role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

March 12, 1974

29th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L006 - Tue 12 Mar 1974 / Mar 12 mar 1974

LAW REFORM COMMISSION REPORT ON FAMILY LAW

ROOMING HOUSE SAFETY STANDARDS

SEVERANCE PAYMENT TO AGENT GENERAL

APPOINTMENT OF CSAO ARBITRATION MEDIATOR

LEMOINE POINT

WITHDRAWAL OF TEACHERS’ SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION OF COURTS

ROUTE OF PETROLEUM PIPELINE

EXTENSION OF NORONTAIR SERVICE

ASSISTANCE TO EMERGING SERVICES

REPORT ON CONESTOGA COLLEGE

COST OF ADVERTISING DENTURE PROGRAMME

OHC BUDGET

U.S.-CANADA FREIGHT SURCHARGE

COMMUNICATIONS-6 INC.

REPORT ON CONESTAGA COLLEGE

PENSIONS FOR PERMANENTLY DISABLED WORKMEN

VETERANS’ LAND ACT

SALES TAX ON SPORTS EQUIPMENT

RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 401 NEAR WINDSOR

ASSESSMENT NOTICES

HICKLING-JOHNSTON REPORT ON MINISTRY OF HEALTH

EXPENDITURE BY CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS

AGE OF CONSENT FOR ABORTIONS

POINT PELEE NATIONAL PARK

USE OF RESOURCES IN ARMSTRONG AREA

YORK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION TEACHERS’ DISPUTE ACT

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

The House met today at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): May I take this opportunity of introducing to the House 150 students from Wembley Senior Public School in the city of Sudbury, accompanied by 10 adults. The party is under the direction of Mr. Wayne Bailey.

This large group of students and parents have journeyed from the city of Sudbury to be with us this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry?

LAW REFORM COMMISSION REPORT ON FAMILY LAW

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): I would like to clarify for the hon. members of this House some comments that were made yesterday during the question period. Following a short briefing with members of my staff, I was under the impression that all representatives of the media who received advance copies of the three reports of the Law Reform Commission tabled yesterday had first approached us to request those reports.

In subsequent discussions I have now learned that this was not the case with one media representative. I wish to correct at this time any wrong impression that my comments of yesterday may have left with members of the House.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The minister created several.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ROOMING HOUSE SAFETY STANDARDS

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), I will ask a question of the Minister of Housing, to inquire whether he has taken any decision himself, or consulted with his colleagues, about the obvious need for some imposition of province-wide standards for rooming house safety. Does he believe this can be left entirely to the municipalities concerned or is there, in fact, some thought that a provincial intrusion in this matter might be warranted under the circumstances that saw the death of, I believe seven people in Toronto last week?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, this matter has not been discussed in the ministry during my tenure. I certainly would be pleased to raise it with the staff, to ascertain first of all what our powers are and how the matter is handled. I would be glad to receive suggestions from the hon. Leader of the Opposition as to how he thinks this matter might be handled. I am prepared to accept reasonable suggestions from any source.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that, while this would not form a part of a provincial building code directly, it could very well take the form of something that could be a provincial safety code which could establish the minimum requirements for the municipalities to live up to, and if necessary provide an inspection service, at least on demand, for citizens who might be concerned that it appears the matter is not being adequately looked after at the municipal level?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, my limited understanding of the problem is that there are very few competent housing inspectors available to the municipalities, and perhaps the province can assist in that respect. I would like to discuss it with my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) in regard to the establishment of a building code, because it is quite possible that a strengthened building code might be part of the solution.

SEVERANCE PAYMENT TO AGENT GENERAL

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Chairman of the Management Board if he recalls approving the decision that resulted in a full year’s pay being granted to the person formerly in charge of Ontario House in London, England; which action has been recently criticized by the Provincial Auditor. Was that payment a severance payment the Provincial Auditor said was made in contravention of provincial regulations, was it in fact made simply to create a vacancy so that Mr. Ward Cornell could be appointed Agent General -- Ward Cornell, who was the chairman of the campaign committee for the Treasurer (Mr. White).

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I doubt very much if that assumption is correct, but I’ll have to investigate the records to determine at what time the decision was made.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, could the Chairman of Management Board tell us why Mr. Rowan-Legg, who was packed and on his way back to London, England, was hauled off the plane and told he was being replaced; and whether that sudden decision had anything to do with the inordinate expenditures mentioned by the accountant?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I really don’t think that’s correct at all, but I’m not sure.

Mr. Singer: It is correct,

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The government pays patronage every day of the week; sure it does.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’m not sure of that. If that detail is correct I’ll have to have a look at it; but I refuse to accept it.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): He was replaced by Ward Cornell.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Will the minister undertake to report to the House the circumstances which led Management Board to approve this specific payment? Would he also report to the House on the position taken by the auditor, that it was beyond the scope of the regulations to permit severance payments of that size, so that in fact we can have some guidelines to go by, since the government seems to be severing a good many of its high-priced employees and replacing them with some of its closer friends?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’ll accept the question as notice.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The minister doesn’t dare sever the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Cassidy: What about the patronage appointment of the member for Carleton East (Mr. Lawrence) which just came about?

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

APPOINTMENT OF CSAO ARBITRATION MEDIATOR

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Chairman of Management Board: Can the Chairman of the Management Board explain why, when he was informed on Feb. 4 by Mr. Rose, the counsel and registrar of the Ontario Labour Management Arbitration Commission dealing in the present governmental negotiations with the Civil Service Association of Ontario, that Howard Brown would not be able to be a mediator in the current items under dispute, that to this day, March 12, there has been no response, either from government or from the arbitration commission, to the request for the appointment of another mediator?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that subject matter. It probably should be directed to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon), but I’ll take the question.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): If he were ever here.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): The minister of who?

Mr. Lewis: I presume the negotiations with the Civil Service Association have something to do with the Chairman of Management Board and that another five to six weeks have elapsed in a progressively deteriorating relationship around a number of important items; I’d like to know why the minister is allowing that to continue.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I have made this statement before in the House, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to go to the bargaining table at any time. The items which are under dispute are not the fault of the people who are acting on behalf of the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Lewis: How is it that five weeks elapse without even a reply to a letter requesting further mediation? Can the minister explain that?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No. I am not aware of that letter.

Mr. Lewis: Fine.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’ll check the records in that regard.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How does he know?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will repeat that we have made our offers on quite a number of occasions and we are prepared to return to the table on any day that the other side is prepared to do so.

LEMOINE POINT

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Natural Resources: Is the government yet in a position to make a concrete offer for Lemoine Point to be used as a provincial park? Has that point arrived?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): No, Mr. Speaker, we are not in that position yet.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, do I take it that after the appraisal is completed -- I believe the appraisal is, in fact, completed -- it is the minister’s intention to collaborate with the conservation authority in the acquisition of the land?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard from the conservation authorities or even my own ministry with regard to the appraisals; when that information is received, I’ll take the appropriate steps.

WITHDRAWAL OF TEACHERS’ SERVICES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier if he wishes to report on any aspect of the state of affairs in York county and the negotiations that may or may not be taking place? I don’t know.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new to report. I anticipate the minister may have something to suggest to the House a little later on this afternoon.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Is the Premier indicating that the Minister of Education will make a statement or simply introduce legislation, or a combination of the two?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be here fairly soon, and I’m sure if the member for Brant wishes to ask a question he would be quite prepared to answer it.

Mr. Roy: It can’t be very good or the Premier would be making it himself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Unlike the member we don’t operate that way.

Mr. Roy: No? Oh no!

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. member for Scarborough West no further questions?

All right, the hon. member for Downsview.

ADMINISTRATION OF COURTS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General tell me if he is persisting in the view held by his predecessor that the system for administration of the courts should be a part of his department rather than an independent group, bearing in mind the very strong objections to this approach made by the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the very strong feelings expressed by several members of the judiciary.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that at the time of the tabling of the report dealing with that subject matter, a fairly lengthy statement was made by my predecessor, which represents government policy at this moment.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary, is that government policy under review or does it remain as irrevocable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as part of that statement, the hon. member will recall there was to be a fair emphasis with respect to consultation with all those affected. Indeed, the Speech from the Throne made some reference to that. Following a review with those who are in fact interested in that subject, and we hope that interest would be quite widespread, we would then make some further announcement insofar as implementation is concerned.

Mr. Singer: Oh, so what the minister’s predecessor said is not necessarily effective.

Hon. Mr. Welch: No, I don’t think that’s a fair assumption. I think the statement of my predecessor has to be taken in its totality and the question of consultation is part of that.

Mr. Singer: Oh yes, subject to consultation.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Roy: If I might, I would ask the minister when we can expect to see legislation implementing this policy that he talked about with his predecessor. Can we expect it this session?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will recall, there was reference made to that in the Speech from the Throne, particularly the regionalization insofar as the court system is concerned. Legislation will be coming forward. But I want to underline what the Speech from the Throne said and what I have said in response to the hon. member for Downsview’s question, that there has to be some opportunity for people vitally interested in this subject in fact to make their views known as well.

Mr. Singer: Like the treasurer of the Law Society.

Hon. Mr. Welch: So the actual timing of this, of course, will depend to some extent on the degree and the scale or scope of that type of discussion.

Mr. Singer: Yes, doesn’t that mean a change in policy?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Supplementary: Has the new Attorney General had an opportunity to read a letter he got from eminent members of the legal profession in Thunder Bay asking him to review the previous stand taken by his predecessor and to assure the public generally that there will be no obvious or less-than-obvious conflict of interest between the various factions within the Attorney General’s ministry?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And all their conflicts of interest in office.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, certainly the correspondence to which the hon. member makes reference is part of the review. I can assure the hon. member that this will be taken into account.

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

ROUTE OF PETROLEUM PIPELINE

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Energy: Did the provincial cabinet take into account, when it decided to accede to the federal government’s decision to go ahead with the Sarnia-Montreal oil pipeline, the fact that the Sault Ste. Marie-Montreal link ultimately would cost less because it would be an integral part of the all-Canadian route?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): With respect, I am not quite sure what the member is driving at. Presumably if one is talking about miles of pipeline, additional pipeline is going to cost more, not less. I think what one has to consider is that the pipelines presently through the United States, either to St. Ignace and down or around the south shore of Lake Michigan, have to be filled to pay for them. I think it’s a real possibility that if you build more pipelines, then someone is going to have to pay for the unfilled pipelines.

So I am not sure that the assumption on which the member’s question is made is entirely correct. It may well prove to be, but I am not sure that at this moment that’s clear.

Mr. Foulds: In view of the minister’s answer, in view of the fact that in Ontario we will ultimately have two pipelines, one coming through southern Ontario and one going through the north, does not the government’s assumption of the unfilled pipeline cost factor, in fact indicate that the doubling that it is now going through would lead to those results?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hon. member is making an assumption -- and I hope he’s completely right -- that there will in fact be oil to fill both pipelines. That is not entirely clear at this moment.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary then, Mr. Speaker: Would not the northern route have lent itself to the possibility of the use of oil from the arctic islands and the Hudson Bay lowlands, and thus save costs there if those finds prove to be commercial?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But not to the use of oil which may be found on the east coast, which at this moment I think is a better probability than the discoveries which the hon. member has mentioned. I hope we’re both right.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, but surely --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary?

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t think the member is going to get that pipeline up there.

Mr. Foulds: That’s because the member for Sarnia’s federal guys and those provincial guys chickened out!

EXTENSION OF NORONTAIR SERVICE

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications in regard to the Throne Speech announcing norOntair in northwestern Ontario. Is the minister in a position to tell us today those four communities that will be served by this system and when the minister expects this system will come into being?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, the four communities that were referred to are the communities of Fort Frances, Dryden, Thunder Bay and Red Lake. Those are the four communities. I can’t give the member a definite time when this particular service will start. It is being looked at very seriously in the ministry at the present time.

Mr. Reid: Spring? Summer? Fall?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can’t give the member a definite time. I would hate to do that because I know he’ll come back at me very quickly.

Mr. Reid: This year?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If I may steal a phrase from my colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), “in the fullness of time.”

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): That was not very original.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It goes back before that time.

ASSISTANCE TO EMERGING SERVICES

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Based on the six recommendations made by David Cole of the ministry, and apparently concurred in by the Attorney General when he held the social policy ministry, has the government now decided how it intends to fund the emerging services which are in such financial straits, not only here in Toronto but in other parts of the province?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, is the member referring to information centres? I missed part of his question. Which services is he --

Mr. Cassidy: Boy! Is the minister ever in touch!

Mr. Martel: I’m referring to the six recommendations made by David Cole of this ministry to assist the emerging services, primarily the LIP groups, which have developed into emergency services. Mr. Cole of the ministry has made six recommendations. Is the government now in a position to indicate how it intends to financially assist these groups, which include the information services, but also co-ops and so on?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, we are funding many organizations which meet our criteria, and as the hon. member probably knows there will be a meeting with the various Metro groups with reference to various requested assets. This meeting will be held soon. We are presently funding several of these organizations.

Mr. Renwick: Why doesn’t the minister take it as notice and find out?

Mr. Martel: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the minister is subsidizing to the tune of only $85,000, and that all of the agencies involved are Metro agencies, and in view of the fact he is meeting on Friday afternoon, doesn’t he think the government should be in a position at this time to indicate to the House how it intends to assist these groups?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, again, as the hon. member mentioned, we are meeting this group soon and we will be indicating to them what assistance will be provided.

Mr. Martel: Doesn’t the minister think the House should know?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes.

Mr. Deans: Doesn’t he think we should know?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North.

REPORT ON CONESTOGA COLLEGE

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Could the minister inform the House what action is being taken regarding the recommendations in Dr. Porter’s report on the administrative problems at Conestoga College?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I will attempt to do so in a day or two. I haven’t read the report yet, but I will find out what is going on.

Mr. Roy: Not yet? He has been minister for two weeks now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

COST OF ADVERTISING DENTURE PROGRAMME

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health: With reference to all this fancy advertising I see in the newspapers regarding the low-cost denture programme, could he tell the House the total cost of this programme? And secondly, how does he justify spending public funds to promote private business?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The hon. member for Ottawa East asked that earlier this week.

Mr. Roy: I asked him that last week, but he didn’t have a very good answer for me.

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): He didn’t ask me that last week, I’m quite sure of that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Let the minister see if he can improve on the answer.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes; the total cost of the programme, I am told, was $30,000. The justification for the programme would be that of almost any governmental programme of information. A programme of providing low-cost dentures was made available and it was necessary to let the people know about that programme and its availability in their immediate area.

Mr. Martel: It is called back scratching.

Mr. Roy: I am glad he didn’t say, “in the fullness of time.”

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing has the answer to a question --

Mr. Germa: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think the member who asked the question is entitled to one supplementary.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the minister would justify including the names and addresses of dentists as being public information or governmental information?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Dentists serve the public, don’t they?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Interestingly enough, a number of municipalities, and particularly the welfare groups in them and people in the communities, had clamoured for a listing of the names of the dentists who were available to provide the service and who had volunteered to do so.

Mr. Roy: Why didn’t the dentists do it?

An hon. member: There were only two.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think the average is a little better than that. I think probably one out of five licensed dentists in the Province of Ontario are participating. There were about 600 names.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: There was a supplementary; the hon. member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Braithwaite: Will the minister state whether his department condones the placing of advertisements by private dentists, advertising the fact they have these technicians?

And in the light of the same advertisements placed by these dentists, does the $30,000 to which the minister referred include the cost of these advertisements or have the dentists paid for these themselves?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I’m not specifically aware of the privately-placed advertisements. I understand that advertising by dentists as such is governed by the regulations written by the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario and that they would have to operate under the constraints of those regulations.

Mr. Braithwaite: A further supplementary: in view of the fact that this matter has already been brought to the attention of the minister’s predecessor in the House, and since there have been individual dentists who have been putting these sort of advertisements in local papers, would the minister look into this matter and report back to this House as to what steps his ministry is taking?

Secondly, I don’t think I got an answer as to whether or not these ads have been paid for by the government out of the $30,000 to which the minister referred.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think the hon. member and I would need to look at specific advertisements to decide what he was talking about. Certainly we paid for no advertisements other than the ones the member for Sudbury has just shown us.

Mr. Roy: A full-page ad.

Hon. Mr. Miller: As I understand, there were some advertisements placed by the Ontario Dental Association, which did not name specific dentists but, in the main, gave the fact that low-cost denture service was available, and I believe a number to which a person could call for information. It is also my understanding that these advertisements were paid for by the association rather than by individual dentists in that group.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing.

OHC BUDGET

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Scarborough West asked yesterday: In the light of the vigorous housing efforts planned, why have the budget estimates of OHC dropped by $20 million, according to the most recent issue -- Jan. 31, 1974, table 5 -- of Ontario finances? They are down from $69 million to $49 million.

I’m now in a position to advise the hon. member that the ministry informed the Treasurer, for his quarterly report, that in the last quarter of the year we were going to underspend our mortgage requirements by $20 million.

Mr. Deans: Why?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The reason for this is that in the previous fiscal year OHC stopped lending money on high-rise condominiums since there were adequate private funds flowing into that area of the housing market and the supply of such housing at that time was sufficient. This decision resulted in lower commitments of funds and hence lower cash flows for 1973-1974. It has no bearing on our budget for 1974-1975.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Is the minister telling the House then that there wasn’t sufficient imagination within the Ontario Housing Corp., or within the Ministry of Housing, to find an alternative use for the $20 million, given the housing crisis in Ontario? Are they that bankrupt as a department?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that there was a change in the cash flow and the mortgaging requirements of OHC.

Mr. Singer: Oh nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: The money was dormant; like everything else in housing.

Mr. Deans: I think to say there were not sufficient people looking for mortgages --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Deans: I did say that. I’m sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Well there was so much noise I didn’t hear the hon. member. If that was a supplementary I’ll permit it.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister saying that there were not sufficient numbers of people looking for mortgages that that $20 million couldn’t have been utilized?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it is not a function of OHC to supplement the mortgage market in this province.

Mr. Lewis: Of course it is. That is what the money was there for.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The hon. members would have been the first to complain if we had diverted mortgage money from one area to another without the authority.

Mr. Lewis: No we would not.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Of course they would.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order: We would not have complained had the minister diverted that mortgage money from condominiums into low- or middle-income housing, not at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Why didn’t he?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. Singer: Terrible bankruptcy of imagination.

U.S.-CANADA FREIGHT SURCHARGE

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware that two weeks ago the United States interstate commerce commission imposed a six per cent surcharge tax on freight, which is being applied the entire distance from the American port of origin to the Canadian destination,

whereas a surcharge should only apply as far as a Canadian point of entry?

Mr. Roy: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is an excellent question. Mr. Speaker, no, I was not aware that this was so and I would appreciate if the hon. member can make the information available to me. I will certainly look into that situation.

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

COMMUNICATIONS-6 INC.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Downsview asked me a question last week. He wanted me to explain: “the basis on which payments in the amount of $59,578 were made to a firm of consultants and writers on public relations to manage the information and public relations programme for the historical parks in that year.” He also wanted to know who they were, who found them and on whose authority this expenditure was made.

He asked further, by way of supplementary: “Could the minister shed a little light on who Communications-6 Inc. really is?”

My reply is that in the formation of the new government ministries on April 1, 1972, the direction of the Huronia historical parks of the former Department of Tourism and Information was assigned to the new Ministry of Natural Resources. Prior to this transfer, the Department of Tourism and Information had established in 1968 a committee of senior officials, including the deputy minister of that department, to select a firm to develop a public relations and publications programme for Huronia historical parks. This committee requested several public relations firms to submit formal presentations, and following an analysis of these presentations the firm of Communications-6 Inc. was selected.

On the basis of satisfactory past performance, the details of the annual public relations programme were established each year by the director of the historical sites branch and transmitted to the consultants.

A similar arrangement was negotiated and confirmed in May, 1973, for the 1973-1974 fiscal year, with the same firm based on their performance in 1972. On the basis of this arrangement my ministry approved the accounts for payment. Subsequently, in accordance with normal ministry policy, the director of our historical sites branch, whose duties include the management of the Huronia historical parks, was informed that in future proposals must be invited from several public relations firms and Management Board approval obtained for the award of that contract.

In this connection I might add, and also inform the members, that some two weeks ago we invited proposals from 16 firms for the forthcoming season.

The firm of Communications-6 Inc. has its head office in Montreal with a major office in Toronto and affiliations in Ottawa, New York, London, Paris and Brussels. The president is Mr. C. R. Haworth and we were advised by Mr. Haworth that the firm was incorporated in December, 1963.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Colleges and Universities has the answer to a previous question.

Mr. Foulds: Has he been here before?

REPORT ON CONESTAGA COLLEGE

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have checked my files and I have the answer to a question which the hon. member asked a moment ago.

I understand that in November the board of governors approached my predecessor to ask him to institute a study of all aspects of the operation of the college. My predecessor appointed Dr. Arthur Porter of the University of Toronto. He submitted his report on Feb. 10 and the college board is dealing with it.

Mr. Good: A supplementary then, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister authorized the investigation into the administration of the college, is the ministry not inserting itself into the matter any further in view of the difference of opinion, in the published report, between the faculty and the administrative staff at the college?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the minister simply appointed a person to look into the situation at the request of the college board and the college board, as part of its responsibility, has taken the report and is going to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the hon. Minister of Housing has the answer to another question.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question asked by the member for Wentworth yesterday. However, the hon. member has kindly informed me that he has additional information which I suggested he supply, so perhaps I could defer the answer to his question until I’ve received that information.

Mr. Roy: Good idea; sit down.

Mr. Speaker: I believe it is the New Democratic Party’s turn. The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

PENSIONS FOR PERMANENTLY DISABLED WORKMEN

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier --

Mr. Martel: If the member can get his attention.

Mr. Burr: -- regarding pensions for permanently disabled workmen. Is there any other pension, federal or provincial, that has not been escalated, within let us say the last 10 years?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will have to get that information for the hon. member. I don’t know, but I shall endeavour to find out.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Is there anything about injured workmen that makes them impervious to the effects of inflation, and did the remarks in the Throne Speech indicate that some help was on its way to these people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to answer the first part of the question, there is nothing that I know of that makes injured workmen or any other group in this society impervious to the effects of inflation.

As far as the second part of the question is concerned, quite obviously matters of government policy will be announced here in the House at the appropriate time.

Mr. Martel: Oh, the Premier just wags his finger at Ottawa all the time and says what they are not doing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We wouldn’t do that.

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

VETERANS’ LAND ACT

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): A member of cabinet.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the member ask him when he is in cabinet meetings?

Mr. Roy: Is the member dissatisfied with him too?

Mr. Kennedy: In view of the housing needs here and the impending closedown of the Veterans’ Land Act on March 31, I was wondering if the minister would communicate with the federal Minister of Veterans’ Affairs to determine if this is under reconsideration and if indeed a continuation is warranted?

Mr. Lewis: It depends on the federal Tories.

Mr. Bullbrook: Very good question.

Mr. Singer: Twenty million dollars the government didn’t use would have financed a lot of houses.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the Veterans’ Land Act have in fact --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): That Act is as old as this government.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Not quite.

Mr. Kennedy: It’s been a very successful Act.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It has been a very successful Act.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there has been a very successful programme under the Veterans’ Land Act.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why doesn’t the minister take this question as notice? Take it as notice.

Mr. Lewis: He can’t reply to this kind of question without advance information. He’d best take it as notice.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t need it. I will be meeting with the hon. Mr. Basford in a couple of weeks. I understand it is due to expire within that period; however, I will be discussing it with him. I think it is a sound suggestion, if that interest rate can be maintained under present-day conditions.

Mr. Singer: He isn’t the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is the member satisfied with that answer?

Mr. Speaker: There were about five members of the Liberal Party, and I am certain I don’t know who was first.

Mr. Bullbrook: The fellow he is meeting has nothing to do with veterans’ affairs. Is the member satisfied with that?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There are at least four members before the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon). The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, I think.

SALES TAX ON SPORTS EQUIPMENT

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Revenue, if I can get his attention. As he is walking back to his seat, I would like to go on with the question --

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Me?

Mr. Roy: Yes.

Mr. B. Newman: He is the minister.

Mr. Roy: Yes, he is the fellow.

Mr. Good: He’s not quite sure yet.

Mr. Martel: It was so long in coming.

Mr. B. Newman: In the interest of promoting fitness and encouraging greater participation in amateur sport, is the minister considering eliminating the sales tax on sports equipment that is purchased by organized amateur sports organizations, especially those recognized by the Ministry of Community and Social Services?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, my Ministry of Revenue administers the laws as established by this Legislature, and particularly as recommended by the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. I don’t think it would be fair to say that I was considering that.

I suppose it is fair to say that since the Retail Sales Tax Act does come under my ministry we have occasion to review matters such as this, but the final decision is not one that is in my hands alone.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s right.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary? Yes.

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the minister if he is considering issuing exemption certificates to amateur sports organizations in the same way that exemption certificates are issued to school boards so they may purchase athletic equipment and not pay the sales tax?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter I have been looking at, but it offers a considerable number of problems and I am not at this time prepared to say I would issue such a certificate.

Mr. Singer: It is under review, as the front bench says. Everything is under review.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 401 NEAR WINDSOR

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Martel: That is the minister.

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, where is the

schedule for reconstruction of the right-hand lane of Highway 401 proceeding westward to Windsor, from about 10 to 15 miles out, which for the last five to seven years has been reminiscent of the old corduroy roads in northern Ontario? It was supposed to be started and completed this spring and summer --

Mr. Foulds: There are new corduroy roads in northern Ontario.

Mr. Martel: He forgot all about those roads. Some of his best speeches in the House have been about roads.

Mr. Stokes: What about the new corduroy roads in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to answer the hon. member’s question if I could have heard him behind the noise made by his colleagues. I think he referred to Highway 401, but if they would quieten down for him I would be pleased to hear it again.

Mr. Martel: No one said a word.

Mr. Bounsall: It is about a portion of 10 to 15 miles out of Windsor, heading west, the right hand lane, which has been reminiscent of the northern corduroy roads for the last five to seven years.

Mr. Ruston: All the rates are up.

Mr. Bounsall: When will the construction start, and will it be commenced and finished this summer?

Mr. Ruston: The contract’s been let.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I can’t give the member a direct answer at this time. I will be pleased to provide the information as to when it can be done.

Mr. Roy: Try an indirect answer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I appreciate that the member recognizes that there is a need for highways in the north, though.

Mr. Ruston: The roads will be completed by September.

Mr. Martel: The minister should have told the northwestern Ontario Chamber of Commerce that.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. member for St. George had a question?

ASSESSMENT NOTICES

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Revenue.

Would he clarify for this House the policy which appears to have been arrived at whereby no assessment notices are to be extended this year to the people of Ontario, save and except for new construction and special circumstances, thus denying a large proportion of people the right of appeal?

Hon. Mr. Mean: Mr. Speaker, I have no information on that at the moment. I will get it for the hon. member.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the minister would also look into the situation in the matter of a condominium project in the riding of St. George, namely 40 Homewood, where there has been an appeal successfully made by those who did take title in the fall of 1972, but no further appeal has been heard, although it has been launched by the commissioner as of June, 1973; meanwhile those who were not included in that appeal are faced with an old assessment and no right to appeal at this time?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I will look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

HICKLING-JOHNSTON REPORT ON MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister willing to make public the report prepared for and about his department by the firm of Hickling-Johnston?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I must say that question from the member came as something of a surprise.

Mr. Ruston: One a day!

Mr. Germa: Just answer.

Mr. Ruston: An apple a day keeps the doctor away; the minister should try it.

Hon. Mr. Miller: If it would cut my OHIP premiums, I would do that. I really would have to learn more about that report because quite honestly at this point I don’t know much about the contents of it.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister familiarize himself with what is occurring in the ministry and report back to us on whether he is willing to make that report public or table it?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I may have misinterpreted the member’s question. Does he mean would I familiarize myself with what is happening in the ministry or with what the report says is happening within the ministry?

Mr. Stokes: Why not both?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would be pleased to do so. I am doing my best to do the former and I will be pleased to do the latter.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member for Kitchener is next.

EXPENDITURE BY CHAIRMAN OF ONTARIO COUNCIL OF REGENTS

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Has the minister ordered a review of the apparent expenditure by the chairman of the Ontario Council of Regents for the colleges of applied arts and technology, and his expenditures for a hospitality suite during the meetings of the regents as referred to in the auditor’s report? Will the minister provide us with the details of the expenses of that operation and the persons who received the hospitality?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have made inquiries about this. I am informed that the chairman of the Council of Regents lives in Markham. When the council has its bi-monthly meetings they last for about two days. He has premises in the hotel where the meeting takes place, not primarily for his own convenience but for meetings with members of the board -- individual meetings and that sort of thing rather than the general meeting. I am informed that, in fact, it is probably less costly to have him staying in the hotel than it is to have him going back and forth to Markham by taxi. I can get the detailed rundown if the hon. member would like it.

Mr. Martel: Let him try using a car like the rest of us.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I haven’t read the detailed

part in the auditor’s report myself but I assume that the details are there. If they aren’t, I’ll get further information for him.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

AGE OF CONSENT FOR ABORTIONS

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Health.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: What are the minister’s reasons, metaphysical, biological or otherwise, for reducing the age at which abortions may be obtained without parental consent to 16?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the member has misinterpreted the regulation in the same way as the press has.

Mr. Roy: Straighten us out.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The Province of Ontario by itself does not set the conditions under which an abortion may be performed. This is done by federal statute. The change in regulations which was made by the Province of Ontario, and given some press publicity last week, dealt with the age at which consent could be given for any surgical operation performed within a hospital, and of course abortion is a surgical operation.

It was not aimed at abortions per se. It was to cover a group of people who, for one reason or other, either had not official guardians or parents who could sign for them or who, unfortunately in this mobile modern society, did not relate to their parents and so were not in contact with them. A number of these people were coming into hospitals in need of all kinds of surgical procedures and legally there was no way of providing them. Some of them were falsifying names and ages and leaving the hospitals in very delicate legal conditions if they served them.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary: Would the hon. minister consider excluding this particular category of surgical operation from the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I certainly will listen to any suggestions that are given at this point in time. I wouldn’t want to say that we could necessarily start making exclusions of one type or another, because I think --

Mr. Reid: Abortion is not one type or another.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- exclusions can be very dangerous.

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

Mr. Roy: I defer to my friend, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

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

POINT PELEE NATIONAL PARK

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Has he or his policy group made a decision as yet as to whether the 1974 licences for sand-sucking operations off Pt. Pelee National Park are going to be issued or not?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the hon. member that that decision has been reached.

Mr. Paterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister says the decision has been reached?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It has been reached.

Mr. Paterson: And what is that decision?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That decision? The decision was that the two licences would not be reissued.

USE OF RESOURCES IN ARMSTRONG AREA

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the social and economic problems experienced by the people of Armstrong, and in light of the fact there are several hundred thousand cords of good merchantable timber in the area, will the minister undertake to insist that the prime licence-holder utilize that timber for a saw-log operation for the benefit of the people in the community of Armstrong, or turn those timber stands over to somebody else who is prepared to use them to look after the social and economic needs of that town?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can relate to the hon. member for Thunder Bay that this government is very concerned with the future and the people of the Armstrong area because of certain actions of the federal government.

With regard to the resources in that particular area, I would point out to him that they have been allocated to the St. Lawrence Corp. for processing in the Red Rock area. I have been in verbal discussion with the company. They are to present to me a proposal which will fully utilize all those resources. But they did point out to me in their discussion that if there were going to be a continuous operation at Red Rock and if the viability of that particular mill were to be maintained, it may well be that the resources in the Armstrong area would have to be directed to the Red Rock mill.

That was only in a verbal discussion and we are waiting for something from them in a more formal way at the present time.

Of course, we have in our hand a proposal from a gentleman by the name of Buchanan, I believe, who is most interested in establishing an operation in the Armstrong area; and we are certainly considering that aspect too.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: We have already exceeded the question period by about three minutes.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the members of the Legislature a copy of a report of the advisory committee on the revision of the Mining Act.

The members will recall that this committee was established approximately two years ago under the chairmanship of the present Minister of Transportation and Communications, my former parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Rhodes).

In the course of carrying out its responsibilities, the committee examined comparable legislation and situations in several other jurisdictions. Their aim was to ensure that Ontario continued to be the leader in respect to mining legislation.

I am indeed grateful to the members of the committee for the very thorough study that they have carried out. I have had a brief opportunity to peruse the report and more particularly the recommendations. In my own opinion, there is a great deal of merit in many of the recommendations. I feel sure there will be revisions to our legislation which will result from the discussions that will flow from the study of this report.

At the same time, I want to make clear that the government has rejected recommendation No. 51 which proposes mining in provincial parks.

Consistent with tabling this report in the Legislature, it is my intention to make copies available to the executive of such organizations as the prospectors and developers, the Ontario Mining Association and the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. The views of these organizations, along with the recommendations of individuals, other organizations, as well as the views and comments of the individual members of this House, will be of great benefit to me and my staff.

It is proposed that all such views and recommendations be submitted prior to the end of June. This will allow the summer and the early fall to distill the recommendations in the report and the reactions to the recommendations through the course of the summer, in the interest of developing the appropriate revisions to the legislation for the fall sitting of this Legislature.

Once more, I would like to express my appreciation to my colleague who chaired the committee -- he did an excellent job -- and to the individual members of the committee, and to all those who have or will have or will be assisting us in any way in the development of this legislation.

Mr. Carruthers from the select committee appointed to prepare the lists of members to compose the standing committees of the House, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows:

“Your Committee recommends that the lists of standing committees ordered by the House be composed of the following members:

“1. PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS: Messrs. Bales, Bounsall, Burr, Carton, Dymond, Edighoffer, Ewen, Henderson, Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton), Johnston, McNie, Morrow, Smith (Hamilton Mountain), Smith (Nipissing), Spence, Timbrell, Turner -- 17.

“2. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: Messrs. Bullbrook, Carruthers, Davison, Downer, Drea, Givens, Havrot, Lane, Lawlor, Lawrence, MacBeth, Nixon (Dovercourt), Renwick, Ruston, Singer, Taylor, Walker, Wardle, Yaremko -- 19.

“3. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT: Messrs. Apps, Belanger, Campbell (Mrs.), Deacon, Dukszta, Eaton, Foulds, Hamilton, Irvine, Jessiman, Leluk, Martel, Morningstar, Newman (Windsor-Walkerville), Parrott, Reilly, Roy, Scrivener (Mrs.), Villeneuve -- 19.

“4. RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT: Messrs. Allan, Beckett, Evans, Gaunt, Gilbertson, Good, Laughren, MacDonald, Maeck, McIlveen, McNeil, Nuttall, Paterson, Rollins, Root, Sargent, Stokes, Wiseman, Yakabuski -- 19.

“5. MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES: Messrs. Cassidy, Drea, Evans, Gisborn, Haggerty, Hamilton, Jessiman, Leluk, Nixon (Dovercourt), Nuttall, Parrott, Riddell, Root, Scrivener (Mrs.), Stokes, Villeneuve, Wardle, Worton -- 18.

“6. PUBLIC ACCOUNTS: Messrs. Allan, Dymond, Ferrier, Germa, Lane, MacBeth, McIlveen, Reid, Ruston, Taylor, Wiseman, Yakabuski -- 12.

“7. REGULATIONS: Messrs. Belanger, Braithwaite, Deans, Havrot, Johnston, Maeck, Morningstar, Morrow, Paterson, Reilly, Turner, Young -- 12.

“The quorum of committees 1 to 5 and of the private bills committee to be seven in each case. The quorum of committees 6 and 7 to be five in each case.”

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to request of the government that they consider permitting substitution of individuals to all committees prior to the sitting of the committee. The estimates committee now makes provision so that before the estimates are being discussed --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I must point out to the hon. member that the matter of substitutions was dealt with previously. The motion today does not deal with substitutions on these particular committees. That motion has been before the House previously.

Mr. Lawlor: But the opposition was ignored.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, if I may, sir, the matter of substitutions was a matter of discussion within the committee this morning, and a decision was reached in the committee that the chairman would make representation to the House leader of the government party to allow limited substitution on all committees. I think that’s probably what the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville was talking about. If not contained in the report of the committee, it was certainly a decision of the committee that the chairman would speak with the House leader of the government and ask on behalf of the committee that some limited substitution be permitted.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, following the discussion in the House the other day, I think I intimated to the hon. members that I certainly had an open mind on the matter. When the chairman approaches me we will discuss the matter and I will report back to the House.

Mr. Renwick: Is it just a matter for discussion?

Report adopted.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

YORK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION TEACHERS’ DISPUTE ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting a Certain Dispute between the York County Board of Education and Certain of its Teachers.

Some hon. members: No!

Some hon. members: Explain!

Mr. Lewis: No. Surely we can have an explanation.

Mr. Speaker: We will defer the --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The minister was not in for the order of business entitled government ministerial statements. Certainly it would be quite in order to revert, surely, if the minister would have a statement to make before we are asked to vote on the bill.

Mr. Speaker: If the House is agreeable I see no reason we should not revert and that the minister should make a statement at this point.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce legislation today to bring to an end the long dispute and disruption of educational programmes in the secondary schools of the York county Board of Education.

Negotiations relating to the 1973-1974 contract began with York county board and its secondary school teachers in April, 1973, which is more than 10 months ago. Free collective bargaining has proceeded through this extended period, assisted in the latter stages by the services of a mediator from the Ministry of Labour. The past 5½ weeks have been marked by a withdrawal of services by a majority of York county secondary school teachers. Unfortunately, because of this situation, the secondary school students of York county have been severely disadvantaged due to their lack of access to a full educational programme.

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that about 667 York county secondary school teachers took

part in a mass resignation last November. These resignations were to have taken effect on Dec. 31 but as part of an arrangement that affected teachers in several areas of the province, it was agreed to defer them until Jan. 31, 1974, in order to allow further bargaining to continue.

Bargaining, supported by mediation, did indeed continue, but as the Jan. 31 deadline approached it became apparent that a settlement was not going to be achieved at that time. Mr. Terry Mancini, the Ministry of Labour mediator who had been working with the York county board and its teachers since early January, wrote a report and recommendation on the situation on Jan. 30. In it he said, and I quote:

“The writer feels that a settlement could have been achieved if the matter of pupil-teacher ratio issue could be resolved. However, both parties remain adamant and refuse to settle this issue. It is my opinion that a closing of the schools by either party is not in the best interests of all concerned and strongly recommend that the parties submit this dispute to voluntary arbitration.”

As Minister of Education I put the proposal for voluntary arbitration to both parties at that time and strongly recommended that this course be followed in order to keep York county secondary schools open and operating normally. Unfortunately, the parties could not agree on the terms of arbitration and the result was that the 667 teachers withdrew their services.

Mr. Speaker, with settlements having been achieved in all other parts of the province where mass resignations had been submitted, it seemed clear to me that the best solution to the York county situation was to encourage both parties to negotiate their way out of the dispute and to reach an agreement between themselves with the participation of Mr. Mancini, who continued to provide skilled assistance in keeping negotiations moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I personally spent many hours dealing with both parties in a concerted effort to achieve a negotiated settlement. However, five more weeks passed without significant progress, with the schools in the meantime able to provide only minimal progress at best to their students.

Last Friday, negotiations between the board and the teachers clearly reached a state of impasse, with neither party willing to adjust its position in a way that would lead to further meaningful discussions. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, late Friday evening I again presented privately to the negotiating teams of both the teachers and the board a proposal that they proceed voluntarily to refer the items remaining in dispute to a board of arbitration.

Later that evening the chief negotiator of the board, Mr. Honsberger, indicated the board’s willingness to accept my proposal and he signed a document to affirm this. The teachers’ negotiating team advised me on Saturday that it was unwilling to accept the proposal for voluntary arbitration.

At this 11th hour, Mr. Speaker, with voluntary arbitration obviously the most favourable option open to both parties, I called a further meeting of teacher and board representatives on Sunday morning. At this time I formally presented my proposal for voluntary arbitration, the proposal which I tabled in this House yesterday. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the chief negotiator for the board signed to affirm his acceptance and the teachers’ negotiating team refused. I asked the teachers to take another day to consider the proposal further, but last night they remained unchanged in their position.

Mr. Speaker, in all good conscience this government cannot allow this situation to continue, primarily because of the fact that students are caught in the middle of a situation over which they have no control and it is they who are suffering the consequences most severely. We have absolutely no alternative but to bring this stalemate to a conclusion.

This we are doing today with the introduction of legislation designed to settle all matters remaining in dispute between the board and its secondary school teachers. In considering this legislation and the solution it proposes, responsible persons would do well to remember very clearly the effects of these past 5½ weeks on the secondary students of York county. They have been deprived of about 10 per cent of their school year. Some York county students may miss out on scholarships because of the dispute, and others may find their post-secondary education plans changed also because of it. Some students are reported to have dropped out of school.

Mr. Speaker, the objective of the legislation is simply to return York county secondary schools to normal operation again. Being realistic, I imagine that it will be variously interpreted as being anti-teacher or anti-board. It is neither. It is pro-student. Students and their parents have the right to an education, and they have been deprived of that right for too long.

The legislation which we hope will correct the situation has two main features. It calls for teachers to return to school immediately and for the board of education to resume their employment. It requires that all items remaining in dispute be referred to a three-person board of arbitration for settlement. Each party will select one member of the board of arbitration, and these two persons will jointly select a third person to act as chairman. If they cannot agree, I, as Minister of Education, will appoint an independent and objective person as chairman.

Procedures laid down for the board of arbitration will ensure fairness in judging the merits of the arguments put forward by both the teachers and the board of education.

Both parties will be called upon to write up their own lists of items they consider to be in dispute, and the board of arbitration will be required to look at all items on both lists and give each party ample opportunity to state its case on each item.

These aspects of the terms of reference of the board of arbitration deserve special mention. First, the board must consider pupil-teacher ratio as an arbitrable item. Second, the board of education’s latest salary offer must be considered as a floor by the board of arbitration; and in fact it is implemented by this legislation, effective September, 1973.

As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this legislation is on balance equally fair to both the York county Board of Education and its secondary school teachers. We are proceeding today because we feel that such legislation is in the public interest, and particularly the interests of the students of York county.

Further, Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that both parties in York county will make one final effort to reach an agreement through further negotiations. I stand ready to withdraw this bill at a moment’s notice if an agreement were reached and ratified by both parties, and communicated to me while we are debating this bill in this Legislature. But I would say, Mr. Speaker, we cannot in good faith wait any longer.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, will you permit a question of clarification? Is the minister in his statement making it clear to the arbitrator that the pupil-teacher ratio is itself arbitrable, and not whether or not it should be an arbitrable item; if the minister gets the significance of that?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, he is saying that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In other words, government policy is being imposed in that regard and it reverses the trustees’ position.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, that is the intention of the government in this bill. The

section says pupil-teacher ratio is arbitrable and shall be deemed to be included as a matter in dispute; and the notice is referred to in

section 1.

Mr. Lewis: May I also ask a point of clarification? Are there any penalty provisions in the bill, as the minister has laid it out, if teachers do not return; or is there a reference to the acceptance of resignations if they do not return?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The

section says where, on the application of the board or a teacher, a judge of the Supreme Court is satisfied that the board or any teachers failed to comply with

section 2, he may make an order requiring, as the case may be, the board to employ the teacher who has attempted to comply with

section 2 or the teacher who has failed to comply with

section 2 to resume his employment with the board, in accordance with this contract of employment in effect on Jan. 30, 1974.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, will the minister make it clear whether or not his ceilings apply to the arbitrators in this particular piece of legislation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this legislation that refers to ceilings.

Mr. Lewis: Ceilings are not the problem anyway.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is exactly as the suggestion made for voluntary arbitration that we talked about here last December. The arbitrator will consider the issues in dispute on their merits and bring down an award.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion for first reading of this bill carry?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of first reading of the bill will please say “aye”.

Those opposed will please say “nay”.

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Any further bills?

Orders of the day.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Mr. Speaker, my first remarks in this debate on the Speech from the Throne are a tribute to you as the Speaker of this Legislature. The office of the Speaker is one of honour, dignity, tradition and of the greatest importance in the conduct of our parliamentary system of government. You have carried with distinction, good humour and fairness this heavy responsibility, and you are held in high regard, I am sure, by all members of this House.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of important matters raised in the Speech from the Throne and hopefully each will be dealt with during the present session. However, before speaking on some of these matters I should like to make a few comments on previous suggestions I have made in the Throne Speech debate during the last session and also in the budget debate at that time.

One of the suggestions that I made in the Throne Speech debate a year ago was the necessity of stopping immediately the sale of recreational land in Ontario to people who are not Canadian citizens. We know that already large amounts of recreational land in Ontario have been bought up by Americans and people from overseas. This has had the effect of forcing up prices and, I am sure, putting out of reach of the average Canadian the purchase of land in these recreational areas. This would mean of course that the title to recreational lands now held by Americans and others would still be valid but future sales of new land or lands already held would be permitted only to Canadian citizens.

Mr. Speaker, in the budget debate in the last session I spoke of the need for assistance to small business. It seems to me that more and more the business of this province is going into the hands of big business enterprises. This trend is alarming indeed for the small merchant and the small businessman of this province. These people are faced with increased taxes, increased rent on their premises, increased wages, increased costs of raw materials and general increases in the cost of doing business. They often lack the cash resources required today.

Income and corporation taxes take a large slice of any profits they may realize, which certainly does not leave enough money for expansion. It seems many of them are merely holding their own and many are fighting a losing battle against the large shopping plazas which surround suburban areas of many of the cities and towns in Ontario.

There are several ways that the government could help these people: first, by relieving them of some of the tax burden; second, by providing low-cost loans for rehabilitation of stores and business premises; third, by granting them remuneration for the cost of collecting provincial sales taxes, and fourth, by offering expert advice when required.

I suggested before, and I suggest again, that the government should set up what I would call an advisory council of independent businessmen who would act as a liaison between government and small business.

Mr. Speaker, and fellow members, I intend in this debate to present the record of the government and to state the advantages and benefits which are contained in the number of challenging proposals, programmes and policies of the Throne Speech.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That would try even the member’s imagination.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): He shouldn’t embarrass himself.

Mr. Wardle: I want to speak at some length about the imaginative and innovative proposals contained in the Throne Speech related to housing, consumer protection, correctional services --

Mr. Cassidy: Oh, come on, we don’t believe it.

Mr. Wardle: -- programmes for small businesses, and new developments for daycare centres.

Mr. Cassidy: I must have been in some other chamber the day of the speech.

Mr. Wardle: But before I proceed to launch into specifics of these public policy issues, there is an urgent need to consider, on a broader perspective and a wider scale, the purposes and goals of these programmes and policies contained in the Throne Speech.

What underlies the proposals and policies of the Throne Speech? It is a philosophy of concern for the individual citizen in Ontario. The government believes that policies must always be designed to assist and encourage the individual to function effectively and creatively in a free society; to develop the skills necessary for him or her to reach his or her full potential; to encourage a climate of individual initiative and independence free of increasing regulation and regimentation from a variety of social and economic institutions, and yet provide a sufficient number of buffer zones and mechanisms for people to act freely from discrimination and suppression.

Mr. Cassidy: The member is reading it very effectively. It must have been written by a Harvard speech writer.

Mr. Wardle: It is the underlying philosophy of the government to continue to emphasize these principles and to see to it that these principles constitute the thrust of implementation in the programmes and policies of this Throne Speech.

It is also important to remind hon. members that the government is consciously aware of the principles of balance which needs to be continually maintained between the affairs and activities of the private sector and the public sector. Unhealthy, dangerous and unwise would be the most descriptive terms to define the state of man’s affairs when government tends to encroach continuously on the private actions of citizens and groups.

As Progressive Conservatives, our philosophy is suitably attuned to understand and appreciate the sensitivities of all Ontario citizens --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The government intervenes much too much these days.

Mr. Wardle: -- in not wanting to realize a trend of growing government involvement and participation in our economy and society that lacks coherent direction, meets specific objectives and responds to well-defined needs of our citizenry.

What we, as Progressive Conservatives, attach considerable importance to is the role of the individual --

Mr. Lawlor: The member is one of the last true Progressive Conservatives.

Mr. Wardle: -- in a complex urban and industrial world, in helping and assisting him or her not just to cope with massive change, but to function freely, effectively and creatively.

I Mr. Speaker, now to the government’s programmes and policies. First, housing.

As I have mentioned previously, the government’s concern for the role of the individual in Ontario’s society is based on assisting and encouraging him or her to make a significant contribution to the individual’s development and to society.

With this basic objective in mind, the government has undertaken several new initiatives to meet the housing problem. One of these major initiatives announced recently by the government was the Ontario Home Renewal Programme. The major purpose of this new programme is to assist residents in municipalities in retaining and updating existing housing stock where the federal Neighbourhood Improvement Programme and the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme do not apply as defined by Central Mortgage and Housing Corp.

The form of this provincial assistance will be in the form of municipal grants; low-interest loans amounting to approximately $10 million. The funds will be divided on a per capita basis of $4 for municipalities of 5,000 population or less; $3 per capita for cities between 5,000 and 100,000; and $2 per capita to cities of more than 100,000.

The other significant feature of this programme is that there is no maximum or minimum on the grants and loans, thus permitting the municipalities to have as much flexibility built into the programme as is possible.

Administration is to be central at the regional and local levels. It is but one more example of the government’s strong and sincere effort to decentralize the operation of a provincial programme and attests to our endeavours to make municipal government vital and decisive -- despite rather unfounded claims of current critics.

I know what the Ontario task force on housing recommended. I also know that the government has a number of policy options in the housing field under consideration and review. I would trust that among these options to minimize the housing problems are the possibilities of providing loan assistance to families for purchasing land on which mobile homes could be placed -- that is in certain sections of Ontario. I realize that high land costs and very restrictive zoning regulations presently prohibit mobile homes from being considered as a viable housing alternative.

Another innovative measure that could be considered at least in parts of Ontario would be to study the possibility of using shell housing as an answer to the critical housing shortage. Recent reports indicate that the shell housing concept has met with some reasonable success in Atlantic Canada. I realize that some substantial modification of the concept would be required to be useful in large urban markets, particularly in light of the fact that low land costs and a high handyman’s tradition have combined to assist in making this type of housing useful in Atlantic Canada.

I would like also to congratulate the government for implementing the proposal for the new Ministry of Housing. In its very short existence, the housing ministry has already proved its real worth in the new and exciting programmes which it has undertaken.

Certainly, we on this side of the House understand the very vital role of the private sector in implementing new housing programmes, in its expertise in providing a wide range of choices for consumers.

We should not dictate to the private sector in order to meet the housing problem, but instead use a co-operative approach and partnership basis to meet housing needs. Confrontation and dictation to the housing industry are not the most satisfactory method of resolving the problem, whether it is getting the private sector to build more condominiums or involvement in the rent supplement programme.

I am interested, Mr. Speaker, in the new initiatives and the rejuvenating of urban areas in this province. I note that in Ontario last year 100,000 housing units were started. However, I note that many older units were destroyed in older neighbourhoods to provide this new housing.

I welcome the suggestion that the provincial government enter into full consultation with municipal authorities in providing a new programme to be called the Ontario Home Renewal Programme. As already mentioned, the present federal RRAP programme provides low-interest, partly forgivable loans to homeowners, landlords and non-profit housing corporations under certain conditions; but only within areas designated for funding under the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme. Non-profit housing, however, can get this aid despite its location.

This has had the effect of barring some homeowners and landlords from receiving needed help because their homes are not located in a designated area. They feel that they are being discriminated against and, after all, they are. Through their taxes they are helping to pay the cost of this type of programme. When they are paying the cost, they should have, if they qualify, the benefits that come through this or any other type of programme.

I believe this programme would be beneficial to many people owning homes in my riding. Beaches-Woodbine riding has many homes that were constructed 50 to 75 years ago. Although many are well kept, others are in need of rehabilitation in order to bring them up to acceptable housing standards.

The city of Toronto has had for many years a home inspection programme. When matters affecting health and safety are found, the homeowner is required to make the necessary repairs. The city provides low-cost loans when this is necessary. However, some people, especially older people, find it very difficult to pay for such improvements. It seems to me that a programme of grants would be helpful to them.

There is another matter that also affects homeowners that has concerned me over many years. That is the matter of how a homeowner goes about getting necessary repairs done to the satisfaction of city officials, especially, Mr. Speaker, in these days of high costs of materials and labour.

I developed my interest in this matter when I was a member of Toronto city council. The city does assist homeowners on request in commenting on tenders submitted for necessary repairs. I know that some owners, when they are faced with a long list of repairs to be made, are not able to cope with the situation and put the house up for sale, which just puts the problem on to the new owner. If they cannot do the work themselves, what do they do to comply?

We all know of home repairmen who take large sums of money from elderly homeowners for repairs which may or may not be done in the proper manner. These so-called businessmen approach persons at the door, telling them they have facilities to repair a roof or a chimney or to do other outside repair work, telling them of the consequences that would ensue if the work is not done. If the owner agrees to have the work done, which is, say, the repairing of a roof or a chimney, how can an elderly person climb a ladder to see if indeed the roof has been done properly?

Home repairmen who actually do renovations and buildings and repairs are required, when operating in Metropolitan Toronto, to have licences issued by the Metropolitan Licensing Commission. Those who do painting and non-building types of work do not require a licence. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of people in my area who have been placed in a very difficult financial position by the operations of certain home renovating business people. I have had cases where people have been taken for hundreds of dollars by such home repairmen who are operating without a licence.

I continually tell homeowners that before agreeing to such work, they should obtain the Metro licence number of these people and check with the Better Business Bureau before signing any contract or agreeing to have any work done. When the homeowners have paid out money for this work, which later turns out to be unsatisfactory, or they have been charged for work which has not been properly done, the only recourse they have is to sue in a civil court for the return of their money.

How could an 80-year-old woman living alone institute a court action to recover money taken from her in this way and even pursue it through legal aid?

Another thing done especially to elderly people is to offer to clean out the basement and to throw out all the junk. I have had cases where repairmen have done this sort of work and the basement is probably cleared, and the owner does not realize that this so-called junk does not go to the garbage dump, but indeed goes to second-hand merchants who are often able to obtain quite high prices for the sale of this type of

article now being called an antique.

What should be done in the circumstances that I have described? Mr. Speaker, I would make four suggestions. First, give the municipalities the power to license throughout Ontario people engaged in home rehabilitation, whether they are doing renovating, repairs or painting.

Two, when home repairs are required by municipal authorities, the authority should contact the homeowners and assist in setting out tenders and approving prices on work to be done. It should follow up the progress of the work and approve the quality of the work before the final bills are paid.

Three, draw up and approve grants and/or low-interest loans, depending on the circumstances of the homeowner.

Four, institute legal action on behalf of the homeowner to recover funds obtained by fraudulent means and provide stiff penalties for home renovators, persons or firms who do not live up to standards set.

I bring this up at this particular time when spring will soon be on the way, when this type of operator is knocking on doors, especially in large metropolitan areas. I should add, however, Mr. Speaker, that most firms or persons in this field are honest and hard working.

We should remember, as we move here in this province toward the recognition that, while we need and require more new housing, it is important also to maintain and improve our present housing stock. This programme will provide much needed work for the building industry; but let us do all we can to ensure that the homeowner will not be jeopardized as he takes steps to improve his own property.

Mr. Speaker, another matter of serious concern to homeowners in my riding and in adjacent ridings, and indeed in other communities throughout the province, is the damage being done to houses and buildings by the insect known as the termite. No one seems to know when this insect was first brought to Ontario, but it did appear about 30 years or so ago in the eastern part of the city of Toronto.

This is an insect that has its nest in the ground and exists by living on wood fibres. The nest is on the outside of a building, but by the building of ingenious tunnels they work their way through the foundation of the house, eating away at the foundations and woodwork until, in some houses at least, the building is in danger of collapse. Some of the smaller houses in my riding were built many years ago on cedar posts and have suffered considerable damage from this insect. This insect is able to penetrate through cement blocks, if they are not properly laid and treated and have openings that the insect can get through.

Examination of these houses shows the tunnels leading from the nest into the woodwork of the home, and solid number is over a period of time hollowed out as the insect does its work. There is a way, however, to combat this infestation. The insect must return to the nest daily in order to live. By digging a trench around the house and by treating the walls, this prevents the re-entry of the termite.

Through my efforts several years ago, Toronto city council recognized this as a serious problem to homeowners and passed a bylaw in co-operation with the provincial government in order to help these homeowners so affected. A grant is now made to a homeowner who applies for assistance. The bill for an average home to do the necessary treatment runs between $500 and $600. This is shared 50 per cent by the homeowner, 25 per cent by the municipality and 25 per cent by the province.

I suggested several years ago, and I suggest now to the minister in charge of the Ontario Housing Corp., who is responsible for this programme, that this formula should be changed. In addition to his share of the grant, the homeowner has the cost of repairing the damage already done to his home, which often amounts to a considerable amount of money. My suggestion -- and this would be a real help in the rehabilitation of older houses, especially in certain areas -- is that the homeowner’s share should be reduced to 25 per cent.

The municipality should pay 25 per cent and the provincial government should bear 50 per cent of the total cost. This would be a definite and immediate step to help the homeowner improve and maintain his property.

Mr. Speaker, I should like also to mention consumer protection. As all members of this Legislature realize, there has been a tremendous upsurge of the consumer movement in recent years. Consumers are increasingly aware of the growing sophistication of the marketplace and the diverse range of products which have come on to the market in the last few years. It is, therefore, most important for the consumer and the businessman of any size of enterprise to realize that a viable, fair and efficient market relationship develop between the buyer and the seller.

Ontario has been notably in the forefront of effective consumer protection legislation in North America. The government has pioneered in such diverse fields as the fair regulation of the real estate industry through the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act; amendments to the Insurance Act; and introduction of the Consumer Reporting Act as well as the usefulness of the Consumer Protection Bureau.

Legislation in the areas of warranties and guarantees will be introduced during this session.

What the public wants to know about this legislation is its purpose, the principles on which it will operate and the scope and authority of the legislation. Certainly, the basic objective of the legislation is to protect the interests of both the consumer and the businessman in the many business transactions which characterize the sophisticated and complicated marketplace.

Underlying the warranties and guarantees legislation are these basic principles:

1. Encouragement of consumers and producers to resolve as many as possible warranty-related problems on a mutually satisfying basis;

2. The efficient use of resources to resolve problems rather than adding costs to industry and the taxpayer;

3. The costs of operations should not exceed the benefits;

4. Enhancement of responsibility for products between manufacturer and retailer;

5. Fairness of treatment between producer and consumer.

What the government wants to achieve is a system which removes the constant necessity of government to intervene in the marketplace, and thereby to develop a fair and more realistic consumer marketplace for all Ontario citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in the past in some detail about the plight of the small businessman, so often ignored in the past by government and other sectors of the economic community.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Always ignored. Always.

Mr. Wardle: I’m most gratified to see that the government will be introducing significant legislation with respect to unfair trade and business practices. Ideally, the approach to be taken in these matters is not to establish regulations and standards which tend to hurt the small businessman and to consume his valuable time in report-writing activities, but to promote effective ongoing and co-operative relationships between government and business.

What I am advocating is positive regulation of business associations instead of restrictive and narrow measures designed to frustrate the individual businessman. What we need in Ontario is greater managerial and trading assistance programmes for the individual businessman to foster his skills and improve his productivity, positive measures which I know the government will consider.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few moments on the matter of correctional services, which I know is a matter of great interest to all members of this House. I want to commend the government for its far-sighted and progressive measures to assist the adult and juvenile offender. These measures include improved integration of group homes, probation and institutional services, thus ensuring better co-operation with all agencies of the community. By placing juveniles in training schools closer to their homes --

Mr. Martel: Banish them.

Mr. Wardle: -- we remove some of the pressures and strains placed on the juvenile in an alien environment.

Mr. Martel: Outlaw them.

Mr. Wardle: In this way, greater interaction between the training school and the home will assist the rehabilitation chances of the young offender. Through this process greater community resources can be marshalled in the rehabilitation of the young offender.

Hon. members should be aware of the exciting, very personal and meaningful prospects of personal development for adult offenders in the rehabilitation process. The government intends to promote the further development of small community-based adult residences for rehabilitation linked with the temporary absence programme and improved employment prospects for adult offenders in the northern areas of the province.

Another innovative feature of the correctional services responsibility is a proposal to involve inmates serving short terms in an effective employment programme with private enterprise.

The terms of the proposal in effect mean a simulation of working conditions related to what actually happens in society. Inmates chosen for this programme would receive competitive wages compared to those in the real work force. These types of programmes offer continuing and improved prospects to inmates to return to society able and willing to contribute fully to it.

I believe it is worth detailing some of the other developments which are under way in our correctional services system.

One of the more interesting and intriguing experiments which went into operation last year was the Camp Bison programme. The essential ingredients were a well-prepared course of action for correctional officers, who are involved in learning about the social pressures and situations that create the type of conformity displayed by most inmates. The experimental programme is designed to break down the subculture and help the inmates to think for themselves and to communicate positively with the correctional officers trained to help them.

The temporary absence programme remains the basic vehicle for rehabilitating inmates. Depending upon the type of offence which the inmate committed, his educational level and other important factors, temporary leaves can be devised to meet an inmate’s particular need for educational and personal improvement.

Through these innovative and experimental programmes, correctional services have assumed a new social dimension. Keeping inmates confined is more costly to our society in the long run than assisting inmates and helping them to lead useful lives upon their return to society.

The government is to be commended for its forward-looking and progressive corrections philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, on the matter of daycare centres the government is intimately concerned with the proper social and personal development of the children of Ontario. Today’s youngsters will be tomorrow’s leaders. We must constantly strive to provide the support facilities and programmes to realize that kind of promise.

It was only last year that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) presented legislation for our consideration that would extend grants and subsidies to individual corporations or classes of corporations, and widen the base of financial support to working mothers whose children require safe and proper care during her work day to prevent her from worrying about their situation. We are told that regulations will be announced in a few days and a programme will be under way. Mr. Speaker, I am merely stating positive programmes of this government that I am sure even the Liberals and the NDP can fully support.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): There is not a single member of the government here.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Nobody believes it but the member.

Mr. Wardle: This government believes in positive programmes.

Mr. Martel: Now if the member had said “banned, outlawed.”

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, I listened all yesterday --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): And he learned a lot, too.

Mr. Wardle: -- to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis), and I didn’t hear any positive programme of what their parties stand for. I’m still at a loss to know what they stand for.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How can he say that?

Mr. Wardle: At least the government does have a positive programme that the members of this government support.

Mr. Martel: What is it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We have a solution to the housing problems but evidently the government is not very interested in the member’s alternatives. There is nobody here.

Mr. Wardle: In the Throne Speech the government is proposing a series of measures to supply high-priority resources for those groups whose needs are still to be met; including the establishment of new programmes of assistance for community co-operative daycare centres for low-income areas, for handicapped children and native children. It speaks of our deep and abiding interest in reaching out to assist those seriously disadvantaged and to permit them to share in the resources of our productive economy.

Mr. Martel: One hundred and fifty-one dollars a month.

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, often critics accuse us of an absence of social commitment and social action for the disadvantaged sector of Ontario society. These same critics proclaim that the government does not possess a socially coherent philosophy for the individual. Naturally these claims are unfounded. The Throne Speech offers a significant packet of economic and social measures designed to meet the needs of the disadvantaged. This Progressive Conservative government seeks to resolve problems and citizens’ concerns positively and responsibly.

Mr. Martel: Why doesn’t the member see what is in the bloody book before he gets up and gives off such prattle?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, I listened yesterday afternoon to the leader of the NDP, and I have never heard such a negative approach to the problems of this province.

Mr. MacDonald: It was not negative at all. The member wasn’t listening.

Mr. Wardle: Most of his speech had to do with food prices. And surely the farmers of Ontario are not taken in by the policy of the NDP.

Mr. Martel: Guaranteed income in BC for them.

Mr. Wardle: The farmers of this province have a very, very low price for their products. This is the policy of the NDP --

Mr. Martel: The chain stores have a very low price for farm produce.

Mr. Wardle: -- to keep the wages of farmers down. I don’t think, Mr. Speaker, that many farmers in Ontario are making very much money today. I don’t think the public of Ontario worry too much if the price of food rises a little, if they know the farmer himself is getting a better income than he has had in the past; and the only way we are going to keep farmers on the land, in my opinion, is to make certain that they get a decent return for their work.

Speaking further about the remarks of the leader of the NDP on food prices and inflation, and what inflation is doing, his party in Ottawa has the power to bring down the present government in Ottawa which is responsible for many aspects of inflation.

Mr. Martel: Except on the Food Prices Review Board, the hon. member’s colleague voted with the Liberals.

Mr. Wardle: If they were sincere --

Mr. Martel: They voted with the Liberals on the Food Prices Review Board. The hon. member should learn that before he gets up and beats his gums off.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Wardle: If they were sincere in their wish to help Canadians, it would not include co-operating with the Liberal federal government in maintaining the present Liberal policies.

Mr. Martel: The Conservatives voted against the Food Prices Review Board with the power to roll back prices.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Other members will have an opportunity to enter the debate later.

Mr. Martel: Well, tell him to tell the truth.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, I prepared my remarks not wishing to say anything against the opposition, whether it be the Liberals or the NDP. But I’m moved at this time to say a few things. It seems to me that as far as the NDP in Ottawa are concerned, they can bring down this Liberal government any time they wish to do so.

Mr. MacDonald: They had three chances in the Tory party and they muffed them.

Mr. Wardle: And if they are worried about inflation, as was the leader of the NDP yesterday, they should bring down the present government and put in a government led by Mr. Stanfield, who would do something about inflation.

Mr. Martel: That would be a disaster!

An hon. member: How is the hon. member doing with his federal riding these days?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The federal Tory party is the only albatross I know with an ancient mariner around his neck.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor.

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to say this: I was in this House for a good part of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I was in this House yesterday and listening, without any interruption at all, to the leader of the NDP. Surely, when a government member gets up to speak, the members of the NDP could at least offer the same courtesy as government members offer the opposition.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, having provoked interruptions now he is crying about them.

Mr. Foulds: The hon. member should be flattered that we consider him important enough to heckle.

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my final remarks will meet with the attention that I think they deserve, and I’m sure that all the members of the House will agree with them.

Mr. Foulds: Why are all the Tories leaving?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): The hon. member opposite has just come back.

An hon. member: He just came in.

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, in my final remarks I should like to express my words of gratitude for the fine way in which the Lieutenant Governor of this province, the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald, has served as the representative in Ontario of our gracious sovereign, Queen Elizabeth.

Mr. Foulds: Well said.

Mr. Wardle: He has conducted himself with dignity, great ability and with a dedication to his duties. His term of office has enhanced the honourable office that he holds. I know that the people of Ontario will look forward to welcoming His Honour’s successor, Dr. Pauline A. McGibbon.

Whilst speaking of the office of Lieutenant Governor, I would like to express my hope that serious consideration will be given by the government to provide a home in Toronto for our lieutenant governors. This was formerly the practice, and I see no reason why this policy should not be resumed.

Nearly every province in this Dominion has a government house. Many of my constituents have expressed their agreement with this proposal. I feel certain that good use would be made of such a facility, especially as Ontario is increasingly serving as host to visiting organizations and dignitaries from other parts of Canada, the British Commonwealth and foreign countries. Such a home would also allow members of our royal family to stay there and to entertain and welcome our citizens in a dignified setting.

Every resident of Ontario will be looking forward with great anticipation to the visit this June to Ontario and Quebec of Her Gracious Majesty Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.

Mr. Martel: Don’t include me in that.

Mr. Wardle: Her Majesty is held in high regard by our citizens, especially by those who remember the fine example she and her husband, our late sovereign, King George VI, set during the perilous days of World War II. When the light of freedom had nearly been extinguished in Europe and our western civilization was in danger, our King and Queen were able to rally our people and those who love freedom everywhere to fight against those who would have buried the great heritage of freedom which has sustained us through the centuries.

I know that the people of Ontario and Quebec will offer Her Majesty a warm reception. We know the personal sacrifice that such a position requires and the complete dedication of Her Majesty to her duties. I hope that the school boards will, in advance of the Queen Mother’s visit, bring to the attention of students the importance of the constitutional monarchy in our system of government and will declare at least part of the day a holiday when Her Majesty visits their communities.

Mr. Foulds: We can’t close the schools.

Mr. Wardle: I am most impressed, Mr. Speaker, by the large numbers of our young people who want to learn more about our constitutional monarchy and its present and future role in our parliamentary system. This interest has been especially sparked by the overwhelmingly successful visit last June of our sovereign Queen Elizabeth. Her Majesty was greeted with great enthusiasm by Canadians of all ethnic backgrounds.

We must not forget that constitutional monarchy is respected not only by those of British and French descent but by people who have come here from all parts of the world. Many of the critics of the monarchy tend to forget that the system of monarchy is also a respected institution in many countries from which Canada’s immigration has come.

When our newest citizens swear allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, they come to realize that the monarchy is the oldest of Canada’s political institutions having come down to Canadians through 1,146 years of political development. These new Canadians also realize and appreciate the fact that our constitutional monarchy provides Canadians with the greatest constitutional safeguard against communism or any other form of totalitarian government or dictatorship.

The most essential and distinctive institutions of the Canadian government and the ultimate defences of the constitution are based on the position and powers of the Crown. These include the whole of the executive power of the government of the day, the cabinet system, the principle of responsibility, and the ultimate assurance that the genuine popular will shall prevail. To a democratic people, the monarchical form of government testifies to the ability of that people to develop a responsive political system from an authoritarian feudal structure without passing through the violence of revolution. The constitutional monarchy has a proud record in the development of the Canadian nation.

Mr. Foulds: Hasn’t the member ever heard of Cromwell?

Mr. Wardle: How fortunate we are to have as our sovereign a most gracious lady who, by her example, has endorsed high standards --

Mr. Foulds: So Cromwell was a Commie?

Mr. Wardle: -- and has encouraged the worthwhile traditions --

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The member shouldn’t show his ignorance.

Mr. Foulds: He doesn’t even know who Cromwell was.

Mr. Wardle: -- so many of which vitally reflect the better aspects of civilized behaviour and living.

Her Majesty has carried out her royal duties with dignity and zeal and has truly carried out her promise to her people in 1953 that, to their service, she would give her heart and soul every day of her life.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): How true.

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, how proud we are to be Canadians and to live in Ontario, this great province of opportunity.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this annual ritual of reply to the Throne Speech which ushers in the rites of spring. As I rise to speak, I don’t know whether to cry or to laugh because in my entire public career over the past 25 or 30 years I think I have spoken in cities all over Canada, some in the United States, some in other parts of the world, but never before have I risen to speak under circumstances such as these, when the complete vista in front of me is totally blank.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Even though there are people sitting over there.

Mr. Givens: Even when there are people sitting there, it’s usually blank. The House leader just sat down, called over the hon. member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) -- and now another member has just walked in -- so I won’t have to look at a totally blank wall.

I don’t think I’m ever going to get used to this sort of a situation, Mr. Speaker. I have no speech to read. That’s probably where I made the mistake. I should have a speech writer write me a speech which I can read off.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) might have one.

Mr. Givens: Probably they have a better system in the United States where they just hand in their speeches and get them printed in the Congressional Record.

The members have just received a raise. I would have thought that when members in the House get up to speak during a Throne Speech debate that there would be more people sitting here to listen to them -- because making a speech is a product of the heart and the soul and the mind. You use your mouth to articulate it, but you would like to feel that you are communicating with people.

I don’t care whether people agree with me or whether they disagree with me, or if they want to boo or if they want to jeer at me or if they want to scorn me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We want to hear the hon. member.

Mr. Givens: But at least a member of this Legislature should have an opportunity to speak to human beings -- and not just to be read in Hansard. Not that I am that immodest that I feel that I have anything to say that is of such great importance, or that the manner in which I will say it will be so entertaining that it should enrapture those who sit here -- but good heavens, Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose of making a speech? God has given us mouths and tongues with which to articulate for the purpose of communicating with one another. How do we communicate when we sit in a chamber like this where there is hardly a quorum?

I think maybe a quorum has just appeared right now of 20 members. But as Sam Rayburn said, “In order to get along you must go along,” and my leader and the House leader have said that I have to participate in this annual ritual of replying to the Speech from the Throne. So here I am. I shall do that.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The member shouldn’t trouble himself.

Mr. Givens: I shall use my ability to reply to the Speech from the Throne.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Givens: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I shouldn’t trouble myself. I hope that I am not being interpreted in that light; but really, what is the purpose of talking if you are not communicating with somebody? Let me tell the hon. member that in council we had people who sat there and they listened -- and you turned them on or you turned them off and you could persuade them about something. Now we know very well that nobody is going to persuade anybody around here of anything. The Juggernaut will roll on and we just participate. It’s sort of a hypocritical ritual really when it comes down to it.

An hon. member: Storm the barricades!

Mr. Givens: Anyway, having said that, I want to deal with some of the issues -- well, there’s no point in storming the barricades.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): We are listening to the member.

Mr. Givens: Well, it’s really frustrating anyway. I thank those members who are here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Givens: I know that there is nothing the members are going to learn from me, but at least it’s comforting to know that some of them are friendly enough to sit here even though some of them are busy reading the newspapers, or their mail --

Mr. MacDonald: It’s a challenge to the member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. Givens: -- or indulging in other things, such as consulting with one another. However --

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Could I leave for a couple of minutes?

Mr. Givens: My leader --

An hon. member: Sit down!

Mr. Givens: My leader and the hon. leader of the NDP made much of the fact, and rightly so, that there is nothing in this Throne Speech that says anything in particular about the subject of inflation, which is supposed to be so important to everybody living in this province and, indeed, in this whole country.

I sometimes think that the reason why governments -- both federal and provincial -- are not doing anything about inflation is because they don’t want to do anything about inflation. I feel that there is almost sort of an unconscious or a subconscious deliberate conspiracy not to deal with inflation. And I’ll tell the members why. Because I think a large sector of our population benefits from inflation.

I think there are professional people, there are business people, there are strongly organized union members in the big unions, in the strong unions -- not the underprivileged people who aren’t organized -- who benefit from a little bit of inflation, because it is like a little bit of intoxication. It’s euphoric. It’s buoyant.

I know many people in business who are benefiting by virtue of the fact that they have acquired debt. They have bought machinery or equipment and they are paying it off in half-dollar bills, so to speak, because their debt has shrunk in relation to the inflation that has taken place at the rate of from 8 to 10 per cent a year -- and probably in 1974 it will be greater.

It isn’t only a matter of the big corporations or the big companies. A lot of small people benefit from inflation, and they are happy to have this situation continue. And the governments are copping out and they are opting out.

The provincial governments blame the federal government. The federal government blames the UN, international affairs -- all kinds of things. Everything is being attributed to the oil shortage today, from the price of gasoline for cars to sexual impotency.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Who is dealing with that?

Mr. Givens: They are copping out. The people they are not dealing with are the little people, the kind of people the hon. member thinks he represents, who are involved in a bit of a ripoff here and there. A member of the NDP got up yesterday and read into the record a long list of properties in areas which I used to consider my turf when I was a kid -- Markham St., Clinton St., Niagara St. and all those streets where working people live. As for these values that members have heard of, of people who had these houses on these various streets, these are people from factories.

These are people that I worked with in the steel mills and in the packing houses of this city and these are the people who benefited.

Mr. Foulds: Markham St.?

Mr. Givens: Yes, sir.

Mr. Foulds: Honest Ed has a place there.

Mr. Givens: One of the reasons why these properties are going up in value is that many of these properties are income producing. Many of these people have boarders. They are not supposed to have them in many cases but they have boarders or they rent out accommodation. They get a certain amount of income, which they don’t declare on their income taxes, and this helps them ward off inflation.

It would be interesting if the member sent his research workers on the job of looking up the assessment roles of these respective properties. I will wager that he will find that the assessed values of these houses haven’t changed in 20 or 25 years. They are probably paying realty taxes on values that were established by the assessment people about 20 or 25 years ago. If one were to reassess them -- and I wish the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) were here -- it would probably take about 10 years to reassess them, and by the time he got all the reassessments finished, they would probably be out of date as well.

It’s interesting that the leader of the NDP pours scorn on these developers and these companies and that he talks about their lacking a moral obligation. Many of the developers, or these companies that he talked about yesterday, were people who were born and grew up on these streets and in these houses that he talked about yesterday.

Mr. Foulds: That still doesn’t excuse it.

Mr. Givens: They had social obligations. Many of them were socialists or many of them were members of the CCF. As a matter of fact, I know a couple of them who ran as provincial candidates for the NDP and some of them were even further left than that.

I remember coming into the gallery here when I was a student at the school across the street and Joe Salsberg was sitting here and A. A. MacLeod, representing the Labour Progressive Party. They were the people who represented these poor struggling developers who have become these ogres that the member accuses today of lacking social obligations. They think that they are fulfilling their social obligations. They sit on hospital boards, on charitable institutions, philanthropic institutions, and cultural organizations. These are the member’s people, and some still picture themselves as NDPers.

I don’t justify it, but in all fairness, many of them have fathers who were socialists in the old country and had to escape the countries that they came from in order to live in these places that the member talks about.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, we have no corner on virtue. We never have claimed it. We have the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) after all.

Mr. Givens: It is the same thing with the price of food.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Don’t say that when he is in the House.

Mr. Givens: It is not enough to talk about inflation in housing and food. The same thing applies to recreation and entertainment. You go out to buy a hockey stick for a kid or a pair of skates or a jersey or, if you want to move into the aristocracy of the boaters, you buy a canoe or a rowboat or a sailboat, and it is just preposterous what has been happening.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: One of those little items that sleeps six.

Mr. Givens: It is absolutely ridiculous. As far as housing is concerned, the leader of the NDP says, “We will buy the land from the developers at the price that they pay for it and we will pay them that value and we will pay them holding costs.” Well, that’s very generous of them, certainly a great deal more generous than what the Tories are doing.

This government went ahead on a parkway belt and just zoned down property and they’ve confiscated the property and given the people nothing for it. So thanks for small blessings, if this is what the leader of the NDP is going to do.

Then he’s going to provide cheap mortgage money at six per cent from the provincial savings accounts of the people who have their pension funds in the provincial savings account. They’re going to give out mortgages at six per cent. Are we going to subsidize that six per cent? Why should a person who has money in a provincial savings account only be able to benefit to the extent of six per cent when somebody else is paying 9½ per cent? Surely that wouldn’t be fair?

Mr. Foulds: They’re only getting 4½ per cent now.

Mr. Givens: And when he says that this Tory government won’t do it, I think he’d be very surprised. The Tory government probably will do it, because they’re confiscating right now, and I’ll come to that in a moment.

The leader of the NDP went along and he talked about how they’re going to tax natural resources. They’re going to put a tax on the mines, and they’re going to put a tax on the oil wells and on uranium and on everything else. And as he was talking about this great tax that he was going to put on, and how three of the provinces that have NDP governments have done this and the mines haven’t moved out and the corporations haven’t moved out and jobs haven’t moved out of the provinces, my eye caught a clipping, an

article on the financial page of the Star yesterday, and I want to read it to the members. It’s all right for him to speak so confidently and so stridently about the great success that British Columbia has achieved --

Mr. Foulds: Never stridently, only eloquently.

Mr. Givens: -- but here’s an

article from the Star, dateline Victoria, that says that:

“The mining association of British Columbia has told Mines Minister Leo Nimsick that the proposed Mineral Royalties Act must be revised or the government will destroy mining in BC.”

Mr. Foulds: Did they say they were going to move out?

Mr. Stokes: Does the member for York-Forest Hill have an interest there?

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: How do they move a mine?

Mr. Givens: To continue:

“The association represents 80 companies. W. J. Tough, association president, said that the proposed royalties would make the BC mining industry unable to compete with mining in other parts of the world.

“Earlier, the BC and Yukon Chamber of Mines said that if the Act were imposed, there would be a loss of $587 million in revenue for various sectors of the economy. At the same time, the chamber said, the provincial government would gain revenues of $179 million.”

Now, my purpose in reading this clipping is not because I agree with him.

Mr. Martel: Sounds like Powis of the Ontario Mining Association.

Mr. Givens: I have no way of knowing whether I can agree with him or not, because we don’t know what the facts really are on the basis of what the leader of the NDP has said and what this clipping says. But I’m trying to indicate that there is a cacophonic disagreement on the part of the people who talk about these things because they don’t use the same language.

Mr. Stokes: Well, where does the member stand? Does he think we should be getting more money for our resources?

An hon. member: Just listen and you’ll find out.

Mr. Givens: Yes, I think we should be getting more revenue. The fact is, the member knows, as a speculator and an investor, himself, that these --

Mr. Stokes: I sold mine. The member still has his.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Givens: -- profits the NDP talks about are not reflected in the stock prices on the stock markets.

Mr. Stokes: Nobody said they were.

Mr. Givens: The thing gets very complicated. There are all kinds of reasons why the stock market reacts the way it does.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Tell us.

Mr. Givens: But one must agree that the stock market in every country in the world is a very sensitive barometer of the economic, the psychological and emotional health of that particularly country -- economically, because it is a reflection and a barometer of what is going on. So it isn’t enough simply to get up and say that these profits have been enormous and they forget about depletion allowances, they forget a