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

October 30, 1975

30th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L003 - Thu 30 Oct 1975 / Jeu 30 oct 1975

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

BELL CANADA INVESTIGATION

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

TELEVISION RECEPTION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO

CANADIAN WESTINGHOUSE

GREENHOUSE INDUSTRY

RENT CONTROLS

PICKERING AIRPORT

VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

RENT REVIEW

WATER POLLUTION

ONTARIO NET CASH REQUIREMENTS

USE OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

ONTARIO SALES TAX

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTER-GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

APPENDIX

INSTALLATION OF OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: As hon. members know, this morning I had the honour to administer the oath of office to the first Ombudsman for the Province of Ontario. The proceedings have been recorded and if it is agreeable to hon. members, they will be printed as an appendix to Hansard today. Is this agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and members of the Legislature, 49 students from St. Monica’s School in the city of Barrie, accompanied by their teachers. Would you help me give them a warm welcome?

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce, in the east gallery, the students from Donevan Collegiate in the fine riding of Oshawa, some of whom are actually responsible for this member being in this House.

Mr. Leluk: I would also like to welcome to the Legislature this afternoon, 54 grade 7 and 8 students from St. Elizabeth Separate School in York West riding.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I would ask if we could have some explanation of who it was who was seated this morning in the legislative seat held by the member for Carleton East (Mrs. Gigantes). I was under the impression that it may not have been the duly elected member for Carleton East.

Mr. Lewis: Is this a personal vendetta of yours?

Mr. Speaker: I am not aware of the situation. The member for Carleton East is in her seat now and I think she was there.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, part of the problem is that yesterday we were treated to certain business about the nomenclature to be used in the Legislature. I thought that was a good point made by a certain member of a certain party, and I thought today that perhaps I would add my little contribution --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure there is a point of privilege. Everyone I noticed, I thought, was in his or her seat, but it is a little difficult to know at this point in time.

Statements by the ministry.

Mr. Mancini: You never answered the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let’s get down to some serious work.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, you are aware of the major conclusions of last week’s meeting of the ministers in Ottawa concerning a national anti-inflation programme and of the general support for the programme which this government has expressed. I rise now to make a full report to the members on our plan of action to control inflation in Ontario.

In this statement I will outline the scope of the inflation problem in Ontario and emphasize the seriousness of the current economic situation. I will briefly review the federal programme and indicate how we intend to enter and support that programme. I will outline the specific actions which we are taking in this province, both on our own and in coordination with the federal government. In addition, I will detail our suggestions for improvement which I made in Ottawa last week.

The current problems of both inflation and unemployment in Canada stem primarily from unprecedented pressures which built up in the international economy in 1972 and 1973. At that time, a simultaneous industrial boom in major trading countries created strong demand pressures for goods which resulted in shortages and rising prices. Poor harvests in 1973 pushed up food prices in almost all countries. Removal of price controls in the United States unleashed pent-up inflationary pressures and European and Japanese currencies were appreciated vis-à-vis the US and Canadian dollars.

This produced strong demands for Canadian exports and increased the costs of imported goods. During the latter part of 1973 and early 1974 the world economy suffered a major shock as oil-producing nations dramatically increased the price of their crude oil.

The resulting balance of payments and inflation crisis of our trading partners forced them to adopt policies which led to deep and prolonged recessions. Primarily because of our modest degree of oil self-sufficiency, the recession has been relatively less severe in Canada. However, while we have avoided the very high and prolonged unemployment suffered by our trading partners, the rate of unemployment here certainly has risen to unacceptable levels. In addition, our consumers have been hit with one price increase after another in areas such as food, housing and fuel. These have reflected both international and domestic pressures.

Having been spared somewhat the bitter medicine of a deep recession, we are now faced with a unique challenge. Three years of strong inflation have shaken the confidence of many Canadians that there will be a return to a situation of moderate price increases. It is very tempting, almost compelling, for any group in our society to hedge against the future by attempting to extract high wage and price increases from our economy.

If this wage-price spiral is to be broken, it must be through effective leadership and a broad understanding that our demands on the economy must be limited to its capacity for growth. Failure to learn this lesson will make the economic medicine we have been forced to take during this year’s pause in economic growth appear mild compared to what will become necessary in the future.

Prices have been rising faster in Canada than they are in the United States and wage settlements in manufacturing have been significantly outstripping the US levels. These factors augur a dark portent for our economic future and are the warning signals of a continuing deterioration of Canada’s trading position. Unless action is taken, major damage will be done to our prospects both for short-term recovery and for long-term economic growth.

The longer-run impact of these trends on government at all levels is potentially devastating. Diminished Canadian competitiveness will reduce economic growth and public revenues, while on the other hand skyrocketing salary expectations put strong pressures on public spending. The inevitable result will be higher taxes or deficits, or both, and their impact simply furthers the inflationary spiral.

For these reasons, Ontario has been calling for a plan of national action to confront the economic challenge. On Thanksgiving Day, the Prime Minister of Canada outlined the steps which the federal government is now prepared to take.

I would like to spend just a few minutes outlining the major elements of the federal government’s plan. It consists of income guidelines, price guidelines, a new administrative structure and a programme to restrain government expenditure. Large firms, construction companies, most unions, federal agencies and participating provinces will be subject to legal enforcement of the guidelines.

Income guidelines will be established for the next three years. They will provide a basic standard for all wage and salary increases, taking into account both cost of living and productivity. Settlements may be adjusted, either above or below the basic standard, to account for previous wage settlements. It is proposed to regulate professional incomes, using the salary guidelines with adjustments for cost and workload changes.

On the price side, the federal government proposes that after Oct. 13 price increases should only reflect cost increases. If a firm cannot allocate costs to individual products, its pre-tax profit margin should be no more than 95 per cent of average profit for the past five fiscal years.

Mr. Lewis: It will be pretty tough on them.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Prices paid to food producers will be exempt from the guidelines, but the federal government has expressed an interest in developing marketing board policies consistent with the overall guidelines strategy. Additional guidelines are laid out for construction firms, financial institutions, export industries and retail and wholesale firms.

The programme will be administered by the anti-inflation board and enforced by the administrator. The board will monitor price and income changes and identify actions which may be in contravention of the guidelines. In such cases, the board will use moral suasion to bring the parties within the spirit of the guidelines. If this fails, the case will be referred to the administrator, who may order rollbacks and levy penalties. Cases may be appealed to the anti-inflation tribunal and from there to the federal Court of Appeal.

The legislation proposed by the federal government allows for two methods of provincial participation. Under one clause,

section 4(3), a federal-provincial agreement can be signed, which brings provincial institutions directly under the administrative control of the anti-inflation board and subject to federal guidelines. Under an alternative

section 4(4), the province would undertake enforcement of the Act and could negotiate some modifications in the application of the guidelines as they apply to particular classes and groups of provincial employees.

Two additional and important aspects of the plan are, first, that the provinces are asked to undertake a rent control programme consistent with national standards and, second, the provinces may enter into an agreement with the federal government regarding the regulation of professional incomes. I will come back to these two items later in this statement.

Last week in Ottawa we heard a fair amount of discussion and debate about many aspects of this programme. Indeed, it is easy to find flaws in the broad elements of the programme. For my part, I must admit that I do have some reservations. Perhaps the programme could have been announced sooner. Perhaps a total wage and price freeze would have been the best way to start out. In this way, inflationary expectations could have been immediately cooled down and a breathing space provided to work out administrative problems.

At this point, I might comment on the plan of the Province of British Columbia to impose a temporary freeze on selected prices. First of all, it seems to me that if a freeze is to be effective it must apply to wages as well as prices. Second, it apparently ignores the problem of the rising cost of --

Mr. Martel: That’s been successfully done, hasn’t it?

Mr. Lewis: Anything that requires provincial initiative, the government draws back from.

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Second, it apparently ignores the problem of the rising cost of imported food and, for that matter, all goods coming from other provinces. Third, it will favour large, Canada-wide corporations --

Mr. Lewis: Instead of multi-national ones.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and possibly create financial hardships for small businessmen and farmers. Big corporations will be able to absorb the temporary inconveniences of the mini-freeze and may even pass on costs to other provinces.

Mr. Renwick: You ought to know about that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This underlines the importance of approaching such programmes on a national level.

We place highest priority on co-ordinated national action to meet a national problem. Therefore, we have withheld any substantive reservations and will co-operate fully with the federal government. Our co-operative attitude will also apply to the constitutional issue.

Mr. Foulds: Are they your federal cousins?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Bill C-73 involves a declaration by the federal government of a national emergency in peacetime on the basis of the peace, order and good government clause.

Mr. Renwick: There is no such power and you know it. You are wrong. That is constitutional nonsense.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: While the bill recognizes provincial jurisdiction in the case of rents, professions and provincial institutions, it gives the federal government power to directly control prices and income in private enterprises. Ontario is willing to accept this situation. We indicated earlier that we would not place constitutional impediments in the path of a national policy to regulate prices and incomes.

Mr. Renwick: Speak to your Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) about it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have reviewed the history of inflation in Canada and Ontario and emphasized the gravity of the existing situation. I have stressed the need for immediate action and stated that Ontario will fully co-operate with and support the federal programme.

Mr. Lewis: It requires nothing from you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will now turn to an outline of the more specific actions this province is taking. I will also point out areas where I think the federal programme can be further improved.

First, it is our intention to enter into an agreement with the federal government under

section 4(3) of Bill C-73 for a period of two years. I might say here that at the conference last week Mr. Macdonald and other federal spokesmen indicated that they hoped, in the interests of as universal a programme as possible, that provinces would opt in under this

section of the bill, and we understand that nearly all intend to do so.

In this regard, I would like to comment on a question yesterday by the leader of the Liberal Party. He asserted that we would be rejecting our responsibilities if we opted into a national anti-inflation plan in line with the expressed desire of the federal government. I wonder if the hon. member fully appreciates the magnitude and seriousness of the problem this nation is facing. Our major responsibility is to fight inflation in the best possible way, not to quibble over the constitution.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on! What about the speeches in June? Tell us about those great Liberals in June and their constitutional responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Renwick: You leave the constitution to the Attorney General and don’t give us your

interpretation of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why do you let him be inflammatory? Why do you do that? What do you expect?

Mr. Singer: Next time the Treasurer will be gone too.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We must get on with the business of the House.

Mr. Renwick: You leave the constitution alone and speak to the Attorney General.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Treasurer will continue.

Mr. Bullbrook: Choose

section 4(4) not 4(3). You shake your head. You don’t know what you are all about.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, picture what would happen if all provinces set up separate review and enforcement bodies. Each would make an unconnected string of decisions concerning exemptions and apply different standards of enforcement This could only lead to a tangled web of disarray, a serious erosion of the national effort and, as a consequence, a higher rate of inflation in this country. This government does not endorse that kind of approach.

Mr. Renwick: That is just balderdash.

Mr. Lewis: You forgot how to govern. That is what you are saying.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nor do we agree with the idea that special provincial relationships with some groups, such as teachers and civil servants, require that we establish a separate review board. In one way or another, the government has a special relationship with virtually every member of the work force in Ontario -- trade unions, small incorporated businesses --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on!

Mr. Renwick: Your relationship is the boss man.

Mr. Lewis: You are not the employer in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Nor are we of teachers, nor are we of firemen.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We should get on with the business of the House. The hon. Leader of the Opposition should set the example, I believe, here.

Mr. Bullbrook: I guess so.

Mr. Speaker: Let the hon. Treasurer continue.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In one way or another the government has a special relationship with virtually every member of the work force in this province -- trade unions, small incorporated businesses, businesses requiring licences, tradesmen, small construction companies, real estate brokers, credit unions and other provincially-incorporated bodies. These and many others are covered under a variety of provincial statutes. Public servants are by no means the only groups who have a special provincial relationship.

These relationships will continue and, as such, the anti-inflation programme involves no surrender of provincial jurisdiction in the regulation of professional, commercial or trade practices. It is our intention to make this programme work in Ontario with only a small dose of bureaucracy but with a large dose of effectiveness. The Premier (Mr. Davis) has established a special cabinet committee, chaired by myself, with the ministers of Education (Mr. Wells), Health (Mr. F. S. Miller), Labour (B. Stephenson), Housing (Mr. Rhodes), and Energy (Mr. Timbrell), the Attorney General (Mr.

McMurtry) and the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld). This committee will monitor the progress of the programme and make recommendations to the cabinet. As its chairman, I expect to be reporting to the members from time to time concerning the results of our work.

Under the cabinet committee, a position of provincial coordinator for Ontario’s anti-inflation programme has been created. The responsibilities of the provincial co-ordinator will be to:

Monitor the overall anti-inflation programme with regard to how it is operating in Ontario;

Be the main contact for all Ontario government ministries concerning the application of guidelines in their specific areas of responsibilities;

Be the chief liaison officer between the province and the federal government; and

Offer liaison between Ontario and the private sector with respect to the operation of the programme.

All Ontario government ministries, agencies and boards have been instructed by cabinet to provide the fullest co-operation in support of the provincial coordinator. The members will recall that last week Dr. James Fleck was appointed to this position.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the government is committed to establishing a rent control system in this province. We want to ensure that our plan is fully compatible with the overall federal anti-inflation programme. Soon after the meeting of federal and provincial ministers of housing, full details of our plan will be announced.

The issue of professional incomes presents one of the most difficult challenges for the anti-inflation programme. We think it is essential to reinforce the guidelines. One method would be to establish a formal fee schedules for the various professions not now covered by one. We think this method would be impractical because of the tremendous differentials in the price for any given service and the non-income mechanisms available to professionals for securing reimbursement.

In addition, we think the programme should be primarily concerned with the control of professional incomes. It should not interfere with provincial jurisdiction over the governing of professions or with client relationships. Accordingly, the most feasible method appears to be a tax-back route on a national basis. This would involve an additional and incremental tax on income in excess of the guidelines. We are studying the implications of such a tax as a possible method of ensuring that the guidelines will apply equally to self-employed and salaried professionals.

Turning now to the public sector in Ontario we will ensure that all ministries, agencies, local governments, commissions and Crown corporations will be brought within the guidelines. In particular, we shall be discussing with the federal government the development of more precise instructions and workable guidelines for application to the Ontario Energy Board concerning gas utilities and Ontario Hydro rates, Ontario Hydro concerning local hydro utilities’ rates, and the Ontario Telephone Commission.

As the federal guidelines are clarified, instructions and guidelines will be made available through the office of the provincial coordinator. We have already met with the provincial-municipal liaison committee and indicated our basic support for the anti-inflation programme. As soon as possible, members of the special cabinet committee and the provincial coordinator will be meeting with all affected groups in the public sector including school boards, hospitals and universities -- to discuss the application of the guidelines.

As the programme develops, I am confident that all responsible individuals, whatever their particular economic interest, will work for the success of the programme and not for its erosion. For this reason, we accept the intent of the federal legislation for full inclusion of the province and its emanations. At this critical stage of development of what must admittedly be a very complex and yet often arbitrary programme, we cannot afford to behave in an obstructive manner. It is the national interest we are all involved in now and not the limited interests of any one level of government or its agencies.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is in this spirit that the government will opt into the federal programme --

Mr. Foulds: That didn’t change a thing.

Mr. Singer: How thoughtful we are today. Our halo is glistening.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- but I should emphasize that we are making constructive suggestions about the implementation process which we have conveyed to the federal government --

Mr. Singer: Polish the halo.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and which we will be discussing further with them.

The development of an improved programme will only emerge from a combination of experience and intergovernmental negotiation, conducted in an atmosphere of concern for the national interest.

I am frankly somewhat dismayed by the number of groups which have already rushed forward with demands for exemptions. A year from now, these same groups will be arguing for cost-of-living increases and will probably not admit to any connection between their earlier income demands and the rise in living costs for the general public. This, in my view, is a distressing form of economic isolationism.

Our specific suggestions for strengthening the federal programme are as follows:

First, a lot has been said about prices by those who oppose the programme and who have apparently not read or understood the proposals for limiting the price increases and net profit margins of large corporations. Our concern is that these proposals should be reinforced if necessary by a corporate surtax. Such a tax would be levied against corporate profits in excess of the guidelines where these profits are not reinvested. We cannot agree with the federal position that surtaxes --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s useless.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- on excessive income increases are too complicated to administer. Use of the tax route in support of price guidelines may help to control firms which might otherwise escape the guidelines and could reduce price administration costs.

Second, I have mentioned the wage and salary exceptions permitted under the proposed guidelines. This programme has been implemented at a time when oil and gas prices and high interest rates are pushing up the basic cost structure of our economy. To add to this pressure the large-scale wage and salary exceptions possible under the present guidelines, is to run the risk that the programme will apply only to the weakest members of society and will never really get started.

I said in Ottawa last week that we must be prepared to live for a time with inequities and draw the line now. I do not believe that there is any other way of proceeding if we mean this programme to work.

Mr. Foulds: We have lived with inequities for centuries.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is a tough decision but the times demand it.

There has been some discussion of annual or so-called merit increases applying to groups such as teachers and civil servants. It is not clear whether such increases will be excluded from the guidelines, but we expect this will be clarified shortly.

Our third suggestion was that the $600 annual maximum allowable pay increase for low wage groups be raised. The provision is, in our view, unrealistic and could create undue hardship for many low wage earners.

I would now like to turn to the area of government spending control. What we do not need at this point in time is a resumption of new federal spending initiatives such as we have witnessed in the past couple of years. This has put pressure on provincial and local spending, not to mention the Canadian taxpayer. If there are any major new federal expenditures in housing, then I will serve notice now that we expect the federal government to adopt the same budgetary self-discipline that we and local governments, universities and hospitals are now exercising and to find the money in existing low-priority programmes.

Mr. Sargent: You are losing $6 million a day. How can you say that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In this regard, it is instructive to compare the records of the federal and provincial levels of government in meeting targets of expenditure restraint and control. It is commonly believed by many that the provincial-municipal sector of government has accounted for the bulk of increased government spending.

In the case of Ontario, while this was true in the late 1960s it is simply not true today, nor has it been for the last four years.

Over the period 1971 to 1974, Ontario actually reduced its share of gross provincial product, dropping from 11.3 per cent to 10.7 per cent. Similarly, the share taken up by local government went down.

Mr. Singer: That’s how you got to $11 billion.

Mr. Yakabuski: The member is going to have to return the retainer.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: On the other hand, the federal government increased its relative share to the gross national product from 12.5 per cent to 14.1 per cent in Ontario.

Mr. Singer: It didn’t work before and it isn’t going to work now. You have got to do something better than that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In the rest of Canada, its share of gross national product is even higher and has risen since 1971 by a larger amount.

Government spending control is an area where the federal government must show leadership rather than attempting to explain the difficulties of cutting back. This week in Ottawa I made a number of specific proposals for federal spending rollbacks and we hope they have listened.

[2:30]

This government has instituted a number of tough measures in the current fiscal year to cut back our spending growth. A progress report on these measures which were announced in July will be provided tomorrow to the members by my colleague, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld).

Mr. Roy: Yes, you have reason to choke on that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I might also mention that the special programme review committee established earlier this year by the government is in the process of completing an exhaustive review of expenditures and its report is expected soon. We will be studying its recommendations very seriously.

It is vitally important that the thrust of this expenditure restraint programme be expanded and carried forward into next year. Accordingly, I would like to announce new initiatives this government will undertake to further cut back public spending.

First, Ontario Hydro’s target level of borrowing for the next year will be reduced.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, boy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The 1975 level is estimated to be $1.5 billion and the currently planned level for next year is $1.9 billion.

Mr. Deans: But that is what we were going to review in committee.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Hydro and the ministries of Energy and Treasury are now studying ways to effect this reduction and the legislative committee will certainly have an input into that as well.

Mr. Deans: Certainly nice to know that.

Mr. Lewis: So you have accepted the argument.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Second, the existing complement freeze --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Don’t think it is going to be so simple.

Mr. Deans: But we’re going to do it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Treasurer will continue.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Second, the existing complement freeze will be extended to another full fiscal year and Management Board has been instructed to find further complement cuts.

Third, with minor exceptions for salary adjustments at the lower end of the scale, salaries of all senior civil servants will be frozen through calendar year 1976.

Fourth, provincial assistance to local governments next year will be limited to the Edmonton commitment.

Fifth, I expect to introduce my budget early in the new year and we have adopted a provincial expenditure growth target for next year of 10 per cent.

I would like to elaborate on the importance of this target. It will be significantly below our average expenditure growth rate for the past several years. Also, I expect it will be well below the federal white paper target which is that government spending be held to the growth rate in gross national product. Forecasters are now suggesting that next year’s GNP growth will be in the neighbourhood of 14 per cent. Moreover, since our revenue growth for next year is currently estimated to be in the 12 to 13 per cent range, the achievement of our expenditure target will result in a reduction of net cash requirements.

It is going to be very tough to achieve this target but we are determined to do it without any loss of efficiency or decline in the level of essential services.

In concluding this statement, I would like to leave these thoughts with the members. Ontario has acted decisively in support of a national programme. It will be a complex and difficult programme to implement and will require the support of all members of society. It will require a sense of urgency and a de termination to act in the national interest and not in the narrow interest of any single group or individual.

There will be inequities but many of them will be ironed out as the programme proceeds. Rut for those who are complaining loudly of apparent injustice, let it be clear that no one is being asked to sacrifice his job or his economic future. No one is being asked to lower significantly his current standard of living. In fact for the vast majority, standards of living will continue to rise. The only demand placed on all of us by the programme is to exercise restraint.

It should have been apparent to many that with the sudden and brutal imposition of higher oil prices in world markets, the prospects for growth and the ambitions for rising levels of personal consumption would sooner or later have to be modified in Canada as they have been throughout the industrialized world. If we are to avoid an economic slowdown and maintain economic and social stability, restraint is not a luxury. It is a prerequisite to survival.

We cannot avoid the personal and social adjustments that the new economic realities are demanding of us. Excessive personal income gains can only be made at the expense of other Canadians and our economic future and that is what the government of Ontario is determined to prevent.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Point of order.

Mr. Lewis: Recognizing the difficulty of coming to grips with this kind of statement in a question period, would the government either put the statement on the order paper as an item for full debate in the assembly; or, indeed, table the federal-provincial agreement, which you intend to sign, as an item for full debate in the assembly? Obviously, this grab-bag approach to it isn’t going to be satisfactory.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think we will take the very excellent suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition under consideration. My guess would be that the agreement -- not being a lawyer, let alone a constitutional lawyer like the member on your left -- our expectation would be that the agreement may take some time to work out and cross the “t”s and dot the “i”s. I would think the suggestion made by the member to put this statement on the order paper as a matter of debate, perhaps, would be better than waiting for the agreement. But the House leader would undoubtedly discuss this with the leaders of the two parties to sort something out.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Treasurer: Since the hon. minister is reinforcing, with some ferocity, the pressures on wages in Ontario, why is there absolutely no provincial intervention anywhere in this statement on the question of prices?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that’s not correct at all, Mr. Speaker, with respect.

Mr. Lewis: Of who? Of housing?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have suggested to the government that they should look at, and I think they are looking at the possibility of an excess profits tax, which, of course, is getting at exactly what you’re saying.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, those are vague federal initiatives. Why is the government not prepared to do in the Province of Ontario, beyond the marginal qualifications the Treasurer stated, what has been done in the Province of British Columbia, in order to protect wage earners from excessive price increases or payments? Why does the government move on wages, but never on prices provincially?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I might be flip and say because we’re not going into an election, which the leader of my friend’s party in British Columbia seems to be getting ready to do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’re awaiting the answer.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I detailed in the statement three reasons which I think, if my friend reflects on them, he will come to agree with. I would also say we don’t really think an action by an individual province such as that is going to be effective. I wish them well. We don’t think it’s going to be effective. Moreover, I would have to say -- and I have asked my colleagues -- that since Oct. 13 we have not had any evidence of price increases other than what has norm ally been going on. There has been no evidence to us, nor have we heard of any.

Mr. Singer: You have to stop now.

Mrs. Campbell: Stop while you’re ahead.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I would think something less.

An hon. member: Where have you been?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think the Ontario people, and I’m sure the people of Canada, have accepted the Prime Minister’s words of Oct. 13 with some spirit.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are disagreements, obviously, as to details. We’ve seen no evidence of excessive price increases or abnormal price changes since Oct. 13.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I wonder why the Treasurer would indicate to the House, and specifically in reference to a question I put to him yesterday, that the net effect of a price and wage control initiative from Ottawa would in any way be depreciated if in fact this province had implementation procedures such as the Province of Quebec has or will have, and by way of a special initiative as the Province of British Columbia has taken, which is really in line with reinforcing this initiative and in no way diluting it.

Would the Treasurer say to this House that he would be opposed to an implementation procedure in this province, which would in no way weaken this but which would give our teachers and our civil servants and our professional people -- who are directly, under the provisions of the federal statute, available for supervision at the provincial level -- ready access to those people who would, in fact, administer the wage and price controls which we all support?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I think that the very fact that there are two boards in existence undoubtedly is going to lead to differences of

interpretation and to different decisions given by those boards, and, therefore, in the minds of the people in either one situation or the other, the feeling that there is some degree of unfairness, If there is one national board administering this programme, then I think our people generally across the country are going to feel more confident that an equitable and fair solution is being arrived at for all of us, without putting public servants or teachers into some sort of special compartment and saying they are more important and they deserve the provincial ear --

Mr. Bullbrook: You had the alternative, didn’t you?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- where people who work for a small construction firm don’t, or people who work in a retail business under a certain size in this province don’t deserve our ear and our consideration. Think about that for a while.

Mr. Yakabuski: What do you think about the little man?

Mr. Nixon: A further supplementary along those lines: Surely the Treasurer must take into consideration that his colleague, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), has predicted an 18-month delay under these circumstances. We could assist in these matters without in any way weakening the input and the thrust and the effect of the federal wage and price guideline law.

Mr. Bullbrook: Because they anticipated it that way.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, if there is a delay of 18 months -- and I doubt that, and I would hope that there wouldn’t be -- then I don’t think an Ontario teacher or an Ontario public servant deserves to go to the head of some queue any more than anybody else in our society here in Ontario. We are all in this together and there are not going to be special rules for some.

Mr. Nixon: What’s the sense of having a provincial government if you won’t accept the responsibility? We could improve it here.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There are not going to be special rules for some group whose favour you are trying to curry today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: You have your alternative; it is in the legislation.

Mr. Nixon: The people can do without the Treasurer entirely.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is a very big topic. There are many people who want to ask separate questions which are not related to the first answer, as we tried to impress on you yesterday. I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition should proceed with a new question and these other points will be covered sooner or later. Please.

Mr. Lewis: I will create an avenue to open it up again.

A further question, then, of the Treasurer: If this was a uniform application of the law federally, I can understand the argument. Since the anti-inflation tribunal obviously has flexibility to vary up and down from the guidelines, as it is now doing in the postal dispute, why does the minister not provide within the public sector in Ontario, where the government is directly or indirectly the employer, the same possibility as is going to be exercised federally?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the anti-inflation board has had anything to do with the postal strike as yet.

Mr. Lewis: But surely the Treasurer can see that if the agreement is, as Mr. Mackasey pursues it, at a level above the guidelines, it will have to go to the anti-inflation board and then be approved up or down?

Mr. Bullbrook: The Treasurer doesn’t know what they will do with it.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Exactly.

An hon. member: That’s the point.

Mr. Lewis: But the Treasurer is assuming in advance that they will not approve it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am not assuming anything. I am not assuming whether they would approve it, roll it back, increase it, lower it or anything else. It will go -- as I understand it, if there is ultimately a settlement -- it will go to the anti-inflation board. Similarly, if there was an agreement at Metropolitan Toronto tomorrow, then that agreement would go to the anti-inflation board.

Mr. Renwick: But it can’t. The minister doesn’t understand.

Mr. Lewis: Then let me ask the minister, as a separate question but in a sense a supplementary just to clarify something I have not fully understood: He says in his statement, “I said in Ottawa last week that we must be prepared to live for a time with inequities and to draw the line now.” Is the Treasurer saying it is the opinion of this government that in the case of, let us say, the teacher negotiations -- for lack of a better example at the moment -- they should confine themselves to a settlement at the level of the guidelines in order to, as you say, draw the line now?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am saying no such thing, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying, in answer to the member’s question, is that I think it would be very difficult for us in this province to decide -- and we perhaps are capable of deciding -- what might be appropriate changes in the guidelines in this province for a certain group -- the member has used teachers -- and then have that interpreted in nine different ways across the country by others. I can’t think of anything which would bring the programme tumbling down faster than that.

[2:45]

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How would the Treasurer respond under those circumstances, if the situation developed as predicted by his colleague, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), who indicated that since there may be substantial delays at the federal level under these circumstances, an agreement could be reached on the basis of our Bill 100 which might, in fact, in the future be changed and even rolled back as far as teachers’ incomes are concerned by decision of that board?

Would, then, this province require our teachers, after possibly 18 months, to make restitution to the boards, or would the taxpayers in the community concerned -- as was suggested by the chairman of the school board for Metropolitan Toronto -- have to make additional payments to the Treasury of the government of Ottawa? Might I ask the Treasurer, would it not be better if we had the implementation procedures here which in no way would bring anybody unfairly to the head of the line, but in fact would do away with the problems that we believe can be solved better here than in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the former leader of the opposition was always a great exponent of riding off in three directions at once. Now he wants to go in 11 directions at once. We’re not going to do it if we’re going to lick this problem.

Mr. Nixon: Is that your best answer? Can’t you give a better answer than that? You, with responsibility as the Treasurer of this province --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You’re debating now.

Mr. Nixon: You are prepared to abdicate this responsibility --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is addressing himself to one group -- the teachers.

Mr. Nixon: The group was selected by the Treasurer and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, no, that’s your problem.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary to the Treasurer on the original question: One of the inequities that he feels the people of Ontario should live with is the inequity in prices between northern and southern Ontario. What steps is his government willing to take to equalize prices between northern and southern Ontario, particularly in the crucial areas of food, clothing, heating and gasoline?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, there are inequities in our society. This government over the years has done much to try to remove those inequities -- not only just between northern and southern Ontario -- in terms of redistribution of income generally. But those programmes are not part and cannot be part of the battle against inflation. Those things must go ahead. Those things have to be considered, but let’s not confuse them with an anti-inflation programme.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I have a supplementary? One supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Bullbrook: Am I correct, in connection with the Treasurer’s intemperate response to the leader of our party, that he regards the alternative under

Section 4(4) of the federal legislation -- the alternative available to him -- as “riding off in 11 directions”? Is that correct? Yes? Has he brought that to the attention of the federal Minister of Finance?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What I indicated to the member, if he had listened to my statement instead of babbling so much --

Mr. Bullbrook: I listened very much. It is very difficult to understand it -- the convolution to go ahead --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- he would have heard that the federal minister urged provinces to come in under 4(3).

Mr. Bullbrook: Final supplementary: Does the Treasurer not agree with me that the federal government has rendered to each province an alternative to accept its concurrent responsibility with the federal administration and not opt out in such a chicken-like fashion?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A new question.

BELL CANADA INVESTIGATION

Mr. Lewis: One question, just to shift the ground slightly to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. What happened to the investigation which, during the course of the campaign, he had launched into Bell Canada and its practices in Ontario? And further to that, what intervention is Ontario making in the Bell Canada rate application, to make sure that those rates are kept well within the guidelines.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question is well within the periphery of my ministry to respond to; the other I think should be re-addressed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow).

Our investigation into Bell Canada was simply to ascertain whether or not there had been any violations of the Business Practices Act -- whether there had been representations made which had induced people to enter into consumer contracts, and then those representations were not carried through. We found very few instances of violations of the Business Practices Act. Where we did, Bell Canada complied with our request to comply with the representations it had made to the consumers.

Mr. Nixon: On that question, has the hon. minister been approached by those residents of Ontario who have applied for service from Bell Canada and been denied that service with the reason being given by the corporation that they do not have a profit level rich enough to permit them to provide service, as has been the custom up until the present time? Has he had complaints along those lines and has he responded to them?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, certainly I receive complaints along those lines and the response is that we have no legislative jurisdiction to interfere in those particular instances. We have responded to those complaints which came under the Business Practices Act.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME

Mr. Nixon: I’d like to return to the Treasurer just for a moment on the basis of his statement. Being aware of the way the provincial responses across Canada have been occurring, with Quebec, probably as expected, accepting an individual provincial responsibility for implementation and enforcement, how can the minister indicate that in fact it is some sort of a constitutional shallow argument to indicate, as we have indicated from our party, that we believe it is the responsibility of this government to accept a similar responsibility -- that in fact it is not divisive, but in fact it does provide the kind of service and implementation --

Mr. Roy: It is complementary.

Mr. Nixon: -- and enforcement that our people require, and in fact expect, because we are a confederation and because we have the power, and in my view the responsibility, to do so from here?

Mr. Bullbrook: That is exactly right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one looks for far-out examples. I think if the member would reflect on the seriousness of the situation and appreciate the gravity of the economic problems facing this country, as recognized by the Prime Minister in his Thanksgiving Day speech and recognized by the Premiers of all the provinces, he would recognize that as in the case of real national emergency or a war, we would not raise 11 armies across this country; we would raise one. It is as simple as that.

Interjections.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Speaker, I think this subject is a massive subject. The hon. minister has said it is profound. I agree with him. I think it is not unreasonable to request time to debate this particular subject. There are two aspects of this, and I think it should be done.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is supposed to be asking a supplementary question. The statement will be placed on the order paper -- or at least it is highly likely that it will be -- for debate. This is just a question period for information, not debate. Information, please.

Interjections.

Mr. Shore: I ask when we could debate this subject matter.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know. That is anticipating what the House leader will agree to have on the order paper and we cannot answer that at the present time.

Mr. Roy: In view of the Treasurer’s great concern about making exceptions -- and that seems to be the basis of his answers here; that the Treasurer is afraid to make exceptions, let us say, for the teachers, the doctors, and so on -- how can he justify having, in fact, made an exception with Hydro by referring its price increase to a legislative committee and not directly to the board in Ottawa?

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary question is supposed to be based on the original question.

Mr. Roy: I am right on.

Mr. Speaker: The question had to do with each province treating the subject differently. Hydro seems to be specific. Unless the hon. member can amend the question to the original question, we will rule it out of order.

Mr. Bullbrook: Show me in there. It is not a regulatory body and you know it. You show me. There is the document.

Mr. Nixon: If you are not permitting that question to be answered, Mr. Speaker -- does the hon. member want to pursue that?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The so-called supplementary had to do with Hydro and the hon. member’s original question, as I understood it, had to do with the divisive nature of the policy across Canada. Would the hon. member continue with further questions?

Mr. Roy: No, we are talking about --

Mrs. Campbell: He was right on. Dead on.

TEACHER-SCHOOL BOARD NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Nixon: On a similar subject I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Education. Will he explain to the House his comments, which have been referred to in the last two question periods, when he indicated that there could be an 18-month delay in dealing with the situation having to do with the teachers. The hon. minister knows how important this is. We face a strike across Metropolitan Toronto within the next two weeks.

Would he further explain how it might possibly be that an agreement under Bill 100 could be carried out between teachers and the board and the salaries paid on that basis, pending the decision of the federal board, and whether, if the decision went against the teachers, would the teachers then make restitution to the board? How is that going to work, one more time?

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, Mr. Speaker, my friend has said there is going to be a teachers’ strike. We don’t know there is going to be a teachers’ strike.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just so there will be no misunderstanding --

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just want to say this --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister.

Mr. Roy: Order. That means sit down.

Mr. Speaker: I did not get that inflection in the question. Am I right?

Mr. Nixon: On the point of order which I raised. --

Mr. Speaker: Would the member repeat his question?

Mr. Nixon: I appreciate the Speaker’s perception of the inflection. Nobody wants a strike. Would the minister please not draw that red herring across his answer?

Mr. Bullbrook: Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question in full detail will have to come when the anti-inflation board in Ottawa issues some of its rules, regulations and guidelines. It’s almost an impossible question to answer at the present time.

If the employer and the employee -- in this case the board and the teachers -- reach an agreement they will, through their own legal counsel, have to interpret what they feel might or might not be a variation of the guidelines. Then they will have to pay accordingly knowing that if a decision is made to roll back at some particular time there is going to have to be restitution made, if that is the penalty imposed.

Mr. Lewis: That is a shambles.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The point I want to make -- and I think it has to be made because I’ve been looking over some other situations like this because I think, as my friend the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has said, one can’t isolate particular groups in this particular argument.

Mr. Roy: The minister has already.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Take the case of Falconbridge Nickel Mines. They’re on strike at the present time. There have been industry settlements above the guidelines. The people at Falconbridge Nickel Mines are going to have to go to Ottawa and find out what the anti-inflation board says, if and when they reach an agreement. They should be treated no differently from the teachers of Metropolitan Toronto. There must be uniformity.

Mr. Nixon: Right; I have a supplementary. I didn’t ask about Falconbridge.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, please.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will allow the original questioner to ask his supplementary and then the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I thought we rotated supplementaries?

Mr. Speaker: When the leaders are asking the question they have their opportunities for supplementaries first and then we rotate. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: Would the minister further clarify -- we’re interested in the Falconbridge thing but I’m asking about the teachers’ situation -- is it possible the taxpayers might be required to make restitution on behalf of the teachers as indicated by the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Education when he was asked about the implications of the statement made by the Minister of Education?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I can’t believe that the taxpayers would be asked to make restitution in that particular case.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the minister feel that if the anti-inflation board rolls back an award given or an agreement arrived at between the board and the teachers, that constitutes a nullification of the settlement and it can be reopened? How else is the minister going to maintain the integrity of the government’s legislation, Bill 100?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel it would nullify the legislation or nullify the settlement any more than a rolling back in the Falconbridge situation would nullify the Ontario Labour Relations Act in the way it operates in this province.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister really feel comfortable with all this, having pointed out that he knows nothing about the regulations, nothing about the rules, not at all how they will apply? He has no information whatsoever and yet blindly is prepared to surrender himself to the federal government with all of the implications which flow from his own remarks? What’s wrong with the minister? He bought it, supposedly, in the national interest.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I don’t feel comfortable with it.

Mr. Mackenzie: Stand up and be counted.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think, as the Hon. Robert Stanfield has said, it’s rough justice.

Mr. Roy: Boy, oh boy, it’s rough justice.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I want to say that I feel a lot more uncomfortable with the kinds of things which my friend, the Treasurer, said in the conclusion of his speech and the kinds of consequences which are going to arise if we don’t all get together.

Mr. Lewis: Tough on wages, nothing on prices.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If I were at the federal level I’d be just as tough on prices and I hope they are as tough on prices.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary question on the original teacher question?

Mr. Sargent: A new question.

Mr. Speaker: We’re not ready for new questions. The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Nixon: No more questions, Mr. Speaker.

TELEVISION RECEPTION IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Could the minister advise this House as to what action could be undertaken by this government to ensure to the citizens of Ontario living within the Metropolitan Toronto area the continuing availability of a reasonable choice of television viewing within the metropolitan core, the likelihood of which is now in question as a result of recent action taken by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission and the proposed counteraction by major television stations within the Metropolitan Toronto area of influence.

Mr. Singer: Are you going to overrule the CRTC?

Mr. Roy: Did that take you by surprise?

Mr. Singer: You don’t have the power to do that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This is a matter certainly that is of concern to me and to the communications

section of my ministry. It is a proposal put forward by the CRTC that these commercials of the foreign stations would be blacked out by the cable companies. I don’t particularly agree with it, although I don’t have any jurisdiction over it.

Mr. Singer: Absolutely right.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t disagree with the policy or the philosophy of the federal government or the CRTC in trying to preserve the revenues of Canadian advertisers for the Canadian television industry in order to have the revenues to improve programming within Ontario. I personally think the income tax provisions that the federal government has proposed but, as I understand, have not been passed yet, would have a more beneficial effect and perhaps work better as a deterrent against Canadian advertisers spending their advertising dollars in the United States than the blacking-out proposal that the CRTC has come up with.

Mr. Williams: Are there no representations that could be made by this government to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to reassess the recent actions taken by it that are apparently going to have some adverse effect on the television viewing rights of the 3,000,000-odd people who live within the Metropolitan Toronto area?

Mr. Singer: Are you going to repeal the BNA Act?

Mr. Conway: On the bandwagon now.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly observing what is going on at this level. I am not concerned at this moment that this so-called threatened action will take place.

Mr. Singer: If you solve it, tell Judy how you did it.

Mr. Martel: I thought that never happened to Canadians.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think there are a great many complications involved before they would be allowed to do this. The broadcasting industry is a very highly regulated industry, I believe, in the United States as it is here. I’m sure the stations will have to make application for approval to do such things as this. I just don’t think we are going to wake up tomorrow morning and have no television from Buffalo. We’ll make our presentations when we feel the time is appropriate.

Mr. Deans: You might miss Howdy Doody or something.

CANADIAN WESTINGHOUSE

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Is the minister aware of the controversy which has developed in Ottawa and in Hamilton as a result of the application of a Foreign Investment Review Act inquiry into the possible sale of Canadian Westinghouse Ltd., in the first place to White Industries and secondly to General Steel Wares? Is he also aware of the implications on the economy of Ontario and the economy of the 2,500 Westinghouse employees if that were to be enforced? Has the minister made any representation to Ottawa with regard to the effects of this action on the economy and on the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my ministry answers to the federal government in respect of the Foreign Investment Review Act. We have been very close to the discussions relating to the takeover of Canadian Westinghouse assets in Canada, first of all by White Corp. of the United States, and more specifically two years ago when GSW of London, Ont., made an offer to Westinghouse Canada to buy its assets and to keep the greatest production within this province. We made our representation to Mr.

Gillespie, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for Canada at the time, clearly indicating how we observed the situation of the sale to the White Corp. and its effect on the economy of Ontario and the prospects of the industry, if sold to White, leaving this province.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It’s a federal matter, as the member will recognize, and I know very well that the federal government has given to the Westinghouse Corp. of the United States until Oct. 31, to come to an agreement on the patent rights and the use of the name for the goods they manufacture in this country. That relates to a deal or to an arrangement for the selling of the assets to GSW. We have made our position very clear to the federal government on how we believe it should be handled.

Mr. Deans: What is it? What is the ministry’s position?

GREENHOUSE INDUSTRY

Mr. Mancini: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I would like to know if he is prepared to take any steps to assist the greenhouse industry, which is going to be seriously affected by the increases for heating oil and gasoline?

An hon. member: He knows all about greenhouses.

Hon. W. Newman: I have no plans at this point of time.

Mr. Laughren: Same old attitude.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Would the minister be prepared to meet a delegation?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes. With the constraints of the time in the House, if we can work it in, we will be only too glad to meet a delegation.

Mr. Breithaupt: That’s a change.

Mr. Singer: That’s good.

An hon. member: Might even serve them coffee.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Martel: There’s a whole lot of questions there.

Mr. Nixon: Let the record show the minister is smiling.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Hamilton Centre wishes to ask a question.

RENT CONTROLS

Mr. Davison: A question of the Minister of Housing. Does the proposed rent review legislation apply to all rental premises -- specifically small businesses, commercial and industrial premises -- and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I believe the hon. member should wait until the legislation is introduced in the House next week, at which time we can have a full and proper debate on the legislation and on the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: Another area where you haven’t been able to make up your mind yet.

Mr. Lewis: I thought we would get a statement on that, too.

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. Givens: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I would like to ask the minister what is the post-Pickering posture of this particular government with respect to the matter of a second airport in this area? Are we to understand that the matter of a second airport in this area has been completely abandoned by this government? Or are we to understand that the matter of a second airport has merely been left in abeyance and that the minister will revive the matter pending a more propitious economic climate?

Or are we to understand that he will be pursuing the matter of a new site for a second airport at a different place? Please spare us the lecture of the fact that this is a matter for the federal government. I want to know what this government’s posture is?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Which of the three does the member suggest?

An hon. member: Where does the member stand?

Hon. Mr. Snow: As a matter of fact I had a long telegram from Mr. Lang this morning.

Mr. Roy: Could the minister read it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Obviously he couldn’t send me a letter; but I do plan to have a meeting with my federal counterpart in the very near future. I have no plans of trying to suggest or seek an alternative site for another airport. I think there are a great many reasons for the action that has been taken to date in stopping the construction of the Pickering airport. I’ll report further to the House after I have met with Mr. Lang.

Mr. Givens: A supplementary then: What the minister is saying, if I am to understand him clearly, is that the matter of a second airport for this area is still very much alive in the minds of members of this government.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I didn’t say that at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Cornwall.

Mr. Samis: A supplementary to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: What did Mr. Lang’s night letter say?

Mr. Singer: “Let’s have a meeting.

Mr. Lewis: What does he ask the minister?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have just received this letter -- this morning as I was walking over here -- and I would not --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It starts out “Dear Jim.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- I have not had an opportunity really to read it properly.

Mr. Gaunt: It just caught the minister in transit.

Mr. Lewis: No one offered to read it to you again.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We are just about out of time. There are a lot of people who wish to ask questions, so we will keep the supplementaries to a bare minimum. The member for Rainy River; this will be the final one.

Mr. Reid: Yes. Has the minister got officials in his department who can tell us categorically whether or not we, in this area of Ontario, are going to need either an expansion of Malton or a second airport? Is the minister satisfied? Has he been told that by those people in his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Did the lion, member and his brother John flip a coin on that question?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sure the hon. member knows the policy of this government as far as expansion in Malton --

Mrs. Campbell: No we don’t. That is why we are asking. We haven’t a clue.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Also, he should be aware of the stated policy of his federal cousins regarding Malton. Both governments have stated there will not be expansion of runway facilities at Malton airport.

Mr. Reid: What is the government’s position? What is the guarantee?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Guaranteed.

VIOLENCE IN HOCKEY

Mr. Samis: A question of the Attorney General: Could he tell the House to what extent he outlined his views and discussed the whole question of violence in hockey with the officials of the NHL, WHA and OHA prior to his announcement on Tuesday?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I did not discuss my views with respect to my announcement with either the officials of the WHA or the NHL.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Their attitude towards this matter seems to me to be firmly on the record. Any consultation with those bodies would, in my view, Be futile.

Mr. Reid: John Bassett is voting NDP.

Mr. Lewis: I hope not.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am satisfied that the OHA is making serious efforts to control the problem of hockey violence and that they will continue to do so. I have had informal discussions with members related to the OHA and I intend to have continuing discussions.

Mr. Samis: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order please; a brief supplementary.

Mr. Samis: In view of an altercation that took place last night, could the minister tell the House if he has any intentions of pressing charges -- such as creating a public disturbance or assault -- against one Dave Williams and one Danny Care?

Mr. Good: He means between Bassett and the Attorney General.

Mr. Sargent: He is going to put policemen on skates; that will fix that.

Mr. Samis: Is there no answer?

RENT REVIEW

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Following his announcement of his new bill and notwithstanding the answer made earlier today, would the minister tell me whether I am correct in assuming that the bill, when introduced, will be introduced by his ministry; that it will be administered by his ministry; and that it will cover both the public and private sectors in the housing field?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The answer to the first two parts of the question is yes; and the answer to the third part, I will have to find out for sure and let the member know.

Mr. Bullbrook: Sidney Handleman strikes again.

Mrs. Campbell: In view of the problems with the private sector and the public sector, would the minister now undertake to introduce into this House the books and records of Ontario Housing Corp. so that we may be in a position to assess their position with reference to rent review?

Mr. Singer: That is a good question.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The answer is no.

Mr. Good: Let’s have a vote on that.

[3:15]

WATER POLLUTION

Mr. Angus: Mr. Speaker, I will address my question to the Minister of the Environment. Approximately three weeks ago I talked to him on the phone on the day that he was reappointed to this position and asked if he would investigate the possibility of examining the waters downstream from all the pulp and paper mills that are shut down in this province. I would like to know today what his answer is on that.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I have had a report as a result of that testing. I must say that the testing in the particular rivers mentioned by the hon. member in the Thunder Bay area goes on, on a continuous basis pretty well, but I do have results from five stations in that particular area dealing with five different plants, with rather detailed information; and I would be happy to give that to the hon. member.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could I ask the minister, in view of his great interest in pollution in the north, about the success or the further achievement of the action against Dow Chemical, where its mercury is getting out into the water?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Right after the Sargent v. Singer case on the list. Right there.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a supplementary.

ONTARIO NET CASH REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Sargent: A question to the Treasurer --

An hon. member: That’s three days in a row.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s hear the question.

Mr. Sargent: In reference to his statement today, the Moody’s Investors and Standard and Poor in New York advised me today that they have devalued the credit of the Province of Ontario in view of the fact that it has borrowings pending at $300 million on the New York market now, and they say that --

Mr. Speaker: Your question please?

An hon. member: Give him a chance.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are just about out of time. Will the member ask his question?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter for the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: What is the question?

Mr. Speaker: This is a question period and we wish the question.

Mr. Sargent: Can the Treasurer tell us how he is going to finance two consecutive deficits in excess of $2 billion this year, in view of the fact he has been spending $6 million a day plus interest -- $8 million a day he has been losing? How is he going to correct this before --

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member ask his question?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t know why you tolerate that.

Mr. Sargent: In this document he gave us today, does it tell us how he is going to correct the current deficit position in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, if the member reads it he will find that we expect the forecast now -- and I think it is really a little on the early side -- however the forecast now would indicate a growth in gross national product and a growth in our revenues in fiscal 1976-1977 of somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12 to 13 per cent. That’s a very preliminary estimate. Obviously if we hold our expenditure growth to 10 per cent, as we have set our target, then our net cash requirements will diminish from what they are this year.

Mr. Shore: On that point, I would just like to ask how the minister, with a 22 per cent expenditure growth in the 1975 fiscal year, expects to have it down to 10 per cent next year?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t see that we have a 22 per cent expenditure increase. I would be glad to discuss that figure with --

Mr. Shore: That’s a point in the minister’s documents.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would be glad to discuss that with the member.

Mr. Shore: The minister doesn’t want that to be public.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The point is, and I make no bones about it, our expenditures have been growing over the last five years at the rate of about 14.5 per cent per year. It is going to be very difficult to hold our expenditure growth to only 10 per cent, very difficult indeed.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We just have a moment left, time for another question. The member for Hamilton East.

USE OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister aware that a dangerous chemical called Kepone, used in pesticides, is being used in the FMC Corp. plant in Burlington, Ont.? This pesticide has caused hospitalization of workers and their families in the United States and has been banned from use in the United States by the US Environmental Protection I Agency. Would the minister check to see if adequate safeguards exist for the workers and report back to us?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will.

ONTARIO SALES TAX

Mr. Haggerty: I would like to direct a question to the Treasurer. I listened with great interest to the Treasurer’s statement this afternoon, as it relates to the economic conditions and inflation, and in particular, his comments to the member for Grey-Bruce Is the government’s intention or policy to allow the reinstatement of the provincial sales tax from the present five per cent to seven per cent after Jan. 1, 1976? Will this increase not add further to the present situation of unemployment and hardship to the lower income persons in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of bringing in amendments to the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Doesn’t the minister feel that when the government increases taxes in the province it should at least be debated in this House?

If the Treasurer is going to let the tax go to seven per cent again we debate it here.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We debated the budget.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that a bill was introduced here -- and passed by this Legislature -- which called for the termination of that tax reduction on Dec. 31. As I recall, the member was most vocal in discussing that bill, as he is on a number of other things.

Mr. Roy: That’s right, I like to be.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He is.

Mr. Good: The Treasurer said it was done as an economic measure.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved, seconded by Mr. Deans, that a select committee of this House be appointed to study reports 4 and 5 of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature, to report to the Legislature on the advisability of implementing the recommendations of the reports or any part or parts thereof; and, if deemed advisable, the method and timing of implementation.

The said committee to consist of the following seven members: Messrs. Morrow, chairman; Cassidy, Gaunt, Good, Gregory, Martel and McNeil.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Deans: It will be called the Martel report.

In carrying out its terms of reference the committee shall have regard to the following factors: Current economic conditions; recovery of additional operating costs; dependence upon adequate electricity supply for Ontario’s future economic well-being; maintenance of Hydro’s financial integrity; any provisions of the said programme respecting increasing energy prices.

And that the select committee have authority to sit during the interval between sessions and have full power and authority to employ counsel and such other personnel as may be deemed advisable and to call for persons, papers and things, and to examine witnesses under oath; and the assembly doth command and compel attendance before the said select committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations for which the hon.

Speaker may issue his warrant or warrants; the said committee to be composed of the following 12 members: Messrs. MacDonald, chairman; Bullbrook, Deans, Drea, Gigantes, Grossman, Haggerty, Maeck, Peterson, Renwick, Williams and Wiseman.

The said committee may request such coverage of its proceedings by Hansard and the printing of such papers as the committee deems appropriate.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of procedure. I want to make it clear that we would give unanimous consent for that committee to begin sitting immediately if that were asked for.

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t think it is needed.

Mr. Deans: I think it is in fact. I think it has to stand for notice.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why?

Mr. Deans: I think it requires notice.

Mr. Speaker: I think it could meet at the call of the chairman.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think you are right -- at the call of the chairman.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a couple of comments on the motion. We are in agreement, of course, with the setup of the committee and the participation of this party in the committee proceedings, but the point I must emphasize relates to the answers given by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) all this afternoon about making exceptions. There is an exception being made to the rule right now about a group or a company; we have got a situation regarding Hydro where we now set up a legislative committee to study the effects of the increases vis-à-vis the anti-inflationary measures of the federal government.

I suggest to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and to the Treasurer that that clearly is an exception in this case and it reinforces the point my leader was making here about the teachers or other professionals, that our programme would be complementary to and not in competition with the federal measures.

I put the point to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Premier, that in fact while the province talks about not making any except, it has made one now.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the member running for some kind of office or something?

Mr. Roy: I have always been this way. What is the member talking about?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a quick reflection on this motion, expressing obvious approval of the intent to proceed.

I think it is pretty clear that the opposition parties have joined in this intent to proceed in a way which should cause no illusion to the government. It is our determination to have that rate increase reduced, period. That is what this committee is all about. I assume it will be evaluated in the best sense but the motivation is to get that rate down.

I am fascinated in that context to note the Treasurer’s statement today, which clearly indicates that the government also wants to bring Hydro’s rates down; it clearly indicates it on page 12 and in the reference to capital borrowing somewhat later in the statement. It is worth noting in that context that the government itself didn’t have the courage to face it, so it is appointing a committee to do it. In fact, I suspect the committee will do it for the government, but I must say that the committee surely should receive encouragement from the clear and explicit intent in the statement that Hydro is one corporation that is out of control and needs to have its rates reduced.

Mr. Bullbrook: If we are going to join in somewhat of a debate on this -- I hadn’t intended to make any remarks -- I want to first express appreciation to the Premier and his colleague for having the opportunity to digest the terms of reference. I want the Leader of the Opposition to know that I don’t regard our responsibility in connection with this as a predisposition towards lowering the rates; that isn’t why I sit there.

I hope that will be the outcome, but as I understand the responsibility that we are undertaking it is basically to review the proposal for a rate increase, to review the report of the Ontario Energy Board in connection with their recommendations -- and now the operative and important words -- in the light of the federal guidelines and Ontario’s commitment to those guidelines.

Mr. Deans: There is more.

Mr. Lewis: Much more than that.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does the member want me to read them? If I am given a copy I will read them if I have left something out.

[3:30]

Mr. Deans: The member probably left them at home.

Mr. Bullbrook: I read them about 10:30 this morning. Does the member think I am a walking thesaurus or encyclopedia or something?

Mr. Deans: The member is telling us he knows what was said. He obviously doesn’t.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’ll reiterate for the sake of clarity -- and I invite my friends to correct me -- what I understand the basic terms of reference to be. They are for us to review the Hydro rate increase proposals -- correct? The report of the Ontario Energy Board in connection with those rate increases --

Mr. Deans: And any other matters.

Mr. Bullbrook: Then the NDP wants the addition of their words -- help me, if you would. Then we include those additional words --

Mr. Lewis: It is already there.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member is correct. Would you proceed.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- in the light of the federal guidelines and in the light of Ontario’s commitment to that. I want to say this to you, and I don’t mean to be argumentative --

Mr. Deans: Hydro’s provision of power and cost.

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

Mr. Bullbrook: If the member wants to speak -- and he had his moment -- go ahead. I just want to give the House my point of view, for what it’s worth.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member for Sarnia continue addressing the chair?

Mr. Bullbrook: May I say to you what I feel the anomaly here is? Honestly I must say this to the Premier since we are called upon now to do this. First of all, I must agree with the Leader of the Opposition. I say basically -- and notwithstanding what we are doing -- eventually it’s the government’s responsibility to come to grips with this. But it is very difficult for us to sit in a temperate and quiet fashion when the Treasurer says that if he opted under

section 4(4) of the federal legislation we would be 11 horses going in different directions. As the Leader of the Opposition says, when you talk about the government’s responsibility now and when it undertakes here to control to some extent the capital borrowing of Ontario Hydro, it’s very difficult to understand on our part your integrity of purpose.

I want to say this to you, Mr. Speaker, how can we accept and how can we understand a government that is prepared to abdicate regarding the people whom it pays, the teachers under its direct jurisdiction, and other matters of contention to the federal anti-inflationary board and which says at the same time it is prepared to accept the responsibility in connection with Hydro rates. The fact is that I invited the Premier to respond and I hope he will please rise in connection with this debate, because he responded to me yesterday. He said, “Do you know, my friend, that Hydro has accepted?” Surely I know it has accepted; absolutely it has accepted.

All you had was an invitation here, in connection with provincially regulated utilities, to deal with them in the context of the federal guidelines. Ontario Hydro isn’t even a provincially regulated utility. So we know it has accepted. What we are saying is that if the government is sincere in regarding this as a national emergency that can only be dealt with by a national body, then surely the impact on every consumer in the Province of Ontario by a proposed increase in Hydro rates must in effect be one that is national in scope.

Frankly, it’s ridiculous to say all these other matters, including the people whom we pay, including the public service of this province, must be subject to the definition of their position in this province by Jean-Luc Pepin. We don’t agree with that. It is the responsibility of the government of Ontario to come to grips with this matter; it’s not his responsibility.

Mr. Lewis: No, and when things go wrong, it will be the Ontario government’s fault.

Mr. Bullbrook: We say the government is right in accepting this. We applaud the invitation on its part to participate in seeing whether these increases are appropriate -- from the words of the New Democratic Party in their amendment, and I didn’t understand what they meant before by those additional words -- in the light of the federal guidelines and Ontario’s commitment to those guidelines. We accept that.

We say to the Premier that frankly we want to join him in accepting the other responsibility towards his public servants and towards those in other provincial institutions about which, under

section 4(4), the federal government has said to you that if you feel it is in the best interests of your people, because of your knowledge of their peculiar needs, you should maintain the control. Frankly, with the public servants, in the context of the minister’s direct responsibility to them, he should opt in that fashion.

I appreciate the opportunity of making mention of these thoughts. Frankly, I feel the attitude of this party will be, as I understand it, without reservation and without equivocation, one of co-operation with the federal guidelines; but one of a realization that, with respect to those constitutional jurisdictions that we have, it’s better done by us. Nay, more than that, that we have a responsibility to do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, just to reply very briefly and not to be controversial, I think really there are two distinct matters being discussed. I think the question of the wording of the resolution, what is to be discussed by the committee, I hope is clearly understood. I was encouraged by the member for Sarnia as it related to his, or hopefully his party’s, approach to the activities of that committee.

I say with respect to the member for Sarnia that I think there is a very distinct difference as it relates to a rate increase of Ontario Hydro -- which is totally a non-profit organization, totally in the public sector -- and the question of the guidelines applying or not applying. I hope this is understood. I think, with respect, there is a very distinct difference between that and other aspects of the federal programme.

Now, it’s great for the member for Sarnia to say constitutionally -- and that’s why it’s in the federal bill, the 4(4) -- that the provinces can go their own way. I’m not arguing that. I’m not arguing the constitution. I think it is also fair to state that the Minister of Finance -- and probably one might also say the Prime Minister of Canada -- was particularly anxious that we move into this programme on the basis of 4(3).

I think it’s an area that, yes, the House should discuss, but I would just have to take issue with the suggestion that we are not prepared in this province to discharge our responsibilities. I could tell the hon. member, I think one could guess, that if we had gone the route of 4(4), there would be some who might say that we do not want to co-operate in the national interest.

Mr. Nixon: Who would say that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say that is a possibility. It might even have emerged from the Liberal Party of Ontario -- who knows.

Mr. Roy: No, we have been consistent; the government has not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is a fair statement, though, that that argument might have emerged.

Mr. Bullbrook: It is an imputation without foundation; but go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, but I mean that we all live with that sort of thing -- and the member for Sarnia understands that. I just want to make it clear what the Treasurer said today, and what I have said, that I think it is a difficult situation for Canada.

I think there is merit, substantial merit in approaching it on a national basis. And with great respect, really, we are debating something that isn’t part of this resolution.

I want to assure the member for Sarnia and any other members of this House that this decision has not been taken lightly. We are anxious to see the programme work. It might have been very simple for us, in political terms, to have said: “We told you so; why not a year ago.” We haven’t. We’ve said:

“We’re going to try and help.” I think that is important for the people of this province, because they too are citizens of this country and it is a matter of national concern.

I say once again that I really haven’t any observations. I think that I’m totally out of order in making these observations; but I would say I’m only following the lead of the member for Sarnia when he got into that aspect in his discussion of the resolution.

Mr. Lewis: It is nice to have the Premier participate in this way. It is one of the pleasures of minority governments.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition doesn’t know how much more fun this is than some of the other things we do.

Mr. Lewis: I suspect it is. The Premier will probably enjoy it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I wonder if I might just make a few comments that would perhaps close this brief debate. I first of all want to thank the representatives of the two opposition parties for the way in which they carried themselves in the discussions that led up to this resolution. I’m particularly pleased that the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) has agreed to chair this committee. Having served with that gentleman on the select committee some three years ago, I know of his fairness. I know of his devotion to his responsibilities and his determination to carry out his responsibilities to the limits that are set out for him. I have every faith in that man.

I want to suggest too, particularly in reply to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis), that we look back, as I have in recent days, over the chain of events in the last few months. Look at such things as my reference to the Energy Board on April 28. Look at the supplementary action demanded of Hydro in July. Look at the fact that we are, as we do regularly, reviewing again their capital programme of borrowing and making every possible effort to ensure that the borrowing programme is only what is needed -- and that, of course, relates to the capital programme therefore.

In fact it is the government’s desire, and always has been, that the Hydro rates be the lowest possible, bearing in mind such factors as the financial integrity of Hydro and a reasonable supply of electricity to the province and a number of other factors all of which, I’m sure, will be discussed in the committee.

We’ve discussed this on a number of occasions since I became Minister of Energy. I recall many more discussions when by predecessor, the hon. Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), filled this portfolio. I would hope that the deliberations of this committee will be frank and full and that, in fact, the opposition parties will put forward their proposals in as clear a way as possible so that the people of Ontario can have a clear picture of what Ontario Hydro is today; what is the proposed future and what are the alternatives.

As the Minister of Energy, I look forward to assisting this committee in any way I can and assisting the members to bring about the best possible results of their work.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills. The member for Ottawa East.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Roy moved first reading of bill intituled

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to lower the speed limit on Ontario highways to 55 miles per hour. The result of this, Mr. Speaker, is dual. Not only do we save energy but we reduce the accident and injury rate and we have statistics to prove that. When we consider the cost to the health care system for motor vehicle accidents in this province is $1 million a day, I think it is an important piece of legislation. It was introduced in the last session and I am doing so again.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

[3:45]

Clerk of the House: The first order; consideration of the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. Norton moved, that a humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable Pauline M. McGibbon, OC, BA, LLD, DU (Ottawa), BAA (Theatre), Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects of the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us.”

Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it is both an honour and a great privilege for me, as a freshman member of this assembly, to be called upon to move this address to Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor.

I’m certain that all of the hon. members in the Legislature will join me in thanking her for her words of confidence and encouragement and the challenge which she issued to us at this time when we, as legislators, and the people we serve face perhaps one of the most difficult periods in our history.

In the weeks and months which lie ahead we, the members of the 30th Legislature of the province, must come to grips with some of the most complex problems ever to be faced by people in public service -- problems which we share with our fellow citizens throughout Canada and problems which indeed we share with people throughout the world. The solution of these problems will demand of us not only co-operation within this House but also co-operation with the other levels of government in this country. The tools by which the solutions will be sought will of necessity be imperfect economic tools.

It is my privilege to be among the first in this session to offer to you, Mr. Speaker, my sincere congratulations on your election to the post of the Speaker of this assembly. We are all confident that you will continue to serve in your role with the distinction and impartiality which has marked your service in that office in the past.

I also wish to congratulate the Premier (Mr. Davis), the leader of our government, a man whose qualities as a public servant, a politician and administrator have been amply demonstrated throughout his parliamentary career.

I should also like to congratulate the members of his cabinet, the new members and those who are continuing in cabinet posts. Particularly, I would like to wish well the two new members of the cabinet who also are new to this House, the hon. B. Stephenson and the hon. Mr. McMurtry.

I am proud to stand in this assembly as the successor to one of the finest gentlemen I believe ever to hold office in the Province of Ontario. He is a man of great strength of character, who served this House over a period of 12 years, both as a member and as a minister of the Crown; a man whose quality of service brought honour to himself, to this House and to the people he served throughout Ontario. Mr. Syl Apps has set a very high standard and a very fine example for me to follow.

In representing Kingston and the Islands I represent a riding which has a very special place in the history of this province and of this nation. I believe we are the oldest permanently settled community in Ontario, having recently celebrated our tercentary. It is a community which played a special and very significant role in the earlier development of parliamentary democracy in this country. It is a community which, if not the birthplace of Confederation, is surely the place where it was conceived. I was going to carry that further but I thought better of it before the assembly sat this afternoon.

In some respects Kingston and the Islands is a microcosm of Ontario. We have an interesting mix of urban, suburban and rural lifestyles, with the urban component becoming more and more cosmopolitan and multicultural as our population grows and changes.

We share with the other urban centres in this province the challenge of meeting the needs of the people for more adequate housing, more adequate public transportation and the development of a greater employment opportunity as well as most other contemporary urban problems.

Our differences from other urban centres in Ontario in this respect are mainly differences in scale. There is a great concern that, as growth in our community continues, the mechanism be there and the strength be there to ensure that it be carefully planned to protect the quality of the life of our people and the quality of the natural environment with which we in our riding are so greatly blessed.

We are proud of our reputation as one of Ontario’s principal tourist and recreational centres, a reputation due mainly to our historical character, the hospitality of our people and the beautiful natural setting at the confluence of the great St. Lawrence and Cataraqui rivers. But we feel strongly the need to develop a broader industrial base to expand employment opportunities and to diversify our local economy. The industrial parks assistance programme referred to in the Throne Speech at the opening of this session is a particularly welcome source of assistance to our community.

We are especially pleased to be able to be the main host community in Ontario in 1976 as the world focuses its attention on the 1976 Olympics, Kingston being the site for the sailing events.

As a newly elected member in this Legislature, I would like to focus my attention for a few moments upon the tasks that lie ahead of us. As I think has been gathered from the discussions that have taken place since the Legislature opened, probably the most pressing issue facing us is that of coming to grips with the economic ills that plague our nation and the world.

There are many simplistic answers to the puzzling questions that international and domestic economic turmoil have posed to all concerned citizens. There are some who would blame the public sector exclusively for the burden on the taxpayer and the slow growth in our economy. There are others who would seek to blame only labour or only private industry in their development of the analysis of what is going wrong.

I happen to believe that to spend time pointing fingers and trying to affix blame is in itself perhaps one of the most non-productive responses to the real economic crisis that many of us sense.

It is important that we do not lose our perspective here in Ontario. It is important that we recognize that, as a province, those who are in need are better served here, those who are productive are more encouraged here and those who enjoy life are more numerous here than in any other jurisdiction in this great Dominion.

It is all too easy in seeking simple answers to overlook the progress that we have already made in this province. It is the social problems, economic threats and financial insecurity created by the economic conditions of our time that are the critical enemies which all of us in this Legislature must turn our attention to. That, I think, is the lesson we can learn from the decision of the people on Sept. 18 and that, more directly than any other single directive, is the mandate that all of us in this Legislature, regardless of our political affiliation, have a duty to fulfil.

I believe that the Throne Speech read by Her Honour represents a clear and concise programme for immediate action and immediate response to those issues which are most critical in Ontario today.

I want to say to those in the loyal opposition that while in the 1950s and the 1960s it was appropriate and perhaps mandatory to err on the side of bigness, on the side of central planning or on the side of large expenditures to meet large needs, it is surely clearer today than ever before that people do not want hollow promises from government. They do not want programmes from government that they themselves cannot afford. The simple principle of being able to afford what you propose is a very basic principle insofar as the credibility of government in our entire democratic system is concerned.

I come to this Legislature as a new member committed to serve my constituents and to working with all the other members of this Legislature, regardless of political affiliation, to see that the broad public interest of the people of Ontario is served in every possible way. I will not be party to any pie-in-the-sky government. I will not be party to politics of misrepresentation or groundless optimism. The people want the truth. They want to know what government can afford, they want to know why a government programme is necessary and they want to know why a programme is necessary now.

The very same responsibility that we in government face, the one of self-justification, is one which no thinking citizen in this province would believe that those in the private sector do not themselves face. It is perhaps a critical factor in the presentation of a free market economy. It is the only way to guarantee a continued right to pursue profit fairly in our society. A government which knows of a social ill but which will not move to see it resolved is a government that is, in and of itself, part of a greater social ill.

A government that seeks to create the impression of a social ill so that it can move for political gain to rectify an alleged iii at great social cost, is a government that perpetrates its own irrelevance and cynicism at a cost to the entire parliamentary and democratic system.

I feel confident that this Legislature will move to endorse the pragmatic, direct and the responsive approach to the issues facing today’s Ontario that is included in the Throne Speech which it is my great privilege to speak in support of. I feel even more confident that despite the scars of previous campaigns there is, among the majority of the members of this Legislature, a definitive and clearly perceived common desire to work out solutions together to problems that face our society.

There may be more politics and more negotiations, more give and take in this Parliament than there has been for some time. That does not mean that there cannot be a level of public service and public responsiveness that would be a source of pride to any self-respecting public official. It is to help achieve that level of public service that I believe I was sent to this Legislature, and it is to be part of that effort to serve the public that gives me greatest pride.

In closing may I say that I trust that I share with all my colleagues in this House the sense that we, that is, all of us, have an important leadership role to fulfil in facing the economic difficulties that are testing our people and our province and our nation at this time. It is at times of crisis that we are often able to demonstrate the greatest strengths and qualities of character, and this may be such a time. The people we serve may well look to us, each of us, the way we conduct ourselves in this House, the serious-mindedness with which we approach the task which is before us.

They may look to this as a barometer by which to judge the seriousness with which they participate in the broader attack on our economic and social problems in this country. How else can we justifiably seek their confidence at a critical time like this?

Our Premier, who, in the face of federal government intransigence, led this nation’s efforts to pressure the federal government into demonstrative leadership, is now, in the face of federal actions, urging us to join in support of proposed measures in the national interest. This initiative on his part, I suggest, has enhanced his national stature as a leader.

There will be differences of opinion in this House; there will be times of testing and conflict, and I am sure conflict that I and other freshmen to the Legislature have not experienced before in such magnitude, but above all, sir, I trust that we will not lose sight of the broader public interest which we are here to serve and the principal responsibilities we have to discharge to the people of Ontario. May we seek to do so in the very highest and finest traditions of this institution.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed privileged to have this opportunity to second the motion of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for the adoption of the Speech from the Throne presented by the hon. Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Ontario.

The people of this province are indeed grateful that Her Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, has shown such a great interest and concern for their well-being. The Speech from the Throne has laid the foundation of our deliberations and actions over the months ahead for the welfare of the people, combined with a good common-sense approach. Our government will be called upon to deal with a great many diverse and complex issues which face us during these troubled economic times. I feel certain that the new cabinet, under the capable and inspiring leadership of the Premier, will continue to provide for this province in the most productive and beneficial manner.

I would like at this time, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the new ministers of our government, the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. J. R. Smith), the Minister of Government Services (Mrs. Scrivener), the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Parrott), the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor), the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson), the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Henderson).

Further, I wish to extend my congratulations to those ministers who are changing portfolios and those who are retaining cabinet positions held during the 29th session. I also wish to offer, Mr. Speaker, most sincere congratulations on your election to the post of Speaker of this assembly. I know that all the hon. members of this Legislature are fully aware of your wealth of experience, your years of service as deputy chairman and chairman of the committee of the whole House.

I am proud to be here as a new member today, representing the new constituency of Mississauga North. I was also proud to see and be, with the other members present today, a part of what I sense is history -- in the swearing in ceremonies of our new Ombudsman.

Our riding is geographically large and presently includes approximately 80,000 constituents in political terms. Mississauga North forms part of a most impressive historical record. Former members of the county of Peel, such as Gordon Graydon and Col. Thomas Kennedy, a past Premier of Ontario, have made outstanding contributions to the political life of our province. I hope that I will be a worthy representative in this same tradition.

I am both humble and proud that the new riding of Mississauga North is composed of parts of the former ridings of Peel North and Peel South, being represented respectively by our Premier and the chief government whip, the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy). These men have been and are outstanding examples of public servants.

My constituency is composed of a large part of the city of Mississauga. To many the image of Mississauga is an area of rapid urbanization. And it is that. Some people seem, though, genuinely surprised that the riding includes some of Ontario’s most productive farmland. I am happy, as you will notice by the apples, Mr. Speaker, to share some of the fruits of this agricultural history in abundance with fellow members of this House.

In our area, one can see a mixture of rural and urban community together. There is a blending of some of the older villages, such as the village I come from, called Streetsville, and we have, of course, Malton and the new cities -- Meadowvale and Erin Mills. We have, indeed, a diverse community in this new Mississauga North, in the centre of this region of Peel. What we are out to do is to effectively have a combination of the old and the new and I, as a member of this Legislature in that community, will do all that I can to work with others in maintaining a balance of both the preservation and the growth of this area.

Another important aspect of my constituency is that it includes the International Airport. I am well aware of the problems of residents who live near a major airport. I listened, of course, intensely and with interest to the comments that have gone on in this House since this session started and I noted how often the airport was mentioned. I live with it. So I bring to this House, hopefully, some firsthand advice, thoughts and comments that I hope to have an opportunity to extend, due to the recent exercise of dialogue with the people of my riding.

I am aware of the need for foresighted land-use planning while keeping in mind noise cone locations and traffic patterns. I am also well aware of the tremendous investment in roads and ancillary services required to support an international airport. It is clear that our government took a bold step in their rejecting of a spending of hundreds of millions of dollars for the Pickering airport, in view of our current economic circumstances, in view also of the changing travel habits and in view of our energy situation. I would also like to go on record as saying further that my constituents are opposed to any runway expansion at Malton. So am I and so is our government.

It seems to me as a new member that we need to see that, and the public needs to see, that governments are prepared to take dramatic steps in order to reduce spending. We have all heard the comments in these last few days and we heard earlier this day of the need for the fiscal responsibility. Here was, I repeat, a bold step by this government. We must have more Pickering decisions if Canada’s economic situation is to have the attention that is required at this time.

I think it is important that we establish at the outset that the economic challenges facing our province and the policy matters which members of this Legislature are going to be addressing themselves to, will have to be dealt with effectively. If there is an attitude that intimidates within this Legislature, we are divided into enemies and friends.

It can be said, and said again -- and it must be said again -- that the only enemies I see in this Legislature are the threats of economic insecurity which everyone in this Legislature is committed to combat.

I think it also important that we say at the outset that no party in this Legislature can claim to have a monopoly on public concern or concerns for the wage-earners mentioned earlier today or, as they are sometimes referred to, “the little men.” It is a sad commentary on politics today that there are many who seek, it seems, to fill their careers, to fill their own futures, by pointing to some as the friends of the corporate elite. I heard it in this House on the first day of my attendance; the primping of themselves as friends of the working man.

I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) is not in his chair at this time. I speak with very sincere respect to the Leader of the Opposition in whose present riding I grew up and I was one of six children in a working class household. The pretence advanced during this last election -- hopefully we won’t see it advance further in this Legislature but I have the suspicion it will -- was that his party and his members are the only ones who are to help the wage-earner -- or “the little man” as I heard yet again -- in Ontario. This is insulting to my side.

Mr. Deans: Are you feeling a little vulnerable?

Mr. Jones: One of the great temptations in Ontario today is that of the simple solution.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you tell him his maiden speech is supposed to be non-provocative?

Mr. Jones: The one-line answer to the complex problems that face the people of this province is no longer acceptable to the voters. All politicians must share in the guilt of having created the assumption publicly that one-line answers might work. I would submit that the people don’t believe they work anymore and won’t believe politicians who try to suggest they can.

Interjection.

Mr. Jones: In seconding the motion on the Speech from the Throne, I am stating as clearly as I can that it is a realistic speech for today’s Ontario. I came from a constituency where there are many young people who have just purchased a home or are trying to purchase a home. Many live in apartments, beginning a life together, if you wish, and they don’t start with a basic cynicism about the political process. They don’t begin with mistrust or distrust I say, as a member of this House, specifically to those of my colleagues in this Legislature, who are elected for the first time.

It is my conviction that the working men and women of this province truly want this Legislature to work and they want the government of Ontario to be effective.

It seems to me that the next election will be an important one for Ontario, as was the last; it will be a terribly important one, and the public should have appropriate facts for its consideration.

If, for example, the New Democratic Party believes that a socialistic policy is appropriate for this province, let it say so. In the clearest of terms, I will be aggressive in putting forward my arguments to oppose that view and I would be less than forthright if I didn’t indicate it in these, my first comments.

Interjections.

Mr. Jones: I make these comments not in a partisan sense, but with the sincere desire to reduce the frustrations of the electorate which I saw in the last election.

If individuals are to be representatives of our constituents then let us tell it as it is. It is sad that the political parties might choose the politics of confrontation -- we have seen it -- the polities of rattling the ballot box, as one would a sabre in medieval and feudal war. Indeed, I would think that the people of Ontario are tired of confrontation and they want a meaningful, co-operative government from those of us in office.

I would hope that in dealing with the substantial thrust of the Speech from the Throne we are able to understand that it is a speech which pinpoints key problems and isolates those on which the government can act now.

If there are those opposite who believe that we should move quickly, without consultation and observing the comments of today from the federal government -- there is a new anti-inflation programme -- and when provincial governments, including Liberal and Now Democratic governments in other provinces, have a consensus to be found on matters like rents unilaterally during what is clearly a serious national economic crisis, then let them say so and say so in this House.

If there are those who believe that the only way Ontario can do its

part in an anti-inflation programme is by creating the eleventh set of guidelines we heard of earlier, or its own set of rules and regulations and its own bureaucracy and spending more of the people’s money to find some way of protecting the purchasing value of the people’s money, if that is the only way they think Ontario cat be helpful let them say so.

The posture of this government has been responsive and we have indicated maximum co-operation for economic action with the national government of this country. We have indicated areas within the programme that we disagree with and we are working for change. Nevertheless, we are on whatever national team can be put together to try to deal with the economic pressures which are attacking the lifestyle of every constituent who sent a representative to this Legislature on Sept. 18.

If there are those in this Legislature who think they can serve Ontario better by creating another bureaucracy or more cumbersome world rules that could work against the success of any such programme, then let them say so.

We have outlined in the Throne Speech several measures which are designed to assist various groups in our society in coping with the pressures of inflation.

Among those most seriously affected by increases in the cost of living are the many pensioners who are existing on fixed incomes. In order to assist our senior citizens, new aid to low-income pensioners in meeting their rental obligations would be an important feature of this legislative session. I know that this special assistance will meet with province-wide approval.

Also in this session, our government will be implementing a programme of rent restraint applied to the cost of rental accommodation. These measures will be supplemented by changes to the existing landlord and tenant legislation to provide protection for tenants against unfair and improper eviction and minimum lease times and adequate notice of landlords’ intentions not to renew. Further initiatives will be undertaken to increase the supply of rental accommodation.

[4:15]

For homeowners, assistance on mortgages in excess of a certain percentage will directly reduce the cost of borrowing money to purchase homes. This initiative will complement the first home-buyer grant of $1,500 and other programmes which were implemented by the Province of Ontario earlier this year. Measures such as these will go far to fulfil our government’s commitment to provide adequate housing at a reasonable cost for all residents of Ontario.

Energy, in all of its forms, has been a source of considerable concern. We’ve heard again today that be it gasoline to drive our cars, fuel to heat our homes or electricity to run our factories, all have been subject to shortages and to substantial price increases, or both. Our government plans to introduce measures during this session to provide security of supply now and in the years to come, for what we need for present expenditures and for our energy demands of tomorrow.

Ontario has, for the past few years, been numbered among North American leaders in the development of new legislation to protect consumers. We can be proud of the measures undertaken such as the Business Practices Act, the Consumer Reporting Act, the Travel Industry Act, to name just a few. Many of our initiatives have been copied and adopted by other jurisdictions both in Canada and in the United States. There is, without a doubt, much more we can do during this session of the Legislature. I hope our government will continue to develop this area of concern.

As with consumer legislation, Ontario has stepped up to the forefront of concerned jurisdictions in the field of environmental protection. Our government has brought forth initiatives designed to control and prevent contamination of our water, our air and our soil. During the next few weeks, legislation will be introduced to further control certain forms of pollution. I am sure the government will meet and overcome threats to the environment such as the very difficult problem inherent in the dissemination of metal mercury in some of our northern lakes and rivers. We feel confident that the measures to be taken will go far to remedy those difficulties.

I represent a vibrant and fast-growing commun