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

March 26, 1975

29th Parliament, 5th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L014 - Wed 26 Mar 1975 / Mer 26 mar 1975

MILK INQUIRY

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAMME

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

TENDERING FOR TRUCKS

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

MILK INQUIRY

MOHAWK KNITTING MILLS

HAMILTON-NANTICOKE TRANSPORTATION

FACILITIES ON THE TRENT-SEVERN SYSTEM

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES

MOTHER’S ALLOWANCE

GRAVEL LICENCE APPLICATION

PRICE OF SEED CORN

DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

SPADINA ARTERIAL ROAD

TORONTO-HEARST LRC SERVICE

PICKERING AIRPORT

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

PLANT SAFETY INSPECTIONS

COMBUSTIBLE PLASTIC FOAM

HOME INSURANCE RATES

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4

REPRSENTATION ACT, 1975

PROFESSIONAL FUND-RAISING CORPORATIONS CONTROL ACT, 1975

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE ACT

CONTROLLING OF HOURS IN RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT

RENT CONTROL AND SECURITY OF TENURE ACT

THIRD READING

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House resumed at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

MILK INQUIRY

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey to the members of the Legislature a recent decision by the Milk Commission of Ontario to hold a public inquiry into certain aspects of the milk industry.

Milk, a basic food necessary to good health and nutrition, has undergone several price increases in recent months. These price increases have come about for several reasons, some being increased input costs at the producer, processor, distributor and retailer level, and the withdrawal of the consumer subsidy on milk by the federal government.

Whatever the specific reasons for increased milk prices, the consumers in Ontario, as well as those individuals connected with the milk industry, have a right to know how certain elements in the milk chain -- from the cost of processing and marketing fluid milk products to trade practices, price spreads, management policies and methods of financing -- contribute to the final price paid for a quart of milk.

Recent milk price increases at the producer level have been reviewed by the Milk Commission of Ontario and upheld. Indeed, the Consumers’ Association of Canada (Ontario) has supported these necessary increases to farmers but they, along with the Milk Commission, are concerned about what happens to milk prices once the milk has left the farm.

Bearing this in mind, the commission, upon its own initiative and under authority vested in the Milk Act of 1970, will proceed along the following lines:

1. Investigate pricing practices and margins between processors, distributors and retailers of fluid milk products;

2. Inquire into the manner in which these practices may vary within a corporate organization;

3. Examine the manner in which these practices may vary from one part of the province to another;

4. Inquire into the variations in practices between different processors, distributors and retailers within the province;

5. Investigate the retail margins currently being given on the basis outlined in Nos. 2, 3 and 4;

6. Inquire into discount practices in and after the year 1972; and

7. Compare the retail margins and discount practices in Ontario with those in other jurisdictions.

This public inquiry will begin as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.

I am confident the consumer appointment of Mrs. Robin Jeffrey to the Milk Commission of Ontario on Nov. 1, 1974, will prove to be a very valuable dimension during the public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Housing.

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAMME

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech on March 11 indicated this government’s commitment to ensuring that Ontario families continue to be the best housed in Canada.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): And the government has failed most miserably.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: To do this, we must both encourage new housing and preserve the existing stock.

Mr. Deans: The minister should be ashamed of what he has done.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Today I am pleased to report to the House on the progress my ministry has made in implementing the Ontario Home Renewal Programme.

Mr. Deans: It is a real big seller, this one.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Ontario Home Renewal programme was developed by my ministry to extend home rehabilitation opportunities to areas not included in the federal-provincial Neighbourhood Improvement and Residential Rehabilitation Assistance programmes.

Mr. Deans: How about the people who cannot get housing at all?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Under OHRP, municipalities receive per capita grants to issue loans and grants to eligible homeowners for major property repairs. The programme also extends to homeowners in unorganized territories with the administration provided by provincial rather than local officials.

I am pleased to report this programme has met with a very enthusiastic response from municipalities and homeowners. As a measure of its success, may I point out, Mr. Speaker, that while we funded OHRP with $10 million for the full fiscal year of 1974-1975, the programme did not become operational until October, 1974.

Nevertheless, by the end of the fiscal year on March 31, 1975, we fully expect to have disbursed more than $9.5 million to 111 municipalities and 34 homeowners in unorganized areas.

I am tabling a list of municipalities which have received OHRP funds. We expect these funds to result in almost 2,900 rehabilitated living units. Another 1,250 units will be rehabilitated as a result of RRAP, for a total of 4,150 units.

Mr. Speaker, the ready acceptance of this programme by municipalities and by the homeowners, and the results expressed in housing units speak for themselves very clearly. I look forward to continuing this programme with additional funds in the forthcoming year. Thank you.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The government should have started years ago.

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce today that the government of Ontario, through my ministry, will be implementing the next stage of a comprehensive management programme.

The importance of energy conservation and the need to alleviate potentially critical future supply problems by moderating demand have been repeatedly stressed by this government.

Mr. Speaker, members of the Legislature will recall that the National Energy Board recently concluded that by the early 1980s, there will no longer be sufficient crude oil to meet Canadian feedstock requirements west of the Ottawa Valley.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That’s not what the producers said three years ago.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The future supply situation regarding Canadian-produced natural gas is even more alarming. Ministry of Energy studies firmly indicate that present supplies are beginning to fall short of total Canadian needs and committed, exports.

Ontario, which imports from other parts of Canada or from other countries 80 per cent of its total energy requirements and which has one of the highest per capita rates of energy consumption in the world, must now take strong, effective action to ensure that the total demand for energy throughout the provincial economy is considerably reduced in the years ahead.

If all of us in Ontario have the resolve we can, and will, accomplish this vital objective by improving the efficiency of energy use, by better managing energy distribution and consumption, by encouraging voluntary action to conserve energy, and by putting into practice an energy conservation ethic across Ontario.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): That’s why the minister criticized the federal Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Will the member save his energy for the question period?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: These, briefly, are the goals of the energy management programme.

My predecessor and colleague, the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), has emphasized that government co-ordination is required so that all of the varied energy management activities being undertaken by no fewer than 11 ministries in this government and by the private sector at large will achieve concrete results.

The energy management programme has been carefully designed to co-ordinate on a long-term basis the various aspects of all of the government’s energy saving projects, and to act as a research and information resource centre for energy management projects which can be called up by other ministries, by industry and by the public. The budget for the coming fiscal year is to be $2.1 million, the bulk of which will be directed to space-conditioning projects which involve improving the efficiency of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and lighting.

Those ministries dealing with individual sectors of the economy will be announcing their own elements of the energy management programme. My ministry, in its catalytic and co-ordinating role, will ensure that unnecessary duplication is avoided and that the government itself sets an example for efficient use of energy in our province, particularly in the application of space-conditioning methodology and in vehicle operations.

It should be pointed out that within the context of government initiatives in energy management, the Ministries of Housing and Government Services have been particularly progressive in implementing space-conditioning programmes and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has already defined government policy regarding the purchase and use of smaller automobiles.

We have examined the energy use trend and costs in Ontario and unquestionably, we must change our current, wasteful pattern of consumption to an efficient pattern of consumption which minimizes waste and cost in Ontario and, unquestionably, we must change our current wasteful pattern of consumption to an efficient pattern of consumption which minimizes waste and maximizes energy yield.

It is projected that the cost of energy used in Ontario this year will be in excess of $5.6 billion. If present consumption rates are maintained, Ontario’s energy bill could be twice as high by 1980, making the energy management programme all the more important.

The provincial government, by putting the energy management programme into effect, wants to reduce the rate of growth in energy consumption in Ontario by one-third over the next five years.

Already we are seeing the beginnings of what will be very significant energy savings, obtained through voluntary action by all sectors of the economy. However, let me also state that the government realizes that further measures, including incentives and regulation may be necessary. If we -- government, industry and the public at large -- achieve this one-third reduction in the energy consumption growth rate, total energy expenditures can be cut in this province by about one billion dollars a year by 1980.

Through the energy management programme, government will co-operate with and provide operational management assistance to industry, to business and commerce, to the construction and transportation sectors of our economy, to our municipal governments and to the public, to enable us all to save energy now so that we don’t suffer the consequences later.

It is vital that we recognize the facts: Energy is not available in unending supplies, but it is within our power to avoid the disastrous results of continuing on an energy binge.

We plan to go well beyond the current federal government advertising programme to work with industrial end users of energy toward better energy management.

Mr. Roy: Oh does he? Another dirty trick.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We plan to demonstrate to the public and to industrial and commercial users of energy, practical, proven applications of existing and new energy-saving technology, together with the substantial cost benefits which can be realized.

The government has in the past, and will continue to draw on the capabilities and advice of the private sector in the development of energy savings projects, as well as in a wide spectrum of other matters. The energy management programme will complement existing industry programmes, and those being undertaken by the province’s energy suppliers, including Ontario Hydro.

The government’s energy management plan, the next stage of which I am announcing today, will, hopefully, make it possible for business and government in Ontario to reduce the need for new capital investment in energy producing facilities, reduce the environmental impact of energy mismanagement, extend the life of non-renewable resources, save money for those practising conservation, and generally lessen the impact of higher energy prices on our economy.

The availability of energy for tomorrow is of primary concern to this government in Ontario today. This government, with the implementation of the energy management programme, is taking a leadership role in harnessing all of the ability, all of the research and development, and all of the motivation which exist in government and in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a few minutes ago, further announcements will be made by my colleagues and by myself as individual projects within the government’s overall energy management programme are launched. My intention today is to inform members of the Legislature, at this early date, of the objectives of the programme and the role of the Ministry of Energy in ensuring that every potential area for energy saving is closely investigated and that effective provincial action is taken.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions?

The member for Kitchener.

CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENTS

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing, following his statement that we must encourage both new housing and preserve the existing stock.

What is the minister prepared to do with respect to the problem, as brought forward from the study recently in North York, that the single-parent families and the handicapped are most particularly involved in problems when apartment buildings are turned into condominium units? Is the minister actively studying this problem and has he reached any conclusions with respect to this matter so far?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I read the report as submitted by the borough and have not had the opportunity to fully analyse it, but I have said before that the conversion aspect rests with the municipality.

Mr. Deans: Oh of course, there is always someone else to blame.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Whether or not they convert into a condominium is up to them to decide. I have asked them to very carefully consider how many people they place into a rental situation when they convert -- although not necessarily all are placed into a rental accommodation. At this particular time I haven’t got a definitive answer for the hon. member. However, I will say that recently the conversions have been considerably less than they were last fall, and the indications are that condominiums are not that popular. It may reach a time, as it did a few years ago, here in Metropolitan Toronto, when they are a glut on the market.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that more than half of the apartment units now being offered for rent in the Metropolitan Toronto area are restricted to adults only, and, in view of the concerns he expressed in his statement, is he willing to enact legislation that would stop discrimination by landlords against people with children?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the matter raised is not a supplementary, but I would like to answer it in any event. It is a matter of concern to us. I’m not fully in agreement with the percentage which the member has mentioned, he might be slightly wrong on his percentages.

Mr. Cassidy: We’ve checked it out.

Mr. Deans: It’s 48 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In any event, I think we still have to go back to the matter of supply of all types of accommodation, rather than just zero in on one particular type of accommodation.

Mr. Deans: What difference does that make?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This is what we’re trying to do. As I said yesterday, we have gone ahead with our limited dividend programme. We have recently had $42 million agreed upon by this government to proceed with housing in the areas of low vacancies. We also have asked the federal government to proceed with its limited dividend programme. They have $200 million allocated for LDs across Canada.

We’re hopeful that they will allocate a considerable portion of those funds in Ontario and, if we proceed with our other home ownership programmes and plans, whether through AHOP or whether it’s through HOME in Ontario, I think we can fulfil the needs of all our people. But it takes a combined programme by the federal, provincial and the municipal governments to fulfil the needs of our people.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: One more supplementary.

Mr. Germa: If it is true that local councils are inhibiting his plans for housing, what does the minister plan to do to circumvent the obstructionist attitude of these local councils?

Mr. Roy: Isn’t that a dirty trick too?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, what I’ve been doing recently, and expect to carry on doing, is talking to the municipalities, to the elected representatives and the people in the municipalities, to try to impress upon them that there is a need for them to accept housing and to make sure they understand the different programmes. Many times there is confusion about what type of housing will be provided by a certain programme. I do not think it is the time to take away local autonomy at this particular point. I believe we have to work with the municipalities and work with the people --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Oh boy, that would just suit the minister’s purpose.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is a disaster; he really is.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to make sure that we have housing. If we haven’t got housing in the member’s particular area I would appreciate it if he, as a member of this House --

Mr. Laughren: Doesn’t that tell us something about the minister’s housing programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- would stand on his two feet and ask his local people: “Why don’t you accept housing?”

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): That’s a good idea.

Mr. Deans: We do it every day.

GO-URBAN SYSTEM

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communication, Mr. Speaker. Following the exchange with my leader yesterday concerning the matters of the use of the GO-Urban materials from Krauss-Maffei, and looking at the

article in today’s press with respect to the possibility of Ontario quitting the GO-Urban plan, can the minister advise us if, in fact, the

article in the press is correct and there are no particular advances in continuing any use of materials or projects in this entire system?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I will be making a statement in the House in the very near future, as I committed myself to do some time back. I cannot be responsible for those articles that may be written. The member will note that there is some source of information that the reporter has. I’m not familiar with it.

Mr. Breithaupt: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister be prepared, when he does make that statement, to advise us if, in fact, the suggested figures of some $700,000 spent by the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. are correct; and will he be able to give us some details at that time as to the moneys which have been spent by that corporation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, again, I said yesterday that I would do exactly that when I made my report, which will be coming very shortly. I indicated I would be giving the figures as they related to costs that have been incurred since the cancellation of the project.

TENDERING FOR TRUCKS

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the --

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): We welcome the minister back from his holiday.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- tendering for some 400 half-ton trucks in the Kenora and Sudbury area last summer. Is it correct that one company received the contract for all of those vehicles at once on a regional basis and that local firms were not involved in that tendering procedure? Is it further correct that those vehicles were all shipped out within thee weeks, which might lead someone to believe that a prior knowledge of requirements did exist on that project?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the Leader of the Opposition did send a request to my office for a complete résumé of those vehicles to which the member referred. If I recall correctly, many of the dealers in the immediate areas where the vehicles were used were asked to tender. It is a policy that we get tenders from a number of operators within the specific areas where the vehicles will be used. I’m not aware of the accusations the member makes.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, with regard to his statement, whether the programme he’s bringing forward this afternoon is intended somehow to be an answer to the $23 billion in spending anticipated by the Ontario Hydro Corp. prior to the year 1982? If it is, can he give some specifics as to what kinds of cutbacks he anticipates recommending to the private and public sectors with regard to the use of hydro so we won’t have to spend the $23 billion or $24 billion over that period of time?

Secondly, can he indicate whether he has any programmes that might be put into place immediately, perhaps along the line of reversing the method of applying the rates that the user must pay, to ensure that the more you use, the more you pay?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there are about four questions there, I guess. To start with, let me say that what I have announced today is in no way to be considered the final answer. I referred to it several times as the next stage.

Mr. Deans: What has the minister got in mind?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Does the member want me to answer this question or not?

Mr. Roy: Don’t be so sensitive.

Mr. Deans: I’m asking the minister what he has in mind.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: For some time the ministry and the government have been involved in a public educational programme, if you will, as have other governments and agencies such as Ontario Hydro. What I’ve announced today are specific amounts of money allocated for improvements within public buildings to save energy and to give an example to the public sector, as well as projects within various ministries of the government relating to segments of the overall public sector in industry, agriculture, institutions and so forth.

As it relates to Hydro -- and this has come up several times -- I think one of the basic problems here is that the member may be confusing the creation of demand with reaction to demand. Over the last 50 years --

Mr. Stokes: Who created the demand over the last 20 years with building programmes?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Over the last 50 years the demand for hydro has doubled every decade. In their submissions to the Energy Board last year, Hydro indicated -- and I’m not apologizing for Hydro; they look at the statistics regarding the growth of the Ontario economy, the number of new residences the number of new industries, the number of whatever one wants to look at. They also look at conversions, improvements on farms, conversions from gas or oil and the potential for more conversions from gas or oil, given the supply and demand situations in those two areas. We can’t just look at Hydro in isolation. We’ve got to look at the total energy situation.

They said: “Our best estimate, given this past information and our look into the future, is that it will probably double in the next decade.” On that basis they project what they needed by way of new generating facilities, new transmission corridors and that sort of thing, and came up with the dollar figures. The exact dollar figure, I think, is about $20 billion --

Mr. Deans: It is $23.8 billion.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I grant that it is inflated from last year; that’s a serious concern and should be to all of us. I think this is an opportunity for the hon. member to not only highlight that bill -- it’s a very large bill, and either all of it or some of it has got to be met and is going to be met by we, the people of Ontario. But here’s an opportunity for the hon. member to join with the government in stressing the energy conservation ethic and stressing at all levels the need to be innovative.

Well, the hon. member obviously has a supplementary; I will leave it to that.

Mr. Deans: I thank the minister for the lecture. Can he now explain to me what we can anticipate by way of reduction in the Hydro’s anticipated spending from the $23.8 billion as a result of the programmes which he intends to implement, flowing from his statement today?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I expect that within the next month Ontario Hydro will submit to me their request for rate increases for the next year. At that time, along with my advisers in the ministry, I will review that request in light of current levels of consumption and in light of our goals in this programme when making my reference to the Energy Board for their review. At this time I haven’t got the hard facts and figures because they haven’t come to me yet.

Mr. Deans: Is the statement simply a whitewash, an attempt to sell another non-programme of the government? Or is there some intention on the part of the government to cut back on the anticipated spending of Ontario Hydro? Secondly, where does the government propose to get the $23.8 billion?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, to take the last part first the member makes it sound as though all that has to be raised this year. It has not.

Mr. Deans: That’s to be raised in eight years.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point is that whichever projects are approved, those which, in the best judgement of the government are, in fact, needed to serve the interests of the people, will have to be financed. There’s no question about it.

Mr. Roy: Thank God the Tories won’t be the government then.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But whatever the amount, I can’t predict at this point.

Mr. Deans: The minister doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I can’t predict what the amounts will be in nine months’ time. No, I can’t, because I haven’t seen their requests to me. I haven’t made up my mind on what I haven’t seen.

Mr. Deans: These programmes don’t mean a thing.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Let me just say something, Mr. Speaker. Unlike that party I don’t believe one can have an instant answer today to solve all problems.

Mr. Deans: This government has been developing this utility for 20 years.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: What we are saying -- and no other government in this country has said this -- is that it is our goal to reduce that rate of increase by a third over the next five years.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): That’s just PR.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I’ll allow the hon. member for Carleton East a supplementary.

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Energy say, in keeping with his final remark about reducing the rate of energy consumption, whether or not he intends to instruct Ontario Hydro to stop advising the planners of large buildings to install central thermostats as opposed to thermostats for each individual unit within that building, which has been proved to be a method for controlling and reducing the consumption of energy?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member indicates that he has some knowledge that Ontario Hydro is instructing; Ontario Hydro doesn’t instruct.

Mr. P. Taylor: I said will the minister instruct Hydro to stop advising them.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Hydro is asked for advice. I’ll check into it, but I know it is asked for advice from time to time on the relative merits of various systems. It does not, as a rule, instruct, as I thought the member’s word was.

Mr. Roy: It was advise.

Mr. P. Taylor: I am asking the minister to instruct them to stop advising.

Hon Mr. Timbrell: I will look into it. I have seen some studies from the United States which indicate there are savings by going to individual meters as opposed to bulk meters.

Mr. P. Taylor: This is thermostats.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I am talking about Hydro meters as well. That’s another aspect of it.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Individual meters can reduce consumption by 25 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the member for Sandwich-Riverside.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, in this programme is the minister going to persuade Hydro to revise its rate structures so it will discourage the wasteful use of electric power by reversing the philosophy that the more one uses the lower the rate one pays?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member for Wentworth. That was part of his question; I apologize. That was discussed at the Energy Board last year and instructions -- not instructions -- comments made by the Energy Board have resulted in the inauguration of studies on the ways and means of achieving that. I would hope those studies can be completed very soon and that we can make such a determination.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Deans: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Given that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has just indicated there is going to be a study into the price increases in the milk industry and given that housing might also be considered by some to be a necessity, when is he going to instruct that there be a study conducted into the rate of increase in rents in the Province of Ontario?

When is he going to recognize that giving money to people who are in the income category in excess of $20,000; making available a limited number of houses for people in the range from $12,000 to $20,000; and making available a few houses in the rental field for those under $12,000, is not an adequate response to the needs of the majority -- perhaps 60 per cent of the population -- who earn less than $12,000 a year?

What is it between the apartment owners in the Province of Ontario and this government that makes him so adamant in his refusal to investigate the reasons why they increase their rents on such a regular basis? What is it that makes him refuse to require justification?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat what I have said several times before. We have reviewed certain rent increases. I had a letter yesterday in which a person was complaining about a very unusual high increase in rent. That unusual increase happened to be $20 a month. I have asked for particulars in regard to when was the lease signed originally and when was the last increase and so on. We have gone into many increases and we have found that in most cases they are justified. The point the member doesn’t understand is this: There is a very sizeable increase in the cost of maintenance.

Mr. Deans: I want to know what it is. Why doesn’t the minister conduct a study?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have been doing our analysis of it. If the member wants to do his, he can do it. I’m telling him the best way to look after the rental accommodation problem is to have supply; and that’s what it’s going to be.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The minister has the staff. He falls short there, too.

Mr. Cassidy: They are down by 30,000 this year.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister agree, by his own statements on March 20 and today, that there are occasions which arise when there’s justification for reviewing rental increases? If he does why doesn’t he conduct a study now of the major rental accommodation available across the province and determine once and for all whether or not -- as is thought by many including me -- that rent increases are unjustified on the basis of increased costs? If that is not the case, let him table the material in the Legislature and show us why it isn’t so.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, once and for all, I say again, I am not going to be intimidated by the NDP. I’m going to tell them this. We’re going to have supply, we’ll have supply for the people of Ontario; and we’re going to have the programmes which are necessary for the people of Ontario.

The socialist philosophy is entirely different from what we happen to have.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): We’re not trying to intimidate the minister, only to make him do his job.

Mr. Deans: We believe housing is essential.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And I’m not going to listen to their philosophy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This type of question is developing into a debate time after time. Would the hon. member have further questions for other ministers?

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, no more supplementaries.

MILK INQUIRY

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Can the Minister of Agriculture and Food rationalize his statement of about a week ago when he said an inquiry into the milk subsidy was within the purview of the federal government and, perhaps, the Food Prices Review Board, with that of his statement today in which he says he is now going to conduct such an inquiry? What’s happened in the last week to 10 days to change his opinion?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Good question.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Some information has come to our attention which we thought warranted the Milk Commission proceeding with a study; they had been approached by at least two different groups. I would point out to my hon. friends, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a study by the Milk Commission of Ontario, not by the government, not by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It is a study by the Milk Commission of Ontario.

Mr. Deans: It has no relationship to the minister either.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): It is a whitewash.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would say as well that the Food Prices Review Board at Ottawa is also proceeding with a similar type of study, but not in the same detail as ours.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is a week late, under pressure.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not a week late under pressure at all so the member needn’t get his tail in a knot. We are doing what we think is right.

Mr. Deans: That really got him.

Mr. Foulds: They’re in a knot over there.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is an agricultural simile.

Mr. Deans: It’s frequently called backtracking.

MOHAWK KNITTING MILLS

Mr. Deans: Can I ask the Minister of Labour if he has had brought to his attention the pending closing of the Mohawk Knitting Mills in the city of Hamilton with the likely lay-off or severing of employment of all of the employees; and the request of a certain number of employees for government assistance in order that they can independently fund one sector of that industry which is viable within the city of Hamilton? Will he make representation to his absent colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr.

Bennett), that there ought to be direct input by the government to try to protect those workers’ jobs and to ensure they can be on an equal footing with any number of companies which get money from the government with some relative ease?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear the first part of the question. I think I got the end of it; was the question was I aware of Mohawk and its problems?

Mr. Deans: Mohawk Knitting Mills is closing.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think I am. I had some information and we entered into an agreement with a knitting mill this past week, Mr. Speaker, but I don’t think it was Mohawk. I’ll ask my adjustment service people to investigate this one and see how we can help them, if we can.

HAMILTON-NANTICOKE TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Deans: One final question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Can the minister indicate how he expects to be able to have a rational policy with regard to transportation from Hamilton to Nanticoke when the planning body for the airport, the body studying the possible airport location in that area doesn’t have any provincial representation on it? It will be a major motivator and economic force in that area.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I was not aware of the make-up of that particular committee, and the airport is obviously something we have not been involved in. I can certainly inquire as to the possibility of us having a representative on that particular committee. I agree with the hon. member that what develops in that airport area is certainly going to have an effect on the traffic patterns and the need for highways; so I will look into it.

Mr. Deans: Can I ask a supplementary question; whether the minister believes the study of the airport and the subsequent decision with regard to the airport and the Nanticoke transportation corridor would be a matter which might be referred to the environmental review body set up by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) two days ago?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Again, I really have practically no information at all about what has been happening at the airport study. That particular group I believe was established by the federal government in conjunction with the municipal governments.

Mr. Deans: It must affect the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well certainly it will affect us, but I wasn’t aware we had no input into that committee. I will inquire and if it needs an environmental look we will take a look at that too.

Mr. Speaker: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development has the answer to a question asked previously.

FACILITIES ON THE TRENT-SEVERN SYSTEM

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, on March 21 the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith) asked the following question:

“Is the minister aware that the federal government, through its park branch, has announced locking charges for boaters using the Trent, Severn and Rideau systems? Would the minister inquire from the federal ministry what the money will be used for?”

Mr. Speaker, on March 14, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the hon. Judd Buchanan, announced an increased capital development programme for the national parks and a change in the fee structure for national parks and other areas and facilities operated by Parks Canada.

The Trent and Rideau Canals are operated and paid for by Parks Canada. Therefore the responsibility for establishing user fees is totally within the jurisdiction of the federal government. In the same way, user fees for provincial and municipal areas and facilities within the Rideau-Trent-Severn waterway corridor is the responsibility of the managing agency.

In all cases, the level of fees normally is established as part of a broader fee policy applying to all areas under the respective agency jurisdiction. In the case of the canal user fees, the same fees also apply to two canals in the Province of Quebec.

The federal minister stated that the user fee structure changes were being instituted to help defray the costs of the increased parks and canals programme, including an expanded programme in Ontario.

The CORTS agreement makes no reference to user fees because, as I stated previously, this is an individual agency policy decision. However, the CORTS advisory committee -- the citizens advisory group established under the agreement to advise the federal minister and my colleague, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources -- is required to solicit public opinion with respect to the water.

I would assume therefore, Mr. Speaker, that in the public meetings to be held by the advisory committee, any public comment on the canal fees would be directed to the committee, which in turn would advise the ministers, including any recommendation it wishes to make.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Supplementary: I wonder if the minister would take a look at the 1906 water agreement between the federal and provincial governments in relation to this matter and see whether that is not the vehicle for determination of fees and lockages through the canals?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be pleased to look at that.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES

Mr. Roy: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and the Premier (Mr. Davis), I would like to ask a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: Would the provincial secretary give an undertaking to this House that the government will cease the practice, when awarding contracts or jobs to architects under which the architects are chosen on the basis of a list, and that the only way they get on the list is to make a contribution to the Conservative Party? Would she undertake to stop this practice?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): I will give the hon. member the same kind of answer his question deserves:

Mr. Roy: Supplementary!

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Roy: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: There will be no supplementary to an improper question in the first place.

Mr. Roy: An improper question? On a point of order: What’s improper about that?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The question period is to ask for information. The member for Sudbury East.

MOTHER’S ALLOWANCE

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Recently, as reported in the press, the review board suggested that a mother should have to withdraw funds which had been willed to the children rather than get mother’s allowance. In view of the fact that we went through this in committee about a year ago and the minister was going to have it investigated, who has instructed the review committee to make that type of recommendation?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I’m not familiar with the case the hon. member is speaking of, but I would be glad to look into that individual case. However I would like to mention that these matters are discussed with the official guardian, and there is a certain amount of money that can be left in trust for the care of children. At the same time, if the assets exceed a certain amount of money, there is no further sharing of assistance under the federal Canada Assistance Plan.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary: The money that is provided in the will or left to the children belongs to the children and surely it has nothing to do with the mother. Therefore we should not be penalizing the mother in these instances.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, as I said Mr. Speaker, there is a certain discretion. I think it’s very difficult to speak in a general way. If the hon. member would give me the particulars of this case, I would be glad to look into it.

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

GRAVEL LICENCE APPLICATION

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP asked a question of me a few days ago concerning the status of an application from a Mr. Sam Manetta for a licence to extract gravel in Pontypool.

In March, 1974, Mr. Manetta made an application to open a pit in the township of Manvers. A number of persons objected to the issuance of this licence, and as a result I referred the matter to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing. I understand the board conducted a hearing on Feb. 10 and as yet has not reported its recommendations or findings to me.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

PRICE OF SEED CORN

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food who is under the gallery. Since the price of seed corn is running around approximately $1 per pound and since many farmers in the province consider this price to be excessively high, I would like to ask the minister if he has had any complaints from farmers in this connection? And if so, would he consider that farmers are being ripped off?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether I consider farmers as being ripped off or not. Many of the farmers who are buying this corn are also growing it and selling the seed as well. There are many hybrid seed corn growers in Ontario, as my hon. friend should know. As far as the price is concerned, it is high; there’s no question of that. But bearing in mind that 1974 was the poorest corn crop year that I know of in recorded memory, either in Ontario or in the United States, it’s understandable that quality corn seed may not be as good as it was in other years and that it may be short in supply.

However, as I understand it, the price is much stronger than it was last year. When one considers that a bushel of corn will plant four to five acres, it’s spread over a fairly substantial chunk of land. I would say that while we’re aware of the situation, there are no price controls in this country of ours. That was decided last July 8, if my friend remembers.

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

DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. It is in connection with a statement he made yesterday concerning a subsidiary agreement under DREE Ontario for a development programme in Dryden. What are the criteria that are used now for municipalities seeking some kind of development assistance or funding under DREE Ontario?

And would the minister not agree, since he is responsible for the regional development programmes across the province, that an upgrading of the Design for Development programmes take place so that conventional wisdom appropriate in 1969 and 1970 may be brought up to date and reviewed so that a good many of the applications made under DREE Ontario might pass in the light of the new circumstances?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that I could give the hon. member a precise answer as to criteria -- certainly not off the top of my head -- but I will be glad to get that information and pass it to the member. In terms of upgrading, I think the statement yesterday perhaps didn’t say it as clearly as it should have. The statement implied that Design for Development, phase 2 -- phase 3 really, the approval process -- in northern Ontario, was now five years old and that we had already met some of the targets which were projected for the 1980s.

We had a discussion about this in the ministry two weeks ago, and I was asking just where matters stood. There was a request from a meeting at Quetico that the plan be upgraded and with local input. Those plans are under way and we are starting to gear up to that sort of an exercise, I would think that probably by some time in 1976 we would produce a progress report and revisions on a plan for northwestern Ontario.

I would agree there have been changes. I mentioned yesterday that the pulp and paper industry, which in 1970 and 1971 had not as rosy an outlook certainly as it has now; and I think the same thing is true of the mining industry. I have discussed this with the staff and we were talking about the need to upgrade plans. We had more or less tentatively agreed that this should be done on a five-year basis. The thought that I would be responsible for five-year plans put me so firmly in a red position that I was appalled, but nevertheless I agreed to it.

Mr. Stokes: One final, brief supplementary: Would the minister agree with his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, that Ontario, and particularly northern Ontario, isn’t getting its fair share of DREE funding?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I always agree with my friend, the Minister of Natural Resources, that great exponent of the virtues of northwestern Ontario and its need for more support. I particularly agree with him when he is suggesting they need more federal funds; I would encourage that kind of reasoning --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He is almost laughing.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and that line of thinking at all times. That view is shared by the Chairman of Management Board.

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

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development is a great believer in that principle also. He is a great exponent of northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Ferrier: We need more in the north-east.

Mr. MacDonald: What a love-in!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Up the north!

Mr. Deans: Why does nothing happen since they believe all this?

Mr. Ruston: The minister is laughing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A lot better than the member for Essex-Kent.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would specifically agree that Ontario, relative to other parts of Canada on a per capita basis, on a square mile basis, on any basis that one wants to calculate it, has received zilch in terms of DREE assistance, and the rest of Canada has received a great deal.

But I am the eternal optimist; and since Mr. Jamieson became the minister, some progress has been made and we seem to be getting together and recognizing the fact that within as large a province as Ontario there are regional disparities, which are not as serious as they are in some parts of Canada, but which, nevertheless, within this province have presented problems and will continue to present problems.

DREE assistance is needed in such places. Cornwall, of course, comes quickly to mind; and there are certainly other places in northern Ontario which are relatively as much in need of federal assistance under DREE as parts of the Maritimes or Quebec or western Canada. So the answer is yes.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary? There has only been one supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Make it a new question in your turn. The member for York-Forest Hill.

SPADINA ARTERIAL ROAD

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): I would like to ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications when he intends to reply to the application of Metropolitan Toronto for the 50 per cent provincial contribution to pave the four-lane arterial road in the Spadina ditch; and when he replies to it, whether he intends to reply to it in the affirmative in accordance with the recommendation in the Soberman report?

Mr. Roy: And the minister’s comments in the House.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated I would be making a recommendation to cabinet. That decision has not been made at this time. When the decision is made, it will be made known in response to Metro’s application. The member knows my recommendations.

Mr. Givens: A supplementary: In light of the fact that the minister has had this application before him for several days now and that we’re entering the construction season, when is it likely that he’s going to make this recommendation? Surely he is not going to wait for another year, is he?

Mr. Roy: The minister has made the recommendation --

Mr. Martel: He will make it on the eve of the election.

Mr. Roy: What is the recommendation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I suppose I could use the time-worn phrase, “in the fullness of time.”

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): In due course.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Cochrane South.

TORONTO-HEARST LRC SERVICE

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the fact that it takes two years, once a decision is made, to get a train on the tracks, how seriously is the ONTC looking at the prospect of implementing an LRC train on the route between Toronto and Hearst? Can he give us any idea when the decision might be forthcoming as to when, or if, he is going to go ahead with implementing this kind of a service?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly I don’t think we’re looking at it very seriously at this time at all, because of the fact that there have been absolutely no LRC vehicles purchased in Canada as yet. We aren’t sure just exactly what sort of a policy is going to be developed as it relates to rail, along with other policies as a result of the national transportation policy review that is going on.

I can tell the hon. member that I met this morning for three hours with the Hon. Mr. Marchand, discussing some of these particular items. We have, at this stage, not made any specific move towards implementing that sort of service anywhere in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Ferrier: As a supplementary: Is the minister saying that until the federal government comes to a certain policy decision and agreement that the ONTC just has to more or less wait on the sidelines until that federal policy is enunciated?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member knows full well that a part of this run he is talking about is not ONTC right of way, it’s of the other railroads.

Mr. Laughren: Nationalize them.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Until such time as there is a national policy developed -- and we agree with the development of a national policy and we want to discuss that with the federal government to see what their involvement is going to be -- we won’t take any steps in this direction, changing the type of equipment being used on railroads.

Mr. Foulds: Bring them under public control.

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. Deacon: Yes, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. It now being four weeks since the federal government made the decision to proceed with the Pickering airport, is it not time that this government told Ottawa to either compensate the owners from whom the Ontario government removed the rights for development three years ago, or lift the freeze? Will the government not now set a deadline or 30 days and tell Ottawa to either compensate the owners or remove that freeze?

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Wire Pierre.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Tell him something else.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter that should be received by Mr. Danson -- maybe it hasn’t been yet -- asking that they outline their position to this government as clearly and as quickly as possible in regard to the hon. member’s question. I haven’t received the answer yet.

Mr. Stokes: He won’t answer it after the comments of the minister’s parliamentary assistant (Mrs. Scrivener).

Mr. Deacon: Will this government just set a deadline by which time it will either lift the freeze unless Ottawa does make compensation? Stop fooling around with it.

Mr. Roy: Will the minister answer for us?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting on Monday with the Hon. Barney Danson and, contrary to what some people may think, we’re still talking. We did discuss certain issues and I expect to have an answer from him.

Mr. Breithaupt: Hon. Mr. Danson is a fine fellow.

Mr. Ruston: He is more open-minded than the minister is.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Laughren: In the absence of the Premier and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld), I would like to direct a question to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Mr. Roy: Try to get an answer this time.

Mr. Laughren: Is she aware of the documents published today in the University of Toronto student newspaper, the Varsity, which indicate a major shift in emphasis by her government toward post-secondary education in Ontario?

Is she aware that if the COU proposals in those documents are implemented they would mean a possible increase in tuition fees for students without an accompanying reduction in grants by the Ontario government; that there would be an accompanying decrease in the quality of education at the post-secondary level in Ontario; and that there would be further discrimination against the staffs at the universities, who are already being paid less than people doing comparable jobs in other parts of the public sector as well as the private sector?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, no I am not aware of that

article in the Varsity.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker. I have one final supplementary if I might: Would the provincial secretary assure this chamber that this will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Colleges and Universities and that he would then make a public statement on it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I will bring it to the attention of the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon, member for Windsor-Walkerville.

PLANT SAFETY INSPECTIONS

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. What action has the minister taken on the 28 or so alleged unsafe labour practices and unsafe labour conditions that the president of Local 444, Mr. Charlie Brooks, brought to his attention about one month ago?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have quite a report here which I’ll be pleased to send across to the hon. member. It’s quite detailed. We are keeping a close eye on the Chrysler company up there. They are complying with our directions and we are satisfied, but -- we are inspecting them regularly.

Mr. B. Newman: Will the minister table that, Mr. Speaker, or send it over?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’ll send it over.

COMBUSTIBLE PLASTIC FOAM

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. What action has the minister taken since the dangers of foam plastic as a fire hazard in homes and other residences have been drawn to his attention?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the hon. member raised the question of foam plastic in home furnishings, not in residential construction.

Mr. Burr: It was in homes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I assume he means the use of foam plastic within residences, not in the construction. The hazard has been brought to my attention. As I understand it, there is a possibility that Mr. Ouellet, under the Hazardous Products Act, may take some action here. They are the only people who have the jurisdiction. We’ve drawn that to his attention.

In the meantime, the technical standards branch of my ministry is pursuing the subject. There is nothing really definitive about the information the hon. member has given to us. Therefore we are having to conduct additional inquiries. In my own opinion the best possibility for any elimination of the hazards, if they exist, and I question that assumption, would be under the Hazardous Products Act as administered by Ottawa.

Mr. Burr: Supplementary: Has the minister not read the December issue of the Ontario Fire Marshals Quarterly News and the

article on foam plastic hazards? It gives a great deal of information?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t read that particular issue. Now that the hon. member has drawn it to my attention, I can assure him that I will be reading it.

Mr. Deans: He hasn’t read it? Isn’t that his job?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South hasn’t had the opportunity to ask a question today.

HOME INSURANCE RATES

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in reference to the Throne Speech, which indicated strong and decisive response from the government on moderation and restraint in mailers related to pricing of goods. Will the minister order the fullest possible inquiry into the entire area of the fluctuating rate structure, and increases up to 50 per cent, as they relate to home dwelling insurance, as proposed by the Canadian Underwriters’ Association?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, at the present time we do monitor rates, but we do not control them. I’m quite prepared to look into the question the hon. member has brought to my attention and ask the Superintendent of Insurance to report to me on it. At the present time, as he knows, we do not control insurance rates; we do monitor them.

Mr. Good: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson from the standing social development committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with a certain amendment:

Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act.

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

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3

Clerk of the House: The government notice of motion No. 3 by Hon. Mr. McKeough:

“RESOLUTION: That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil service and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1975 such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.”

Resolution concurred in.

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4

Clerk of the House: The government notice of motion No. 4 by Hon. Mr. Winkler.

“RESOLUTION: That the committee on procedural affairs should investigate and report to the House with all convenient dispatch its recommendations respecting the following: 1. Whether substitutions should be allowed on standing committees other than those considering estimates and if so on what terms including time of necessary notification to the chairman; 2. Whether the voting procedures in such standing committees should adhere more closely to the procedure in committees of the whole House than heretofore, including stacking of divisions; 3. What improvements should be made in the physical facilities for the meetings of such committees.”

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves notice of motion No. 4.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I think there are a few things that could be said with respect to this resolution. The points have been raised in the House on several occasions with respect to this matter, most recently when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) was speaking on the motion to strike the committee to deal with committee formation. Certainly the points which are raised in the resolution are worthy of support and have the support of this party.

We believe this matter of substitution is most important for the effective use and development of the committee structure within the Legislature. I commend the Chairman of the Management Board and the government House leader for bringing forward this resolution and I hope the committee will be able to deal with it expeditiously in the best interests of the House.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, like the Liberal House leader, I am pleased that we have finally got around to looking at committee. It has been something that has been a bone of contention among many members for the last two or three years, and I don’t think it’s before time that we should be taking a serious look at the way in which the committees are structured and the way in which they operate within their own sense of responsibilities.

I want to remind the House leader and the members of the House that the matter of the stacking of divisions, for example, is in fact a matter that is an agreement from time to time and is not something that is a hard and fast rule in the House. I would not want the committee to come forward with a recommendation that stacking become a hard and fast rule in dealing with any amendments placed before a committee.

I think it has to be left to the discretion of the committee and perhaps to the unanimous consent of the members, since from time to time there may be a matter that a particular member or a particular group of members might feel deserves individual attention.

I therefore strongly urge the committee on procedural affairs not to make a recommendation with regard to creating a hard and fast rule about any future stacking of any future divisions, but that it may be considered by the committee that it would be appropriate, as it now is appropriate in the committee, for the committee by unanimous consent to agree to hold off any votes on any matters that are in contention until an appropriate time is reached, perhaps close to the end of that sitting or perhaps close to the end of the consideration of those particular estimates.

I’m particularly eager that two things should be paramount in the thinking of this committee. One, I want them to think in as non-partisan a way as they can about the matter of substitutions. I’ve wondered about it and thought about it for a number of years, and I can see no advantage to any side in continuing the current practice of not allowing substitutions in the consideration, let’s say, of private bills.

I’m sure that if the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) had a private bill from his constituency before the committee, he would probably like to be a part of that committee not only for the purpose of discussing the bill, or supporting the bill or otherwise, but perhaps even for the purpose of moving amendments on behalf of his own constituents. I think that is probably true of all members of the House. I really do urge that that be kept in mind at the time consideration is being given to whether or not substitutions should be permitted.

I also suggest that it ought not to make much difference to the House what the name is of any particular committee member. As long as the representation on the committee is by party strength, and as long as that committee and its chairman are aware in advance of the sitting who it is who is going to represent each of the political parties at that particular time for whatever reason the committee is sitting, it should make very little difference as long as the numbers are maintained with regard to the appropriate strengths of the three political parties represented.

I do urge also that we give consideration to putting in adequate recording facilities in at least one and perhaps two of the committee rooms immediately. I think it’s in the best interest of everyone, when we are reviewing such matters as commissions and their operations when they come before a committee, that those be made a matter of public record.

We probably could cut down to some extent on the repetitive nature of the questions if a member who might have to miss part of a particular hearing because of a commitment here or elsewhere, was able to pick up the instant Hansard -- it doesn’t have to be done in the normal Hansard form -- to leaf through it and to find out what the answer was to the question that he may well have asked to be raised on his behalf. It may save time or it may not, but it’s worthwhile looking at.

I also think that, for the purposes of the record, it’s a public responsibility that chairmen and representatives of boards and commissions of the government should have their views on record with regard to matters of public concern. If it be the Liquor Board, the Workmen’s Compensation Board, the Racing Commission or any other commission or board, when questions are put to the chairmen or to the representatives of that particular commission, their answers should be on the record and the record should be available for public scrutiny in other than just simply the reporting of the media.

It shouldn’t be left up to the members and to the commission and to people who happen to be present at the hearings to try to recall exactly what was said. It should be there for all to see. I think that makes for a much better system of representation. It brings about a greater degree of truth and a greater degree of accuracy. Then in future years when one refers to matters that were commitments or undertaken as commitments that have not been pursued or that have been pursued, it’s clear for all to see what was undertaken and what should have been arrived at and what should have been decided.

I make these comments. I hope the committee will take a moment or two, will think about them and will recognize that I make them with the complete understanding that within six months we’ll be the government and we’ll have to represent the government’s side and have to abide by and live with these rules.

Mr. Breithaupt: The member was doing well until that last part.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear some of the comments made, and at the fact that the minister has brought in this notice of motion. There is one area that has just been raised where I would certainly ask the minister whether or not he would be considering this as included in No. 3, and that is the form of recording of the proceedings that we can provide for in the future.

For example, in our select committees we have someone there who speaks into a mike and types out a draft. It’s not a full Hansard or provision for a full Hansard. It’s not done at great expense.

It is really important that we have a record of what has been said, especially when many people come before the committee who are very experienced in certain areas and make significant contributions. Yet we have no reference or no record of what those people provided the committee in the way of information or enlightenment concerning their problems that we’re trying to solve. I would ask if the minister intends that

part 3 of the notice of motion would include the committee’s consideration of some form of recording of proceedings that is appropriate under the circumstances.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the resolution, specifically to one point. I would hope that under subsection 3 of the terms of reference for the committee on procedural affairs it would recommend very strongly the recording of all standing committee debates on legislation. When a bill is significant and important enough to be referred outside this House for consideration, I would hope that we would consider that important enough to record in terms of debates, just as we record the debates in committee of the whole House on legislation and just as we record the debates on estimates in standing committee outside the House.

I’ve had the experience of sitting in on the standing committee on social development, of sitting in on that committee for some three weeks as we debated and discussed Bill 72, which is the new Education Act. Yet none of that debate and none of the proposed amendments were recorded.

We could, I think in fairness, Mr. Speaker, save both time and money in the long run if we recorded the debates on legislation. For one thing, when we have a debate running for a thee-week period, as we did then, we often had people coming in, both from the public and from the Legislature itself, who had missed three, four or five days of the debate when we had adequately covered a topic of a certain amendment, and the whole thing had to be reopened again so that they could be filled in because there was no record.

Secondly, it would save time because the opposition now feels -- certainly we felt in terms of that particular bill; they even went to a committee outside the House -- we had to refer it to committee of the whole House simply to get the recording on a number of key issues -- at that point I think it was only five or six -- in a very lengthy bill. If that could have been done while the committee was going on, we could have saved some time in terms of processing in the House itself.

I really think legislation is one of the primary responsibilities of this House. It’s as important if not more important than the debate which takes place on estimates. For that reason it should be recorded for a record both for the House members and for the public generally. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I would just like to say one or two words. We haven’t had a chance to comment on this question of substitution over the last two or three weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I think that apart from our differences of party, which are very real, as members of the Legislature we all have a common interest in making the Legislature function efficiently and effectively. That’s why I hope the committee on procedural affairs will come up with a positive recommendation as far as substitution and the right of substitution are concerned.

I say this to members of the government -- if they consider the way the hearings normally proceed on a bill when it is in committee, the running of that committee or the work of the committee is normally determined by the opposition members on the committee. That is, for the most part they carry the burden of what’s going to go on there. Some of the government members make useful contributions but often they are simply there to make up the quorum. The opposition’s function is to oppose, among other things, and we want to raise points and we do.

I think it is also worth pointing out that the government is not inhibited from having its experts and its specialists take

part in a committee hearing on a particular bill in the same way that the opposition is. The specialists in a particular area of legislation in the government are, of course, the government ministers and on occasion their parliamentary secretaries. These are the people who go to a committee in order to carry the bill through that particular committee.

As a matter of courtesy and custom and obvious necessity, those ministerial people enjoy full rights on the committee including the right to move motions and the right to speak, to answer questions, to make comments and that kind of thing. Nobody ever thinks to ask whether or not those people happen to be members of that particular committee.

For some reason which is beyond me, Mr. Speaker, this whole hassle over substitution has come up because the government side, in the past, has indicated that its specialists can take part on an equal basis in committee but that the specialists of the Liberal opposition party or our party cannot.

I may say for the record that it is very frustrating. For example, in the condominium bill which was before the standing committee on justice just before Christmas, I came in as one of the two spokesmen for my party on that particular bill but I was deliberately and provokingly relegated to second-class status by the chairman of the committee. It wasn’t just lacking the power to move motions or amendments and it wasn’t just the fact that one had to speak last after all members of the committee had had their turn.

It was the fact that in addition there was a feeling put abroad that one was second class, and that was encouraged by the chairman of the committee.

That really shouldn’t be allowed to be and, of course, when it takes place, Mr. Speaker, it has the effect of delaying the work of the committee, raising people’s tempers and generally being unproductive in the furtherance of sound legislation by this House.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, there is no time-saving involved right now in the present prohibition on substitution. If anything, it may take up more time because the members of a committee are there because they have to be there. Other members who take an interest in it, from our party or the Liberals, may also attend and contribute. We have more people taking part than if, through substitution, we were able to have only those people with a direct interest take

part in consideration of a bill.

I would suggest as well, Mr. Speaker, that if the government were to show co-operation in this area of substitution, an area which has obviously been of concern to the opposition for many years, it might in some small way help to accelerate the handling of the business of the House.

I can’t make any promises about that. I can’t say that all will be milk and honey, particularly in an election year. But it seems to me that as members of the Legislature, we have a common interest in trying to remove unnecessary causes of friction that sometimes divide us and sometimes hinder the work of this House.

If we want to fight on party issues, that’s fine. If we want to fight on policy issues, that’s fine. But in the past this question of substitution Mr. Speaker, has been one of those petty and frustrating annoyances that have made life so difficult for people on this side of the House, when in fact we are trying to contribute to the work of the Legislature and not detract from it.

I hope that the committee considers this recommendation positively and brings in a substitution rule as an innovation of the House.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one or two comments. I want to commend the government House leader for bringing this resolution before the House. I can agree with several things, and I have several reflections. In particular, I believe there are one or two things that should be done which might involve broadening the terms slightly, but I think the terms are already broad enough that they could include these points.

First of all, I believe substitution should be recorded in the order paper. That would have a very good effect. The other thing I would like to suggest is that the members of the House should attend some courses in parliamentary procedure under that committee for the very basic reason that if one examines what happens in committees, very much of the time is taken up by budget and Throne speech material, rather than on the actual work before the committee. I say that very advisedly, because I think any examination would show that to be true.

The other thing I want to stress is that I think there’s often a distortion between what this House is actually here for and what it actually does. To me, that distortion is simply that very often the examination of expenditures, which aside from the redress of grievance is the primary reason that this House meets, as I understand it, is not necessarily for the educational process of the members. The first two requirements are for the members to deal with those matters of the House and the matters that are placed before us here in the interest of the public. I often think there’s a distortion of this.

Sir, I think it would be a good idea to have some definite meanings that would distinguish between examination of estimates, public accounts, expenditure, the redress of grievance and so on, and get these things back into shape so that our committee structure can function the way it is designed to do. I say that advisedly. I think there are additional things that should be considered, and that’s why I wanted to make those points today.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, as we are making comment on this motion, I would like to suggest as whip that at the time the steering committee deals with the names that are to be placed on each of the committees, they should take on the responsibility of electing the chairman and vice-chairman at the same time so that the committees are organized and ready to go as of the day of selection. I put that suggestion forward in the hope that the committee can work it into the three terms of reference in some fashion or other.

Mr. Ruston: How about no smoking?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution as far as it goes, the resolution being to give this to the procedural affairs committee who will look at these matters and report back. But I support those speakers who have said that, in addition, we should have that procedural affairs committee investigate the other question of whether committee proceedings should be recorded.

I’ve gone through two committee reports by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, one of which was tagged on to the estimates and of which no recording was kept, and the second being the formal one, which was recorded in committee. At each of those times, the statements made by the chairman and the various board of officials to that committee were invaluable in terms of how the board functions and how we can best function as members vis-à-vis the board, when we have complaints come to us. Unless the members who are there are taking notes in shorthand, that direction is lost.

The memory retention of most of us is not all that long, and these invaluable comments on what they were going to do and how things were going to proceed, or should proceed, and how we could best function are completely lost and gone. So I would say to the minister that not only should those be recorded but this resolution should also give to this committee the decision as to whether committee meetings should be recorded.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this and my comments are going to be very brief. Much of what has been said here was said in the committee when we were first striking the members to the various committees, and I would suggest that all of those who have constructive suggestions to make be present at the committee when it meets the next time and resolve the problem there rather than in here.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the interesting observations that have been made. It is not my intention that the terms of reference be restrictive; the exact opposite. I trust that these terms will be used in a broader sense.

As I have said in the past, I have no intention of interfering with the committee in its function or even in recommending to it what its determinations should be. I would simply like to say that in my experiences on a committee in previous years, in visiting different jurisdictions -- and of course I was a member of another jurisdiction -- exactly the same problems arose there that are arising here, with the exception of the visit that I had to the California Legislature.

I think the committee room there was done extremely well for the benefit of all concerned; the division between the witnesses and the committee members and also other participating members who were not members of the committee. I think all of these things should be taken into consideration.

I also agree with those who say that probably the recording of the deliberations of committees would have some effect on the reduction of debate in the House. I am not too sure of that in some cases, but in others I am sure it would be so.

Therefore, I hope that this committee deals with the terms, as I said, in the very broad sense, and comes back with its desires as to the committee function.

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

REPRSENTATION ACT, 1975

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Welch, moves first reading of bill intituled, the Representation Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly, all members of the assembly are very well aware of the objectives of the bill. I felt that in the absence of the minister it should be in the record of the House prior to the recess that is just before us, for whatever use it may be to the members so that they may proceed with certain aspects of consideration to be brought back after the recess.

PROFESSIONAL FUND-RAISING CORPORATIONS CONTROL ACT, 1975

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to control Professional Fund-Raising Corporations, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the licensing and control of professional fund-raising corporations.

It is not aimed at local Red Feather, United Appeal or other similar drives where a great deal of the organizational work is voluntary and expenses incurred are a very small proportion of the total proceeds.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE ACT

Mr. Cassidy moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to prohibit discrimination in the rental, the sale or the occupancy of housing accommodation against families with children or against any person because of age.

I introduced the bill in the last session and I am reintroducing it. The problem of discrimination against families and accommodation is, in fact, becoming worse and our indications are that now more than half of the apartments available in Toronto are for adults only. We hope the bill will be adopted by the government. We understand the principle is now under consideration by the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

CONTROLLING OF HOURS IN RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS ACT

Mr. Edighoffer moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to provide for the Controlling of Hours in Retail Establishments.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is the same as the previous bills introduced -- to provide for uniform store hours and business hours for retail establishments throughout the province.

RENT CONTROL AND SECURITY OF TENURE ACT

Mr. Cassidy moves first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to provide for Rent Control and Security of Tenure.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, at a time when rent increases in cities like Toronto and Ottawa are outrunning the rate of inflation by two or three times -- that is, a running of 20 per cent to 30 per cent per annum -- it is clear to us that

an Act is required by this Legislature in order to ensure that rent increases are geared to increases in costs.

We have put forward this principle before on behalf of the party and the bill has been before the House in the past. I hope that this one will also be accepted by the government before thousands of families, and thousands of individuals on low or modest incomes are simply bankrupted by the present tendencies in rents.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

THIRD READING

Clerk of the House: Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Speaker, just a comment to say that the committee met this morning and we were able to get through the bill rather quickly. I simply want to make the point that the minister conceded during that discussion that in the future we would meet in his office with all interested parties to try to start to shape something along the line of prevention of the breakdown of the natural family. We, on this side of the House, were delighted with that action taken by the minister. We are looking forward to the meeting in the near future.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St George): I understood that there was to be an amendment; has that been moved?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): It has been carried.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, I’m sorry. I wasn’t present.

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

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate we’re winding up the session prior to the Easter recess, so I will keep my remarks as brief as possible.

First, I would like to add my congratulations to you on having been elected to your high office and to commend you on your diligence, firmness and fairness in discharging your duties in a most difficult job. I know all members join with me in acknowledging the accuracy of this description.

In entering this debate I wish to make a few remarks on a subject the principle of which is now history, and which the opposition persists in flogging continually. I appreciate that I do this at the peril of boring everyone, but it’s continuing the discussion on regional government.

In his remarks on the Throne Speech, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) predictably took a swipe at regional government. He seems obsessed with doing this, and subsequent speakers from the opposition have joined in this clamour.

In these excesses he makes one remark that is totally untrue, Mr. Speaker. He said that if the Conservative Party should be re-elected to power in this province there will be a regional government imposed from one end of the province to the other. Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely false. This is the ultimate in overstating cases and there are overstatements that have been made by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) but some of his are insignificant compared to this one.

In Peel we have 10 municipalities and I could quote statistics to illustrate the variation in mill rates, the attendant tax levies, and so on. One of the major effects of this government has been to provide significant grants to municipalities to stabilize property tax and the municipal levies. Until 1974 this was generally very successful. But in that year, last year, there was a hike in taxes. However, in our area, where regional government started a year ago in January, as a result of regional government there was a decrease of 11 per cent. We don’t hear about that from the members opposite.

In Mississauga the province contributed $1.09 for each dollar that was raised locally. Last year grants to Mississauga were increased by $1,206,714.

In Peel with the regional plan 10 municipalities were consolidated into three. Now it is a complicated exercise to determine what effect this has had on the tax burden, the tax levies. Regardless of whether there is regional government or not, rampant inflation and the increased costs that go with this were going to add a burden regardless of the type of government.

Mr. Speaker, the control of a major part of the financing was and is right within the municipalities and the regions themselves. It depends on the will of the people, the needs of the community, those who are elected. It is their responsibility to administer the taxes, the public works and the various things that go to make up the municipal structure and their fields of activities.

It seems logical to me that reducing the 10 municipalities to three should result in efficiencies. Restructured government will result in equality in both responsibilities and the benefits.

I don’t wish to belabour the point but the fact is in Peel the studies started some 10 years ago with the Plunkett report. It has been discussed and studied interminably over the 10 years prior to inauguration of the programme. I attended a county council meeting at which the leaders of each of the 10 municipalities agreed to regional government on principle. Subsequently the bill was drafted, based on the suggestions of the county council representing those 10 municipalities.

We know there were dissenters among them in that group and this isn’t unusual. This occurred. We know that but the consensus was to go ahead with regional government; the 10 leaders agreed with it in principle and it was proceeded with it.

I mentioned earlier that I took exception to the word imposed; that regional government was imposed on municipalities. It is not the intention -- it was not and this was not done -- that there would be regional government imposed from one end of the province to the other, which is totally a fantasy; but those now in existence were not imposed. This word simply is not applicable. There is quite a difference between honest, legitimate differences of opinion as to whether or not there should be restructuring and an imposition, which implies and there is no accord in this direction by local municipalities. This was not so.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): We were forced into it in the Niagara region.

Mr. Kennedy: There was no forcing anywhere across the province. It was done in consultation with municipalities. I hope, Mr. Speaker, this will put the problem into perspective and that the opposition will be fair and acknowledge the origin of these new restructured forms of government in the various areas across the province.

The government has responded and will respond to the wishes of local people and there is no intention to do other than consult with them; to co-operate and act in partnership with municipalities on matters of mutual concern. The provincial-municipal liaison committee is an example of these ongoing discussions. I recall some years ago a meeting held at the Science Centre prior to the introduction of the PMLC -- perhaps it grew out of this -- which was just such a very successful and interesting meeting.

Regional governments have been berated and beleaguered by critical opposition and the criticism has not been constructive. The form of government is feasible, workable, sensible. It consolidates services and it consolidates administration. It has been unjustly maligned by an ambivalent opposition. Regional government permits revenues, benefits and, as I said, expenditures and responsibilities to be shared more equitably on a broader basis.

When the announcement of the Peel-Halton and Hamilton-Wentworth regions was made in Hamilton -- I think it was Jan 22 or 23, 1973 -- the Leader of the Opposition whose riding borders on the Hamilton regional area, was quoted in the Star as saying:

“The proposal should be shelved until plans for a regional government in Brant are ready. The plans for the two regions should be co-ordinated.”

There is only one meaning I take from this, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the Leader of the Opposition favours regional government.

Why then does he go around the province continually knocking it, hoping it will be a failure?

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): He speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

Mr. Kennedy: The Liberals don’t think it will fail really, when one gets right down to it; they really don’t. But it might well if they took over with the attitude they have toward it and several other issues I’ll touch on later.

This form of government is going to be a success; it is a success. There are many examples of successful amalgamation to various degrees throughout the province. I don’t know of anyone who wants to go back and pull these all out. No way! This is progress. I would ask again, where do they stand? I couldn’t get it from any entries into debate either here or out in the hustings. Would they dismantle regional government?

I want to touch on a little history. One of the first forms of regional government, though the name is different, is Metro Toronto. It is an unqualified success. Would the opposition dismantle this? These are the same terms they’re speaking of with respect to other regions. I haven’t heard anyone, at least in recent years, speak in favour of taking this retrograde step. I know, they know, we all know and the municipalities know there’s some rough water, some ripples, as these units of administration become shaken down into smooth, efficient operations. This is to be expected; it’s natural and there are no surprises in this.

However, I do believe the great majority of the people who are elected to carry out the terms of the bills in the various areas are working with dedication to make them work. I think they can look with pride on the success they have achieved in about something like 16 months of operation. It has been very, very demonstrative of the capacity of these elected people to deal with the problems that are attendant on such a large new entry into this type of restructuring, despite the fact that they get sniped at from all directions.

I went back into Hansard and had a look at Bill 80 to see how the opposition reacted. They talked about it as if it was a crime then. I found how they were feeling and whether they were in good humour in those days. I found their attitude then was about the same as it is now. The Leader of the Opposition of the day -- and I speak with respect because I knew the leader -- was Mr. Oliver, a respected member of many years standing in this House. However, what he said at the time of the Metro bill was that he believed in progressive amalgamation.

There were some words leading up to this, but he said he believed in progressive amalgamation: He wasn’t quite for it or quite against it -- it was something like now. Then he sat down.

The minister piloting the bill through was Robert Macaulay. I don’t know if any members here were here on that occasion. Perhaps the former Minister of Health, the member for Ontario (Mr. Dymond), was. It was a widely debated topic anyway and received lots of publicity. Mr. Macaulay said that although the Leader of the Opposition spoke of progressive amalgamation, there was some confusion here because at the same time the Leader of the Opposition said fire and police services should be taken over at the time of the bill -- in other words, have progressive amalgamation but bring in fire and police. Yet the bill didn’t provide for that.

The government wanted progressive amalgamation with those two services, yet the opposition leader, having spoken for progressive amalgamation, wanted instant amalgamation of those two services. Subsequently, police have come under the Metro plan. Fire is still, I think, one of the local municipal responsibilities, though they have as good a working arrangement as is needed to provide the service to all of Metro.

Another interesting comment was made by the then member for Riverdale, Mr. Macaulay, when he said: “The opposition have no understanding of the background of the subject.”

Perhaps the best illustration of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition was the observation that if you had a boat with 13 holes in it -- the number of municipalities at the time -- all of them taking in water and any one of them enough to sink the ship, there would be no use in saying: “Boys, fill up hole No. 1.”

An hon. member: Who said that?

Mr. Kennedy: That was the former minister, Robert Macaulay, when he was putting the bill though. In other words, they were looking to patchwork solutions to a major problem -- I guess the member for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root) was here at the time. So the same illustration could be used today in the most recent amalgamations.

I recall some of the 13 boroughs at that time. North York was one and it, in effect, was on the ropes financially -- it was bankrupt. This is no discredit or criticism of the municipal leaders of the day. They were in a bind to provide housing, to provide all the services necessary to accommodate people. But there wasn’t the residential-industrial ratio that would permit this. And this is what really projected this forward, that there could be a broader sharing.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is just what is taking place. These same principles apply today. Bill 80, in the fullness of time, has proved to be a very skillfully developed bill put into operation by very able people to the extent that it is world renowned. People come from cities around the world to consult and examine and see what we have done here and, I presume, to return home and see if it’s applicable to their local situations.

There is another interesting piece in Hansard. I don’t want to belabour it, in the interests of time, Mr. Speaker, but it is interesting. The Leader of the Opposition criticized Mr. Frost’s government by saying that the legislation was at least 10 years too late, referring again to the Metro bill. I quote:

“We are late in getting started and it does seem to me if we had started on this matter some 10 years ago we would have by this time got around a lot of the difficulties and we would have a much larger family around the city of Toronto than we presently have.”

That caught my eye, I can assure you. I would agree that probably Metro Toronto might have started 10 years earlier. But there were two routes that could have been taken subsequently. Either Metro Toronto was to be contained, as it is now, or it could have been extended in ever-increasing circles. To my way of thinking, Metro Toronto is a large enough family under the present situation. Accordingly, we have moved forward with similar arrangements for government in the adjacent areas surrounding Metro Toronto.

The opposition leader also said in reference to this:

“We, as older members of the House, will recall an instance of that in the city of Windsor some years ago.”

I see the member for Windsor-Walkerville is here and he may be interested in this, if he wasn’t aware of it; I wasn’t.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): I will be interested.

Mr. Kennedy: Yes, I am sure. I wasn’t aware of this, but Mr. Oliver said:

“In that instance in the city of Windsor some years ago, in the 1930s I believe, there was in that instance a complete and total amalgamation. It was possible in the city of Windsor and I think, looking at it from this vantage point, all of us will agree that was the best solution.”

So they supported that. He thought it was great then, although it may have seemed a little harsh at the time.

So evidently, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals believed in amalgamation in the 1930s. Have they ever stepped backwards! I think it has been downhill all the way since my term here. Obviously, if one can read anything they are consistent. They are advancing to the rear. They’re not in favour of going forward with these very essential moves that will provide more equality for all residents.

Mr. Haggerty: Mostly to the left too.

Mr. Kennedy: Left and to the rear. Well, maybe by horse and buggy, too. They agreed with it in the Thirties, but as nearly as I can determine in reading and rereading comments in Hansard, they’ve been ambivalent on the subject ever since.

It is hard to know where they stand in the Seventies. The Leader of the Opposition said we shouldn’t go ahead without going ahead with the county of Brant, and now they’re criticizing it. Mr. Speaker, apart from any partisanship -- certainly we’re partisan here, but I think we’re also objective -- I’m sure it’s a matter of deep concern to the people of Ontario, and it is to me, that there is no firm policy articulated by the opposition with respect to this very important matter as well as several others. Regarding education, they would remove the ceilings, yet they say there should be constraints on spending.

In the teacher situation, I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition is speaking for all Ontario, as this party is -- for the students, the teachers, the boards of education, the taxpayers -- or does he just speak for some of the teachers? I don’t know. You can’t tell. It sounds like the latter to me.

They fought for local autonomy, yet they wanted us to take over the York board at the time of the difficulties up there. By their own admission, at Windsor -- Windsor is an interesting part of the subject this afternoon --

Mr. Haggerty: Everybody was there but the member for Peel South.

Mr. B. Newman: Windsor is “the garden gateway to Canada.”

Mr. Kennedy: At Windsor they said, “Well, we won’t have any policies. Maybe we’ll develop some later. We’ll send out a questionnaire.” Are they coming in, by the way? I would ask their leader, are we going to have what they hope is an alternative to the government by virtue of returned questionnaires and presumably from that, as expediency dictates, at the time of the next consultation with the electorate? It’s not good enough, Mr. Speaker. I think the Ontario electorate will be so concerned over this that they’ll reject out of hand the Liberal Party.

Mr. Haggerty: They didn’t reject Sir John A. Macdonald.

Mr. Kennedy: I submit, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of what we’ve been hearing over the last year or so, that this party is not to be taken seriously. Someone has mentioned that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of the federal party. They may have taken heart from recent polls, Mr. Speaker, but I do believe that on reflection the people of Ontario will recognize that the Ontario Liberals are not a creditable alternative to the leadership needed in the 1970s and so ably provided under the guidance of the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I only want to speak on one other subject at the moment, and it is one that has a high priority in debate here and across the province. I refer to the matter of housing. The opposition continually berates this government about housing, but the Liberals at least should turn their attention to Ottawa and put the heat where it belongs. The hon. member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) made some profound remarks in this regard, which didn’t go unnoticed across the way. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that funds aren’t coming from Ottawa as expected.

The NDP response to the Throne Speech by its leader and subsequent speakers, was the same record with respect to housing that I’ve heard from them in the seven or eight years rye been here.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Yet nothing’s changed.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): It shouldn’t be necessary.

Mr. Kennedy: All right, it is the same thing, but I suggest there has been no change and we all want more housing. I suggest that the 85,000 that have been built -- below expectations, about 15 per cent perhaps --

Mr. Haggerty: Twenty-two per cent.

Mr. Kennedy: Okay, I won’t argue it, but when one considers the high inflation rate, high interest rates, drying up of the housing market, Ottawa’s attitude, uncertainty in the labour and supply markets, it is perhaps more significant under these conditions that we have achieved the enviable record that has been recorded in Ontario in this past year.

This isn’t to say that, as we have mentioned, there is not still a great deal of need, especially among young couples or anyone of any age who can’t get a home and who wants a home. It is difficult for young people to save money in this inflationary time that we find ourselves. Wages and incomes were never higher, but the demands on these likewise drain resources and we know it is difficult to save for the purchase of a home.

I had a thought for the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) which I would commend to him. If the government is really interested in helping some of these families or young couples who are just on the margin of not being able to acquire a home, I suggest this. The government has embarked on a programme of acquisition of large tracts of land for residential, industrial and commercial use, I presume, and all the parkland amenities and so on.

Just dealing with the residential part of it, if they get four or five lots per acre in these tracts and say, broken down, with services, ready to go, that the cost is $6,000 for the lot, yet the market value might be $12,000 because of the demand. The house is erected at a cost of $25,000, for the sake of illustration, maybe less; because I believe in do-it-yourself construction and I think if there was an opportunity for people to build their own homes they would respond in very interesting numbers and we would be surprised.

Anyway, with a lot of $6,000 and a house at $25,000, the cost to the purchaser is $31,000. Yet the market value, because of the $6,000 for the lot, takes it to $37,000. I say, this, Mr. Speaker, if the purchaser resides in that residence, presumably with his family, and maintains ownership for 10 years, that $6,000 should be forgiven; write it off. Against that measure we have them in subsidized housing; $6,000 over 10 years, $600 a year, and I am sure subsidized housing costs a lot more. In effect, what I am saying is it would be sold on a two-price structure.

We would sell it for $31,000; if he leaves inside the 10-year period the government would take that $6,000, the market price of the lot, and he would pay $37,000. If he stays, okay, good luck.

Some members will perhaps recognize this as a variation of the successful Veterans’ Land Act programme. So under certain terms of eligibility which would need to be established, and I mentioned that, we could have young people or others coming in, we could have developed -- we would need to recognize the real social benefits involved -- the pride of ownership. Let those who are in apartments and wish to move come out and have a home, get out into the sunlight, give them some hope, give them the opportunity.

I say, Mr. Speaker, if the government really wished to do something they could look into this very seriously and I ask that the minister do so. It’s much better than subsidized housing in the traditional terms as we know it. It would cost the taxpayers nothing.

I had two or three other subjects of a local nature I wanted to touch on. The Rattray Marsh matter, and railway protection, for example. We’ve had a couple of serious tragedies in our area. There was a happy resolution of the Lakeshore study area, a development area; and the road subsidies. However, in the interest of time and I know others want to get on, I will leave those for another time.

The Throne Speech, to me, Mr. Speaker, has been undeserving of the criticism vented against it from across the way. I take just one little paragraph.

“Ontario cannot stand still. It will continue to fulfil its accustomed role within the Canadian nation which is that of a progressive, compassionate and innovative society with a standard of living and a quality of life unequalled on the North American continent.”

Mr. Speaker, it is necessary that the amendments to the Speech offered by the opposition be resisted.

The

preambles of the speeches leading up to the motions by the leaders of the opposition parties didn’t carry in them the conviction that one might be inclined to read in Hansard, although it’s no great shakes there either. I will be voting against those amendments, Mr. Speaker. I haven’t consulted my colleagues but I think they will; what I will do is invite the members of both opposition parties to reread those speeches, reread the amendments and then join us in rejecting them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. It will only take a minute but I think it’s worth putting before the members of the House and having it recorded in Hansard.

Tomorrow, at York Manor in Newmarket, Mrs. Mary Louise Patterson, the widow of the late George Patterson of Alliston, Ont., will reach her 101st birthday. Just mentioning that Mrs. Mary Louise Patterson is celebrating her 101st birthday may not mean too much to most of the members in the Legislature but to the older members who have been around here, Mrs. Patterson is the mother of Mrs. Malcolm McIntyre who was a familiar figure around this Legislature for many years as I’m sure you, Mr. Speaker, know well. Mr. McIntyre was secretary of the cabinet for a great number of years.

I’m sure each and every one of the members in here would want to join with me in wishing Mrs. McIntyre’s mother, Mrs. Patterson, a very happy birthday on her 101st birthday tomorrow.

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

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the Throne debate. I believe I have spoken on the occasion of every Throne debate since being elected to the Legislature in 1967 as the member for Welland South. Perhaps now, with the final bill here, Bill 22, the Representations Act, 1975, this will be my last opportunity to represent the constituents of Welland South. Through redistribution I hope to continue to represent the same citizens once again under a different riding name, Erie.

Erie consists of three municipalities: The town of Fort Erie, known as the gateway to Canada and one of Canada’s largest ports of entry; the city of Port Colborne, known to many as the gateway to navigation on the Great Lakes system and one of Canada’s largest inland ports located at the entrance of the Welland Canal on Lake Erie; the township of Wainfleet, a rural-urban municipality noted for its specialized farming abilities.

I regret that through redistribution the town of Pelham, which has many scenic landmarks, will not be part of the new riding of Erie. I will be rather remorseful not to continue as its representative in this Legislature, but I am rather pleased that the Niagara region will gain another seat in the Legislature providing the government brings in the necessary legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to you for the manner in which you have carried out your duties in this chamber, at times under very difficult circumstances but in a fair and just manner; perhaps not in agreement with all members but with authority and respect.

I also want to express my gratitude to the Hon. Pauline McGibbon, the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, for her address on the opening of the 29th Parliament. I was delighted to see, as many other citizens were, that the traditional duties of the head of the government of Ontario were now the responsibility of a very gracious woman. It was a great occasion for this province and quite a boost in the recognition of International Women’s Year.

Usually, it is the practice for a member to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Throne Speech, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane). Mr. Speaker, I do, but with some reluctance. I thought, with the possibility of a provincial election being called this year, in view of the usual importance of a Throne Speech that indicates government policy or programmes, the Premier would have his heavyweights carrying the banner. I was looking to the member for Welland (Mr. Morningstar) and the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson).

The Premier has failed to produce the heavyweights and has failed to provide a Throne speech with any noticeable programme.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to deal with a particular aspect of the Throne Speech. There can be no doubt in my mind, or in the minds of all the citizens, that the most pressing problem facing Canada is the rapid increase in the inflation spiral, which affects everyone through the rising cost of living. Since the Throne Speech of 1974, almost one year ago, and the debates that followed, we have seen consumer prices increase by more than 11 per cent and the price of food has risen in that same period by well over 17 per cent.

In the Throne Speech of March, 1974, introduced by the Conservative government, inflation was dismissed as a problem. It was also cast aside in the Throne Speech of 1973. The comments of the Throne Speech in 1974 can only be dealt with in a national context.

Every member of this Legislature has read or received complaints concerning the numerous comments by experts and government leaders and consumers as to the inflation impact on our everyday living. We all agree that some price increases are the result of international economic forces that are beyond the province’s control. But the influence of government action in every jurisdiction can soften the impact of inflation. With more than $8 billion in annual expenditures, this government has the responsibility to counteract the high prices of consumer goods throughout the province.

Since the election of 1971 and the buoyant years in our economy, the Premier and his cabinet have failed to show the strength of leadership that is clearly required to bring about some measures of stability to our economy and to reduce the high inflationary costs that face every citizen and in many instances cause undue hardship to those who can least afford it. Instead the Premier’s economic policies have reinforced the already heavy inflationary pressures in our society. The government’s financial forecast as outlined in the Throne Speech and its proposals are in a quandary of remorse, uncertainty and embarrassment.

The first page of the address states:

“For the first time in many years, the long prevailing prosperity and buoyant growth of the Province of Ontario have been challenged. Because of unprecedented inflation abroad and here in Canada, and because of world recession, Ontario is presently confronted by economic conditions which will call for strong and decisive response from the people and from this government.”

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): We are not getting it from Ottawa. We will have to get it somewhere.

Mr. Haggerty: We won’t get it from here because it has been lacking for the last two or three years.

The second paragraph of the Throne Speech certainly does single out the group or body that is wholly or partly responsible for the inflationary pressures in Ontario. The government is bold enough to chastise labour as the culprit. I might read that second paragraph, Mr. Speaker. It says:

“From the people we must have moderation and restraint in the pricing of goods and services and in wage contract negotiations to help stem these inflationary pressures and maintain our competitive position in world markets.”

To my knowledge, this is the only time that labour has been mentioned in any Throne Speech and it is a disgrace by the government to single out labour as the responsible party. But again this is typical of the government not to shoulder any responsibility for an extravagant economic policy. We in this Legislature have seen this economic policy of the government continue for the past 36 months, or in fact since this Premier took over the reins of the Robarts government. We have seen this government bring in supplementary budgets year after year. The budget deficit for the year 1974 alone is estimated at $850 million, the highest in provincial history.

I suppose if one takes everything into focus the modern economic Conservative is no longer a budget balancer. Many experts in the field of economics have stated any expenditures of government in excess of current revenue were to be shown in the budgets as deficit and that budget deficits were injurious to the health of the economy and must be shunned as far as possible.

Living beyond our means surely does not improve our economy and once such practices are pursued by a body like this government which is privilege-bent to its own policy decisions with impunity, it may well be rather dangerous to our present economy now or in the near future. For this administration to continue with budget deficits year after year certainly adds to the spiralling cost of inflation as a fiscal nightmare.

The present administration has done little, if anything, to control this specific cancer. Many members concerned for the wellbeing of this province know that over a short period of any recession there is a possibility of a downward swing in government revenue and that possibility may occur at any time. Such a deficit must be covered or protected by a surplus realized during expansionary growth periods by the private sector and the government.

But for some unknown reason, this government’s policy is to spend and spend during a buoyant economy, especially when the private sector is expanding at a rapid rate and will add to the full employment.

There is a common knowledge that in any slow growth period or recession when unemployment is on the increase, as it is now in Ontario, government does not apply restraint but primes the economy to maintain full employment.

Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate that the United States government through tax reductions and rebates will put some $33 billion, the highest in American history, back into the pockets of the consumers and corporations in an effort to create full employment in the United States, following the principles established by the federal minister, John Turner. But the Premier and his cabinet colleagues have taken their usual approach to solving important issues by criticizing federal e