Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t want you to take issue with me tonight if I play to the gallery, because there are very few other people to play to here.

Mr. Evans: Especially in your seats.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think, frankly, the whips should be constrained to some degree of secrecy, because it is obvious from the attendance here tonight they knew I was going to have the honour and opportunity of winding up for the Liberal Party. In any event, I say to you that I regard this with a little more trepidation than I have in the past in winding up on behalf of our party. It’s always been a great honour.

I remember one time being asked to undertake the responsibility, and if I recall correctly it started at about 5:50 p.m. I didn’t feel that 5:50 p.m. was an appropriate time to begin any major speech and that night I attempted to pay tribute to my hon. colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. Spence). Maybe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) remembers that night? I explained that night at 5:50 p.m. how we used to practice, going back and forth -- I would drive him down to Delaware and somebody would pick him up there. This is about six or seven years ago, once I remember explaining for the then Premier, the Hon. John Robarts, how we used to practice being cabinet ministers, going back and forth.

I want to tell members that after this length of time, I’m getting sick of practising. If I don’t soon get over there, I might consider an invitation to the Senate in Ottawa. That admission has to be an incredible conveyance of a sense of frustration on my part.

In any event, I do appreciate the opportunity of joining in this debate. I want to make some comments on Her Honour’s humble address. Recognizing that Her Honour does not write that address, I want to say that the nomenclature is extremely appropriate, in the year of 1975-1976, when it is called a humble address. Any person who was involved in putting together that Throne Speech should regard it as totally one of humility because it doesn’t say very much. But that’s understood; in a period of restraint it is very difficult for a Progressive Conservative administration to understand that government can govern without the inordinate, excessive expenditure of public funds. But more to that in the future.

I wanted to begin my comments, if I could, by wishing on behalf of this party -- I am sure without reservation -- through you, and recorded so the annals of our assembly, our best wishes for the speedy recovery of the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller).

I must say when he was first elected -- I believe it was in 1971 -- I didn’t know him. I found him to be a most charming, engaging, affable man and he has put upon those particular attributes an extreme ability as one of Her Majesty’s ministers. And there isn’t a member of this House who doesn’t want to take issue with some of the decisions he has made, who doesn’t recognize that he has become an instrument for what could only be characterized as financial hypocrisy; there isn’t one of us who doesn’t recognize also that after some type of soul-searching he undertook a very difficult task with his physical being and handled it extremely well from his point of view. If that responsibility contributed to the present illness, which I think probably that it did, then we not only wish him a speedy recovery, as I say, but we express our appreciation to him for his efforts on behalf of the people of Ontario.

If I may also, I want to begin by saying that I want to pay tribute to my former leader. It’s somewhat of a redundancy because many others have paid tribute to him, but I don’t think it is the type of redundancy that those people in this House will regard as unduly excessive. I don’t think there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that if you ask any member of this House, no matter what their partisan persuasion, what man represented totally, in their minds, integrity of purpose, ability and dedication, the response would be Robert Fletcher Nixon.

It is, to say the least, Mr. Speaker, a somewhat difficult task to be the leader of the Liberal caucus in the legislative assembly of Ontario; somewhat. There are sometimes slight moments of trauma that affect you.

Mr. Grossman: That is an understatement.

Mr. Bullbrook: But I ask you, seriously, to hearken back for a moment, those of us who can, for perhaps a decade -- and I know there sits the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch), who not only has a great affection, from a political point of view, for the former leader of the Liberal Party, but a very personal one also, going back many, many years; and perhaps the length of my comments embarrass. I don’t apologize for that because no one, without reservation, no one could, constantly, day in and day out, represent this party, in the analysis of legislation, in the understanding of what government policies’ deficiencies were, as Bob Nixon did.

I want to say to those members -- and obviously I want also to add this as a digression, that it again has become public knowledge to the press that I was speaking because I see there are two of them up there at the moment.

Mr. Nixon: They are all running back to hear you,

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to say to you that those members of what Douglas Cater called the fourth branch of government -- and I guess here, because of the lack of delineation between executive and legislative branches we can call them the third branch of government -- who I think by and large do as an effective a job for the welfare of the people of Ontario as the other two branches do, the legislative and judicial; I think by and large they do. Frankly, I have had my moments of trauma with them, but I think they were self-engendered. I think there was some justification, at times, for some of the things that were said about me, personally and professionally and politically.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is one member up there who I’ve got to put down in the history of this province as lacking any common sense, objectivity, nay at times, if I could add, some milk of human kindness. The vilification that our former leader was subjected to during the last election by one member of the press gallery was something to behold. I’m sure that if Bob Nixon had gone out on a platform totally in favour of widows and orphans that particular man would regard it with some degree of illegitimacy.

In any event, we are all subjected to those things. But one does like some degree of temperance at times.

Mr. Nixon: That is a nice phrase.

Mr. Bullbrook: That is sort of a nice phrase. Every morning when I shave I use that phrase.

Mr. Nixon: Not necessarily temperance.

Mr. Bullbrook: I say to you frankly, Mr. Speaker, I really want to record, as significantly as I can, the revulsion I have for the constant vilification by that man of Bob Nixon, without justification at all. Now he commences the crucifixion of the new leader. If St. John the Baptist were the leader of the Liberal caucus, he’d accuse him of using too much water. There’s no doubt about that at all.

Hon. B. Stephenson: St. John would never have taken it.

Mr. Lewis: He crucifies everyone equally.

Mr. Singer: Oh no, you’ve got to get your share.

Mr. Bullbrook: I knew the Minister of Labour and the acting Minister of Health (B. Stephenson) had supreme connections, but does she deal with St. John the Baptist?

Mr. Nixon: On a first-name basis.

Mr. Lewis: No, he deals with her.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think she did call him John, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Breithaupt: She has him on hold.

Mr. Sweeney: With the load she is carrying, she needs those kinds of connections.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence in giving me the opportunity to make comments with respect to my particular fondness, respect and affection for those two members. I want to say to you, sir, it is going to be a difficult time for the Minister of Labour to undertake that peripheral and collateral responsibility, but I think she’s doing a very fine job in that respect. She is a very able minister of the Crown.

Mr. Reid: There are very few of them over there.

Mr. Bullbrook: If ever there was a manifest conflict of interest, it’s holding the portfolios of Health and Labour at the same time in the Province of Ontario, because in fairness to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis), he’s done a very significant undertaking with respect to environmental and industrial health in the Province of Ontario.

The Labour ministry, if I may say so, has been one of reciprocity in effect. There has been no leadership in that particular portfolio with respect to those things that we talk about. The basic dehumanization of the work place is something absolutely foreign to the Labour ministry in the Province of Ontario. The government gives us this pap on page 5 of Her Honour’s speech:

“There are few problems more urgent than dispute resolution in the labour relations field. The Ministry of Labour will intensify its examination of the collective bargaining process with the aim of recommending substantive changes to reduce the incidence of industrial conflict.”

That’s the comment of the Ministry of Labour. That’s the thrust of that ministry with respect to the minister’s contribution to labour relations.

There’s nothing new about what I say in this regard -- if my colleagues who have been here some time will bear with me on this -- because on Aug. 30, 1974, I said:

“I just want to catalogue, if I may, these dates for the minister [That’s this minister’s predecessor.] On May 16, 1968, on June 2, 1969, on Dec. 17, 1969, and on Nov. 1, 1973, I myself exhorted the then Premier and the then Minister of Labour to establish some type of legislative forum, preferably a select committee, for the purpose of looking into the question of labour relations in the Province of Ontario.”

[8:15]

Mr. Reid: And still is.

Mr. Bullbrook: There’s nothing novel about this because mediation, conciliation and arbitration are not and should never be, as far as I’m concerned, the total burden of the Ministry of Labour; quite the contrary. Reciprocity is not the function of the Ministry of Labour and I wish Mr. Munro in Ottawa understood it also.

That isn’t the function of that type of portfolio. The function of that type of portfolio, in the absence of direction by trade union leaders, is to lead; is to talk about the dehumanization of the work force which goes on, day in and day out, and continues in this province and continues throughout the Dominion of Canada.

We like to sit here during the question period and play our games while some fellow in Oakville has a job, from 8 o’clock in the morning till 4 in the afternoon, putting a screw in the same place every day. That’s the type of thing the Ministry of Labour should be looking into as well as industrial -- why does the minister shake her head?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, I’m not shaking my head.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister shakes her head; maybe I have double vision.

Mr. Reid: She should be nodding.

Mr. Bullbrook: I thought I saw her shaking her head. But that’s the type of thing --

Interjection.

Mr. Bullbrook: How long do we have to ask? A decade we’ve been asking for this -- a decade -- for some type of response.

Collective bargaining can’t be dollars and cents all the time. I sometimes wonder whether the leadership of the trade union movement doesn’t think it should be that. I say that with some hesitation, some reticence, but without confrontation, where stands the leadership of the trade union movement?

What have we done? We’ve asked for an analysis of co-determination. We did this in our policy. Our leader asked for that during the last election. Why not let’s have a look at it? It’s been successful in the steel industry in West Germany. Why not let’s have a look at it?

Why not some involvement by the workers in the development of the milieu in which they work? Why not? Why not some participation in the equity endeavour of the corporations? Let’s have a look at, say final offer settlement. Let’s have a look at it.

Instead, what do we get? A decade of indifference and when the time comes -- as I’ll refer to in a few moments -- when the Tories can’t write a Throne Speech based on spending money, they decide they’ll give the people of Ontario that type of pap, that type of progress --

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s not pap.

Mr. Bullbrook: If it’s not pap, let’s get on with it. I say this: March 9, 1976, was the date of Her Honour’s address to us, almost a month ago; we on this side of the House, who have, I hope, some interest -- as I hope do all members -- in the collective bargaining process and, more important, what is regarded as the humanization of the workplace, want to get on with that.

I ask now, for the sixth time in nine years, for the establishment of either a royal commission or a select committee -- preferably, I say to members, a select committee. Just for my own particular feelings, and I know that my former leader and I have had discussions in this respect -- I believe we have?

Mr. Nixon: Right.

Mr. Bullbrook: We have. I myself would like to see a select committee appointed in this respect. I truly believe in the function of the legislative process, notwithstanding the obvious disintegration that takes places; because at 2 o’clock every day, to me now, Mr. Speaker -- I want to say with the greatest respect to you -- it is almost Bastille Day in this House. It really is. I expect to hear the clicking of knitting needles someday and Madame Defarges yelling. That question period has become so irrelevant that I wonder whether -- I had a lady in the House today, the mother of one of our pages, who said to me: “It would have been nice to be able to hear the response of a minister and, more important, it would have been nice to hear the question that was asked.” Maybe I should lead the way as I have attempted to do -- I don’t know whether members have noticed that over the last few weeks I have attempted in the vernacular, to keep my mouth shut as much as possible.

Mr. Nixon: Moderation and responsibility.

Mr. Bullbrook: I tell members that is a very difficult task for me.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Temperance.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m really -- my colleague the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) has just said “Hear, hear”. I’m not sure that I like that.

I want to say, if I may, that this is what I regard the Labour portfolio to be. I think perhaps if this minister is engendering this type of response, it certainly isn’t novel. It is a response that, as I say, comes a decade late, but it’s a response that we need. I just hope very shortly, therefore, we are going to have some statement to support that type of comment.

We are involved in a minority government situation. I want to record that I don’t believe in the efficacy of minority government; I just don’t think they work, no matter what the attitude of people is. I truly believe in the concept, rightly or wrongly, that to govern you have to have the ability to govern.

Mr. Grossman: How are you going to vote tonight?

Mr. Nixon: How are you voting for that, Larry?

Mr. Bullbrook: I’ll tell you how I am going to vote -- in response to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), I am going to vote, and I am very prideful of this, the same way I have done in every recorded vote that I was involved in since I was elected in 1967; I am going to vote with the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Reid: What do you plan to do about Doctors Hospital?

Mr. Bullbrook: I’ll tell you, I’m very prideful to do so.

Mr. Lewis: You are the only one who can say that, Jimmy.

Mr. Bullbrook: We will get onto that in a few minutes.

Mr. Reid: What are you going to do about Doctors Hospital?

Mr. Bullbrook: I need some protection tonight.

Interjections.

Mr. Bullbrook: Minority government is a difficult situation; it truly is. We look back to December and the trauma that descended upon the New Democratic Party -- [Interruption.]

Mr. Bullbrook: If I may just resume my seat for a moment, all right?

Mr. Lewis: Adjourn the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask that everybody hold their places for a few moments, please.

[On resumption:]

Mr. Speaker: I think we might continue now, thank you.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you, sir. That’s a shaking experience for those people who are involved in the public galleries. I don’t want to seem opportunistic, but any of us who’ve availed ourselves of the responsibility to visit with school children or others, knows the inclination of those stairs is truly something. It scares you. Perhaps you might consider, sir -- and I am sorry if this does seem opportunistic -- some handrails or something of that nature that might assist.

In any event, I was talking about the fact there is a minority government here and people do have different approaches to it. I just don’t, myself, feel that minority governments truly are the most efficacious way of governing ourselves. I think the rent review legislation was an example of that, frankly. The problem is, government must bring in legislation. I truly believe that government has a responsibility to understand the administrative and financial consequences, the social and economic consequences of legislation when it brings it in, and it can’t be assured of that in a minority situation.

We put forward 15 amendments to the rent review legislation, which, in my opinion, make it almost an administrative nightmare. I just don’t think government can work that way, but people have different ideas of governing, and we, I suppose, collectively can be called upon under the traditions of the parliamentary system to bring a government down. For example, the New Democratic Party had the opportunity, I suppose, on the aspect of AIB to bring the government down. They chose not to do so. There was no great vituperation on our part in that respect. That was their choice to be made at that time, but it seems to me that there is a lack of reciprocity in that understanding at times, I don’t know.

Mr. Martel: That’s carrying it too far.

Mr. Bullbrook: Maybe I carry it too far, I sometimes do that. But I want to tell you --

Interjection.

Mr. Bullbrook: I wonder sometimes; I read the resolution on the order paper of that esteemed colleague from -- is it Sandwich-Riverside? -- my very, very fine colleague from --

Mr. Burr: Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- from Windsor-Riverside. Has this been caucused? I read it to you.

Mr. Reid: Is this party policy?

Mr. Lewis: He has never been so fine as when he submitted this motion.

Mr. Bullbrook: “That in the opinion of this House” --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’ll try again:

“That in the opinion of this House whenever a minority provincial government is elected in Ontario, no further election should be held for a period of two years, thereby assuring the elected members a minimum period of security of tenure.”

I tell you it --

Mr. Reid: This is the party position?

Mr. Bullbrook: -- flies in the face of parliamentary tradition, but with great, great -- integrity I suppose is the word again. At least Fred Burr puts first things first. It’s the security of tenure of the members that’s important. It’s not the welfare -- no, it’s not the welfare --

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: It also flies in the face of your sense of humour.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, at least I have one to fly in the face of. Isn’t that remarkable? That’s a novel approach.

Interjections.

Mr. Bullbrook: Whether it conveys just an individual attitude from a socialist or a social democrat, or whether it’s something that is a response to a collective wish on the part of the New Democratic caucus, I don’t know.

Mr. Burr: I just explained to you it was my own personal opinion.

Mr. Bullbrook: If it is, then I apologize.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: If it is his wish, Mr. Speaker, if it is his singular and sole individual and personal wish, so be it.

Mr. McClellan: Why are you going to vote with the government?

Mr. Bullbrook: But it’s interesting to analyse that resolution, because the resolution in effect says no matter what the government does to the disadvantage of the people of Ontario, we will not have an election. That’s what it says.

But I think the second aspect of it really is significantly interesting. It’s because of security of tenure, as I say, the important aspect of the longevity of this House. It is not the welfare and good government of the people of Ontario, but to make sure that we don’t have an election again.

I want to tell you there isn’t one member of this House superior to me in laziness or inertia -- not one.

Mr. Reid: I don’t know, I see a few over there.

Mr. Bullbrook: Nobody wants an election less than Bullbrook.

Mr. Nixon: Our party would win with a bigger majority.

Mr. Bullbrook: I can’t abide elections; I just can’t. I must tell you I find them truly distasteful, but they are, unfortunately, part of the democratic process. I want a benevolent dictatorship with Lorne as the benevolent dictator, because --

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: At least the subsidy cheques would arrive on time.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- the discussions --

Mr. Foulds: I want to --

Mr. Bullbrook: You know my former leader makes light of that, about the subsidy cheques getting there on time.

Mr. Nixon: They’d be hand delivered.

Mr. Bullbrook: A lot of people thought that the delivery of those cheques to the old folks’ home did have something to do with the concurrence of an election. It didn’t. Lorne wanted to make sure they got them. I know he did.

Mr. Nixon: Is it true he had cash in his pocket to cash the cheques?

Mr. Bullbrook: The fact that there was an election the next day just was co-incidental; and the fact that he told them where their polling subdivision was nothing but a corporal work of mercy.

You talk about elections and minority governments and how they work. I want to read a letter to the mayor of Sarnia in connection with the seatbelt legislation. The seatbelt legislation has become in Sarnia at least an extremely emotional issue based upon what is regarded -- I am not sure whether Borovoy would agree or not -- as an essential intrusion on fundamental rights. I want to tell you, on the field --

[8:30]

An hon. member: He is from St. Catharines.

Mr. Johnston: Great city, St. Catharines. Represented by a great man.

Mr. Reid: Are you going to represent yourself as a great man?

An hon. member: Who’s that member over there?

An hon. member: Is that his maiden speech?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Sarnia is making this speech, thank you.

Mr. Bullbrook: Oh no, I don’t mind that at all -- an interjection from the member for St. Catharines. It records him in the annals of this House, which is a novel experience at best. I like to see him here. I’ve found him a congenial and, at times, convivial colleague in the legislative process.

I want to read to the House, if I may, this letter. It has to do with seatbelts. Seatbelts became an emotional issue. It was almost traumatic; I had many letters. I want to tell the members I made a terrible mistake in that respect; I’ve learned a lesson. I spoke against the legislation. I thought for a moment I was a civil libertarian but the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) convinced me otherwise.

I decided, frankly, that we would give it a year so that they would statistically prove the benefits of the wearing of seatbelts. But in Sarnia it became significant -- I know it became significant to my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. Spence). As a matter of fact, with respect to seatbelts he had more mail in one week than Errol Flynn had during his whole career. But I say to the House, he resisted it. What he did, of course -- and our colleague the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston) did the same thing -- was, when the law became the law, and he must be subject to the law --

Mr. McClellan: Under persuasion.

Mr. Bullbrook: Under some persuasion.

Mr. Nixon: You still don’t wear it, eh, Bob?

Mr. Bullbrook: I regret hearing that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: I regret hearing that our colleague from St. Catharines will not wear the belt.

Mr. Johnston: I never intend to.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want him to know there is nothing better than a belt once in a while. It can be protective.

But in any event, one of the aldermen in Sarnia who is still, I think, a member of the executive of the Progressive Conservative Party, has undertaken a very stirring drive against seatbelts. I think perhaps I might have to join them if the merits of same aren’t statistically proven afterwards.

Mr. Nixon: Is it true he’s going to run against you?

Mr. Bullbrook: That was the understanding I had.

Mr. Nixon: Well, we’ll wipe him out too.

Mr. Bullbrook: It would be an issue.

This letter from my colleague, the Minister without Portfolio. By the way, if I might digress again just for a moment, I received an unsolicited letter last week from a constituent I don’t know what his partisan persuasion is -- asking me, truly asking me, what the function, duty and responsibility are of my colleague, the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson), the Minister without Portfolio.

Mr. Nixon: That’s a difficult question.

Mr. Bullbrook: I had asked that before. I wrote him a letter saying that the Premier (Mr. Davis), in response to my initial question, said, “He’s of great help to me.” I have no doubt about that at all. I sent the letter on to the Premier, accompanied by a copy of the letter from the constituent, asking for a copy of the Premier’s reply. Notwithstanding the very enjoyable relationship that I have with the hon. Minister without Portfolio, and frankly the charity that he does permit me -- for example, if there are eight appointments to be made in the city of Sarnia, it’ll be one for Jim and seven for Lorne --

Mr. Nixon: They’ve got to go.

Mr. Bullbrook: Justice is justice and if you can get a little bit of justice, get it while you can.

This is a letter to “Mr. Andrew S. Brant, Mayor of Sarnia, City Hail, Sarnia, Ont.,” and it’s headed, “Dear Friend.” You bet your life he’s a dear friend. He used to be the vice-president of my association. He no longer is. He’s a very significant Tory, so Lorne should call him “dear friend.” He says:

“I have received your comments on the seatbelt legislation which was passed through the Ontario Legislature in the December session of the Legislature and was to become effective Feb. 1. First, may I take this opportunity to explain how this legislation came about.”

And then he goes through and makes the comment about the saving of $50 million and the possible saving of one life per week --

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Per day.

Mr. Bullbrook: Per day, I’m sorry. And I want to give him credit, that works out to 365 in this letter.

Mr. Eaton: That’s 366; it’s leap year.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am sorry, but you have 365 here. But now let me read on. Maybe it is like my colleague from Windsor-Riverside, maybe it’s a personal opinion, although it does come from a minister of the Crown.

In view of the fact that we are now a minority government, it would appear to me that one or both of the opposition parties will have to come forth and ask to have the legislation withdrawn from the law books of Ontario.

Mr. Reid: What do you get paid for?

Mr. Singer: That’s leadership!

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s the view of a minister of the Crown as to how we rescind legislation. He wrote that to the mayor of Sarnia because a copy was sent to me at the request of one of the aldermen, saying: “Charitably, at best, I will make no comment.”

Mr. Shore: “Dear friend.”

Mr. Bullbrook: But I do want the people of Sarnia to know that we could put forward 4,000 bills rescinding that legislation and the rules of this House do not permit that such legislation would be debated on second reading or entertained by the members of this House --

Mr. Singer: Or voted upon.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- or voted upon; unless the government which controls the orders of the day allows it.

Mr. Eaton: Would you rescind it now?

Mr. Bullbrook: So I want to say to my colleague from Lambton, if you don’t like the seatbelt legislation, why don’t you have courage enough to rescind it? That’s all you have to do.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We do like it.

Mr. Bullbrook: You do like it? Wall why do you artificially transfer the burdens of responsibility to the opposition when you know perfectly well they can do nothing about it? Have at least courage enough to tell the people you are in favour of it and it will stay there until you decide it’s in the best interests of the people, so that the people involved decide when it’s in their best interests to have it rescinded.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It’s the first time in your life you have had to accept responsibility in this House.

Mr. Bullbrook: So those are the two aspects of minority government in Ontario.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank God, he doesn’t have a portfolio,

Mr. Bullbrook: It will work, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have gone on much longer than I intended and I apologize.

Mr. Hodgson: You haven’t said anything, but keep going.

Mr. Bullbrook: I apologize to you for this, but I want to say something to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues.

I am sorry, did I miss somebody? No, not really, but I want to wait until he gets in his seat so he’s in order.

Mr. Gregory: Go on.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia should continue.

Mr. Bullbrook: Listen, the only enjoyment one gets unit of life is interjections once in a while; it truly is.

I want to say this to you, Mr. Speaker, and I will try, frankly, to be as serious as I can. Government now is all about restraint and the restraint in spending, and I haven’t suffered the degree of effect that many members have.

The last election the Liberal Party ran on the fact that we couldn’t afford another Davis government. That was based on several things, one of which was fiscal responsibility. Had we formed the government, we want to tell you, we would have undertaken without too much reservation a programme of restraint, and we would have suffered the collateral effects of a restraint programme. We find it very difficult ourselves to abide the fact that the beginning of a restraint programme must be effectuated in the health and social service fields.

Many people have spoken about visiting their Children’s Aid Societies. People who have spoken during the course of their contribution of the Throne debate have mentioned mine, the Lambton Children’s Aid Society, which had a deficit last year of some $81,000 and then were called upon to meet their statutory obligations under the Child Welfare Act with a contribution towards their increased cost of 5.5 per cent.

They said to me, and they said to my colleague from Lambton, the Minister without Portfolio: “It can’t be done, and we know it can’t be done.”

I want to tell you, in the context of money that’s wasted day in and day out in the community colleges of Ontario, it is galling to think for one moment that people should be subjected to a withdrawal of services that are essential, not to their well-being, but essential to their very life, while the Council of Regents and the boards of governors and the administrators and presidents of community colleges attempt to invent ways to spend public funds. That’s where we would like to see something done. I know I would. I would demand it of the Premier of Ontario if we were incumbent and I was given the opportunity of serving with him in the government of this province.

Let me tell members something that goes on right now and I wish the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott) were here. The Ontario Dental Association has undertaken a programme of providing for preventive dentistry or dental assistance. The Ontario Dental Association said that it could be done in a maximum of little over two semesters. Do members know what the Council of Regents of the community colleges said? It’s got to be a two-year programme.

The Ontario Dental Association is meeting shortly with the Minister of Colleges and Universities in respect to this because all it is, of course, is a waste of public funds. Members have heard my former leader talk about some of the programmes in community colleges and the expenditure of funds which has been made with respect to them.

I only say this: We will support a restraint programme. It would have been done, I think, on a priority basis very much unlike the priorities established by this government. But so be it if we have to. But it is very difficult. I find it very difficult as one member to sit here -- I find it almost like a sea captain who has grounded his vessel on the shore, through negligence, criminality and without regard to the passengers, inviting the passengers to applaud when he says: “Save our ship.”

I want to tell the House that’s what it has been. It’s been negligent, it’s been criminal; the expenditures of funds. When I was elected here in 1967, the budget for 1968 was $1.4 billion and I invite my colleague from Ottawa West to hearken back to the beginning of his days.

We realized the inflationary tendencies. We realized that public spending has gone up. We realize the impulsion of the federal government upon the provincial purse. We realize that, but we have to sit and hear them, as we will hear the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) tomorrow night, pontificate in an almost sanctimonious fashion about the need to save money in the Province of Ontario, when the deficit last year was more than the total budget when I was elected in 1967. It’s $2 billion of waste.

We talk about the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker. It’s a vacant document. Vacuous, filled with nothing -- not even any attempt at sound and fury, because this government and the Progressive Conservative Party can only write an effective Throne Speech when they spend money.

I wish I had more time to speak about the expenditure of public funds and read some of the former Throne Speeches in which one after another of the pages is filled with new programmes. I’m going to disclose not a confidence but a conversation I once had with the hon. Stanley Randall after he left the government. We wore talking one evening and he was talking about what it was like to be a cabinet minister in a Progressive Conservative regime and he said that the thing he had to do to be effective was to undertake programmes. Programmes were everything; the spending of funds was everything. Members will remember when the Committee on Government Productivity brought its report in and we said, “Goodness gracious, why? Why this duplication of effort? Why the spending of money?”

I just want to take one moment of our time to read, if I can, from the Henderson report at page 63.

“The Ontario government’s total budgetary expenditures doubled in the five years from 1970-1971 to 1975-1976. In contrast, expenditures on administration increased 2.3 times. This greater increase in government’s implementation of recommendations made by the Committee on Government Productivity for improvement of administration in the Ontario Public Service -- these recommendations covered finance and accounting policy planning and analysis, communication and the use of human resources.”

One has to apologize for reiteration and redundancy but I ask, what does the Provincial Secretary for Justice do? What does he do?

Mr. Speaker, you know he does nothing and yet we expend $1.4 million for that charade.

[8:45]

I want to read just for a moment some statistics that I would like to record for you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, not about the increases in payments for social welfare, not about the increases that are made for some other needed services, but the increases that have been made to support government, the money spent for cabinet ministers and the supportive services. In 1971, the expenditure in millions of dollars for the support services for ministries of the Crown was $51 million. In 1972, it went up 27.2 per cent to $64.9 million, In 1973, it went up 12.4 per cent to $73 million. In 1974, it went up 13.4 per cent to $82.8 million. In 1975, the interim levy for support services for ministries of the Crown was $98.1 million or as additional annual increase of 18.5 per cent. The estimates for this year were $122,100,000 for an additional increase of 24.5 per cent.

We are not talking about providing obligations under the Child Welfare Act. We are not talking about the redundancy of building a hospital in Hanover and closing one down in Chesley and Durham. We are talking about the money spent by government to support the ministers over there. Henderson says in his report that there is no need for an increase of any kind, indexed to inflation or otherwise, for government services next year. If there is any integrity at all in the programme of this government, there won’t be one additional cent spent for supportive services in administration. Let’s begin there. That’s where we want to begin.

I am not going to burden you with talking about OISE again. I intended to do that tonight, Mr. Speaker, but I have taken too much time. It’s very difficult for us to applaud that captain who wishes that type of applause in the restraint programme. We know it’s necessary. But it’s very difficult for us to applaud him when we know we are still wasting that money on the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education, because what has happened in the field of education, in my respectful opinion, is an abomination.

I have never believed that life, liberty and, more important, the pursuit of happiness was dependent upon understanding what a split infinitive is. But I tell you this, I truly believe that it is a desecration of the process when my child is not permitted by his teacher to know what it is because the teacher doesn’t know what it is. That has come from one person and one bit of gamesmanship. That person is the present Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis), make no mistake about it. He was the one who began this business of experimentation in the field of education.

Almost all parents, aware of the opportunities they had, find it not only repugnant but totally unacceptable. Yet we go on and on and spend more money, year after year, on experimental programmes.

Mr. Speaker, you’ve been indulgent with me. I intended to go into more detail but I say again to you that I hope we have an opportunity of bringing the question period back into some relevancy. it’s a difficult task for you, I realize that, and I am sure yen do it much better than I could ever possibly aspire to do it.

I say again that we will vote this evening, we hope, to continue with the minority government notwithstanding the reticence that we have, personally and collectively, as to its efficacy. We feel -- and I hope I convey this to you as sincerely as I may -- that this is a response to the will of the people of Ontario, as we see it. If, as some writers say, there is a shame and a change of attitude, then we will bear the burden of that alleged shame. If, however, the people of Ontario, as we think, feel they want an opportunity to evaluate the government and they don’t want the expenditure of so many millions of dollars for an unnecessary election, as they see it, then we will bear the burden of that alleged shame, We believe in the Truman axioms we can stand the heat -- because we’re on our way to the cabinet.

ALAN GROSSMAN

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I’m not sure whether they are clapping for my colleague or for my standing up.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: I notice, Mr. Speaker, in the gallery tonight is the former member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. A. Grossman) and I’d like to call to your attention, sir, that he is with us tonight. More than ever before, we certainly have the need of his services in this Legislature, considering who succeeded him.

Mr. L. Grossman: Thank you, Pat.

Mr. Reid: The other thing I would like to draw to your attention, sir, because a great point of it has been made in the past, is that in this very significant Throne Speech debate windup, there are four of 26 cabinet ministers here to hear the windup of these speeches. I just thought that you’d be interested in that statistic.

Interjections.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I’m not as distressed as my friend from Rainy River about the lack of the cabinet across there. I don’t have much use for them anyway, so whether they are here or not it doesn’t make much difference.

Secondly, I’m honoured by the privilege my caucus colleagues have bestowed upon me in designating me as the windup speaker for the official opposition in this Throne Speech debate. I undertake that responsibility with a sense of some awe and humility, because this is and has been a crucial Throne Speech debate., This is really the first time that a government in Ontario could fall on a substantive matter in the House in some 30 years.

Mr. S. Smith: The AIB wasn’t substantive enough for you?

Mr. Foulds: As a matter of fact I’m glad you raised that, because we in this party see no difference between “wage and wage” controls administered federally or provincially.

When you administer controls solely on working men and women in the lower academic classes --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: -- give us something substantive. Don’t play games.

Mr. Martel: Give him a tennis racquet.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, there will be a historic vote taken later tonight, and it was with some sorrow and no little bit of anger that I learned that the third party, after first grandstanding with a particular sub-amendment, which simply repeated three of our points, had decided after a caucus revolt, while their leader was off playing tennis, that they would change their position. I admit that the hon. leader of the third party put the best face on it that he could.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: But the caucus not only betrayed the leader of that party, they betrayed the people of Ontario. Because, Mr. Speaker, I put to you that if you move a motion of non-confidence, which a sub-amendment to the Speech from the Throne is, if you move a motion of non-confidence, then you stand by it, and you don’t play games with motions and amendments to substantive matters like the Speech from the Throne and the budget. This is not a psychiatrist’s couch, this is not a college debating society. Government business and legislative business is serious and important and you play it straight.

What particularly angered me about whatever happened over there is that the Liberal Party, the third party in this Legislature, has effectively given a carte blanche to a minority Conservative government.

Mr. Breithaupt: Don’t you believe it.

Mr. Foulds: How the devil can they -- after saying they polled the people of Ontario and the people of Ontario don’t want an election -- tomorrow night, when the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) raises OHIP premiums, vote against that government when it’s part of the Liberal Party policy that health care should be taken from income tax? How are they going to face that public?

Mr. Martel: Oh, they’ll manage it.

Mr. Foulds: Oh, I know they’ll manage.

Mr. Martel: They’ll manage anything.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: I know they’ll manage, but what that illustrates, Mr. Speaker, is that there is no substantive matter on which the Liberals can now vote to defeat this government within the foreseeable future. They’ve given the Premier (Mr. Davis) and his tired colleagues over there carte blanche for the next year, year and a half or two years.

Mr. Martel: Right on. Maybe they should take up ping-pong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: The Premier had announced before the Legislature opened that this would not be a session with a heavy load of legislation, Therefore, we could have reasonably expected that the Speech from the Throne would have departed from the usual string of rhetorical clichés and would have dealt with substantive matters in some detail. It failed to do so.

For example, it would have been reasonable to expect the Speech from the Throne to tackle the serious economic problems facing Ontario as well as vaguely dealing with the fiscal questions facing the province because of the Conservative government’s mismanagement over the past number of years. The speech should have tackled Ontario’s unemployment problem vigorously. It failed to do so.

We could have expected from the Speech from the Throne that it deal with a strategic plan of development throughout Ontario, especially as it affects development in northern and eastern Ontario. Not only did the Speech from the Throne fail to do that, it failed to mention those two parts of the province.

An hon. member: They don’t know where they are.

Mr. Foulds: Perfectly true. Perfectly true.

Mr. Martel: Another grant for the mining companies.

Mr. Foulds: I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it vas with a great deal of seriousness that the New Democratic Party approached this session and this problem. I don’t think I’m betraying any confidences of our caucus to say that we had three very long and detailed caucus meetings before we made the final decision to put our final amendment to the Speech from the Throne, and we did it with a great deal of seriousness. And when we did instruct our House leader to draft the amendment, we knew what it would contain and we knew the possible consequences of that. We even knew that the Liberal Party might support us and cause an election. We didn’t think they would support us and then not support us, but we knew that there might possibly be an election.

Mr. Martel: Well, there’s still another hour. They might change their minds yet. Give them time.

Mr. Makarchuk: They’re still caucusing.

Mr. Lewis: It’s nice to be speaking second last rather than third last.

Mr. Bullbrook: You’re right. I intend to speak last next time.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, much has been made of two points. First, do the people of Ontario want an election? And much is being made of the second point, that this government supposedly needs more time to prove itself. I want to say to both those points that we reject them. People never really want an election. For most people, it’s a false question to put to them.

Mr. Reid: Even the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Burr) doesn’t want an election, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. S. Smith: For two years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: That is, in fact, his private member’s resolution, and if it comes up for debate the member for Rainy River will have an opportunity to support it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will continue with the Throne Speech debate.

Mr. Foulds: By the way, has the Liberal-Labour Party made its caucus decision yet?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: For most people in our society, elections are an intrusion. If you ask anyone at any point in time, “Do you want an election?” by and large they will say no. But the logical extension of that attitude is that we should never have elections. And although the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook), like Pierre Elliott Trudeau, states he is in favour of a benevolent dictatorship, I think any democrat, let alone a democratic socialist, would reject such an idea.

[9:00]

Secondly, and more importantly, I think this party rejects absolutely the argument that this government needs time to prove itself. How long do they need? The Progressive Conservative Party has been in power in this province lo these 33 years. The Davis ministry has had power for five years. The present Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has been in control of the treasury of this province, with one honourable and brief interregnum, for a considerable length of time. If the province’s finances are in a mess, whose fault is it? How long do they need?

Some hon. members: How long, O Lord, how long?

Mr. Foulds: How much longer does this government want to wreak havoc on the Province of Ontario? How much longer can we afford the Tories? They talk about an affordable society but I submit that society in Ontario can no longer afford the Tories; they are no longer an affordable party.

Mr. Breaugh: We just can’t afford another Davis government. I just thought that up.

Mr. Martel: Did you hear that one, Bob?

Mr. Breaugh: This is your chance, guys.

Mr. Foulds: We know what the government’s response has been to the serious social and economic problems facing this government. We know, from their actions over the last several months, what their programme will be over the coming year or years, or however long they have.

There are a couple of fallacies about that action. First of all, it is taken, by and large, outside of the venue of the Legislature; it is taken as much as possible through regulation; and it is taken -- for example, the hospital closings -- the day after the Legislature closes on Dec. 18 when they send the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) out to close hospitals and curtail health care. Only a man with the personal integrity of the Minister of Health could have carried that programme out without bringing this government to its knees. It’s only his personal integrity that has allowed the government to survive that particular phobia and madness.

Over the last few months we have had the dynamic duo of Wells and McKeough going around the province with, I might say, considerable backing from other cabinet ministers who went along at the public’s expense and said nothing. We had these two ministers going around in a Churchillian vein, laying on the blood, sweat and tears speech to the people of Ontario, that we have got to tighten our belts; the only thing we have to offer is more taxes, less services and so no.

Mr. Martel: And fewer jobs.

Mr. Foulds: What they did, in effect, was to lay an authoritarian heavy hand upon the school boards and the municipalities of this province. But, even more important than laying it on the municipalities and the school boards, they laid it on to the local taxpayer as if the provincial taxpayer somehow was somebody who was different from the local taxpayer. It was as if they were saving money and not forcing the people who own their homes, pay apartment rents and so on in the municipalities to pick up the slack.

There is a lot of debate -- not a lot but there is some debate -- amongst economists about whether or not property tax is regressive. I just want to use a very personal and small example, if I might. My mother, who is 73 years old, owns her own home. When it was built during the Depression, it probably cost about $3,500. Its assessed value now is probably somewhere between $18,000 and $24,000. My father died a couple of years ago; her pension from the CNR was cut in half, and yet her taxes continue to rise as her income declines. She is able to pay the taxes, but the increasing property taxes are not based on an ability to pay as that one small example illustrates and as people in this party during the budget debate will be illustrating many times in the future months.

Mr. Maeck: What sort of property tax do you pay? Tell us about that.

Mr. Foulds: Then we had hardly know how to describe him. The minister who sits beside the Minister without Portfolio.

Mr. Lewis: That is his greatest distinction.

Mr. Foulds: You are right. That is his greatest distinction. The minister who has the title of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor).

Interjection.

Mr. Foulds: We saw that minister laying waste the Children’s Aid Societies, day care, and the municipal social services across the province. How much evidence do we need that this government is lacking in a creative, response and is reaching back to a destructive, reactionary Conservative strain that does not come to grips with the Ontario of 1976?

By their work, ye shall know them; by their work we know this government. By its work of omission and commission this government is known and should be judged. After seven months of this particular parliament, this government has not responded to the crises in the province nor, may I say, to the views of the electorate as they were expressed in September of last year.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that during this debate, my colleagues from right across this province and from right across the areas of interest as they are expressed in the ministries have built a case, logically, methodically, step by step, brick by brick, to make our case forcefully for the defeat of this government. And we will continue to do that in this House as long as it should last and on the hustings when that will come. We see Sept. 18 of last year merely as round one in the current set of battles and this as round two.

I want to take first the three areas where the government action or inaction has been positively harmful and which we enunciated in our amendment. First of all, we said that we feel that this government lacks the confidence of this House because of its failure to develop an overall policy for the delivery of health care services, are exemplified especially by the closing of small community hospitals and public laboratories. My colleague from High Park (Mr. Ziemba) and my colleague from Parkdale (Mr. Dukszta) and many, many of my colleagues put that most forcefully during the supplementary estimates of that ministry. I just want to underline one or two quick points.

The leader of this party documented in his leadoff on the Speech from the Throne that the so-called savings, the so-called restraints, are actually going to cost the taxpayers of this province more money. The expenditure at Goderich, for example -- the minister’s net saving is a loss of over $500,000. Now it takes real genius to develop a programme of restraint that costs the taxpayers more money.

Mr. Makarchuk: Only a Tory can do it.

Mr. Warner: Nobody can lose money faster than they can.

Mr. Samis: New math.

Mr. Foulds: The saving in Timmins -- Northeastern -- the saving is a net loss of $126,000. That takes real genius.

Mr. Ferrier: That saving does serious damage to people who are now not receiving adequate care.

Mr. Foulds: Not only that, as my colleague from Timmins interjects and rightly points out, in economic terms it’s stupid and foolish; in human terms it’s destructive and harmful. The destruction to small communities and to the life blood of this province is even more foolish and harmful -- in communities such as Durham and Clinton. The dislocation to other larger centres, such as Thunder Bay, where 107 active treatment beds are being closed down, 122 psychiatric hospital beds are being closed down.

What that says to me, and I say it with some care, is that this government -- in the name of fiscal restraint because its bankers have told it that it must pull up its socks -- is willing to allow suicides to take place in the province in the next few years which would not have done so; people will die in this province who would not have done so because of the cutback in health and psychiatric services.

In the social services area -- I can’t tell members how impressed and pleased I have been as a sophomore, a second run member of this Legislature, about the quality of the new members who have been added to my caucus. Nothing was more impressive than the documentation put forward by my colleague from Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) in the supplementary estimates of Community and Social Services. He enunciated, along with a number of his colleagues whom he had organized and who had supportive material, the problems in Children’s Aid Societies in Metro Toronto, Ottawa, Kenora and throughout this province. I don’t want to get into the details of those cases because he has done such a fine job of it but I want to embarrass him by quoting what I think was one of the finest short statements about what that debate and this debate is all about. As he said to the Minister of Community and Social Services:

“What you are doing is cutting precisely those programmes that serve to strengthen families; to prevent their breakdown; to prevent them from coming into care at double or triple the cost; to prevent them from ending up in later years on the welfare roll or in mental institutions or in jail at double, triple or quadruple the cost. It’s precisely the kind of programming that has been most severely hit by your mindless austerity programme, by your shifting of the burden of paying for service to municipalities and to the property tax in an election year. That’s the consequence of what you’re doing.”

Nothing could be more true. What this government is doing is dismantling the preventive care in all these areas which would, in the long run, save us money economically and save us human beings so that they could lead more productive lives in this society.

What has happened with Community and Social Services? We had the 5.5 per cent laid on by the minister so he could go across the province doing his welfare bashing. In fact, what has happened after considerable public pressure; the threat of a number of the boards to resign; some pretty tough negotiations on the part of some boards like Kapuskasing; and, I submit, the battle that he and my colleagues raised here in the Legislature, is that the minister is going around now and negotiating with societies, one by one. Why didn’t he do that in the first place?

Mr. Warner: It’s too sensible.

Mr. Foulds: Why didn’t he say: “We would like to keep the spending, if humanly possible, to five per cent or eight per cent. What I want to do is sit down with you individually, one by one, go over your budgets and see where we can save.”

Mr. Wildman: But they didn’t know to do that until they got the children’s letters.

Mr. Foulds: What we have to do or what this government has to do is hit everybody over the head. One director of one northern Children’s Aid Society actually had to sit down with the children he had in his care in a group home because they were so traumatized, so insecure, because of the headlines, and assure them that they would not be turfed out on the street tomorrow.

[9:15]

What has happened to the government’s sense of reason? We know that the present minister never had much of a sense of reason, but what has happened to the Conservative sense of reason or reasonableness? They have abandoned it and they abandoned it long ago, as they have abandoned the people of Ontario.

Thirdly, we felt that this government had lost the confidence of the House because of its obvious increase in the burden of municipal taxes. My colleague from Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), I am sure, will be dealing with this matter extensively in the budget debate, as will my colleague from Welland (Mr. Swart), and many others. I just want to point out one or two kinds of interesting things. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a mining company in Ontario that pays property taxes for the mine. And yet because of these mines, all kinds of northern communities exist and must exist.

What is even more ironic is when a corporation, such as Noranda, is quite willing to be annexed by the township of Ignace, so that it would pay property tax to that municipality, the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs won’t allow it to happen. The mine is some 50 miles away, but it’s Ignace that is the dormitory community. The government prevents the corporation from paying municipal taxes, even though the corporation is willing to be annexed. Consequently, Ignace goes bankrupt and comes under the receivership of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs.

What kind of insanity is that? In the meant me, our good friend -- pardon me, I mustn’t say good friend, because he is not -- the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) goes around handing out tax concessions to the major mining companies, while admitting at the very same time that those concessions will not increase productivity, will not increase employment and will not even increase sales because, as he says in his own press release; “All that we can hope for is that the inventory will be taken up and sold, for example, from International Nickel and from Falconbridge.”

And yet this minister is willing to take that action, which is a doubtful action, on behalf of the major mining corporations in Ontario, and he is willing and the government is willing to sacrifice $15 million in revenue. In other words, it is a tax giveaway in the time of restraint. Revenue that we could justly use for other programmes is given away.

Is the minister willing to take any kind of aggressive action to protect working men and women in the workplace in occupational health hazards?

Mr. Laughren: You have got to be kidding.

Mr. Bain: Not that government.

Mr. Foulds: What do they do? They turn the argument around. With the tax concessions they say: “There might be some benefits trickle down. We haven’t had it proved to us yet but we are willing to take the chance.” But when they are dealing with the health and the lives of miners they say; “No, you have to prove to us that it’s causing death and that it’s causing illness.”

My time is running somewhat short, so I am not going to use all of the documentation that I have. I know that this would probably give my colleague from Sarnia an apoplectic fit, if he were in the House, but I want to quote one of the legislative reporters whom he took to task a while ago. I quote him because he’s not particularly known as a friend of the New Democratic Party. He’s always wrote rather scathingly of us --

Mr. Nixon: He has what?

Mr. Foulds: He has written.

Mr. Nixon: Well, I thought under the circumstances that should not be allowed to pass.

Mr. Foulds: Claire Hoy wrote in the Toronto Sun:

“Let us venture into northern Ontario to a small village near Kirkland Lake named Matachewan, where about 155 men earn their living in the United Asbestos Inc. plant.

“The Ministry of Health has access to countless studies, including some of their own, which prove the serious risks of cancer to asbestos workers. Yet nothing has happened. The time bomb called cancer is allowed to tick relentlessly away, demonstrably increasing the risks to workers and their families and nobody has ever even bothered to inform the workers of the danger they are in.

“It is not alarmist to say fiat out that many of these men are being allowed to kill themselves by working in the poorly protected conditions of that plant. This is not a political gimmick or a Lewis fantasy. It has nothing to do with socialism versus capitalism. It has to do with life.”

An hon. member: I disagree with him there.

Mr. Foulds: I disagree with him there, too. But it has to do, as he says, with life. He goes on:

“It is as if the Ontario government is condemning many of those men to a premature death for the crime of working in a factory so they can afford to feed their kids. No excuse can alter that fact.”

Mr. Ruston: Good to have you back, Bill.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: It was interesting to note as I was going through some statistical information this afternoon, that occupational health related factors in 1975 cost us 5.2 million person-days lost for temporary loss of employment. What could we do to the productivity of this province if we simply increased occupational safety?

Mr. Martel: It won’t happen with Bernier around.

Mr. Foulds: It sure won’t.

Mr. Nixon: Davis comes and Lorne leaves.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Need balance.

Mr. Nixon: I thought so but didn’t want to say so.

Mr. Foulds: What I find shocking about that whole situation -- my colleague from Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and my colleagues from Sudbury (Mr. Germa) and from Timiskaming (Mr. Bain) put the case very forcefully -- is that we have no commitment from the government that there will be continuous monitoring in any of these situations. We have no concept by this government that potential dangers and death must be avoided, whether it is asbestos in the mines or asbestos in the drinking water at Thunder Bay. They always use the argument that there is no proven scientific evidence although it mounts, and mounts, and mounts, and we have to unearth and confront them with every single case. They will not move on it until they literally have their noses rubbed in it, and, frankly, I would like to rub the noses of every single cabinet minister of this province in the asbestos in the mines at Matachewan.

Mr. Martel: Or the uranium at Elliot Lake.

Mr. Foulds: It’s the same with the mercury in the English-Wabigoon River system. When we have a potential case of possible Minamata disease in a young child, we get the Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) coming on the blower saying, “He ha’s a premature birth. All these other factors have to be taken into consideration.” By the way, who gave you the right to release his medical record?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for York South (Mr. MacDonald).

Mr. Lewis: An interesting comment.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to put to you, Mr. Speaker, that the record of this government and the Minister of Natural Resources in terms of environmental safety is a disgrace to the government, it’s a disgrace to the Legislature and it’s a disgrace to the north.

Mr. Martel: Worse than that, it is criminal. What this Tory government has done is criminal.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: I want to skip over the agricultural land-use because it was so forcefully put by my colleague from York South; and the problems of northern development have been dealt with by my colleague from Nickel Belt. I do want to make one or two points about the development of the north.

First of all, over the years this government has failed to see transportation as a development tool for the north. They have failed to grasp that we need not only to provide incentives for development in the north and the eastern part of the province but we have to balance that with a programme of disincentives for the south so that we can save the agricultural land in the south and could use some of our less arable land for the development of secondary industry in northern Ontario.

Job creation: I went through the speeches in this debate over the supper hour and a little before and I was really rather surprised that there wasn’t a single cabinet minister or government member who was able to document the creation of jobs since Sept. 18. This government is simply not committed to the creation of full employment and, indeed, the major fault of Tory economics is they see unemployment as a necessary evil. They don’t even think of it as an evil but as a necessary tool --

Mr. Bain: Keeps the workers in their place.

Mr. Foulds: -- to fight inflation and they make no effort truly to fight inflation. They make no effort to fight inflation in terms of housing costs. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) has not made a single statement since December about housing. He has talked about rent control, He has talked about home warranties. He has talked about cottages, but he has not talked about the creation of housing or the reduction of prices of housing or any methods to go about that.

Mr. Wildman: Watch it; you are going to be called a criminal.

Mr. Foulds: I want to sum up. I don’t think that we in this party forget, nor do I think the people of Ontario should forget, that the Tory restraint package is an attack. It’s an attack on small communities throughout this province where this government is ripping the guts out of those communities. They have closed the schools. They are now closing their hospitals.

The government’s restraint programme is an attack on the disadvantaged of our society. It’s an attack on single-parent families. It’s an attack on those who suffer from crippling diseases. The government restraint programme is an attack on certain hard won rights and freedoms -- the freedom of the pensioner to survive; the right of the northerner and the urban dweller to housing; the right of the handicapped to access to his community; the right of the able-bodied to have work; and finally, the freedom and the right of the sick to health care.

We in the New Democratic Party do not say that a government which does not protect these rights minds its own business and is therefore non-interventionist. We say it has no business and that is why this government has lost our confidence and we are ready to vote it down.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Nixon: We have to help you -- there is nobody over there to help.

Mr. Roy: You are looking at many more faces here than there.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am disappointed in you.

Mr. Nixon: Let’s hear a good Liberal speech.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to extend my congratulations to you and to the Deputy Speaker of this House. It is obvious that the chore you have taken on is not an easy One; the makeup of this Legislature is not one that would lend itself necessarily to orderly debate at all times.

Mr. Kerrio: To say the least.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: One would have assumed that the --

[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker: I have been advised that the Hansard recording equipment is not operating. May I ask the members to co-operate and suspend proceedings temporarily?

The House recessed at 9:30 p.m.

The House resumed at 9:45 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Now that our technical problems have been resolved, the hon. Minister of Housing will continue.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the one comment I must make is that I realized a lot of brown paper envelopes were being delivered but I didn’t know the NDP would go to such extremes as to have them delivered all this time of night and turn out all the lights.

I want again to assure the hon. leader of the Liberal Party --

Mr. S. Smith: Watch the lights, John.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- that we would be most pleased to have him come back and see us some time. I would be most pleased to welcome him back on the condition because I am going to go to Hamilton later on this week and I promise to say it’s a nice town and to spend some time there.

Earlier in this debate the hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) -- I think probably reflecting the attitude of many people in this Legislature today -- said he really didn’t care much for elections; he wasn’t a great fan of elections. In fact, he said he hated elections. That isn’t necessarily confined to the member for Sarnia. There are probably others who would agree with him.

For example, later on this evening we will be having the vote on the amendment and the sub-amendment. There is one gentleman sitting in the New Democratic Party caucus who doesn’t like elections too often either, yet I am sure he will be standing to be counted as the votes are taken. I am referring to the hon. member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Burr). The hon. member for Windsor-Riverside --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- has a private member’s notice of motion and I will just read it: “That in the opinion of this House, whenever a minority provincial government is elected in Ontario, no further election should be held for a period of two years thereby assuring a minimum period of security of tenure.”

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Like the universities.

Mr. S. Smith: With sabbaticals.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I suppose one might --

An hon. member: No sabbaticals.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I suppose one might expect that when the vote is taken the hon. member will stand by his motion and will not be voting in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Lewis: I agree -- atop there tenure rip-offs.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s right. The next thing we will be asking for is sabbaticals. It is going to happen.

Mr. Reid: How about after five years?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The motions that will be decided this evening by members of this Legislature reflect not only the views of the Liberal Party in Ontario but also reflect the views of the New Democratic Party in this province, now the official opposition. There are some who wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) and his followers can be called power hungry.

I have had the opportunity of observing them for some time, especially in the north, and I really don’t think they are power hungry. I don’t think that’s the right term.

Mr. Peterson: They wouldn’t know what to do with it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think they are very content to be the official opposition. The amount of plain brown envelopes they receive on a regular basis has increased and that has certainly made them feel better, although one can never be sure whether or not they are legitimate. It might well be that we have somebody sending them to the NDP just to keep their research people busy. I couldn’t be happier.

Mr. Lewis: The first time that happens, we will send them back.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Of course, that sort of thing --

Mr. Lewis: We are waiting.

Hon Mr. Rhodes: -- would be beneath any self-respecting and responsible government.

An hon. member: Brown paper bags.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I do not believe that the New Democrats are power hungry. I take the view that they enjoy being relieved of the third party burden in this Legislature. As the third party, we always knew where they stood and that was fundamentally far away from where anyone else stood most of the time,

Mr. Lewis: We are standing alone tonight.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They could be strident, They could be outspoken. They could be benevolent and they could be holier than thou.

Mr. Reid: That is tomorrow night. The Treasurer is going to be holier than thou.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Now within the context of being the official opposition they can do all those things on the assumption -- and this is, of course, the traditional assumption in the British parliamentary system -- that it is their role alone to lead the charge and to lead the opposition to whatever it is that the government may be doing. That basic supposition of negativism, that basic anti-position which is now enshrined in their role, because it is traditional to our constitution, really assures those within that party who have always have had some sense of conscience about whether or not it was appropriate totally to oppose at all times all things put forward by the government of the province. I think it is reassuring to them since, as it makes their job simpler, it makes their task not quite so convoluted. But I guess that’s a debate for another time and perhaps another place.

I’d like to touch for a moment upon my ministry. This government committed in the fiscal year of 1975-1976 almost double the previous year’s allocation and three times what was spent two years ago. Our spending on housing out of our own resources is more than that of all of the other provinces combined.

Mr. Nixon: Tell us how great rent control is.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh, would you like to discuss rent control?

Mr. Nixon: Go ahead, be my guest.

Interjections.

Mr. Reid: Are you going to resign too?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Rent control would not have been a mess if the responsibility that is apparently going to be shown later on this evening would have been shown at the time that bill was being debated by certain members opposite.

The ministry’s programmes represent a balanced approach to housing, ranging from increased mortgage funding to interest-free loans and grants to municipalities under the Ontario Housing Action Programme to a wide variety of community planning, socially assisted and renewal programmes aimed at producing new units and preserving the existing ones. In times of constraint our housing budget will not be reflecting the dramatic increases of the previous two years. However, we will continue to be making a very substantial contribution as a province to housing and local planning and likely a far greater contribution than all other provincial governments combined.

In the budget the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) will be bringing down on April 6, several new approaches for housing will be mentioned. There has already been a statement that the Ontario Housing Action Programme will be continued in another form. Following the presentation of the budget, I will be giving more details of these programmes. At the time my estimates are before the House, I will make a full statement in regard to them. I can assure the hon. members that these will be further examples of this government’s concern and initiative in regard to housing, servicing and upgrading of existing communities.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ll have to bow to the hon. member until he sends me a report on his trip to Cuba and how things are over there. I understand he was cutting cane; is that right? You must be like Trudeau.

Mr. MacDonald: You got him mixed up with Bert Lawrence.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: At least he paid his own way down.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This month we will be bringing forward two reports of considerable interest in the housing field, prepared over the past month by experts in the ministry. One of them will deal with advantages and disadvantages of condominium construction on leasehold land, be it privately or publicly owned. This will be in the nature of a study paper for discussion by the hon. members and throughout the industry.

Mr. Lewis: That is great stuff -- a terrific contribution to housing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The other study which concerns subdivision plans is a study of current standards. Our purpose was to determine the cost effects on housing obtained by reducing the development standards which various provincial and municipal agencies impose on subdivision planning.

Mr. Reid: That’s not for you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think the events which have transpired in the last year have served to underline some of the positions this government took a year ago and which, a restated in the context of the Throne Speech debate, are indicative of the general sense of understanding which the government I am pleased to represent in this House really does have for the problems facing the people of Ontario.

In addition, I would like to say just a word with respect to my colleague and good friend, the former Minister of Housing, the present Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Irvine). I can recall when he stood up in this House and said there would be an increase in housing starts and some members opposite said that would never happen, I can recall when he predicted how many housing starts would come on stream and those opposite said it wouldn’t happen.

Mr. Cassidy: And it didn’t happen.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can recall when he indicated there would be some fairly fundamental bureaucratic problems with rent control programmes and those across the way thought to ignore that sort of concern. Never has one man’s predictions, assertions, intentions and basic instincts with respect to housing been borne out so specifically and effectively by the fact. This province is indeed lucky and fortunate to have had that man in that portfolio at that time.

Mr. Mancini: Why don’t you resign and let him take over?

Mr. Roy: That’s why he got a promotion, eh?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And I, as his successor, am more than prepared to say this evening, on behalf of this party and on behalf of this government, that we were indeed fortunate to have had his services in a very trying job at a trying time.

Mr. Reid: It’s obvious you didn’t write this speech.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The programme put forward in the Speech from the Throne, for which the Premier (Mr. Davis) has sought the support of all members of the Legislature, is a programme which provides the type of initiatives that will guarantee the economic viability of Ontario and, therefore, the economic security of the people within this province.

The alternative to this type of approach is an approach that would allow major sectors of our society to spend their way out of today’s problems with tomorrow’s tax dollars. It would allow entire social service and health service delivery systems to become unaffordable, and the types of burden on a society as a whole that would not bode well for their future and, above all, for the people whom they are supposed to serve.

Mr. S. Smith: You are reading our campaign literature from the last election.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Recently, in addressing the state house, the recently elected governor of the State of New York indicated that in his view the fundamental reality in North America was that the days of wine and roses were over.

Mr. S. Smith: “You can’t afford another Davis government,” is the way we put it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They were over, because there were no more six-point plans and $12-million programmes to solve long-term difficult problems.

Mr. Reid: In 33 years you spent us into that situation.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. Reid: In 33 years you put us into that situation.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Those who have been harbingers and exponents of these plans have simply been proven wrong by the weight of history and, the turn of events.

Mr. Reid: What a bunch. Who spent us into that situation?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the members please refrain from further interjections?

Mr. Lewis: Imagine following New York State!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition is requested to be quiet. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Labour and acting Minister of Health (B. Stephenson), in a recent speech indicated that perhaps all governments in North America have been guilty of the assumption that there was no problem too large and no difficulty too costly for government to somehow remedy. She went on to point out that all governments had been guilty of that, including the government of which it is my privilege to be a member and to serve.

Mr. Nixon: Remember this time last year when you were remedying the problem?

Mr. S. Smith: The repentant sinners.

Mr. Hodgson: Keep quiet over there!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The point that she made, which I think should be implicit in everything that is being said now, is that it would perhaps be typical and partisan and expected for this party to somehow say to the people of Ontario that all the decisions which were made in the past were right and all the assumptions were correct; that there were no mistakes, no misjudgements.

The general tone of optimism of the 1960s, the expansion of wealth-producing activities within the society of Ontario and societies across North America, and the pre-energy crisis boom, which typified development and growth throughout the western world, were very much part of the reality that successive Progressive Conservative governments in Ontario have had the opportunity to deal with in managing the affairs of this province.

The wealth that was developed at the time --

Mr. Cassidy: Needless to say, you were responsible for that.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and the borrowing and the buying power that wealth represented, allowed this province to put together the best health delivery system, the best education system, the most equitable, decent and fair social service system in North America. I for one am not prepared to apologize for the decisions made that brought about those respective successes.

Mr. S. Smith: And the biggest deficits in history. You were against the Canada Pension Plan.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But that doesn’t mean, Mr. Speaker, that the assumptions that were pertinent, appropriate and, frankly, the only possible assumptions acceptable during those days of government, continue to be acceptable now.

Mr. Good: That is why you lost 23 seats. You still don’t think you were wrong.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, there are those who might say that it is folly for a Progressive Conservative government, elected on Sept. 18, 1975, to suggest that all those decisions made by previous governments of the Progressive Conservative affiliation here in Ontario, are now open to scrutiny. There are some who would say that this affords the opposition a tremendous opportunity to lead a vicious, partisan attack against the party which has governed this province for some time. Those who say that, of course, would be displaying their own rigid severity and political serfdom to the rigidities and the irrationality of an overly partisan view of public responsibility.

Mr. Nixon: John, you can’t believe that. Who wrote that baloney in?

Mr. Cassidy: Did you read it before you came into the House?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh yes, I read it.

Mr. Cassidy: You are stumbling over the words.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Fewer interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I entered public life because I believed government does have a responsibility to re-examine assessments and assumptions, notwithstanding some of those assessments and assumptions were made --

Mr. Lewis: Regardless of which party was the government.

Mr. Roy: Even party affiliation, eh?

[10:00]

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- by previous forebears, sharing one’s own political affiliation. It is interesting; I’ve listened for over four years nosy to some of the darts and barbs from members opposite about the changing of political affiliation, and I ask the leader of the Liberal Party to look round and see if he can truly say that behind him sit nothing but true-blue born Liberals. No way. No way.

Mr. Reid: There aren’t any switchers.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You still are. The hon. member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) --

Mr. Sargent: What about Marvin?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- the hon. member for London North (Mr. Shore). Right? No switchers?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, this government has the intellectual courage in the --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let’s have fewer interjections, please, so that we can get on with the business of the House. The hon. minister, please.

Mr. Shore: Threaten to turn the lights out again.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’ll turn the lights out again on them. Mr. Speaker, we are not fighting inflation on the backs of the working people and the poor a’s some would suggest. We are fighting for a stronger and more optimistic future for the working people of this province, for the poor people of this province and for all of the citizens of this province by making tough decisions now. Weakness in the face of protest, timidity in the face of dissent, would do greater harm to the future of this province than even a government led by my good friends opposite.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The budget presented tomorrow by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), the commitment to Ontario’s future which is implicit in other programmes to be announced very shortly, and the specific remedies to ongoing problems suggested by legislation now on the order paper, and that legislation yet to be placed on the paper, constitute the best single formula for guiding Ontario through troubled international economic waters to a brighter and happy economic future for us all. So I appeal to all members of this Legislature to support the government and sustain it in the non-confidence motion that is now before us, put forward by the New Democratic Party.

A little earlier I heard it said by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) that we were attacking various segments of society. The Speech from the Throne and what will be reflected in the budget tomorrow will show that this government is indeed attacking. It is attacking inflation. It is attacking unnecessary spending. It’s attacking the real problems that are facing this province; in fact, the people of all of this country. That’s what is being done. That’s the sort of attack that is going on, and that’s the sort of decisive action that deserves the support of every member of this Legislature; every member of this Legislature.

Mr. Reid: And who put us in that situation? Thirty-three years of Conservative government put us in that situation.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They have stood and criticized continually. They have attempted to make it look as though this government was attempting only to bring down the various tight restraint programmes in an effort to drop them on the backs of the hardworking people of this province. It’s the hard-working people of this province who recognize the need to save, the need to cut back on spending, and it’s the hard-working people of this province who insist that we cut back on government spending and that’s exactly what we’re doing. They want it done and they want it done now. If members don’t believe, go to the people. So once again I would ask all members --

Mr. Reid: Is that one of the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. J. R. Smith) reject speeches you are giving?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- of this House to support the government in this particular vote, and to vote against both the subamendment and the amendment about to be placed in this House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Simcoe East.

Mr. G. E. Smith: I rise on a point of order just before the question is put. As many hon. members are aware, during the course of this parliament the Deputy Speaker, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), and I us deputy chairman, have refrained from voting in the House in order to demonstrate the neutrality with which we view our offices. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) and I both view the division which is about to take place as a very important one, but we continue to feel that our neutrality should be demonstrated before the House. We, therefore, have agreed to pair for this division.

Mr. Speaker: The Throne Speech debate now being concluded, I shall call for the vote as follows:

Mr. Villeneuve has moved, seconded by Mr. Grossman, that a humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Hon. Pauline M. McGibbon, OC, BA, LLD, DU (Ott) BAA (Theatre), Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us.”

Mr. Lewis then moved, seconded by Mr. Deans, that the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor now before the House be amended by adding thereto the following words:

“But this Legislature regrets the inability of this government to meet its responsibility for necessary programmes as a result of the deterioration of the fiscal capacity of the province during successive Progressive Conservative governments;

“And further, this Legislature regrets the failure of the government to provide in the Speech from the Throne any significant proposals to deal with the pressing problems of:

“(a) occupational health and the lack of adequate safeguards for the health and safety of workers;

“(b) need to preserve agricultural land;

“(c) need for a more equitable distribution of economic opportunity throughout the province, and in particular to northern and eastern Ontario;

“(d) need for job creation to offset rising unemployment;

“(e) inadequate housing supply and rising mortgage interest rates;

“And this Legislature moreover regrets the mismanagement of the government’s restraint programme leading to:

“(a) the failure to develop an overall policy for the delivery of health care services, especially as exemplified by the closing of small community hospitals and public laboratories;

“(b) the failure to respond adequately to financial needs for vital social services, particularly as exemplified by the inadequate funding arrangements offered to Children’s Aid Societies;

“And further still:

“This Legislature is opposed to the endless burdening of Ontario taxpayers exemplified both by the excessive increase in municipal property taxes, which will result directly from this government’s policy, and by the additional concessions to the mining industry specifically set out in the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor.

“Therefore, the government has lost the confidence of this House.”

Mr. S. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Breithaupt, that the amendment to the motion he amended by adding thereto the following:

“And this House further condemns the government:

“1. For its financial irresponsibility in forcing Ontario municipalities and school boards to increase inordinately the property tax on homeowners and tenants;

“2. For its illogical decisions in ordering hospital and laboratory closings without any apparent regard to efficiency and economy of their operations and to the importance of these institutions in the lives of the communities in which they are situate;

“3. For its lack of effective planning in its restraint programme which has resulted in punishing financially those least able to afford it.”

We will vote first on the amendment to the amendment as moved by Mr. S. Smith.

The House divided on the amendment to the amendment by Mr. S. Smith which was approved on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Angus Bain Bounsall Breaugh Breithaupt Bryden Bullbrook Burr Cassidy Conway Cunningham Davidson (Cambridge) Davison (Hamilton Centre) Deans di Santo Dukszta Eakins Edighoffer Ferrier Ferris Foulds Gaunt Germa Gigantes Givens Godfrey Good Grande Haggerty Hall Kerrio Laughren Lawlor Lewis Lupusella MacDonald Mackenzie Makarchuk Mancini Martel McClellan McEwen McKessock Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk) Moffatt Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon O’Neil Peterson Philip Reed (Halton-Burlington) Reid (Rainy River) Renwick Roy Ruston Samis Sandeman Shore Singer Smith (Nipissing) Smith (Hamilton West) Spence Stong Swart Sweeney Warner Wildman Worton Young Ziemba -- 70.

Auld Belanger Bennett Bernier Birch Brunelle Davis Drea Eaton Evans Gregory Grossman Handleman Henderson Hodgson Irvine Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel) Johnston (St. Catharines) Jones Kennedy Kerr Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck McCague McKeough McMurtry McNeil Meen Morrow Newman (Durham North) Norton Parrott Rhodes Rollins Scrivener Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Stephenson Taylor Timbrell Villeneuve Welch Wells Williams Wiseman Yakabuski -- 48.

Pair: Stokes and Smith (Simcoe East)

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 70 the “nays” 48. Mr. Stokes and Mr. Smith (Simcoe East) paired.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment carried.

Order, please. We will now vote on the amended amendment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could we get on with the business? Thank you.

Order. We will now vote on the amendment as amended.

Those in favour of Mr. Lewis’s amendment as amended will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “nays” have it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I think we are all present. We will not need to -- order, please. It will not be necessary to ring the bells again. As many as are in favour --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The bells have rung. The doors are locked and we are all here. I think we can --

Interjections.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will get on with the business of the House.

An hon. member: Are those in the gallery telling you how to vote, Eddie?

Mr. Lewis: Come on, now, Horatio Alger in the gallery.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t see him. I can’t see him.

An hon. member: There he is.

Mr. Speaker: We will place the motion.

As many as are in favour --

Mr. Deans: The bells must ring. We demand it.

Mr. Speaker: You insist on it? All right, I put the question: May we proceed with the vote without ringing the bells?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.

The House divided on the amendment by Mr. Lewis, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Angus Bain Bounsall Breaugh Bryden Burr Cassidy Davidson (Cambridge) Davison (Hamilton Centre) Deans di Santo Dukszta Ferrier Foulds Germa Gigantes Godfrey Grande Laughren Lawlor Lewis Lupusella MacDonald Mackenzie Makarchuk Martel McClellan Moffatt Philip Renwick Samis Sandeman Swart Warner Wildman Young Ziemba -- 37.

Auld Belanger Bennett Bernier Birch Breithaupt Brunelle Bullbrook Conway Cunningham Davis Drea Eakins Eaton Edighoffer Evans Ferris Gaunt Givens Good Gregory Grossman Haggerty Hall Handleman Henderson Hodgson Irvine Johnson (Wellington-Dufferin-Peel) Johnston (St. Catharines) Jones Kennedy Kerr Kerrio Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck Mancini McCague McEwen McKeough McKessock McMurtry McNeil Meen Miller (Haldimand-Norfolk) Morrow Newman (Durham North) Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon Norton O’Neil Parrott Peterson Reed (Halton-Burlington) Reid (Rainy River) Rhodes Rollins Roy Ruston Scrivener Shore Singer Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Smith (Nipissing) Smith (Hamilton West) Snow Spence Stephenson Stong Sweeney Taylor Timbrell Villeneuve Welch Wells Williams Wiseman Worton Yakabuski -- 81.

Pair: Stokes and Smith (Simcoe East)

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 37, the “nays” 81.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment as amended lost. We will vote now on the main motion.

The House divided on the main motion, which was approved on the second vote reversed.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Resolved: That a humble address be presented to the Hon. Pauline M. McGibbon, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Ontario:

“May it please Your Honour:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects of the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow afternoon we will go to the order paper and consider legislation that is there. Tomorrow evening we will have a message from the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough).

Mr. Reid: The bad news.

Mr. Lewis: He could say anything he wants to.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:40 p.m.