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

October 29, 1975

30th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L002 - Wed 29 Oct 1975 / Mer 29 oct 1975

RENT REVIEW

DUMP TRUCKS

HOLIDAY CLOSINGS FOR RETAIL BUSINESSES

OIL AND GAS PRICES

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGE SETTLEMENTS

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

GUN CONTROL

DUMP TRUCKS

PROVINCIAL JUDGES

KIRKLAND AND DISTRICT HOSPITAL

GREY COUNTY TEACHERS’ SETTLEMENT

HAMILTON SELECTIVE SERVICES

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

CHILD WELFARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

BUDGET DEFICIT

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

HIGHWAY PAVING CONTRACTS

VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

MINERAL RIGHTS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

PUBLIC COMMERICAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS ACT

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS ACT

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL MORTGAGES AMENDMENT ACT

ASSIGNMENT OF BOOK DEBTS AMENDMENT ACT

CONDITIONAL SALES AMENDMENT ACT

LABOUR OMBUDSMAN ACT, 1975

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

SAFETY COMMITTEES ACT

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, before you move to the orders of the day, I wonder if you, as the guardian of the rights of the members and visitors to the House, might be able to make a statement to the House with regard to yesterday’s action by certain people outside the House, both with regard to those who were hurt in a scuffle that ensued on the steps of the Legislature --

Mr. Sargent: Can’t hear him back here.

Mr. Deans: That’s one of the hazards of being so far away isn’t it -- with regard to the actions of the group outside and with regard to the actions of the various police forces who were involved?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker on a point of privilege, I wonder if I might refer to that particular matter and communicate to the members of the House, without passing any judgement on what happened yesterday because I’m not familiar with the facts, that I have, Mr. Speaker, written to you to formally request, and I will read the letter: that the Office of the Speaker undertake a full investigation of the difficulties which arose outside the Legislature yesterday involving Metro Toronto Police officers, protective staff of the Legislature and a group of demonstrators.

Specifically, I would ask that your office consider whether excessive force may have been used, inadvertently or otherwise, by any police officers or members of the protective staff. I would appreciate receiving a report from you at your earliest convenience.

Mr. Speaker: I might say that this investigation is under way at the present time.

Mr. Deans: Would you permit me, on the point of privilege, to ask whether the report which is being asked for by the Premier would be made to the Legislature or in answer to the letter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection at all, on whatever report is made as to where it goes, as long as we all know what’s in it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce to the hon. members, students from two schools in our great town of Oakville. In the west gallery, a group of students from St. Mildred’s Lightbourne School and a group of students from the Oakwood Public School.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peterborough.

Mrs. Sandeman: On a matter of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was very grateful to you for the splendid floor plan of the House but I wonder if I could ask why it is necessary to identify the female members of the House by their marital status. This distinction is not conferred upon the male members.

Mr. Speaker: To answer the point of privilege very briefly, it has always been customary to do it that way. We will review the situation though.

Mr. Lewis: It’s time to change customs.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson) isn’t so designated.

Mr. Nixon: We know her status.

RENT REVIEW

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House on my plans for the introduction of rent review legislation.

Mr. Lewis: Which version?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As the members will recall, I indicated this legislation would be introduced as soon as possible. One very important influence on this legislation is the federal programme on wage and price controls and the federal plans and funding in respect of housing.

We recognize the need to ensure that any rent review programme will be established having careful regard for the supply problem that may be created. The Hon. Barney Danson, Minister of State for Urban Affairs, has, following my earlier request, called a meeting of provincial ministers for Monday, Nov. 3, to discuss rent control, the federal housing package and the proposed CMHC budget for 1976.

Because of the importance of these discussions, I believe it advisable to withhold our legislation until I have the benefit of the federal position.

Mr. Singer: These terrible people.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: However, it is my intention that the rent review legislation will, in any event, be introduced next week. Although the discussion of next Monday is important to the final form of the bill, I wish to state today that it will not change the basic principles of our proposed legislation. That is to say, our bill will provide for a rent review board empowered to review rent increases within limits determined under the Act. In appropriate cases the board will be able to allow increases or roll back rents.

For the benefit of tenants who are being asked to or have signed leases on or after July 30, 1975, rent increases in excess of those permitted under our bill will be rolled back to the date of the new lease and landlords will be required to refund those amounts. The right to these refunds will not be affected by the fact the tenant has signed a lease on or after July 30, 1975.

Mr. Lewis: In bits and pieces it lurches out.

DUMP TRUCKS

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on June 25 last my predecessor, the former Minister of Transportation and Communications, tabled the dump truck inquiry report.

The major recommendations of that ministerial inquiry dealt with control of entry, inspection of dump trucks and trucking rates.

Mr. Martel: They dumped a few Tories out.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As a consequence, today I am introducing amendments to the Highway Traffic Act under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act in response to those major recommendations.

The bill to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act reinstates control of entry into the industry by way of application to the Ontario Highway Transport Board and the licensing of dump trucks under the Public Commercial Vehicles Act to operate within regions which will be prescribed by regulation.

Licences granted to dump truckers under the Act will be restricted with respect to the number of vehicles that can be operated under the licence.

The region or regions authorized and the number of vehicles to be operated will be determined by the Ontario Highway Transport Board.

The amendment also includes grandfather provisions for those persons now holding licences to haul the materials specified in the bill.

Under the terms of the amendment a new Licence will be granted, restricting the holder’s operations to a region of the trucker’s choice and to the number of vehicles which he has operated under his previous licence in 1975. Any person holding this authority, but whose vehicles are not exclusively licensed for the transportation of such materials, will be able to apply to the transport board for grandfather privileges.

It is my intention to provide the necessary statutory authority toward implementing a mandatory inspection programme for dump trucks -- a programme to be prescribed in the regulations under the Highway Traffic Act. The programme under consideration will require a mandatory inspection twice a year according to prescribed standards, and all vehicles having passed that inspection will be required to display a sticker indicating compliance. The absence of such a sticker on a loaded dump truck will constitute an offence and enforcement agencies would have the power to remove the vehicle from the road.

Another recommendation deals with the covering of loads on dump trucks and here I would like to advise the House that my ministry is drafting regulations for the mandatory covering of vehicles carrying specific commodities when travelling on hard-surfaced roads. There is, in this bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act, an amendment to give authority for the regulations to apply only to these hard-surfaced highways.

The effective date of these regulations has not been determined as yet, since the ministry is in communication with the industry in order to determine the earliest feasible date. The matter of rates is very complex, thus it will require much in-depth study by government. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this study is in progress at the present time.

There are also a number of additional recommendations in the inquiry report which are under active consideration by my ministry, and I will be advising the House on the action that will be taken by the government as the decisions are reached.

HOLIDAY CLOSINGS FOR RETAIL BUSINESSES

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am introducing for first reading a bill entitled,

An Act to Regulate Holiday Closings for Retail Businesses.

The proposed legislation is a response to the growing public concern regarding retailing on a seven-day-a-week basis. The bill is secular in nature, and it proposes to regulate retail closings on certain holidays, including Sunday.

The proposed legislation attempts to reflect the wishes of the public as assessed by the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Provincial Secretary for Justice following public hearings and the receipt of numerous representations.

Mr. Sargent: The minister is five years late.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It is hoped that the establishment of certain “pause days” will slow the growing commercialism and materialism about us and result in an improvement in our quality of life and permit the encouragement of recreation and leisure on these common days of rest.

I will welcome the comments and suggestions of the members as the bill proceeds through the House.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity, certainly on our side, and I am sure on all sides of the House, to welcome today our friends and your friend, Bill Stewart, who is with us in the gallery today.

Mr. Nixon: Back working for a living.

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call the question period, I think I should make a few comments concerning that particular order of business. I know that those members who were in the last Legislature will agree with me that the question period was getting out of hand. I hope that the House will agree --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: To a point, that is.

Mr. Roy: We couldn’t get any answers.

Mr. Speaker: Stricter compliance with the standing orders is desirable. Firstly, I point out that by standing order 27(d), oral questions must be confined to matters of urgency and of public importance. I suggest that the majority of the questions asked of recent years have not been urgent and in many cases cannot be considered of public importance.

An hon. member: Not all of them.

Mr. Speaker: Not all of them, I point out. Clause (

h) of the same standing order provides that no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any fact stated except so far as may be necessary to explain the question.

Mr. Martel: From both sides of the House.

[2:15]

Mr. Speaker: It has become the practice to preface these oral questions with long

preambles preceded by the words: “In view of the fact that.” In most cases, the alleged facts were not facts at all but expressions of opinion. In either case, they were out of order. A question should be a simple interrogative starting with an interrogative word such as “why”, “how”, “where” etc.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s just in case you didn’t get your three Rs.

An hon. member: What about inflection?

Mr. Speaker: That too. I must again remind the members that a question is to obtain information, not to give it.

Mr. Roy: I can’t wait for your comments on the answer.

Mr. Speaker: I also direct the attention of the House to clause (

f) which provides for supplementary questions arising out of the minister’s reply. Many questions, of course, have been asked which, although perhaps related to the same subject matter, have not arisen out of the minister’s reply. Such questions, I suggest, should be asked as original questions when the member gets the floor. I would also point out that ministers’ answers have in many cases been much too long, even when given immediately.

Mr. Lewis: Vengeance is sweet.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I ask the ministers, therefore, to keep their answers as brief as possible and I direct their attention to the final phrases of clause (

d) of standing order 27. I suggest that even if a minister is able to reply immediately, if he feels that the question requires a very lengthy answer he should take it as notice and deliver his answer on a subsequent day as a statement under statements by the ministry.

Ms. Bullbrook: Did the Premier hear that? Is he listening?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Carefully.

Mr. Speaker: So we look forward to a very interesting and worthwhile question period.

Mr. Bullbrook: We will never hear from the Premier with rules like that.

Mr. Speaker: We will now call the question period. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

OIL AND GAS PRICES

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Energy. In his role as mascot for the oil companies --

Mr. Bullbrook: Why, where, when or how did that come about?

Mr. Speaker: I heard that as somewhat editorial.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, that is neither argumentative nor an opinion, it is simply a description. Can he indicate to the Legislature what action he intends to take to prevent the price increase in gasoline at the pump, or a gallon of home fuel oil, to exceed the 5.4 cents a gallon which he indicated he would permit?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, if I may perhaps answer the first part of that question, which I noticed was placed in an interrogative tone, the hon. member wasn’t too sure, I find it rather interesting, particularly after a recent address which I had intended to deliver in Calgary but which was delivered for me, that I hear from the NDP that I am the mascot of the oil companies and then I hear from the oil companies that I’m taking cheap shots. If the NDP and the oil companies are both against me then I must be right.

Mr. Singer: That answer is certainly within the rules.

Mr. Roy: The minister has never been right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we are prepared: First of all, the government will monitor any complaints that may arise from the question of pricing after Nov. 15. If we find that there is a widespread lack of adherence to the government’s wishes then we are prepared to come back with a piece of legislation which would extend the freeze at the higher level of 5.4 cents on gasoline and 4.8 cents on home heating oil.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may: How does he intend to monitor, prosecute or prevent an increase in excess of the 5.4 cents, which would violate his prescription, knowing that the increase of even 0.6 -- six-tenths of one per cent -- will cost the consumers of Ontario $25 million more than he originally undertook?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the figures with me, but I have the suspicion of recent days that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is reading some of my old speeches and those of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) and the Premier (Mr. Davis) at the first ministers’ conference. Those are exactly the arguments we put forward at the first ministers’ conference in April and since, trying to stop the increases. The point is that the federal government, under the authority of the Petroleum Administration Act, did impose those increases.

The point is that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been, during the life of this freeze, carrying out the monitoring role. We will continue to monitor prices and, as I said before, we can very quickly come to this House if necessary with further legislation.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the government has undertaken to empower the Energy Board, not just to monitor but in fact to regulate the prices of other types of energy, then why are the ministry and this minister so unwilling to give similar powers to the Ontario Energy Board to accept applications and either reject or accept them in whole or in part, for increases at the commercial level for petroleum products sold in Ontario?

I’m not rejecting that possibility; this government does not reject the possibility. I think we should let the commissioner finish his work. We have told him we want his final report no later than the end of February.

Mr. Nixon: In the meantime the minister should maintain regulation.

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary: When and if the government should move on a regulatory or statutory ceiling of 5.4 cents because it has been exceeded, will the government at that point, two months, five months, six months from now, obligate them to rebate any overcharges they have made in the interval?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That question is based on the premise that there are going to be infractions.

Mr. MacDonald: Right.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: The minister said there will be.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Given the co-operation of the companies and the retailers during the life of this freeze since July, and the very small number of complaints received, we do not anticipate great problems. I’m not thinking in terms of two months, five months or six months, I’m talking about the initial few weeks after Nov. 15 to make a decision; then we will come back if necessary with legislation.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since it is the government’s wish, according to the minister, that no increases beyond 5.4 cents be permitted, then why doesn’t he ask the House to support that, not just as the wish of the government but as an enactment of this Legislature as was done in the imposition of the original freeze, until such time as Mr. Isbister finishes his examination.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Because, I suppose -- and it is part of my Conservative philosophy -- I don’t believe in any more laws than are necessary.

Mr. Nixon: It was okay then but it isn’t okay now. It was okay before the election but not after.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am confident that we will have co-operation; if we find that in any widespread way we are not, then we will come back.

Mr. Speaker: We are straying away from the sort of request which I made at the beginning. The hon. member for Sudbury East; this will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Martel: In view of the fact that northern Ontario was already paying eight or nine cents a gallon more or even higher, and in view of the fact that the second report will indicate --

Mr. Speaker: I really think that’s getting a little far away from the original question. That will be a good new question for the hon. member; well get around to it.

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGE SETTLEMENTS

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Premier: Does the Premier intend to pass

an Act of this Legislature giving to the federal anti-inflation tribunal the authority to adjudicate wage settlements in the public sector in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Treasurer will be making a fairly comprehensive statement as to our understanding of the federal anti-inflation policy, the legislation and our reaction to it. To try to answer that particular question as specifically as I can, our advice is that no Act is necessary.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since negotiations in the public sector -- for example, the teachers -- are covered by collective bargaining legislation approved in this Legislature and paramount in Ontario, how will those groups get there, legally or constitutionally otherwise, unless there is

an Act of Ontario’s Parliament designating that be done?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t give any legal opinion, but I assume that a lot of collective agreements in this province have been signed, negotiated and signed, pursuant to the Labour Relations Act of the Province of Ontario. The UAW, to use one union as an example, is totally under the federal legislation; there is no option as far as they are concerned.

Mr. Lewis: But we have an option.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is no option as far as we understand the law; they would have to go to the federal board. I don’t think there is any contradiction or any conflict -- I really can’t understand the question.

Mr. Lewis: But this is the public sector.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I hope this will be seen to be flowing from the Premier’s comment, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Education (Mr.

Wells) is reported to have said there may be an 18-month delay in getting a decision out of the control emanation in Ottawa, is it possible that the position expressed by Her Honour in the Speech from the Throne yesterday, indicating that the government intends to put full responsibility for all of these matters in the federal ambit, is it possible that as this House progresses and the matters are debated here, that the government might change to some degree its commitment to such a position, which in the view of many reasonable people -- the Liberal Party is included in this area -- is an abject loss or a rejection of the responsibilities which must lie in this House and surely with this government?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to be provocative or controversial --

Mr. Singer: What a change.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the Treasurer will have some observations to make. I would just make one preliminary observation that this government is anxious to co-operate and see the federal legislation and policy work.

Mr. Good: This government doesn’t want to take any responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is important for the benefit of this country that we do. I think it is also important, and I could go on at great length, for the people of all classes or groups in this province to feel that they are being treated by the same board in an equitable fashion. I think it is also relevant that the people within one province feel that they are being treated in the same fashion as people in another province. I think there is some merit, if there is some substance to that argument, and I genuinely believe there is, to have these adjudications made by a national body that is dealing with all provinces.

I am quite prepared that this House discuss this on an ongoing basis. I just suggest to the members of the House that we perhaps should all have a greater understanding of the legislation, what we are attempting to accomplish on a national basis, and not to make too many hasty prejudgments. I have already discussed it on a very informal basis in my own area with some people who are very involved in the union movement. They say to me: “We have to go to the federal board. We are citizens of this province. Why should there be exceptions made?”

I guess the feeling by certain members of the House -- at least by the Liberal Party of this province -- is that perhaps some greater pressure or some greater consideration or some degree of exception could be exerted by a provincial board in competition with or in opposition to or contrary to the federal policy.

Mr. Reid: That isn’t so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that we all have to consider this very carefully. There is very excellent rationale for this being handled on a national basis, if at all possible.

Mr. Nixon: It lets the Premier off the political hook.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, that is not the question. I know the hon. member likes to say it lets us off the hook -- fine.

Mr. Nixon: It does.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect -- with the most respect that I can conjure up at this moment for his observations --

Mr. R. S. Smith: The Premier doesn’t conjure up very much.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- when it comes to the substance of it, then it really is limited.

If the hon. members opposite are really concerned about this issue, if they really think the federal government at last is providing some leadership in terms of inflation, in terms of some control of this economy, then for heaven’s sakes let’s see if we can’t make it work. I think there is great merit in seeing if it can be done on a national basis.

Mr. Bullbrook: By way of supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I do believe that question did stray from my original request to --

Mr. Nixon: How about the answer?

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, you are going to --

Mrs. Campbell: How about the answer?

Mr. Speaker: Is this a true supplementary?

Mr. Bullbrook: I trust you will permit a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear the member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Recognizing my long-standing inability to understand the Premier’s responses to a positive question, I would like him to clarify for me a seeming inconsistency in his approach. If these matters -- being so national in scope, so consequential in moment -- should be referred to a national tribunal, why didn’t the Premier do the same thing in connection with Hydro rates?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Sarnia -- and I do understand his question; I regret that he doesn’t always understand the answers -- would just read the federal guidelines and the federal legislation, and I would recommend that he do both, the answer is right within the material from the federal government.

Mr. Bullbrook: I have read it.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Bullbrook: Perhaps the Premier might, by way of the final supplementary, please edify me in the rationalization of his inconsistency.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I recommend to the hon. member for Sarnia, because I sense he cannot have read those documents or he wouldn’t be asking the questions --

Mr. Bullbrook: I have read them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Then I suggest he reread them, and I would answer that question tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The answer is self-evident.

Mrs. Campbell: The Premier hasn’t read them.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier hasn’t got an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Does the Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: I hope all of us can urge an extension of the question period. Until that happens, no further questions.

[2:30 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Nixon: Brant-Oxford-Norfolk it is.

I would like to put a question to the Minister of Education. What specific action is he taking in his office as Minister of Education to bring together the two sides in the teacher-board dispute at the secondary level in Metropolitan Toronto? What action is he taking to bring them together to avert a strike that appears to be more and more likely as we see the deadline approaching at the end of this month?

Mr. Samis: Sending them to Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The hon. member knows the steps that have been taken to avert a conflict in Metropolitan Toronto. As a matter of fact, I appointed a mediator in that particular dispute on June 1.

Mr. Nixon: We have been paying him $50 a day ever since.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That mediator has been very conscientiously working along with the two parties -- the board and their teachers -- each of whom tells me privately that the last thing in the world they want is a strike; and yet we seem to be marching down the road to a strike given all the new economic circumstances that now present themselves.

I said yesterday and I say again today, there doesn’t have to be a strike in Metropolitan Toronto. All they have to do is sit down together some time today or tomorrow and sign some kind of an agreement.

We recognize that agreement is going to have to go up to the anti-inflation board because they have waited past that date of Oct. 13; that’s not our fault and that’s not their fault. It is perhaps no one’s fault, but it is a fact they haven’t got a contract signed before Oct. 13, so someone is going to have to decide what rules are going to apply in so far as the federal programme is concerned.

That has been told to them and I think they can’t avoid that responsibility. Anyone in this province who hasn’t signed a contract before Oct. 13 is going to have to live with the statement that was made on that date.

Apart from that I have urged the two parties to get together; I don’t think there has to be a strike. They have had the help of one of the best mediators in Canada, who has worked here, as I say, since last June. If the member can tell me what more we can do, I would be happy to hear from him.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary in response directly to what the minister has said: Would he consider asking the Premier to meet with him, preferably in the Premier’s office, together with the leading negotiators from the board and from the OSSTF in an 11th-hour, last-ditch attempt to require both sides to see reason? Because if there is a strike, I would predict that we would be in this House a month from now debating legislation to put teachers back in the classroom. Surely this is the time to avoid that, not a month from now; after all the acrimony that has gathered in this community.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would say to my friend that I would be happy to meet with both sides at any time. I have met with the leaders of both sides numerous times since June 1.

Mr. Nixon: This is the time, now.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have talked to some of them today, as a matter of fact. The thing I hope he understands is that we cannot have a meeting where we can agree with them that we are all going to conspire together to forget about those anti-inflation guidelines that were announced on Oct. 13.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not the issue, and the minister knows it; that’s not the issue.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well it is the issue.

Mr. Lewis: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: With great respect to my friend, it is the issue. Because it’s being suggested that if someone would make a statement an agreement could be reached, and that agreement will be absolutely binding notwithstanding what was said on Oct. 13.

Mr. Lewis: No, not at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well let the member tell me then.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. Lewis: I will put it in the form of a question --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question.

Mr. Lewis: How does the minister expect to reach an agreement when the mediator -- of whom he has spoken so highly -- has offered recommendations which are totally unacceptable to the board? How else will he have a settlement, given the vote this Friday and the strike vote Monday, unless he personally intervenes? Where is it going to come from?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know what my friend feels I can do in intervening.

Mr. Lewis: You are the Minister of Education, my friend.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Does he suggest that I urge that the board accept the fact-finder’s report?

Mr. Lewis: Sit down and work it through with them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am asking him: Is he suggesting that I suggest that the board accept the fact-finder’s report?

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister like his mediator’s report?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t think I have to say whether I like that report or not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Clearly he doesn’t want to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The fact-finder has brought in a report which goes well beyond what the board has offered; it goes well beyond the guidelines announced on Oct. 13.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I recognize it is a very difficult position.

Mr. Lewis: So the minister in fact --

Hon. Mr. Wells: I certainly had hoped, and I think my friend would have hoped, that an agreement would have been reached during the summer and we wouldn’t be in this position.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Nixon: A further supplementary, with your permission: We all hope this, and we are all elected here in the legislature to do what we can to avert it. Would the minister not agree that he and the Premier have the main responsibility in this regard and would he undertake to meet with those leaders or ask somebody from Ottawa -- Pepin or somebody -- to come down and sit in?

Why not? This is going to be the first and most important test of the wage and price control procedures and the Minister of Education has the responsibility on his shoulders to see that we don’t have a strike. Wouldn’t he agree?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will assure the House that I stand ready and will be in communication with both sides. If I can be of assistance to them, I certainly will be of assistance to them.

Mr. Lewis: The strike is inevitable on that basis.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, it is not inevitable.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation --

Mr. Nixon: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t completed my questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I thought the hon. member said it was his last question.

Mr. Nixon: I am sorry. I misunderstood. I thought there was a supplementary coming from the hon. gentleman.

GUN CONTROL

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he would undertake to give some further consideration to introducing a gun law, either amendments or new legislation, to the House in the immediate future. Would he not hark back to his statement made in Windsor, I believe during the early part of August, in which it was indicated that the government had this legislation ready to introduce and that if it was put before this Legislature it could be made into law without any delay or without waiting for the federal action? It surely would be supported on all sides of this House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the latter view of the leader of the Liberal Party of this province. My speech to the police chiefs in Windsor, as I recall it, stated my own personal concern on a number of these issues.

I stated to the Police Association that the justice policy field had recommended these certain changes to the government and in terms of policy they had been accepted. I also made the point, I believe, in that speech, and I still believe it to be true that there is very great merit in having this done by way of amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada. If we are going to have permanent solutions to the extent these things can be permanent, it would be far better it be done through the Criminal Code.

The Attorney General of this province (Mr. McMurtry) met with Mr. Allmand last Thursday or Friday I believe -- I can’t give the hon. member the exact date -- at which time he received assurances that the federal government was now prepared to act and act really very shortly, we understand, in the same general direction as the suggestions we had made with respect to what I think is a very important issue.

It was stated in the Throne speech that we were prepared and are. I would like to have some indication -- and I think we can get this -- as to exactly what direction these amendments are going to take and some definite timetable from the federal government. If we feel they will not meet our purposes here in this province, I can only answer very simply, because I happen to feel very strongly on this issue, that certainly we are prepared to introduce the legislation ourselves.

Mr. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, coming from what the Premier has said about the timetable. Has he read reports from Ottawa which indicate the officials there would expect the legislation to be dealt with in 1976 -- presumably early in 1976 -- and would he not agree that we could deal with this immediately in this House and at least give that sort of leadership to a situation which is becoming increasingly important?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would think, and I would guess these things take on greater urgencies with the closer proximity of some of these situations to people who have responsibility, that there is every likelihood the federal government will move more rapidly. The Attorney General tells me that he has been in conversation with Mr. Basford and they are now prepared to introduce these amendments next month.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the tragic shootings in Ottawa this week, would the Premier be willing to issue guidelines to dealers in guns, effective immediately, asking them not to allow the sale of lethal weapons over the counter, as is still taking place in Ottawa after the shootings this week?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that question should be properly directed to the Solicitor General (Mr. MacBeth) or the Attorney General.

Mr. Speaker: There will be opportunity for that later if so desired. The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, following your guidelines, I will not ask that supplementary. I will ask a new question of the Solicitor General, with your permission.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Mr. Shore: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for London North, I believe.

Mr. Good: Does that riding sound familiar?

Mr. Shore: If the Premier places such a great importance on this issue and feels that it’s a jurisdiction relating to the federal body, surely he must feel that the provincial body is also important dealing with provincial matters on the anti-inflationary matter; and I don’t see how they contradict on these issues.

Mr. Speaker: And your question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the member for London North perhaps couldn’t follow all of your observations when you made your brief statement before the question period. I really -- and it may be that I couldn’t hear it -- just don’t quite understand the question.

Mr. Roy: No. I don’t think you heard the Speaker; your answers weren’t obvious either.

DUMP TRUCKS

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, following up his statement regarding the implementation of that Rapoport report. I would like to question him in respect to certain aspects of that report, which is of very great concern to the dump truck industry today. What action is he considering regarding the prompt and fair payment of accounts; the joint responsibility for overloading; regulation and bonding of brokers; and the Quebec-Ontario co-operation in respect to the whole industry and the problems thereto?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my statement earlier this afternoon, I feel we have dealt with the most important and necessary recommendations of Mr. Rapoport’s report. Other matters are under consideration, including the ones the hon. member mentions, and further action will be taken on some of them in due course.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Could the minister give us any time factor in respect to the due course, what it means? During this session? Before Christmas?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I can’t give the commitment that those matters can be dealt with before Christmas.

PROVINCIAL JUDGES

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Could the Attorney General tell us what plans he has to alleviate the difficult conditions under which provincial judges are working, as set out by the Provincial Judges Association and as set out by the Deputy Attorney General?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is a matter that has been brought to my attention during my relatively short term in this position. I do recognize that it is a problem, and I intend to meet with the chief judge of the provincial court within the next few days to discuss how we might approach this matter to resolve some of the problems.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary; has the Attorney General spoken to his deputy, who made some well-publicized remarks about it? Perhaps the deputy has some suggestions.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I speak to him on a relatively frequent basis.

Mr. Singer: Good, talk to him again.

Mr. Bullbrook: How’s that for direction?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Martel: The new member for Timiskaming.

Mr. Lewis: What a pleasure this is!

Interjections.

KIRKLAND AND DISTRICT HOSPITAL

Mr. Bain: I have a question of the Minister of Health. Considering that almost a year ago the provincial government was petitioned by the community leaders to use the old Kirkland and District Hospital as a chronic and extended care hospital when the new hospital was opened, when can the people of Kirkland Lake expect the minister’s decision on the utilization of the old hospital as a chronic and extended care hospital?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make on that at this time. Chronic hospitals remain a priority, but I think one must realize that when one petitions for a new hospital in the community, one cannot always be sure that the old facility will carry on in use. Usually the arguments that precede something like that -- and I believe they applied in Kirkland Lake -- are that the present plant is worn out.

I think if one looks into the problems you’ll see that there are many of those physical plant problems inherent there. A building that looks good often costs more to convert to the standards we require than it does to build totally new facilities. Having gone through that place -- I believe that he’d find this was true in that case.

Mr. Bain: A supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary here.

[2:45]

Mr. Bain: In straight terms then, the minister is telling the people of Kirkland Lake that the old hospital will not be used as a chronic and extended care hospital? Is this correct?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not necessarily.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what he is saying.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Grey with a new question.

GREY COUNTY TEACHERS’ SETTLEMENT

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Education.

I hope you will excuse me for asking a question early. I did intend to sit back and watch for a while being a newcomer, but the people --

Mr. Speaker: We are pleased to have questions from all members.

Mr. McKessock: The people in the riding of Grey lost no time in letting me know they wanted me to act for them from day one.

Mr. Nixon: The member has done several favours for the Tories already.

Mr. McKessock: Over the weekend we have been talking about wage settlements for elementary schools. I have received 40 --

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member please ask the question?

Mr. McKessock: I have received contact from over 40 teachers over the weekend and they are concerned that in Grey county they have not received their wage settlements although counties to the south and east of them -- Bruce and Simcoe -- have. I want to ask the Minister of Education what he is going to do to let these teachers in Grey county bring their wages up to the standards of the neighbouring counties. If this is not allowed to happen there will be disparity between these two counties which will --

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. member has asked the question. He must not debate the matter.

Mr. McKessock: I would like to ask him if he shares my views; and if so, what he intends to do about seeing that they receive parity at this time.

Mr. Nixon: What about parity in Grey and Bruce?

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Snow: A typical Liberal question.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I thank my friend for his question and, of course, his concern about the people of Grey county. I think we are all concerned about those people. They were represented here in a very excellent way for a good number of years.

Interjections.

Mr. Singer: They didn’t seem to think so on Sept. 18.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I find a little difficulty in knowing exactly what my friend would like me to comment upon because I think that the elementary and secondary teachers of Grey county, unlike Metropolitan Toronto and several other areas, do have a settlement. As far as I know they had that settlement before Oct. 13 and presumably that settlement is in effect until either the end of this year or next Aug. 31. That settlement must have been negotiated between those teachers and their board and it must have been agreed to and signed and ratified by their group, so I don’t know exactly what he or his teacher friends are complaining about.

Mr. McKessock: A supplementary to the question: Grey county did not sign until after Oct. 14, although Bruce had, so this leaves them in a 25 per cent less --

Mr. Speaker: The question is what? Would the member ask the question please?

Mr. McKessock: What is the minister going to do about it to see they get this 25 per cent raise which Bruce county has achieved?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If Grey county did not sign the agreement or officially sign it until after Oct. 13, I guess they will have to talk to the anti-inflation board in Ottawa about that particular problem. I will be glad to look into it and verify it. I don’t have the dates of when the settlements were made. My information is that there were settlements in those particular areas.

HAMILTON SELECTIVE SERVICES

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Does the minister recall receiving a letter from me, dated Oct. 20, in which I took exception to the business operation known as Selective Services, in Hamilton, which was encouraging recipients of mothers’ allowance, welfare, pensions and other government cheques, through a series of newspaper ads, to cash the cheques for a fee of 10 per cent of the value of the cheque? What action is the minister taking to stop this kind of bloodsucking and profiteering at the expense of those who need the full amount of those cheques?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall receiving the letter, probably because of an interruption of a certain service, but I can say we have taken action. The service has stopped. Banks are now cashing those without charge, and therefore there is no longer any incentive for anybody to try to do it the way the hon. member has described.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. In view of the statements reported in today’s press, made by himself and his colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), about the closure of hospitals across this province, can he advise the House if he has made a list of the hospitals he is going to close and in what areas? Second, does he have a plan of what to do with the hospitals which are going to be closed or is he going to do something like we have on Yonge St. where a hospital has been closed and empty for two years?

Mrs. Campbell: It’s on University Ave.

Mr. Roy: On University Ave. Third, can he assure the people in the Ottawa area that the situation at the Ottawa General and their new hospital will not be delayed because of his new policy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the policy is not new. In fact, the hon. member’s party went to great pains to say how much could be saved in that area during the election period, if I recall.

Mr. Roy: Yes, we said it. The minister didn’t say it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What about the Liberal Party’s dental plan? Tell us about the dental plan again.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yet watch the opposition every time I try to close one. What happened when I tried to close one in Windsor? Who spoke up against it? You can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Nixon: What about Durham? Who spoke up about that?

Mr. Reid: And the one in Burlington.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer to the member’s specific question as to whether I have a list is “no,” but I have a pretty good idea.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the minister has a pretty good idea, can he tell us something of his idea? Secondly, what is the alternative plan he has in mind on what to do with the closed hospitals?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, there isn’t always an alternative and that is one of the things we have to realize. I think the illustration the member used of the old Mount Sinai Hospital on University Ave. --

Mr. Roy: If the minister had any policy he would.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- is a perfect example of what appears to be an almost new building costing literally millions of dollars to convert it to another use. I believe the current cost of the conversion is in excess of $4 million. That is an awful lot of money for a building that looks good.

Mr. Reid: Hydro could have been put in there.

Mr. Roy: That is what we call a lack of policy.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That’s not a lack of policy.

CHILD WELFARE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. As the result of a commitment by his predecessor in June to consider the establishment of an advisory committee to study strategies and programmes for implementing the provisions of the Child’ Welfare Act, has a final decision been made to establish that committee? If so, does he intend to meet with the group who were at that meeting when that commitment was made by his predecessor?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The answer is no.

Mr. Riddell: Not another one of those kind, surely.

Mr. Martel: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister indicate some time-tabling as to when he intends to respond to this? We were supposed to have a reply in early September.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I will review that and get back to the member.

BUDGET DEFICIT

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those “in view of the fact” questions.

Mr. Speaker: As long as there are facts, it’s okay.

Mr. Singer: Now what are you going to do?

Interjections.

Mr. Sargent: It is a question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member means despite the fact.

Mr. Sargent: One year ago today, on Oct. 29, 1974, on page 4519 of Hansard, the Treasurer, Mr. White, in answer to my question: “Would he project a $2 million deficit?”; replied: “I predict a $336 million surplus.” In view of this fact: Today 12 months later, the deficit is $1.9 billion.

Mr. Speaker: I think that is the basis of the member’s question. Would he ask the question, please?

Mr. Sargent: Since he has taken over -- this is in view of the fact -- he was 1000 per cent wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That comment is out of order. Does the member have a question?

Mrs. Campbell: He is asking it.

Mr. Sargent: I ask the Treasurer to inform the House why in the Throne Speech yesterday, paragraph two of the second page, it says: “The Ontario government has led the way during the past year in restraining its own expenditures.” In a speech last night the Treasurer said --

An hon. member: Question?

Mr. Sargent: I’m closing, fellows. To reduce the spending --

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member is conducting a debate. I think he placed a basis for a question, which is in order.

Mr. Sargent: Sit down, here is the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, we must have the question or we will go to someone else.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: If you have a question, proceed please.

Mr. Sargent: All right, I will ask the Treasurer what is his projection of the deficit in this coming budget? Don’t give me one of those answers where the minister doesn’t answer. I want an answer.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) suggests that I should take that question as notice and I think perhaps I will.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: That is an improvement; I was expecting “in the fullness of time.”

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour, and it pertains to the continuing labour dispute between the Canadian Paperworkers’ Union and the papermills in this province; and particularly to the request of the committee of mayors and MPPs relative to the minister’s intervention in this dispute to bring them back to the bargaining table.

I understand that Abitibi and the CPU are to meet next Tuesday. Can the minister indicate to the House whether the parties, particularly the company, which to this date has refused to have meaningful negotiations, are prepared to take

part in serious negotiations? Second, is the minister taking steps to get the other paper companies back to the bargaining table with CPU and the other unions; or is she prepared to let Abitibi set the pattern?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the hon. member across the way announce the success that we’ve had in our minor efforts to get these two disputing factions back together. The answers to his first two questions are “yes” and to the third one “maybe.”

HIGHWAY PAVING CONTRACTS

Mr. Givens: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications when he intends to let tenders for the paving of the Spadina arterial road from Lawrence to Eglinton --

Mr. Cassidy: The member never stops.

Mr. Givens: -- and the extension of Highway 400 from Highway 401 southerly?

An hon. member: What else is new?

Mr. Singer: Good question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I believe it will be the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto that will be letting the tenders for both those projects. As far as I’m concerned, the sooner the better.

Mr. Roy: You are not going to abide by that, eh?

Mr. Givens: Supplementary: Has the minister dealt with the application of the metropolitan corporation to provide the 75 per cent subsidy of the Province of Ontario toward the paving of the Spadina arterial road and the extension of Highway 400 southerly? Has the minister dealt with that yet?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, those matters are in progress and as soon as --

Mr. Riddell: He didn’t deal with them though.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto arrives back in this country I have a meeting arranged with him to finalize that.

VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney General, a two-part question re violence in hockey. Does the minister always commit the crime of splitting his infinitives?

Mr. Lawlor: The second part of the question is, does the minister wholly disagree with his predecessor in office, a most honourable man indeed, with respect to this question, as the minister seems to run completely adverse to him?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The answer, Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the question would be “not always,” and with respect to the position taken by my predecessor, I know of no difference of opinion. As a matter of fact, I had the opportunity of spending a few minutes with my predecessor a couple of hours ago and I was indicating my concern about the fact that charges should be laid when there is a clear breach of the Criminal Code. He certainly did not indicate to me that he disagreed in any way with the stand I am now adopting.

Mr. Good: John is on the payroll already.

Mr. Lawlor: A supplementary question, if I may: Is it the Attorney General’s intention then to apply a similar ruling to all sports, on the gridiron, in the ring and in other areas of that sort of activity?

[3:00]

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: As far as I am concerned, any time there is a clear breach of the Criminal Code, the criminal law of this country, and this breach is brought to my attention, I will recommend that charges be laid.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Our time is just about out. If we could get to one new question, we would finalize the question period. So it’s between the two of you.

Mr. Nixon: Can I just ask the minister if he is giving special instructions to the police forces to attend these hockey games with the indication that they will have a special responsibility to prefer charges?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If they do, they get Bullbrook.

Interjections.

Mr. Nixon: Perhaps it might be made clear whether the minister is not answering or does he have no answer in that regard?

Mr. Speaker: He didn’t have an answer.

MINERAL RIGHTS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Has the minister made a decision with respect to the matter of taxation on mineral rights as it applies to agricultural land?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This was a recommendation of an inter-ministerial committee headed by the former parliamentary assistant.

Mrs. Campbell: You have got to blame it on somebody.

Mr. Roy: Does that exist?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It’s a matter that we have not come to grips with. I think I indicated publicly during a certain campaign that it’s not likely we would move in this direction at this particular time.

Mr. Gaunt: That’s good. When will a final announcement be made in that respect?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is a committee established to review both sections of the Mining Act and certainly this will be one area that they will look at. I expect within the next six months or a year we will have something definite and more positive to say.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

I want to ask the indulgence of the members for my slowness with the names of the ridings. It’s rather difficult to put together the new faces and the new ridings, as you can understand. So a little patience on all sides, I think, would be appreciated.

Mr. Roy: As long as you remember my name.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before you go forward. I believe you handled the question period rather well, sir, but for clarification I would like to bring your attention to the question addressed to the Attorney General, having to do with the role of the police in hockey violence. The question was asked by an hon. gentleman to my right and there was a supplementary from the same person. It is a matter of some concern, and I think you would find it reported in the front pages of all the dailies and at the top of the news items everywhere. If I might suggest, sir, it might have been possible to have another additional question from another party, perhaps a third party.

Mr. Speaker: I’m not sure of the member’s point. It was my impression that the hon. minister did not have an answer to your supplementary at the time, so I called the next and final question.

Mr. Nixon: I don’t think that is so.

Mr. Speaker: I may have misjudged. My right eye fails me sometimes.

Mr. Nixon: I think he felt he was responding to your direction.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. J. R. Smith presented the report of the Ministry of Correctional Services for the fiscal year 1974-1975.

Mr. Roy: I thought that was a petition from your riding.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, pursuant to the provisions of

section 16 of the Ombudsman Act, 1975, that a select committee be appointed to consider and set out general rules and guidelines for the guidance of the Ombudsman and to provide formal recommendations to the Legislature thereon on or before Dec. 1, 1975, the said committee to consist of seven members as follows: Mr. Singer, chairman, Messrs. Grossman, Hodgson, Lawlor, Norton, Reid and Renwick.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

PUBLIC COMMERICAL VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Snow moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Public Commercial Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Timbrell moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On Sept. 4, 1974, the government announced the Ontario Energy Board should be authorized to supervise the orderly allocation of available supplies of natural gas among end users in the event of supply difficulties. This decision was based on our perception that available supplies from existing areas of production would fall below our requirements before a supplemental supply source, such as the frontier areas or coal gasification, was available.

Several events since the announcement in 1974 have confirmed the need for these powers. First, the National Energy Board has held hearings and issued a report on natural gas supply and requirements which indicates that available supplies from existing areas of production will not meet the needs of users east of Alberta as early as 1977. As I stated in London, Ont., on Oct. 2 our professional adviser’s view, which was presented to the National Energy Board in the public hearings, which led to the report referred to, is less optimistic than that of the NEB.

Secondly, the federal government has announced its intent to curtail exports of natural gas from Canada in order to meet approved Canadian requirements. This winter all predictions indicate that the natural gas shortage in the United States will deeply increase in its severity and its attendant hardship. Curtailment of exports by Canada must be accompanied by a commitment to the wise use of this important fuel and feedstock by Canadians.

Canadians in general and residents in Ontario can avoid any shortfalls in natural gas by some modest curtailment of exports; the commitment to energy conservation; goodwill and a determination to resolve differences between producing and consuming provinces in a manner that maximizes current supply opportunities; and by the early reality of one of the available supplemental sources of natural gas.

Before I briefly summarize the contents of the bill introduced today, let me make one point very clear: There is no natural gas shortage in Ontario at this time. This legislation is no more the sign of an emergency than the purchase of a firetruck by a municipality indicates that the town is burning down. It is a precautionary measure.

Mr. Roy: Did you think that one up yourself?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Furthermore, we expect all natural gas customers to receive fully their needed supplies this winter and are confident that all needs can be met next winter.

Mr. Roy: He is coming along.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I also would add that all existing residential users will be given the highest priority of use. We do not envisage in the foreseeable future that there will be any mandatory curtailment of natural gas to residents in Ontario who are using natural gas to heat their homes. This does not say we are letting up in any way in our advocacy of the wise use of all our energy forms by our citizens on a voluntary basis.

The legislation is to provide for the orderly allocation of natural gas among users. The natural gas utility companies that have long-term contracts for the supply of natural gas -- with TransCanada PipeLines and other wholesale suppliers of natural gas -- will be required to file allocation plans with the Ontario Energy Board annually on a date to be stated in regulations. The contents of such allocation plans and the criteria to be followed in their preparation will be set out in the regulations.

After the allocation plan has been filed with the Ontario Energy Board and notice of it given to users of natural gas who may be affected by the proposed allocation plan, any affected person may, within a date also to be specified in the regulations, file an objection or comment on the proposed allocation plan. The natural gas utility may then on a similar basis file its reply to any objections or comments.

The Ontario Energy Board, after consideration of the proposed allocation plan, the objections, comments and replies, may by order approve the proposed allocation plan or amend the proposed allocation plan and approve it as amended. The allocation plan will then come into force on a date some time after the plan is approved and will continue in force for a 12-month period. The process will be repeated in order to have allocation plans prepared for subsequent 12-month periods. In my statement, in the committee stage of consideration of this bill, Mr. Speaker, it is my intent to discuss further the details of the government’s plans in relation to natural gas allocation.

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS ACT

Hon. Mr. MacBeth moved first reading of bill intituled

An Act to regulate Holiday Closings for Retail Businesses.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to establish certain holidays on which retail business establishments shall be closed. The exceptions include small grocery stores, milk stores, news and tobacco stands, drug stores, antique shops, flower shops, etc. Also excepted are those things permitted by the Lord’s Day Act, Canada, and the Lord’s Day (Ontario) laws.

Mr. Deans: What does “etc.” mean?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Municipalities may by law make exceptions where necessary to the tourist industry.

Mr. Deans: You mean all those and all the others too?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There are a few others. You will see them when you see the bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Development Corporations Act 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides the Ontario development corporations with the necessary authority to implement the Municipal Industrial Parks Programme referred to in both the 1975 budget and supplementary Acts and statements by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough).

[3:15]

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Martel: All this legislation is usually during the last week.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The bill empowers a municipality that is acquiring or developing land for industrial purposes, with the aid of a loan from one of the development corporations under the Development Corporations Act, 1973, to give security to the loan by way of a mortgage or otherwise.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Assessment Act to provide that condominiums and co-operative housing will be assessed on the same basis as owner-occupied, single-family, residential dwellings. It also contains a number of other technical and rather housekeeping matters in the bill.

Mr. Roy: It’s going to take more than that to get that --

BILLS OF SALE AND CHATTEL MORTGAGES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Lewis: This is really first rate. It is a pleasure.

Mr. Cassidy: Who gave them pep pills?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I told you.

Mr. Martel: Why didn’t you do that four years ago?

ASSIGNMENT OF BOOK DEBTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Assignment of Book Debts Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Deans: Quite a switch; all the back benchers are making cabinet statements.

An hon. member: Actually, the cabinet is about all that’s left.

Mr. Nixon: We’re going to miss him as Housing Minister. It’s not going to be any fun at all.

CONDITIONAL SALES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Conditional Sales Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the three Acts that I have introduced today provide for the extension of time for registration of certain legal instruments in the case of an interruption of postal service.

LABOUR OMBUDSMAN ACT, 1975

Mr. Reid moved first reading of bill intituled, the Labour Ombudsman Act, 1975.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am reintroducing this bill which I introduced last session. The former Minister of Labour indicated his department was giving serious consideration to introducing legislation or setting something up within the Labour department which would protect the individual worker both from the companies and, particularly, illegal practices by the union.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CONSUMER REPORTING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Reid moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this Act provides that information in consumer reporting firms not be allowed to leave the Province of Ontario. It is particularly aimed at this information and the privacy of individuals being protected, particularly in view of the fact that much of this information seems to find its way outside not only Ontario but also Canada.

It also provides that companies holding this information must register with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Affairs the regulations and the way in which they are protecting the privacy of the information under their control.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to relieve Persons from Liability in respect of voluntary Emergency Medical and First Aid Services.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to relieve persons from liability in respect of voluntary emergency first aid assistance or medical services rendered at or near the scene of an accident or other sudden emergency.

SAFETY COMMITTEES ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to provide for the Establishment of Safety Committees.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: The purpose of the bill is to provide the employees in Ontario with a voice in safety matters. I am confident the bill will reduce the number of personal injuries in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day, as hon. members know, tomorrow at 11 o’clock I will, in the presence of the Lieutenant Governor, administer the oath of office to the Ombudsman designate, Mr. Arthur Maloney. All members are invited, as you know because you received the invitation on your desks or in the mail. Those wishing to attend will sit in their places as usual. I know that all hon. members will wish to join in the inauguration of this most important parliamentary office.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of supply.

Mr. Chairman: Before we get to committee of supply, I would like to take this opportunity to thank members from all sides of the House for according me the honour and privilege to serve you in the committee of the whole. I realize it is not going to be an easy task and I want to call upon members from all sides of the House to act in a reasonable and responsible manner in our deliberations.

I intend to be fair and impartial but I intend to be firm in enforcing the rules of the House. I think all members of the House should keep in mind that all of their remarks in the committee should be relevant. They should he courteous and they should conduct themselves in a civil manner at all times.

Mr. Good: No repetition.

Mr. Chairman: I am sure the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith), who will be joining me in these responsibilities, will assist members in every way possible and both he and I ask for your assistance and your co-operation at all times. If that is done I am sure we will look forward to some very useful and very productive sessions of this committee of the House. I want to thank you for according me this opportunity to be of service to you.

Mr. Gaunt: He deserves a raise in pay.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, it was planned to consider the remaining votes, that is 1006, 1007, 1008, and 1009 of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

On vote 1006:

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have any opening comments?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, just to say that we will abide by all your declarations, Mr. Chairman. As the first estimates under your benign gaze and firm hand, on behalf of all of us here I certainly welcome you to the chair.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order please. In view of the fact that basically, this is a new Legislature with many new MPPs -- both opposition critics particularly are new in this whole area -- as the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Singer) stated yesterday there is some question of whether we can pick up the areas which were left off. Perhaps out of respect and reason and maybe education we could have permission to broaden the scope with which we are dealing with the general areas. Perhaps an opportunity could be given to having an opening statement in relation to the broader aspects of this vote.

Mr. Chairman: If the hon. member for London North will refer to page G100, vote 1006, there are six items in that vote. There is a programme description at the bottom and if there is anything of a specific nature which you want to ask the minister, I am sure he would be happy to provide you with that. I would only caution you to confine your remarks to 1006, item 1, programme administration.

Mr. Shore: Then we can’t discuss anything broader than the area of 1006, is that the ruling?

Mr. Chairman: That’s true.

[3:30]

Mr. Makarchuk: Mr. Chairman, first I would like to congratulate you personally on your elevation to this position. There are a few other points I would like to mention. It’s nice to be back here and notice some of the changes around the place. I remember one of the remarks made by the Treasurer when I was rudely interrupted four years ago: “What is Makarchuk doing now?” I would like to inform him that Makarchuk was making sure that the Tories ran third in Brantford in the future. That’s vindication of what I was doing. Now I’m going to try to find out what the minister was doing.

As I said earlier, before I was rudely interrupted four years ago, we were interested in a land-use plan for the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Nixon: What is this, a maiden speech?

Mr. Makarchuk: At that time various ministers were giving indications that this plan was in the process of development. I would like to point out that that was five years ago, and in five years many people are capable of doing a lot of great things. Perhaps the minister at this time will give some indication as to the status of the plan? When is it going to be ready if it’s going to be ready? Where is it? If he is having any disagreements in the various ministries, which ministries have not given approval to the plan? Can he give some indication of the general content of the whole thing?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, there are no disagreements as yet. I suspect there may well be but there are not any as yet. Had we not been interrupted by the election, I think by now it probably would have gone through the various cabinet committees and our internal process to cabinet and might well have been ready for introduction about this time. We’ve lost two or three months in terms of the election and we’re just getting back to it now.

As for timing, I doubt very much if it will be before the first of next year; I doubt it will be before the end of this year.

Mr. Makarchuk: Could the minister give me some idea of the details of the plan? Will the plan be able to provide communities some direction in terms of growth or land use? Will there be some indication as to what land is going to be preserved for agricultural use, for housing, for industrial growth and so forth? Have the various economic and environmental factors been taken into account? Are these going to be considered or included in the development of the plan?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I think the member is getting much too finite. We would say most of the things that the member has just raised would be in local, regional, county or municipal official plans and not in a provincial statement of objectives. Not much of what he has asked me for will be in the provincial statement.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other comments on item 1 of vote 1006, programme administration? Carried.

Item 2, urban and regional planning. Are there any comments?

Mr. Swart: Yes, I have a number of comments that I want to make on this item. In the total budget of TEIGA I suppose it’s a very small item but I suggest it has implications far in excess of the funds involved. It relates particularly to the issue that was raised by the member for Brantford. I want to discuss that in some greater detail.

I understand from the minister that the proposed master plan, if that is what he is referring to, isn’t proposed to go into any great detail in terms of planning the province either for land use or for development. If that is the case, I suggest it’s a very real mistake because if we leave the situation as it has been for either regions or local municipalities to do the planning for the province on a broad scale it just won’t be done.

There are three things that are needed in this province, I suggest, with regard to development and land-use planning. First, of course, is decentralization of growth, second is the preservation of the good agricultural land and, third, is the efficient provision of services. I suggest that we have had, certainly in the field of land use, a complete failure in this regard.

Last evening I took the time to use the maps provided by the federal government with regard to the soil capability for agriculture of the Canada land inventory. I also got the population of the municipalities throughout this province. We find that of the growth in this province -- and I think these figures can be backed up and I can go into more detail on them -- during the last 15 years, something like 82 per cent of it has been on the class 1 and class 2 agricultural land.

Even worse than that, most of that growth, about 70 per cent of it, has been in the golden horseshoe area, if we can include Kitchener-Waterloo, Oshawa and Peterborough and down through Brantford and the Niagara Peninsula. About 70 per cent of it is not only on class 1 and class 2 land, but on good agricultural land from a climatic point of view that can produce crops that can’t be produced on other class 1 and class 2 agricultural lands in the province.

I would point out that if you took the city of Ottawa out of that growth -- and with deference to the members from Ottawa, there is not a great amount of prime agricultural land in there -- we would find that the situation is much worse because Ottawa is a municipality, on the poorer agricultural land generally, which has had a very rapid growth for obvious reasons. So the situation is that prime agricultural lands in this province, far from being preserved, are more and more becoming the lands upon which urban development is taking place.

Let me just give you some statistics from my own area, as an example. In the Niagara Peninsula, in the years 1946 to 1951, 43 per cent of the development there was on the best agricultural lands, the one quarter or the one fifth in the north part, which includes of course the fruit lands. From 1951 to 1961 that percentage went up to 46 per cent. From 1961 to 1971, it went up to 58 per cent and from 1971 to 1975, 75 per cent of all the growth in the Niagara Peninsula went on the very best lands in one quarter to one fifth of the area of the Niagara Peninsula. I suggest that drastic action is needed to change that.

The needs I suggest are becoming greater -- the needs to take action, to have a master land-use plan in this province. The needs are becoming greater as time goes on because our society is changing. I was pleased to see in the speech to the Sierra Club by the minister of TEIGA that he stated he recognizes that we are in a period of transition, but I was rather sorry to see that he didn’t seem to offer any solutions to the problem nor, I suggest, even properly assess those changes.

The need for this master land-use plan is becoming greater, first of all because we have a slower rate of growth generally and population growth in this province. Statistics show that in Canada as a whole our population growth is about 1.2 per cent compared to three per cent 20 years ago. It shows that in Ontario it is down to two per cent -- and those are the latest figures; if we had them for 1975, it would probably be less than that

-- compared to 3.5 per cent 20 years ago. I am the first one to recognize that this doesn’t relate directly to family formation, that we are still requiring the houses to put people in, because family formation of course is based on the birthrate some 20 years ago, but nevertheless it is a trend which will show up in the near future.

The second reason that we need to have a master land-use plan -- because of changing conditions -- relates to the higher density development that is taking place. Again, if I can refer to Niagara, I would point out that from 1973 to 1975 the statistics show that the density increase was between 40 per cent and 50 per cent in the three major cities in the Niagara Peninsula.

This has a relationship to the urban boundaries, because not so much land is needed as was formerly and not so much is going to be needed for urban development. If plans are approved allowing 2,000 or 3,000 acres of good land to be used, rather than 2,000 or 3,000 acres of the poorer land, it will mean inevitably, as it will in the Niagara Peninsula, that the growth goes down into the good land rather than in the other area and gives further need for the boundaries to be pulled in much further in the good agricultural area.

The next item I want to mention as a changing need is the coming world food shortage. Perhaps this doesn’t need to be stressed, but I think we all here probably know that by the year 2000 there is going to be at least 6½ billion people in this world

-- up from the present 3¾ billion. I have heard people argue that birth control measures will prevent that population increase. However, all of the best assessments show that those measures will not have that effect. The very technology that produces birth control methods and provides the education for people to use them, means that people are also going to live longer. There is going to be 6½ billion people and we are just not going to have enough land on which to feed them.

Mr. Nixon: What are you going to do about that, Mr. Treasurer?

Mr. Swart: We can do something about it, of course, in this province. The Canadian Press reported on Dec. 19, 1974, that an explosive global catastrophe was in the making. This was the conclusion from a June, 1974, conference of economists and agricultural specialists dealing with relief efforts in the poor regions of the world. Their report said it will come as early as 1975 or as late as 1988. Conditions are accumulating towards an imminent tragedy of world-wide magnitude.

If we think that is an overstatement, then I will just point out that in the Oct. 15 issue of the Toronto Star there was a report from Chicago which said:

“The hand on the granary door will soon be the one to rule the world unless food production continues to stay ahead of global population. The key issue is that world food supply and population growth are headed along a collision course.”

That was a statement by Robert Long, the Assistant Secretary of Agriculture in the United States, whom one can hardly accuse of being a radical.

So, I suggest that these three changes in the world and in our society are reasons why we have to demand that there be a master land-use plan within this province.

Of course, one other item that pertains to this whole changing situation is the near monopoly control and ownership of developable land. It’s no longer the friendly neighbourhood real estate man who is doing the developing; it is monopoly corporations.

The need is there, and I also suggest that the farmers are for this, too. It is not good enough to say that they are opposed to it, as the minister implied in his speech at the Sierra Club about the opposition to it.

Again, I have a press clipping stating that Peter Hannam of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, says we need to take a firm stand on use of agricultural land. He said that unless a definite land-use plan is instituted, most agricultural land will disappear within 25 to 30 years.

We know, of course, that Gordon Hill, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, has been taking a strong stand on that. The farmers are willing to see this policy which will preserve our good agricultural land. All they ask is that it be an applicable operation for them. I certainly think it was a serious omission from the Throne Speech that there was nothing about land use and, what’s more, nothing about farm income maintenance. It says to you also that the public of this province is in favour of a master land-use plan which would reserve the good agricultural land and give some direction to development.

[3:45]

I have here with me a planning report from the Niagara region, public meetings were held there, very extensively relative to the regional plan, which incidentally came out to do nothing for the preservation of agricultural land. The report from our planners on the various meetings, relative to the preservation of prime agricultural lands, says this was one of the topics of greatest concern. There was virtually unanimous support for a policy of preserving fruit lands and other prime agricultural areas. Many of the briefs also attached conditions to the support of this policy and these were almost invariably that there should be a viable agricultural industry.

I would suggest, too, that in the recent election, if you can draw one

interpretation from it perhaps more than any other, it is that the public is concerned about the preservation of good agricultural land.

In my riding -- I think it is perhaps not out of place here to mention it -- in my own area in particular, the Conservative opponent made the issue -- and the only issue -- Swart. Swart was against development in that area and good assessment on the best agricultural land in the city of Thorold. Let me tell you that in Thorold, at least, I got more votes than the other two candidates combined and the Conservative was third.

Again I suggest that it is good economics. As well as the people wanting it, as well as the farmers wanting it, it is good economics for us to have our development take place on other than the good agricultural land. The Federation of Agriculture in the Niagara region reports that in the last year they produced about $60 million in farm products on the Niagara Peninsula and that is perhaps an annual average which is increasing because of the increase in prices. More than half of this is produced in one-fifth of the Peninsula -- the north half of the Peninsula.

In that same speech to the Sierra Club I see the minister said that it is going to cost money if we are going to shift our growth to the poor agricultural lands. I just say two things. First, that it is costing money if we don’t. Does it make any sense to destroy this type of productive land and let the poorer land remain there and many times not to be cropped?

The second thing I say to the minister: Show me proof where it is going to cost more if we develop on the non-productive land. Show me proof where it is going to cost more if we develop in Cornwall, or Barrie, or if we develop in Fort Erie, or Port Colborne in the Niagara Peninsula instead of below the Escarpment. I suggest, if he has any documents to this effect, that the House would be only too glad to see them.

So I say let’s get on with the job of this master land-use plan. Let’s make sure that it sets the structure for the future development of this province to incorporate the principles which I have mentioned, and to which I suppose everybody pays lip service. Let me say in no uncertain terms that it is the province that has the responsibility to do that, not the local municipalities. You know individual municipalities and regions just aren’t going to, and surely Niagara is an example of this. Not one single solitary change has been made by having a regional plan there, by having the regional council, and I was working on that council for five years.

The outcome of that regional plan was the compilation of every single official plan in the region, not one solitary single change was made in the plan that was adopted by that region. I suggest too, that this has to be tied to industrial manpower policy. It can’t just be land use; it has to be applied to industrial manpower policy.

I think this can be done. There are people who will say people won’t go up north or won’t go elsewhere. I suggest Ottawa is proof that if you have the jobs there, if those jobs are diversified and not just all in basic industry, and if there are jobs for the wives and for the women, people will move into the cooler areas of the province and into areas which some of us who live in the south may not think will be as desirable.

So I make three proposals. The first is that this province brings forth a master land-use and development plan which sets the framework -- not just guidelines -- in which the municipalities must work. I suggest the municipalities want it. In a report which was adopted almost unanimously at a convention 10 years ago the mayors and reeves of this province asked for this, What they asked for was a framework in which they should work and that there be a provincial land-use and development plan.

Secondly, as a temporary measure I suggest that we should establish a set of binding principles with regard to good agricultural land that must be followed and official plans amended accordingly. It must contain a whole new category of agricultural land, not just rural land which is left as a residue for development at some future date.

Finally, if this policy is going to be effective, then it must be followed by all of the ministries and the various departmental operations and it must be co-ordinated.

Let me tell you again about the Niagara Peninsula, about the little village of Virgil, centred in the most productive land perhaps in North America, a village of about 300 homes, which the Ministry of the Environment was pushing for the installation of a sewer system which cost $2.25 million -- at least that’s the estimate; it will probably cost a lot more than that by the time it is finished -- and which would serve a population of 15,000 people. Some of us fought that. We fought against the large urban area which the regional plan proposed for the town which would have accommodated initially something like 7,000 residents in that area in the very best prime agricultural land.

There was an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Some of us opposed it and went before that hearing which lasted three days. The Ministry of the Environment was there to promote that development in that area. The municipality was there to promote the development in the area. When we tried to put forward our arguments to the Ontario Municipal Board against the proposal because of the destruction -- some now and more in the future -- of valuable agricultural land, we were ruled out of order because it was not pertinent to the issue.

I suggest the province has to take leadership in this and that local and regional plans will not work and cannot work until this provincial government has established the framework for development which will meet those three criteria which I talked about earlier. One is a decentralization of growth, the second is a preservation of good agricultural land and the third is a provision of services at a reasonable cost.

Mr. Good: Mr. Chairman, I should relate my comments to things that haven’t been covered by the previous speaker. I understand we do have an agreement to finish these four votes by suppertime this evening? Or is there no such agreement?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There may well be. Nobody has told me.

Mr. Good: Regarding the bill that was before the House in the last session with respect to northern communities -- if my memory is correct I believe we had first reading of that and then it was left on the order paper. There was at the time a considerable objection to the terms of reference in the Act and I understand it was not acceptable to those people in the unorganized areas and the improvement districts of northern Ontario. Could the minister bring us up to date as to whether there is a new proposal now being considered by the ministry to bring the unorganized areas in northern Ontario under some form of municipal structure?

Mr. Haggerty: It was in the Throne Speech in 1974, or 1973.

Mr. Chairman: Would the minister care to reply?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think there will necessarily be a new proposal. We are still sorting our way through the previous proposal.

I would have to say that from my observation -- and I haven’t been as closely involved with this as perhaps I would like to have been or should have been -- there are a great number of difficulties thrown up and which present themselves. It may be -- and I certainly haven’t firmed up any opinion on this -- that what we are attempting is something which is too structured, and if we are going to go that far then we should go to either an improvement district or an organized municipality and be prepared to have more provincial involvement with some sort of local advisory advice.

That’s a little bit off the top of my head, but that’s some of the direction that I see our thinking going in. We will not have anything further this fall, I think that’s fair to say. There were a number of meetings this summer in the north with various community groups, unfortunately without political involvement on my part or on the part of Mr. Beckett, for obvious reasons. So it’s not something that we will be moving on very quickly.

Mr. Good: Under the same vote, item 2, regarding the proposed guidelines and legislation as it relates to mobile homes, that is something which has been discussed here for a great many years in the Legislature, something which a year or two ago we thought action was going to take place on and as yet nothing has happened at the provincial level.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s in the Ministry of Housing.

Mr. Good: The information fact sheet given to us when we were --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m sorry, that’s something -- the local planning policy -- that is an area which has been moved, effective Oct. 1, into the Ministry of Housing, and that’s where it is now. In any case, the chairman of the task force I think was, is and has always been from the Ministry of Housing. You’ll recall the previous Minister of Housing gave a report in the House on the subject of mobile homes in May or June, was it? I’ve just forgotten when. He may have something, I don’t.

Mr. Good: All right, thank you. On the matter of the joint provincial-municipal projects dealing with the Simcoe-Georgian Bay area, I would like to ask if the minister has seen the report done by Dr. Pearson on the Georgian Bay archipelago and what his comments are on it? I understand it was commissioned by the recreational property owners in the Georgian Bay-Parry Sound area, and in it I think there was stressed the logical and natural difference that exists between the owners of recreational property and the natives living in the area.

I think both sides agree there must be something done to make it more compatible for the two to live whose objects are perhaps at variance; the local people wanting a certain type of development and recreational people wanting to retain the status quo and be more interested in the environmental aspects. Has the minister seen the report? Has the ministry studied it? What are the minister’s reaction to it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I’ve seen it. I think it was three, four or five months ago and we’ve had quite a bit of correspondence on it in the last little while. It flares up and dies down. To my knowledge, I don’t think there’s particularly a variance among those people, because they are nearly all recreational people in that particular -- well, perhaps, proposed incorporation would be the way of putting it. I went through the report and we are answering the letters.

Our view would be, of course, that Parry Sound is under examination by a task force who hope, I think, to report -- if I am not mistaken -- probably in the spring of 1976. That report by the consultant is an input into the work of the task force. I wouldn’t express a view on it at this moment, myself.

[4:00]

Mr. Nixon: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, is that task force the one the former member for Brantford was chairing? He is associated with some investigation like that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, I think the member referred to the Simcoe-Georgian Bay task force. What we are talking about is the Parry Sound task force, which is separate from Simcoe-Georgian Bay.

The former member for Brantford was chairman of two task forces, the Simcoe-Georgian Bay task force and the Northumberland task force, in his capacity as parliamentary assistant and then as Minister without Portfolio. Both of those political reports -- as opposed to the technical reports -- were just about completed, perhaps a month or two months away from winding them up. In fact, one of them had actually run out of money, I think, so that’s always an inducement to wind them up rather quickly, although I think they got something more from my colleague in Management Board. I have just forgotten.

At any rate, two weeks ago I asked Mr. Beckett if he would wind up the work of these two committees. He agreed to and I would expect that we would have the final report of the political committee -- well, I am guessing -- in the next two or three months. In the one case, perhaps a little longer than the other.

Mr. Good: One final item, under item 2, dealing with the local government organization. The county restructuring programmes are still, I presume, going on. What about regional government reviews? Do you have any in the process at the present time, or contemplated?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are, I think, 12 county restructuring studies.

Mr. Good: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Twelve -- off the top of my head. None of them have reported yet. It seems to me that the earliest one is about next March or April. There are three reviews under way: The Robarts review of Metropolitan Toronto; the review being done by Dr. Mayo in Ottawa-Carleton; and the one which is really just getting under way by a former alderman and controller in Metropolitan Toronto, Mr. Archer of Niagara. No others are contemplated.

Mr. Good: No others are contemplated. In that regard, I understand the minister at one time -- a year or two ago -- said that he thought regional governments would take 10 years before they should be reviewed, before things settled down into a proper place. In our own regional government of Waterloo, things are very dicey, to say it mildly, at the present time.

Some of the rural townships have had their tax bills go up 58 per cent in the last two years. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the rural people because of their increase in taxation as the transitional adjustments are taking place; and three of the five adjustments have already taken place. They find that they know now that at the end of five years things are going to be back into what they consider a disproportionate level of taxation, thrust upon them by the regional governments.

Two of the rural area governments, Mr. Chairman, have decided on their own that they want a study of some sort to see why their tax bills are going up. The regional chairman said, “We are not to blame. Don’t blame us. We are only taking the same percentage of our levy from the area governments according to the formula under Bill 167. So don’t blame us.”

We are right back at the situation in Waterloo now where they were in Niagara before the 1971 election when St. Catharines wanted to secede from the region. The province went down very handily before the election and dumped $1 million in their laps and things simmered down and you got Bob Johnston re-elected again in 1971. Well, you didn’t come with any money in Waterloo region and you didn’t win any seats in Waterloo region --

Mr. Haggerty: You lost Niagara.

Mr. Good: -- and you wouldn’t have, anyway, as far as that goes.

The whole point is simply this. The rural people in Waterloo region are very upset. The regional chairman says there is no way the region will undertake a study on its own -- with or without provincial funding -- until after the five-year period, when transitional grants have all been levelled out and the adjustments have been made and they know where they are at. That isn’t satisfactory to many of the people in the rural areas, because they have felt that their taxes have been going up. No one knows, but maybe the straight inflationary input would have caused the necessary rise in taxation in the rural areas.

Maybe the merging of the municipalities with their different assessment structures is the thing. Maybe it’s a combination of many of these things.

Maybe it’s just the great, grandiose method with which regional governments were instituted by this government in past years that is causing the problem. But somewhere, somebody has got to get down to business to do the financial investigation and to do the study that was never done, and should have been done, before the implementation of the regional governments, it was always passed off and said, “Oh no, we’ll let the good people in the area look after the finances.” In other words, “We’ll put it there and you people can worry about the financial implications.”

Would the minister not agree that there must be some kind of study or some kind of review of the whole area of regional governments where there is dissatisfaction to a large degree? One theory is that the dissatisfaction will eventually drive the region into a one-tier system. Perhaps some of the larger communities want that, but certainly the small communities don’t want a one-tier system. Maybe the division of powers between the upper and lower levels is causing some of the problems. I think these things should be looked at; I don’t think we can wait 10 years to look at them, and I don’t think we should be waiting for five years to look at them.

I wonder if the minister would re-evaluate the situation and come forth with a programme that would affirm that where there is an indication and a desire for a study, the ministry would provide funds for a study at a regional level. I don’t think the area government municipalities can get to the bottom of their problems on their own. Could I have a response from the minister, please?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Subject to the mail problem these days, I don’t believe I’ve had a request from either of the municipalities which the member mentioned.

Mr. Good: No, because an area government can’t deal with the government. They’ve got to go through the region. The government set it up that way.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, they don’t object to dealing directly. The former mayor of Cambridge particularly was never loath to come forward without going through the region, I recall rather vividly.

Mr. Good: Yes, but she got cut down by doing it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: At any rate, if such a request came to me I would be glad to take a look at it.

Mr. Good: All right, you’ll have one tomorrow.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer in regard to the answer he gave to the previous speaker regarding the organization of unorganized territories in the north. Specifically, is there an ongoing study by the ministry of the options open to the unorganized townships of Sault North? If so, what provision is being made for local input into that study? Also, is one of the options under study incorporation into the city of Sault Ste. Marie of the townships of Sault North?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I frankly don’t know whether Sault North was one of the communities that were visited. We visited something like 25 communities, I believe, and had discussions with them. Whether that was one of them or not I simply don’t know. I’ll find that out for the member. But I have indicated to him that essentially it is a planning problem or a lack of planning problem, and the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) is taking that under his wing.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, could I perhaps direct a question to you and have the hon. minister reply, since it’s more for information? Not to minimize the importance of the discussion, I’m just wondering if there is an opportunity to change these estimates or can we conclude basically that this is a question period?

What I’d really like to know substantially is this: There are a lot of very important items here dealing with and involved with the Province of Ontario financially; if, for example, we suggest that there should be changes in any of these areas, is the money spent or do we have the control to do any changing within these confines? Could I get an answer for my information?

Mr. Chairman: You don’t have the right as an individual member to change the purpose for which this money is being voted. You don’t have the right to increase it. You have the right to comment on it, to elicit information from the minister and perhaps to make some suggestions as to what he might do as an alternative. But I would like to remind members of the committee that we did spend some considerable time in the last session, and formed an all-party agreement that there would be 33½ hours in committee of supply to deal with the remaining estimates that are to be dealt with in this committee.

This includes four votes in Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs; Education; Health; Social Development Secretariat; Natural Resources; Resources Development; the Premier’s Office; the Cabinet Office and the Lieutenant Governor. So you can readily understand that we don’t have all that much time. The time is down now, according to our monitor, to 32 hours and 46 minutes.

Mr. Nixon: How time flies.

Mr. Chairman: You are going to have to restrain yourself, limiting the scope you engage in in the remaining time.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: You’re in trouble, Marvin.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, I have no trouble restraining myself. I just want to clearly understand the purpose and the accomplishment that will develop out of spending the 33 hours. That is what I’m trying to find out.

Mr. Chairman: It is my understanding that you will try to elicit from the minister the purpose for which this money is being voted?

Mr. Good: Has been voted.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Has been voted?

Mr. Singer: Has been voted.

Mr. Nixon: You read a blanket resolution last spring.

Mr. Good: This has nothing to do with this session.

Mr. Chairman: I have on my list the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine and then Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham).

Mrs. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, speaking as a new member for the first time in this House, I would first like to congratulate the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) on his elevation to the high post of Deputy Speaker and chairman of committee of the whole. I watched him over the years in my other capacities in this legislative complex, and I think he will fill the position very ably.

I would like to say that it’s a new experience to be able to put my ideas forth from the front bench instead of from the back rooms or through notes to members, as I did when I was research director. It’s also a pleasure to face the provincial Treasurer across the House; I consider him a worthy opponent --

Mr. Lewis: Well --

Mrs. Bryden: -- I hope that we will be able to engage in some really serious discussion of urban and regional planning in this debate.

I must say I’m nonplussed as to what our philosophy of planning is. We’ve had 10 economic regions, and then we had five economic regions, and we had regional advisory councils, and now we have this policy planning committee that is supposed to be bringing in growth centres. But in all of it, we never seem to come up with a philosophy of planning, or with any definite idea of where we were going, and that seems to be characteristic of this government. So that in the debate we feel that we’re punching at empty paper bags.

During the election, I found that there was a great deal of discussion of decentralization and its merits -- because the pressures have been growing during all these years of lack of direction of policy -- the pressures on our housing starts, the way housing prices have been going up; the pressures on our transportation services; the pressures on our recreation services; the pressures on our ecology. Without some sense of overall provincial planning in these fields we are not going to be able to meet those pressures, and it’s going to mean a serious reduction in the quality of life for a great many people in this province.

We’ve also at last, become aware of a serious threat to our agricultural land -- the 26 acres an hour that are going out of production; the number of farmers who are dropping out of farming.

Mr. Nixon: Can we have an argument about that figure for a while?

Mr. Lewis: We’re concerned about that. We will pursue that, I promise you.

Mrs. Bryden: That I found even on the streets, the sidewalks, the asphalt of Beaches-Woodbine, the loss of our agricultural land was one of the most serious concerns of urban people, because they realize that --

Mr. Ruston: Give the farmers enough and they will produce.

[4:15]

Mrs. Bryden: -- if we don’t have agricultural land, we don’t have feed production and we don’t have recreational land and we don’t have green belts.

I think there are several reasons why it is very urgent that this decentralization policy that is being studied come forth with some definite direction. I sometimes wonder whether it was delayed during the election campaign because the government didn’t have the courage to say, “These centres will be growth centres and the rest will not be growth centres.”

I am not sure whether it is desirable to be a growth centre or whether people would rather it be a centre that is reserved for maintenance and preservation of its present size, but obviously we have to have some sort of planning and some sort of concentration in certain areas if we are going to deal with our population growth and with preservation of our agricultural land.

There are, I think, several new elements that make it more urgent to bring forth this plan. One is the Pickering Airport decision. I hope the minister is going to reassure us that regardless of what the federal government does on this matter -- it seems to be waffling back and forth as to whether it is going to proceed or not going to proceed with the Pickering Airport -- he is firm in his decision not to provide any further services for the Pickering Airport.

It took the government more than two years to finally recognize that the Pickering Airport decision was a mistake and that the evidence that we needed a second airport in that area was by no means conclusive. In fact, the evidence seems to be more and more that we do not need such an airport.

During the campaign the government didn’t go quite as far as to admit that it was a mistake. It tried to get the best of both worlds by suggesting it would stop services for the time being, hoping to get the votes of the people who were against and the people who were for, but suggesting that perhaps the services might go on after the election. Finally, a week after the election, the government apparently saw the light and decided that there was no case for the Pickering Airport and that the only way to stop it was to stop the services. So I hope the Treasurer will give us a pledge that that is a firm decision.

The second important element that has come up that I think requires reaction from the government is the COLUC report, the Central Ontario Lakeshore Urban Complex study of the planning for this central area. The COLUC report adopted the population targets, the growth targets of the Toronto-centred region plan and yet it says that you cannot sustain a population of six to eight million people and a viable agriculture at the same time in this area.

I would like to know, in the light of that conclusion, is the government prepared to modify that population target of six to eight million for this central Ontario lakeshore area? It seems to me that we are going to lose too much valuable class 1 and class 2 agricultural land if we go ahead with that kind of a target. We are also going to lose a whole lot of other things in the way of recreation land and we are going to need much greater transportation and hydro corridors.

The third element which requires further consideration of a definite plan is the whole energy situation. With the price of energy going up -- and I hope we are going to be able to stop some of the increases but it has already gone up to a considerable extent -- energy now becomes a crucial determinant in planning -- not only the price but where the delivery systems are going to be located and where the production facilities are going to be located.

I don’t think the ministry has been taking energy into its plans to a sufficient degree. It is a new element which has suddenly become much more important.

Finally, there are what you might call the new regional government techniques. Originally they were very much from the top down; we now have what is known as county restructuring which looks like it is from the bottom up. Is there sufficient flexibility for counties to develop their own style of regional government in this country restructuring? It seems to me they are pretty well required to accept the provincial pattern of urban and rural combination units which may not be best in all cases. Perhaps in some cases you should split off the urban areas.

They also seem to be pretty well locked into two-tier systems. I think there should be more flexibility for county restructuring but again we haven’t had very much reaction from the ministry on what our newest plan of regionalizing is.

I think we are in a policy planning vacuum. I think it is time we had a clear direction of policy, a clear statement from the government on what it thinks about the COLUC report, the targets therein and how we can save our agricultural land. That is the most crucial area.

I think also we need from the ministry a statement of how people are going to be involved in some of this planning. The people have to have something to look at in the way of a plan before they can discuss it and this is what we have been lacking. It means that the various ministries which are planning transportation and recreation and energy delivery have nothing to go by. I think that was what COLUC was set up for -- for this particular area not for the whole province -- to give those ministries some guidelines.

But since it came out there has been no reaction from the government so we don’t really know what guidelines those ministries are following and what they are following for the rest of the province either.

In effect we have an abdication of policy and I think we have to change that if we are going to preserve our agricultural land and have a proper land-use policy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Just two or three comments. I suppose the first one I would like to make is that much as I regret the departure of the former member for Beaches-Woodbine, I would have to say that both my staff and I feel much happier now we can see the enemy rather than have her lurking in the back of Stephen’s offices. She is here in front of us and we will conquer her in due course. We are glad to have you here because you have been a worthy opponent for a long time -- I will put it that way -- and it is good to be able to see you in front and centre.

Mr. Lewis: I understand.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, but the quality of your speeches is going to suffer --

Mr. Lewis: Of course it is.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- without that kind of research. We are all dreading horribly the errors you are going to fall into because she won’t be checking over your thoughts.

Mr. Lewis: No, she is vetting everything I say.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s good. Two or three responses to my friend, not necessarily in the order raised.

I think your point about energy costs -- transportation costs really -- is well taken. In terms of our thinking, and I don’t say this is necessarily true of the people who do the actual planning studies or planning work, I think over the years we have all been lulled into the belief that transportation is a relatively cheap commodity. Undoubtedly it is not going to be as cheap and it is not as cheap. We are going to have to take the problems of transportation and distance much more into account than perhaps we have in the past. That isn’t going to make life any simpler certainly.

It means that if it is difficult now to encourage the location of an industry outside the golden horseshoe it is just going to be that much more difficult to locate that industry outside the golden horseshoe, let alone in northern Ontario, because if transportation costs were a problem before, relatively speaking, they are probably going to be an even greater problem and difficulty in the future. But the point is well taken. It must become a greater part of our thinking than perhaps it has been in the past.

As for Pickering airport, I think the member has the assurance of the government that we aren’t about to change our mind in any way and service that site. The COLUC report, as you will recall, suggested certain kinds of growth and which levels were most appropriate. We haven’t taken a position nor will we take a position until we have the views of the affected municipalities, both regional and local, and for that matter people as well.

Those responses are coming into the advisory committee on urban and regional development which is a group of deputy ministers. In due course they will have the benefit of the advice which they receive from the local municipalities and the regional municipalities and people. Then we will be formulating recommendations to the government and the government then will make up its mind at that point in time, but I think not before and until we have had the maximum public input and municipal input.

How are people involved in provincial planning? One of the dangers, of course, is that if provincial planning becomes too finite or too detailed then it is going to be more and more difficult to have people involved. Theoretically, I think the province in terms of its planning should be dealing with local government; local government in turn should be dealing with its own people in terms of the specifics of the plan.

Now life isn’t that simple, obviously. If somebody wants to talk about development in North Pickering -- that is not a very good example -- if somebody wants to talk about development within Markham to the Minister of Housing or to the Minister of the Environment, we don’t say he can only talk to the Markham council, who can only talk to York region, and only York region can talk to us.

I think if the system really is going to work that the people participation should be coming through local and regional government Sometimes that is d