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

May 13, 1975

29th Parliament, 5th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

UNEMPLOYMENT

STORE HOURS

PICKERING NUCLEAR POWER STATION

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

HOUSING STARTS

PEEL REGION HOUSING COORDINATOR

MEMO ON CHILD ABUSE

STORE HOURS

INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME

DEPOSIT INSURANCE FOR CREDIT UNIONS

POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS

NIAGARA REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

FABRICON

RECREATION TRAILS

HOUSING ON ESCARPMENT LAND

NATURAL RESOURCES SCIENCE CENTRE

HOLMES FOUNDRY STRIKE AT SARNIA

ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT LEGISLATION

HYDRO BLOCK

INDIAN FRIENDSHIP CENTRE CAMP

OMB APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL FINANCING

HYDRO BLOCK

TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR AMATEUR SPORT

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ACT

THIRD READING

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

THIRD READING

BUDGET DEBATE

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and through you to the members of the House 50 Progressive Conservative ladies from the city of Barrie, sitting in the Speaker’s gallery and the east gallery. I hope you will join me in extending a very warm welcome to them.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, through you to the members of the House, I would like to introduce the grade 10 history class of R. H. King Collegiate Institute in Scarborough, and its teacher, Mr. John Lord, sitting in the west gallery.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of the House to welcome a group in the west gallery from the village of Watford and surrounding area. This group consists of 44 senior citizens of that area. The trip was arranged by Mrs. Beatrice Martin of Watford, a lady who has contributed greatly to many different projects in Watford. One she is certainly known for is working for that great Tory party of Ontario.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): They need all the help they can get.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): That won’t be enough.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier, if he would, to give us his views on the results or the information from Statistics Canada on the unemployment levels announced yesterday which indicated Ontario is one of the few provinces which has maintained a high level of unemployment; in fact it’s a bit worse than it was a month ago. Is he convinced that the budgetary decisions taken six weeks or five weeks ago are having the desired effect of stimulating employment? What is the reason for Ontario having been so singularly unsuccessful in stimulating employment?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am certainly satisfied that the very creative budget of the Treasurer of this province (Mr. McKeough) has had an effect on the economy of this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the Premier mean it might have been worse?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t like to deal in what might have been. I am saying it was a very excellent budget; I am sure the members opposite agree with us. I tell some people that every time the members opposite say, “It’s an election budget,” I say that really what they are saying is, “It’s a good budget.” Of course, that’s precisely what they are saying.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are voting against it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say if the Leader of the Opposition wished to pursue questions related to the figures and so on, he might ask the Treasurer, who is responsible for that very excellent budget.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since my concern is with the level of unemployment, perhaps the Premier could indicate his concern as well, since it has gone up at a time when we are supposed to be coming into the expansion of spring work. Unemployment has gone from six per cent to 6.1, not a large increase admittedly, but usually at this time of the year the employment figures are improving, not depreciating. What is the explanation for that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t propose to get into the explanation because I don’t think anyone knows the exact explanation. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes me to express concern, I will send him a number of speeches I have been making for the past three months stating this concern well in advance of his.

I would say that part of the figures, at least in this province, relate to the automotive industry, where there are unemployed but where benefits, thank heavens, are still available to the workers in that industry. Ontario has had greater effect in terms of that area of employment than any of our sister provinces.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): By way of supplementary, what about the especially acute problem of the young person in the work force, since for every 10 applicants there appear to be only one or two jobs available? Apart from the summer programme which I think the Premier will concede satisfies only a minor proportion of the job need, can he take some special initiatives even now, since that is where it is being felt most dramatically?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned, obviously, about the younger people, particularly those who might be classified as students and who may not be finding summer employment. Certainly as far as the government is concerned, our programme this year is comparable to last year in terms of the number of places. We are still hopeful that the private sector will find ways and means of employing an increasing percentage. We are always prepared to review our programmes if we feel it’s necessary or could be helpful. We are quite concerned about any person who is unemployed, not just the students or the younger people.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions from the Leader of the Opposition?

STORE HOURS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. I would like to put a question to the Minister of Financial and Commercial Affairs.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Consumer and Commercial Affairs.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Consumer and Commercial Affairs -- affairs in general. Could he indicate if the commitment made by a number of his colleagues in the cabinet to bring forward legislation for uniform store hours in the province is going to be fulfilled during this session, or if the government, which has repeatedly made statements about this, is withdrawing its support from that concept?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I think the question should be more properly directed to the Attorney General (Mr. Clement), whose predecessors made certain statements in that regard.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The minister is passing the buck a lot these days.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He is the only one who can answer that question.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If you will permit a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since it does affect the consumers of the province to a very great degree, has the minister an opinion he can express on this since the government and a number of his colleagues -- not just the Attorney General but at least three or four -- have made public pronouncements indicating such legislation would be forthcoming. That was a year or 1½ years ago.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the member knows quite well that my opinion will be endorsing government policy when it is announced at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t even talk in my sleep.

PICKERING NUCLEAR POWER STATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Treasurer a question, in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell): Has he any specific information about the problems we are again experiencing in Pickering that would indicate the flaws in the reactor are anything other than unfortunate but routine flaws? I understand that it would be of grave concern to him as Treasurer, and to all of us here, that we get the best performance we possibly can out of the Pickering establishment. Is there any reason for concern, either for the workability of the facility or the safety associated with it? Would he sooner I direct it to the Minister of Energy?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I am sure that is a question which the Minister of Energy will answer when he is here.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Where are they all?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, I guess I’ll wait for some of those boys to come back.

Mr. Roy: Where are all the ministers?

Mr. Drea: I don’t know. Where has the member for Ottawa East been?

Mr. Roy: I keep chasing them all over the province. I can’t find them.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Lewis: Can I begin by asking the Chairman of the Management Board -- I think this is the appropriate place, but I am sure he can refer it to another minister if it is not -- a question arising from the auditor’s report and dealt with, I gather, at the public accounts committee, although not yet resolved.

There was a reference in the auditor’s report to a firm of consulting actuaries -- one of whose members was on the pension commission -- being paid a considerable amount of money and a reference in the auditor’s report that said the question of the conflict of interest has also been considered in depth and a resolution passed by the commission to prevent any suggestion of such a conflict in the future. Is the minister satisfied in his own mind that there is no such conflict now; that the person involved has removed himself? Or is it, in fact, true that the individual is still there and that clearly, just in the public interest, this should be removed?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I am not really aware of the exact situation the member is referring to, but, as he suggests, I will take it as notice and reply to him later.

Mr. Lewis: Okay. That’s the pensions commission.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I understand.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I must make it very clear that if we place on a commission anyone who is then engaged in some other area in the government, he certainly does not receive any remuneration for his duties, but I will have a look at that.

Mr. Lewis: Fair enough.

HOUSING STARTS

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Minister of Housing: Since housing starts in Ontario fell almost exactly 50 per cent in the first four months of 1975, as compared to the first four months of 1974, is the minister prepared to revise his somewhat inflated estimates for this year, so that at least we can get some reality into what we are dealing with in the province over the next few months?

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That’s a total of 57,300 this year.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the NDP should recognize that starts have dropped -- there is no doubt. I said they would. In my projection, it would be the third and fourth quarter when the housing starts in Ontario would be the most dramatic ever. We will have more housing starts in those particular months.

I have relayed my concerns to the minister responsible, Hon. Barney Danson, in regard to the funding that is necessary for Ontario to proceed with our programmes. Mr. Danson has verbally agreed, though not confirmed, that we would have a meeting on May 21 in order to go over the programmes which we have outlined to him as being, in our opinion, necessary for Ontario to have the housing that we need for all of our people.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, I am sure the minister now realizes, given the level of starts -- I am working from memory but I think it’s down from 22,000-plus to 11,000-plus in the first four months -- that if things do not go well, he will reach 57,300 on an extension of the first four months. If things go well indeed, unprecedentedly well, he will make 15,000 units maximum in Ontario this year. That is another 15,000 to 20,000 below what he has already predicted.

Doesn’t the minister think it makes sense to begin to talk in those realistic terms, so that we can then see the pressure on the market in terms of starts and completions and the implications for the rental sector as well? It’s quite disastrous. It’s a calamitous thing that’s occurring.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has not followed all the projections as closely as he might have. If he had followed the April figures, he would have noticed the projected figures for the calendar year will be 85,000 starts in Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: No, the minister is wrong. He is wrong. The April figures are down 32 per cent from last year, and the projection is nowhere near that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia has a supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: A brief supplementary, if I may: Recognizing the need for vigour with the federal minister, does the minister think he is in a position to assure the members of the House that he will expend the moneys that we vote to him this year for the purposes and responsibilities of his ministry, unlike last year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, certainly I can assure the hon. member and everyone here that we will spend all the money. As a matter of fact, last year we spent all the money except certain funds that were appropriated for North Pickering and certain funds in the socially-assisted housing field, whereby we couldn’t build because of the non-acceptance of certain communities. This may continue this year, but I don’t think so. I think I’ll have some pretty good news for the members of this House very shortly.

Mr. Lewis: Another announcement?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. Or two.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Would the minister do a service for the public of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes. I’ll try to get rid of the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Every time the minister says housing starts are going to go up, they go down. Could the minister start saying that housing starts might go down and admit the current situation; then, perversely, they might start to rise? He hasn’t got anything else to offer.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Etobicoke with a supplementary.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, in view of the accentuated shortage of rental housing due to the drop in housing starts, is the minister now in a position to come out in favour of rental review boards?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m not at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

PEEL REGION HOUSING COORDINATOR

Mr. Lewis: I have another question of the Minister of Housing. How did the minister resolve the question of Mr. David Strachan, his Peel housing coordinator? Mr. David Strachan was named in this extraordinary letter, signed by the chairman of the Peel board of education, who saw the minister’s representative as a supporter of the developers when they came before the board, on a unanimous vote of the board. How is it that an Ontario Housing representative would be seen that way, and how was that matter resolved?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure how he was seen that way, because I have not yet had a satisfactory answer from the board. I think it was a matter viewed personally by the members of the board as intimidation by Mr. Strachan. There certainly was not any intimidation, nor was there any action to intimidate the board taken by the Ontario Housing Corp., through either the Housing Action Programme, or the Ministry of Housing. It’s purely a misunderstanding between the board and Mr. Strachan.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary; what is the policy of the Ministry of Housing regarding applying pressure tactics to boards of education, and the response of the minister to boards who see his agent as an agent of the developers? Has the minister met with the Peel board of education and Mr. Strachan in an attempt to sit down and resolve it? It’s a devil of a position for the ministry to be put in -- to be seen as a friend of the developers in dealings with the board.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have met with my staff -- Mr. Strachan being one of them -- and we have discussed the situation quite fully. We have indicated by letter to the board that there was not any intimidation through my ministry and I intend to stand on that statement. I again say, it’s like any other board, they have a responsibility to their community to see that we do have certain developments take place. I’m not on the side of the developers, I’m on the side of the board. I’m trying to say that we need certain developments in certain communities.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

MEMO ON CHILD ABUSE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Maybe he could give the House some explanation of this interesting memo that is on the letterhead of his deputy minister from Charles Hendry to Gordon McLellan and members of the child abuse committee? And particularly those paragraphs which say:

“1975 apparently will be an election year in Ontario. At such a time, leadership initiative is of special importance; imaginative initiatives are expected in areas of public concern. One such area is child welfare and child development. Day care has become a subject of sharp controversy. Something less contentious and divisive is needed to provide focus for more harmonious undertakings. It is suggested here that child abuse or child battering supplies such a focus for political action.

“It is also suggested that such initiative in this ministry, particularly since the first woman deputy minister in any provincial government is a key figure, would be highly advantageous.”

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The price is right.

Mr. Lewis: How does the ministry decide on child welfare priorities in Ontario, since day care has been denigrated and we’re having a conference on child abuse and child battering flowing from this memo? How does all this happen? Is this the way the ministry works?

Mr. Breithaupt: Part of family unity month.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Who decided that priority?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It’s as cynical as one can get.

Mr. Lewis: There is nothing straight about this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is the bottom of the barrel.

Mr. Lewis: It is about as divisible as could be devised.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I heard of that memo for the first time last night during the estimates.

Mr. Lewis: I gather.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister wants to shake that party up.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Apparently this memo -- as I said, I haven’t seen it -- was sent by a consultant to one of our officials.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is not depreciating Charles Hendry’s consultancy status; he admits it is central to his ministry. It went to the ministry; the ministry acted on the memo. I am asking the minister: Is that the way he works out priorities in his ministry, on the political advantages in an election year where child welfare is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the member is using his own

interpretation. As I indicated to him, this was strictly a memo from --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- a consultant to one of our officials. The question of child abuse, and we can record this, is one we are very concerned about.

Mr. Lewis: Like violence in the media.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: It’s one we have been involved with for the last two, three or four years, if not more.

Mr. Breithaupt: But it didn’t do any good.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Carleton East.

STORE HOURS

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With your permission I’d like to return to a question originally raised by my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, and ask the Premier, if he is not too busy --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am listening.

Mr. P. Taylor: He is listening?

Since, on Jan. 16, the Premier told a dinner meeting in Brampton that an announcement would be made on the question of uniform store hours within three or four weeks, could he tell the House whether or not he has a commitment to this House to produce this legislation before this session ends?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I have a commitment to the House. I don’t recall making a commitment to the House.

Mr. P. Taylor: A supplementary: Is it the Premier’s intention that his government will introduce legislation of this kind before this session is over?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, not knowing the finality of this particular session, I can’t give that commitment. I can only assure the member it is a matter that is receiving very careful consideration by the government.

Mr. Roy: Like the last three years.

Mr. P. Taylor: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since there have been repeated announcements by an array of ministers promising legislation within two or three weeks or very soon, could the Premier say what the problem is that the government is facing in bringing this forward?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants a lengthy answer as to the problem, if that is the terminology, perhaps one might inquire, as I expect others will over a period of time, if the Liberal Party of Ontario has decided on a position on uniform store hours yet?

An hon. member: Or on anything.

Mr. Roy: We have a bill.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the Premier enact a bill?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Ruston: The Liberal Party has a policy on it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If so, it is the only one.

Interjections by hon. members.

INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIME

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Last week the Premier said in Strathroy that violent crime in Ontario is undergoing a rapid increase. On what is that statement based?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I said that, as a matter of fact, in Strathroy. I did refer to violent crime and I said statistically there are facts that indicate the incidence of violent crime is increasing. If the member wants me to get the statistics, I’d be delighted to do so but I think it is something known to all of us, I am sure. I am surprised the member either isn’t concerned or isn’t aware of it.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since this is police week, perhaps I could use the occasion to give some figures for the Premier’s benefit --

Mr. Speaker: Order please; question.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and pay a tribute to the police and the citizens of Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Come on; how often do we pay tributes?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the member has a supplementary question, that’s okay.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Premier aware, Mr. Speaker, that in 1974 violent crime increased by 1½ per cent over 1973, and in 1973 violent crime in Ontario increased by 3½ per cent over 1972, and that those increases were about the same as population increases in those two years?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Any increase is too much.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the Premier also aware that when measured on FBI and Statistics Canada statistics against all jurisdictions in North America, Ontario is about 47th out of the 60 jurisdictions on the continent in the incidence of violent crime?

Mr. Yakabuski: The member knows why, doesn’t he?

An hon. member: That’s the way we want to keep it too.

Mr. Cassidy: While we all share the concern that has been expressed by a number of people about violent crime, does the Premier not think --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the Premier not think that this government might devote some attention to areas where Ontario leads the country in its problems, such as the fact that housing prices in Ontario are among the highest in North America?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that the record herein the Province of Ontario is probably the best in North America; I am fully aware of it. Unlike the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, we intend to keep it that way in spite of him.

Mr. Roy: With that kind of response, he’ll be picketing the police station next thing you know; that’s terrible.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary question, the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Given that the government intend to keep it that way, can the Premier assure the people of Peel that in fact there are actions being taken to counteract the effects of loan sharking and all of the rather serious consequences which befall people who get caught up in that business, as was reported by Insp. Joe Terdik of the Peel Regional Police?

Hon A Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Did you fellows talk to him?

Mr. Lewis: Occasionally.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that as far as police enforcement in the region of Peel is concerned, it is probably amongst the finest in the finest province of Canada. Probably the policing in the region of Peel is as great as one will find any place, yes. I must confess, Mr. Speaker, I speak with less than total objectivity.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, a new question. The member for Ottawa East.

DEPOSIT INSURANCE FOR CREDIT UNIONS

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Following the minister’s trips across the province discussing with the credit unions and the caisses populaires his legislation dealing with deposit insurance and stabilization proposals, when can we expect to see that legislation presented to the House?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would attend the House once in a while he might hear the statements that are read here. There was a statement read here in the middle of March in which I enunciated the government’s policy. I said there would be no legislation.

Mr. Roy: I was here when the minister made it, dummy.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, if the member had listened to it, he would have known that we were trying to get the Minister of Finance in Ottawa to co-operate with us.

Interjections by hon members.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, is that parliamentary? It is accurate, but is it parliamentary?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I didn’t hear what the member is referring to.

Mr. Cassidy: Both ways.

Mr. Speaker: Is the answer complete?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Speaker. I said that if the hon. member was here and had listened, he would have known we would be approaching the federal government for assistance in helping the credit unions achieve what they want, which is basically deposit insurance without a government-operated stabilization fund. I have written to the Minister of Finance asking for that kind of co-operation and I have not yet received his reply.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question of the minister. When he was talking to the annual meeting of the credit unions in the city back in March or April, what did the minister mean by his statement when he said to them: “After all, this is 1975. Who needs a fight”?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would have thought the remarks were self-explanatory, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Self-explanatory? The minister is backing off now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Premier. Given that there are a number of civil servants who are currently under the gun, so to speak, with regard to their political affiliation and civil service jobs, and given that a gentleman from Grimsby recently was given the ultimatum either to resign from the PC Party or give up his justice of the peace job --

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s old hat.

Mr. Deans: -- doesn’t the Premier think there is some inconsistency when the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Johnston) is reported in the newspaper to have claimed that he acts as a justice of the peace and as a member of the Legislature at the same time and gets paid for both?

Mr. Roy: Which job does he do best?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think this is really very similar to the question that was asked by the same member a few days ago.

Mr. Deans: No, it is very different.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If he will check Hansard, the answer is the same.

Mr. Deans: Could I have the answer on the record since the question was never asked? I didn’t ask whether the member for St. Catharines should have both jobs. I am asking the Premier, does he not feel it is wrong to inflict these kinds of penalties on private citizens while allowing members of the Legislature to hold down two similar types of positions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure they are related situations at all. I know nothing about the activities of the member for St. Catharines but I would be delighted to discuss it with him.

Mr. Lewis: No one does; not a soul would know.

Hon. Mr. Davis: His constituents do and that is why they re-elected him and will again.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact the Premier is wrong.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

NIAGARA REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. To refresh the minister’s thinking, it was under his previous jurisdiction that regional government in the Niagara region was established. Can the minister inform the Legislature as to what day he will announce a study programme to review the present regional government in Niagara; what is the name of the person who will be responsible for making this study; and what are the guidelines that will be established?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, all these things will be known in the fullness of time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There is not much more time for the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

FABRICON

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Since it was announced this morning that Fabricon in Trenton --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Why doesn’t the Treasurer answer a question once in a while.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is far more than members opposite do.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I didn’t hear the question. Will the member for Windsor West repeat it?

Mr. Lewis: Every time the Premier is in trouble, he sells another tie.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Under the new rules it is the only way we can make money.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Since it was announced this morning that Fabricon in Trenton was moving some 10 miles to the town of Belleville to open up new and expanded operations, and since the workers in that plant were not assured they would be taken on and given jobs in the new plant; would the Minister of Labour consult with the Ministry of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and assure the workers their jobs will be transferred and that the company can’t just let all their workers in Trenton go and take on a new staff of workers in Belleville?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): We will be pleased to see what we can do to help these people on this move. I will consult with my colleague.

RECREATION TRAILS

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. Last fall the minister may recall he made an announcement about a bill he would introduce for the establishment of trails in the province. Since that time, I think the minister will recall, he brought in legislation with regard to trails used by snowmobiles. When is the minister actually going to bring in some legislation to assist those who are interested in having bikeways, walking trails, riding trails and motorcycle trails? When is he going to get this legislation before us to get some action?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the operational aspects of this programme are in the hands of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier). I am sure the hon. member will get an answer.

Mr. Deacon: Why doesn’t the provincial secretary make the announcement then?

Mr. Breithaupt: He did the thinking on it.

An hon. member: The provincial secretary establishes the policy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member needs another education in the responsibilities of the provincial secretary, I would be glad to tell him. Where there is an overlapping jurisdiction as between a number of ministries, the coordination is done by the provincial secretary. The operational aspect of any programme is in the hands of a particular ministry. In this case, it is in the hands of the Minister of Natural Resource. I will make sure my colleague gets notice of the question the hon. member has asked and he will get a reply in due course.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Would the minister see that some action does take place, since it is now six months since he announced it would?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the programme is well under way and my colleague will report the action he has taken.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Time is running out now.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Since his predecessor, Bert Lawrence --

Mr. Breithaupt: Of happy memory.

Mr. Stokes: -- who convened the symposium on trails said he would be responsible for implementation of the programme, doesn’t the provincial secretary think he should know a little more about it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Bert could have been here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker. I didn’t say I didn’t know a little more about it. I merely advised the hon. member which minister is responsible for putting the programme into effect. If the hon. member thinks we should put it into some other minister’s hands, I would suggest he ask my colleague, but I am sure he has it well in hand.

Mr. Roy: Bert was doing a good job.

Mr. Deacon: What a waste of money.

Mr. Roy: Bring back Bert Lawrence.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

HOUSING ON ESCARPMENT LAND

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Is the minister aware that his Housing Action Programme representative appeared at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing in Hamilton with regard to a developer’s request for permission to build houses in the area designated as escarpment land? Is there any coordination between the Ministry of Housing and TEIGA with regard to the preservation of the escarpment? Is it right that OHAP -- or AHOP, I suppose it is -- takes precedence over the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker, ifs not right that AHOP or OHAP -- actually AHOP is the federal programme and OHAP is Ontario -- takes precedence over the Niagara Escarpment preservation. It isn’t right at all. The development that occurs within the designation of the planning area has the same regulations as any other development has. The only extra one is that the Niagara Escarpment Commission has to give its opinion as to whether or not the development should occur.

So the Treasurer, being the one who is responsible for the designation of the Niagara Escarpment planning area, and myself, as the one responsible for the development of the regulations and for the hearings which take place whenever an application is turned down -- and those dealing with this matter will be held in the next few weeks have been working hand in hand to make sure the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the people within the planning area are fully aware this government will preserve the escarpment area as much as possible, but some development will take place.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Why would the representative of the minister’s programme appear on behalf of the developer to put forward positions pro development of very valuable land right on the face of the escarpment?

Mr. Lewis: This is the second instance of this happening.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think we all must realize that our ministry is asked to come before the Ontario Municipal Board on all kinds of hearings. These are not necessarily OHAP matters only, but may involve a subdivision development anywhere, or even a land severance. So therefore I don’t find it very unusual.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary question: Given there is a substantial amount of land currently available in Saltfleet township, not in the designated area, already available and serviced; and given there are similar amounts of land available in Hamilton, why would the minister even make representation at all on behalf of developers on the face of the escarpment, rather than simply direct the Housing Action Programme to proceed within the lines already designated for housing?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Very clearly, Mr. Speaker, we were asked, no doubt, to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the escarpment: Why, in view of the fact these amendments are going to cost --

Mr. Yakabuski: Welcome.

Mr. G. Nixon: What’s the question?

Mr. Sargent: -- millions of dollars more, and hundreds of thousands of dollars of planning is going to go down the drain -- he has given the escarpment a blank cheque --

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Question?

Mr. Sargent: Why were the copies smuggled out of the meeting described as leaks of great concern to the government? Why can’t the minister supply these amendments to the people affected?

Mr. G. Nixon: What is the question?

Mr. Roy: Is that member deaf?

Mr. Sargent: Why can’t I have a copy of these amendments.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: How do they keep all these fellows awake?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The question has been asked.

Mr. Sargent: Okay, that’s a starting point.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’m just waiting for the hon. member to sit down and I’d be happy to answer.

Mr. Roy: Does the minister understand the question?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I did have a meeting with the municipalities that are under the control of the regulations regarding the Niagara Escarpment, and at that meeting --

Mr. Sargent: Who called the meeting?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I called the meeting.

Mr. Sargent: Why?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Sargent: What was the motivation for it?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. minister hasn’t completed his answer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should recognize this, that this government always tries to communicate with the people and this is what we’re doing.

Mr. Sargent: That’s a lot of bull and he knows it!

Mr. Breithaupt: Only some people.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In this particular case, I took the initiative of making sure I had input from the locally-elected leaders of the area that was affected. In doing so, I had the benefit of their comments on what at that time I described to them as proposed draft regulations, which they actually were. Now whether or not people believe me that’s another matter. Some took them home and that’s where they made the mistake, because they got the idea those were the final regulations; actually they weren’t at that time, nor are they yet, because I have not yet had the regulations proclaimed.

Therefore, what we are doing is working as closely as possible with all the people who are affected, the locally-elected people and the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The development will be, as far as I’m concerned, under my control when there is an appeal. That is when the Minister of Housing is responsible for sending out a hearing officer, and the hearing will be held in a particular area.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): How about the members affected?

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: Why does the minister take a township like Sarawak, where in the original plan they had 300 ft leeway, and now the whole township’s under complete and stringent control? The whole township is down the drain, really.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: And why does the minister write amendments like that when the people are going to be put out of business? Why write stuff like that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think the hon. member understands the --

Mr. Good: I never did understand it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- regulations regarding this development. What we are doing is promising regulations --

Mr. Sargent: He is doing away with all the planning boards.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

An hon. member: Listen.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- which exempt certain applications from having to be granted approval by the commission. When there is an application which is not within the exemptions, then we have to have a hearing before the commission. If the commission denies the application, we then have an appeal procedure -- and I am responsible for setting it up.

Mr. Sargent: Never to the OMB -- to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: That’s exactly right. The Minister of Housing is responsible for having hearing officers and making certain a hearing is held when an appeal has been asked for by the applicant.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

NATURAL RESOURCES SCIENCE CENTRE

Mr. Ferrier: I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view of the statement made by the Premier to the Timmins city council that he wasn’t aware of any of the developments on the natural resources centre for Timmins, how serious is his ministry taking that report by Raymond Moriyama? Is he going to make a decision if the land can be acquired to go ahead with this project?

Mr. Havrot: It’s another one of those grandstand shots.

Mr. Ferrier: if so, what kind of a time-frame is he thinking about?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, so there is no misunderstanding. What I think I said to the Timmins council was that I was not aware of what they had said to me, but that there was $8.5 million already allocated or sitting at Queen’s Park for the development of this particular facility. I don’t think I told them I was unaware of a suggestion with respect to a form of museum in that area. It had to do with the $8.5 million.

Mr. Ferrier: I wasn’t there, so I didn’t hear it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m trying to help. I’m not trying to be argumentative.

Mr. Lewis: Did the Premier offer the mayor of Timmins, L. Del Villano, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I didn’t.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier so graciously clarified things, I still am concerned about this matter and wonder if the Minister of Industry and Tourism would say what kind of plans he has to deal with the Moriyama report, and what time-frame he is thinking about in proceeding with some kind of plan in the northeast?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if the member would check the answer that was given to him about a week or 10 days ago, on exactly the same question, he will note that I said that the decision relating to further advancement of the plan of a natural science centre or resource centre in Timmins, was predicated on what Timmins was going to do in relation to the land they sold off, which was the site used in the original determination of the location of the programme. That decision has not been relayed back to us, even though we’ve asked two or three times.

I’ve spoken with the mayor of Timmins relating to that particular subject, with no answer as to exactly what the municipal council is going to do,

Mr. Stokes: Del Villano can’t make up his mind.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If they do not decide to purchase back the land -- and I think I described this to the hon. member the last time -- they will have to reassess the entire project, because it will have to be located in some other part of the city of Timmins.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sarnia.

HOLMES FOUNDRY STRIKE AT SARNIA

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Could the minister advise what initiatives his ministry is taking in connection with the prolonged strike between the United Auto Workers and Holmes Foundry at Sarnia?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: My information on that strike, sir, is that Mr. Howells of our ministry met with the parties on May 8. I don’t know how successful he was. As the member knows, they have been out since April 7; but the last meeting was May 8. I have not yet had a report on that. I will get one, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT LEGISLATION

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I had a time-frame question of the Premier, who has just left since I stood up. Perhaps I could ask it of the House leader.

Mr. Sargent: That’s a funny one.

Mr. Roy: He was afraid of the member for Sandwich-Riverside; that’s why he left.

Mr. Burr: I have questions of four other ministers, but they’re not here.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr. Burr: When can we expect Bill 14, the Environment Assessment Act, to be discussed for second reading in this House?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Very soon.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

HYDRO BLOCK

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): I have a question of the Minister of Housing: Is the Minister of Housing able at this time to advise us as to government policy relating to the Hydro block? Is the government considering selling any of that land on the open market?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me that question a few days ago, and I said I would be back. I’m sorry I don’t have a definitive answer, except to say to her that the board of OHC considered various proposals last week. I will be taking a proposal to Management Board next Tuesday and after that to the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

INDIAN FRIENDSHIP CENTRE CAMP

Mr. Stokes: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: Does the minister recall two years ago that we accompanied one another to an excellent campground about 40 miles up the Spruce River road, northeast of the city of Thunder Bay?

Mr. Deans: Take it easy.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Does she recall how impressed she was with the camp?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s the stuff.

Mr. Stokes: Does she recall how impressed she was with the camp being operated by people associated with the Thunder Bay Indian Friendship Centre? Does she recall saying she thought it was a worthwhile undertaking and she would continue to support its endeavours?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Remembers it clearly.

Mr. Lewis: There’s an example of whispering sweet nothings.

Mr. Stokes: Will she look into the reasons why the Ministry of Culture and Recreation has withdrawn financial --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Cut it out! I’m in enough trouble as it is.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Stokes: Will she look into the reasons why the Ministry of Culture and Recreation has withdrawn financial support from that worthwhile project?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, yes, I recall that day very well.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: What does she recall?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: And I thought gentlemen didn’t tell. I was impressed with the programme and I will look into the matter of support.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

OMB APPROVAL OF MUNICIPAL FINANCING

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the provincial Treasurer arising out of his statement in the budget that he had asked the OMB to review debenture applications by municipalities, to look into them. Is the minister aware of the acute concern he is causing municipal councils, that OMB will go beyond its traditional role of setting limits on debentures and will now make the actual selection of which projects will proceed, something which should be certainly left to the authority of the municipalities?

Mr. Roy: How’s that for local autonomy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m not so sure I entirely agree with this. I don’t think we are in traditional times. We happen to be in times which I think call for restraint and constraint; perhaps the situation was a little different in traditional times as opposed to what has gone on.

Mr. Breithaupt: Like the budget.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: However, I know the board is meeting with a number of municipalities and I think a number of problems are being sorted away.

Mr. Good: A supplementary; Mr. Speaker: Certainly we are not in traditional times. Everybody knows the government has overspent by billions and billions of dollars.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Good: Why does the Treasurer force on the municipalities conditions of his making when they should be the sole authority to set their own priorities?

Mr. Roy: Right.

Mr. Good: Maybe he should have the authority to set the limits, but he should not be meddling with the priorities.

Mr. Roy: Where is his restraint?

Mr. Good: Will he reconsider this whole matter?

Mr. Roy: Where is his restraint?

An hon. member: What did he say?

Mr. Good: He said no.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

HYDRO BLOCK

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister explain why after two years of government ministers blaming municipalities for rejecting public housing, Ontario Housing Corp. has rejected the Hydro block plans here in the city of Toronto with the statement: “It is the intent of Ontario Housing to provide housing for all the people of Ontario, not just those of low income”? Could the minister give an assurance to the House that the wishes of the people of the area, including the surrounding neighbourhood, to have public housing in that area would be respected rather than rejected?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether the member for Ottawa Centre was listening to the reply I gave the member for St. George.

Mr. Cassidy: I was getting a copy of the letter, I’m sorry.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event I said I would have a tentative answer, I hoped, from Management Board next Tuesday; from there it goes to cabinet and I’ll bring it before the House after that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR AMATEUR SPORT

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Is the minister considering co-operating with his colleague, the Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. Welch), who is concerned with fitness and amateur sport as well as recreation, and giving sales tax exemption certificates to amateur sports organizations recognized by the province, so they could prepare themselves better for the Ontario Gaines, and then the other ensuing games, by the remission of sales tax?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the whole question of sales tax exemption certificates in areas like this has been one I have had under investigation, I guess since the day I came on the scene as Minister of Revenue a little over a year ago.

With the formation of the Ministry of Culture and Recreation, in which they are better able, I believe, to assess the merits of the various applications for special consideration and for grants and the like, I expect that my ministry will be leaving that kind of thing more in the hand of the Minister of Culture and Recreation. Yes, there will be co-operation between us, of course.

I think, though, we are tending more in the direction of less exemptions from payment of taxes, and at the same time more in the direction of direct grants rather than exemptions from charges for retail sales tax on admissions, since the latter at the very best are difficult to assess in terms of their worth to the group and the assistance they represent in achieving goals.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves second reading of Bill 74, the Royal Canadian Legion Act, 1975.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Is the minister telling us things aren’t grinding to a halt around here?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): No, this is a very important bill I want to tell the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Waterloo North.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill, I think, is to standardize the procedure that has been in practice by certain Legion branches across the province when they buy or dispose of or mortgage their property. The action must be done after a resolution has been sent out to members 10 days prior to a special or regular meeting. Then a vote must be taken and carried by a two-thirds majority of all those in good standing, present and voting, before any action can be taken by the executive of a Legion branch to mortgage, buy or dispose of property.

I checked with my own branch in Waterloo and I find out that this is exactly the procedure they carried out in 1969 when they added a large addition and put on a healthy mortgage on the branch. It is something that has been done in practice. It is now regularized in legislation. Provincial Command with its buildings here in Toronto and Dominion Command with its buildings in Ottawa, I understand, would have to follow the same procedure of a two-thirds vote of the executive bodies of those commands.

We would support the bill. From the small amount of research I have done on it with my own branch, I find it is a good thing if all branches are brought under this common procedure.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): My understanding from what the minister said at the time he introduced the bill was that this was in response to a request from the Legion. We are quite happy to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a reply?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There is really nothing to reply to, only to say that what has been said is correct. The explanatory note is exactly the way it is, as was explained by the member for Waterloo North. It has been a request from the Legion for a substantial period of time. This bill then comes before us to regularize the procedures that have been accepted in the past.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 74, the Royal Canadian Legion Act, 1975.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second reading of Bill 68,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I have read this bill and I don’t think it really has a particular principle. Perhaps it might be more convenient for the bill to go to committee of the whole and it could be dealt with on various points as they may come up at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: My colleague is going to speak to this bill, but I’m not absolutely clear why this bill didn’t go before the private bills committee -- it would have seemed to me that that would have been the appropriate place -- or why the Metropolitan Toronto Act isn’t dealt with outside the Legislature at all, because it deals with any number of matters which appeared in other private legislation rather than public legislation.

Mr. Speaker: The answer, of course, if I may interrupt, is that the private bills go to that committee, not this. This is a public bill.

Mr. Deans: No, I understand.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill itself is routine and we have no particular objections to it.

One might even express a sigh of relief that the vaunting ambition of the Metro chairman led to a recycling of the CNE stadium into a baseball park rather than the creation of some multi-zillion-dollar colossus such as has been built in cities like New Orleans. The fact is that we’ve got a new stadium, or are getting a new stadium, on much more reasonable terms than if the grandiose ambitions of all those concerned originally had been satisfied.

There is a problem, Mr. Speaker, which doesn’t really pertain to the bill directly but pertains to it indirectly. The bill permits a slightly wider marketing of debentures by the metropolitan corporation because it allows the sale of Metropolitan Toronto debentures to the nations outside of the United States, Britain and Canada, which presumably means the Arabs, since they are the only other ones who have any money these days.

The problem is very simply the fact that the balance of borrowing as between Metropolitan Toronto and its constituent municipalities is way out of whack. Granted that Metro borrows on behalf of the area municipalities, but the capital expenditures which underlie those seem to be prioritized or determined by the metropolitan corporation and there is no sense of leaving that kind of fiscal power down to the local level.

Before you interrupt me, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think that is particularly in direct line with the principle of the bill, but at least I thought the occasion was worth taking to point it out. We are, in this bill, further confirming the fiscal grip which Metropolitan Toronto has used in order to centralize power at the upper tier of regional government here in Toronto.

I think it’s interesting that the government resisted violently -- the member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett) was the instigator or the agent -- an increase of one or two people in the hydro commission -- I think it was when that was before the private bills committee -- and the city of Toronto’s hydro commission is willing to greatly expand the borrowing power of Metropolitan Toronto by giving it access to petrodollars in the Middle East

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to comment on this? The member for York-Forest Hill.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): There is really no principle in this bill so there is nothing to address oneself to. That it changes the late payment of water charges from one half of one per cent per month to 12 per cent a year is hardly something of momentous importance.

There is only one comment I want to make and I suppose this is as good a time as any to make it. When the province decided to go ahead with Metro on the establishment of the exhibition stadium, one thing I could not understand is this: When it is virtually impossible to move 30,000 people at a football game out of the stadium as it has existed up to now, how in the world are they going to move twice that many people under the same traffic conditions in the new stadium? I shall never be able to understand it.

How the provincial authorities and the Metro authorities were able to rationalize it in their minds to make the decision to go ahead with the stadium, I will never understand. However, the government decided to do this -- and I suppose a stadium here is better than a stadium nowhere.

I still think the place to have put the stadium is where the Spadina subway is going to end, so that the Spadina subway could have some rationale. Other than ending at a stadium, it has no rationale at all. Running through an area with a population density of about 35 people per acre is a way that a subway system is going to go broke pretty quickly.

So I think I would like to state this point right now on the matter of

section 4, with respect to the exhibition stadium. As far as the rest of the bill is concerned, Mr. Speaker, it is purely routine. Our party will support the bill because there’s nothing else to it of great momentous import.

Mr. Speaker: Any other comments on this bill? If not, does the hon. parliamentary assistant wish to reply?

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to reply because of the fact that I don’t believe any specific questions were asked. There were statements of opinion given by the various members, but I believe they do support the principle of this bill. If there are any specific questions, I would attempt to answer them.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 68,

An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Beckett, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McKeough, moves second rending of Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question which is somewhat related though not directly involved in this particular amendment.

Some time ago, in the Legislative Assembly Act, we passed a

section which precluded any person from being able to hold office both as a member of the Legislature and as a city councillor. I realize it isn’t contained here, but I’m trying to find out, to question why that portion was never proclaimed. This is dealing with the right of the minister to require that there be an election under certain circumstances within local boards or municipalities.

They’re not related directly, but one of the reasons why there might be the need for an election within a municipality would be that a member of a municipal council may well run for the legislative assembly and be elected. We have a

section which doesn’t allow a member to sit in both the legislative assembly and the council, but it hasn’t been proclaimed. I wonder if this minister, on behalf of the ministry, might be able to inform us as to the reason why that has not yet happened?

Mr. Speaker: Any other members wish to comment on this? The member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, I am a little puzzled about the reasoning behind the

section whereby, if a council of any municipality or a local board is unable for a period of two months to hold a meeting of the council, the minister may have an election of a whole new council.

I suppose there is some reason for this. But it could be we have a reeve, a deputy reeve and, we’ll say, three members of council. For some reason these three members of council cannot attend the meetings. Perhaps one has been sentenced to jail, and one may have been sentenced to the Legislature, and the other one may be in the hospital. But why would the elections have to cover the reeve and the deputy reeve, for example, as well as the three vacant seats?

I just don’t understand why the members who have fulfilled their duties should have to run again because of the incidents that happened to the other members of the municipality or of the board.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

J’aimerais préciser que la situation à Ottawa était la suivante: au cours de l’élection de 1972, il y a une élection avec règlements, scrutin, etc., tout s’est déroulé dans les deux langues. Mais dans la dernière élection en décembre 1974 tout s’est déroulé seulement en anglais.

J’ai aussi d’autres questions sur les formules d’inscription pour les certificats de conduite pour les chauffeurs dans la province. On a vu l’autre jour que dans l’espace de quelques mois il a été possible pour le gouvernement de mettre sur les formules de chauffeurs une petite addition pour permettre aux gens de faire don de leur coeur, de leurs yeux ou d’autres organes de leur corps. Cela été possible dans l’espace de peut-être cinq ou six mois. Pas de problème.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York-Forest Hill.

As far as subsections 2 and 3 of

section 117 here go, the Act contemplates the possibility of certain eventualities taking place. I would like the parliamentary assistant to tell me under what circumstances a condition such as that envisaged under subsection 2 can take place? Would he kindly tell me under what circumstances that can possibly take place, outside of a case where a whole array of members is elected to higher office, assuming the office up here is considered a higher office? Where has there been an instance in any municipality in the Province of Ontario where a quorum has failed by virtue of the fact that several members have been elected to the provincial Legislature?

Incidentally, with a certain announcement that was made today, Mr. Speaker -- and this isn’t speaking to the bill -- I regret that in another Act that was passed in this Legislature municipal candidates are permitted to run for the provincial Legislature without having to resign their position,

whereas we have to go under the gun. One can run for the provincial Legislature and still retain his municipal position and, if he loses, he still retains his municipal position. But if one is a member of the provincial Legislature and loses, he has had it. I think that is wrong.

I think a man or woman should have to fish or cut bait. If one decides to run for higher office, when the day of official nomination comes about he should have to resign whatever official position he holds and decide that that is the office he is risking his political career for and run for it regardless. If he wins, he wins, and if he loses, he loses.

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): The member won’t get any candidates that way.

Mr. Givens: I doubt that.

Mr. Kerr: The member’s party is having trouble now.

Mr. Givens: I did that. I resigned my federal seat. One has to do that when he runs for federal office and is in the provincial House, and he has to do that here if he runs for provincial office while in the federal House. Allan Lawrence had to do that when he decided to run federally. One has to do that when he runs from here to there and he has to do that when he runs federally and provincially.

Mr. Kerr: One shouldn’t leave here.

Mr. Givens: Oh, well, one shouldn’t leave here. Anyway, I think that was the wrong principle at that time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Bill Allen left.

Mr. Givens: I just thought I would mention that in passing. With that reservation, and if the hon. member will be good enough to answer the query that I asked about subsection 2, the official opposition will support Bill 69.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this Municipal Elections Act amendment, I am very disappointed that this Act doesn’t contain in it a couple of the other very important things which, to a fair degree, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has declared himself in favour of. Having brought

an Act before us which does makes some slight changes in the Municipal Elections Act, it’s disappointing that there isn’t in this Act a shift of the normal municipal election date to an earlier time of the year, to which the senior minister indicated he was in favour.

Second, there should be an opportunity for the chief electoral officer of the municipality to declare an emergency has arisen and postpone the date of the municipal election. Such things would have been very helpful at the time of the normal municipal elections when they occurred last December in the city of Windsor, when we got more snow on the weekend immediately preceding the election than we normally get in a three-year period. I’m very disappointed it has not occurred in this Act, where we’re taking the time and trouble to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

With respect to the Act itself, I too am rather interested in the parliamentary assistant’s comments as to why one would have to re-elect the entire council if one has declared a vacancy because of the inability to obtain a quorum. I cannot understand why the seats of those members who had conscientiously turned out for each of those meetings and would have been part of any quorum had another couple of people joined, would necessarily be declared vacant.

I wonder if the regulations will cover this possibility so that some may retain their seats, those who have been recorded as attending and trying to do their public duty, as opposed to their being declared vacant and having to run again for those seats.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, but at the same time I express disappointment at the fact that the government hasn’t looked into the Windsor situation carefully enough and come down with legislation that could, once and for all, resolve that problem.

I know the member piloting the bill through is aware of the inclement weather we had on the day of the election and the fact that the election really should have been postponed. But the authority to postpone that election should be clear cut in the Act, so that the city clerk or the chief electoral officer in the municipality could have made that decision in sufficient time to alert everyone. As it is, the results of that election are before the courts and may end up with a rerun of that election at considerable expense to the municipality as well as to the various candidates who are going to partake in an attempt to gain an elective office.

I think the ministry has been a little lax in not resolving that problem in this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. As far as changing the election day, rather than having it --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member should be discussing this particular bill and not some other bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m talking to it, because this can involve the municipality of Pelee Island, that is adversely affected as a result of resignations there. Likewise, Mr. Speaker, if you want to resolve a lot of the problems, especially weather problems, then you can resolve them by selecting another month rather than the month of December for municipal elections. I hope the member piloting the bill through will take into consideration the comments I’ve made, and, possibly in the not too distant future, introduce legislation that could resolve these problems.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other hon. members who wish to speak to this? If not, the hon. parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Beckett: Mr. Speaker, the member for Wentworth asked for the reasons for the election. The same question was asked by many of the members opposite who were speaking to this bill. I will attempt to deal with the various sections.

Section 1 is regarding the bilingual question of the ballot. I believe all members indicated their support for that.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Isn’t the parliamentary assistant going to answer in French, like the member who spoke in French?

Mr. Beckett: Merci.

Mr. Bounsall: Oui.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Is he going to answer in French?

Mr. Beckett: In the second clause, “in the event that the council,” and so forth, concern was expressed as to what the circumstances were which would cause these vacancies. It could be a combination of a number of features; some of them could be deaths; some could be resignations; some could be a failure to qualify. It’s for these reasons and in particular the situation as mentioned by the member for Windsor-Walkerville -- Pelee Island, I believe, is a terrific example. The only difference, I would say, is it’s my understanding that the problem there was not that people resigned but they failed to qualify, which I admit comes to the same result.

There was another question -- I don’t believe the matter raised by the member for York-Forest Hill is considered to be merely a reason here. It’s one of the many considerations but I would be the first one to admit this does not cover the problem he spoke of -- of moving from the federal level to the provincial level and vice versa. This is designed more for the situation in which there could be a combination of deaths, resignations or failure to qualify.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think the parliamentary assistant has neglected to answer the question the member for Windsor West and I raised about why the whole council needs to be re-elected or elected.

Mr. Beckett: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding there would be difficulties in coming to a finality because we’re talking in terms of a quorum for two months. If there were someone who decided to stay away for the first period of time, for example, and there was a death later on, etc. there would be continual confusion in the administration of the municipality. The suggestion here is that in the event there is a lack of quorum for two months there should be a whole new election to clarify the whole matter.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 69,

An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It would appear we have a little time to peruse the budget and a few other items I may wish to talk on. Since there doesn’t seem to be any particular rush of legislative business at this time, I suppose it is a good opportunity to go into some of these items.

The budget, of course, Mr. Speaker, was no doubt what you would call a short-term budget with items put in such as the lowering of the sales tax from seven to five per cent for only the balance of this year and the home ownership grant up to Dec. 31 as well. These, of course, are supposed to be a stimulant to the economy although I would suppose we would also have to have a stimulant in an election year.

Of course, any budget brought down in an election year can be called an election budget. However, this one is probably more so because most election budgets don’t necessarily go for one year. That a why this one shows up a little more than usual when it cuts off at Dec. 31.

We have got to almost assume then that the Premier (Mr. Davis) will not be using his prerogative of going to the fifth year of the life of the Legislature, which he can do under our electoral system. It would appear that he must intend to go to the people in 1975. However, I think that he could hang on -- and maybe this is not the exact word, but it is used in some areas when Premiers hang on for some time. I guess he could go until 1977 if you get right down into the nitty-gritty of the law, which I am sure he will not do.

I, of course, have been one of those predicting that we will be on the campaign trail a week from today. However, that is just a guess and I don’t have anything to back it up. I don’t have anyone at the right hand of the Premier to advise me on what he is doing.

The budget is very much a one-year budget and it makes one think that he will go while the iron is hot. As the fellows in the blacksmith business say: “It’s time to hit it, when it’s hot.”

Now, in regard to the general economy of the country, Mr. Speaker, I have a number of items to speak on, and each item will be quite brief. I spoke at some length on the Throne Speech in March, I think, and took a little longer than usual. I am reluctant to take too long, because at some of the meetings at which I speak to the people on what goes on in the Legislature, I tell them that without controls on how long people can speak on certain items and at certain times, I think it degrades the Legislature. I think when people come in and see that we don’t even have a quorum -- and probably we don’t know. At this very time I am sure we don’t.

Mr. Ferrier: No, we don’t.

Mr. Ruston: However, I am not sure that I really can expect someone to come in and listen to people talk for hours on end on matters that pertain only to their own area or on something that they must have on their mind and maybe isn’t of much interest to other people. And, of course, they have it on the record if they ever want to use it or look back; maybe that is the reason they speak so long.

I think maybe the time is coming, Mr. Speaker, when there should be controls or some type of agreement made as to the length of time that you may speak in budget debates, in Throne Speech debates, probably even in the committee of the whole House. This, of course, is pretty good the way it is as far as bills and estimates are concerned, where you can get up and down as often as you want. But again, I suppose, it’s abused to some extent. A person can decide to speak several times on the Throne Speech. I think we had one member who spoke for seven hours on different occasions. I don’t think that anybody could pay me enough to have to sit and listen for seven hours to a speech.

I think a person having to listen for seven hours should get paid more than the person giving the speech. I don’t think there is any seven-hour speech that is that good or interesting.

Mr. Ferrier: Can we take it then that the member won’t speak for seven hours?

Mr. Ruston: That’s for sure. To the member for Cochrane South, I’ll definitely say that in no way would I be interested in that whatsoever.

Here’s something the member for Windsor-Walkerville just gave me. In Pakistan, a member of the national assembly was suspended from the remainder of the session for making an irrelevant speech. It was struck from the record. So you see, maybe that could happen here sometime if someone got up and spoke for a long time and maybe it didn’t have any relevance as to what we were actually doing. I suppose that is possible.

Mr. Ferrier: That would have to be a government member, though.

Mr. Ruston: That’s possible -- but anyway, I guess it is possible for anyone.

Now, I just want to talk briefly on agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In 1974 and in 1973, farm income has increased substantially in the majority of areas of Ontario -- in fact, in all of Canada -- since the fall of 1972 and 1973. Prices -- especially grain prices -- went up considerably at that time -- export wheat to about $5 a bushel and of course, there was the big futures market in soya beans.

Two or three years ago soya beans went from $3.10 a bushel at harvest time to $11.50 the following spring. I think the majority of people who made that money never knew what a soya bean looked like, and didn’t know where it came from. They didn’t know whether it came from the land, the water or where it came from. They would be the stock market people, and I guess the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) is well versed in that particular item.

There is some concern now though, Mr. Speaker, as to prices. I was just reading in one of the newspapers where Brazil is now the second highest producer of soya beans in the world. The United States, of course, is still the major producer of soya beans. I speak about soya beans, Mr. Speaker, because of their wide diversity of use.

I think that when they went up in the market to $11 a bushel two years ago that it was maybe the worst thing that could have happened to our country’s economy. It put the money in the hands of a very few people, and caused prices of anything that was manufactured from soya beans to soar.

The people who really suffered from that -- I suppose at that particular time even the farmers suffered -- were using soya bean by products, soya bean meal, for feed for their cattle and livestock. Soya bean meal went from about $100 a ton to about $500 a ton. That almost mined the dairy farmers at that time, especially in the one year when the prices went up so high.

So that reverberated around the whole agricultural economy and I think that it had some bad effects on the economy throughout the world. It is amazing that maybe that was the start of it. We needed higher prices, but in no way did the farmers -- and they’ll say themselves --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member state his point of order?

Mr. Sargent: I think it is high time we had a quorum here.

Clerk of the House: There is not a quorum present, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Mr. Speaker: We now have a quorum. The member may continue.

Mr. L. C. Henderson (Lambton): Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, could we let the record show that there are only five New Democrat members in the House at this time; just five. Just five, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ferrier: There were only four Tories when the quorum was called.

Mr. Speaker: It is not really a point of privilege. The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Henderson: Just five.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): When the division bells rang, there were only two Tories here.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, let the record show there was only one Tory in the House before the call for the quorum; only one Tory.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member for Grey-Bruce is here for only the third time this session too.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: You are welcome.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a few more --

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Why be so nasty to us? We didn’t call it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma.

Mr. Gilbertson: I want it on the record that the member for Grey-Bruce came in here and called a quorum and he is very seldom in the House himself. When he did come in he called a quorum.

Mr. Sargent: That’s the last time I’ll buy maple syrup from him.

Mr. Speaker: It must be spring fever. The member for Essex-Kent may proceed.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, for all we are accomplishing here, maybe the Premier should pull the plug and put them out in the hustings and have an election. I just wonder just how much we are accomplishing, but I hope that my speech will add something to it, although so far it has mostly been interruptions and so forth.

What I was speaking about, Mr. Speaker, were the repercussions of the price of soya beans on the world economy in 1972 and 1973 and what it is having to do now with the agricultural industry. Just to give an idea of what has happened since that time, the soya bean price last year was from $6 to $8 or $9 a bushel and today they are $4.70 and the fall price is considered to be about $4.10. For corn, we are talking a fall price of about $2. It is about $2.50 now,

whereas a year ago it was $3.50. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it is a fluctuating market and it is very, very difficult for a farmer when he goes out to buy a tractor and pay $15,000 to $20,000 for it and not know for sure what his price is going to be when he sells his commodities.

I had a fellow tell me the other day when he was buying a header for a combine that the price of it last fall was $7,200 and he didn’t buy it because he didn’t think he could afford it right then. He went up a couple of weeks ago to get a price on it and it had gone up to $10,200. That shows you the problem they have. Now, I think it is very pertinent and I think it is very important that we come in with some form of a guarantee -- not necessarily subsidization -- for farm commodities.

We have the new Act in Ottawa now being studied by the committee. To give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of the feelings of some people I have a letter which I will read in part from a person in my area:

“We need protection and guarantees with regard to the relation between our input costs and our returns.

“We farmers appear to be the only segment of our society who are not protected. Why should this be?

“We are willing and able to produce the food required by our country and all the world but some assurance of adequate returns is a must.

“In my own case, I have two sons who are just starting on their own. They want to farm and be a part of the backbone of our country -- farmers. They are renting land, would like to buy land and are willing to invest in high input costs and machinery to produce a crop.

“I am happy this is their decision but they will have to net something for their investment and labour or they will not be able to continue to operate as farmers and will be forced to leave the industry.

“This would be a sad situation. We must look to the future for the younger generation who are willing to work the land. We cannot depend on substitutes and synthetics. The time has passed for stop-gaps and temporary measures.”

Mr. Speaker, this gives you an idea of the feeling many people have in the agricultural industry, who have to make large investments to carry on their operations.

I might go on to another subject which I would like to mention in pasting. It’s in regard to the statements made by the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and the Premier lately about how they thought we should be cutting down on drinking and so forth because of health reasons.

It’s really rather ludicrous because every week we get a copy of a letter from the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario. Here’s one on licence activities for the week ending May 3, 1975. The first couple of pages, of course, are changes in licences from one owner to another. When it gets to the third page it starts and in about six pages there are 56 new licences issued. It says, “The following applications for licences have been approved and the licences will be issued when the premises meet all the requirements of the Liquor Licence Act and regulations.” There are 56 new applications in one week.

I don’t have the figures with me today, Mr. Speaker, as to what the increase in outlets has been in the last five to 10 years. I did have them a while ago. I don’t have them with me but I know they have more than doubled in the last 10 years.

Licence activities for the week ending May 10 -- mind you, there weren’t too many that week. There are only 16 new applications to the end of that week. If as the Premier and the Minister of Health say, they’re going to get tough and cut down on drinking, I don’t think they’re going to do it by increasing the outlets every week.

I think somebody mentioned the other day when I asked a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Handleman), he said that really didn’t have anything to do with it. He said they want people to cut down. Someone interjected and said that by having more outlets we could cut down; we could get one drink in each place and keep going up and down the street. In that way we wouldn’t drink much in each place but we would drink just as much and maybe more.

I think people who want to drink are going to enjoy a drink. I know we have some problems with alcoholism and so forth and a certain amount of people who haven’t been able to control it, but the easier the access doesn’t necessarily cut it down, Mr. Speaker.

I’m not a teetotaler myself. I enjoy a drink occasionally but when the Minister of Health and the Premier talk about cutting down and then we get a notice in the paper of 56 new outlets in one week, it’s pretty hard to understand them at all.

Mr. Breithaupt: Or take them seriously.

Mr. Ruston: Or take them seriously is right.

In the Throne Speech debate in March I spoke about the automobile industry. I don’t want to reiterate all of that, Mr. Speaker, but we depend a great deal on the automobile industry for employment in Ontario. We have an automobile pact with the United States where many of the cars that are manufactured here go to the US and the ones manufactured in the US come back into Canada duty free. It is very interesting to us because the US is suffering the worst sales it has had in 14 years.

Although in Canada sales have been down slightly in the last three to four months, though I see April sales are higher than last year in April, we are holding our own pretty well in Canada. The United States market is our biggest problem.

Mr. Speaker, you can’t sell cars if you are not going to have any place to drive them. When we have a population of 2¼ million in Metropolitan Toronto and when the Premier gets up and says that cities are for people and not for cars, I suppose then that our manufacturers and those manufacturing cars are wondering what they are going to do with them. There are more than two million people here. There must be a car for every family and maybe two cars. If the Premier says that the city is for people and not cars, I guess one begins to think that maybe he had better not have a new car.

I don’t know whether he really understands this. I don’t think so. I think of the mistakes some of the large cities made. Being close to the city of Detroit, I think their mistake was that they never did put in any rapid transit. One of the reasons for it, from what I have read in some of the Detroit papers, is that when they were talking about rapid transit about 10 or 15 years ago there was quite an objection from the automobile industry. Auto workers, combined with the automobile industry, pretty well put a kibosh on that in the city of Detroit, which is known as the city of wheels.

They never did build any rapid transit system in Detroit. They still have a kind of open motor bus system, but that’s not good.

Mr. Stokes: What is kibosh?

Mr. Ruston: That is a new word. I am pleased to have the member for Kent (Mr. Spence) as Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to see you, Mr. Speaker, in that position.

Mr. Sargent: That is what the Premier does.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Gilbertson: Bring him to order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ruston: The Toronto subway system is one of the best transportation systems I have seen in any city. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, if they could have built in conjunction with that a rapid transit system outwards east and west, or northwest and northeast as well as in conjunction with their highway system, then they would have had a combination of both. Seventy-five per cent of the people in the United States and Canada go to work in their cars. In fact, in some areas it is as high as 90 per cent and in some areas it is 100 per cent, but as a whole about 75 per cent use their cars to get back and forth to work.

Until the government makes a good alternative system, people are bound to use their cars. So the government is going to have to make some way for them to use their cars. That is why it needs a combination of both, especially in the heavily populated city where one certainly does need an excellent rapid transit system. People still want their cars to get out in the country and get up to the north. By having a combination of both, one can move people around.

There is some concern, regardless of how big Toronto gets, whether when any city gets over a population of perhaps two million one can ever really solve the transportation system properly and whether one can ever really put in a system that will work.

One can get too heavy a population in a very small area. It is getting that way in Toronto with the high density of office buildings in the downtown core. There are some reports, I think, of 50,000 to 60,000 people working in a five or six square block area. Whether rapid transit and other modes of transportation can really handle that is hard to say. It is probably difficult. We all should be thinking of what some of the planners are saying.

Toronto now is receiving half the immigrants who come into Canada. The Metropolitan area has over 2½ million people and it is still growing. I wonder whether we should be saying to industry and all commercial enterprises that we are going to have to take a look and open up new areas and enlarge some of the present cities. There is no reason at all why the city of London can’t handle another 100,000 people, or Peterborough or North Bay.

Maybe we should be encouraging industry to go into those areas. I don’t think they need a grant structure. Maybe it should be on a corporation tax basis that you could encourage them to go into these other areas. You would double their charge maybe if they went into a heavily populated area such as Metropolitan Toronto. That might be an alternative to encourage them to go into these other areas.

But I think we have to do something. I don’t think we can continue at the present rate we are going and still be able to have what we call respectable living in an area such as Metropolitan Toronto, or the way it will get if it continues.

Another area of concern, Mr. Speaker: We’ve been reading where the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) and the Premier are concerned about the crime rate. And I was just reading an account in the Windsor Star where the judge is very concerned about the way the courts are operating. He says it certainly is a degrading situation. Judge Zalev mentioned in his remarks to the panel of jurors the costs involved with them appearing in a court -- and he mentioned the legal aid system. He pointed out to the panel that they in effect were paying these costs:

“The panel, which has about 86 members, attended county courthouse Thursday morning for a jury selection which didn’t take place because of charges dismissed when the Crown offered no evidence. Then on the understanding that another matter would be ready for trial today, Judge Zalev asked the panel to return this morning so a jury could be picked, but there were no defence lawyers available to begin the trial today. He said that it costs about $1,000 in taxpayers’ money to bring these people in.”

So I am concerned about our court system. We keep hearing about royal commissions and everything. I am not sure what we need to speed up our court system, but I am sure that there must be some lawyers that have the answers. Maybe what we need is a new Attorney General.

The member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) was here a few minutes ago. He spoke a week or two ago about what he would do as Attorney General, and I was very interested in some of his comments. Maybe we need a new broom and some new blood to modernize our court system so that there is not a backlog of six or eight months in a year to get things through. That seems to have a bearing. A lot of people are concerned about this. I think it shows that we are not taking a real interest in this. The government certainly has at its disposal anything it wants to do on this. I know it has the ability to improve it, and it certainly should do it.

I know that the Premier now says he is a law-and-order man. I noticed the other day someone asked him what he thought about capital punishment, but he said that particular item was a federal matter and he wasn’t going to get involved in it. But he certainly has been getting involved in a lot of other things that are federal matters. I think he shied away from that because I guess he didn’t want to commit himself about capital punishment.

I think everyone has a right to his say and it shouldn’t matter whether it’s a federal or provincial matter. Capital punishment up to now has been a federal matter and is voted on in a free vote in Parliament. I don’t think that that is the way it should be, though. I think that we shouldn’t leave the responsibility on Parliament to decide whether or not we should have capital punishment. I would be more inclined to think it should be a referendum or a plebiscite for the people of Canada to decide whether we have capital punishment or not, and not leave it up to the members of Parliament.

I am sure that some of them have their own feelings and have to use those feelings as they see fit. Yet they may not be speaking for the majority of the people because they have their own convictions, and you can’t take that away from them.

So I would think that a plebiscite would certainly give you a better idea of the feeling of the majority of Canadians all across Canada and that maybe that would be the one way to solve that particular problem. It then would take it out of the hands of those elected people who have certain feelings about it that are very different and very deeply felt too, of course.

Mr. Speaker, it concerns me when I see the amount of money that this government is spending on advertising. You can’t pick up a daily paper or a weekly paper without seeing at least three-quarter-page ads, half-page ads, some of them full-page ads, about what you might do about your seatbelts or what you might do to get a home buyer’s grant.

But the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld) was putting ads in the paper, and I don’t know why he had to put them in. I can understand advertising the home buyer’s grant to some extent -- it’s a new plan -- and I don’t object to them doing a little advertising on that. But the Minister of Colleges and Universities has been around this Legislature for 20 years. I don’t think he needs to place full-page or half-page ads saying that we have a Ministry of Colleges and Universities. I think that’s a complete waste of money.

As for the advertising of seatbelts, people have them in cars that have been bought in the last four or five years. I’m sure the government shouldn’t have to spend $650,000 asking people to wear them. If we’re going to require them in all the cars and if we have ample proof that wearing them is much safer, then I think we’re going to have to make it into legislation. Instead of spending more than half a million dollars on advertising, I think people themselves will learn to wear them. If the government doesn’t want to accept that, then I think it’s going to have to put it into legislation.

But as for spending extra money to advertise the wearing of seatbelts, I think that is a complete waste of public funds. That $650,000 could be lent to people who are making about $9,000 or $10,000 a year so they could buy a house. We could provide quite a few houses for people with that kind of money; and we could lend them the money free of interest, instead of spending this $650,000 to advertise seatbelts. You see signs on the highway telling you to buckle up and so on; I think it’s kind of ridiculous that there should be such a waste of the taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Sargent: Right on, right on.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): It’s grease for “the big blue machine.”

Mr. Ruston: It’s grease for “the big blue machine,” as my colleague from Perth says. Of course, it’s probably also a public relations thing with the newspaper industry. I suppose when the government does a lot of advertising, and there is a big account every few months, then I suppose it has got the inside track as to where its ads are going to appear when it wants to place some advertising for the election. That probably would help considerably.

Mr. D. J. Wiseman (Lanark): Is that the way the Liberals do it? They must have a good teacher.

Mr. Ruston: I’m pretty sure that’s what the government and the Conservative Party are thinking about.

Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): That’s the way the feds do it.

Mr. Stokes: Is that what the feds do?

Mr. Wiseman: That’s the technique they use.

Mr. Ruston: The next thing does not have anything to do with advertising, Mr. Speaker, but I noticed in the public accounts -- and I didn’t count each individual name -- when the public accounts came out in 1974, that there were 522 people in the head office of the Ministry of Education who were making over $20,000 a year. In 1972, there were 340.

I know that wage scales have gone up, but when they brought in the county school boards and larger school areas, I understood that the intention of the former Premier from London, Mr. Robarts, when he announced that we were going to have consolidation of education in the counties and so forth, was that this was going to turn the operation of the schools back to the county and it would do away with the massive hierarchy here in Queen’s Park. But instead of doing away with the hierarchy, I think for every one they hired out in county they must have hired two here to kind of oversee them.

Mr. Sargent: Right.

Mr. Ruston: Another thing is that each county director is paid about the same as the Deputy Minister of Education is now. So instead of having one Deputy Minister of Education, receiving whatever his salary is -- $40,000 or $45,000 -- we now have about 40 county school board directors, plus all the city ones, or probably 50 directors of education who are now receiving the same as the deputy minister. Instead of having one deputy minister, we’ve got 50 deputy ministers. That just shows the waste of money by the government.

I would have no objection if they were going to cut down on the bureaucracy here in Toronto and leave it in the county areas or in the city areas, but when you are going to have it in both places, then that is a complete waste of the taxpayers’ money, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) about the automobile rebate a few months ago. When the automobile industry brought in the rebate system, they were turning refunds back directly to the purchaser. Chrysler, General Motors, and I think American Motors, all did it the same way. People would buy a car -- and we’ll say it cost $4,000 -- and pay the dealer $4,000 plus seven per cent tax, $280, and then about three weeks later Chrysler or whatever company it was would send a rebate back, whether it was $200 or $500, whatever the case may be, on that particular car.

On Feb. 4, I asked the Minister of Revenue:

“Is the minister aware of the overtaxing of automobiles resulting from the rebate instigated by the big four auto companies, and is he considering the refund of the seven per cent sales tax on the amount of the rebate to the consumer?

“Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problem which the hon. member raises. If he would like to give me some particulars, I would be glad to look into it.”

So I put it out in kind of an easy way for him to understand. I am sure he has a lot of experts over there, but since I have been in the retail business a long time myself it was quite easy to figure out the price of the car and then the rebate. I sent it over by messenger to his office. Then on Feb. 10 he responded thus:

“Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, Feb. 4, the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Ruston) asked me if I was aware of what he suggested was ‘overtaxing of automobiles resulting from the rebate instigated by the big four auto companies,’ and whether I was considering ‘the refund of the seven per cent sales tax on the amount of the rebate to the consumer.’

“Mr. Speaker, where a car dealer allows a reduction in the selling price of an automobile because he’s being compensated in a like amount by a supplier, the retail sales tax is, naturally enough, applicable to the selling price, net of the reduction. However, where the rebate is made directly to the consumer by the automobile manufacturer, as appears in many cases to be the case, and the dealer has not reduced the selling price of the automobile to the customer, the rebate cannot be used to reduce the amount of which the sales tax is applicable.

“In this second kind of case, the selling price negotiated between the dealer and the customer is unaffected by the rebate, the rebate can’t be considered a discount and therefore does not act to reduce the amount upon which the tax is applied. The rebate transaction is a separate agreement between the customer and the automobile manufacturer.

“Mr. Ruston: Isn’t the minister really over-collecting in sales tax, because the consumer is not paying that full amount, in effect?

“Hon. Mr. Meen: No, Mr. Speaker, I have just outlined to the hon. member that I am not. I’m applying the tax on the basis of the contract price. Whatever happens after that is between another party -- namely the manufacturer -- and the purchaser.”

That was his answer on Feb. 10. Then on Feb. 12 I sent out a news release saying that I thought it was very unfair. Part of it said:

“ … the provincial sales tax on a $4,000 car is about $280, but if a rebate of $500 is given by the manufacturer, the true price of the car is $3,500, and the provincial sales tax should be only $245.

“It would be quite simple for the auto companies to supply a list of rebates given by them to the Minister of Revenue, who could refund the equivalent amount of tax to the customers directly. Alternatively, some arrangement could be made with the dealers to take the tax differential into account in anticipation of the rebate from the manufacturer.”

That was on Feb. 12. Mr. Speaker, if I remember correctly, Feb. 12 was a Wednesday. That Friday I was listening to the news at 12 noon and the Minister of Revenue announced that if anyone had purchased a car and had received a refund from the company, he would send them a cheque for the amount of the tax on the amount of the refund.

What we did -- I don’t know, Mr. Speaker; I am sure it helped a lot of people because of the amount of cars sold in that time but it is amazing what it takes to get the government to move. We brought this up. I discussed it with an automobile salesman in my area and I told the minister I thought the Ontario government was ripping off the people when they were buying cars because the companies were refunding the money. I was glad to see the minister changed his mind, although I don’t know whether it was because of my question or because of an editorial in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, Feb. 12, the same day I sent my news release out.

Mr. Speaker, they wrote an

article on it: “No rebate from Mr. Meen.” I suppose they could have said: “No rebate from the meany, Mr. Meen.” It would have kind of rhymed a little. But anyway he changed his mind two days later and we got the rebate. That’s only a small item, I realize that --

Mr. Edighoffer: They are followers, not leaders.

Mr. Ruston: It is $40 or $50 to someone buying a car -- it may be only $15 -- but I think the government should not in any way participate in collecting more money than it is rightfully due under the Retail Sales Tax Act.

We know we have to have money to pay for the operation of the government and if we have a sales tax, it should be fairly administered. That wasn’t being fairly administered on the plan they had so I am happy we were fortunate in having him come around to our way of thinking.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Thank God we are here to protect the interests of the people in this province.

Mr. Ruston: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: We’re going to wake them up.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): The Liberals will have to wake themselves up first.

Mr. Ruston: I wouldn’t have many more items to speak on but I had noticed an

article to show you, Mr. Speaker, the confusion this government operates under with its ministries.

The Ministry of the Environment took over the operations of the county health units a year or so ago. The member for Waterloo North is well aware of this, being an expert on a number of items and that was one of the things. He mentioned a number of times that they were taking over the health units and the minister took over.

In the town of Wheatley in my area they thought they had something all set. They went to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) and he said, “They are building a new sewage disposal system in the town and it is going to be going in another year or two. They are doing the engineering work on it now and it will probably be 1½ years before it is constructed.”

They have a large number of lots in the town which could be built on but the medical officer of health would never give them any sewage permits. We made representation to the Ministry of the Environment and the Village trustees did as well. They thought everything was going along fine but I just noticed a little news clipping here. I guess it happened in a week when I wasn’t in Wheatley; I am there quite often talking to the businessmen and so forth. In fact I spent an evening there discussing the new sewage system going in in Wheatley and so forth at one of the business meetings.

We said we thought they would approve filling in some of these lots because there was a demand for homes in the town. These lots should be filled in and then when the sewage works were put in, they could be hooked up at that time.

I have just noticed here, it says:

“A big hurdle in building a new home in Wheatley is overcome, sight? Wrong! The local health unit in its great wisdom won’t approve it. A plan okayed by the Ministry of the Environment (the ultimate in pollution conscious bodies of government) is given the thumbs down treatment.

“The conflict of ideas between the Chatham health unit and the ministry leads one to think the whole organization should be dissolved and recreated somehow.”

I guess the thing to do is dissolve that government over there, the Conservative Party and the Premier, for that kind of thing.

It is really frustrating to people when these things happen. It makes one wonder if one department knows what the other one is doing. It is kind of discouraging to many people living in these areas when they want to do something. I see the town of Belle River is building a sewage system now and is really going fast to get it done at $4.25 million. I just happen to have a news clipping from the Windsor Star, of May, 1971; it says “The new sewage plant for Belle River is okayed for $1.5 million.” Four years later it cost us $4.25 million. “Town council Tuesday signed the necessary agreements and bylaws for its proposed $1.5 million sewage works programme.”

Just imagine. They stalled around -- the Ontario Municipal Board and the Ministry of the Environment, or the OWRC at that time -- and they passed it from one to another and then back to another one and four years later, it cost $3 million more.

Mr. Roy: Then they tell the municipalities to try to save money.

Mr. Ruston: That isn’t just the money of the people in that particular village or that particular town. I think they are going to pay about $189 a year per household, but the province is paying 75 per cent of the total cost. Really, it isn’t just the people there who are paying a lot of money. It is the people over the whole Province of Ontario who are going to pay $3 million extra because of stalling. It was needed in 1971; why didn’t we build it? You tell me; I don’t know. They got lost in the Ministry of the Environment and everyone else down here. No wonder people living in these areas get so confused when they see this happen.

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had one or two more items here on which maybe I would speak very briefly. I wasn’t going to be very long. I am concerned about the city of Windsor and the hospital plans of the province there. “New Proposal Could Close Hospital Units,” and so forth; there is a write-up on this in the paper. The last paragraph is really the strange thing. We read it all but sometimes people say we should read only the last paragraph of anything and we will find everything in it. Maybe this is the case. It said:

“Mr. Backley’s letter said the ministry was making the proposals since the planning council and the individual hospitals ‘have been unable to arrive at a solution satisfactory to the ministry.’”

They have planning councils and so forth to come up with recommendations but when they don’t agree with the minister he says, “That’s no good.” Why does the government have these people in the community to recommend these things when it says right here “have been unable to arrive at a solution satisfactory to the ministry”?

I could talk a lot more on it but it just shows what is going to happen to this government in the election. I think the Premier might as well get it over with and let the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) take over. I am sure that with the kind of broom he is going to bring around here he will do away with a lot of the nonsense we have in things like this.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Absolutely dead on.

Mr. B. Newman: He is always right.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered most of the items I had but there is one thing I want to report here and this is in a little lighter vein. It has to do with hockey.

In the town of Essex and the surrounding areas we happen to have the all-Ontario Junior C hockey champions. They beat Lindsay for the final playoffs. I wanted to mention that the manager of the team and those involved said the people of Lindsay were very gracious to them at all times. The member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. R. G. Hodgson) isn’t in his place at the present time but I did speak to him earlier in the day and told him I was glad to hear that our team had won, although they had very good playoff games. They were happy with the results in our area.

They did want to stress that the people of Lindsay treated them very well, exceptionally well; most gracious in defeat, I think were the words he said.

Maybe I should put on the record, Mr. Speaker, the names of these people involved because it is quite a feat for a small town of about 5,000 population, the town of Essex, to win the Ontario Junior C hockey championship.

I would just mention that the coach is Dave Prpich; the general manager is Mike Sadler; the assistant coach is Dave Moore; the trainer is Tom Price; the equipment manager is Henry Davis; the assistant trainer is Dan McKenzie; and the president is Mr. William Woltz.

The players are George Gagnon, Dave Chittle, Dave Maedel, Bob Brett, Dana Woltz, Fred Bahna, Bruce Crowder, Dan Mills, Len Chittle, Andy Pritchard -- he’s from Woodsley -- Keith Crowder, Norm Kerr, Rick Chapman, Tom Price, Howie Dinning, Brad Brown, Louis Gagnon, Fred Gagnon, Ken Bracken and Don Chittle.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the team on their victory; and I believe that completes my remarks.

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I would like to introduce a group of students from Prince township in the famous riding of Algoma, with their teacher Mr. Bedell and his good wife, a chaperone. It’s a real privilege to have them come a long distance to the great city of Toronto. I want the members at this time to welcome them. They are in the east gallery.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Mr. Speaker, I want to make some comments regarding the budget that was introduced by the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) on that important evening early in April -- a speech that marked another important milestone in the development of the Province of Ontario.

But first let me pay tribute to you, sir, and to those who occupy the Chair, on the way you are discharging your most important responsibilities presiding over this Legislature. In the 24 years that I have been a member, this is probably the most difficult Legislature for a Speaker to control. I think it is unfortunate we have some members who do not seem to be anxious to maintain the dignity that was associated with the Ontario Legislature in previous parliaments.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): The member is still welcome here.

Mr. Root: However, you, sir, are making a fine effort to bring more decorum to the debates.

With regard to the budget, this was a very important milestone in the life of our province. It was a budget that was designed to deal with particular problems that confront us today. Everyone knows we are concerned about the rising cost of living, inflation and the slowdown in our economy that is leading to increased unemployment.

As I see the budget, it is a comprehensive document designed to deal with these problems in a reasonable and sensible way. The reduction of the sales tax to five per cent for the balance of this year should stimulate purchasing, and purchasing in time will stimulate an upswing in industry and provide needed job opportunities. The reduction in the sales tax will make it possible for our people to have more purchasing power. It is estimated the savings on the purchase of a new car by this reduction in sales tax will amount to approximately $100 and the furnishings for a new household to about $125.

It is estimated this reduction in the sales tax will bring direct benefits to consumers of approximately $230 million this year. It is estimated the sales tax will provide $24 million in cost savings to builders and home buyers. In other words, the estimate is that consumers will benefit to the extent of some $230 million, industries some $50 million, construction $25 million, and housing $25 million -- for a total of $330 million.

While I’m speaking about the sales tax, I must say I was really pleased with the announcement that vendors may withhold three per cent of the tax collected in an effort to compensate for the work associated with collecting the sales tax. This collection can go up to a maximum of $500 in any fiscal year. This is something I have endeavoured to promote ever since the compensation was eliminated.

Mr. Stokes: It was the member’s government that cut it off.

Mr. Root: I have always felt any necessary service is entitled to a reasonable remuneration. I am sure that businessmen, particularly small businessmen, will appreciate this consideration they are receiving from the government.

The grant of $1,000 to people purchasing their first home with an additional $250 a year for two years for a total of $1,500 should stimulate the purchase and the construction of homes, all of which will have an influence on the construction industry and encourage our people to own their own homes.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): The member doesn’t believe that, does he?

Mr. Root: This programme will remain in effect until Dec. 31, 1975, so it should have a very important impact on the building and purchasing of homes. It is estimated this programme will cost some $83 million. Applicants for the grant, I note, must be 18 years of age or over.

Another programme I know will be appreciated by literally thousands of people throughout the province is the increased grant under the GAINS programme for pensioners and free drugs for pensioners over 65. This will benefit over one million people or one out of every eight persons in the province.

Adjustment of the income tax levy will remove some 450,000 low-income taxpayers from provincial income tax rolls in 1975.

Mr. Laughren: It should never have been in to begin with.

Mr. Root: I thought the member believed in income tax.

Mr. Lawlor: Don’t let the member start trying to exchange quips with me.

Mr. Root: All of these programmes that I have mentioned will bring purchasing power to everyone through the reduction of the sales tax and for pensioners who have been hit by the inflation that is taking place throughout the nation. Mr. Speaker, the small business tax credit from this budget, amounts to some $15 million. Ontario will double the maximum small business tax credit from $3,000 to $6,000 annually. I have already mentioned the compensation for collecting sales tax.

The farmers will receive additional assistance. Some $20 million is provided in the budget to supplement, where necessary, the federal Agricultural Products Stabilization Act which is currently before the House of Commons.

Mr. Lawlor: It will shore up the member’s election chances among the farming community, which have drooped recently. It’s not dropping, it’s drooped.

Mr. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): Wait and see.

Mr. Root: If I had no more farmers in my riding than the member for Lakeshore has in his I wouldn’t be talking about farmers.

The far