broken-down actress and use her in a soft-core, 8mm semi-pornographic film, which you are charged a quarter a reel to view in a machine, or whether you get a first-line star with a name that produces an audience response in a first-run house, I cannot see the difference. In terms of our society, I don’t think there can be a difference. I don’t think there can be a classification Act for the depraved and a classification Act for the normal. I think it is that simple.

I’m also very pleased to note -- and my friend from Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) has long been an advocate of this; he must be quite pleased too -- that you now see in the theatre ads that there are cautions about very coarse and very profane language. That, to me, has always been a particular problem. If there is something wrong in the film print; if there is something that would tend to be depraved, obscene or what have you, it is very easy to take out that scene. By the same token, you can also argue that the customer who takes a look at the billboard knows what is going to happen inside and, therefore, should have no complaint. The problem is with language.

As someone who respects the English language a great deal, I’m personally saddened by the fact that the English language appears to be in decline and that a great deal of street language now substitutes for a great many of the adjectives and other expressions that our language has enjoyed over the years. The particular problem now is that a great many people find that kind of language offensive. They do not use that language in public, they do not like to hear it and they find they are utterly defenceless when they go into a movie theatre because, after all, it doesn’t say on the billboard that the guy curses every two minutes. The film may have been reviewed very highly. As a matter of fact, it may be a film of such merit as “All the King’s Men,” It may be a film of such merit as “Taxi Driver.” I don’t go to the movies very much but I suggest that one particularly for those who are devotees of the British Columbia automobile insurance experiment.

Mr. Samis: Did you see them both?

Mr. Drea: There are some lines in there that should warm their hearts --

Mr. Samis: Name them.

Mr. Drea: -- because they are headed in exactly the same direction.

Mr. Samis: Which film? I saw them both.

Mr. Drea: Which film?

Mr. Samis: “Taxi Driver”?

Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. Samis: Which line?

Mr. Drea: The existentialist lines.

Mr. Samis: There are a lot of those. They are heavy with those.

Mr. Drea: The problem for the moviegoers is that when they get in there they are confronted with bad language, and many of us have always felt that they did have a legitimate objection, that there should have been a warning outside so they could make up their minds before they entered the premises.

I commend Mr. Sims, the director of our theatres branch, in that we are now seeing those warnings about the language. Some people will say, “Why not cut out the language?” Unfortunately, with the sound married to the film, it is impossible without really ruining what otherwise would be a film of considerable merit. One simply cannot expunge any longer a word or two in a sentence.

I realize in the old days that when words like that were used in isolation for pure shock value and it was very easy in those days to snip, snip with the scissors. Today it is not.

I want to commend Mr. Sims because those cautions are now appearing in the advertising. I also want to commend the distributors, because the distributors are aware of this problem and the distributors have co-operated.

Mr. Samis: How many Canadian films are they showing, though?

Mr. Drea: Well, one of the problems with Canadian films, my friend, is that one couldn’t be shown in this province, and it was produced by taxpayers’ money and there is no one in this Legislature who wouldn’t have been physically ill to see it. That’s one of the problems.

Mr. Samis: Which one?

Mr. Drea: That’s one of the problems. It was done with a first-class cast and I would be prepared to discuss with the member outside exactly why it wasn’t shown in this province, and I think he would agree with me.

Mr. Samis: There are lots of those that could be.

Mr. Drea: Pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Drea: That one was financed by the taxpayers through the Canadian Film Development Corp., which to me is unbelievable. However, I think the work of Mr. Sims will produce something in this province that is most desirable.

First of all, it will reinforce the attitude of the moviegoing public that they can take a reasonable look at the billboards of the advertising outside and make up their own mind on the quality of the production. Secondly, it will discourage the unscrupulous theatre distributor from putting that kind of a warning on every film in hopes of bringing in the suckers.

I think that step is long overdue. I think it is something that will benefit the public and I think the theatres branch should receive a great deal of credit for that.

In conclusion, I just want to say that for many years in this House, and I remember starting the battle single-handed, I argued most vehemently on gun control. As a matter of fact, I campaigned within my own party and I campaigned in this House. I was very gratified, just prior to the last election, when the legislation for an Ontario gun control programme was drafted. At that time I agreed with the position of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Attorney General-to-be, my friend from Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry), that the federal government should get one last chance to produce the legislation, in the interest of producing a uniform gun control programme across Canada.

I just want to say, for all the names that I called the federal Solicitor General, and they were many -- “Swift Warren” was my favourite, which always used to bring a laugh -- I want to say to him that I have badly misjudged him. I didn’t think he would ever quite get around to producing the legislation. He has. I don’t agree with all of it, but then I am quite sure that despite the fact it is based upon our legislation it would be nit-picking.

Mr. Roy: You are too much.

Mr. Drea: After the remarks that you made --

Mr. Nixon: Give it to him, Frank, give it to him.

Mr. Drea: I haven’t seen the member for Ottawa East since he was on TV and lost.

Mr. Roy: When was that; last week?

Mr. Drea: Last week.

Mr. Roy: Can you understand television, Frank?

Mr. Drea: Well, the member’s speech came across so beautifully. It was the first one I ever saw him make without subtitles that I understood. I want to applaud him.

Mr. Roy: You are the only one, Frank.

Mr. Drea: Now he can sit around tonight with his paranoia and come back tomorrow and say I called him names again.

Mr. Roy: Do you like talking to yourself, Frank?

Mr. Drea: Okay, the member has provoked me.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gaunt: The war is on.

[5:15]

Mr. Drea: I am tired of kicking losers. I was trying hard to avoid you today. I was going to try to be nice to you, now that you’re down and out and your own party has repudiated you, and wouldn’t even vote for you. I was going to be nice to you, then you provoked me.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member please continue his remarks this way?

Mr. Drea: I just want to say one final word in regard to the federal Solicitor General. His legislation is based upon our legislation. All of his reports came from our Solicitor General and Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. MacBeth) and the member for Ottawa East knows that because he is a crony of the federal Solicitor General, a very intimate crony.

Mr. Nixon: They phone judges together.

Mr. Drea: The member said that, I didn’t. I would hope that he would modify certain parts of it because I do believe that certain parts of it will be a hardship upon the people in organized agriculture and also some of the people who have proved their responsibility over the years as hunters. I would certainly also hope that the federal Solicitor General would choose to include the very legitimate gun clubs which have done such an outstanding job in regard to gun control and gun education in this province.

I say that because the gun clubs in this province and organized hunters in this province, despite tremendous pressure on them from people outside our jurisdiction who oppose our gun control legislation, by and large recognize their responsibilities to society and they did support our legislation. I would hope now that the federal Solicitor General will be inclined to modify some of his views in regard to hunters and people in agriculture as well as target shooters, because certainly they are the kind of people who have demonstrated responsibility and shouldn’t be punished now.

With that, Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on yet another session starting. We have got through the hired gun portion of the Throne Speech without a riot for about the seventh consecutive time. We are still here and, Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope you will rule with the firmness, the decisiveness and the force which has changed the question period in the last couple of weeks into something that is not only enjoyable but productive. Prior to that, I must say with some sadness it was far more enjoyable than productive.

As one final note, since you have achieved that miracle, could you find a reliable electrical contractor who can put in a sound system that works? We have a bureaucracy that is threatening to take over this whole building; every time you look around another office is gone. They are even coming up and threatening me on the fourth floor. With that morass of accountants, auditors and people who phone you up, send out mimeographed sheets and tell you that you can do this, or you can do that, surely it is not beyond their ability to find an electrical contractor and a sound man who can make a microphone do what it is supposed to do.

Mr. Roy: If we could turn it off sometimes that would be progress.

Mr. Drea: If the member had been here for the past couple of weeks -- why does he come?

Mr. Roy: I didn’t mean the member at all.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I hope you can convey that message to those who labour on the first floor, with the unemployment that has been mentioned at this time of restraint, I am sure there are a great many electricians and a great many audio men who would welcome the chance to show that a microphone really can work.

Mr. Nixon: I understand they have spent $200,000 on this sound system already.

Mr. Drea: Really?

Mr. Nixon: That is what they tell me.

Mr. Drea: Don’t look at me.

Mr. Nixon: It is your money, isn’t it?

Mr. Drea: No, no; if they have shot $200,000 on that one, it is all our necks because they represent everybody. But I would hope, Mr. Speaker, because it is discouraging -- and I notice the improvement today -- that the remarks that I have made through your firmness and your decisiveness will stimulate them into some action.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago MGM made a film, a romance, called “A Dot on a Line.” In this romantic story the line fell in love with the dot. Unfortunately the dot was in love with a squiggle. You can understand this because the squiggle was able to move all over the place; it was highly flexible. It could be kicked in any direction and it took whatever shape the particular kicker or kickee, as the case may be, wished it to take. The poor line had the problem, of course, that he was so rigid and inflexible. He was really no match for the squiggle.

The line decided that perhaps he should look at the whole situation and set some kind of objectives. He worked very hard and he developed all kinds of objectives of turning corners and going this way and going that way and eventually he became a flexible line. All of sudden, the dot realized that perhaps the squiggle really wasn’t that attractive because no matter what happened the squiggle went in every direction. The line at least had some kind of stability and some kind of flexibility. The end of the story, of course, was that the dot married the line. I think it’s a highly educational film and perhaps the government members would like to look at the film at some time.

If there’s a damning criticism of this government it is that it’s a squiggle type of government. We in the opposition really can’t object to the objectives of the government when it has no objectives. This was perhaps fine three decades ago when society was moving at a slower pace, when powerful interest groups were less able to give a strong kick to the big blue squiggle and send it in whatever particular direction they wanted.

In the past decades we’ve learned a lot about planning. We owe this to business research. We talk about management by objectives. We talk about five and 10-year plans for corporations. It’s only too bad that the government which pretends to be the friend of big business hasn’t learned any of the kinds of techniques that big business, management consultants and management experts have developed over the years. What kind of planning, what kind of objectives are there in a government which ignores our needs as 26 acres of farmland disappear in this province every hour of every day?

Mr. Eaton: Where does it disappear to? Tell us the whole story.

Mr. Philip: This isn’t a new problem. All members have been aware for some time of the declining farm acreage. We saw the bulldozing of fruit trees in Niagara in the Sixties and we saw the wastage of prime farmland in Ottawa and the “golden horseshoe” areas.

Mr. Villeneuve: Expert farmer.

Mr. Philip: I have a membership in the Federation of Agriculture; show me yours.

Mr. Villeneuve: I have one, too.

Mr. Philip: You do? You certainly don’t attend very many meetings.

Mr. Eaton: He had one before you knew what it was all about.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Philip: One would think that after 10 years of this, 10 years of MPPs driving through the farmland and seeing it devastated, it would occur to the government that perhaps the 25,000 members in the Federation of Agriculture are not talking nonsense when they ask for a legitimate freeze on prime farmland; when they ask for a farm income stabilization programme.

Mr. Eaton: Did the 25,000 members ask for a freeze?

Mr. Philip: Perhaps the leadership of the 25,000 -- are you suggesting that the leadership of the Federation of Agriculture does not represent the democratic wishes of that organization?

Mr. Eaton: You ask some of the leaders.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Etobicoke is making the speech.

Mr. Philip: If I may continue after that slur against the one major farm body in this province; several months ago the OFA at its annual convention passed a number of fairly sensible, realistic, concrete resolutions. We on this side of the House questioned the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) as to what specifically he was going to do with these resolutions. His answers were the squiggle type of answers that we continually get from this government, and months later, we can only look at them and see that very little has been done.

So it is with other small business concerns. Let me quote to you from a letter dated March 7, 1976. The letter is signed by James R. Conrad, Director of Policy and Research, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. He says: “Since the recent election in fall, 1975, there has been no significant legislation passed to support small independent business in Ontario.”

When the leading spokesman for small businessmen is so upset with this government? There is no doubt that this government stands for private enterprise; the real question is does it stand for free enterprise as they side with the multi-national conglomerates against the small businessmen in this province? Where is the freedom for the private entrepreneur who operates, or should I say used to operate, the independent service station?

I would like to read to you from a letter written on Sept. 20, 1975, to the Premier (Mr. Davis) by a service station lessee.

At the top of the letter there’s an obituary notice. It says:

“Service Station Business, Died, Sept. 19, 1975. Funeral and burial was held the same day. No mourners or pallbearers were present. Unfair economic conditions caused by the oil-company-operated-and-controlled gas bars, car washes, self-serves and private brand outlets were the cause of death.

“Amen”

Months later, the following letter is written to me by a private service station operator.

“Dear Mr. Philip:

“I have been a Sunoco dealer in Windsor, Ont., since 1947 and a lessee at the above location since 1951. I have enjoyed good relations with the company but I am very worried now, because for the last six months I have been operating without a lease while they made up their mind to conform with the lease guidelines.

“Once the company reached this decision, they apparently decided that they should develop a new rent formula and attach it to the new lease that was being presented to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations on Dec. 23, 1975. I suppose Sun Oil Co. hopes to get the blessing of the ministry on this new rent formula and then they will feel much better about presenting it to all Sunoco dealers. The ministry will not realize what drastic effects this new rent formula will have on Sunoco dealers until it is too late.

“The results will force many dealers to go out of business because of sharply increased rents that Sun will be demanding. The Sunoco dealers in Ontario need immediate anti-inflation controls on commercial rents similar to those on residential rents.

“This new rent formula was not original with Sun. I enclose a copy of Shell’s formula dated 1973 and have made a similar chart for Sun’s new formula. I am sure you will note the similarity. Sun has probably looked at all other oil company rent formulas and decided that something similar to Shell’s would be most profitable and easiest to implement.

“On Jan. 28, 1976, our local Sun representative phoned the station and said that the company had reconsidered their proposal and thought that the proposed rent of $784.93 -- a 104 per cent rent increase -- for the first year of a lease would be unreasonable. He stated that the new proposal would be $560 a month, which was only a 45.5 per cent increase for the first 12 months; and $740 per month, a 92.2 per cent increase for the following 24 months.

[5:30]

“I still have not been presented with a draft of the new lease for study, but have been told that it would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 1976.

“Sun Oil Co. operates three locations with car washes in the city of Windsor. Sunoco dealers have been able to purchase car wash coupons from the company for 75 cents, to sell to our customers for 75 cents if they filled up. This let us keep our customers for gas sales and still allowed the customer to get a cut-rate price for a car wash. Sun Oil is discontinuing this practice because they want to sell all the gallons themselves, that will be cross-merchandised with the washes. We will lose a lot of gas sales because we can’t sell wash coupons.

“Sun Oil has a long-standing policy whereby dealers with good credit ratings could pay for the first load of gas when the second load was delivered. That is what we call “load-to-load.” The dealer had to provide a collateral deposit of $2,000 as one of the requirements. The company is discontinuing this practice and now wants c.o.d. for all deliveries. This means that a dealer receiving 10,000-gallon drums will have to invest at least another $5,000 in inventory. Purchases from all other suppliers are paid for the 10th of the month following.

“The oil companies maintain high wholesale prices which they like to charge their franchise dealers. It is their practice to sell “distress gasoline” to private branders, jobbers and their own company-operated locations at a price well below what the franchised dealer must pay by special discount and not by lowering the wholesale price. Sun Oil practices this type of marketing policy. This creates price war or distress prices at the retail level, and soon oil company locations are retailing below the dealer’s wholesale cost.

“Dealers cannot compete with these conditions and so the companies offer dealers a temporary special allowance off the wholesale price if the dealer agrees to retail at a specific price. The dealer gives up as much as 50 per cent of his margin and the right to set the retail price. The company does not set a retail price that will allow the dealer to compete with a company-operated location, and so the dealer continues to lose gasoline sales. Loss of gallonage, loss of profits soon force many dealers out of business.

“In October, November and December, 1975, I purchased 116,460 gallons of gasoline from Sun Oil with a special allowance of 5.5 cents per gallon. This amounted to $6,405.30 off the wholesale price. It would appear that the company is trying to recover some of this amount with the new rent formula. Dealers have lost their required gross profits to stay in business and now are faced with ever-increasing overheads.

“Just on a rough calculation from increased rents, insurance, payroll, fringe benefits, additional investment and so forth, the operating expense of my business for 1976 will increase by $10,000, or $50 a day. What can we do to recover this additional expense? Our gross profit on gasoline is 10 per cent and sales are dropping because of lower prices at company-operated locations.

“Last week, BP offered their dealers a 5.8 per cent margin with retail price of 76.9 cents. This is only 7.5 per cent gross profit. We need 18 to 20 per cent gross profit to stay in business. How long will it be before Sun Oil offers their dealers the same deal? We cannot increase our gross profits on TBA and parts and stay competitive with the mass merchandisers.

“The only thing left would be to increase our charge outrate for mechanical labour, about $4 an hour. This would provide us with additional gross profit per day if we didn’t lose all of our customers. Any loss of gross profits from reduced sales of gasoline and TBA, will only make matters worse and bring an end to us much sooner.

“You don’t have to use your imagination. This same set of circumstances applies to many service station dealers in Ontario; no lease, no security, no tenure, unfair competition, unfair treatment from our landlord-suppliers. If the government does not act at once the oil companies will have complete control of the retail market. We need sudden action now. Can you help?” [It concludes)

“I am sorry, but I must ask that you keep my name confidential at this time because I fear more repercussions from the oil company. You will understand my concern from the above facts. I do not want to jeopardize the livelihood of myself and my five employees and their families.”

Mr. Martel: Signed by William Davis.

Mr. Philip: I have a letter from the city of Windsor. A resolution was passed by the city of Windsor and it was sent to the Minister of Treasury and Economics and intergovernmental Affairs.

“Council, at its meeting held Dec. 1, 1975, adopted the following resolution:

“Whereas there is in the city of Windsor a rapidly increasing number of self-serve gasoline facilities through conversion of the existing attending stations or construction of new facilities;

“And whereas there is concern by the public with the lack of adequate regular maintenance checks, the potential danger from fire or other hazards from the use of such facilities by irresponsible and/or careless persons and the inconvenience caused mothers with children and elderly or disabled persons;

“And whereas there is presently no provincial legislation which clearly establishes the authority of municipalities to control the number and location of self-serve stations;

“Therefore, be it resolved that the Minister of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs be requested to introduce an amendment to the Municipal Act to clearly establish the authority of municipalities to control the number of locations of self-serve gasoline stations as distinct from regular gasoline stations;

“And further, a copy of the resolution be forwarded to other cities.”

I was talking to the city clerk at Windsor before I came into the House today. His quote was: “Tell the members of the Legislature that there has been no encouragement from the ministry that the government will be introducing any legislation to meet one city hall’s request to control the company-operated self-serve stations in our own area.”

Let me read just one more letter as an example of the kind of insensitivity of this government to the small entrepreneurs who happen, in this case, to be involved in the retail gasoline and service industry.

“Dear Mr. Philip:

“As requested by your phone conversation there is a summary of our talk.

“Starting in December, 1974, or January, 1975, during several talks with BP sales representative Bob Stewart, I was asked my opinion on reducing my retail gas price. Each time I told him I didn’t think I could afford to drop the profit on gas and hope to offset the lost revenues by increased sales. In one such talk, Mr. Stewart admitted himself that he did not think it was possible to make the same profit but his only interests were gas sales.

“Around the second week of January I was asked by Mr. Stewart to lower the gas price. I again expressed my complete disapproval on lowering the gas price unless BP was going to compensate the loss. This, of course, was out of the question.

“A day or two later I received a phone call from Mr. Stewart saying that the company had reconsidered and other methods would be tried to increase gas sales.

“On Friday, Jan. 17, 1975, on returning to the station after lunch, I found on the office desk a retail price notification. Questioning my employees, they informed me that it was left there by Mr. Stewart. Shortly afterwards, the Trafalgar plant phoned me and advised me that my wholesale price had been reduced as per a phone call from BP head office. I informed them that I was not reducing the price, therefore, the wholesale price should not be reduced. I also tried unsuccessfully to get hold of Mr. Stewart to inform him of my intention.

“On Monday, Jan. 20, Mr. Stewart returned to the station. During a heated discussion I asked him who he thought he was, trying to “fix my gas prices,” and at that point he suggested that I forget the whole matter and he would put me back on a regular wholesale price. He also suggested that I return the price notification, but I would not.

“Also at that time, I told him that I considered what BP had done by leaving the form unsigned by me with the “stated selling price,” as price-fixing and I would not forget the matter. In February, 1975, myself and two other station operators had a meeting with Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have not had any response from them other than the letter which is enclosed.”

The letter that was enclosed is signed by Mr. D. D. Bennett, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Director of Investigation and Research:

“Dear Mr. Norton:

“Please find enclosed documents which you gave me during our conversation with Mr. Stafford and Mr. Schindler on Thursday, Feb. 6, 1975.

“The contents of these documents as well as other information which you provided me will be reviewed in respect to indicating a possible violation of Combines Investigation Act by BP Oil Ltd. At this time I would like to thank you for both your interest and co-operation.”

A month and a half later there has been no further communication from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

All this merely indicates the insensitivity of this government to the plight of the retail service station lessees. There has been petition after petition; there has been representation after representation; and the government continues to say they need more and more time to investigate, that the Isbister commission will somehow come up with some great enlightenment that will cast some light on the service station retailers’ plight. But as they are talking and talking and talking and talking and talking, private service station lessees are going out of business.

I have on tape here the stories that clearly indicate oil company intimidations of service station lessees. There is no question in my mind after listening to these tapes, after listening to the voices of the private service station lessees, that the oil companies are using what may not be illegal, but certainly I think most of us would consider immoral, forms of coercion against their own retail service station lessees. I hope in the next few weeks, by contacting each of the dealers who have spoken on these tapes, that I will have their permission to release them to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) and possibly to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

I have a service station that I deal with in my riding. I have my car cared for by him. I rather like the fellow, he happens to be a rather effective mechanic. He keeps the rather late model cars I am able to afford on the road. However, a couple of weeks ago, he too threw in the wrench.

The ministry knows about Bob Pike. Bob Pike is president of the Ontario Retail Gasoline and Automotive Service Association. Recently, after eight years in the business, he had mortgaged his home just to stay above water, but even this wasn’t enough.

The tragedy is that Bob Pike and others like him across the province need not have been forced out of business. They need not have the kind of situation we have in the city of Windsor today where it’s impossible to find a mechanic in the centre core of the city. These people who have devoted their lives to building a business, to serving people in the community, these private entrepreneurs, have been ignored by this government that says it is the representative and the spokesman for free enterprise. There is nothing free about it. They are clearly the spokesmen for the large multi-national conglomerates and not the free enterprise people.

[5:45]

Let me direct my attention to another area where I feel that the Davis free enterprise system appears to be floundering. A few years ago, condominiums were hailed as the great new advance for the working person who at least if he couldn’t afford a home, then he might be able to afford an apartment or possibly even a townhouse. There is a great deal of mistrust among condominium owners in my riding; distrust with the developers, distrust over the whole process of transferring ownership and the length of time it takes for that transfer. There is a considerable number of people who feel that somehow they don’t happen to have the skills to go in and inspect the construction and the workmanship on a condominium because they don’t happen to be electricians, mechanics, plasterers, plumbers and so forth.

There is considerable dissatisfaction by purchasers of condominiums who, because they know the Ontario Mortgage Corp. holds or guarantees their mortgages, somehow felt the government was doing something to protect their investment and at least be able to say the place isn’t going to fall down in a few years.

The idea of condominiums as a moderately-priced alternative to renting has gone. One only has to look around in the Toronto area and see that the $17,000 one-bedroom condominium that some people were able to afford a few years ago is no longer available because they are now in the $30,000 range.

There is frustration in a few condominiums that the government is doing little to assist their board members in developing the kinds of skills necessary to run what in fact amount to large corporations. The government has done very little, although there are a few courses given if one happens to want to search for them at community colleges and if one happens to be available on the particular night. But the whole process of democratically running an organization is not just something one runs a course on at a community college. It is something that one works on with the people in a particular group, and works on with their elected officers and helps them to see the processes by which they can effectively run this new venture.

Lastly, there is the growing frustration by many more people who look around and see that the ratio of condominiums to rental apartments is very high. They can’t afford a condominium, but they look around and they see that rental units are not being built.

Is it just popular mythology that certain construction companies that build both rental and condominium buildings put inferior materials into the condominiums, but the buildings that they are going to rent and are going to keep renting for a number of years seem to have superior kinds of materials and superior kinds of workmanship?

That’s the story of condominiums in this province. In many cases, the government appears to be sitting by while cheap construction and materials go into the building and higher maintenance costs follow. In one condominium in the riding just south of my riding the monthly maintenance fee has gone from something like $40 to $200 inside of two years. The reason is, the whole place is falling apart. The people who bought that condominium in good faith and saw Ontario Housing or Ontario Mortgage Corp. in evidence thought that somehow the government was doing something to inspect these buildings -- that there was some kind of consumer protection for them.

One looks at walls that are falling in. One even looks at drains that are actually taps that are below the surface of the lawn, so that if fertilizer is applied and then one happens to get a high rain, the fertilizer can back up into the drinking water. One looks at walls that are ready to cave in on children or on the parking lot. One looks at multi-million- dollar suits that the directors of these condominiums are in some cases faced with having to launch to try to get their money out of the developer. One asks, “What kind of leadership in housing is this government giving when it allows this kind of thing to go on and apparently seems to be on the side of the developer?”

There are a lot of good developers in this province. There are a lot of developers who want to build good condominiums and give people their money’s worth. But this government is ruining the name of the condominium by doing nothing in allowing a few fly-by-night shysters to get away with the kind of shoddy workmanship that is going into some of these buildings. The whole thrust of middle- and low-income people is that they bought these condominiums with an expectation that they were somehow going to stabilize their costs for housing, and suddenly they found enormous maintenance costs as a result of the roofs caving in and walls that no longer stand up and that need to be repaired.

Mr. Speaker, lest you think that condominiums are the only area where the government is faulted in housing, let me tell you about this morning. This morning I received a call at 6:30 from constituents at 75 Tandridge. It happens to be an Ontario Housing building.

The problem was that the people in that building found themselves once again in several inches of water. The poor superintendent, when I met him, was almost in tears. I’m told that the night before then he’d shed gallons of perspiration over what had happened, apparently in the middle of the night. The building is eight years old, yet the pipes have to be completely replaced. Some of the maintenance people that I talked to and some of the plumbers I managed to have a chat with in the hall, estimate that the cost to the taxpayer will be somewhere around $200,000. I don’t know how accurate that figure is. All I know is that pipes that were put into that building eight years ago are having to be replaced and the taxpayers are paying for it; and the people in that Ontario Housing building are faced with the inconvenience of having their property destroyed by water seepage.

One woman today told me she had had no less than eight calls for the plumber because of leakage; that’s the kind of harassment these people are suffering as a result of poor construction.

Not only does the government not protect the investors of condominiums, it doesn’t even protect its own investments, when we get a building like this where the plumbing is falling apart.

It can only be hoped that this government will be sensitive to some of the things that are going on in the building industry, that it will show some empathy for the concerns of not only the investors but also of the taxpayers regarding some of the construction that is going up.

No inspection of material, no control; it’s more than just popular mythology. Let’s look at the problem and let’s do something about it.

The last area I’d like to deal with briefly is that of transportation. If ever there was an area where the squiggle approach is used, it’s in transportation. The fact is that one cannot help but conclude there is no transportation programme, merely an ever-changing assortment of starts and stops depending on which pressure group happens to push hardest.

First there was Spadina, then there wasn’t Spadina; now there is -- well, it’s kind of Spadina.

Then there was an airport to be built at Pickering. A few people in Malton breathed a sigh of relief and said: “My goodness, maybe that will take a little bit of the traffic from over our heads”; although we have some concerns about destroying farmland, which this government has never been too concerned about.

Then, of course, there wasn’t Pickering. But there is still noise and no concrete evidence that this government is prepared to do anything after it has stopped Pickering to really look at the kinds of problems in the Rexdale and in the Malton area, particularly the noise pollution that we are suffering as a result of a decision, which may have been a good decision -- and was a good decision and one I happen to agree with -- but nonetheless was a decision that affected another part of the population and no counter measures are being taken to counterbalance it.

Somehow the problem is not in the government’s picture. The government does not have a global picture of transportation. Oh we knew that the government isn’t too worried about us up in the northwest earner of Metro. They certainly want to put more and more people into our areas; they even want to allow companies to build large buildings along our valley lands and destroy some of the finest nature trails in the whole city. The only consolation we have is that we’re going to have more and more people to accompany us as we take 1 1/2 hours to go downtown on the bus every morning. What we do know is that the government is interested in doing very, very little in terms of a global plan.

During the last session, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and I introduced a resolution asking that a select committee of this Legislature look at transportation needs in this part of Ontario, and in particular to consider the problems faced by the Malton area over noise pollution. The government has in no way responded to this. We will be reintroducing that kind of resolution.

I am encouraged by some of the remarks by the member for York West (Mr. Leluk), who at least expressed some interest and some understanding of some of the transportation needs in the area, and I would hope that he at least would urge his colleagues to set up a select committee to look at this problem.

What is at stake in transportation is not whether we build an airport here and an expressway there. What is at stake is whether we develop some kind of long-term objectives for transportation so that our citizens know what the rules of the game are, what is at stake is whether or not we are serious in levelling with the public instead of playing one riding off against another. What is at stake is whether we are willing to take transportation out of the realm of political caprice.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether there will be an election after April 5. I am really not concerned. I understand that one of the ministers feels that God is on the side of the Conservatives -- at least that’s what he said; he said, if I quote him correctly, “Christianity and Conservatism are natural allies.” God is on the side of the self-righteous Conservative government. It’s so evident: They have been in power for 32 years; obviously God put them there.

This is the same man, of course, who says that order and Christianity are somehow linked. He says that he would like to see our teenagers carrying identification cards with their signatures, fingerprints, photographs and Lord knows what else on them.

Mr. Speaker, if this is his version of Christianity, I can only suggest that Joe Stalin should have been canonized, because he employed that technique far more precisely and far more scientifically than the Conservatives will ever master in Ontario.

In the next election, what we are facing very simply is a choice of government -- a choice of continuing the kind of government by squiggle that we have experienced in the last few years, government without any objectives, or a government by the NDP with concrete objectives that everybody can examine and that people can vote for.

Mr. Eakins: Never.

Mr. Germa: Call the election. Call the election.

Mr. Riddell: Wishful thinking.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.