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

June 28, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PLANNING ACT REVIEW

RONTO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

WELCOME TO MEMBERS

SPECIAL WARRANTS

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

BUDGET FORECASTS

OIL AND GAS PRICES

AUTO TRADE PACT

LICENCE FEES

SHOOTING AT BRACEBRIDGE

HOME HEATING AND INSULATION

FIRE SAFETY IN JAILS

MINIMUM WAGE

GROUP HOME PLACEMENTS

BLAIR REPORT ON TAXES

FRUIT TREE DAMAGE

SEAWAY TOLLS

PETITIONS

ONE CANADA DAY

MOTIONS

SPEAKER’S PANEL

STANDING COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

STANDING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

STANDING STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAY SAFETY

ESTIMATES IN COMMITTEES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS ACT

ELECTION PUBLIC OPINION POLLS ACT

GODERICH SESQUICENTENNIAL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

INCOME TAX ACT

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PLANNING ACT REVIEW

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to present to the House the report of The Planning Act Review Committee. When this committee was established by my predecessor, he stated that a major objective was to not only review planning procedures in Ontario, but to ascertain the nature of problems that exist in the planning field, so that we at the provincial level and our counterparts at the municipal level would be better able to respond to the changing needs of the residents of Ontario.

The Planning Act Review Committee, consisting of Professor Eli Comay, Eric Hardy and Earl Berger, has been studying the matter for the greater part of the last two years. During that time it met with elected and municipal officials, with professional groups, and with all segments of the building and development industry to gather together as much information as possible about the strengths and the weaknesses of the planning process in Ontario.

Based on these discussions and on its own investigations, the committee has prepared its report and its recommendations for what the members suggest we should be doing in the future.

I want to point out to all hon. members that this report is the product of an independent committee appointed by the province and is being put forward for their consideration.

There are a number of recommendations that I would classify as being of a housekeeping nature which can bring immediate improvements. It is the intention of the government to introduce legislation with regard to these items as soon as possible.

Others are of a more substantive nature, and I am therefore asking municipalities, planning boards, in fact all those who are interested in the planning process to forward their comments on the recommendations to me by October 15, 1977. The comments I receive, together with a review that will be undertaken by government agencies, will form the basis of a white paper which I would hope to present to the House as soon as possible.

Copies of this report, together with a

summary that has been printed as a special edition of the ministry magazine, Housing Ontario, are now being forwarded to all municipalities, planning boards, school boards, committees of adjustment and all others who have participated in or are likely to be affected by this review. Copies are also being forwarded to all members of this House. It is my hope that all those with an interest in the planning process and who have comments on the recommendations of The Planning Act Review Committee will forward them to me.

Finally, I would like to give my personal thanks to Mr. Eli Comay and to his associates. I am sure that when they first undertook this task they little realized how extensive and demanding it would be. It was a massive review, and, from the reading of the report, many of the recommendations will have far-reaching effects on the future of planning, development and building in this province.

I would also like to offer an apology to the hon. members. In an effort to have a wide distribution of at least the

summary of this report, a substantial number of copies of the magazine of the ministry, Housing Ontario, were forwarded to Government Services for mailing on Friday of last week.

They were mailed as fourth-class mail, and experience with the mail in Canada has indicated that if you’re mailing it fourth class you can certainly not expect it to be delivered with any great haste -- even first class.

Mr. Peterson: From you it should be no class, John.

Mr. Roy: Did it have your picture on it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: However, as the result of some unforeseen capability, many of these reports were actually in the hands of the recipients by Monday of this week. So I do apologize to hon. members. I had the full intention of presenting this report in its entirety to the hon. members first. But I offer a tip of my hat to the Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais. He’s made some improvement.

Mr. Deans: You just can’t trust the mails, can you?

RONTO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, on June 14, page 4 of the Globe and Mail, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) is quoted as saying, regarding the $2-million tax exemption for Ronto, “I think I told them” -- Mrs. Todgham and the son -- “that so far as I could see there was no problem with an exemption, that I would be glad to speak to their lawyer who was going to pursue this and I’d be glad to speak to Mr. Meen.”

Two paragraphs later it states: “Mr. McKeough said he subsequently talked to Mr. Goodman and was advised by the lawyer that it was unnecessary for Mr. Meen to go on, that Mr. Goodman had written to the staff. He was dealing with the staff level and not to do anything in that regard.”

Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the minister why he was not in a position to --

Mr. Speaker: No, no. Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, you can sharpen your sword if you want to, I am going to get this point across.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Might I just explain? Would the hon. member take his seat for a moment please? If the hon. member was rising to correct a statement or a report in the paper, that’s a matter of privilege, yes. But to debate a point is not a matter of privilege. Up to now he’s been in order if he has been misquoted. That’s the only point of privilege which this sort of report would lead to. Has the hon. member been misquoted?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I want to assess from the minister the position of the members of this House insofar as him jockeying with --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member please take his seat until I explain something else?

Mr. Sargent: I want to ask three questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Wait until the question period.

Mr. Speaker: May I just suggest that it seems to be more proper, since he’s not correcting a misquote, that this should be taken up in the question period. He’ll have ample opportunity at that time. So he does not have a point of privilege at this time.

Mr. Sargent: I will be first up then, don’t forget that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The matter is closed.

WELCOME TO MEMBERS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a brief statement this afternoon to express my best wishes and congratulations to all members of the House on their election, or re-election, as the case may be.

Mr. Peterson: Do you mean that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, I do. And to the new members of the House may I offer a particular word of welcome. I expect that, as I can recall my own experience, they will go through at least three stages as new members in their perception of what goes on in this Legislature -- three stages which most of us went through during our first year. During the first stage, as they see the strange goings on, and wonder about the peaceful and tranquil life that they left behind in their ridings, they may indeed wonder what in fact they are doing here.

But I discovered after about three or four months, after you sense that your expertise has grown totally in all areas of policy and procedure, you begin to wonder what the others are doing here.

Mr. Peterson: Other people are wondering what you are doing here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Then as you move into your second year you ask yourself whether you can ever bring yourself to leave this very delightful place. Thankfully, the decision to come here, or more appropriately the decision on who should come here to serve the people is made by the people and they also decide who shall return and who shall not.

Mr. Samis: Are you referring to Timiskaming?

Mr. Laughren: Even the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot).

Hon. Mr. Davis: There can be little doubt that aside from the stronger mandate which my government received to continue its programs with a stronger and enlarged caucus --

Interjections

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- this Legislature and everyone in it has also been given a mandate and direction to facilitate the responsible and constructive operation of minority government.

Mr. Nixon: Some mandate. There is a phrase.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In this respect, I think all three parties are particularly fortunate in the calibre of our respective House leaders.

Speaking for the member for Brock (Mr. Welch), I want to make it clear that he will seek the broadest possible consultation on legislative scheduling and co-ordination, and this is a co-operation which I am confident the other two House leaders seek equally with me.

I must admit that I did wonder a little bit yesterday at the intensity of the desire to make things work when on first reading -- on a tax bill at that -- the House was divided without any prior advice to the government House leader, or for that matter to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith). We were surprised, I say that honestly.

Mr. Nixon: That was Renwick’s opening shot.

Mr. Deans: Life is full of a lot of surprises, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And you got three of them in northern Ontario, didn’t you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not that notice wasn’t given, because the parties in this House are all free to do that which they see fit to do and the House rules don’t preclude that happening. But I did observe that the leader of the third party indicated previously his disposition of important or controversial bills to emerge from debate here in this House, and of course we cannot decide what we do with these bills without that debate. So I would suggest we have all made a note of that manoeuvre yesterday of really, I think, what should not happen in the context of a minority government.

Mr. Reid: Irresponsible.

Mr. Nixon: A little hint of desperation.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for allowing the matter --

Mr. Makarchuk: That is an expression of naivete if I ever heard one.

Mr. Deans: I thought this discussion was done privately before?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- to proceed to first reading without, of course, any prejudice to the rights of the official opposition to deal with that bill on second reading as it sees fit. Obviously, after persuasive argument they will see fit to support it on second reading as well.

Mr. Nixon: Don’t bet money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: However, I do make this point, and I make it very clearly. A difficulty with first reading on a tax measure very early in this session or in this Parliament I think would have put the government in a very limited circumstance, and one that all of us in this Legislature would have shared.

Mr. Germa: You are on thin ice.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, we are not on thin ice.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You should talk.

Mr. Germa: He is on thin ice.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You are swimming now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I also want to express to the Leader of the Opposition my sincere congratulations on his elevation to that position of responsibility.

I would ask that the House leader would convey to the former Leader of the Opposition that I want to extend in a personal way my own hand of friendship and my own belief that his interventions in this House will broaden and continue to uplift the proceedings in this chamber.

Mr. Foulds: You better believe it.

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry that he has decided to step down as leader of his party; and I say this most sincerely, he really is one of the finest Leaders of the Opposition that I have known.

Mr. Makarchuk: How about repeating some of those ads on TV? Tell us about the ads.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think some day I may write a book about Leaders of the Opposition that I have known. I’m not sure whether I will do that or not.

Mr. Roy: Just write us a biography.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

An hon. member: How hypocritical.

Mr. Makarchuk: Tell us about the ads.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t want to be provocative on this first normal day, Mr. Speaker. There will be moments when the tensions in this House are significant and emotions are high --

Mr. Nixon: Not very significant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and that is what I think is important in any open and free government in the British parliamentary system. I believe we can resolve many of the differences within the context of a government that is allowed to govern in the traditional British parliamentary sense of that word and an opposition that asserts and discharges its responsibilities in a similar fashion.

I think our three House leaders are men of infinite skill and ability.

Mr. Roy: That is what we said before the election.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They tolerate their leaders, which is no easy task; they tolerate their respective caucuses, which may be the toughest of tasks; and they tolerate each other, which is probably the easiest of their responsibilities. In offering them our support in allowing them the time and opportunity to negotiate the

schedule and direction of this House, we can provide for the people of Ontario the stable and reliable legislative process which they have every right to expect; from all three parties in this House.

I feel confident, Mr. Speaker, that we shall not, any one of us, shrink from that particular challenge.

Mr. Foulds: It started out with the three stages of the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SPECIAL WARRANTS

Hon. Mr. Auld: In accordance with the House rules, I am today tabling the special warrants approved while the Legislature was not in session. Copies of these special warrants have been placed in the postal boxes of each member.

A special warrant is an order under

section 4 of The Management Board of Cabinet Act, signed by the Lieutenant Governor, authorizing expenditures of an urgent nature for which no appropriation exists, and is permissible only when the Legislature is not in session. It differs from a Management Board order primarily in that an MBO may only increase the spending levels of an appropriation that already exists,

whereas the special warrant has the effect of creating a new appropriation.

The three special warrants that were approved were all of an urgent nature which could not be delayed until the current session of the Legislature.

For particulars concerning these special warrants, I would suggest questions be directed to the minister concerned.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. S. Smith: Just before launching into questions, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment first of all to thank the Premier for his very gracious comments, which are gratefully received. I would also like, if I just might beg the indulgence of the House and yourself, Mr. Speaker, not only to congratulate you on your appointment but also to congratulate the Premier on the fact that despite the rather limited nature of his mandate it is nonetheless a mandate and somewhat larger than he had previously, and he has my earnest congratulations for that. I look forward to working together with both of the other leaders.

Having said something nice, perhaps I might launch into a question more in keeping with the spirit of question period. Can the Premier explain how it is that already -- it’s only one day into the session -- he has reneged on his charter, particularly to provide 100,000 jobs, when yesterday the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) reaffirmed his estimate that only 89,000 new jobs will be created this year? Surely this is rather soon to renege on the charter.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted the Leader of the Opposition paid such careful attention to that very significant document, which has become part of the policy of this government.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It’s a charter to which we are committed; whether it be for 100,000 jobs a year or two trees for every one, they are all significant parts of that charter.

Mr. Sargent: Who wrote the charter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I listened carefully to the Treasurer yesterday -- perhaps in the excitement of the occasion the Leader of the Opposition wasn’t listening as carefully as I. My recollection was, and is, that the Treasurer said that in the first five months of this year -- five months representing five twelfths of the total -- that 88,000 or 89,000 jobs had, in fact, been created in that period of time. While I don’t purport to be that great at mathematics, if one takes five twelfths of 89,000 or whatever -- if one looks at the next seven months, one can anticipate the possibility of achieving 100,000 jobs.

Mr. Reid: That sounds like the way the Treasurer makes up the budget.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should also point out to the Leader of the Opposition --

Mr. Nixon: Give or take a bit.

Mr. Conway: Give or take a bit.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- because I’m sure he didn’t read some of my observations -- that I made it very clear that we had this year projected something less than the 100,000. But I also went on to point out that it was running ahead of the rate we had predicted and if the Treasurer’s figures, as I understand them, are right -- some 89,000 jobs in five months -- then I think we can be optimistic about the 100,000 in 12 months.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, may I ask the Premier if he would be kind enough, or if he has taken the trouble, to examine page 6 of the table in the Treasurer’s update in which the number of jobs budgeted and in the revised budget is shown to be absolutely no different -- namely 89,000, the difference between this year and last year. Would he kindly correct the Treasurer?

But, in addition, may I ask the Premier whether he would be willing to take up that suggestion I have made: that a select committee of this Legislature take a tri-partisan approach over the summer, towards job creation, including the best ideas of all three parties. That way, we would have something to work with in the fall. We could be doing something useful over the summer months.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m prepared to entertain any suggestion from members opposite. This has always been my approach. And some are better than others. I confess that. Some are not as good as others -- I should perhaps phrase it that way.

I think the possibility of establishing a further select committee -- knowing the traditional thought of the opposition party with respect to select committees, if memory serves me correctly -- might not be the most useful way of dealing with this matter. Certainly, during the course of this period of time, I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition will once again this afternoon suggest to the government one or two ideas that he may have, and I’m sure that other members will do so.

Certainly, any worthwhile or constructive ideas that can be accommodated within the general framework and policy in respect to the fiscal responsibilities of this government, we’ll take a look at. But I think to say to the Leader of the Opposition, “Yes, we will establish a select committee,” -- this would be leading him astray.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question, for clarification if nothing else: Is the Premier saying that because he understood the Treasurer to say that there had been 89,000 jobs created in the first five months, that the annualized figure of 88,000 -- which also appears in the report and which is a figure comparing this year with last year -- is wrong?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not saying it is wrong. What I am saying is that being a bit of an optimist, which I am and I confess that without any doubt -- with the measure of success we’ve had in the first five months in reply to the suggestion of 100,000, I think the possibility exists.

Mr. Deans: Final supplementary: Is it not true that the Treasurer would have taken into account the Premier’s feelings that maybe we should be more optimistic? Why, then, given the same figures that the Premier must have at his disposal, would the Treasurer arrive at a figure of 88,000 in a budget statement presented to us yesterday -- based on the first five months’ experience in the year 1977? The Premier seems to feel that somewhere along the way we’re magically going to find an additional 20,000 jobs or more?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I think the Treasurer of this province in his usual responsible and conservative way, has on this occasion been more conservative in his estimates than a person like myself who is more optimistic.

Mr. Deans: The Premier wouldn’t be trying to pull the wool over our eyes would he? It doesn’t sound real.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am suggesting that the potential exists for the 100,000. I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition and made it very clear during that short period of, as the House leader says, consultation with the people -- that in this year our expectations were less than the 100,000.

Mr. Nixon: Maybe you won’t make it after all.

Mr. Roy: What you’re saying is somebody else is bailing you out.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

BUDGET FORECASTS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the Treasurer regarding basically the accuracy of his document reaffirming Ontario’s budget strategy. First of all, dealing with page 6, could the Treasurer affirm or not that his revised estimate is no different from his original budgeted estimate for 89,000 jobs and, furthermore for only 80,000 housing starts, in sharp contrast with the 90,000 predicted in the charter?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, we have not revised our estimates of employment. If the member will look in the next column, he will find we estimated at the time of the budget that employment would grow by 2.4 per cent and we have not changed that number. It remains at 2.4 per cent, therefore the figure is about -- whatever it is? -- 89,000 jobs.

Mr. S. Smith: Right, not 100,000.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would share the Premier’s optimism on the basis of what’s happened for the first five months of the year. There was some feeling that some of the May figures that have been coming out have not been quite as strong as the first four months of the year. Forecasting, obviously, is not the most precise or scientific of documents.

Mr. S. Smith: Neither is charter writing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The real point is that in terms of the charter we have made a commitment to produce that number of jobs. I think we’ll come very close to that.

The member also asked about the housing figure. If the member would refer to last year’s budget, he would find that our forecast --

Mr. Deans: It is as worthless as the paper it’s written on.

Mr. Foulds: Give or take a million.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- for housing starts in 1976 was 80,000 starts --

Mr. Conway: Give or take a million. I told you, you have a C. D. Howe over there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and they ultimately came in at nearly 85,000 starts. That’s been discussed in the House.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have not found reasons to date -- at least my people have not found reasons to date -- to revise our housing forecast up from the 80,000 we forecast.

Mr. S. Smith: They didn’t write the charter obviously.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Let me say this: If the hon. member wants more --

Mr. Nixon: You haven’t read the charter either.

Mr. Eakins: It’s too long to read.

Mr. S. Smith: The NDP are over there now.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, you’re over here.

Mr. S. Smith: Still on the accuracy of this document, I have just one final question of a supplementary nature. Given the fact that on page 13 it’s indicated that the government seems to have been able to deal with a loss of revenue of $133 million merely by “having Management Board identify expenditure savings and constraining the 1977 estimates,” if it’s that easy to save $133 million, can the Treasurer explain to us please exactly where that money is being saved, who is going to suffer as a result and how much more fat there might be in that budget?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The words used on page 13, I would draw to the Leader of the Opposition’s attention, is Management Board “will be.” They have not yet done so.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: Could the Treasurer please explain how he can be that confident that the Management Board will be identifying the $133 million in the budget that doesn’t have to be there?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the member would read the statement, he would find that the Management Board last year constrained something like $400 million in expenditures out of a total of $12.5 billion --

Mr. Nixon: Why don’t they then?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- to allow for overspending and revenue reduction. It also occurs to me that I read in the paper the other day words by the Leader of the Opposition -- I think the term he used was $185 million. He said no doubt government can find that wherever they want it.

[2:30]

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, and the Premier said people would suffer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s exactly what we’re doing. Don’t talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ve now spent 11 minutes.

An hon. member: And he wasted 25 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re wasting time here this afternoon.

Mrs. Campbell: We’re wasting time? He wasted time.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Leader of the Opposition announce that as a final supplementary?

Mr. S. Smith: He wasted 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker: No, I said “we are.” On the accuracy of the document, all right, we’ll allow one supplementary from the member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: I have a supplementary of the Treasurer. Is he telling the House that it’s the budgetary policy of his government to build in extra fat in every budget so that it can be taken out at a later time in order to revise downward for shortfalls in revenue? Is that what he’s telling us?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am saying at all. It seems reasonable to me that if we are to finance in-year changes and expenditures of various kinds, then during the course of the year we have to reassess our priorities and that’s exactly what we do.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, may I?

Mr. Speaker: No. Order, please. That was the final one. The hon. member for Wentworth, thank you. We can come back to it later if it’s important.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Premier. What representation does he plan to make to the federal government and, through them, to the province of Alberta that we can’t afford the announced increase in oil prices that was announced by the minister just last week? What does he propose to do to make sure that the predicament that faces the province of Ontario and the people of the province of Ontario is corrected by either negotiation or action of this government with regard to the increases and the impact of them both on jobs and on the economy?

Mr. Warner: He’s prone to inaction.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I communicated with the first minister of Canada in the latter part of May, I think I’m right in this, when I asked him to convene a meeting of first ministers to discuss the question of the pricing of oil and natural gas. I received a reply from the Prime Minister suggesting that at the conferences or meetings -- I think there were two -- of the ministers of energy there was some degree of consensus as it related to the proposed increase.

Mr. Martel: You are not nearly as tough as before the election.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I replied further to the Prime Minister of Canada suggesting that my understanding was that there were at least three provinces -- Ontario, Nova Scotia and, I believe, Manitoba; I think I’m right in those three -- representing, as they do, fairly close to 50 per cent of the total population of this country, who were not part of any decision to increase the price of crude or natural gas on July 1. I pointed out to the Prime Minister the potential adverse effects on the economy of this province. I have asked him to reconsider this position and to consider further the desirability of convening a meeting of first ministers to discuss this subject.

I have made no bones about it. I’ve said it in this House, I’ve said it elsewhere, that this government is opposed to this price increase. We’re opposed to it on the basis of the inflationary aspects. We’re opposed to it on the grounds of the adverse effect it could have on certain businesses and industries, let alone the consumer, whether it be for the use of the automobile or for home heating. That still remains our position.

I can give the House no further information. My Telex was as of June 20, I think; I can’t read it here. I guess it was on Monday. I have not as yet had a reply to that Telex. When I do, I shall inform the members of the House. But that’s where the situation stands at this moment.

Mr. Martel: Yes, before the election you were really tough, gung ho.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth only, please.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Is the Premier prepared, first of all, to make known to the federal government that we simply can’t afford it. Secondly, is he prepared to take some action to freeze the prices in the province of Ontario until such time as he is able to renegotiate an agreement that we in the province can afford to undertake and maintain?

Mr. Deans: Then you’ll have to unmake it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The ministers of energy and our Minister of Energy (Mr. J. A. Taylor) would be delighted to share their own views.

Mr. Deans: You got us into this.

Hon. B. Stephenson: How?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not a negotiation.

Mr. Grande: What are you going to do?

Mr. Peterson: How long a price freeze does the government plan on the inventories of the oil companies in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, in that the member for London Centre is one of those in that party who believes, as does his party leader, in moving to the world price level --

Mr. Peterson: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well they do, and this I could never understand.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I gather they probably gave Mr. Gillespie some advice.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition will come to order. The hon. Premier will continue with his answer.

Mr. Nixon: Tell us about the costs of Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to tell the member. The costs of Hydro are related to your energy policy, which says we should go to the world price.

Mr. Roy: Well tell that to Joe Clark and Peter Lougheed, your friends.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As far as the freeze is concerned --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is not a freeze. The understanding as between the various governments -- and the Minister of Energy should really answer this -- I think it’s either a 45- or 60-day period for the inventory price change. I can’t tell the member whether it’s 45 days or 60 days, but the Minister of Energy can.

Mr. Peterson: How can the Premier reconcile this freeze with his freeze for 137 days just before the election in 1975?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think it’s a question of reconciling it, it’s something --

Mr. Peterson: Sure it is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member wasn’t recognized for a supplementary question. The hon. member for Wentworth.

Hon. Mr. Davis: This is your policy.

Mr. Peterson: You buy me lunch and I will explain my policy.

Hon. B. Stephenson: You couldn’t.

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

Mr. Deans: If the government could ignore the problem of a price freeze for the purposes of using up the excess, is it prepared to make known to the federal government that this province simply doesn’t go along with it and we will, if necessary, pass legislation to impose a freeze at the current price until such time as some meaningful negotiation is undertaken? Is the Premier prepared to stand up for Ontario, as Lougheed has done for Alberta, and try to protect the people in this province?

Mr. Warner: That’s called leadership.

Mr. MacDonald: Where is your proof? Words are not enough.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member any assurance that we propose any legislation that will in fact freeze the price of gas or oil.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Deans: It is hard to be away down here.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are wasting valuable time of the question period. The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Thank you. It is really hard to be away down here you know, it really is; I didn’t realize how difficult it was.

AUTO TRADE PACT

Mr. Deans: I have a question for the Treasurer on the matter of employment in the province of Ontario. Is the government of Ontario prepared to sit down with the federal government and make some effort to renegotiate the auto trade pact in order to ensure there will in fact be a growth in the employment and a growth in investment in this province, and across the Dominion of Canada; in order that we will in fact have employment in this province as a result of the auto trade pact, rather than the deficit position which we are getting ourselves more deeply into every day?

Mr. Nixon: Sort of a Washington pact.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ask the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We documented that fully in the budget of a year ago, and I think it is fair to say --

Mr. Bounsall: You are four years late.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- that the continuing representations of myself and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and others led to the Arthurs report, tabled in the House of Commons yesterday, which report has been available on some sort of a private basis for something like three months, and it was the urging of this government on a number of occasions that that report be made public.

Mr. Laughren: Four years late.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We think the people of Canada, and the people of this province in particular, have a right and a responsibility to know what was in that report and we take some credit for seeing not only that it was authored, but that it was published.

Mr. Laughren: What are you going to do?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Now in terms of what we can do, I say to my friend over there that if he continues to support, as he should, the tax policies of this government, to create a climate in this province for growth and investment, that is the best thing we can do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And the UAW knows that.

Mr. Roy: Darcy, you didn’t comment on the $4 minimum wage.

Mr. Deans: I can understand why the Treasurer laughed at the end of that.

A supplementary: Does the Treasurer have any statement to make to the House with regard to what representations he intends to make to the federal government in terms of renegotiating the auto trade pact as it affects the auto parts industry, as it affects the investment in Canada and in Ontario in particular, and as it affects the employment picture for the next five years?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the concern of this government has been on the record for over a year, and it’s nice that the member is finally waking up to the fact that we do have a problem. Join the club. We’ve known it, we’ve been talking about it. He’s been so busy with his narrow little point of view that he won’t look at these problems.

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Don’t be such a popinjay; and who do you think you are yelling at, the Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. You’re wasting your time.

Mr. Roy: I think he is another potential leader.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have a final supplementary from the member for Wentworth, because we’ve gone over the normally accepted time for the leaders.

Mr. Deans: It’s not my fault. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Treasurer has got over all his screaming and shouting, can he tell us what his policy is? He’s told us what he thinks we should be doing; what has he done, what is his policy, or does he know? Does he have a policy?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there is no way the government of Ontario, within our federal system and under our constitution as I understand it, can negotiate an automobile pact with the United States.

An hon. member: Sit down.

Mr. Deans: It’s a lot of bluster.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would ask the member what position is his federal party taking in Ottawa? That’s the forum where this is going to be debated. But the NDP in Ottawa haven’t been on this issue.

Mr. Deans: Typical Darcy McKeough.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The members opposite are just waking up to an issue now, and they’re too late.

Mr. Martel: Darcy hasn’t said a word all day.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It isn’t fair.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s final. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has the next question.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. di Santo: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Sargent: Russ. Russ.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member for Grey-Bruce knows what he should be saying.

Is this a point of privilege?

Mr. di Santo: Yes, the Treasurer said the United Auto Workers never asked him to intervene in the auto pact and that’s a false statement, because he received --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re debating an issue now which should be the subject of a question. You may ask a question later if you wish. But I think the hon. member is very close to making a charge which is a bit improper, too, so we’ll just consider that it wasn’t said, if I understand correctly.

Order, please. The hon. member does not have a point of privilege. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has the floor for a question.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You’re looking more like a Speaker every day. It’s a basic rule here that you shouldn’t ask a question unless you know the answer. Well, I think we know the answers here --

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member ask his question, then.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact a revelation I just read a few moments ago was shocking news to those of us on the public accounts committee, and because this minister did not volunteer his action to the public accounts committee when they were sitting here for two months, I suggest he has been misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Some hon. members: Shame, shame.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s clearly out of order.

An hon. member: Kick him out!

Mr. Sargent: That’s my first question.

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. member must withdraw that. He knows he must not accuse another member of misleading the House.

Mr. Roy: He didn’t say “deliberately.”

Mr. Speaker: Yes, he did. The hon. member will rise and do that first of all, before he asks a question.

Mr. Sargent: I suggest that to you.

An hon. member: Inadvertently.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Sargent: I ask the minister --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will withdraw those words and then he may ask a question, if he does it right away.

[2:45]

Mr. Sargent: In view of the fact that I will qualify later, I will withdraw at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Now your question please.

Mr. Sargent: I ask him if it is not significant, Mr. Speaker, that his appearance before the judicial inquiry three days after the election is not evidence of control or supervision of the courts by either the AG’s office or the Treasurer’s office or the PM’s office, in his appearance before that. Secondly, who arranged that he should appear after the election and not before? Because it would have had a great telling effect on the election to have the public know that he tried to arrange a $2-million deal with one of his constituents.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s totally wrong.

Mr. Sargent: That’s my first question. My second one is, what right does he have to go about this province offering $2-million deals with our money? Who does he think he is?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there an answer to that question, gentlemen? All right, next question.

Mr. Sargent: I say he has been misleading the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member came out with a statement again. He must withdraw that.

Mr. Sargent: Why can’t he answer my question?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. It’s the minister’s privilege to answer or not answer as he or she sees fit. The hon. member did deliberately state that he’s misleading the House. I asked him to withdraw that statement unequivocably without any --

Mr. Roy: He didn’t say “deliberately.”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It doesn’t matter, it’s the way it was said.

Mr. Sargent: I say about this --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. member withdraw his remarks? All right.

Mr. Sargent: I will withdraw and come back in a minute.

Mr. Speaker: Now the next question is over here. Another further question over at this side of the House? Nobody with a question? The member for Downsview then.

Mr. di Santo: Yes. I’ve got a question for the Treasurer on the same subject as my House leader. In his review last year in the 1976 budget, what he was really proposing was a normal review of the pact. What we think is important is to renegotiate the pact --

Hon. J. A. Taylor: This is not a question, it’s a speech.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s not a question.

Mr. di Santo: This is a

preamble to the question. Because the major problem we have --

Mr. Speaker: The member is debating now. Order, please. The hon. member is debating an issue. Ask a question, please.

Mr. di Santo: I am coming to the question.

Mr. Speaker: You should be there before this.

Mr. di Santo: Is he prepared to ask the federal government to renegotiate the auto pact, as opposed to a normal review of the pact?

Mr. Laughren: Stop blustering, say something.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we will be making in due course --

Mr. Deans: That’s the first mistake.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the Minister of Industry in particular may well be making a position known to the federal government. We have offered to meet with them to discuss this problem fully, and to see where we can be -- if we can be -- part of the solution of the problem.

Mr. Laughren: Why don’t you say “no” and sit down?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member’s party doesn’t feel that a competitive tax climate is necessarily part of the solution. We feel very keenly on this side of the House --

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you resign?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and I noted in the response put forward yesterday by the Automotive Parts Association that it particularly drew attention to the fact that Ontario, in taking off the seven per cent tax on production machinery, was doing its

part in making the industry competitive in this country with the industry in the United States. I say in passing, something which has been opposed by the member’s party, specifically as to whether I think or we think the pact should be renegotiated. I’m not sure that a renegotiation of the pact is necessarily the most effective way of dealing with the problem.

Mr. Laughren: A new Treasurer would help.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The key to the situation was to get the respective governments and the automobile vehicle manufacturers to recognize that there was a problem. It is within the power of the “big four,” I think, without a renegotiation of the pact, to do something about the problem, to bring the overall terms, to bring the results of the pact, into a greater balance than they are now. That would not, in my view, require renegotiation of the pact.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: Since, despite the sales tax exemption, the situation in the auto parts industry has worsened to the point that this year, according to the president of the Automotive Parts Association, we will most likely have a $3-billion deficit, does the Treasurer think his government can do anything in order to offset this situation, in view of the fact we are also losing between 70,000 and 90,000 jobs in this industry?

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: May I ask the minister whether his officials are trying to calculate the labour content, outflow as well as importation, as a result of the manufacture both of parts and the completed vehicle? Are we exporting jobs or are we importing jobs?

Hon. Mr.

McKeough: One of my regrets, and the member for Windsor-Walkerville would know this well, is that although the pact in my view, and I have said this before, has been really a great thing for Canada and for this province in particular -- there is no question we have gained a great number of jobs which we would not otherwise have had, and I think it is also fair to say that Canadians generally are paying less for vehicles today than they would have been had we not had the pact -- having said that, there is no question, and I would refer to Windsor in particular, that we have lost some of the very skilled jobs, the tool and die jobs which used to exist in Windsor, in my home town and other places to a greater extent than they do now.

Some of those jobs moved across the border, regretfully. However, I think when one looks at the sum total there is no question that the pact has been a good thing for Canada, as I have said, and for this province. What we want to do is to make sure it is better.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary: With reference to the Treasurer’s first answer to the series of questions asked, when he admitted that he believed the power to make the changes rests with the four auto manufacturing companies, will he sit down if necessary on a continuous basis and see that that equity is returned, something which I mentioned to him in April 1972 as being the easy, quick route to restoring equity in the auto parts and auto manufacturing industry?

Mr. Martel: In 1972, Darcy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, meetings have been going on with various parts of the industry for some time now.

LICENCE FEES

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I would like to bring to his attention that licence fees for half-ton trucks under the new legislation for northwestern Ontario will not be reduced from $50 to $10. I feel that many half-ton trucks are used by the people of the north --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We do not make a statement or argument.

Mr. Hennessy: I am sorry.

Mr. Speaker: Sometimes a sentence is necessary to place the area of the question, if I might just mention to the hon. member, to delineate just the area where the question will be asked, then you ask the question please.

Mr. Makarchuk: That is one of the $3-million members.

Mr. Hennessy: I struck out there.

Mr. Speaker: So, is there a question now please?

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to ask the question -- perhaps I will get the answer from the other side. I don’t know.

Mr. Makarchuk: Next time you will.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Fort William with his question.

Mr. Hennessy: I would like to ask why is the government charging $50 for the half-ton truck in the northwest when it should be only $10 for any other car? A lot of people use private trucks.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

An hon. member: Don’t be so hard on him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the hon. minister have a short answer for that?

Mr. Breaugh: He wants to know why you are ripping off the truckers.

Mr. Nixon: He knows what you mean.

An hon. member: It was raised in the last session.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I regret very much that the hon. members on the other side didn’t have the courtesy to allow the member to place his question properly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. S. Smith: It was a proper question. You shouldn’t criticize your member.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I always thought it was a tradition in this House that a new member --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the hon. minister answer the question briefly and then I will have something to say about that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am aware of the particular situation that the hon. member brings to my attention.

An hon. member: You should be.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There was no mention in the Treasurer’s statement on the budget relating to this particular problem. It is one that I have had brought to my attention. I hope to come up with some recommendations to eliminate, if at all possible, the inequity between the person who drives a half-ton truck for transportation to and from his job as compared to those who drive an automobile.

Mr. MacDonald: You have been conjuring with it for three months.

SHOOTING AT BRACEBRIDGE

Mr. Stong: In the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth), I have a question for the Premier. Does the government intend to review the fatal shooting at Bracebridge yesterday by the OPP officer by way a coroner’s inquest? Lest anyone think that

summary justice was done in that incident, would the Premier direct the Solicitor General to provide the House with a full and comprehensive report of that incident, including the nature of the chase, the number of police officers involved in the chase, whether in fact there was any strategy for the live apprehension of the suspect, whether the police officers were in regulation uniform and, finally, what the particular training and experience were of the officer who fired the fatal shot?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps the hon. member would be kind enough to give me that series of questions. Before the afternoon is over, I will be in touch with either the Solicitor General who, I believe, is in Ottawa, or, if he is not here tomorrow, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). We will have a report for the hon. member.

HOME HEATING AND INSULATION

Mr. Samis: A question of the Minister of Energy: Can the minister clarify for the House if he will be recommending to the cabinet that Ontario comply with the conditions dictated by Mr. Gillespie regarding the federal program for home insulation in order for it to take effect in Ontario this fall? Secondly, can he tell us if the provincial government is planning any additional assistance for home owners in this province?

Mr. Laughren: Are you stock-piling coal?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: As to the first question, there are four basic conditions now, I understand as of yesterday. I may say they have been changing a little bit. Firstly, there is the condition in regard to insulation standards. In our building code we provided for that in 1975. In fact, those conditions are in place now. In terms of the reduced speed limits, we did that in Ontario in 1976.

In regard to the question of sales tax, which is the third one, that is in the Treasurer’s budget. So that’s three. The fourth one, just to remind the member, is the question of the bulk meters. Bulk metering is in connection with both gas and electricity. We have some problems with gas because gas is used for heating apartments, for example.

Mr. Conway: You are not kidding.

Mr. Petersen: Leave the chamber then.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Are you interested in the answer?

Interjections.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I assume members can see where we have already complied with those conditions, with the exception of the bulk metering which is under study. The problem is of course the eligibility of the people of Ontario for that program. That’s what concerns me very much because I understand it will only apply initially -- at least till 1981 -- for houses that were constructed prior to 1921.

Mr. Bounsall: We have a few of them.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: There may be some. The grant programme is up to $350 provided it doesn’t exceed two-thirds of the cost of insulation. That doesn’t insulate the house.

[3:00]

I’m getting now into the second part of the question which deals with the supplementation of that program, which of course pinpoints the problem with the program in the first place: It doesn’t provide for the cost saving that Mr. Gillespie indicated that it would. In terms of my recommendation, I think the people of Ontario should participate in any recycling of funds. After all, the moneys are basically coming from the consuming provinces. I think the people of Ontario should be able to participate in any funds that may come back to assist them in home insulation.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary to the lecture provided by the minister, could I ask again in terms of the first -- understanding that number four comes after number three -- will he recommended to cabinet that we comply with the conditions and, second, will he offer a supplementary program?

Hon. J.A. Taylor: At the present time we cannot comply with the fourth condition that I mentioned unless we are going to put a separate furnace, which may be fired by gas, for every apartment unit, for example. What I’m saying is that it is very difficult for us to do that, and I think maybe the hon. member will appreciate that fact.

As far as supplementation is concerned, which is the other part of the question, we proposed a fuel-saver loan program -- and may I take the hon. member back to the last conference of energy ministers --

Mr. Germa: The minister takes us back a long way.

Mr. Samis: Mickey Mouse is still here.

Mr. Laughren: Has the minister ever thought of government services?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: At the last conference of energy ministers, the federal minister asked the provinces of Canada to indicate their initiatives in the area of conservation, and I filed with the federal people all of our initiatives in that regard. That was on the last agenda at the federal provincial ministers’ conference --

Mr. Conway: Speech.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: -- but it wasn’t discussed at that time, nor was the federal program discussed. What I’m saying to the hon. member is that there should be some consultation with the provinces if there is to be a program that meshes in with existing provincial programs, because some provinces already have programs and some do not; some are completely financed by the federal government. I think there should be consultation.

FIRE SAFETY IN JAILS

Mr. Bolan: This question is directed to the Premier in view of the fact that the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) is not here. In view of the large number of prisoners in Canada who have lost their lives over the past year in prison, what investigations if any are being done with respect to safety features for prisoners in provincial penal institutions in the event of fire, and particularly in the older district jails?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will be delighted to pass that question on to the Solicitor General for answer either tomorrow or Thursday.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Mackenzie: A question of the Minister of Labour: Would the minister tell the House when workers can expect an increase in the minimum wage in the province of Ontario, which is currently one of the lowest in Canada --

Interjections.

Mr. Mackenzie: -- and can the minister assure the House that waitresses will not be discriminated against by way of a lower rate than other workers?

Hon. B. Stephenson: If the hon. member is suggesting that we should move to the level suggested by his leader during the election --

Mr. Mackenzie: Don’t play games. We asked you a question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I can tell him that as soon as the productivity of every single individual in this province improves to an equitable level, we will be pleased to do so --

Mr. Martel: Maybe most of those in cabinet should have theirs cut.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- particularly, perhaps, the productivity of the members of the House.

Mr. Bounsall: Starting with yourself.

Hon. B. Stephenson: In addition, I should like to tell the hon. member that waitresses have not been discriminated against in any of the moves as far as the minimum wage is concerned; indeed, all of those people who work in establishments where they are involved in the direct serving of alcoholic beverages are those who are under the program known as the wage differential at this point in time, and that involves both waiters and waitresses. There is no discrimination on the basis of sex in that area in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, that wasn’t an answer to my question.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I didn’t hear that.

Mr. Mackenzie: I simply asked the minister when the House can expect --

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the answer which the minister gave. Is there any different answer now?

An hon. member: That’s the silliest answer.

Mr. Warner: Try answering the question.

Mr. Mackenzie: Stop playing games.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Martel: So busy being arrogant.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you answer the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We can neither hear the question nor the answer because of the interjections, so we’re wasting time.

Mr. Mackenzie: Let’s talk about games. This House and the members.

An hon. member: Throw him out.

Mr. Lupusella: She should give an answer, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: All right. A question over here? No. Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Get to a proper question.

Is there a question over here? The hon. member for St. George.

GROUP HOME PLACEMENTS

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Interjections.

Mrs. Campbell: I’m sure that comes as a surprise to him. Could I have the attention of the minister? He’s hidden a bit, behind --

[Laughter]

Interjections.

An hon. member: He’s in the shadow.

Mr. Nixon: That is five of the members.

An hon. member: Behind the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Sweeney: Let’s have some order on the other side.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Campbell: Now that the Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the Holland decision concerning group home placements by family courts, what action is this ministry prepared to take with regard to at least two family court judges who have circumvented the Holland decision by placing juveniles with employees of group homes, under

section 20, subsection 1(

d) of The Juvenile Delinquents Act; thereby doing, it would seem, indirectly by court order that which they are prohibited from doing directly?

Hon. Mr. Norton: First of all I must apologize to the hon. member, I do miss her down at this end of the House. I could always anticipate when she was about to direct a question to me before, but now that we’re at opposite angles in the House it’s a little more difficult.

Mr. Conway: If you are going to shine, Norton, you’d better be seen.

Mr. Roy: You were hidden by Lorne’s nose.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specific cases to which the hon. member directed the question, I can’t give her a very specific response on those. I do understand there are a very small number of cases where that type of placement was made. It’s my understanding the decision of the Supreme Court did not deal specifically with that kind of placement.

At the present time, all I can suggest to the hon. member is that we have asked that Children’s Aid Societies be prepared, if there is any indication whatsoever that the welfare of the children in such placements is in jeopardy, to move in and take the child into protection and proceed in that manner.

In the meantime, as well, we still have under review with the parties to that particular action the next step they might be following. I won’t know myself for some time yet whether the Supreme Court decision will be subject to a further appeal or not; but in the meantime we are continuing our commitment to municipalities with respect to the financing under the present arrangement, as well as the commitment to continue discussions with them with respect to more permanent financing.

We also, as I suggested, have asked and will be urging the judges to consider placement via the Children’s Aid Societies, which would still afford the opportunity for the placements to be continued in such group homes through the societies.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister undoubtedly must be aware, is he not, that the commitment which he gave to us at the time the Holland decision first came forward has not really been honoured in the case, for example, of Metro and Youth Sphere? There are other cases. Is the minister not aware of other cases where children are indeed in jeopardy; and isn’t it the responsibility of this minister to assure the protection of the children first, and then work his way through arrangements with Metro or anyone else?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I don’t disagree at all with the priorities that have been suggested by the hon. member; those are my priorities and the priorities of my ministry and of this government.

I am not aware of the reference she makes to the fact there are children in jeopardy. If she has specific evidence of children who are in jeopardy, I would urge her to bring it to my attention forthwith, because it is my responsibility and I would not want to shirk that responsibility.

I have also asked my staff, and people in the Children’s Aid Society across this province, to advise me of any cases that may come to their attention where there appears to be any jeopardy to the welfare of the children of this province, and I will act forthwith.

Mr. McClellan: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since I, too, have cases that have recently come to my attention, of children at risk as the result of Judge Holland’s decision, would the minister not agree now to adopt a policy of 100 per cent funding to municipalities for the care of kids in this area, so that litigation would not be necessary, litigation would be eliminated?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would hope we wouldn’t have to debate this again at 10:30 this evening, but my answer to that inquiry is the same as it was during the last session of this House -- “No”.

I am in the process of discussions with municipalities with respect to funding arrangements, and I will continue to follow that course. I will not precipitously jump to any such conclusion or fall into the trap of agreeing with the member in a suggestion that he may make. If he does have information about children who are in jeopardy, then please let him bring it to my attention, rather than stand in the House and suggest he has such information. I would also point out to him that if he knows of children who are in jeopardy then he might well bring it to the attention of the Children’s Aid Society as well. They do have responsibilities in that area.

Mr. McClellan: The minister may rest assured that I will.

Hon. Mr. Norton: All right. If the member has information, I would like to have it.

BLAIR REPORT ON TAXES

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Treasurer. I want to know if he soon intends to make a statement, or perhaps produce a white paper, on his intentions with regard to last year’s budget proposals in budget paper E on the Blair commission’s report on so-called tax reform?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we have just received a rather comprehensive report from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario which, I think it’s fair to say, is the only complete response that we have, and perhaps will receive, to the Blair commission report. We have it under examination. We are waiting on the Ministry of Revenue for the complete results with the 1975 figures updated, which we expect to have sometime next month I believe. The answer to the member’s question is that I don’t anticipate making a response in the very near future to the Blair report, but no doubt we will in the future.

Mr. Swart: Will the Treasurer, when he tables his intentions, if and when he tables his intentions with regard to the Blair commission report, as to what he is going to do with tax reforms, will he also table his intentions on grant policy to municipalities -- transfer policies with regard to transfer payments -- recognizing that tax reform means little unless we know what the grant policy is going to be?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I discussed this with AMO the other day. I wouldn’t want to indicate we would be in a position to give a complete response on all the grants. I suppose it is fair to say that, as they affect municipalities -- and this is a guess -- somewhere around 95 per cent of the grant money, or changes in the grants, would be in three areas: in the resource equalization grant, in the general legislative grant for education, and to a lesser extent, but not insignificant, in the municipal road grants of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

It would certainly be our aim to indicate our intentions with respect to those main grant programs, which plus the other unconditional grants are by population and not related to assessment. I doubt that we would be able to with all of them, but with respect to those main ones, at such time as we release the figures and our intentions the answer to the question is “yes”, but perhaps not quite as far as the member intended.

[3:15]

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary. When the minister is tabling his response or his views on the Blair commission report and the question of taxes, would he possibly give some explanation why it is that, for instance in the Ottawa area -- and this has come out again in a later report and I asked him a question about this last year -- the taxes in Ottawa are up to 25 or 50 or 100 per cent more, when we are talking about municipal and school taxes, than any other area of the province? For instance, on an average, they are $95 more than in Toronto. Could he give some explanation? He refused to do it last year. I would like to get his views on that this year.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I can’t believe that I would have refused to do so. It is not my recollection that on a household basis the taxes in the city of Ottawa are that significantly different from other areas of the province.

Mr. Roy: They are. The Treasurer’s own reports say that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the member would be good enough to send me some particulars, I would be glad to try and analyse why that may be the case.

FRUIT TREE DAMAGE

Mr. Hall: A question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Will the minister advise the House when the special committee established to investigate salt spray damage to the Niagara Peninsula fruit trees will make a public report and recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the committee, which includes representatives from the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and my own ministry, is working on different aspects of this problem at the present time and I would expect that it would be coming forward within the next few weeks with some recommendations to me.

Mr. Hall: By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned and I wonder if there is a valid reason for delay in the matter; first of all in that the problem is urgent, and secondly that during the election the committee was said to be meeting daily --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s not a supplementary question. That’s a debate.

Mr. Hall: I am asking if there is a valid reason for the delay, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That’s okay then.

Mr. Hall: The point being that the previous information was that it was meeting daily and would take two weeks to wrap it up; and two weeks has long since passed.

Mr. Speaker: Is there an answer?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the committee was only formed I would think three to four weeks ago and I do know that it has had a number of meetings. I have had some interim reports on the progress to date and, as I have said, within the next few weeks I am expecting the report.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; are we to assume, sir, since you drew my colleague to order, that information given by representatives of the government during the election campaign cannot be validly raised in this House in the question period?

Mr. Speaker: No, no decision was based on that at all.

Mr. Nixon: Well what was the reason for your drawing him to order?

Mr. Speaker: If we check back through Hansard, I am sure we can define it. I just can’t recall the actual words right at the present time.

SEAWAY TOLLS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I have a new question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. What position has his government taken and what representation has his government made to the federal government with regard to the federal government’s policy to increase Seaway tolls, which will have a devastating effect on inland ports on the Great Lakes, especially on the port of Thunder Bay, because it will possibly eliminate the grain trade there?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, we certainly have made a representation to the federal government. I believe both the Premier and myself have made public statements on the Ontario position regarding the proposed major increases in Seaway tolls. I would be pleased to look up those statements. I am sure they were sent to the hon. member, but if they weren’t we shall send him another copy.

Mr. Nixon: Are you for it or against it?

Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

PETITIONS

ONE CANADA DAY

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, although this does not take the form of a proper petition, I would like to rise on a point of privilege and offer to the Premier this document from the people of the town of Markham who met on One Canada Day and presented a petition with over 3,500 names on it signifying their intent to keep Canada one. I would like to present this to the Premier of the province on behalf of the town of Markham.

Mr. Speaker: I believe it is not really a point of privilege either, but the hon. member may send over his report or whatever it is.

MOTIONS

SPEAKER’S PANEL

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that a Speaker’s panel be established to consist of Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of committees of the whole House, the Deputy Chairman of committees of the whole House, and the Chairman of all standing and select committees. All committees shall

schedule all matters referred to them after discussion by the Speaker’s panel as desirable. Such scheduling shall ensure as far as possible that there is no interference with the business in the House.

Motions agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that unless otherwise ordered substitution be permitted on all standing committees, provided that notice of substitution is given to the chairman of the committee prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, may I point out at this time that the first two committees to be established under my next motion will meet tonight at 8 o’clock to start consideration of estimates; both the social development committee and the resources development committee.

STANDING COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following standing committees be established for this session, with power to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, with power to send for persons, papers and things, as provided in

section 35 of The Legislative Assembly Act:

Social development committee, 16 members as follows: Baetz, Cooke, Dukszta, Elgie, Grande, Jones, Kennedy, Kerrio, Leluk, McCaffrey, McClellan, McEwen, Sweeney, Van Horne, Villeneuve, and Wiseman.

Resources development committee, 16 members as follows: Bolan, Charlton, Eaton, Havrot, Johnson, Lane, Laughren, Martel, McNeil, O’Neil, Pope, Reed, Riddell, Rollins, Stokes, Yakabuski.

The justice committee, 16 members as follows: Blundy, Bradley, Cureatz, Drea, Gigantes, Grossman, Lawlor, Lupusella, Philip, Renwick, Roy, Sterling, Stong, G. Taylor, Turner, Williams.

General government committee, 16 members as follows: Ashe, Cassidy, di Santo, Epp, Gaunt, Hall, Hennessy, Mancini, McCaffrey, McCague, McGuigan, Rotenberg, Sterling, Walker, Warner, Wildman.

Public accounts committee, 12 members as follows: Baetz, Drea, Elgie, Germa, Grossman, Hennessy, Mackenzie, Makarchuk, Nixon, Peterson, Reid, Sargent.

The report of the Provincial Auditor for 1975-76 and the public accounts for 1975-76 are hereby referred to the public accounts committee.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing members’ services committee be appointed for this session to examine the services to members from time to time, and without interfering with the statutory responsibility of the Board of Internal Economy in such matters, the committee is empowered to recommend to the consideration of the House matters it wishes to draw to the special attention of the board.

The committee shall be composed of eight members as follows: Ashe, Campbell, Cunningham, Davidson, Hodgson, B. Newman, Swart, Walker.

The committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and things as provided in

section 35 of The Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing statutory instruments committee be appointed for this session to be the committee provided for by

section 12 of The Regulations Act and have the terms of reference as set out in that section, and that the said committee in addition to those powers shall review and consider:

1. The role of the committee, with particular reference to the recommendations of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature and the practices of the Parliaments of Canada and the United Kingdom, and

2. The establishment of guidelines to be observed in the delegation by statute of power to make statutory instruments and the use made of such delegated power.

The said committee to report its recommendations to the House and that in addition to the normal powers of standing committees to send for persons, papers and things; it shall have power to employ counsel and such other staff as the committee considers necessary.

The committee shall be composed of eight members as follows: Cureatz, Davison, Eakins, McKessock, Pope, Rotenberg, Samis, Williams.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING PROCEDURAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the standing procedural affairs committee be appointed for this Parliament. The said committee shall review and report to the House its observations and opinions on the operation of the standing and provisional orders of the House and such additional matters as may be referred to it by the House or by Mr.

Speaker from time to time, and that the committee also have power to review the operation of particular boards, agencies and commissions for which annual reports have been tabled in the House and referred to it, and the committee may review the operation of these bodies as it selects with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping. The committee shall review the eight points in the first paragraph on page 29 of the second interim report of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the commission on the Legislature respecting proposed powers of committees.

The committee shall be composed of eight members as follows, with no substitution in membership: Breaugh, Foulds, Haggerty, MacDonald, G. I. Miller, Rollins, G. Taylor, Turner.

The committee shall be empowered to send for persons, papers and things pursuant to

section 35 of The Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HIGHWAY SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that a select committee on highway safety be appointed for the purpose of completing the report of the committee appointed in the 30th Parliament, such committee to be composed as follows:

Young, chairman; Bounsall, Breaugh, Johnson, Kennedy, McNeil, Mackenzie, McCague, Nixon, Jones, Riddell.

The said committee will have power to employ counsel and such other staff as the committee considers necessary.

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES IN COMMITTEES

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the following estimates be referred to the committees for consideration not exceeding 405 hours and 38 minutes as indicated.

In committee of supply: The Solicitor General, 20 hours; the Attorney General, 20 hours; Consumer and Commercial Relations, 20 hours; Correctional Services, 12 hours; Justice Policy Secretariat, 10 hours.

In the standing resources development committee: Housing, 8 hours and 34 minutes; Energy, 15 hours; Labour, 15 hours; Industry and Tourism, 15 hours; Agriculture and Food, 20 hours; Environment, 20 hours; Natural Resources, 25 hours; Resources Development Policy Secretariat, five hours; Transportation and Communications, 25 hours; Northern Affairs to be allocated.

In the standing social development committee: The Social Development Policy Secretariat, four hours and four minutes; Education, 22 hours; Colleges and Universities, 10 hours; Community and Social Services, 20 hours; Health, 20 hours; Culture and Recreation, 15 hours.

In the standing general government committee: Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, 20 hours; Government Services, 20 hours; Revenue, six hours; Management Board, three hours; Office of the Assembly, 10 hours; Office of the Provincial Auditor, five hours; Office of the Ombudsman nine hours; Office of the Premier to conclusion, the Cabinet Office to conclusion and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor to conclusion.

Motion agreed to.

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. Welch: As the motion states, there remain 18 hours and 34 minutes for consideration of Housing estimates by the standing resources development committee; and as I indicated to the House earlier, that committee will meet tonight to continue those estimates starting at 8 o’clock. I would also draw attention to the fact that there remain four hours and four minutes for estimates of the Social Development Secretariat, which will be heard in the standing social development committee, also beginning at 8 o’clock tonight.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS ACT

Mr. Foulds moved first reading of Bill 28,

An Act respecting Special Educational Programs.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: This bill guarantees access to education to all children of compulsory school age who suffer from any kind of chronic physical disability or any kind of learning disability, including the blind, deaf, autistic, mentally handicapped and perceptually handicapped.

It could be properly called an education bill of rights for handicapped children. This bill is strengthened from the form in which I first introduced it last July. It makes provision for requiring boards to do adequate testing to determine the proper and full need of special educational programs. Frankly, in a province as rich as Ontario it is shameful that children of compulsory school age are denied full access to education.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We don’t debate it, we just state the principle thank you.

ELECTION PUBLIC OPINION POLLS ACT

Mr. Samis moved first reading of Bill 29,

An Act respecting Election Public Opinion Polls.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Conway: I thought it was going to be a bill to abolish the Tories in Cornwall --

Mr. Samis: This bill prohibits the publishing and broadcasting of public opinion polls during an election where the polls relate to the outcome of the election or the standing of any leader, candidate or party in the election. My colleague has baptized it the Regenstreif bill.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I will recognize the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex.

GODERICH SESQUICENTENNIAL

Mr. Riddell: Before the order of the day, and with your permission Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to bring to the attention of the House the fact that 1977 marks the 150th anniversary of the town of Goderich. Considered to be the most beautiful town in Canada, Goderich actually had its beginning on June 29, 1827. From that time and up until the establishment of Perth county as a separate county, Goderich was the district town of the Huron district which included then Huron, Perth, and Bruce counties. The town was founded by John Galt and Dr. William Dunlop.

As a matter of interest the latter, commonly known as the Tiger, was member of parliament for Huron in the province of Canada. Therefore Bob McKinley, the sitting federal member -- and that name should ring a bill --

Mr. Conway: He is related to the defeated Tory candidate.

Mr. Riddell: -- Murray Gaunt, Hugh Edighoffer and myself can all be considered his political heirs. I am displaying on my desk a small flag of Goderich which will be very much in evidence in the town during the two weeks of celebrations, commencing with the official opening tomorrow, June 29. Mr. Cutt, chairman of the sesquicentennial committee, has asked me to extend an invitation to all members of the Legislature to visit Goderich during this anniversary year and to share in our celebrations.

So once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House of the sesquicentennial of the founding of Goderich by John Galt and Tiger Dunlop in 1827; and of the fact that the Tiger once held the seat for Huron district, and that the spirit of adventure, fidelity, loyalty and industry exhibited by the early pioneers and the representatives in the House still exist in the fine people of this area and their representatives today.

Interjections.

Mr. Riddell: I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the members of the Legislature will avail themselves of the opportunity to visit our fair town --

An hon. member: Certainly will.

Mr. Riddell: -- to see for themselves the type of thing that John Keats must have had in mind when he wrote “A thing of beauty is a joy forever.”

Mr. Roy: And you thought he was talking about you.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak following the remarks of my learned colleague. I have no flag to wave. I can’t even claim to be a thing of beauty nor even a joy for a moment, let alone forever; but these humble words I hope will find some friendly ears across the way and if the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) is so inclined he may even decide to adopt some of the suggestions which we put forward in a spirit of consultation and co-operation.

The budgetary statement made by the Treasurer at the opening of this House yesterday did, as I brought to notice during question period, contain a number of revisions. Interestingly, as I did bring to the notice of this House, two of the matters that were not revised were the number of new jobs expected and the number of housing starts expected.

I must tell you I remain puzzled as to how the same party that could produce a charter and publish it in full page ads in every newspaper of Ontario, could at one and the same time be preparing a revision for the benefit of this House of Ontario’s budgetary strategy; and in the charter promise 100,000 jobs and 90,000 homes, and yet in the actual document of the budget strategy agree that the revision itself accepts a target of 89,000 jobs and 80,000 houses.

It’s hard for me to understand how the same party could put forward at almost the same time vastly different figures, one in the form of a genuine financial document which I do not quarrel with -- the Treasurer’s predictions have usually been accurate, with the exception of jobs last year -- and the other in the form of a pie-in-the-sky promise which was treated by the people of Ontario with the contempt it deserves.

Mr. Roy: It’s called puffery in the trade.

Mr. S. Smith: The strategy with regard to the economy that we in the Liberal Party would like to put forward basically differs only somewhat from strategy which the Treasurer has discussed. I think the Treasurer agrees, and we agree, with a general policy which says that we have to move toward a balanced budget and with a general policy that says that Ontario’s long term growth is best assured by the private sector, and therefore the government must restrain the demands that it makes on the economy.

I feel that government restraint is something which I suspect the Treasurer and I agree upon. The difference seems to be that the Treasurer seems to feel that he has gone as far as he can go in restraining the growth of government,

whereas we feel that it is necessary that the share of every dollar in people’s pockets that goes to government must be no larger than it is right now. We believe there is room for restraining government expenditures even further.

I demonstrate to you again, as I did in question period, Mr. Speaker, that on page 13 of the Treasurer’s document reaffirming Ontario’s budget strategy he makes it very clear as he did in his answer to me today in question period, that Management Board can be told to cut $133 million almost with a snap of the fingers. It is hardly something to be considered in great detail. It is simply sloughed off as a very simple matter. Frankly, I agree that $133 million can be found, but I also believe that a lot more than that can be found. I feel that it’s time for us to look at the entire accounting policy and the strategy that the government uses in dealing with money generally.

I would point out that 13 per cent of the government’s expenditures are made in the 12th month of the fiscal year. If the expenditures were carried forward as one might expect in equal quantities month by month, one of course would expect about eight or nine per cent of the expenditures to take place in any given month. Yet in the 12th month of the fiscal year we find almost a 50 per cent increase in the rate of expenditure in as much as instead of eight per cent or nine per cent they spend 13 per cent, and that according to the Provincial Auditor’s report.

The reason for that is very simple. When we have a system of accounting which says that any money we don’t spend by the end of the fiscal year, we lose, the natural tendency in all of us, I suspect, is to spend that money before the final deadline to get the money spent.

If we gave the civil servants the right to carry over of these budgetary items, they might discover in the fullness of time that perhaps circumstances have changed, that certain items don’t need to be bought, that certain items might be better off leased or foregone perhaps, and if we didn’t penalize the people in this way by taking back the money at the end of the fiscal year, we believe that considerable savings could be effected. We think that’s plain common sense.

We also believe that the present policy of accounting of the government, which says to people, “If you’ve spent a certain amount of money this year, you can count on getting that in your budget next year plus a certain increment,” also gives an incentive to people to spend money in the last minute so as to be able to come in with higher expenditures at the end of the fiscal year and to be able then to obtain higher budgetary allocations in future years.

Good evidence of that, of course, was the memo that was circulating last spring in the Ministry of Government Services, in which advice was given to encourage suppliers to bill as much as possible during the last month of the fiscal year so that certain budgets would not be cut in future years. This is the wrong attitude to take towards the public’s money. I would ask the Treasurer -- not in a nasty or partisan way -- to consider seriously changing his accounting methods to allow a certain carryover and to get away from the incremental idea that you get a budget each year according to what you spent the year before plus a certain increment.

I would ask the Treasurer furthermore to consider seriously a form of zero-base budgeting. I know from previous comments he has made to this House that he is thinking about that. I would ask him to speed that along, to take the House into his confidence and to have some consultation, wherever reasonable, with our own financial critic on this matter, because we feel we have good reason now to move towards a policy of even more restraint in terms of government spending. Frankly, we would like to be party to some of the information the Treasurer has upon which he’s going to base these decisions.

We think we have, if I may say somewhat immodestly, some reasonably good ideas and at least the right attitude which we’d like to bring to such consultations.

We believe that this province requires a form of sunset law; that is to say, a regulation by which all programs, all commissions and all organizations set up by the government automatically come to an end at a given period of time, be it three years of five years after the commencement, unless good reason can be evoked and demonstrated to require that such commissions continue; even then, they may continue with a different mandate or on a different policy or in a different scale.

But the fact remains that there should be something which can start to take away programs rather than constantly adding to the list of overbearing government that we have nowadays in Canada -- not just in Ontario, but we’re speaking of Ontario. It seems to me that an attitude which starts to create less government rather than more government is one which is long overdue, and I suspect that philosophically the Treasurer is not very far from agreement with me on such matters.

[3:45]

I think it’s important too that we recognize that the government restraint which the Treasurer is somewhat proud of -- he mentions a nine per cent growth and so on -- applies only to the provincial scene. I think it’s terribly important to recognize that government in general in Ontario has grown considerably more than that. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of this House, as well as to the Treasurer, what he already knows, namely that municipal expenditures and regional expenditures, including both school boards and other municipal services, have continued to increase at a rapid rate and have placed an enormous burden on the taxpayers of this province.

During the recent election campaign -- there’s one good thing about campaigns, strenuous and arduous as they may be they do allow one to get into close contact with thousands of people in Ontario, and I heard a message over and over again, and I want to pass this on to the Treasurer, that people felt the property taxes they were paying in many instances had pretty well reached the limit that they could tolerate.

I found numerous instances, not so much of very elderly people, but of people of late middle age, let us say, who found themselves with a home to keep up, with perhaps a status of separation or widowhood and in a situation where the property taxes were truly bringing them to the point where they felt they could no longer stay in their own homes. In fact, I began to hear that from so-called middle class people as well, who are beginning to find the property tax burden really quite enormous and quite crushing.

In regional governments, this tax burden has been even harder to take and since the duplication inherent in regional government has pretty well flown in the face of common sense and logic of the ordinary citizens of those areas, these governments are now being blamed for a lot of the property tax burden.

I accept that not all the burden is due to regionalization. Nonetheless, I think we have to think seriously about this matter when we consider that even per capita spending between 1970 and 1975 went up only 41 per cent in non-regionalized municipalities, but 105 per cent in regionalized areas. Of course, that compares with 73 per cent in Metro Toronto.

It seems to me, therefore, that it’s not enough to speak of restraint of the provincial budget. We must look at the overall picture as far as taxes go in the province of Ontario in every aspect that’s under our jurisdiction, and that must surely include municipal, regional and school board expenditures.

Mr. Cassidy: You think you are still back on the hustings, you know.

Mr. Conway: Your campaign is just beginning, Michael.

Mr. S. Smith: The fact is --

Mr. Cassidy: This is the most ridiculous stuff this House has ever heard.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. S. Smith: The fact is that there are some differences in attitudes between our party and the party that presently forms the government of Ontario. One particular difference is this: we believe that our future can be best assured --

Mr. Cassidy: You are even sillier than they are.

Mr. S. Smith: -- by pinpointing and targeting the small business sector of Ontario. We recognize that the Treasurer has a commitment and a belief in large-scale industry, in more corporate concentration, and in so-called economies of scale which he believes in the long run can assure the international competitiveness of Ontario and the prosperity of one and all in the province.

We believe, however, that hand in hand with a large business policy there must be a genuine commitment to small business, to labour-intensive industry, to the deconcentration of economic and political power and to the growth of small-town Ontario which we think in the long run, given the drastic changes occurring in the energy picture in the world, will be vital to our future. We think that, in fact, we have to make a real commitment to small-scale technology, we have to recognize that many of our tax laws today put artificial preference on those companies which can mechanize, those companies which are capital-intensive and those which are highly concentrated.

Mr. Cassidy: Now I know why you got no seats in Metro Toronto.

Mr. S. Smith: It is extremely important that we recognize the need for the small businesses to be able to obtain capital on a reasonably competitive basis with the large industry --

Mr. Nixon: You still living on the island? Are you a Metro member?

Mr. S. Smith: -- and it’s important for us to recognize that the future in terms of employment and quality of life in Ontario lies in the small towns and in the small businesses.

It’s no favour to Toronto or any other large municipality -- and my own riding is in a large urban municipality, Hamilton West, of course -- it’s no favour to those municipalities to create a situation where little exists in the way of opportunity for the young people in the north and in the east and in towns of the west and smaller parts of central Ontario, so that these young people have no option but to trek into the larger municipalities, to crowd these places, to compete for work in these places, and to create social conditions which are not in their best interests, nor in the best interests of Ontario generally.

We have to have a policy of decentralization of both economic and political power in Ontario and that means a genuine policy of fostering the small towns and the small businesses of Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: With insulation inspectors in every block, eh?

Mr. S. Smith: We made a particular suggestion and that is that the jobs could be created in the small business sector of Ontario.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about the $4 an hour, Cassidy. Tell us, eh?

Mr. S. Smith: We made a suggestion that that could be done -- and I hope that the Treasurer will take this seriously -- by giving a certain incentive to the small business people by paying a portion of the salaries of new employees.

This is not a totally heretical notion. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Treasurer himself has put before this House a program of supplementing the wages of Ontarians for summer jobs to the tune of $1 an hour and he feels that this has created certain jobs. I think he used the term of 20,000 jobs and we welcome the fact that some summer jobs have been created. However, there’s no reason to believe that the same principle could not work for permanent jobs -- new permanent jobs, but targeting the small business sector and the medium-sized business sector in Ontario. We think that is a constructive suggestion. We think it can work and we would like to see it tried.

Mr. McClellan: Tell us about the eight per cent ceilings.

Mr. S. Smith: We feel, as well, another suggestion we have made is one which the Treasurer should consider seriously, although we accept that it may be more in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. We believe that it’s important to adopt an apprenticeship program in Ontario much broader than the one that presently exists.

Without taking the time of this House in great detail, I do want to point out that we suggested that employers who wish to train apprentices could register with the industrial training branch of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. They would establish and monitor standards for these programs and applicants would be registered and directed to potential employers who would decide themselves which applicants are acceptable for training. It’s kind of a matching service. There would be on-the-job training and this would deal with not only the blue-collar trades which are presently incorporated, but other service, sales and clerical jobs.

I would point out that this thinking is not totally foreign to the government, in as much as the Minister of Colleges and Universities has commented along similar lines some time ago, but I am disappointed that we’ve seen no genuine action in this regard. We have seen no real movement forward and this at a time when so many of our young people are caught in the gap between school and the job market

So many of them come out of school; they don’t have the experience; it’s very difficult for them to find a job. Yet on-the-job training at a reduced rate of pay while they actually benefited to the point where they could become skilled in an area and have a diploma or a certificate is probably just the answer for so many of our people. I remind the House that 73 per cent of young Ontarians don’t go to college or university and consequently we have to think of what we’re going to do for this vast bulk of our young people who are facing a very difficult future today.

We believe, of course, that it’s important to change our manpower guidance and planning devices. We have to have better figures. It’s simply inexcusable that people are being encouraged to go into teaching and nursing when we know very well that there are positions lacking in these areas. We believe the government is beginning to move but, frankly, far too late.

I think the blame must be taken by all parties in this regard and by the federal government as well, but surely now that we see the kind of trend that we’re up against, it’s long past time that we start to tailor the output of such institutions as teachers’ colleges and so on to the real needs of the job market and that we start to advise and to guide our young people in a way that doesn’t mislead them or lure them into areas where there is really little hope of employment.

We have made suggestions for assisting the mining industry, which we think is one of the fundamental sources of genuine wealth in the province of Ontario. We feel that the competition between the federal and the provincial governments regarding royalties and taxes has been one of the factors creating doubt in the investment climate in mining. We feel that far too much investment is now leaving Ontario and moving toward Indonesia, Australia and other parts of the world.

We think it’s important that the federal and provincial governments get together and negotiate a tax ceiling, an agreement that is going to last at least five years, so that the mining companies have some idea of where they stand and can plan their investment accordingly.

We have suggested that the government should carry out airborne surveys. This was done in Quebec and it led to a fair amount of small-scale prospecting, a fair amount of small-scale development in smaller mining endeavours. We think that might have the same stimulating effect right here. I have told the House in the past that it used to be that the prospecting industry, the small mines, the junior mines and so on, were a real source of economic activity in the province of Ontario, particularly in the north. What we find now is that this has just about dried up. Our prospectors are leaving.

Ontario is no longer a source of expertise in this area, or -- let me be correct -- is rapidly becoming a place that’s no longer a source of expertise.

I think it’s important to take steps now to protect that industry. Along these lines we have suggested that the Ontario Securities Commission regulations should be overhauled, as has been promised for months and months, and even years, so that junior mines can once again find investment and carry out their rightful role in Ontario’s economy.

The construction industry: Surely, if there is any way we can create jobs and create a social good at the same time it is by stimulating our construction industry. There can surely be no argument about that. Yet what is the government doing? Pitifully little. A very small subsidy of $600 or something to apartment builders; pitifully little.

I think it’s terribly important for us to take drastic steps now to stimulate building, particularly of affordable housing but of construction generally. I ask the Treasurer to explain to himself, and to the rest of us, why it is that at a time when thousands of jobs could be created in Toronto by completing the Ontario Municipal Board hearing and by getting on with building here in Toronto, why is it that the OMB has taken off the entire month of July? To recover from their break-neck pace of hearing by which, I think, they met four days of the week and six hours or so out of the day?

What is the need for a full month’s adjournment at this time when so many people are without work, when every moment of delay can be counted in terms of human difficulty not to say human tragedy.

We believe that the Toronto plan ought to be proceeded with as quickly as possible and hope that the government will take the steps necessary to get the Ontario Municipal Board functioning as it should. We believe it is simply ludicrous that in the province of Ontario subdivision approval has come to be a lifetime work for so many people. To get something approved in terms of a subdivision represents a hope in longevity, a certain faith in the future; and possibly even a faith in geriatric medicine, because to live to see these approvals come in is almost a unique experience.

People hardly even want to build with these approvals. It is something to be framed, to be enshrined, so rare is the opportunity to actually live to see one of these approvals come through.

It is absolutely idiotic. We are all paying through the nose. There are red tape mechanisms and delaying mechanisms in force throughout Ontario in a way that prevents affordable housing from being built quickly and effectively. When you introduce long waits of this kind you make it impossible for the little guy.

The little guy can’t wait. The big fellow can wait. He can wait, and when the approval comes through, he may or may not build, depending on whether the market is good. He can wait for the market to turn just a little more favourable if he so pleases. The small builder has to take a chance. If you could give him the approval quickly, he has to build because he needs the money from that house to get on with another. That’s what makes a genuine market for people and gives people the benefit of a decent market.

But people have been insulated, prevented from benefiting from a genuine market, a free market, because the small builder has no hope. He can’t sit and wait; with the enormous costs involved he can’t sit and wait for the approval process.

Mr. Cassidy: This has all the depth of a puddle on city hall square.

Mr. S. Smith: We believe it’s terribly important that we set a limit. We have set a limit of 18 months approval. Every approval in Ontario must be through in between 12 and 18 months; and it will be automatically approved in that time unless proof is brought forward in that time explaining why it cannot be done.

Mr. Nixon: We are on your side, Mike. We hope you win.

Mr. Cassidy: Bob, you should have stayed at the helm you know.

Mr. S. Smith: It is time that we knock a few heads together, if necessary, so that the municipalities that are avoiding their share of affordable housing will recognize that every municipality has to take its proper share of affordable housing in the province of Ontario, and that’s something that’s long overdue.

Mr. Cassidy: There goes autonomy once again; another glib answer from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Fewer interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: The more I hear of the asinine interventions of the member for Ottawa Centre, the more tempted I am to carry out my caucus’s wish to make a considerable contribution to his leadership campaign. Obviously no single event could help this party, or for that matter the party opposite us, any more than his election and elevation to the level of leader of that party.

Mr. Conway: Brian Cameron almost took care of him.

Mr. Breithaupt: We’ll give him $4 an hour.

Mr. Conway: Brian Cameron almost fixed him.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s marvellous that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre belongs to a party that would stimulate the economy at a time when restraint is the keynote by offering a 50 per cent increase in the minimum wage --

Mr. Warner: That’s fine for you people.

Mr. S. Smith: -- and having that then filter directly through the entire economy, increasing people’s expectations and increasing the demands made on the economy.

Mr. Cassidy: We were worried about the cost to your cleaning woman.

Mr. S. Smith: -- when it’s time for the fundamental realization that you can’t take more out of the economy than the economy has to give you. It’s about time we recognized that.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: We believe that other opportunities exist -- and we want to bring these to the attention of the Treasurer -- to create employment and to create social and economic good at the same time. In the field of energy we have suggested two particular measures, one of which has recently been touched on by the federal government. We believe that it’s necessary to bring homes in Ontario up to a proper standard of insulation. We think, therefore, that there should be some form of insulation program, be it the one we suggested during the election campaign or the federal government’s suggestion.

Mr. Cassidy: You mean the compulsory one.

Mr. S. Smith: In any event, there must be a crash program undertaken immediately in the field of home insulation. That could create a lot of work in the small business sector and, of course, it can save the precious resources which we ought to be keeping for our own young people. Furthermore, it can avoid some of the very large capital spending that is required if we continue to waste energy at the rate we do at present.

Along those lines, harking back to my comments about small-scale technology and small-town enterprises, let me suggest that the time has come for us to have small-scale generation of power and electricity. I hope the Treasurer will recognize the enormous savings which can result to the economy of Ontario if we move in that direction. With these massive plants which produce electricity, there is an enormous heat loss -- most of the energy, you can say, is lost to the atmosphere or to the surrounding water or surrounding air --

whereas, in the smaller scale developments, in the smaller towns, we can produce power and utilize the heat that is so produced in a way that can yield a great saving in terms of overall energy wastages as we know them at present. It’s time for some innovative thinking, and I hope that the Treasurer, who in the past certainly has been willing to undertake new ideas, will recognize that this is an opportunity for us to move together in a new direction for Ontario.

In addition to an insulation program, I want to ask that this House consider the creation of a large solar energy industry in Ontario. Ontario has the brains; unfortunately, we have been exporting the better jobs to the United States, both in the auto industry, as the Treasurer noted today, and in other industries, where the mother company in the United States tends to do the development and the research, and we here tend to be assemblers, marketers and so on.

I think it’s terribly important that we really put an investment and a genuine faith in our young people in Ontario and create an innovative forward-looking industry that eventually can serve the world. If we don’t do that now, we will end up as clients of those countries that are currently developing their solar energy and other renewable energy capacities. We will end up importing the technology from those places.

We have an opportunity to use our highly educated population, most of whom are either unemployed or under-employed. We have an opportunity to create in this province a real step forward, a real faith in the future, real faith in our own young people, and I suggest that we ought to encourage the development of a solar energy industry. One of the ways to encourage that development is to see to it that every provincial building, as quickly as is feasible, will introduce into itself some form of solar energy or solar heating, be it space heating, water heating or whatever.

The more we do that, the more we give our fledgling solar energy industry an opportunity to experiment, an opportunity to improve its production methods, an opportunity to develop expertise and production efficiency, and eventually with the longer production runs we can be competitive with other parts of the world.

I have faith. There were many people who felt Canada could never compete in atomic energy with the United States, that great giant to our south, and yet we did, and now we produce probably the best reactor in the world. I tell you that if we put the same faith into solar energy or other non-renewable energy and into young Ontario, into intelligent Ontario, I believe we can have a solar energy industry here so that we will be ready. Manufacturing is not the way of the future anymore.

Manufacturing has been the way in which Ontario has created jobs and most of the jobs here over the entire history of this country, but manufacturing in the long run will not be able to be internationally competitive without being highly mechanized. Yet we have to create jobs for people, not just machines. We have to be thinking in terms of higher technology.

Mr. Cassidy: In the long run you’d be dead, thank God.

Mr. S. Smith: We have to be thinking in terms of the computer age, in terms of the age of renewable energy. The time has come, therefore, to really put an investment into the solar energy industry. I believe Ontario can do it. We have the resources, we have the people, we need to have the determination to do it. In the provincial government we have the opportunity to give leadership by adopting solar energy devices in our buildings as rapidly as possible so as to give genuine encouragement to those who are presently in the forefront of solar energy.

I’m going to draw my remarks to a close now, Mr. Speaker. I want simply to say that we believe there is room for more restraint in government. We believe that as easily as the Treasurer could simply slough off $133 million in terms of telling Management Board to tighten up, there are probably many, many other instances in which this restraint could be adopted and taken much farther.

We point out that there are accounting methods which I’ve suggested. Zero based budgeting. A different attitude toward year-end budgeting. We suggested sunset laws for government programs. We’ve suggested ways in which genuine savings can be adopted and created for the people of Ontario. We have recommended that jobs be created and actually I think, frankly, that not all the good ideas are sitting over in the Treasury benches. I think some good ideas are here and some good ideas are in the New Democratic Party --

Mr. Conway: Never.

Mr. S. Smith: -- and I think that a select committee of the kind that I recommended for job creation could sit over the summer with great benefit to all Ontarians, and frankly it’s worth the investment to try that. I hope seriously that the Treasurer and the Premier will reconsider their refusal of what I’ve put forward not as a political gimmick but as a meaningful idea and an offer of consultation in the public interest.

I feel we have to recognize the need to encourage small business, to encourage apprenticeship, proper manpower planning and guidance. I feel it’s important that we encourage our mining industry, that we get the OMB moving and get rid of all the kind of red tape that prevents subdivision approvals so that our construction industry can get moving, and I’ve suggested some innovative ways in which we can stimulate our economy via energy production and various industrial aspects related to energy.

That has been put forward in this House, Mr. Speaker, as our effort to be constructive rather than critical, to be helpful rather than carpy, and I hope that our remarks will be taken in that sense, and I hope that we will have the benefit of some positive and reasonable response from the Treasurer and from his colleagues.

I trust minority government can be made to work well this time, as the people have asked us to do. I trust we can depoliticize it to a reasonable extent without, of course, losing the reasonable parliamentary prerogative. I trust also that the people of Ontario will be well served and will be proud of the actions we take here.

But we mustn’t waste the summer. We mustn’t waste time. We mustn’t pretend there isn’t a problem when there is one, and I hope therefore my remarks can be taken in the constructive manner in which they are intended,

Mr. Speaker: Just before we recognize the next speaker, I should inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 28 and provisional order four, the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) has given notice that he is dissatisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) concerning the minimum wage. This matter will be debated at 10:30 this evening.

I should also point out that there is a slight irregularity here, and I accept the responsibility for this. I was notified in writing -- the member should have notified us verbally. But I am partly to blame for that so I accept that and I think we should allow the hon. member to make his point at 10:30 this evening.

In future, of course, we should bear in mind that our new provisional order says verbal notice of the intent to raise a matter in debate immediately at the end of the question period should be given.

I will now recognize the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Conway: The new Ed Broadbent. Cassidy for leader.

Mr. Roy: Where’s the striped suit?

Mr. Cassidy: That has been put in mothballs for the summer, as a matter of fact.

Mr. MacDonald: I thought you were going to have a constructive approach --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This has been a very orderly debate up to now. I think it should continue with fewer interjections.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the budget has already been debated in this House and I have worn my striped suit for that particular occasion. It has been discussed exhaustively during the election campaign which ended two and a half weeks ago.

To consider the Treasurer’s proposals yet again in this Legislature, therefore, fills me with a sense of futility and frustration -- frustration because the Treasurer’s statement yesterday demonstrated that despite the Conservative Party’s failure to win its coveted majority in this opportunistic election it has neither learned anything nor forgotten anything as a result of its contact with the electorate; futility, because the Treasurer has rushed back to this House with a mixture as before.

He still somehow believes all is right with Ontario despite the very serious evidence to the contrary. He promises that should they be required, supplementary actions may be forthcoming to stimulate the economy in selective areas. This budget debate will go on until December, and we will pursue this Treasurer for those actions which are so urgently required. But I confess I have little faith that he will respond.

Yesterday’s budget statement is as full of misrepresentation as the Treasurer’s original budget, no more than eight weeks ago. Can I say now that the 1977 budget is a “sound and effective fiscal and economic plan of action” to quote the Treasurer’s words? The Treasurer’s figures are as misleading as eight weeks ago. His claim to have created 88,000 jobs since December is absolute nonsense. The real comparison is between May of this year and May of 1976. In that 12-month period Ontario needed to create 125,000 jobs just to stay where we were. The Treasurer promised 116,000 and delivered 79,000.

What is significant is that a number of the charges that we raised eight weeks ago are now acknowledged by the Treasurer. The NDP told the House that Darcy McKeough’s revenue estimates were phoney. He now agrees, and has cut them back sharply. We warned that his estimates of unemployment were too low. He now agrees and has raised the forecast unemployment rate to 6.7 per cent for 1977. During the campaign we said the Conservative promise of 100,000 new jobs a year in the charter for Ontario was phoney, and Darcy McKeough agrees with that.

Despite his supposed success in the first five months he is forecasting only 88,000 new jobs for all of 1977. The charter’s promise of 90,000 housing units a year is also ignored. The Treasurer is forecasting only 80,000 units will be built this year.

Mr. Conway: Not too many to listen to you.

Mr. Cassidy: Is there any sign that the Conservatives will learn from their experiences? All the evidence is no. This week’s budget statement contains as little evidence of long term industrial strategy to get our economy on to a firm footing as the budget of eight weeks ago. If the government has any plans to create the jobs Ontario needs over the next 10 years, beyond a blind reliance on the private sector, they are still well concealed.

Mr. Conway: Mike, I wish you would talk slower.

Mr. Cassidy: On one front ideology has gained ground over the practical needs of Ontario. The 1977 budget spoke of achieving a capacity to balance the budget by 1981. The Treasurer now says he looks forward to a balanced budget by 1981 regardless of whether or not this will be appropriate to Ontario’s economic and social needs. The balanced budget was another promise in the charter for Ontario and it has no more credibility than the rest of that document.

I can’t help feeling rather bitter about this rather u