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

April 8, 1974

29th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L022 - Mon 8 Apr 1974 / Lun 8 avr 1974

POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX

PRIVATE SEWAGE SYSTEMS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

DEEP WELL POLLUTION

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL GRANTS

ACTIVITY OF MULTI-MALLS NEAR TILLSONBURG

MINAKI LODGE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PUBLIC WORKS

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

RESTRUCTURING OF RENFREW COUNTY

HOUSING IN WINDSOR AREA

ALLEGED SALE OF FARMLAND TO JAPANESE INTERESTS

ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCILS IN UNORGANIZED MUNICIPALITIES

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

MTC RENTS FOR FARMLAND

THERAPY WORKSHOPS PAY RATES

WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT TRUSTS ACT

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: RIGHTS OF LABOUR ACT

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

The House resumed at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that you and the members of this Legislature would like to join with me and welcome the students here today from Lawrence Park Collegiate, along with their teacher, Mr. Skeoch.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): What riding is that?

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): North York.

Mr. Reilly: The great riding of Eglinton.

Mr. R. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have 35 or so students from the High School of Commerce from the city of Windsor, Ont., up in the east gallery. They are accompanied by their teachers, a Mrs. Lange and a Mr. Maynard. I’m sure that you and the members of the Legislature extend to them a most cordial welcome.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I’m sure you will join with me in welcoming a very fine group of grade 7 students from St. Raphael’s School in North York, with their teacher, Mr. Nastasiuk. I’m sure all of us agree that we are delighted to see them here today and give them a real welcome.

POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, I want to rise in my place at the first public opportunity to respond to the Premier’s statement on Saturday --

An hon. member: He’d better retract.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- that figures that I put forward were incorrect --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and, in fact, one report said he called me a liar.

An hon. member: A liar?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): The Leader of the Opposition can hand it out, but he can’t take it.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Oh, what prattle!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like, Mr. Speaker, to put before the House the specific figures that are in question. The government of Ontario spent 80 per cent more on tourist promotion within Canada in 1971, an election year, than it did in 1972. --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I just have two sentences, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism spent $311,865 for advertising in Canadian media, including newspapers, magazines, radio and television, during the calendar year 1971. During the calendar year 1972, advertising expenditures within Canada, by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, dropped to $173,051. The 1971 expenditure was therefore 80.215 per cent higher than the 1972 expenditure, and this is what I stated on Friday. The Premier (Mr. Davis) is, as usual, misinformed and irresponsible in his statements.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Not only that, he’s not here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): The member is corrupting himself and his party. Why didn’t he advise him?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Give him advice? It sounds like the Treasurer’s advice. He is talking through his hat --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised two points, one of which has to do with the apparent mis-statement of figures. I did read certain figures and percentages in the morning paper. Of course, I have no way of determining which figures are right at this moment.

Mr. Bullbrook: In your heart you know.

Mr. Speaker: I have been told I’m heartless sometimes. The other point by the hon. Leader of the Opposition has to do with the alleged words of the Premier of the province, in that he was a liar. I am not aware of that. I will certainly check into it and, in any event, in the absence of the Premier I think no response can be made and the Premier should be given the opportunity to respond before any such ruling should be made.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Powerless.

Mr. Bullbrook: Look who is talking.

Hon. Mr. White: He waits until those members are out of town.

Mr. Bullbrook: There were only 13 days.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Well, for heaven’s sake, are these the right figures?

PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce to the House a world-scale petrochemical complex commitment in Ontario. The four member companies involved in the Sarnia olefins and aromatics project, better known as SOAP, today jointly announced the formation of a new company, Petrosar Ltd.

Partners in the new company are Polysar Ltd. with a 51 per cent interest which makes it a major holding for Canada; Dupont of Canada; Koch Canada Fuels Ltd.; and Union Carbide Canada Ltd., each with a 16 1/2 per cent interest.

Petrosar has been authorized to proceed with the construction of the world-scale petrochemical plant once confirmation of the by-law to rezone the necessary land for industrial use has been received from the Ontario Municipal Board. The proposed location for the Petrosar facility is in the Moore township community of Corunna, just south of Sarnia. Petrosar will continue to work closely with the elected and appointed officials in the community to ensure maximum benefits to the industrial base and future plans of the area.

In the announcement, Mr. Speaker, the president of Petrosar pointed out it will be a major step in Canadian achievement of petrochemical prominency. The proposed plant, along with the opportunities for petro-chemical production that currently exist in Alberta and the previously announced Quebec expansion in this field will help Canada become world competitive in these products.

The petrochemical opportunities for Canada are bright. It is noteworthy that when Petrosar is working, the needs of the partners for raw materials will still require them to seek further supplies from other sources. The partners added that improved economic conditions contributed significantly to their decision to proceed with the project. They noted that the current corporate tax rates put Canada on a comparable footing with producers in other countries and that faster depreciation allowances help offset the risks associated with today’s rapidly escalating construction costs.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The Tories are in bed with the Liberals.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Getting crowded over there.

Mr. Cassidy: On these issues the Tories are there and we are not.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: F. C. Rush, president of Polysar, is chairman of the new company.

The president and chief executive officer is Silas T. Smith, formerly senior vice-president of the chemical and plastics division of Union Carbide Corp. Mr. Smith has extensive background in the planning and start-up of world-scale petrochemical complexes.

Mr. Speaker, this project is extremely significant in a Canadian and Ontario context. It will develop a Canadian self-sufficiency and reduce our current $250 million per year trade imbalance in these products. The refinery and downstream operations are expected to provide at least 1,800 new jobs with many of them of a highly advanced technological nature. It will establish a base for additional growth in the 1980s after coming onstream in early 1977.

In addition, it will assist in developing for Ontario a balance in our energy requirements from domestic sources. And it will achieve a great deal in our efforts to obtain the optimum upgrading of Canadian resources. The overall investment, refinery and downstream, will exceed $1.25 billion.

Mr. Speaker, this project would not have been possible without the thousands of man-hours put in by the staff of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the Ministry of Energy. I would like, at this time to recognize the energies of the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) who has been most helpful in co-operating with my ministry and the principals involved in this project.

If I may be permitted, I would like to point out one individual in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Frank Plumb, for the hours he spent in co-ordinating the efforts of this organization.

The commitment of the member companies of Petrosar to this project is warmly welcomed in Ontario and we believe it will greatly benefit our citizens and our economy.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What’s the matter with the NDP?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It sounds a little bit too fulsome.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We will wait until we see it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Bullbrook: We’ve known about it --

Interjections by hon. members.

PRIVATE SEWAGE SYSTEMS

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to proclaim

part VII of the Environmental Protection Act on Monday, April 15, bringing into force regulations establishing uniform provincial standards for private sewage disposal systems and placing the responsibility for inspection and control with my ministry.

As the hon. members are probably aware, there are widely differing standards being applied at present across the province by the local medical officers of health. With the proclamation of

part VII, this condition will be rectified.

Before going further, I would like to emphasize that these changes will have no effect on systems already installed and operating. This measure covers proposed installations of this type following the day of proclamation.

Initially this new approval and inspection programme will be carried out in three ways. One, where possible staff of the Ministry of the Environment will perform this function. Secondly, in some cases, due to shortages of trained staff, the ministry will enter into agreements with local authorities to continue this programme on its behalf. This will be a temporary measure until the number of ministry inspectors is sufficient to perform this service. We see the maximum length of such agreements being three years.

Thirdly, in areas where there are regional governments, we plan to enter into an agreement with the MOH to carry on this function until such time as the regional government can acquire the necessary people. It is our intention that these inspections and approvals would be handled by the regional governments concerned.

In each of these cases where the approvals are delegated, it would be the uniform, province-wide standards set by the Ministry of the Environment that would be enforced by the local health units and the regional governments.

Regardless of which of these three -- Environment Ontario, the MOH, or regional government -- administers this programme, the procedure would be as follows: A certificate of approval would be required before construction could begin on a new private sewage disposal system or any building to be served by such a system. After construction the system would be inspected to ensure it complied with the plans originally approved and a use permit issued.

There would be a fee of $15 involved in processing this application for a certificate of approval. This would include the subsequent inspections and issuance of a use permit

Also, under

part VII and the accompanying regulations will be provision for the ministry to evaluate the suitability of land proposed for subdivision where this land would be served by private sewage systems. There would be a fee of $10 per lot for this assessment and evaluation.

At present, both the Ministry of the Environment and the health units are responsible for various aspects of approval, maintenance and upgrading of private sewage disposal installations. As of April 15 these duties will be supervised by one agency, part of the consolidation of environmental protection services under one roof that began with the formation of the Ministry of the Environment two years ago. The health units have performed admirably in these inspections and approvals in the past and we will be drawing on their experience and expertise in the initial change-over period.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Is he now prepared to dismiss the board of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and replace them with people who are able to set guidelines for an administration with that particular function that would be in the best interests of the taxpayers of the province, and particularly the people of that part of the province who have not been well served in the past years under the present administration?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to dismiss the board nor am I prepared to accept the criticism that has been levelled by the Leader of the Opposition which he bases almost entirely on newspaper reports that are not necessarily factual.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Because the minister has not made the reports public.

A supplementary: Will the minister then explain to the House why the special audit that was required of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Havrot: Prove it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- by his predecessor was never made public, and if in fact the special auditors from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications were working with the audit carried out by the Provincial Auditor in this special review of the business of the Ontario Northland Railway and Star Transport?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the audit was an internal audit; the information was made available to the ministry for its consideration. I think all of the information has been communicated to the Provincial Auditor, and as I understand it the Provincial Auditor is prepared to appear before the public accounts committee tomorrow to make a statement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, I would hope he would be.

Supplementary: Can the minister then refute the statements made in the two articles by Mr. McAuliffe in the Globe and Mail and indicate that they are not based on facts, since he himself is the only one that we are aware of who has access to the special audits, the secret audits, that were carried out by the Provincial Auditor and by his own ministry? Nobody else has it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all, these have not been secret audits as has been indicated both in the press and by the Leader of the Opposition. These audits are internal matters that have been dealt with as they have been in many other ministries and as will continue to be done. I would be quite prepared to answer the particular question as to the contents of the article. However, I don’t think the Leader of the Opposition would like me to take the necessary time --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh yes, we would.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- to deal with it point by point. If that is so, I’ll take the time right now.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, do it right now.

By way of supplementary, does the minister not think he owes it to the House, or at least to his colleagues sitting behind him, that he set out for the Legislature where the government disagrees with the copyrighted stories, and that indeed he should have done that before the orders of the day by way of ministerial statement?

Mr. Bullbrook: He shouldn’t waste our time. Make it a statement of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to take the individual points and deal with them. I may not follow them in --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We do want the information. Could it be possible, sir, that we could revert to statements and hear the minister’s views in this important matter?

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Right. That’s what he should have done in the first place.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would like a complete and detailed statement, I have not had adequate time to prepare a complete and detailed statement as he has requested. I would be pleased to prepare that and present it in the form of a statement. If he wishes me to deal with them point by point, I have had an opportunity to make some contacts, to discuss some of these problems that have been brought forth in the Globe and Mail, and I will be happy to deal with them point by point at this time if he wishes as a question or a statement later.

Mr. Lewis: The Speaker can apply the appropriate rule.

Mr. Speaker: It does seem to me that the oral question period is a period in which the hon. members may direct questions to the ministry. They should be questions of urgent current public importance, I believe. There is a provision in our standing orders that lengthy replies, of course, should be given as a ministerial statement, prior to the oral question period.

This is precisely I believe what the hon. minister has undertaken to do. It seems to me that to answer the numerous items in the

article would be a misuse of the question period, that it would be a repetition of the same topic and would occupy a great deal of the time in this question period.

Mr. Renwick: Revert to statements.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that if the hon. minister is not ready to make a complete statement, he should be given the opportunity to do so tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, before the other minister responds to your comments, I would like to point out that, while the Provincial Auditor is included in the estimates of the Treasury ministry, the fact is the Provincial Auditor is a servant of this Legislature and reports to this Legislature. The only vehicle he has for reporting to the Legislature is through the public accounts committee. Quite obviously, he cannot be questioned here. He cannot have an opportunity to refute the very serious allegations in the morning paper. My suggestion is, sir, that those allegations should be clarified in the public accounts committee meeting tomorrow --

Mr. Renwick: The allegations aren’t against the ministry.

Hon. Mr. White: -- where he and his lieutenants will have an opportunity to meet the criticism, overt and covert, contained in that document.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you are aware, I am sure, although the Treasurer may not be, that there was a special audit under the jurisdiction directly of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and it is the report of that audit we have asked for specifically here.

Might I say, sir, in your own words, that you said the question period was to deal with matters of direct and immediate importance, which obviously this matter is, since it is the first time it has come to the attention of the general membership of the Legislature. For that reason, sir, I would like you to ask the House if we could revert to statements. That permission may be denied, although it is usually given from this side when the government asks for it. On the other hand --

Hon. Mr. White: Not always.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a cover-up again.

Mr. Lewis: Government members will give it today or they will never give it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- if the minister is prepared to give specific answers, then we should hear them now.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, I think whatever questioning may take place here now should not attempt to clarify the responsibilities and the way in which those responsibilities have been fulfilled by the Provincial Auditor, who quite obviously must be given his opportunity to respond to these charges on his own, in that he is not responsible to this House through either the Minister of Transportation and Communications or through me. Therefore, whatever questioning takes place here should not impinge upon the Provincial Auditor’s opportunities to defend himself in the public accounts committee tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is however the Minister of Transportation and Communications through whom the ONTC reports, and therefore he is the responsible minister. And one does not leave it yet another day if it can be avoided. You have often, Mr. Speaker, applied a rule that says that after four or five minutes of response to questions you deduct the time from the question period, and I think the minister should at least endeavour to clear up some of the matters now.

Mr. Speaker: Well, adding to the comments that I had originally made, it seems to me that to take the report, which is rather a lengthy report, and to deal with it in the words of the hon. minister, item by item, would probably entail a great part of the time for oral questions.

I have no objections to the hon. members directing a few questions to the minister, those of the greatest importance in their minds, as long as the matter does not develop into a full-scale debate.

If the minister is agreed and he is prepared to answer some of these questions, I certainly have no objections to some questions being directed to him; but I should point out to the hon. members that I will be advised to cut it off when it does constitute a debate.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, in furtherance to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. minister could tell the House specifically where the reports were wrong. It did cover the report in the Globe; two columns did cover a wide-ranging survey of activities and serious charges of maladministration, and I would like to hear the minister’s defence of those areas where he believes the conclusions were incorrect.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am sorry; where the conclusions were believed to be incorrect?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, well I will not necessarily follow in the order in which they have appeared in the articles.

Mr. Speaker, one of the items that was commented on was that a fee of $40,000 had been paid to a legal firm. The fee, in fact, was $3,541.69 and was paid to a firm known as Cheadle, Bryan and Mitchell from Thunder Bay. I believe Mr. David Cheadle is very well known to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does that mean he is a Liberal? I don’t know; I haven’t got my list here.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was Ontario Northland’s intent to purchase or subsidize this company in order to reduce freight rates -- that is the Lakehead freight rates -- but the fee was $30,541.69 and not the $40,000 as referred to in the article.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: Did the minister say $30,000?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was $3,541.69.

Mr. Bullbrook: The first time the minister said $3,500 and the second time $30,000. Which is it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My apologies. It is $3,541.69.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. That is one mistake. He is right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On the question of failure to pay sales tax to the Province of Ontario, there were interest charges of $7,291 that were levied against the ONR. That was the result of a challenge of the sales tax charges against various items. It was the opinion of the ONR that they should not have been paid. They challenged it and they were not successful and as a result they were required to pay the taxes and the interest charges.

I point out that the same type of approach was done with the question of passenger fees, and they dealt with the federal government in that area.

There was $8,000 referred to as being spent on plans for a new 100-unit complex to be staged over a four- to five-year period. That is correct; there was $8,000 spent. However, those plans are still in the possession of the Ontario Northland Railway. It is intended they will be used. They were paid for and they have them. The proposal was just too rich for them to go ahead and develop that.

There was $35,000 spent, and that was on a renovation programme to the Moosonee Lodge -- and that was very, very much needed. It is a very old facility. I am sure some members have been there and will recognize that these renovations were needed. The renovations were carried out by a contractor here in Toronto. In fact no tenders were called, but I think many of you would appreciate, again, that to get firms to go into the Moosonee area is not an easy chore. This particular firm was already doing work in the area and the price was very, very reasonable.

It was suggested that the Ontario Northland Railway was operating the ship Chief Commanda in an unseaworthy condition. In fact, there is a certificate of seaworthiness that has been issued by the federal Ministry of Transport. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge the ship meets the qualifications as far as the federal ministry is concerned.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They don’t trust the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Never at any time was it stated that there would be $50,000 spent on the vessel to refurbish the ship for one year’s operation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They just don’t trust the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We know that there is a new ship coming. If that new ship had not been coming, then there would have been a substantial outlay of funds, approximately in the area of $50,000, to keep the ship operating, but with the fact that a new one is coming that money was not to be spent. That was an estimate that had been brought forth if, in fact, they wanted to keep the ship operating in place of another.

May I comment, Mr. Speaker, on the question of railway ties that had been donated to the North Bay Golf Club? Normally there is no sale value for used rail ties. In fact, in the years 1971 and 1972 there had been a request by the Ontario Northland for ties to be given to various organizations. These were not available, but through the good offices of the ONR contacts were made with other railroads which did in fact supply ties free of charge to various organizations in the area served by ONR which had made the request.

In 1973 there was a limited market for 3,300 ties to a firm, I understand, in Whitby and they did purchase them at 75 cents per tie. One thousand ties were donated to the North Bay Golf Club. The remaining 1,700 ties were made available to other interested parties. For example, the Knights of Columbus, which wanted ties to help repair their docks at their boys’ camp.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They were made available to the crippled children’s association and quite a number of other organizations in the North Bay area and in the area served by the Ontario Northland Railway. Now, if anyone objects to that, please stand up and say so. There were 1,000 ties to the North Bay club. It was suggested in the

article that members of the executive of the Ontario Northland Railway belonged to the North Bay club. That is correct. Three of the senior executive of the ONR belong to the North Bay Golf Club. I would also point out that a great many members of that club are employees of the ONR and are members of the union and members of the labouring force. They belong to it and I am sure members would agree that if anything could be done to help that club, it would be helping those individuals as well.

I would like to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to comment on the insinuations as to the irregularities of the travel of the chairman. I am sure that, if necessary, he can reply more competently than I, but he did make a number of personal trips on Ontario Northland Railway business. It averaged about one and a half trips per month during the period of January, 1973, to March of 1974, between Thunder Bay, Toronto and North Bay, plus a Jan. 7 trip from Fort Lauderdale to Toronto. That was to attend a management board meeting called on Jan. 8.

There were chartered trips: April 30 to Timmins for a commission meeting; May 29 to North Bay for a commission meeting; and Oct. 10 to Timmins for a meeting to deal with the relocation of the rail in that community. At no time has there been any question as to the regularity of these trips, and it is my understanding that at no time were they ever questioned either by the commission or by the audit that was done of the particular books.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It’s about time they were.

Mr. Deans: They are being questioned now, I will tell you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: One other point I would like to make too, Mr. Speaker, is that there was reference made to a fee of $9,000 being paid to the Automotive Transport Association as dues by Star Transfer. That is not correct. The fee paid is $1,300. That’s an annual fee of the firm to belong to that association.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Before the hon. Leader of the Opposition asks further supplementaries, I might say that this answer took precisely 6 1/2 minutes, which was a little longer than an ordinary reply. I will therefore add four minutes to the question period.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Rather than use up the time, Mr. Speaker, under your former direction, in asking more specific matters that came out in the report, must we assume then that the things that the minister has not referred to directly are in fact at least parallel with the facts and that he is not prepared to say that the conclusions were wrong? For example, in the payments to the resort facilities owned by Mr. Kennedy, I believe, a member of the board.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. There were payments made for the use of Pinewood Lodge. I believe the incident referred to in the press was a result of a meeting that was held in that lodge when the office facilities of the Ontario Northland Railway were under repair and there was no area for them to meet in. They then went to the Pinewood Lodge to hold their meeting there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just a supplementary: For the procedure on this matter, is it the minister’s understanding that he and the chairman of the ONR will be available for meetings of the public accounts committee, presumably along with the auditor, to clarify this matter and get the facts public? And secondly, is the minister prepared to table the audit reports that are under his jurisdiction so that all of the information will be available to the members of this House?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I will not make a commitment that I will table that audit report at this time.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will not either necessarily make a commitment as to when I would be prepared to appear before the public accounts committee until such time as the Provincial Auditor has made his statement.

May I take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to clear up one point for fear that it might be considered that I thought it was correct? It had been mentioned in the press reports that $100,000 had been paid to a grocer in Cochrane prices for groceries at over-the-counter. This is not correct; the fee is $59,000 -- the total amount is $59,000 -- and that price to the Ontario Northland is five per cent over the grocer’s invoice.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): What’s right about it?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary if I could, Mr. Speaker. Now that all of the material has emerged and there are some conflicts -- presumably the Provincial Auditor will clear up his audit before the public accounts committee, why would the minister not make his internal audit public now since it is a contentious matter?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have not referred to the internal audit; I have referred only to material that I have been able to gather that touched on items that were discussed in these two articles that appeared in the press --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): It could be wrong then?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- one on Saturday and one again today. I would be quite happy to give that consideration after the Provincial Auditor has appeared before the public accounts committee.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Did I understand the minister earlier to state that all of the internal audit material had been turned over to the Provincial Auditor? And if that is the case then would it not be available to the public accounts committee through the Provincial Auditor?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I can’t reply to that. My information is that the internal audit material has been turned over to the Provincial Auditor for his consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, if you’ll permit: Have all of the auditor’s findings been turned over on a regular basis to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications? That is, was there a sharing of information both ways on this supposedly independent double audit?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accurately answer that; as you can appreciate I came into this matter early this morning and I have been working diligently to get information that I could have available for our members opposite at this time. There are some points I just haven’t been able to get into in detail.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

DEEP WELL POLLUTION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if a study of Innisfil township just south of Barrie has been recently made available to him, or made public, which indicates that there is a considerable amount -- in fact a frightening amount -- of deep well pollution rapidly growing in that area around Lake Simcoe, amounting to -- depending upon the community -- pollution of 65 to 80 per cent of the wells in that area which could become a serious public matter, particularly when the weather warms up in the holiday season when it gets into full swing this summer?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition, I will look into this matter and report back to the member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister aware of such a report?

Hon. W. Newman: No.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is not aware?

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL GRANTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Health if the reports that have been circulating that the grants to the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, although they are only slightly reduced in the upcoming year, will, in fact, interfere with the expanding facilities that had been planned for that hospital, which cares for the mental illness in a very large segment of Ontario’s population?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t specifically answer that question. I know the whole role of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital has been under review by the ministry over the past year. It is one of the two hospitals in the province that has an advisory board from the community to assist it in that review.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can the minister dispel any fears that have been stated by some people associated with the Lakeshore Hospital that the decision may have been made to phase it out and replace it with other facilities, or is that in fact the intention of the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The decision to phase out Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital as a psychiatric facility certainly has not been made. To say that there has not been some consideration of that possibility would not necessarily be correct.

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

ACTIVITY OF MULTI-MALLS NEAR TILLSONBURG

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker, on a rather different matter, if I may. Does the minister recall the Multi-Malls development outside Tillsonburg which is being fought assiduously by the provincial Treasurer? And is he aware that Multi-Malls requires approval by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for road access before that shopping centre can proceed?

Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: All right, a further supplementary: Why has the minister apparently given Multi-Malls -- which is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, a subsidiary of the CNA investors group -- approval in principle, although not yet in writing, for the shopping centre, when his colleague has, pretty bitterly and publicly, climbed aboard them for their efforts to set up a shopping centre directly in competition with the redevelopment plans designed for Tillsonburg?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge I have not given any sort of approval, in principle or otherwise, to an entrance to this particular development.

Mr. Lewis: Fine. By way of supplementary, since Multi-Malls must also have a building permit from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications under

section 31(2)(

d) of the Highway Improvement Act, can the minister indicate to the House now and to the people of the area, who would be immensely relieved, that he will join with his colleague, the Treasurer, in saying “no” to Multi-Malls in that area, thereby killing that particular project in its place?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as I’m concerned, if all of the requirements of any particular company, be it Multi-Malls or any other, can meet the necessary criteria to qualify for an entrance, I don’t believe the ministry has the right to deny them access if they legally are entitled to it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: What are they clapping for?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, when the Treasurer --

Mr. MacDonald: Those boys are really quite mindless in their reactions.

Mr. Lewis: -- talks about Multi-Malls as a developer who thwarts the plans and intentions of town councils by building shopping centres just outside town boundaries; when he says, “I can think of far worse things to say about the developers who build shopping centres just outside the boundaries of urban municipalities”; when he says, “If our programme of persuasion does not bring about the necessary results, we will have to examine other measures,” etc., why would the minister approve the location of Multi-Malls outside Tillsonburg, directly contrary to the expressed opinion of the Treasurer, when it is entirely within the minister’s prerogative to say to them, “no”?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would assume that if there are actions to be taken by other ministries of this government that would not permit the development to take place, then of course it would behove the Ministry of Transportation and Communications not to issue a permit for an access.

Mr. Lewis: He’s already taken those actions. He tried to stop it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My only answer to the hon. gentleman is that we have not issued such a permit. We have not permitted access and, to the best of my knowledge, we have no intention to do so at this time. But I repeat, if there is no legal way that the ministry can deny access --

Mr. Lewis: Yes, there is.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If there is, Mr. Speaker, then I’m sure we’ll look at it in that light.

Mr. MacDonald: Maybe the minister should put it on the cabinet agenda and discuss it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Surely the minister is aware that his predecessor gave the same kind of access to precisely the same company just outside of Chatham, which is in the backyard of the former chief planner --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): That’s right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and presently major spokesman for the government in most areas? The same kind of access in the same county was given to Multi-Malls, the same company, just to the east of Woodstock, off Highway 2. And while it may have gone against what the Treasurer says he believes, certainly it didn’t go against --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- the policy of the government.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, it may be, Mr. Speaker, that the Treasurer and I get along better.

Mr. Lewis: It may be that they should get along at all!

Mr. MacDonald: Discuss it in the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

There was a report from the Canadian Press which indicated that once the Minaki Lodge facility becomes a successful operation, when the government has bailed it out and reinstituted it, that it is then the minister’s intention to sell it back to private enterprise. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have made that remark on behalf of cabinet that we are putting some heavy capital investments into Minaki. Once it’s successful, it would be our intention to make sure that it goes back into private enterprise Canadian ownership.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s going to recycle it.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, how much public money is being spent to bail out the ODC loan, then to pay off the other loans and to get the company back into operation? Why can’t we leave it as a Crown corporation instead of selling it off to private enterprise again, which failed us once?

Hon. Mr. White: Because we’re not Socialists.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on. It doesn’t take socialism to come to one’s senses!

Mr. Deans: What right has the government to use taxpayers’ money to bail out the private sector?

Mr. Lewis: Exactly.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breithaupt: They’re just going to recycle it.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not socialism; that’s just common sense.

Mr. Deans: It’s a kind of Robin Hood theory -- only it’s robbing the people.

Hon. Mr. White: The NDP would like to be Robin Hood!

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Supplementary: What assurance can the minister give the entrepreneurs in northern Ontario who have pretty well paddled their own canoes that they won’t be competing against an entrepreneur who has been almost totally subsidized by the taxpayers of this province?

Mr. Dean: Who does the minister have in mind, and when is he retiring?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before the government decided to move in and take over the operation of Minaki Lodge we had a great number of talks with people in private operations in that part of the province, including the chambers of commerce, the elected officials, and people in the private resort business. It was obvious from our discussions with them that it was most important that Minaki be retained as a prime resort area in that part of northwestern Ontario, and that without it there would not be a catalyst that would help to draw the business into that part of the province.

Mr. Deans: Those private entrepreneurs weren’t prepared to do it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member would listen. Obviously, with his --

Mr. Deans: I am listening and I can hardly believe what I heard.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Sometimes we have trouble believing it when he is up, too.

Mr. Speaker, we went over the situation with the private people and we were very concerned along with them that if Minaki was not retained it could have a very great detrimental effect on the balance of their industry. After long discussions with them and after reviewing it with various people, it was the decision of government that we should move in and retain Minaki and build it up, to be the catalyst to develop the tourist industry even further in northwestern Ontario, and we sincerely believe it will succeed in doing just that for that part of the province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of the Environment, if I may: Is the minister prepared to table the report of the inquiry officer under the hearing of necessity, the Expropriation Procedures Act, applied on Jan. 23 to, I think, five or six Crown properties in the area of the Arnprior dam project?

Hon. W. Newman: That’s a very good question. At this point in time I can’t say whether there are legal ramifications or whether I can or cannot table the report, but I will look into it and let the member know tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary? Has the minister turned the inquiry officer’s reports over to the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) as yet?

Hon. W. Newman: Not at this point in time.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that he is meant to give approval to further expropriations in the area, and if he is aware, has he in fact done so, as required under the Expropriations Act?

Hon. W. Newman: I will give an answer to all of that tomorrow, okay?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

Mr. Cassidy: May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? In view of the intention of the Expropriation Procedures Act, does the minister not consider that it is at least undesirable that work on the dam now proceeding will flood land on which no expropriation orders have been taken out? What pressure has he put on Ontario Hydro to get them to bring down the expropriation orders on land which they now intend to flood?

Hon. W. Newman: I think any pressure on Ontario Hydro should come from the Minister of Energy and I would discuss the matter with him.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that the cost per home on the average in Metro Toronto jumped last month to $50,340, the single biggest jump in a monthly period in some considerable time, and that that means it will now cost the average purchaser over the lifetime of the home something in the vicinity of $159,563 at current interest rates? Can he, therefore, indicate to the House whether there is a single specific policy, either by way of numbers of lots or planned homes over the next period of time, to do something about the accelerating prices?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I will have to trust the hon. member’s mathematics because I haven’t had an opportunity to check them out. I am aware that the average price, not the cost, of single family homes in the Metropolitan Toronto area did increase by approximately the amount stated, which is also a reflection of the very heavy demand for homes. Apparently people seem to have the money to buy them and the builders are charging those prices.

Mr. MacDonald: Who are they? But some are speculators, using laundered money.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we have announced from time to time a number of programmes. There is no one single programme which is going to solve the problem. I never pretended that there was.

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister give us a specific?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are a number of programmes such as LIP, RAP, OHAP, HOME. All of these, Mr. Speaker, taken in the aggregate will have an effect on home prices. If the hon. member will just be patient, I believe in a matter of a week or two weeks or three weeks I will be able to actually specify a number of lots which are being accelerated, the amount of money that that means to the consumers of Ontario and the areas in which those lots will be located.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce was up first with a supplementary.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Wouldn’t the minister agree that a large portion of the high cost of housing is because it takes two years to get a plan through all the bureaucracy? Would the minister agree with that?

Mr. Huston: Three years in most cases.

Mr. Sargent: Does the minister know that in the United States the FHA programme guarantees complete project approval in 90 days? Why can’t he adapt a programme like that here in this province? Send a crash organization down there to find out what is going on and bring it up here and let’s do something.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that some of the problems which have occurred in latter years are the result of demand by the public for a much stricter planning process, protection of the environment, road planning and all of the various infrastructure planning processes which must take place. It is quite obvious.

Mr. Sargent: They have all those things in the States too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I think we have gone quite a bit farther in accommodating the feeling of the people in that respect than most other jurisdictions. We recognize the counterproductive effect this has had on housing and we are doing everything possible to speed up the process. The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Spence) asked the other day about the number of official plans which have been brought before the ministry and which he felt were being unduly delayed. In fact, since Oct. 1, 1973, there have been 37 official plans brought before my ministry, and I’m pleased to announce that since that date there have been 40 new official plans approved.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If any member has any specific --

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer could not. He cannot run a peanut stand without public money.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If any member has any specific plan which he feels is being unduly delayed I would be pleased to look into it:

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the hon. members --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I should point out to the hon. members that there are only 10 minutes remaining in the normal question period. No minister, as yet, has had the opportunity to give replies to previous questions. No members other than leaders have asked any questions. Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Sargent: A further supplementary here.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll permit one more.

Mr. Sargent: To summarize this, Mr. Speaker, if I fly the minister down there, will he come down and have a look at it? Will he?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it’s a policy in my ministry not to go on unauthorized trips.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Treasurer has the answer to a question asked previously.

RESTRUCTURING OF RENFREW COUNTY

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the hon. leader of the official opposition, not to be confused with the leader of the real opposition, raised a question about some concerns of the mayor of the town of Renfrew.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer should just cut that out.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. member for Scarborough West rise on a point of privilege?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: You fellows have been together for a long time.

Mr. Breithaupt: The NDP always supports the government.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is that one of those 28-cent ties?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: I’ll tell the House, if the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) doesn’t ruin the Liberal Party here nobody can.

Mr. Ruston: We didn’t know the Treasurer cared.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, I now have had an opportunity to read the letter from the mayor of Renfrew.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): I think the Treasurer has got them on the run; I think he’s got them on the run,

Hon. Mr. White: Although it must be said he has got a lot of helpers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, he’s not alone over there.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the Treasurer trying to take all the 10 minutes?

Hon. Mr. White: I have now read the correspondence from the mayor of Renfrew. He has sent me three letters, two very recently. Some time ago I answered the first one, notwithstanding the allegations, and today I sent out responses to his two more recent letters.

The mayor apparently believes that I’ve struck a committee to set terms of reference for a study. In fact, I have not. In late January the county and the city of Pembroke approached me and asked that I consider assisting them in a study. I agreed to, provided the county council, which includes representatives from all municipalities in the county except Pembroke, and the city council of Pembroke passed a resolution requesting a study. The county has since sent me such a resolution but I haven’t received one from the city.

The understanding I had with the representatives with whom I met was that I would have a member of my staff meet with whichever members of their staff they nominated, once these two resolutions were received. The staff would then submit to the council a suggested study approach. At that time Renfrew county would follow whatever course it felt was appropriate in considering the study outline. If it chose to seek the opinion of each of the municipalities in the county, that would be its choice.

The county system is the system of local government we have and I intend to respect it.

Mr. Cassidy: This is a speech, Mr. Speaker, and it is an abuse of the question period,

Hon. Mr. White: I will not interfere with the prerogative of the county council to make decisions on how to consult its member municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing has the answer to questions asked previously.

HOUSING IN WINDSOR AREA

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville asked a question concerning senior citizen and family dwellings in the Windsor area. The corporation has just signed a contract for 300 senior citizen units on Riverside Dr. which will commence shortly. The design is being finalized for 130 more units which will be located on a Mill St site and a call for tenders will be issued in April, that is, this month. As well, negotiations are under way for the acquisition of additional senior citizen sites.

In respect to the family housing requirements, OHC has satisfied all municipal resolutions to date. About 30 to 50 family units are vacated each month and the Windsor Housing Authority is satisfied that this turnover is sufficient to service the current waiting list.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to answer similar questions.

Mr. Speaker: If that was the completion of one answer, a supplementary will be permitted. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Yes. Is the minister aware that the request for senior citizen housing has kept increasing since approximately July of last year, and that at the rate that it continues to increase there is very little chance that the ministry will ever meet the continuing demand?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These are great programmes by this government. More people are living long.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It just seems that way.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the supply of senior citizen housing is running slightly behind demand, though not all that critically. As of February, there were 1,000 --

Mr. Cassidy: Stop trying to pretend there is no problem. There is a problem out there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister cannot snap his fingers and make it go away.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We are not snapping our fingers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: It seems that way.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are slightly under 1,000 applicants on the waiting list for senior citizen housing in Windsor.

Mr. B. Newman: Under 1,000?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Under 1,000; yes, that’s the figure I have, slightly under 1,000.

Mr. B. Newman: It is over 1,000.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It has been our experience, Mr. Speaker, that the number of applicants do not always correspond to the supply. In other words, we will not build senior citizen housing equal to the number of applicants because in most cases we would have an oversupply.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Isn’t the minister aware that the number of applicants is small, because the people know there is no point in applying because the ministry is not building a sufficient number of houses?

Interjections by hon. member.

Mr. Deans: Isn’t he aware that there are five times as many people looking for them as there are applicants, because they know there is no point in applying?

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. minister going to reply to that statement?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No reply.

Mr. Deans: It’s true.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): On the question of family housing in the Windsor area that the minister mentioned, is he aware that there are over 300 applications for two bedroom accommodations, that there are very few units of two-bedroom accommodations in Windsor at the moment and that any amount of turnover will not meet the demand for that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say about family housing is that we’ve responded to every resolution of municipal council. I might suggest to the hon. member that he may wish to discuss this further with the acting chairman of the

Windsor Housing Authority which submits requests to the ministry.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is incredible. He won’t last. He is a nice fellow, but he won’t last.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have further answers?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) isn’t here. He asked about OHC.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. members agree to having the answer given in the absence of the member?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Then the hon. minister will withhold the answer. The hon. member for Waterloo North.

ALLEGED SALE OF FARMLAND TO JAPANESE INTERESTS

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Has the minister heard any reports concerning the alleged story that Japanese interests are trying to assemble 50,000 acres of agricultural land in southern Ontario between Toronto and Windsor? If he is not aware of it, would he make an effort to find out if that is correct?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: Could we have the minister’s assurance that he will look into it, and if it is correct, would he be concerned about this and what could be done?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member expect me to contact every farmer in Ontario and ask if he has sold his farm recently to some agricultural representative from Japan? What a senseless question to ask in the first place! Of course, we are interested.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister is in one of his venomous moods today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCILS IN UNORGANIZED MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister without Portfolio, responsible for municipal affairs.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Stokes: Could the minister indicate when the promise contained in the Throne Speech with regard to the setting up of councils in unorganized communities might be introduced in the Legislature?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Port- folio): Mr. Speaker, we are considering this matter very fully. I would expect to introduce legislation in the next few weeks. I would say before the end of this session, but I can’t give him a definite time.

Mr. Stokes: Has the minister any advice for some of these unorganized municipalities which might set the wheels in motion to organizing themselves into councils so they can take advantage of this programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we would be pleased to hear from them. If they have any ideas that they wish to relate to us, I would be happy to meet with them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wellington South was attempting to get the floor previously.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): A question of the Minister of Correctional Services: Have the recommendations of the group studying the working conditions at the Guelph Correctional Centre last year been implemented as yet?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): I haven’t heard about that.

Mr. Worton: Doesn’t the minister know about it?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Well, I don’t know what study the member is talking about.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s our man.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, last year there were some goings-on at the centre that were investigated and the ministry set up a committee to study them; I want to know if they have been implemented.

An hon. member: Here we go again.

An hon. member: Déjà vu --

Hon. Mr. Potter: I would assume so, Mr. Speaker. I was in Guelph at the correctional centre just last week, and there were no particular problems at that time --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Potter: -- and the superintendent of the institution took me around and showed me the changes that are being made. I would expect these are the ones that the hon. member is referring to. Certainly there have been many changes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The big problem is that once they are in, they still want to get out.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Worton: Could we have a report on that?

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Will the minister require those in his ministry responsible for provision of ambulance service to meet with the city of Burlington --

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): All that’s being done.

Mr. Deans: -- the Halton-Peel county council, or regional council, and citizens who have expressed --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: -- a grave concern over the in- adequacy of the ambulance service? And will the minister --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Getting no action from the --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Attend the meeting tomorrow at 1 o’clock.

Mr. Deans: I wish the minister would be quiet. When I have a question for him, I’ll ask him. There is nothing to ask the minister; he doesn’t do anything.

An hon. member: That’s just terrible.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Does that upset the hon. member?

Mr. Deans: And will the minister make known whether or not there is in fact a deficiency in the services currently available, recognizing there is only one ambulance in Burlington?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think no matter what problems we may face with ambulances from time to time in the Province of Ontario, we should be very proud of the fact that we have the best ambulance system in North America. That’s a fact.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Did the minister rehearse that?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, there’s a machine up here and I just had to plug the right digit.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister always makes the same answer: “The best in the western world.”

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, we can’t help it if we excel in everything.

An hon. member: We can’t improve.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister doesn’t have to apologize.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has just about expired.

An hon. member: So has the minister.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, he is helping me. I would be glad to look into the specific problem on the member’s behalf, because I want to have good ambulance service in any part of the province as important as Burlington.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Why didn’t the minister say that in the first place?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall last week I asked him about the plan to tender for ambulance service across Ontario. He didn’t know anything about that. Well, now he is doing it in another area. What’s going on?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have to say the member is wrong unfortunately. We are not tendering for ambulance services anywhere in the Province of Ontario. We have not sent out letters of that nature. I think he should specifically look at that letter that is supposed to be a tender. If, in fact, I have been given the wrong information, bring it to me, because we are just not doing it.

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

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: What does the minister mean he’s been given the wrong information?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I said the member has.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: How about a little order?

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister know what’s going on?

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

MTC RENTS FOR FARMLAND

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the minister’s justified concern about the pressures that are driving farmers off the land in Ontario, will the minister request the Minister of Transportation and Communications to cancel the ministry’s programme of increasing rent by 30 to 50 per cent on lands owned by that ministry between Woodstock and Cobourg, as some farmers are unable to pay these increased rents and are going to move off the farms?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it’s the first I’ve heard of this. I’ll be glad to discuss it with my hon. friend.

Mr. Sargent: Atta boy.

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

An hon. member: Way to go.

THERAPY WORKSHOPS PAY RATES

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Is the going industrial rate paid by those industrial companies who are using the industrial therapy workshops to produce some of their materials in our psychiatric hospitals, or -- this is a question of the Minister of Health before he --

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health, please. A question is being directed to him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is getting the answer.

Mr. Bounsall: Or is the 10 to 20 cents an hour paid by the psychiatric hospitals to the workers within those industrial workshops in fact a saving to the companies which are having work performed therein?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I was being sidetracked there for part of the time and I’m afraid I need to ask for the question to be repeated.

Mr. Bounsall: Is the going industrial rate being paid by those companies which have work performed for them by the inmates of the industrial therapy workshops in our psychiatric hospitals?

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): In- mates? Patients. Patients.

Mr. Bounsall: Or is the 10 to 20 cents an hour paid to those patients, in fact, a subsidy to those companies which are getting the work done?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would think in all fairness we could categorically say it is not a subsidy toward the industries. In fact, I think we owe a vote of thanks to companies that will, in some cases, spend more money to allow us to have programmes within the psychiatric hospitals that will help our patients. It’s very important that these people carry out duties of some type in the rehabilitation process.

I’ve personally been involved, and when you realize the amount of material handling alone that’s involved in moving the goods to these patients so that they may perform the duties within the hospital grounds, you realize that we’re not doing it simply on the basis of the economics. It’s very critical in the rehabilitative process that such work be available. So its not a question of the minimum wage being got around by a devious means, its a question of giving these people a sense of accomplishment, treatment and some money all at once.

Mr. Speaker: Question period has now been completed.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that from tomorrow this House may resolve itself into committee of supply.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT

Mr. Worton moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Villeneuve, in the absence of Mr. Morrow, moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT TRUSTS ACT

Mr. Villeneuve, in the absence of Mr. Morrow, moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act respecting Savings and Investment Trusts.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. members agree to revert to the order, presentation of reports? One of the hon. ministers, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, has overlooked presenting reports. Would the hon. members agree to that?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members of the opposition for their courtesy.

In compliance with the provisions of subsection 2 of

section 20 of the Securities Act, I am tabling a copy of the Ontario Securities Commission order and

summary of facts in connection with the Canada Development Corp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House.

Mr. Lewis: For the minister, almost anything.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Pardon?

Mr. Lewis: For the minister, almost anything. For the others very little.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise to state a point of privilege. My point is that during the Throne Speech debate I was denied the opportunity to communicate with my constituents under my privilege of immunity because no one in the chamber except members is permitted to take notes, use recorders or use cine cameras. While the precedent of ignoring note-taking by the members of the press gallery was observed, this same ignoring was not extended to either recorders or cine cameras in the gallery. To communicate electronically with my constituents I would have had to waive my immunity.

I submit that such a compulsory waiver is an infringement of my privilege as a member as defined in May’s,

chapter 5, page 64, particularly the lines dealing with unimpeded services of members.

In the outline of collective and individual privileges, page 65,

chapter 5 of May’s, it is quite specific that freedom of speech belongs primarily to individual members. While historically, privilege belongs solely to Mr. Speaker, since 1554 the privileges of freedom of speech, freedom from arrest and freedom of access, have belonged to the members. I would also call attention to --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. member has a long résumé of some excerpts from May or other parliamentary authority I think he should first clearly state his point of privilege.

Mr. Drea: The point of privilege I was raising, Mr. Speaker, is that, as the privilege of an individual member, had I been permitted to state my privilege last Friday, I would have asked that I be allowed the use of television cameras in the chamber while delivering my reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to state the remainder of it, sir.

Mr. Lewis: What is the member talking about?

Mr. Drea: What am I talking about?

Mr. Deans: We don’t understand. We would like to help him if he would tell us.

Mr. Sargent: That is a good point. Let’s find out.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, can I elaborate or would you prefer me to read this?

Mr. Speaker: I am trying very desperately to follow the hon. member to determine if he has a point of privilege. If I recall correctly, on Friday the hon. member intimated that the Speaker had arbitrarily made a ruling which prevented him from exercising his privilege. I am waiting to hear what that privilege is.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with due respect, sir, I stated it just a moment ago, perhaps somewhat ambiguously, but I will state it very clearly. It is my position, in raising the point of privilege, that I should be entitled as a member to have televised the portion of the debate on the Speech from the Throne in which I am speaking.

Mr. Deans: Who would watch it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will please observe the rules of this House. There is no such privilege which has been extended to any hon. member in this House at any time. I do not say that it should not be or will not be, but the hon. member certainly does not have any right to raise this as a point of privilege. There is certainly no point of privilege that has been denied the hon. member.

If he wishes this sort of procedure to take place, there are ways and means by which he might pursue that; but certainly there has been no ruling on the part of this Speaker, or any previous Speaker to my knowledge. It simply has not been permitted under the rules of the House and I do rule there is no point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if you were willing to have the speeches of the member for Scarborough Centre televised, we would pay for the cost, sir.

Mr. Speaker: I would be glad to take that under consideration.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, if we can allow the media to televise the budget speech, why hasn’t this member got the same rights as the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I don’t think it’s incumbent upon the Speaker to deal with this at all. I would explain to the hon. member that there have been arrangements made, and agreements indeed, amongst the parties that the budget will be televised. There never has been any arrangement otherwise for the hon. members. I think if the hon. member will deal with the matter through his party he would get a little bit more information. If he wishes I will be glad to speak to him privately on it.

Mr. Drea: Just a point --

Mr. Speaker: I made a ruling on the hon. member’s alleged point of privilege. Now if the point of order has to do with my ruling, it is not in order.

Mr. Drea: No, it does not.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. Drea: I am not going to question your ruling, sir, I just want to raise the question that twice members have been allowed this privilege, sir. Maybe it’s a matter of semantics, but in my memory I have seen the Leader of the Opposition make the reply and I have seen the former leader of the NDP (Mr. MacDonald) make the reply on television.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By unanimous consent; and we would consent to the member going on. Bring in a resolution and we will support it.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, may I first add my voice to all those who have spoken before me in expressing our pleasure that you have regained your health and are enabled to carry on your duties. I would hope that they would not be onerous, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid that you can- not count on that.

When I have considered the government programmes and proposals, I have varied in my feelings, first from being heartsick, to being tremendously angry; and Mr. Speaker anyone who knows me, including my caucus members, would recognize how difficult it is indeed to anger me.

However, I realized later I had no right to be angry, and for these reasons: St. Paul was never one of my favourite saints, for obvious reasons, but for the first time I understood and recognized in this government the loss of that quality without which it is but a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal, and if it were not for the effect upon the people of Ontario I would be filled only with pity for such a government.

It is true they have finally discovered the north; and I am sure that the roads will be built, because after 30 years of Tory rule the north was ready to secede, and that was indeed an achievement. I trust, however, that they will not expect to set aside a holiday in honour of a great discoverer, since much of the programme consists of feasibility studies which, if I remember correctly, were also undertaken by the government under the late Premier Frost.

The measure of a civilization is the way in which it treats its children. Let us look at this government’s record with that in mind.

The Attorney General (Mr. Welch), in a daring statement, announced that this government would delete from all its legislation all reference to illegitimacy; and this, again daringly, without the necessity of a task force on the subject. Truly, it is moving into the 19th century.

I had hoped that by now we would have had a statement of policy from this government with reference to the protection of awards for handicapped, poor children. Let me give you some examples, Mr. Speaker. We drew to the attention of the appropriate ministers the story of a little girl who, as a result of a motor vehicle accident, lost her leg. There was an award paid into court, in the amount of $2,000; and immediately this generous government, so concerned with the taxpayers of the province, began harassing that mother, advising that she would have to go to court on an application to have paid out $1,000 of that $2,000 or she would, with her family, be cut off welfare.

In another case of a small boy, who suffered permanent lung damage in a similar case, this government harassed that mother and said: “You will apply to remove from that award of that child $4,000 of the $5,000 which was available to that child.”

It is true that since drawing the government’s attention to those two cases from my own riding, together with a third case from the riding of Parry Sound, I received a letter from one of the mothers who said that she was most grateful for my intervention, that mothers’ allowance people are not going to take away the moneys. My worker said: “You should consider yourself lucky that they’re not.”

This is what frightens me, Mr. Speaker. Are those three cases the only ones that are not going to be harassed? Or is there going to be a policy to state that we do not need to save tax dollars at the expense of poor handicapped children in this province?

And I may say that since I have brought this matter to the attention of the taxpayers both in the cities and in the rural areas, the government really isn’t going to have to set up a task force on this one either, because the taxpayers believe that these children should be protected. If it’s only a matter of saving money, which is, perhaps all that concerns the government, perhaps if this money is left to the credit of these children, they will be enabled to have the kinds of things that can eventually help them to break the poverty cycle. I would urge, therefore, that somewhere along the line this government take some responsibility.

Again, I was interested to note that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) -- as a result, I would suggest, of the consistent prodding of the opposition -- has made a statement that policy now is going to be changed.

Whereas, in the past. once a young physically handicapped person attained the age of 19 years, if that child could not live in the community and if the community did not have other facilities available, that child could have no other alternative than to be relegated to a home for the aged. Mr. Speaker, I will welcome the specifics of the minister’s proposal since he spoke only generally in answer to a question on the legislation pertaining to the mental retardation programmes.

Again, there has been an announced policy that training schools shall be close to the homes. This, Mr. Speaker, raises a great many questions. Does this indicate that the Oakville Assessment Centre has failed? I would not think it had been in operation long enough for that to happen. Yet it was set up to assess the needs of the child. Does this indicate that the DARE programme has failed? We don’t seem to have heard too much about that lately. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know whether it ever did expand as a programme to include girls.

What of the policy itself? It has that public relations-oriented ring. There is no question that for some it could be a very worthy policy but if a child lives in the heart of a large city and if the environment in that city around the home of that child is such that any return to the home or any close proximity to the home during this period could only continue the unfortunate activities which brought the child before the courts in the first place, perhaps it would be better if children in such a downtown area were able to find their way into care in the vicinity, for example, of the Kawarthas.

There they could learn something of this magnificent province and of its beauty and something of what ought to be the heritage of all Canadian children. Living near home, in a training school near home, could be a disaster.

Incidentally, I do hope the new Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter) will make an announcement soon. Is there going to be any plan to remove training schools from his ministry into the Ministry of Community and Social Services? While there is a dearth of imaginative ideas in the latter ministry, it could be that with the $13 million then forthcoming from the federal government we might catch up on programmes to assist these young people.

Nor is there any commitment, Mr. Speaker, to ensuring that children shall have an absolute right to be represented before the courts when their rights are involved. There is no statement that they shall no longer be parcelled out with the furniture, in such matters as divorce and custody, without adequate representation.

When is this government going to recognize the fact that a child who is the victim of a criminal act, such as in contributing, may well need financial support? Why should such a child not have a right to apply to the fund as the victim of a criminal act, and why should the fund not be expanded to cover adequate assistance to such a child?

When a child is placed on probation what happens in our courts? I have to express my appreciation to the efforts of the former Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Apps) in that he did try to bring some equity to bear in the probation services. Mr. Speaker, when you have children before the courts, you should indeed ensure that those who are trained probation officers are persons who understand the culture and the language of both the child and the parents. I can recall very well a case when a young Portuguese boy was in serious trouble.

Because I was new in the courts, in my order of probation I directed that he have a Portuguese probation officer. Subsequently, the child was brought back before the courts and the probation officer said: “Your honour, I think I have been chosen because I once flew over Portugal.”

A probation officer is a very important person in the family court. He or she is not just an official to whom a child reports but a person who helps to bridge a gap between the child and the family, and once the child is in trouble before the courts there is usually that kind of a gap. If that officer can’t speak the language of the parents, then he or she becomes relatively ineffective in that important area.

Lastly, it is important that our children have an education. We have seen the way in which education in this province has deteriorated, causing parents great concern. I am certain that the public school system as it is today is doomed unless steps are taken to reassure those parents who are removing their children from the public schools and placing them in separate, private schools or in a tutorial system. This, Mr. Speaker, is the result of the chaos into which this government has placed the whole subject of education.

Let us also level with our students and ensure that we do not completely alienate them by providing extensive and costly training without trying to ensure that jobs will be available on graduation or that they know the situation before they start.

Then we come to those glib phrases dealing with the status of women. It would appear that what has happened is that this government again is tying up this matter in a complex property law reform situation or a tortuous reform of family court.

Let us look at what has been done to date. This government set up the Women’s Bureau with limited funds and it disappeared. Then the council was set up under the able chairmanship of Laura Sabia, but to date with inadequate funding. Now we have set up another group dealing with Crown employees. Mr. Speaker, I do hope there will be enough money there to purchase enough Meccano sets so that these women may achieve a promotion.

On this subject, I would like to say that wherever I have gone I have advised people that the Treasurer (Mr. White) of this province has stated that playing with Meccano sets appears to be the criterion for getting ahead in this government. Therefore, I have suggested that parents ensure that all of their children, both male and female, become accomplished in this activity.

I am so afraid, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Moog may now require further challenges and that a public relations team would sell the Premier on the idea of the Taj Mahal to indicate his dedication, not to one woman but to the cause of women. But please remember, the Taj Mahal is nonetheless a tomb.

What is lacking is any statement of this government on this subject. What does it have to reply to what has been said by Dr. Pearson, who is I believe the dean of science at the University of Waterloo? He states that he has never, as he was accused of doing, said that he would ensure that no married woman professor would be given tenure in his faculty, and in fairness to him that should be stated. He goes on to say: “If a woman’s other commitments in life tend to make this system work to her disadvantage, then I think we should recognize this forthwith.”

Of course it does work to her disadvantage; but I thought, and most people thought, that there was indicated in the law a statement that marital status should not be considered in hiring under the Human Rights Code. Apparently, we don’t believe it.

If this government really is concerned about the matter of the status of women it can take the first step forward and advise the colleges and universities that it is not prepared to continue funding these institutions when they are, in themselves, guilty of discrimination against women, both in their hiring or in granting tenures and in the salaries which range in various colleges, as I have it, from between $1,800 to $4,000 a year less than for men in equivalent positions.

And what about the often-given promises that this government would indeed look into the whole matter of pensions over which it has control?

Then we come to the total welfare field and the commitment of this government. The Ontario Economic Council Report No. 3, “The Evolution of Policy in Contemporary Ontario,” at page 49 states:

“Provincial gross expenditure in the area of welfare was far behind. But that makes the fact the direct federal expenditure in various income transfers to Ontario residents was nearly $1.3 billion in 1971, an amount which at that time exceeded gross Ontario government expenditures either on health or on primary and secondary education.”

And the welfare maintenance for social services has gone from 0.3 in 1946 to 0.9 in 1971.

This government has consistently and systematically attacked groups in our community to mask the inadequacies of its own programmes and used tax dollars to advertise its position. Nowhere has this been more true than in the fields of welfare and health, although teachers have seen some of this thrust.

We have heard the new Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) speak of LIP grants and, unlike the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) I would admit that I believe there were some LIP grants that I would not have funded, some LIP grants that may not have been significant. Because if we do anything, we are bound to do something wrong occasionally; it is only when we do nothing that we usually don’t make too many mistakes.

Frankly, I was bitterly disappointed that the new provincial secretary should have made such insipid statements, particularly, I suppose, since I had hoped that as a woman she might have made some more significant contribution in the field of social reform. What does she say? She says:

“From the first we have said clearly that the government of Ontario was willing to provide support and assistance to LIP-initiated projects within our existing programmes and priorities.”

Of course, that is the rub. Because these programmes were providing some service to that sieve-like quality of maintenance in the welfare field, and of course filling gaps that are not covered by existing programmes.

She says too:

“That in order to reassure you that this is a matter of major concern to us” [that is, the multi-service approach], “we are appointing a committee to study the potential of the multi-service centre.”

Why doesn’t she just read the reports oi those very substantial people who have been concerned in this field under the LIP grant legislation? Why another committee? Well, if it is for the good of people, it is a good time to stall or to get task forces or to do something.

Then on page two of her statement she says:

“In the matter of community immigration services and information centres, both these areas are already marked, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, by a large degree of duplication of service.”

There are at least two reports outstanding which clearly indicate that is not true.

Then we come to the statement of the work group, which while it is a Metro work group does in fact speak with the same sense of feeling that all of these people across the province feel --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That’s right.

Mrs. Campbell: -- in dealing with this particular programme and policy.

This is what these people say. These are young people and one can make a great deal of impact on the public by what this minister did in trying to decry them, trying to denigrate them and trying to say that these young people were rather shiftless people who made a habit of trying to work their way into this kind of a job. One has to bear in mind that in this particular group one has the support of the conventional agencies, the social planning councils, the United Way and labour. All of these people have now realized from what they have seen that they are filling a very great gap in services.

Young people who are making or taking home $85 a week, I believe, without any kind of benefits -- highly trained and highly skilled and highly dedicated -- make this reply: “We are deeply disappointed at the inadequacy of Ontario policy in many areas, which not only affects emerging services but the entire community social service field.”

There is no policy or special funding for information centres after three years of study; no policy or special funding for immigrant services. I suppose we should exempt the welcome wagon that the government has taken on. There is no special funding of community managed multiservice centres. This area is to be studied further, as the minister has explained.

There is limited financing of Bill 160 for daycare co-ops but regulations are still not available after being promised 10 months ago. There is limited special assistance for community senior citizens’ services -- when one thinks of the spending we are talking about in this House, $150,000 for the whole of Ontario! There is no significant provision for increases in funding of elderly persons’ centres nor in reviewing obstacles in the current EPC funding. There are no increased uses of the Canada Assistance Plan by Ontario to acquire more federal dollars for preventive services in the community.

So they go. Finally, in refusing to change its pattern of neglect the province places the full funding burden on the more limited revenue bases of municipalities and the voluntary sector. Both these sectors are currently stretched to their financial limits in support of community social services. If this crisis is not met head-on by the province, many emerging services will die and established services will be forced to curtail their work drastically. One of the interesting things is that under this work group there have been programmes of assistance to older people and handicapped people.

Because of this kind of a programme these people have been able to continue to live in their own homes, and this is what they want to do as long as they can.

Again, I would think that if you are only trying to save money in this area it’s worth thinking about because you probably won’t pay as much money to keep this kind of a programme going as you will pay to take these reluctant people and place them in nursing homes.

Why can we not learn from countries other than the United States? Sweden has looked into this principle and it has seen that you should have a multiplicity of services. But I am beginning to see that this government, by its niggardly approach, is very anxious to show people, you see, we give this money and it doesn’t change anything, we still have these people on welfare. Well, let me say that in my opinion, from what I have seen in Metropolitan Toronto, this can change if there is a sincere desire to assist people to get off welfare.

I will not support what the member for Sudbury East had to say about the support for ballet, symphony, the opera and so forth. Indeed, I would institute programmes to allow the poor to be a part of the symphony, the ballet and the opera.

I can recall some years ago when, with the wonderful support of Mr. Russell, with whom -- as the director of, I believe, ballet and opera, I’m not sure about that -- we worked out an arrangement where tickets from O’Keefe Centre were available to the people in Cabbagetown. I recall my concern on one occasion, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Russell phoned and said: “We’ve got a group of children coming down to the ballet and, Margaret, they are almost all boys.” I was a little frightened about what might happen. However, they went and I learned and Wally

Russell learned and a lot of other people learned these children were eager for this kind of an experience.

However, there is never enough room and there are never enough tickets available. But surely if we can support these major arts programmes we could find a little money available for Smile, the Inner City Angels and those groups who spend their time trying to give something to the poor and the handicapped in this province.

Surely it is still as true as it ever was that man does not live by bread alone, and that it is important that the spirit be enriched at the same time as we look at the physical and housing needs of the poor.

Incidentally, there is an organization which has come to my attention which is called PARD. I do hope there will be an eagerness in this government to support it. It is a unique organization in the whole North American continent. A group of people interested in riding, of all things, have set up a riding programme and they take our handicapped people -- the blind, the spinabifidas, and others -- out to ride. They have doctors and paramedicals there, to ensure their safety. But think of what it must do to somebody to have a sense of freedom of mobility just at least once in awhile.

I would like to refer to a couple of items in Health. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have consistently spoken of the home-care programme as a do-it-yourself medical treatment plan and I shall continue to do so until I see something done about it.

During his estimates, the former Minister of Health (Mr. Potter) referred to his meals-on-wheels programme. Frankly, I thought this was something new, but it wasn’t. Most people in Ontario, and I guess we are lucky to this extent, have learned to eat daily. They don’t budget it out. They try to eat once a day. It may not seem necessary to the government, but that is the habit the people afford.

I think of a woman in her eighties who had broken both hips, but she was no longer forced to be bedridden; she had a Victorian Order nurse and she had a physiotherapist, and then she had meals on wheels. It happened that I saw her last July. She said: “You know, I am a little concerned about one thing. During the winter I get one meal a day four days in the week, and because that meal is a pretty substantial meal I can make it spread to two. But now they tell me that during the summer they are going to cut the meals to one to two days and I am not quite sure how I am going to manage.”

What kind of provision is made in a city this size for special diets? I was up in Orillia recently and I understand that there the hospitals run this programme and they do provide, in this type of dietary concern, for individual idiosyncrasies. But that isn’t being done here.

While I am speaking about the programme I do want to express my deep appreciation for those who give of their time and talent to make the programme work to the extent that it does work. Without them I don’t know what would happen to these people.

The other matter which I wish to speak to briefly is the matter of the nursing home care. We have heard today a question and an answer involving the possible closing down of a psychiatric facility. Granted it was stated it had been considered and no decision had been made, but we do know that people are being removed from active treatment hospitals.

Why does this government not look at the situation which exists, for example in Alberta? There is recognition given there of the phasing of need in nursing care. They recognize the fact that people should be able to stay in their homes. That is covered. Then they recognize a 1.5 programme where most of the patients are ambulatory and largely independent but who require some assistance. They look at the situation of the nursing home care between the 1.5 and the 2.5 where obviously more assistance is needed.

Why have we not looked into the standard of care in nursing homes? We have heard criticism about it, but why haven’t we done anything about it? Could it be that this government has basically set them up at 2.5, and then without provision of alternatives expects them to provide, at additional cost to them but not to the government, care of those who require up to 4.6 or five hours of nursing care per day?

Is it a fact that this government is removing patients from hospitals, including psychiatric hospitals, to nursing homes, nursing homes ill prepared or equipped to receive them, to save money in the cost of the delivery of health services? These questions surely must be answered since many of the nursing homes are taking the position they have patients who require up to five hours care and they cannot get beds for them in the facilities which have to be available for that purpose.

Lastly, I would like to look for a few moments in time to the matter of housing. I have said that this government has systematically attacked groups to mask its own inadequacy. In this particular case, I wonder with horror whether this government is taking on all of the people of Ontario to serve its ends in a federal election.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) has stated that this government can do nothing to curb inflation and that only the election of Mr. Stanfield can achieve this. I believe that this government can do nothing because it does not choose to do anything. Is it perhaps actively promoting inflation? Let the record show.

This government purchased lands in Malvern some years ago, one property at $800 an acre and another at something over $1,000 an acre. The cost of servicing was $25,000, according to any figures I can get.

Incidentally, on that question, I would like an answer as to why our costs are the highest in the whole of Canada. Even in Halifax, where they are blasting rock, they don’t have the figures that we have in this cost.

However, I am informed that at the present time this government is now engaged in selling those lots at current prices. If this is so, would the government explain why this is not adding to the problem of inflation?

According to figures which have been given to Metropolitan Toronto, it is indicated that for all classes in 1971, 16.6 per cent had a family income of over $15,000 and under $25,000; 3.4 per cent had over $25,000. So, a total of 20 per cent of the population had an income of over $15,000 per annum. In Metro, 22.8 per cent were over $15,000, but we see that 63.2 per cent of families have an income under $12,000.

How have these figures affected the housing costs across the province -- that is the figures which I have given about the government’s dealing in land -- as it relates to the incomes of people in this province and their ability to purchase, or indeed to rent housing?

When answering a question of my leader (Mr. R. F. Nixon) the other day concerning the 3,000-acre purchase in the Kitchener-Waterloo area and the servicing thereof, the minister stated that that question should be addressed to the municipality, although he admitted that the purchase had been made without the knowledge of the municipality or their co-operation in future planning. So there is nothing new at all so far in the policy for servicing lots, notwithstanding the statements that are repeatedly made that in the fullness of time there will be such a statement coming forth.

The same minister is reported earlier to have said that developers would not be allowed to let farmland fall out of production, thus increasing the cost of food. Well why not, when the government consistently follows this policy? How much more farmland must be taken off the market before the people realize that this has inflated food prices and that it has been a deliberate policy?

During the Sixties we saw developers un- conscionably block-busting neighbourhoods in our cities to satisfy their own hunger and thirst for profit. This was a frightful practice. How much more so when that block-busting technique in the rural areas destroys the food production; and how much worse is it when these tactics are employed by the government itself?

Together with this, what is the land policy of this government? Last year, a property in Metropolitan Toronto was purchased for $300,000 and sold two weeks ago to a foreign investor for $1.3 million -- a cruel $1-million profit on land which our people can’t afford to buy for homes to live in.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Shame.

Mrs. Campbell: Surely there is no other country in the world which allows substantial portions of its land to go completely into foreign control. When are we going to face up to what is happening under our government policies in this area?

Mr. Gaunt: It’s going to be left to the Liberals to do it.

Mrs. Campbell: And that’s going to be the problem; by that time it may be irreversible they’ve had so much going on it

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It’ll be a busy time.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Nothing’s too big for the Liberals this afternoon. We’ll tackle it

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): The hon. member doesn’t believe that, does he?

Mrs. Campbell: In a report called “The Rent Race,” which was presented to Metropolitan Toronto and commissioned by the Social Planning Council -- and I’m sure some hon. members have at least seen it -- they say, on page 1:

“Tens of thousands of families living in Metropolitan Toronto today are caught up in what might well be termed ‘the rent race.’ Most of these people have middle incomes that at one time might have afforded a clearly adequate style of living but that are precariously low in a time of rampant inflation. Still others have low incomes that allow little or no room for increased allocation to housing. Both groups are hard-pressed by the realities of the housing market. Most know that they will never be able to afford the security of owning their own home.”

And it goes on to paint a very dismal picture of the situation here. On page 3:

“Most of the losers in the rent race are beaten before they start because of low retirement incomes, low wages, uneven employment, disability and other reasons.”

As you must be aware, Mr. Speaker, if anyone reads the Toronto newspapers -- and I think there are a few here who do -- Metropolitan Toronto council was so concerned about this report that it set aside an additional $2 million to assist those who were on municipal welfare, because the report makes it abundantly clear that these people haven’t a hope.

But, as you read the report, Mr. Speaker, just add in all those groups right up to middle income, because this report talks about people doubling up. Well let me tell you, sir, they’re doubling up like mad because they can’t afford apartment accommodation.

And we have some people who come out in the press and say those who wanted to stop apartments are the ones responsible for the housing shortage. I say this is just balderdash. You don’t have to destroy everything to provide housing. But unfortunately. again this government, awaiting the initiatives of the federal government, came into a NIP, RAP, and whatever other initial programme, certainly at a time when in this area, as I see it, it is already too late.

When you look at those pockets of blight we used to talk about, such as Trefann Court and the cost of housing there today, you have to know there is no room for the poor in areas where they used to find some shelter.

In the population figures of this report it states:

“This study focuses on social assistance families receiving major or supplementary benefits from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. In October of 1973 this population comprised approximately 15,600 families and individuals receiving general welfare assistance and 15,800 families and individuals in receipt of family benefits.”

And of course you have to know that Metropolitan Toronto is not prepared to give subsidies to those on family benefits. Their position is if the province isn’t concerned we can’t pay the money for the people who should be in their concern.

There is a devastating description in this report of substandard housing the people are forced to live in for lack of anything else. In the report they say:

“The reader should be alert to the following cautions:

“1. The assessment of housing adequacy is aimed only toward providing a general review of the adequacy of housing obtained by social assistance recipients. It is not, for example, to be confused with analyses that might be used to project housing stock requirements.

“2. Only when we present our composite index, which combines most of these data, can a clear judgement be made as to the housing quality faced by social assistance recipients. The details presented here are illuminating none the less.”

I am not going to go on into this report, much as I have been tempted to do so, and as you will see I clearly came prepared to read further excerpts. I just trust that someone over there is going to read very carefully what that report has to say.

Mr. Speaker, I am not normally a person who cries out in dramatic terms. I wish I had that sort of flair sometimes, but I honestly and sincerely believe that at this time when our middle income group is now becoming the disadvantaged poor, housing-wise, or is joining the disadvantaged housing poor, we may well think in terms of what Willy Brandt had to say about the future of our democracy and this kind of chaos. These sorts of statements, the sounding brass and the tinkling cymbal, are not going to satisfy the people of this province any longer and we can no longer permit the waste of our land and the waste of the talents of our people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate, it is my intention to deal with a few variations on a single theme, that of the cost of living.

There is rather an interesting contrast in this country at the present time. In Ottawa, the Conservative Party poses as one deeply, almost exclusively, preoccupied with the cost of living. It has presented a rather simplistic programme but nobody is persuaded of its validity except itself and in most countries where it has been attempted it has failed. The public image is that of a party which is concerned and if it only had the power, if it hadn’t been cheated of power, it would be doing something about it. Let’s leave Ottawa to itself.

Down here we have a Conservative Party in power. The Tories have the power and what are they doing about it, Mr. Speaker? The simple answer is they’re doing virtually nothing. In addition to all of these specific instances that might be cited and which the hon. member who has just taken her seat did cite in reference to housing -- where government policy has been a thrust to the inflationary spiral -- I have been rather interested in the last few days in the reaction of the government.

Periodically, when the issue of inflation and its importance has come before the House, the Premier has risen and verbally browbeaten Ottawa for not doing anything and then indicated that down here this government is doing something. In a mindless sort of way, spontaneously, there would break out applause from all the backbenches on the government side of the House.

It was rather interesting that on two occasions the Premier deigned to indicate to us what he thought this government was doing. In so doing, he borrowed from the comments of the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) whom he has seen on TV on some occasions stating, I assume, essentially what the member said in the House this morning -- namely that one of the major thrusts to inflation in this country is the excessive and growing expenditures of government. By implication, the Premier was suggesting that this government has not been contributing to inflation by excessive expenditure. Mr.

Speaker, I don’t know whether wittingly or unwittingly the Premier is trying to deceive the public or if he is operating on the assumption the bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed, because just for one moment let us pause and consider what has happened during the years of this Premier’s administration. Let’s not go back any further.

In the year 1970, the budget in the Province of Ontario was $5,216 million. In the year 1971, it was $6,027 million. In the year 1972 it was $6,509 million. In the year 1973, it was $7,269 million; and I predict that when the budget comes down tomorrow the budget in the Province of Ontario will be close to, if not in excess of $8 billion.

What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It simply means that in the last three years -- three years of this administration in the 1970s -- the budget in the Province of Ontario has gone up in excess of $2 billion. Do you know what is interesting, to throw that into perspective, Mr. Speaker? The provincial budget in 1967 was just a shade under $2 billion. In other words, it took us 100 years to build a budget of $2 billion in this province and in three years of this government we’ve added that amount to it within the Province of Ontario.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): They bought their way into power with our money.

Mr. MacDonald: Look, our government expenditures are going up and I’m not so much decrying it as calling on the government and upon the Premier to cut out the blatant deception and suggestion to the people of Ontario that this government has been playing its role -- presumably in this way only -- to check inflation by not spending excessively, when in fact, Mr. Speaker, this government has boosted its budgets in a fashion that would match if not exceed those of virtually any government you want to point to.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): What’s a billion?

Mr. MacDonald: Now, Mr. Speaker, if there was any doubt there was a vacuum in government policy in this important issue all you have to do is take a look at the Throne Speech, which we are now debating.

That Throne Speech had one fleeting paragraph. Let me read that paragraph into the record again. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) did so in the initial response on behalf of this party; but I want to read it in again and then I want to take a good detailed look at it. It read as follows:

“While my government will employ all practical means at its disposal to alleviate the causes and effects of inflation, nevertheless it bears repeating that the problem can only be dealt with in a national context, with all governments co-operating.”

In short, Mr. Speaker, what this government is guilty of is an almost total 100 per cent cop-out. It has two sections in that paragraph. The second one is in effect saying that nothing can be done at the provincial level if the federal government isn’t willing to co-operate.

Look, obviously there has got to be co-operation between provincial and the federal government. Quite frankly, the federal government is doing more than the provincial government, primarily because of pressure from the opposition -- on occasion even from the Tories but mainly from the NDP -- so they are doing something. But this government is doing nothing; and they are doing nothing because they are in effect suggesting that it isn’t a provincial responsibility. I’m going to give specific cases later in dealing with certain themes.

The government simply cops out and says “that’s a federal responsibility,” let’s just pause, Mr. Speaker, and deal with this issue of what is the constitutional responsibility of a province in this country with regard to price controls and the inflation that flows from it.

I want to quote, Mr. Speaker, because it does it so very succinctly, one paragraph from an

article that appeared in the Queen’s Quarterly, winter edition, 1973, on the constitutional implications of price control legislation by Terrence Morley. It reads as follows:

“The provinces, of course, can impose price controls within their own boundaries. The British Columbia case of Home Oil Distributors Ltd. vs. Attorney General of British Columbia in 1940, SCR 444, in which it was held that a province could pass legislation fixing the wholesale and retail prices of fuel oil and gasoline, clearly implies similar provincial powers over other commodities. It is equally clear, however, that the imposition of different levels of price controls over different commodities by some, but not all provinces, would led to economic chaos and to the dismemberment of the nation.

“Moreover, in the final analysis provincial price controls might well be found to be ultra vires, since they could be said to constitute internal trade barriers which the Supreme Court recently struck down in Attorney General for Manitoba vs the Manitoba Egg Marketing Board of 1971, SCR 689.”

That’s the end of the quotation.

Now I agree, Mr. Speaker, that you can’t move in any great distance within one province in terms of price controls because you get out of step with all of the other provinces. As Mr. Morley states, that would create economic chaos; everybody concedes this.

But that’s no excuse for doing nothing at all, and that’s what this government is doing. I agree that the lawyers argue that if the province were to get into the field that then ultimately, by getting into the field, it might be interpreted that they were intervening in interprovincial trade and violating the constitution and the BNA Act.

That’s a possibility, and on rare occasions it has happened. But to use that ultimate possibility, Mr. Speaker, as an excuse for not doing anything at all, and then by not doing anything at all adopting a posture which is almost exclusively one of verbal browbeating of Ottawa, means to cop-out totally as far as the Province of Ontario is concerned.

I want to suggest that on this business of blaming Ottawa and saying you have no responsibility, there simply is no justification for it. The province has the constitutional power. There may be limitations upon which it can exercise that power, because of the intervention on interprovincial trade and because of price variations that would create economic chaos; but they have the power, and if they want Ottawa to move, surely they are going to put the pressure on Ottawa to move when they prove willingness on their part to start the whole process, to go half way, to assume their responsibility.

Then they will be on firm ground in shouting and screaming politically at Ottawa to do a bit more if we really want to come to grips with this important problem of inflation.

So there is the one aspect of this sort of cop-out. However, let me deal with the second aspect, because it is even more important. That was where, in the first part of that paragraph in the Throne Speech, it said: “While my government will employ all practical means at its disposal to alleviate the causes and effects of inflation.”

“All practical means at its disposal to alleviate the causes and the effects of inflation.” Well you know, Mr. Speaker, that is just unmitigated rot.

I want to proceed with a few instances to show just how this government is doing virtually nothing; and secondly how it is ignoring other practical means that are at its disposal, that other provinces across this country are resorting to with ever greater frequency.

Let me begin by going back to the

summary that the leader of the New Democratic Party made of the efforts of one minister -- this is my first point -- the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) after he got into this whole exercise about last August or September when there was a great public furor burst upon this nation because of rising prices. Indeed the questions, rather embarrassing questions, were put to the Premier when he was down in Charlottetown at the Premiers’ conference, and he said he was going to speak to the minister.

The minister said he was going to call in the top brass of the supermarkets, and one got the impression that, boy the show was really on the road. But what we got, as usual from this government, was a conference, a food conference to look into conflicts.

No, there were no prayers about it at all, may I say, to the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. R. G. Hodgson) I think it is. As a matter of fact, if it had been prayers it might have been more useful than what did go on at the conference. Because out of the conference emerged a lot of promises and suggestions about what the ministry was going to do.

As I said, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis), the New Democratic leader, referred to these. Just let me recall them to the House. The minister promised a business practices Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices. Where is it? We haven’t seen it yet.

He promised that the courts would be given power to rule on what were unconscionable profits. Well where is it? We’ve had no legislation on that level.

Third, he would explore cease and desist orders in case of unconscionable prices. Well where is the legislation? This is an urgent problem. Eight months have gone by. The minister is ruminating. Nothing is happening. We have no legislation.

Fourth, he would arm the government with authority to act against food hoarding, speculating, profiteering and fraud. Oh boy, he was huffing and puffing those days. He was really going to scar