Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, may I bring to the attention of yourself and the members of this House, the attendance this afternoon of grades 7 and 8 of St. Joseph’s School in Tillsonburg.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the members of the Legislature join with me in welcoming 30 grade 8 students from St. Martin’s School in Terrace Bay under the leadership of Mr. Mike Anderson, Sister Paulette Hatfield, Ed. McAdam, and their bus driver Mr. Scheuchenpflug. I hope they will welcome this school group to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

LEAD SURVEYS

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, because of the intense interest expressed by the hon. members and the general public in the problem of lead pollution, I will be tabling for their information, a report on lead surveys prepared by the phytotoxicology section of the air resources branch of my ministry. This report, which has just recently been brought to my attention, was intended for internal use within my ministry, but because of the intense public interest in this matter I believe that it should be made available to the general public. I have also appended to this document, status reports on the abatement programmes which my ministry has initiated with the industries involved.

I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that although Imperial Smelting is listed on this report, it does not use lead in any of its processes. The readings obtained here were the result of vehicular traffic in the area. The survey has been conveyed to the Ministry of Health and the local health officials, who will evaluate any potential risk to the health of the residents in the area, bearing in mind the location of the residents with respect to the location of the plant. Based on this information, they will decide what action is necessary.

As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, an inter-ministerial working group is now preparing a report for me on the lead pollution situation in Toronto, and I hope to have this report shortly. At that time, I hope that some positive steps may be taken for solving this serious problem that is of concern to all members of this House.

POLICE RAID ON HOTEL

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to inform the Legislature that the government has authorized an inquiry pursuant to the provisions of the Public Inquiries Act, 1971, into the May 11, 1974, police raid at the Landmark Motor Inn Hotel in Fort Erie.

I wish to inform the hon. members that His Honour Judge John A. Pringle, judge of the county court of the judicial district of Norfolk, will head the inquiry which will look into circumstances surrounding the raid and the actions of police on that occasion. Judge Pringle will subsequently make any recommendations he deems necessary.

The inquiry will be held under the Public Inquiries Act rather than under the Police Act, as I had indicated earlier, to completely assure the public that this matter will be thoroughly investigated. The chairman of the Ontario Police Commission shares my view that there must be no question of our intent in this regard.

Judge Pringle will have the authority to engage counsel and hire investigators and other staff required to assist him.

WATTS FROM WASTE PROJECT

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, just over a week ago I announced the offer of $5 million in provincial financing to Metropolitan Toronto and Ontario Hydro to develop the Watts from Waste project at the Lakeview generating station. Our intention, with the financing, was to help launch this $15 million system to turn 1,000 tons of municipal waste into electrical power every day. Today, in conjunction with Metropolitan Toronto, I am pleased to announce the construction of an experimental reclamation plant.

My predecessor, now the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld), established a joint technical committee composed of representatives of the Ministry of the Environment, Environment Canada and Metropolitan Toronto to look into resource recovery. The committee commissioned Kilborn Engineering Ltd. to make an international study of developments in resource recovery and to draw up plans for an experimental reclamation plant to test the many new concepts that are emerging. The objective was to design a facility that would be both a functional centre and a research laboratory to develop the technology and processes for refining reclamation systems.

Mr. Speaker, the 200-ton-per-day experimental reclamation plant will be built adjacent to Metropolitan Toronto’s Dufferin St. incinerator in an industrial district in North York. I expect that construction will be under way on the site this fall and I hope that the plant will be in operation in about a year’s time.

The estimated cost of the experimental plant is $7,500,000 including the cost of land, which is valued at $1 million. Metropolitan Toronto will be asked to share the total cost of the project, with the Province of Ontario paying two-thirds and Metropolitan Toronto one-third. Part of Metropolitan Toronto’s share will be the land on which the plant is to be sited. Metropolitan Toronto will also be asked to share the operating costs of the plant on a basis of a two-thirds to one-third.

As I mentioned, Environment Canada has been represented on the technical committee, and the federal government has been asked to participate in the financing of construction and operation of this plant. As yet no commitment has been received from Ottawa. If the federal government should decide to participate in this project, we would hope that the capital and operating costs would be shared equally by the three levels of government.

Since this facility plays a dual role -- research and practical reclamation -- both Metropolitan Toronto and the Ministry of the Environment will be providing staff for the centre.

As a research centre, this project has no equal in the world today. Solid waste research to date, particularly in the US, has taken the form of demonstration plants, each concentrating on a single process or a limited number of processes. Here we will have a comprehensive experimental plant thoroughly monitored and dealing with sufficient waste to enable us to prove the most practical and economical methods of reclamation. As an added benefit this plant will permit us to establish a Canadian technology in waste recovery.

The initial plant will include a paper and cardboard recovery module, a metals recovery module, an energy recovery module and a composting module. These categories collectively represent about 80 per cent of the total volume of refuse entering a plant and they provide the most readily marketable products. The facility is designed to permit the addition of future experimental modules without interrupting the operation of the plant.

The site chosen for construction fits the reclamation centre directly into an existing solid waste handling system operated by Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, in developing this innovative project. Metropolitan Toronto and Environment Canada have demonstrated that they share with the Province of Ontario a continuing commitment to the reclamation of refuse rather than disposal of waste.

For the information of the members, Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling the Kilborn Engineering report at the appropriate time.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

HOPE TOWNSHIP GARBAGE SITE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Further to his statement, which really announced once more the recycling project called Watts for Waste, I’d like to ask the Minister of the Environment if he can now also say that he is not prepared to approve the application put forward by Canadian Pacific Rail to take Metropolitan Toronto garbage into the Hope township area? Is that project dead? We would hope that he could announce that it is.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, my answer is the same as I gave about 10 days ago in the House. We are still evaluating the total situation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Will part of the evaluation now be hinged on a further statement of the importance of the reclamation and recycling project that he announced again today?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, the project that I announced today, jointly with Metropolitan Toronto, is an experimental plant which I hope will lead in the future to larger, more efficient reclamation plants.

This is an experimental plant, which will handle about 200 tons per day.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A supplementary: In view of the fact that that plant is expected to be in operation in about a year’s time, would this not shorten the period in which Metropolitan Toronto waste could be handled by recycling plants of this sort?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, as new technology is developed and as processes become available we are always going to need sanitary landfill sites. This experimental project, which should be completed approximately a year from this fall, will show us the ways and means. I might say that in the initial part of the plant we will be dealing with a well-known process but, as we get into the other modules of the plant, we’ll be doing a lot of experimental work.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since with every successive announcement the need for both Liverpool and Hope township becomes less and less apparent, certainly for Hope, can the minister give us a deadline at which time he will make the announcement one way or the other, rather than leaving the citizens in constant apprehension?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition and as I said to the hon. member about 10 days ago, we are still evaluating the site in Hope township.

Mr. Lewis: But does the minister have a target date in mind for completion of the evaluation and when he can make a public announcement?

Hon. W. Newman: I probably do, in my own mind at this point in time; I would rather not say exactly, but it will be out in the fullness of time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

BARE POINT POWER PROJECT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the same minister if he has been asked by the Ministry of Energy or by any of the officials of Ontario Hydro for an environmental impact assessment of the Hydro proposals for Bare Point in the Thunder Bay district, a proposal that is evidently much objected to by the citizens in the area?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, we are constantly in communication with the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) on many of these programmes. We are discussing these at great length all the time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, a supplementary: Surely the minister must be aware that what we are talking about is a formal, impartial environmental impact study before Hydro goes any further with its programme to establish, I believe, twin plants at Bare Point, one nuclear and one perhaps to be fuelled by lignite.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, at the present time Hydro do internal environmental assessments on all the plants that they are building.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: What about the Ministry of the Environment? Is the minister quite satisfied that his responsibilities are fulfilled by leaving it all with the Crown corporation, which of course would have a conflict of interest in that assessment?

Hon. W. Newman: We are looking constantly at the total picture of Hydro at all times and we will continue to do so. And if the hon. Leader of the Opposition recalls the Speech from the Throne, we are looking forward to some sort of legislation in the not too distant future.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Oh, come on!

Mr. Stokes: A supplementary: Inasmuch as the second stage of the generating plant referred to by the Leader of the Opposition will be a thermal facility and there will be thermal pollution, would not the Ministry of the Environment be involved in the initial stages to make sure that the plant was built in an area where thermal pollution, along with SO₂, would be kept to be minimum?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, I don’t know what the hon. member means by thermal pollution. A lot of people are talking about thermal pollution, but I don’t know that there is any thermal pollution.

Mr. Stokes: I’m talking about the cooling water -- the hot water dumped into Lake Superior.

LOCKOUT AT MEAT-PACKING PLANTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes). Maybe he will be back in his seat in a moment.

Until then I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- and perhaps we could deal with this in the estimates -- whether he can tell the House if the Food Council or anyone in his ministry has assessed the impact to the consumer of the proposed lockout of the meat packing plants in western Canada, particularly if it results in a similar lockout by the three major packers in this province. Is the minister concerned with that or does he consider it only a labour problem?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): No, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with it, but as to having done an assessment of it, I wouldn’t say we have done a detailed assessment. We are concerned, but I would say that there is a larger percentage of meat in storage today in Canada than at any time in the last three years. That meat is not necessarily held in packers’ storage; it is in public storages of one kind or another all over the country. So, meat is available.

We are concerned, there is no question about it. Beef cattle can be held a certain amount of time, but hogs can’t to the same degree. That could have a major impact on hog slaughterings within the next couple of weeks. I am not sure as to what the outcome of the vote was that was held over the weekend; I haven’t heard.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was a rejection.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It was a rejection -- I hadn’t heard that. What will happen, we don’t know. But it is of major concern to all of us.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Wouldn’t one of the aspects with which the Food Council might assist the minister in this connection, be in deciding what the minister is going to do if, in fact, the supply of meat is cut off and we have all of this meat in storage and its price is artificially elevated by the circumstances associated with this lockout? Wouldn’t the minister think that government policy had better be prepared in advance with the Ministry of Labour, particularly in this connection, so that the consumers are not going to pay unnecessarily high prices for meat which is presently in storage and which will have its value artificially inflated?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: This is always a possibility, Mr. Speaker, but I would say that in past times when there have been strikes in the packing industry, we have managed to survive and get along. I assume we will be able to do the same this time. I would say that much of the meat that is in storage today was put there at prices that were far beyond what the present price structure indicates. As to what the price will be when it comes out, if it reflects the cost at which it went in, my guess is that it will be higher than it is today.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Since this can be read as a calculated attempt on the part of the packers to maintain abnormally high prices or inflate the prices during a difficult labour situation, and since the situation may be on Ontario one week from now, is the minister involved with his colleagues, the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) or the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) to do something to view it as a potential emergency rather than a simple matter that we allow to take its course?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, we haven’t had any particular exchange of views within our own ministry on this. I wasn’t aware of the outcome of the vote this morning, but we have been aware of what happened in Alberta and we were concerned that it might spread across Canada. My guess is that it may very well do just that. What can be done in the meantime, I don’t know. I would suppose that the Province of Ontario is particularly fortunate in that we have a sizable number of smaller packing plants that are not involved with the three that the strike problem may affect.

BREACH OF TRUST BY HIGHWAYS EMPLOYEES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister if he has read the comments by county court judge Kenneth Fogarty delivered at the time that he sentenced two provincial government highways employees to reformatory terms for breach of trust -- actually the acceptance of a bribe. Has the minister read the comments of the judge who specifically said, “The men did not take the initiative. It was Dibblee Construction.” Therefore, is the minister still approving any contracts with Dibblee Construction or has he suggested to the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) that further court action should be taken?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I had not read the comments concerning that. I am quite familiar with the situation that took place, I believe in the Ottawa area, that resulted in the conviction. There has been some discussion about the comment, although I did not read it. It has been brought to my attention.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the judge criticized the reprehensible conduct of Dibblee which, he said, “invites the men to break the law, paid them for it and then turned them over to their superiors,” has the minister taken action to see that contracts that we have with Dibblee are cancelled and that we do not accept their tenders on further provincial work?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not taken that action at this time. As I mentioned to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I have not read those specific comments; they have been mentioned to me and we are discussing that whole situation at the present time.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Under the circumstances, would the minister not agree that we should be contemplating further action as far as the courts are concerned, but that surely we should not be doing business with this company with the facts that have been put before the courts and drawn to public attention by the judge himself?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would join with the Leader of the Opposition and all others who find this sort of conduct on the part of anyone reprehensible -- to entice employees of this government or any other agency of this government to indulge in illegal activities. If the circumstances that have been related are accurate and factual, then I will take the necessary action.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In his report, would the minister advise us of what other outstanding contracts which are presently in operation have been awarded to that company? And would the minister also review those to make sure that they are all in order?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I most certainly will.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

LOCKOUT AT MEAT PACKING PLANTS

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question first of the Minister of Labour. Has his ministry been directly involved with the packing companies and the unions concerned, in advance of the possible breakdown of relations amongst them -- between them, in specific instances -- in order to avoid the kind of consumer vulnerability which will occur if the packing plants close in Ontario as well as in Alberta?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the ministry has not been directly involved in the sense that it’s our ministry because, as you know, the present negotiations have been going on in Alberta. We have, however, been very much concerned about it and Mr. Dickie, whom you know, has spent about a week in Edmonton as the chief arbitrator for the group. He is the one who has been trying to put them together. He formulated the package or had a great deal to do with the package which is now being voted on. So that we are --

Mr. Lewis: It has been voted on.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It has been voted on? Well, I gather from what the member is saying now, today, that it was rejected. The last I heard we still had hopes that the eastern vote would carry it, but if it has now been rejected that’s it. Mr. Dickie will be disappointed; we are disappointed and we are concerned.

TORONTO ISLAND AIRPORT

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Is it perhaps now the time to intervene directly and personally in the matters relating to the Toronto Island technical committee that is meeting, in order to correct what occurred at the end of last week where the executive director of the planning division of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications was forced to cast the deciding vote to exclude the public from observing a meeting involved in the planning and preparation for airports on Toronto Island?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am quite familiar with what took place at that particular meeting. The group of persons representing -- the ForWard 9 citizens’ group came to that particular meeting, quite a large number of them I understand, demanding to be present at the meeting. The meeting of representatives there held a vote within themselves in the committee. It was a tie, and as is usually the case, the vote to break the tie falls with the chairman who, in this case, happens to be the executive director of planning for the ministry.

At that time, representatives of the group were invited to come in and discuss their particular thinking with the committee. It was after that the vote was taken. They were invited to present a brief. I have since spoken to the spokesman for the group by telephone and I told him I would attempt to see if we could have the meetings open to the public. I intend to be back in contact with that gentleman in the future.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: I hope the minister recognizes that it was not just ForWard 9, but it was CORRA, the Toronto Island Residents’ Association, Grange Park, the Annex Association, several citizens’ groups, who attempted simply to observe and who for strange reasons -- well, for reasons whatever they may be -- were excluded. Could not the minister, given the ministry’s influence here, simply insist, particularly in the light of the publicity, that all matters relating to airport planning now on Toronto Island, be a matter of public knowledge and not a conspiracy behind doors?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of the fact there were other groups involved because I received a copy of a letter that had been addressed to the committee --

Mr. Lewis: By one group.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- which was signed by the one group. I was not aware of the other groups being present. I spoke to one gentleman, who I understand was involved with the ForWard 9 group. That’s the one gentleman to whom I spoke.

I think at this stage we might just as well allow this committee to complete what it is doing, Mr. Speaker. It will be completed in only a very short time. The information that is being gathered by the committee is not going to be secret, it will be made entirely public. I have given public assurance on that, here in this House, to the press and I repeat it again regarding all of the material that is gathered by that committee.

They will be making no recommendations. They will simply be putting forth that which they have found in their technical discussions. All of that material will be made available to any interested group or any individual; and I have made the commitment that I will table it all here in the Legislature if the members so wish; and that will be done. There is no intention to hide anything that has gone on in that committee; certainly it is not my intention at all and I will do everything in my power to see everything is made public.

Mr. Lewis: Then make the meetings public.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have spoken to the members of the committee and insisted that all of that material be made available.

I think in fairness to the committee, at this stage it is just about at the end of its work and I believe if we now open it up to the public -- perhaps if this had been done originally it may have been a lot easier, I’m not denying that -- but I say at this stage it may just prolong the whole agonizing exercise a little longer. I would like to have them complete their meetings and I will make all of the information available to anyone who wants it.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Attorney General has said he will undertake an investigation of the falsification of the material coming out of that committee, wouldn’t it appear now that the minister should withdraw from that committee members of his ministry who are sitting on it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all convinced there was falsification of material. There have been all sorts of charges and countercharges, and statements have been made. I honestly believe some of them have been made for their own particular political purposes. I don’t accept the fact there’s been falsification of material. I agree with the hon. member and others present that there was some condensation of the minutes of the meeting.

Mr. Deacon: Seriously condensed.

Mrs. Campbell: They were seriously condensed.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This was done. It was said quite openly that they had been condensed; but the complete minutes are available. I don’t attend the meetings, I’m not a member of the committee; and as I say, if the Attorney General wishes to investigate falsification on this, then certainly it is within his right to do so.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, one more supplementary if I may: Can the minister explain why the minutes of the last two meetings have not been circulated at all?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Neither condensed nor in full.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t know, Mr. Speaker, why they haven’t been. Frankly, I’m a little disturbed, because it was my understanding they would be distributed in their entirety.

Mr. Lewis: Well senior officials of this ministry are not playing ball.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If that is the case, it has just been brought to my attention at this time. I will certainly look into it and see that they are distributed.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

LEMOINE POINT

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may: Where do we stand on the Lemoine Point matter? Since the appraisals seem to take forever, has there been a specific offer made for this desirable property in eastern Ontario?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have not checked on this particular matter within the last week; but when I last did, I found there were two appraisals in and we are still waiting for the third appraisal. We have one from Government Services, one from a private appraiser and another one is coming in very shortly.

Mr. Lewis: Where is that one coming from? What’s left?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: From a private appraiser.

MANITOULIN LAND ACQUISITION

Mr. Lewis: I see. Can the minister tell me then, by way of a new related question, where do we stand on the acquisition of the 6,000 acres on Manitoulin Island as a potential provincial park, as well as Lemoine Point?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, let me point out -- I think it’s 80,000 acres to be exact on Manitoulin Island.

Mr. Lewis: Sorry, 80,000; you’re right. I was thinking of something else.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have not defined the purpose for that particular purchase at this point in time, but we are in the process of doing so. We have contacted the Ontario Paper Co. with regard to purchasing that particular property. If we can reach a negotiable price then we’ll take the next steps.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

ALGONQUIN FOREST AUTHORITY

Mr. Lewis: One last question of the same minister: The ministry has been contacting, as I understand it has it not, a number of groups and individuals about serving on the Algonquin Forest Authority board? Will that board and its composition be announced in advance of the adjournment of this session even though the legislation is not through?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I can give the hon. member that particular assurance at this point in time. As he correctly points out we are contacting a number of different groups as we want a very wide range of input from a number of diversified groups. We are getting some favourable reaction from some and not so favourable from others. To make a firm commitment that I would have that information prior to the rising of the House, which we expect will be in a matter of the next two weeks, I am not sure that I can give that assurance.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

TWO-MAN POLICE CARS

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Solicitor General. Perhaps I could just compliment the government on making the decision that we have been urging for so long, even though it was so hard to make, in relation to the Landmark matter.

My question today doesn’t deal with that, it deals with the province’s attitude, if it has any, to the appeal taken by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Commission to the Supreme Court of Ontario in relation to a decision made by the arbitrator about two-man cars. Knowing full well that a similar decision made in Dryden was ruled to be a properly arbitrable matter by Mr. Justice John O’Driscoll, does the province have any attitude about this? Are they going to intervene? Or are they going to make it clear to police commissions, when one takes away from policemen the right to strike, arbitration should be final and binding and not dragged through the courts?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the question of two-man cruisers is a major one. This is probably the first time that particular item was the subject of arbitration that I am aware of.

Mr. Singer: Dryden?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Outside of the situation in Dryden.

Mr. Singer: That was the first one, yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: But it is the first time in Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Singer: The first one other than the first one, yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is the first time the Metropolitan Toronto police have been involved.

Mr. Singer: Yes, the first time by this one; and probably the first time that this judge has ever heard it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Dealing with that issue, I don’t think that I or the government should intervene, when the matter has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

I think the municipality has that right to do that. That is a procedure under arbitration. I think the decision of the Supreme Court, in spite of the Dryden decision, will probably be very important in relation to that item in future police negotiations.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, does the Solicitor General not have any opinions about the legal testing of arbitrable matters? Has he no opinion which he is prepared to convey to police commissions, or do we set arbitration matters and then say, “If you are not satisfied, okay, police commissions, go to the courts”?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I think, Mr. Speaker, it would be improper for me to comment on something that is the subject of an appeal to the --

Mr. Singer: That is the way the Solicitor General started off in Landmark too, yes.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Singer: Supreme Court of Canada? One can’t start there.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Supreme Court of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Until that decision is handed down, I don’t think we should comment on it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

RENEWAL OF LEASES FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General, I would like to ask the House leader a question, in view of the urgency of the situation.

Will the House leader undertake that the government or the appropriate ministry investigate the situation at 2125 Gulliver Rd. in North York -- where Dantrue Investments has refused to renew the leases of families with children -- with a view to seeing to it that these children are allowed to remain in that apartment complex?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know the situation myself but I will certainly take the question as notice and endeavour to secure an answer very quickly for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener was up previously.

DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Is it correct that a number of administrative files and records were destroyed by the administrators of the Ste. Marie-among-the-Hurons project on orders from the ministry shortly after irregularities were discovered in the Old Fort William project? If so, what was the content of the files, who gave the orders, and why was it done?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that this ever occurred within the ministry but I will certainly check into it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

HOLIDAY MAGIC

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I would like to ask the minister about Holiday Magic’s operations in Ottawa. Is the minister aware that Holiday Magic is seeking distributors in Ottawa under another name than the company’s registered title under the Pyramidic Sales Act? Is he also aware that its major activity appears to be the enlisting of people in courses for organizers at $250 per head when this is not covered in the prospectus? And is he aware that organizers are told that they can operate without having to sell from door to door when there is no commission involved in Holiday Magic’s arrangements for organizers who do not sell directly to the public?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of some of the practices touched on by the member for Ottawa Centre. It would appear that the $250 fee, which the subsidiary or relation of the Holiday Magic Co. is operating right now, is not a contravention of our pyramidic sales legislation. There has been a question generated in our minds as to whether it in fact contravenes educational legislation in the terms of private schools and we are looking into that at the present time.

We can’t find any obligation on the entrant into that course to embark upon the distributorship programme of Holiday Magic. There doesn’t seem to be any obligation on the individual. I must say I cannot find anybody who has embarked on that course who in fact has not followed it up by joining the scheme. But at the present time I am advised by my law officers that it is not a breach of the pyramidic sales legislation, although there might well be certain other ministries touched on by this particular practice.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, a supplementary: Would the minister look into the fact that people who are enlisted in this course as organizers are not given a look at the prospectus? Presumably they only get that after they’ve been thoroughly hooked into the distributorship programme.

Would the minister also comment on the fact that only 55 of Holiday Magic’s distributors across the province -- about 14 per cent of the total number -- and five per cent of all those they have enlisted since 1966, have in fact taken out more in goods than the amount they originally invested in the company? Clearly it is a company established to sell training and not to sell goods. Would the minister comment on that?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I must disagree with the conclusion drawn by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre that it is in fact a company set up to sell training. Our experience with a number of people who brought it to our attention, has been that in fact they have been recruited to sell goods; and some of them have indicated that they have vast supplies of these unsold goods in their possession at present.

Insofar as the handing out of the prospectus is concerned, I am advised that if one enrols to take this training course, there is no necessity on Holiday Magic to provide a prospectus because the prospectus relates to the sales programme that falls within the objects of the company for which it was originally incorporated. If there were a connecting link, where one was conditional on the other, then my answer might be somewhat different.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: Would the minister consider legislation to ensure that any person taking training or acting in other ways than as a customer with the company be entitled to have the prospectus, and in effect the company be obliged to give that individual a prospectus?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Well, I don’t want to say I won’t consider it. When some of the questions, which have already been referred by me to another ministry, are answered, the answer might be self-evident as a result of that inquiry. It may not be necessary for us to do it; there may well be certain other statutes that are being infringed upon by this practice.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary question, do I take it from the minister’s last reply that a request has been made to the Ministry of Education to find out whether or not this particular subsidiary company is in fact registered or licensed under the Trade Schools Regulation Act and whether it is in compliance with the regulations under that Act?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I have directed an inquiry to a colleague in the Province of Quebec, where I understand certain charges are pending against two principals of Holiday Magic under their Education Act for the matters alleged in the quasi-criminal charges which are now pending. I am waiting to get that information so that I can then sit down with my colleague, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells), and ascertain if any trade school legislation or any private school legislation is being breached by the particular practice described by the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question: Would he not inquire of the Minister of Education whether or not that Trade Schools Regulation Act is being complied with by the subsidiary company without waiting for a reply from his colleague in Quebec?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes. I want to make it clear I will not sit down with either the Minister of Education or the Minister of Colleges and Universities until I get this information which I expect to have any moment. I believe -- and I’m now advised -- it should be within the purview of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities if it deals with trade school legislation which we are discussing here today.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call on the hon. member for York-Forest Hill, the Minister of Transportation and Communications has the answer to a question asked previously.

EXTENSION OF QEW

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have a reply to a question asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning the number of acres of land to be acquired to fulfil the part of the programme which will be completed in the next year or two on the Queen Elizabeth Way. Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would agree since there are a number of details and figures and in order to save the time of the House, may I send him a copy and table a copy? Would that be satisfactory?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That would be fine.

DIAL-A-BUS

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, the same circumstances apply to a question asked by the hon. member for Downsview concerning the costs of the dial-a-bus experiment: it is quite lengthy and contains quite detailed figures. If I might send him a copy and table one, would that be adequate?

Mr. Singer: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you.

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): Send me a copy, too.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Fine.

Mr. Singer: I’ll ask the questions tomorrow.

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

LEGISLATION ON HITCH-HIKING

Mr. Givens: While the minister is on his feet, may I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications whether he intends to implement the request of the council of the borough of North York by legislation to ban hitch-hiking and hitch-hikers in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any specific request. The only information I have is that which has appeared in the press. When the specific request is made from the borough we will look at it at that time.

Mr. Givens: A supplementary: May I ask the minister whether, in his opinion, there is a direct correlation between hitch-hiking and crimes of indecent assault and other related crimes?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that possibility is certainly there. I don’t think we can deny that. But I’m not an expert on what happens between hitch-hikers and those who pick them up. I don’t bother picking up hitch-hikers myself so I’ll have to rely on his knowledge of the subject.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister consider asking his colleague in the Ministry of Education to step up the educational programmes concerned with the dangers of hitch-hiking rather than making hundreds of thousands of young people in the province into potential criminals because they happen to hitch-hike either regularly or from time to time?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, let’s make it very clear that it is not the intention of this minister at this time to make criminals of many hundreds of thousands of youngsters in this province as was implied by the question. If an education programme can be of any assistance in this problem then of course I think there is a responsibility to carry out such a programme.

I think it’s fair to point out, though, that there has been a considerable amount of publicity over the past number of years -- certainly since 1967 -- as to the hazards of hitch-hiking on our highways. Certainly the press reports have indicated, both in town and out of town, that it is not wise for young people to go hitch-hiking nor is it wise for people to pick up hitch-hikers.

I don’t know how much more education one can carry out in this area. If it’s going to help to prevent hitch-hiking I suppose we could carry out such a programme. I really question the value of it, considering the publicity it’s had over the years.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside is next.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, my two ministers have disappeared.

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

DELIVERY OF GRANT CHEQUES

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Does the Minister of Community and Social Services think it wise -- or why does he think it necessary -- for Conservative members to be handing out grant cheques which are going to various organizations? Specifically, why does he find it necessary to be delivering cheques himself in the riding of Cochrane South? Why does he think it necessary for the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) to be delivering cheques in Nickel Belt? Why does he think it necessary for the member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) to be delivering cheques in Port Arthur?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Why is the Minister of Natural Resources delivering cheques in my riding?

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Take the halo off.

Mr. Lewis: It is a good question. This squalid little practice is the ministry’s largely alone. It is the Ministry of Community and Social Services that maintains this squalid practice. The minister smiles about it but he persists in doing it. No wonder he stays in the cabinet.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member should wait for the answer.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, they pose a question and they ask for an answer but it appears they don’t want an answer. They should make up their minds.

Mr. Speaker, I stand to be corrected, but to my knowledge I have never given a cheque in the riding of Cochrane South -- and the hon. member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) agrees with this.

Now our procedure, Mr. Speaker, and I think it’s very well known to all the members of the House, is we write to the clerks of the municipalities or the counties, whatever the case may be, and indicate that a grant has been approved -- normally it is under the Community Centres Act -- and then we send a copy to the member of that riding. Regardless of where he sits in the House, he gets a copy of that letter.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Be careful.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): After it’s over.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: If the member writes and asks -- I’ll give members an example, and I won’t name the member but this is a member of the opposition --

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, give us an example.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: He wrote to me last summer and he said: “I wonder if you would have any objection, when you have certain grants to give to organizations or groups in my riding, if I was to make the presentation as the provincial representative for the riding. I would appreciate your comments.”

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Breithaupt: So it should be, so it should be.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This is a member --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The member for High Park (Mr. Shulman); he raised all this.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The member wrote to me on Aug. 9; and I replied to him on Aug. 17 and I said: “I wish to assure you that I have instructed my officials to ensure that you are given the opportunity to present cheques to organizations in your riding. As you will note, you are advised that cheques will be issued, and if you will contact my office or the ministry we will be pleased to forward the cheque to you for presentation.”

I’d like to add, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: Why should the minister be holding cheques for anyone?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Members are so busy playing politics over there they don’t read their mail.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would add, Mr. Speaker, that on this side of the House, and over there, we have very concerned members; they are close to their constituents and they can in fact present the cheques.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: Oh nonsense.

Mr. Breithaupt: Did every Tory member send in a letter?

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister mean that every one of them sent him a letter?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Supplementary.

Mr. Singer: I get letters from this ministry every day.

Mr. Stokes: Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that I have a list of at least 100 grants that have been issued by this ministry and there is not one opposition member’s name; and there are literally dozens of Conservative members’ names opposite those grant cheques?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): It’s just because they’re not interested. They are not interested in serving the public.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: The minister can save the postage; send him the payment.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Has the hon. member ever asked? If the hon. member asks, we’ll be pleased to co-operate.

Mr. Stokes: Why should I ask?

Mr. Singer: Oh come on!

Mr. Renwick: The minister’s members didn’t ask, and he knows it.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t want the minister handing out his cheques, it is offensive anyway.

Mr. Renwick: Don’t hand out that money in my riding either.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The member hasn’t been getting any.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Supplementary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Braithwaite: Supplementary.

Mr. Renwick: It’s all been laundered.

Mr. Lewis: It’s all been laundered by the minister’s officials.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. minister why, when this matter was being discussed during his estimates -- and I raised the very same thing -- he smiled and implied that we, as members, should know all about it.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): If the member came around once in a while he would know.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Braithwaite: And subsequently, Mr. Speaker, I took the trouble to write to the hon. minister and asked --

Mr. Havrot: Did the hon. member have a good holiday for the last six months? He is never in the House.

Mr. Braithwaite: -- that when any grants in Etobicoke were being made that either the Minister of Labour or myself or the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor) be told about it -- would he let us know when he is going to send the money.

What happened, Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member is so engaged in hokey pokey like that --

Mr. Braithwaite: What happened, Mr. Speaker, was he sent the reply after a picture appeared in the paper showing the member for Humber (Mr. Leluk) and the mayor, Mr. Flynn, presenting the cheque. He replied to my letter and said: “Oh, the hon. member for Humber” --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member is making a speech now.

Mr. Braithwaite: “ -- the Conservative member had already requested that he make the presentation”.

Hon. W. Newman: Why doesn’t the hon. member sit down and let somebody else ask a question?

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, why is it that in Etobicoke it never fails that with government --

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): The member is never here.

Mr. Havrot: The member is never here to get it.

Mr. Braithwaite: -- grants like this, the cheque, is always presented by Mayor Flynn and by the hon. member for Humber. Why, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: You know, Mr. Speaker, there may be some virtues in this system.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any response?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is there any response to that series of supplementary questions?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, in urban ridings like Toronto and other large centres the facility may encompass several ridings.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Then the minister has the local Conservative do it.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): This is going to be great.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Therefore, when the member writes to us first to get in touch, we respond.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa Centre. I believe he said he had a supplementary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I have recognized the hon. member for Ottawa Centre on a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Am I to take from the minister’s reply that in every case when a government member has presented a cheque, there has been a written request from the government member to the government to have that cheque given out through the government member?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I outlined the procedure; we write to the clerk of the municipality or the county and we send a copy to the member or the members of that riding, whatever the case may be. If that member writes or phones we co-operate with him.

Mr. Braithwaite: How come the Conservatives always make the presentation?

Mr. Cassidy: Answer the question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George with a supplementary.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mrs. Campbell: Could I ask if that is the procedure when we have the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) handing out cheques in St. George --

Mr. Lewis: Shame.

Some hon. members: Shame.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mrs. Campbell: -- because it has nothing to do with the city.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: That is the nadir of the plan.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I always like to think I am a very religious man but I do get my saints mixed up at times.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: How come the member for Humber is the official possessor and deliverer of cheques in my riding?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is no saint.

Mr. Lewis: Who is the member for Humber?

An hon. member: That’s all he is good for, a messenger boy.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): The member for Humber just lost his riding, too.

Mr. N. G. Leluk (Humber): The member doesn’t see me crying, though.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, with a new question.

FORD MOTOR CO.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of the Environment: Is the minister aware that the Ford Motor Co. in Windsor still pollutes the environment? Is the minister satisfied that the ministerial order is being taken care of and is being fulfilled?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, when I table this report, the member will be able to read all about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth. There are about 60 seconds remaining.

MINISTER’S COMMENTS TO POVERTY GROUP

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I will speak quickly. A question of the Solicitor General: Was the statement by the Solicitor General to the poverty group here in the building last Friday -- that it may well be necessary to establish some method of rent review -- an indication of government policy?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, no, it was strictly a personal opinion.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Since when did ministers of the Crown make representation before groups of people asking for certain matters and state personal opinions which were in direct conflict with cabinet positions?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, one of the requests of the group was for rent control. I indicated I wouldn’t be in support of that particular proposition but I did say that, as we have in many of the municipalities, it may be that some type of rent review board would be set up.

Mr. Deans: When?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There was nothing definite about it. I just said it may be and that this is a way to deal with it.

Mr. Deans: It is called straddling the fence.

Mr. Cassidy: That is deception.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Not only that, I mentioned many other aspects, really, of rent and landlord and tenant laws, things like that -- leasing and provisions in leases. It was a very general discussion but the report in the Spectator sort of homed in on the suggestion of a rent review board. I don’t think a rent review board is anything new; we have had them in municipalities for some time.

Mr. Cassidy: Just another in a series of attempts to con tenants.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The member for Ottawa Centre is just mad because he wasn’t here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for oral questions has now expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to table the internal report on lead surveys in Ontario, 1972-1973, by the phytotoxicology section of the air resources branch.

DIAL-A-BUS; EXTENSION OF QEW

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On Monday, June 3, the hon. member for Downsview in an oral question inquired of me for some information. I’ve made available a copy to him.

I’d like at this time to file that information with the Clerk of the House in the form of a report. As well, Mr. Speaker, in connection with a question on May 9 from the hon. Leader of the Opposition, concerning the land to be acquired for the Queen Elizabeth Way, I’d like to file that information with the Clerk in the form of a report.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Kilborn Engineering report on the resource recovery centre.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Succession Duty Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, section 1 of the bill raises from $100,000 to $150,000 the value of estates at which duty first becomes chargeable. No duty will be chargeable where the dutiable value of the estate does not exceed $150,000.

Mr. Cassidy: That is really incredible, you know, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Meen: In addition, the allowances and reductions for dependants have been increased by 50 per cent. These changes flow from the budget statement of April 9, and take effect as of April 10 last.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, the government is whittling it away.

Mr. Cassidy: Tell that to the people earning $4,000 a year.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Section 2 includes in the definition of farming assets eligible for forgivable duty any indebtedness owed to the deceased by a member of his family ordinarily resident in Canada as the result of a sale by the deceased before his death of farm land or of farm land and equipment. “Farming assets” is also amended to include interest of a deceased partner in a farming partnership where the partnership interest passes to a member of the family who takes land on which the partnership was carrying on farming.

These changes necessitate consequential amendments to subsequent provisions of section 17(a) of the Act. The changes relating to farming assets are retrospective to April 13, 1973, when the provisions relating to forgivable duty were added to the Act.

Mr. Cassidy: This is a piece of class legislation, nothing else.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, the hon. member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): I don’t think my guests are here yet, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Simcoe East.

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Mr. Speaker, I don’t think my guests have arrived yet either.

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

Mr. Stokes: I’d like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that there are 33 students from St. Joseph’s public school in Geraldton under the leadership of Mr. Conrad and Mr. Beaulieu. I hope you’ll welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 28th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD (CONCLUDED)

On vote 1704:

Mr. Chairman: The estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. We are on vote 1704 and we are dealing with farm products inspection under item 3. Any further comments on that particular sub-item? If not, carried.

Milk industry, regulatory.

The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): We had talked about some things under this particular item, Mr. Chairman, and I was discussing with the minister the need for some uniformity with respect to the inspection of dairies throughout the province. He had indicated to me that he was concerned about this too.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is a lot of noise in the chamber. Could we have it a little bit more quiet please?

Mr. Gaunt: I had been talking about the need for uniformity with respect to the inspection of dairies in the province, where medical officers of health in some places were more vigorous than in others, and there seemed to be a lack of uniformity throughout. I was interested in getting the minister’s view that there was going to be some attempt made to set a uniform pattern throughout the province in regard to these inspections, and I just wanted to say that I think the ultimate test has to be the quality of the product put on the market. If the quality of the product meets the standards which are set out and meets with consumer satisfaction, then I think a lot of these various regulations are nothing more than a nuisance.

For instance, I had one circumstance where the inspector said, “Look, you’d better put the washroom over on the other side of this room”, and it had just been about two years previously when another inspector said, “You’d better move it from that side of the room over to this side.” This kind of thing is very frustrating to the dairy operators. I think what the inspectors ask and seek to have done doesn’t really make much sense in some cases. I know that a lot of the dairies throughout the province have given up. They’ve just said, “We don’t want to be bothered putting up with this any longer. We are putting out a quality product and every time we see an inspector he wants something different. No two inspectors want the same thing and we are not going to put up with it any longer.” I’ve talked to a few of them who have indicated that to me.

A lot of our dairy operators have gone out of business and we’re getting more and more to the point where the bottle trade, at any rate, is falling into the hands of a very few operators. There are hardly any small operators left in the province. I think it should be of some concern to the minister that these operators should be given as much help along the way as they possibly can.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on the milk industry section?

The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Yes, Mr. Chairman. Along the same lines as my friend from Huron-Bruce, I would like to carry his line of inquiry just a little further and ask of the minister whether the standards that are applied in Ontario are commensurate with the standards that are applied in other provinces. I think we also have to look at our production in terms of the production standards and regulations in provinces that are competing for a part of the milk quota and the marketing and production of milk in Canada. I would like the minister’s comments to extend that far as well. I do know that there have been problems in the past, insofar as inspectors are concerned. I suppose that is like any other type of inspection, whether it is the farming industry or whether it is in nursing homes, or whatever it happens to be. As soon as regulations are issued, of course, the application of those regulations involves a good deal of common sense. Sometimes the inspector will perhaps follow too closely the word of the regulation and not the spirit and the intent of the regulation, to the detriment and frustration of the farmer. So, I would appreciate the minister’s comments on that as well.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Chairman, in reply to the member for Prince Edward-Lennox, I am not sure whether he was referring to the application of standards at the farm level -- is that it?

Mr. Taylor: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Farm levels. Those who are shipping into the Province of Ontario -- that is from the Hull area into the Ottawa market area -- farmers in Quebec are subject to our inspector’s overview of their operations. The same applies to the Quebec areas that are receiving milk from eastern Ontario into the Province of Quebec. They have the right to come in and inspect premises, the same as we have to go there if we are shipping into Quebec. There is a degree of cooperation between them both.

Mr. Taylor: I was wondering about that and whether the criteria are the same, and if so, whether the applications of those criteria is made in the same sense and the same spirit. I will accept that answer, Mr. Minister, because what you have said is that basically there is that same mutuality and reciprocity between the provinces in terms of inspection and application of regulations.

Mr. Chairman: Does this item carry then?

Carried.

The member for Huron.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the members of the Legislature would like to join with me in welcoming the grade 8 students from the G. A. D. McCurdy School at Huron Park, under the supervision of Mr. Seirtsema, Mrs. Howe and Mrs. Moore.

Mr. Chairman: The next sub-item is veterinary services, regulatory. Any comments on this? Comments?

Mr. Gaunt: I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, how many veterinarians are involved in this programme of meat inspection?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The meat inspection staff is seven full-time vets, six supervising meat inspectors, 139 meat inspectors, two per diem meat inspectors, and 123 per call veterinarians.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on that?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, dealing with this question of meat inspection, I have been trying during the course of these estimates to extract an answer from the minister. Could he tell us about the success or failure of the warble fly control programme in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I think I informed the member the other day, sir, that that item came under livestock branch, which is long since passed.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I recognize the problem, but the minister sat here and allowed that vote to pass without commenting upon it. I raised it at the point where the Warble Fly Control Act was shown in the estimates, and he refused to answer.

I am suggesting that meat inspection under the veterinary services branch is a most appropriate section to deal with the question of the Warble Fly Control Act. I recognize, of course, that technically the minister is correct, because no funds are being voted this year, so far as I can see, for the Warble Fly Control Act. But I understand that there has been an outbreak of it in the province.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I think I took care of it the other day, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on veterinary services? Carried.

This completes vote 1704.

On vote 1705:

Mr. Chairman: Agricultural education and research programme. Shall we consider this item by item?

Anything on administration? The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Gaunt: Do you want to consider it item by item or --

Mr. Chairman: It seems to go together pretty well. Perhaps we could lump it together.

Mr. Gaunt: The vote as a whole?

Mr. Chairman: Right.

Mr. Gaunt: I was interested in reading the annual report of the Agricultural) Research Institute of Ontario and it indicated that, among many other interesting forms of research, they were doing research in respect of the behaviour of consumers in buying food products and the behaviour of farmers in purchasing input.

In the one case, particularly the latter, it mentioned that the farmers were relatively unsophisticated buyers, which I was rather surprised at. For instance, farmers spend over $1 billion per year in Ontario on purchasing inputs. They have a big impact on the market and yet the studies which were undertaken and which were relatively -- what should I say? -- they were just nicely getting under way, indicated that farmers generally were rather unsophisticated buyers.

What have the additional studies in that particular series indicated? What about behaviour patterns and buying patterns of consumers when they get into a supermarket?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I must confess complete ignorance of the report, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know what the additional studies have revealed or indicated. It could well be that the report is a cursory examination of the buying habits of some people, but I don’t think that it is any reflection of the type of buying habits of most farmers today.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on vote 1705?

Mr. Gaunt: I was wondering if you have the studies which are indicated in this book reported to you? I presume you do.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I tabled the report, Mr. Chairman, but I am not familiar with all of the studies that are in that report.

Mr. Gaunt: May I ask the minister if I could find out whether or not the study is still going on and if we might have some information tabled, not now but at some later date, with respect to this particular study?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not sure as to what study he is referring to. Could you name the study? There are several studies, I am told, that are going on here; unless there is some information in the wings.

I am at some disadvantage, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as Dr. Huntley, who was the director of the branch, has retired because of ill health and we haven’t got our new man in place as yet. We are somewhat at a loss for the actual information on that particular division of our ministry, but if my friend could tell me the study that is referred to and on which he wishes specific information, I will try to get it.

Mr. Gaunt: All right. It’s under the agricultural economics section and it’s on page 176 of your report under the heading “Buyer Behaviour.” I would be interested in some additional information associated with that particular matter.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I will get the information and give it to him, but I haven’t got it with me.

Mr. Chairman: On vote 1705, the member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, under this vote, on research, the minister is quite well aware of the bronzing disease that is striking the bean industry in certain areas of the province. In southern Ontario they have cut down their acreage tremendously on account of the bronzing disease, particularly in the minister’s own riding and in Huron. The bean industry prices have been most satisfactory. Since they have been doing some research on this, I wonder if the minister has anything to say in regard to the bronzing disease in the bean industry in southwestern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, there is an extensive research project going on at Ridgetown, in which our ministry and the federal research staff at Harrow, I believe it is, are working with the bean board members in trying to resolve some of the problems, to which my friend refers, that are applicable in that area.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Welland South, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Welland South, yes.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you. What I want to ask the minister is -- perhaps it will be included in this vote -- have you done any research or do you intend to do any research study on farm safety?

I was interested to hear on the radio just this morning as I was coming to Toronto that there were three deaths in west Lincoln. They were working around some type of well or pit where there was whey gas and three persons lost their lives.

I notice this has been a common occurrence recently in the farming industry in Ontario. I think it’s time maybe through your ministry that more information is given out to farmers on this serious problem of persons working around the hog industry. For example, the gases from animal waste are very dangerous to persons working down in those wells. I don’t know whether there is sufficient ventilation in these open pits or in these wells, but perhaps there should be some serious thought given to a study on this programme.

Another matter I was concerned about is whether you have any research or studies going on at the present time dealing with the cost of farm equipment; the cost, for example, of farm fencing. I understand farmers have a problem at the present time, particularly in my area, where it is hard to purchase farm fencing -- that is, woven wire fencing. I understand they can’t seem to buy it, yet the warehouse or Stelco in Hamilton is loaded with wire fencing. The suppliers cannot seem to buy it and farmers are again going to be taken for a price increase in fencing.

I just wonder if there isn’t a cartel in the manufacturing of fencing in Ontario. There are only two or three that are manufacturing fencing and perhaps there is price fixing by the companies that should be investigated.

There is another matter of concern. I know at one time through the ministry they used to inform the public of the best buys in the purchasing of agricultural products by the consumer. I was just wondering, with the price increases week by week in the purchasing of agricultural products, whether some information should come from your ministry informing the consumer what is the best buy this week in pork or beef or in some vegetables, to inform the consumer that there is a saving this week if he buys this week.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I think there were four questions asked there.

Regarding farm safety, we too read with great concern and a great deal of distress of that tragic accident reported in this weekend’s news. I really don’t know how one accomplishes more in getting information out concerning the hazards that do exist with some of these newer types of storage, both of feed and supplies as well as of waste materials. I don’t really think there’s any further need of research. All the research has been done. It’s a matter of convincing people of the necessity to practise safety.

I suppose one is so tempted in the rush of running a farm to forget about the immediate hazards that might exist that one doesn’t see them. The accident we read about this weekend is another illustration of that. But farm safety information is going out all the time through our extension branch field staff and through Farm Safety Association which has been formed now in connection with the Workmen’s Compensation Board of Ontario. That has taken on added impetus, I believe, since the Workmen’s Compensation Board has taken it over. They have farm safety specialists on the road all the time doing nothing else but that.

The Farm Machinery Advisory Board that we have in Ontario today is very actively involved in promoting farm safety as it relates to farm machinery. I wish I could give a more definitive answer to my friend from Welland South, because I just don’t think that there is any possible way that everybody can be fully enough aware of the concerns regarding safety. I suppose it behooves all of us to be conscious of farm safety and because of our responsibilities in this Legislature and as elected representatives to make ourselves as aware of it as possible. Then at every opportunity that we have, throughout our respective constituencies -- I was going to say particularly in the rural areas, but I believe there’s as much application of it in the urban areas as well -- we must promote the necessity for safety in the home, on the farm, in factories, wherever it may be. We can never let up on that responsibility.

I’m distressed to hear of the fact that farm fencing is supposed to be piled up in the manufacturers’ warehouses and not being distributed. Just recently, we have had an inquiry from the Ontario Grape Growers Marketing Board advising us of the difficulty they were having in getting the 8 ft steel posts to construct the wires for the grape harvest. That is a real problem.

From our office we went into that in some detail and to some depth and discovered that the material simply was just not available. We were told that and we have no reason to believe that it wasn’t. There was a variety of reasons given for the shortage of steel and I’m sure that anybody who has tried to get steel today finds it is very difficult indeed. To hear that farm fencing has piled up is something that I’d like to have more information on. If my friend would provide me with it we would be pleased to look into it. It’s certainly news to us.

There was one other question that was asked -- the fourth question? Oh yes, the best buys in agricultural products.

I would think that the best service there is provided on almost a daily basis through the farm broadcast at noon over the CBC. I assume that there are others as well. Mrs. Joan Watson, of whom we’ve all heard I’m sure and have listened to with some interest, does an excellent job in advising of pricing at various retail outlets. Some of this information is provided through our Food Council services. Our Food Council works closely with outlets such as those provided by the CBC and by other radio stations.

We have a market reporting service as well that’s available on a call-in basis. It’s an up-to-date market report; it’s updated as much as five times a day and it’s available to any radio station or news outlet that wants to call in and get the information. I believe that’s free of charge. But anybody who calls in, as I as a farmer might call in, to get the price of whatever the commodity might be in which I was interested, would have to pay for that; but there is a number that you call and that information is provided immediately.

There’s also the mail-a-menu service that is provided by the Food Council which, I think, is just a tremendous service. It is one of the most popular services that we have. That service is very popular and the demand for it is growing almost daily.

It’s difficult for our ministry to do an analysis of every food outlet in Toronto or in any other centre, but there are people within some of the information services who do provide a more specific and detailed analysis than we have the funds or the personnel to do.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Simcoe East.

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Mr. Chairman, through you to the members of the Legislature, I would like to introduce 30 grade 7 students of St. Bernard’s School in Orillia who are visiting Toronto and this Legislature this afternoon along with their teacher, Mr. Lowe. I would ask you and the hon. members to extend their usual warm welcome to our visitors.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am interested in an item for a transfer payment to the Agricultural Economics Research Council. I understand that that council has been doing quite a bit of work in trying to develop alternative directions to our agricultural economic support in order to help strengthen the rural community. I was wondering if the minister had undertaken any actual experimental projects with the council in order to test some of the theories they’ve been expounding.

I read with some interest the article by the president, Dr. Gordon A. MacEachern, in last October’s “Reader’s Digest,” about the fact that our move to larger farms had made us much more dependent upon other countries for many of our foodstuffs. In fact, those countries themselves in not too many years might not be in a position to export to us, and therefore there was a need for us to examine our own ability to produce honey, vegetables and fruits in much greater quantities than we have in the past and perhaps return to smaller units of farming where people spent part of their time in farming and part of their time in other employment. Has the minister much to report from the work of that council? Could he tell us about it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Unfortunately, I haven’t, Mr. Chairman. I must confess that I have read with great interest many of the reports that have been submitted by the Agricultural Economics Research Council. I have always been impressed with the possibilities that were enunciated; but I have never been impressed, and I have seldom ever seen the means by which those delightful objectives could be achieved.

I think if there is one weakness in the work put out by Dr. MacEachern and those associated with him, it is to hold aloft vast and wonderful objectives, goals and achievements that are somewhere out there in the great wonderful blue yonder -- but never is there anything said about how we get there.

I have asked on numerous occasions, when we have our agriculture ministers’ meetings across Canada, “How is that wonderful achievement accomplished?” and I have yet to be provided with an answer. To me, it leaves us high and dry, paying for very high-class people to do a job that I’m sure we are all interested in, but getting very little out of it.

There have been some things that have been suggested by the Agricultural Economics Research Council that may have had some bearing on decisions that might have been made by the federal government. I don’t know of anything they have suggested here that would, for instance, lead us to significant achievements as far as our ministry is concerned.

I give you one illustration, Mr. Chairman, if I can beg the time of the House. We were told, as all of us in the livestock community are fully aware, that we bring in from western Canada up to 400,000 head of feeder cattle each year. That is no news to anybody in the livestock industry; that has been going on for a long time. Of course, there is increasing concern about the rapid development of the population of the United States on the west coast and the advent of the enormous feedlot capacities of the United States west coast and the mid western states, as well as the development of the packing industry there and in western Canada, and the interest of some of the western Canadian provincial governments in expanding the feeding and processing industry out there. Naturally, we were concerned -- and we expressed this concern publicly years ago.

I recall Dr. MacEachern making the statement that we should be letting the cattle go south from the west, which is the natural way to do it, and then we should be bringing cattle from the eastern and central United States into Ontario to feed, a distance which is much shorter. On paper it looks great; it’s a wonderful idea. One could be captured by such a statement; so much so that we brought him here to Toronto and we had a half a day’s session to see how this could be accomplished. Some of us took the trouble to go into the United States. We found the cattle; there is no question the cattle are there -- excellent quality feeder cattle -- but the problem is that they can’t be imported into Canada because of the disease anaplasmosis.

Now that particular problem faces the Ontario cattlemen; so when you get right into some of these things, and you see the impracticality of them in some instances, I have to wonder just how practical are some of the suggestions which emanate from that very distinguished body.

The fact of the matter is if we want to bring feeder cattle in from the mid-States or from the eastern United States -- where the quality is every bit as good as we would want to have from anywhere in Canada or other parts of the United States -- we can’t bring them in unless they endure a test which, I believe, takes at least 12 days. That’s a practical impossibility and so to me the idea just goes out the window. After all kinds of research and everything else went into it that detail wasn’t thought of.

Mr. Deacon: I’m interested in the comments the minister makes about the council. One of the points I asked was has the council made proposals to the ministry for actual experimental projects to try to prove any of their theories or ideas?

I agree with the minister that so often these things sound great on paper but it’s not until you actually try something -- has the council put before the minister any projects it feels should be tried out to further its ambitions, which we all share, to strengthen opportunity for economic activity in the rural areas, particularly in these matters of products which we are now importing?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Chairman. There was something on the manufacture of methane gas from animal waste that Dr. MacEachern did mention and frankly I thought there were possibilities along this line. Experimental and research work is progressing on that in western Canada. Our Agricultural Research Institute, I believe, spent a full day or two -- I think it was two days -- looking into the possibilities of this and whether we should embark on it here in Ontario. They felt since research was going on on that very subject in western Canada and very extensive research was being done on it on the west coast of the United States, in feedlots in that area, we should benefit from the results of that research rather than embarking on it ourselves here and perhaps duplicating the expenditure of research dollars.

Mr. Deacon: One item I was wondering about was if anything has been brought up on the matter of harnessing some of the extra thermal energy, the extra heat, generated by these thermal plants; for example, the one being constructed at Thunder Bay. We have a lot of sections in the north where the soil is good but there isn’t sufficient heat in the soil at certain times of the year to grow really very well. Has the council come up with any ideas on how we can harness some of this extra energy which we now transfer into the lakes and, perhaps, cause environmental problems? Has the council come up with any thoughts of harnessing some of our excess thermal energy?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could inform me whether he has been able to come up with a solution for the municipalities which have research establishments such as we have in Puslinch and Pilkington townships in regard to grants in lieu of taxes?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that matter will be taken care of, I believe, in the 1974 year. As far as I know, it will.

Mr. Worton: This year, then?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, as far as I know, it will.

Mr. Worton: That is fine.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, I could not ascertain where, under these votes, one might have a chance to ask the minister a question on the operations of what used to be the Farm Machinery Board; it is now the Farm Machinery Advisory Council. They do some research into how effectively dealers are trying to get the parts and whatnot out to the farmers and I’m wondering if you would permit me to ask him a question on this council?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That was under main office, the first vote we had, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: On vote 1705?

Mr. Riddell: Am I to assume that I am not allowed a question on the --

Mr. Chairman: We can’t keep going back over the past. It was in vote 1701.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We passed it.

Mr. Riddell: There is certainly nothing in this book which says anything about the farm machinery council coming under the main office. However, I’ll let it ride for now.

Mr. Renwick: It is the same problem I had with warble fly control.

Mr. Chairman: It is under general ministry policy. The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Riddell: I am interested in seeing the farmers get some place.

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise the matter of the Hartman raspberry case. I asked the minister about it in the House and he said it was sub judice in that the province was appealing the matter, but I suggest to you, sir, that it is only sub judice insofar as the award is concerned. The merits of the case are not sub judice and I understand the appeal of the province only refers to the award, so I would like to mention a few of the matters in relation to that case which have bothered me.

I would like to get the minister’s reaction. Just in case he might question my sources of information, I want to tell him that I get the information out of the Ontario Reports which is over in the library, put out by the Law Society of Upper Canada. This particular case was in the April 15 issue, I believe -- Hartman vs the Queen in Right of Ontario.

I have five points I want to raise in respect to this particular case. As the minister knows, the Vineland research station undertook a crop improvement programme under provisions of the Department of Agriculture and Food Act to obtain on an experimental basis these virus-free raspberry canes described as Latham canes. They had undertaken this programme because of some difficulties in the raspberry-growing areas where a virus had got into the plants and caused a lot of damage. So it was decided that this programme would be undertaken to try and develop a variety which was really virus-free. A programme was undertaken in 1962. In this particular case, with Hartman, it extended from 1962 to 1968, inclusive.

The Vineland station had agreed to supply Mr. Hartman with the Latham variety. As it turned out, they didn’t supply him with it. That’s why the court case resulted. I quote from page 256 in His Honour’s report:

“One must conclude that the respondent thereby obligated itself to supply to the appellant Latham variety plants for development under the programme. The respondent did not supply this variety of plant and the appellant incurred losses as a direct result thereof.”

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Which judge was that?

Mr. Gaunt: That was Judge Estey; J. A. Estey.

The first thing that I wonder about is the fact that there was no signed agreement until after the programme had been under way for two years. I can see certain circumstances where farmers might be inclined to operate on the basis of word-of-mouth, and have done so. Many farmers do so all the time. But I think under a programme of this nature it was incumbent upon the ministry, and certainly the Vineland station, to enter into some type of written agreement with Mr. Hartman long before the programme was under way for a two-year period. I would have thought they would have been anxious to initiate that agreement at the start of the programme, but apparently that wasn’t done. That’s not terribly important as far as I am concerned.

The second point certainly, disturbs me more, and that’s in relation to the fact that Dr. Ricketson was told about the mistake as early as 1963, and nothing was done about it. In the report, on page 252, it says:

“As early as 1963, one member of the respondent’s staff notified the appellant and Dr. Ricketson that the plants being delivered to the appellant were not Latham, but cheap. While it may be of some significance that the appellant did not take this information as a storm warning, it is of crowning importance that the respondent thereafter persisted in the programme in a way which led inevitably to its disastrous end.”

I would have thought that a member of the field staff coming back into the station would say: “Look, there’s a mistake. Those are the wrong variety of raspberry plants. You’d better do something about it.” I would have thought that would have been a sufficient storm warning for the people at the station to double check, and certainly to put a hold on the programme at that point. This would have provided time to see whether their field man was correct or whether in fact there had been a mistake somewhere along the line.

But that was never done. The fact of the matter is that rather than take that action, Dr. Ricketson -- and perhaps others, I don’t know -- decided they would, in effect, cover up their mistake and rename the plants -- that was the most irritating thing as far as I was concerned -- rather than to come out and admit a mistake was made.

Obviously they knew; they must have known, because the plants did not have the characteristics they thought they should have. So they renamed the plant Ottawa Latham, instead of simply coming out and saying: “Look, there’s been a mistake some place along the line. We’re going to check this out and we’re going to see what has happened, because obviously you haven’t got the plants you were supposed to have.” That didn’t happen, and I suggest to the minister that this indicates a certain degree of inefficiency up there. I don’t think the minister should sit back and say, “I guess they made a mistake” and let them carry on as previously.

I think these people have to realize this was an important programme. They have to realize that it almost resulted in this man going bankrupt because of the financial losses he suffered. And yet the researchers sit back and say: “I guess these plants don’t look the same as we anticipated; so we’ll rename them.” In my view, the renaming procedure was just a simple case of coverup on what may have been in the initial stages an honest mistake.

There is the third thing that could have been done, in my view; and it should have been done. It indicates once again, as far as I’m concerned, that there’s a little flab on the underbelly, if I may put it that way. The fact is that the Vineland research station did not test these plans. They did no testing. As I understand it, the federal government’s research station did their own testing and were satisfied the plants were the Latham variety. As far as Vineland was concerned, no testing was done. On page 255 of the Ontario report it says:

“Dr. Ricketson testified that the first of the virus-free plants were planted in 1962, so that by 1965 the fruit characteristics could be determined. Later he agreed that the fruit quality could have been ascertained in the third year, that is 1964. He added that the growers were in a different position, “because under the plant propagation programme we didn’t permit fruiting.

“It is also clear from the evidence that the Ottawa agricultural station had allowed some of the virus-free plants to mature to the fruit stage, which apparently assists in the identification of a variety of raspberry. This required some five years, but was done in Ottawa by 1963. Presumably this was done, or could and should have been done at Vineland by the respondent as well. However, it was not until 1968 that the respondent announced by a circular letter addressed to ‘Growers of Certified Raspberry Plants’” --

Then it goes on and indicates what was contained in that letter. A part of that letter says:

“Because the Latham in our programme has some characteristics which differ from the Latham commonly grown in Ontario in the past, we have designated it as Ottawa Latham. Therefore, the name Ottawa Latham must be used in all advertising in sales and certification tags will be issued as Ottawa Latham.”

They go on and mention the other programme they are going to undertake and they say they will keep you informed of the progress in this respect. That is the third thing that concerns me.

The fourth thing, and I have already touched on it, was the fact that after a mistake had been made Vineland persisted in it. There is no question in my mind that somebody up there, and I am sure we have some very smart research people at Vineland as in all of these other research stations, should have been able to recognize Latham. Obviously some of them did recognize Latham and they recognized that the plants Mr. Hartman had were not Latham. Rather than come out and scrap the programme and start all over again, as should have been done at that stage, they simply changed the name of the plant and let Hartman carry on in the same manner.

The testimony that was given by the experts from New York State indicated there was no possibility as far as they were concerned that the two could be confused. I think Vineland took the position that the heat treatment that was given to these plants to ensure that they were virus free may have affected them genetically and may have resulted in some different characteristics appearing which would not otherwise have been the case. But the experts from the New York agricultural experimental station in Geneva, New York, certainly discounted that theory.

The judge indicates here in the report that Dr. Ricketson had tried to explain the differences in the plants on the basis that there was a “possibility” that the heat treatment and the virus-detecting procedure might have induced genetic changes in the original Latham plants. This phase of the programme was undertaken entirely by the Canada Department of Agriculture.

The record, furthermore, does not reveal any visit by Dr. Ricketson to the Ottawa agriculture station where the nucleal stock was developed for the programme. But later on it says:

“Both these experts from the United States emphatically declared that the virus detecting procedure and the heat treatment for the destruction of virus could not possibly have caused genetic changes in the Latham plant.”

These two experts clearly stated that the so-called Ottawa Latham produced under the programme was the chief variety of raspberry plants, the stock which was not commercially desirable. Here was the fellow stuck with these plants. They were really of no use to him. He had engaged in growing these plants over a period of some six years and he was then in a position of not being able to sell them and he suffered a tremendous loss as a result of that fact.

The final point I want to raise with the minister with respect to this particular case is that Mr. Hartman was refused plants in 1973. Apparently Dr. Ricketson under cross-examination said that he was ordered by his boss, Mr. Archibald, to destroy a crop of new Latham plants at the research station rather than give them to Mr. Hartman or any other grower.

The other thing is not really associated with that point, but just to finish off that particular matter of refusing plants, I think that in any of these cases where the government has pending lawsuits with growers or farmers or whoever, with whom they have been dealing over the past year or two, three or whatever, there should be some sort of uniform system by which the dealings, under these circumstances where court cases are pending, is formalized. It may not have been the case, but it certainly appeared as though the ministry was discriminating against Mr. Hartman because he had the nerve to undertake a lawsuit against the government. As I say, it may not be the case, but that’s certainly the way it comes out. I think that any explanations that have followed as to why Mr. Hartman didn’t get these plants have not really been very adequate.

The final matter relates to the whole problem of efficiency and the entire operation at Vineland -- and perhaps other stations, I don’t know, but in this case Vineland is the one in question.

It amazed me that after the court case was over and it was turned over to Judge Winter to assess the dollar values as to the losses in this particular case, Dr. Ricketson was unable to provide any basic documents to show how many plants Mr. Hartman had received or what the dollar values were. He, apparently along with a number of the other officials of the ministry, was unable to really give any basic facts, or as the judge put it, any figures which would be of value to the court.

I can’t understand that. I don’t know what sort of bookkeeping system they must be engaging in up there. I would have thought that they would have had a precise bookkeeping procedure indicating the number of plants sent out and indicating the dollar value of those plants. I can’t understand that. There may be some explanation but I can’t figure it out, because if the ministry didn’t have those figures, who would have? It was their programme.

Further, I understand that Dr. Ricketson was also unable to provide any official department report on the experimental raspberry certification programme during those years. That again surprises me. I can’t understand that. Surely to goodness these things are recorded and these programmes are charted, particularly a programme of this nature, where they were actually breaking new ground. They were involved in a new development programme.

Those are the points I raise with the minister. I think that the whole matter has been a most unfortunate circumstance. It was certainly unfortunate from the government’s point of view and certainly unfortunate from Mr. Hartman’s point of view, because he almost went bankrupt over the matter. I guess he’s going to be all right now, depending on what the appeal comes up with, insofar as the damages are concerned.

But I say to the minister, I certainly hope that this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. I hope that he and his officials take steps to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Is the minister not going to reply?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I take into consideration the points that have been raised by my friend. The appeal court will make the decision as to what the outcome should be, and we’ll take whatever appropriate action seems indicated at that time. The story that is related today doesn’t quite jibe with what I have heard from the other side.

Mr. Chairman: On vote 1705?

Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, could I say a word on this? The minister blew his top in the House on this a while back and --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I didn’t blow my top at all.

Mr. Singer: Oh sure you did. You were pointing fingers and complaining about Liberal lawyers -- and all sorts of stuff.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No.

Mr. Singer: Sure you were. It is not untypical of the minister -- he blew his top.

The Court of Appeal has clearly said -- in the judgement that my colleague referred to -- that the government had acted negligently, and that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. Now, that is the law. The only thing presently in dispute is the amount of damages which the government has to pay. Because apparently, the government has decided to accept the decision of the Court of Appeal -- very noble of them, I must say. But apparently it has decided to accept the decision about negligence, and now is continuing the dispute about the measure of damages, or the amount of damages.

What bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is this: Why, when the government makes a mistake, do they have to fight such a violent rearguard action, and pretend that they didn’t make a mistake? Why, when an individual almost became bankrupt because of the result of civil service negligence, does the government dig its heels in? Why do they say: “We are perfect; and if you think we’re wrong, you take it to court and you prove that we were wrong”?

Surely the information there, notwithstanding what the minister must have heard, must have been available to the ministry. And surely in its dealing with citizens of Ontario -- raspberry farmers or anybody -- surely the government should have leaned over backwards to say: “We are sorry; something went wrong. It didn’t go wrong because of what you did, Mr. Farmer, it went wrong because of what we in the Ministry of Agriculture did.”

Surely at that point the government should have drawn in its horns and said, “Let’s sit down and see if we can’t find out what a reasonable measure of damages should be.” Instead, it forced this poor man to fight his way through the courts; to be faced with the real danger of being assessed with thousands and thousands of dollars of costs. Why should you do that? That seems entirely unreasonable and arbitrary.

And this happens so many times, Mr. Chairman. So many times when the government makes a mistake, we have to keep coming back and back and back. And when the odd point is won, such as this -- and this was won by the Court of Appeal -- the government says, “This is not quite the way it happened.”

I am suggesting two things:

1. Somewhere along the line within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and all other departments, when a mistake is reasonably obvious and when a citizen suffers, you don’t flex your muscles and say we never make a mistake.

2. Somewhere along the line, again, you don’t try to make these issues partisan political issues,

I was surprised at the minister getting up the day the decision came down and blowing his top -- and that’s the only phrase I can use -- and saying it was all a great Liberal plot. Probably the Court of Appeal were all Liberals. And certainly that terrible lawyer, Stafford -- he is the one who won it -- he was a Liberal, yes -- and he still is.

This is what bothers me. Are you going to discipline the people who made the mistake? Or are they going to continue to say, “If we haven’t got the right kind of raspberries, we will change the name and make it sound something like the old name”? Has any lesson been learned within the department?

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1705 carried. This completes the study of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister have an opening statement?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr. Chairman, I have a brief opening comment to make to the House.

Since we last discussed the estimates of my ministry, there have been a number of significant changes. For the first time since Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs was established, we are without the assistance of Ian Macdonald in dealing with our estimates but the Premier (Mr. Davis) has appointed a most able successor in Rendall Dick.

Interestingly enough, I’ve just come from the University of Toronto where Mr. Macdonald became Dr. Macdonald. In his remarks he said he felt far more clothed now to be president of York. In the absence of an honorary doctorate he saw himself streaking naked through the corridors of academic power.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): We will welcome him to York shortly.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The university community looks after its own.

Hon. Mr. White: Yes, sure thing.

Mr. Renwick: By the way, has the minister got an honorary degree yet?

Hon. Mr. White: No, I haven’t got one. I’m not seeking one either.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Is the minister fishing?

Mr. Renwick: They picked Dr. Macdonald to get it.

Hon. Mr. White: It’s not high on my list.

I am also pleased to have a cabinet colleague within our ministry. The member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine) has taken the Treasurer’s place on Management Board and he is assisting me both in policy development and in the day-to-day activities of the ministry. The members are familiar with the work he is doing in presenting some of our legislation to the House.

The most significant change in the structure of the ministry has resulted from the establishment of our Ministry of Housing, which has taken over several of our activities. These include the North Pickering community development project, the urban redevelopment function of the project development group, and the plans administration branch.

We have recently appointed four of the five directors for our five regional offices and we are proceeding with our deconcentration programme to put increased resources and decision-making power in the field. The offices at Thunder Bay, Sudbury, London, Ottawa and Toronto will represent all elements of our ministry, and the Ottawa and Thunder Bay offices will have special responsibilities in our federal-provincial programmes.

In this connection, as members know, I did sign a special agreement in Thunder Bay on Friday, May 31, under which Canada and Ontario are to share a number of programmes for economic expansion and development in northwestern Ontario.

As part of the recent alignment of ministerial responsibilities, I was assigned to report to the Legislature for the Ontario Economic Council and this agency appears in our estimates for the first time this year.

We have also established within our ministry a new office of executive co-ordinator for special projects and Mr. Doug Omond will be providing a liaison function between government and major new industrial developments throughout the province.

As members will have noticed, the Niagara Escarpment Commission also appears as a new item in our estimates. The commission is now established at Georgetown and has begun its very important work in the preservation of this unique asset of our province.

While our organization development group appears as a separate unit in the estimates, it is not new. It has been part of the administration programme assigned to assist in evaluating and improving our internal operations.

The only new activity is the audit services branch which will provide us with an internal audit capacity to meet our requirements under the post-audit system adopted by the government.

That’s all I have to say by way of introduction, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome any comments and questions from members.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I would prefer to hear the opposition first, Mr. Chairman; I gather he is on his way. Maybe I can raise a couple of points and yield to the member from Waterloo when he comes in.

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Cassidy: The points I would make to begin with would be to ask the minister, as I have informally, whether it would be possible to elucidate these estimates, which are not particularly informative in their present form, by giving either the briefing book or some edited form thereof to the opposition spokesmen in order that we can save time during the course of the estimates and do a more intelligent job; and whether he would be willing also to make this a permanent practice.

Since the minister has some form of responsibility for the form of the estimates generally, perhaps I can say that everything promised when the form of estimates was changed as a result of the COGP has proved to be nugatory, to use one of the words of the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Lawlor). It has been useless. These estimates tell us as little as the estimates did before. In fact, I have a feeling they may even tell us less.

I would ask the minister whether he would be willing, secondly, to consider very seriously a review of the form of the estimates so that they would tell far more to the members of the Legislature who have to review them and also to members of the public who may wish to have a more detailed description of what it is government does and where the money happens to go. To be told that $861 million is going into the finance programmes or that $15 million is going into some special fund in urban and regional affairs is just not good enough. Before I yield to my friend from Waterloo, I would ask the minister how it is that the kind of co-minister responsible for municipal affairs isn’t going to be here, and whether that means that the Treasurer is going to speak on behalf of his colleague from Grenville-Dundas, whether the member for Grenville-Dundas is a eunuch so far as the estimates are concerned, whether there is at some point a chance to examine him, or just what that relationship may be in the estimates?

Finally, I join the minister in wishing well to the former Deputy Treasurer, who I may say was once an instructor of mine in economics. It may strike terror into the hearts of some members of the House to think that most of what I know about economics I learned in the course of one year from the former deputy provincial Treasurer, now gone to York University. It is not that he didn’t teach me well, but that I learned almost everything I know from him.

I yield to you, Jim.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I regret I was not here at the actual calling of the estimates. However, as an aside to my friend the Treasurer, I don’t know whether we share the one year’s knowledge that the member for Ottawa Centre has of economics but I do suggest that I, too, of course, would take this opportunity to wish the former Deputy Treasurer well, now that he has been formally installed as the president of York University.

I had the opportunity of writing a note to Mr. Macdonald when the announcement of his appointment was made, congratulating him on it. I knew him briefly while I was doing graduate work in economics at the University of Toronto, and through his interest at that time as a senior graduate student, as a professor and as someone who shared an interest with me in the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. So I do wish Mr. Macdonald well. I think that his service to the province has simply moved on to another phase. He has been actively involved, of course, in the ministry. He has proven to be a competent and exceptional civil servant, and I am certain that the minister must feel hopeful that his advice will still be able to be available to the minister and to other members of government as it has been in the past.

I do not propose, as we look at the general operation of the ministry, to be lengthy in my remarks. The remarks that I had made concerning the budget earlier on in the budget debate are those which are viewed as having something, which in this party we believe is important to offer to the province, in the way of suggestions and alternatives to the proposals which have been put forward. We have here, however, Mr. Chairman, to look at the particular administrative functions of the ministry.

One interesting one, of course, that appeals to me is to look at the function of the Treasurer himself. It would appear that the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs of course now includes a particularly large amount of responsibility. The minister is well served in the appointment of his new deputy in Mr. Rendall Dick, QC, whom I have also had the pleasure of knowing during the time that I have served as a member of the Legislature.

It would appear that since the minister’s parliamentary assistants are guiding much of the legislation through this House that we are, in fact, to see a structure within this ministry that is akin to the policy secretariat structure. Perhaps the minister now has enough time to deal with certain items of administration, as the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas assists him, particularly in dealing with some of the reform bills in municipal matters and as his present colleague in cabinet, the hon. Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen), was of assistance in dealing with many of the regional government bills, at least those affecting the western part of Ontario.

Perhaps the official line then is that the minister has sufficient time for administration. But it seems to me that even though that presumption may exist within the present cabinet, there is certainly a developing problem concerning the concept of responsible government, especially with respect to financial matters.

The minister of course is taken from the House quite often because of important matters and conferences which he must attend. It would seem to me, though, that the alternative of being able to ask additional questions, especially of the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas, would be a useful form into which we should look in order that matters of particular public importance can be dealt with promptly in the no doubt enforced absence of the minister on other matters.

The member for Ottawa Centre has commented on the fact that the member for Grenville-Dundas may have been effectively neutered by his position. I would sincerely hope that that is not the case --

Mr. Cassidy: In a metaphorical sense.

Mr. Breithaupt: Only in a metaphorical sense, of course. The rest surely would not be seemly in the chamber -- at least while the galleries are crowded with visitors, especially impressionable school children.

But I think that it has to be noted that almost a year ago, on June 20, the Premier gave an undertaking to review the status of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs, especially as it affected the matter of productivity and, I believe, response to the Legislature. That appeared on page 3554 of Hansard last year, and to my knowledge nothing has been done since that would obviously show that a review of function and structure is being attended to. This may have been done, of course, within the ministry itself; and if it has been done, or is being done, I’m sure the minister would wish to make a comment on it.

The whole matter of not only the reorganization of TEIGA, but also the reorganization of government generally, has been set out at quite some length in reports by the Committee on Government Productivity. During the past several years there has been a considerable amount of work done in the whole matter of those reports, especially by political science students at Scarborough College and the University of Toronto. The recommendations and the ramifications of that committee have been looked at at some depth and certain conclusions have been drawn. The work is of course still continuing, but I think there are several conclusions and certain predictions which can be made in addition to the ones which I have mentioned concerning the apparent development of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs.

The whole thrust of the policy secretariat idea is something that we no doubt can discuss when the Premier’s estimates are being examined, and I shall certainly do it then. But it does seem to me that the review which has been suggested, and which the Premier had apparently considered a year or so ago, has not brought forward any particular results. If the review does exist, I would appreciate hearing something on that matter from the Treasurer.

There are, of course, a number of items which will be discussed as we look into the particular administrative votes, but I think that with these brief remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would be prepared to move on so that we can discuss the particular items as they come up.

Mr. Chairman: Did the minister want to say anything before we move on?

Hon. Mr. White: No, I’m at the disposal of the Legislature.

Mr. Cassidy: Maybe I might make a few introductory comments as well, Mr. Chairman, since I was filling in for the member for Kitchener until he arrived.

I do want to make some substantive comments about this ministry, because here stands the Treasurer, astride the Province of Ontario, responsible for an enormous number of things which are of vital importance to every individual in the province. His advisers in the Economic Council tell him where the province should go in the next 30 or 40 years. Other advisers, through the central statistical services, tell him where we’ve been. Other people tell him what the economic policy of the government should be. He negotiates with the federal government. He is responsible for the municipal governments, urban affairs. He is responsible for the regional development policies of the province, if, as and when they exist, and he has tax reform under his wing as well.

That is a heck of a lot of things for one minister to be doing. The work or the effectiveness of a Treasurer in this province, the way the job has been set up, really does affect every person in the province. They pay taxes and they pay local taxes. The responsiveness of the local government, the effectiveness of the income distribution in the province, all comes under this particular minister. Whether there are jobs in their region, whether their kids can have the choice of staying at home or moving to Toronto -- this comes under the Treasurer. The effectiveness of the housing plans made by the Ministry of Housing depend on big decisions made by this particular minister.

One would have thought that some of the economic health of the province depends on the action of the minister, although he is very quick -- as is this whole government -- to put the blame for anything that goes wrong on to the federal government; and to shoulder as little as possible of it himself.

Since the provinces are responsible for property and civil rights under the British North America Act, then this minister stands in the forefront -- along with possibly the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) in protecting consumers against unjustified price increases and other things in the consumer market. All these areas come under this particular responsibility.

With the conservatism of the minister and the somewhat rather engaging red Toryism that he reflects, one wonders nevertheless whether he really is serving the province well in all of these areas of responsibility.

I want to raise in particular the questions of regional development policy, and that is squarely under the responsibility of this particular minister. If he isn’t doing the job in regional development, then the government of Ontario isn’t doing the job. The minister is probably aware that in Saskatchewan and in Manitoba under New Democratic Party governments -- and increasingly in British Columbia, as well -- our party has been trying to ensure what we call a stay option; what we call the opportunity for people to stay in their home region, rather than be compelled to go to the metropolises of those particular provinces.

In Ontario there has been a programme of regional development planning which has been under way for the past eight years. One assumes that one of the purposes of that programme has been to try and equalize economic opportunity across the province, and has been likewise to ensure that people have a choice of where they are to live and work and raise a family and grow up and retire, and that kind of thing.

The fact is, though, Mr. Chairman, that over that same period of time, we have continued to see exceptionally rapid growth in the Toronto-centred region and slow rates of growth in the rest of the province. We have seen a few projects here and there; a few fancy promises. We’ve seen a fair amount of money go into regional development planning. We’ve seen endless contortions and changes and bureaucratic shifts and that kind of thing. But we have not seen the emergence, as yet, of effective economic planning in the province.

It is not possible for me to go to an area like, say, Pembroke or Hawkesbury or Smiths Falls, or go to the northeast or the northwest of the province, and to tell the people that “Yes, there is chance that you can stay where you want to stay.”

I have to tell people in those areas, as I travel around the province, that because of the policies of this government it is almost inevitable that their kids will have to go south for desirable economic opportunities. The Ontario government has seen to it that there are educational chances available to young people, and then it sees that those young people have got to come down into the Toronto-centred region.

The consequence of the obsession of the government with the Toronto-centred region is that people in this area are choking on growth; the ripple effect has turned into a surge. It is a raging torrent of impact on areas far beyond downtown Toronto under the Metropolitan Toronto municipal government. It is having harmful effects that stretch 50, 75, in some cases even 200 miles throughout the rest of the province. There is a distortion of our entire economic life and of our regional development and our social priorities. This has been created by the lack of valid and viable economic planning for the regions of the province on the part of the government.

Maybe I can just give a few examples, Mr. Chairman, of this kind of ripple effect -- and it’s more than a ripple.

I happened to meet today a fellow named Mr. Fairweather, who is commissioner of planning for the city of Barrie and recently has gone to that city in order to help with their municipal planning. He was rather reluctant to agree with me in a debate that we were holding at the Community Planning Association of Canada conference on public land ownership. He didn’t feel that was a solution to Ontario’s housing problems. He is entitled to his opinions, but subsequently when we got to talk he told me that as planning director of that particular city he cannot afford to buy a home in Barrie -- and he is presumably as a professional, not badly paid -- as a recent arrival to that particular city.

In Barrie and in Bowmanville, in Guelph, St. Catharines, Burlington, and in Hamilton -- in a great ring around Toronto you find that the housing market has been affected by the very high costs which have become typical of Metro Toronto, largely as a result of policies that have been adopted and taken by this government. This is a legitimate point to be raised with the Treasurer because the Minister of Housing is not responsible for regional development policy. Several years ago, when the Toronto-Centred Region Plan came out, it was stated that the government would seek to ensure that there were two or three tiers of development in the Toronto-centred region and that those would be directed toward the east. Then population targets were set for the growth of the region.

We said then, and have been saying consistently ever since, that the growth predicted for the region was far too fast and that the Toronto region would choke on its own growth. That, Mr. Chairman, is being borne out by the actual experience we have seen until now. We see the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) under tremendous pressure to extend Metro’s boundaries northward, to develop the last remaining tracts of open land in Mississauga, to do anything possible to curb a short-run problem.

If you look at the figures for the growth of, say, the region of York you would find that municipalities in York region are reaching population targets they weren’t meant to hit before the end of the 1970s or even later. The growth in the area has been incredible.

But what happens now? If you drive along the Queen Elizabeth Way you find that highway has become permanently congested with traffic. Whether you drive at 9 a.m., 10 a.m., 2 p.m., 3 p.m., or 4 p.m., or 6 p.m., 7 p.m., or 8 p.m., there is a steady torrent of traffic going to the limits of Toronto, to Peel county, to Halton region, and on as far as Burlington and beyond.

As you go, listening to your radio, you find seductive announcers’ voices telling you, “Come to live in beautiful St, Catharines, it is a clean, quiet environment, and only 60 minutes from Toronto.” Well, it is 60 minutes in a very fast Jaguar car at midnight on a calm night, but not at other times. Nevertheless the effects of the growth of Toronto are going right down there.

I have noticed over the past two or three years, in driving occasionally up to Ottawa on Friday afternoons, the kind of growth and the effects of that growth, which will lead this region to choke. Just two years ago, Mr. Chairman, when I left Toronto at about 3:45 p.m. the traffic would ease by the time one hit Ajax. After that it was clear sailing. Nowadays, on the summer holiday weekends there is a torrent of traffic which starts at about 3 p.m. and simply continues well on to 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. It continues, not just to a few miles outside Toronto, but all the way to Belleville and Kingston. Highway 401 east of Toronto, as an access to urban development, has become as busy as one used to expect the Don Valley Parkway to be in off-peak hours. What is happening? What on earth is the ministry up to?

The most recent study of regional development policies in the province was that carried out by the Ontario Welfare Council in its study of housing policies for Ontario. It rapidly came to the conclusion that you simply couldn’t look at housing policies in isolation when so many of the urban problems we had in Ontario were created because of regional development policy, or lack of policy, as carried out by this particular minister.

It discovered something we have been saying in this party for some time and that is unless you come to grips with the questions of growth in our rapidly urbanizing areas -- particularly in the Toronto-centred region -- you cannot come to grips with the problems of excessively high and rising land costs or with the problems of the cost, availability and mix of housing.

When it examined the regional development policy it came to this conclusion and I quote:

“Overall, regional development planning in Ontario has been both a very slow-moving process and a disappointingly fruitless one as well. In our view the province has mainly a regional development rhetoric with no clear policy or programme tools. No amount of talk alone will accomplish any of the province’s objectives such as relieving growth pressures in the ‘golden horseshoe,’ promoting growth in poorer regions and so on. [It goes on to state] The regional development process as it has evolved in Ontario since the creation of the Design for Development programme in 1966 has been, by and large, ineffectual and occasionally destructive. The original inventory, analysis and drafts of alternative processes was never intended to be more than a guideline type of activity. Later when things heated up seriously in the ‘golden horseshoe,’ the Toronto-centred Region Plan evolved into a set of restrictions on certain kinds of activities in various areas in that region.”

They mention the province’s incursion into new town planning as the most substantial step the province has taken. Apart from that, they say, regulations and restrictions make up the rest of the regional development activities.

As the Welfare Council points out, if you are going to plan on a regional basis in the province, you have to bring together your decisions about transportation, land development, residential construction and jobs. Those four sets of decisions are not integrated at all.

I will point out later, for example, the way in which the municipal financial set-up, as it is run by this Treasurer, actively discriminates against communities which are also suffering from slow growth but which might, if favoured as much as the Toronto region, be able to take more of the pressure off the Toronto-centred region.

It is really offensive, Mr. Chairman, for those of us who come from the north or the east of the province to see the millions and millions of dollars which are spent in Toronto in extraordinarily visible ways, on transportation improvements, for example -- the Highway 427-Queen Elizabeth interchange; the broadening of the Queen Elizabeth Way where it crosses the Humber River; the expansion to eight or 12 or 16 lanes of Highway 401 from somewhere in Scarborough east towards Pickering.

We know perfectly well that this kind of development is self-defeating; it simply generates further growth. The further growth, in turn, will occupy the transportation improvements to the limit of their capacity and the money will have gone, if not in vain, in a very unproductive form. We could use a few of those millions of dollars in improving the transportation system in eastern Ontario.

It pains us in the east and in the north to find that the Ontario Development Corp. continues to operate independently of this particular minister. It operates by a series of priorities which may well be mainly political rather than economic and its growth centres have a population of as little as 81 people in certain cases. It is not tied in with the priorities of this minister.

It pains those of us who don’t come from the charmed area which is so favoured by the Tories here in Toronto. It pains us to find that all the government can do is to use a bit of a carrot from time to time in seeking to bring employment out of the Toronto region.

One of the worst offenders in the centralization of employment within the Toronto region is none other than the Province of Ontario itself with its enormous plans and constructions and so on right here in the Queen’s Park complex, up at Downsview and at other locations of government employment here in downtown Toronto. The government itself is making no realistic effort to decentralize its jobs to other parts of the province. In fact, there is no understanding, as far as I can see, on the part of this minister and on the part of the rest of the government. I am really surprised.

I read the redistribution plan with some pain as I saw the underrepresentation of urban voters and the overrepresentation of rural voters throughout the province. It pains me as well that the Osie Villeneuves, the Albert Belangers, the Doug Wisemans and the other representatives of rural ridings in my part of the province are not hammering away at the doors of the government day after day and week after week saying that it is offensive and objectionable that so much is poured into the Toronto region and so little is available for the east -- or, for that matter, so little is available for the north.

If you drive in on one of these great highways that comes into Toronto and see the wall-to-wall industry which has been permitted and encouraged by this government and which is clearly a major source of the tremendous growth in population and, therefore, in urban problems that we have in this area, you ask yourself hasn’t the Treasurer ever been up to eastern Ontario where there are maybe one or two plants side by side? And that is an industrial complex in our terms.

Hasn’t he been up to the north, to communities such as Kirkland Lake or Timmins, where there is a desperate shortage of jobs for women who may want to work, because of the amount of heavy equipment and the lack of other kinds of industry, and where there is apparently no planning for that? Does he really not realize the consequences of the northwestern Design for Development which provides for an expansion of something like only 1,000 jobs per year in that region over the next 20 years? Doesn’t he find that offensive when he considers that there were that many jobs created in Toronto in the course of a typical month, if not even a typical week, in many cases? But, no, there is no such reaction from the government because the government has simply decided that it will either concentrate its efforts on Toronto or maybe it has decided that it will simply leave this whole effort of regional planning go by the board. It will mouth the rhetoric, as the Ontario Welfare Council says, and do nothing more.

If the Treasurer is a laissez-faire kind of advocate, if he believes what the Liberals believe and if he wants to stand idly by, then maybe that is what he thinks. I think he should come out cleanly and say so, though, rather than mouth the rhetoric of planning. What the Treasurer has done -- and I don’t believe he is a laissez-faire advocate -- in his interventions is, if anything, to make the problems worse rather than better. Here in the Toronto region various efforts, such as the transportation corridors that are planned to the west, and ultimately to the east of the area, the designation of the parkway belt, the environmental restrictions on development in the commuter belts north of Toronto and so on, have all had the effect, as the Treasurer well knows, of restricting the supply of development land in Toronto and in the Toronto-centred region. Because they have not been accompanied with parallel efforts to restrict the growth of the region by restricting the number of jobs, the government has created a real distortion and a real imbalance.

It is the Treasurer, Mr. Chairman, upon whom the prime responsibility has to fall for the fact that housing prices have increased by 25 or 35 per cent here in Metro Toronto over the past year. It is this imbalance in policies by the government which restricts certain kinds of development, on the one hand, and yet fails to restrict other kinds of development in the form of industrial growth and of employment growth, on the other, that has created our current situation.

The problem isn’t alone in blue-collar employment out in the industrial suburbs of Scarborough, North York, York and Mississauga. The problem also lies in the creation of service jobs and white-collar jobs right here in downtown Toronto.

If you stand on the steps of the Legislature and see what has been built, what is being built, and what is about to be built, you have to ask yourself, what kind of government is this that would stand idly by while millions upon millions of square feet of projects is announced? There is Metro Centre. There is the Royal Bank Centre. There is the -- oh, I can’t remember the names of them, but they are sprouting like weeds in downtown Toronto. These projects are sprouting like weeds. Every floor has 10,000, 12,000, even 18,000 sq ft. At the prices that are being charged in rent, the minister well knows that on every floor for every 1,000 sq ft of floor space there is presumably going to be anywhere between three and five or six new jobs created or jobs transferred. Many of those jobs will be jobs that didn’t exist before, therefore the growth of office space in downtown Toronto indicates that the developers are anticipating and that the government is condoning the continued employment growth in the core of the Toronto-centred region right in downtown Toronto.

The jobs that go there, Mr. Chairman, won’t go to eastern Ontario and they won’t go to northern Ontario. There is no effort made by the government to decentralize some of that white-collar growth. There is no effort by the government to ensure that employers pay the full social costs, or some of the social costs, that are connected with their decisions about location of employment. And that, Mr. Chairman, is a very serious lack as far as the government is concerned.

I want to suggest that if the government is going to come to grips with what is happening here in the Metro Toronto region that it has to come to grips with the question of jobs. I will be frank with the Treasurer, when I started to talk about restriction on the growth of jobs in Metro Toronto a couple of years ago, I did so with some trepidation. I wasn’t sure whether even my party would agree with those particular proposals.

Hon. Mr. White: Sure.

Mr. Cassidy: But it is clear now. The idea has been accepted by the party, we talk about it freely, and as we begin to look, we realize that it works successfully in certain areas of the world, most particularly in greater London.

The whole logic of development in Ontario leads one to no other conclusion than to say that we have now to start restricting the increase in employment in the Toronto-centred region. Until we do that, until we start rationing the number of new jobs that are created in this area, we will not come to an adequate solution to the growth problems of the east and north and the other less favoured parts of the province. We will not come to any kind of fair distribution of government spending through the province. We will not come to any kind of fair treatment of people who should have the choice about what part of the province they are to grow up in.

We just won’t do it. People will be compelled to come down here and to seek a place to live on the 31st floor of some condominium that costs them $44,000 for which they can just squeak into under the federal government’s plan at the generously cheap rate of $395 a month, principal, interest and taxes. What a distortion that is to put a family into those kind of conditions. It’s not rewarding as far as the breadwinner is concerned -- or the breadwinners, because often this Treasurer’s policies will force two or three members of the family to work in order to afford to be in Toronto where any jobs are available.

The alternative would be to create jobs in areas where people can walk to work, drive a few minutes to work, take a bus a few minutes to work, where they can have access to our terrific natural environment, where they can raise their kids in sanity. All of this is foregone and instead we give our countryside and rural Ontario, we give it over to the wealthier families in Metro Toronto and our other major cities who go out to create charming rural retreats where they can get away from the noise and the pressure of living in urban Ontario, down around Toronto or Hamilton, Kitchener, or possibly London. Now, what a perverse set of priorities these are. We depopulate rural Ontario. The homes that are depopulated are taken as second residences by the prosperous people of Toronto, and Hamilton, and other places like that -- people in the $20,000 and up income range. In the meantime, we provide the ordinary working families in Ontario with less and less, and give them more and more pressure, more and more congestion, and less and less access to the natural environment -- and all this in a province which is 90 per cent publicly owned, and which has got tremendous land resources not available in almost any other jurisdiction in the world.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, specifically, that we think the time has come that in the Toronto-centred region, possibly extending as far as Hamilton and the Kitchener-Guelph area, that there should be a deliberate policy about the rate at which new employment will be permitted to grow.

This could be handled in two or three ways, and I don’t want to be definitive about the kind of technique that should be used. One technique might well be to say, “Okay 10,000 new jobs are going to be permitted in the region over the course of the coming year. Any firm that wishes to add up to five or 10 employees, that is, to make small plant expansions will be allowed to do so.”

The addition of a couple of delivery boys to the corner florist’s, and that kind of thing, would not be covered, of course. But as far as any substantial firm was concerned, if it didn’t want to go elsewhere within the province, it would be required to pay for the permission to install new capacity and new employment in Toronto. You might then say, conversely, that any firm willing to decentralize to another part of the province might be permitted to sell to the government the right to the jobs that it was vacating.

That may sound a bit strange to the minister, because the minister is, after all, a Tory, and because, after all, he doesn’t believe in any interference with the free market system. He says he doesn’t. Nevertheless, there have been many occasions on which this minister in particular has been quite willing to interfere with the free market system -- the parkway belt, the Escarpment legislation, the Planning and Development Act, and the whole structure planning of the province are good examples. I’m suggesting that his interference has got to extend to the area of jobs.

It may be that, as in Britain, we have to set up some kind of a government, or quasi-governmental body, possibly like the OMB, which, operating within guidelines set by government, would rule on the admissibility of new employment within Metro Toronto. Where a manufacturer could show that it was simply not economical for him to do anything else but add 30 jobs by slightly extending his existing plant, or where he could show that this was a temporary kind of move, because he intended within three or four years to decentralize to Collingwood or Hawkesbury, that would be permitted. But on the other hand, the installation of a new activity within the Toronto-centred region involving 50 or 100 jobs would simply not be permitted. Maybe that’s the approach to take.

I’m not sure what the best approach is. It’s clear to us, though, in the New Democratic Party, and I’ll say this now because I’m sure the Treasurer would make the point, that you can’t say to individuals, “We’re awfully sorry, but there is a toll-gate on north Yonge St., on Highway 401 and on the Queen Elizabeth Way. You can’t come here to work unless you pass the toll and get a permit.” That is simply unacceptable in a society such as ours. We do not accept that.

However, it’s a different thing, if, while jobs are available in Toronto through the normal kind of turnover in employment, you are insuring that people have the choice of taking a job in Toronto or taking one elsewhere in the province. I suspect that if there was a fairly equal creation of jobs throughout the various regions of the province, you would then get a certain amount of sorting out.

You would find that some younger people who were particularly ambitious, or who wanted to get away from what they thought was the stultifying environment of their home town, would come to Toronto, and work here for several years. Some would marry, settle down, and raise their kids here. Others would marry a girl from back home, and would decide after a couple of years that the time had come to have kids, and that they really preferred to go back to Smooth Rock Falls, Smiths Falls, London, Windsor, or to whatever parts of the province they happened to come from. We don’t give them that choice now because once they are in Toronto, Mr. Chairman, they are locked into Toronto and they can’t get away, because there aren’t jobs back in the areas that they came from. Or there are not well-paying, rewarding jobs. All those jobs seem to be created within a 20-mile radius of the Legislature.

That is a crazy way for things to proceed. Anyway, you would find that people would come to Toronto for a few years and then might go back home. You would find that some people from outlying parts of the province would want to move to Toronto. But there would be many people, maybe even people with teen-agers, who have been established in Toronto for several years, who would say, “Look, I’m fed up with living on the 14th floor. I am fed up with being a tenant for ever and ever. I am fed up with the congestion of this area. I really dig snowmobiling and would like to go to a place where there is winter for seven months of the year;” or whatever it is that would move them, and they would go to other parts oi the province. But this equalization of opportunity doesn’t exist in what the minister is doing right now.

Let me talk briefly about eastern Ontario, Mr. Chairman. In eastern Ontario we have the distinction of being the first region to begin with a planning exercise. It was begun because of local initiative. The creation of regional development councils was largely at the initiative of people in eastern Ontario, just as the creation of community colleges originated from initiatives taken in the Ottawa area. Yet Ottawa was the last region of the 10 that once existed in Ontario to have the design for development, Phase 1 booklet. And when it came out it was absurd. It really told us nothing. Shortly thereafter the region was merged with Peterborough and Port Hope and/ God knows what else in the new enlarged eastern Ontario region.

And shortly after that, as far as I can gather, the whole process of planning in the eastern part of the province ground to a halt. People in the department tell me that they have continued to meet with the planning directors and other people up there. I am not aware of it. The minister will no doubt make some play of the fact that in Cornwall just the other week a federal-provincial agreement was signed to ensure about $14 million or $15 million of infrastructure investment and other efforts to improve the employment situation in Cornwall. Now that is fine, and welcome. It is worth putting on the record that only $1 million or $2 million of that total investment is coming out of provincial coffers over the next several years. Most of it is coming from Ottawa.

It is worth putting on the record as well, though, Mr. Chairman, that that is the only substantial investment that has been made by the province in regional development in eastern Ontario over the life of this Legislature, and that work has been sought on behalf of Cornwall by members of all parties in this House and in the federal House for the last five or 10 years. That is a pretty paltry result.

In Ottawa itself, Mr. Chairman, we happen to have, much behind timetable, an effort by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton to create a regional official plan. They are doing it in a damned arrogant fashion, Mr. Chairman, but they are not getting much support from the provincial government. Nor are they getting much support from the federal government. We are in a situation where both the regional official plan for Ottawa-Carleton and, I would suppose, the regional plan for eastern Ontario, are stymied by the refusal of the federal government to come clean and say what it intends to do with federal government employment, either in Ottawa proper or in eastern Ontario.

I am aware of no support that has been given by the provincial government to find out what the federal government is thinking. I am aware of no effort by the province to get those plans out of the hands of the federal cabinet, or the Department of Public Works, or of the National Capital Commission. The government here has simply washed its hands of the whole affair, and for that or other reasons the whole process in eastern Ontario has ground to a halt.

What we have in eastern Ontario, apart from the developments in Cornwall that are just under way, is the construction of the Arnprior dam, a Disneyland of a project that won’t create a single permanent job, and yet is going to cost $81 million, in the current estimates. It will go to $100 million before long. The member for Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith) can give us a better figure than I can since he is on the board of Hydro.

I would imagine that in some parts of eastern Ontario, there will be government members in the next election who will say, “Look, we gave you the Arnprior dam.” I hope they don’t say it too loud because the resentment in most parts of the region is pretty strong. But there’s been nothing else done. Nothing else is happening.

There is no indication of an ordering of regional priorities. There’s a bit of decentralization or deconcentration. There has been a director, regionally, nominated by the minister a few weeks ago and a few other things like that. All of this was to be expected long before, but nothing else than that, Mr. Chairman. There has been nothing else than that at all.

The same thing is happening in northwestern Ontario; that is, zilch. The same thing is happening in western Ontario; that is, zilch.

As far as growth in the east in the Toronto-centred region is concerned we have a province that moves an airport a few miles to the east, to Pickering, without questioning whether or not it’s needed. We have a province which sees the east as extending somewhere beyond Oshawa, maybe to Bowmanville, and no further, and which somehow believes that an airport just east of Toronto will create growth in the Peterborough-Ottawa corridor when it’s very clear that the magnetic attraction will be to Toronto.

There has been no workable effort by the province to get growth in eastern Ontario. That’s the original development policy as we see it in practice. That, Mr. Chairman, is why we say that it’s becoming increasingly clear that the regional development efforts of the government are a fraud and are a con. I, for one, am beginning to get fed up with the kind of constant rhetoric that we get from the government.

We heard today from the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) about his views on rent regulations, a subject which is not relevant to these estimates, but the pattern there is relevant. Back in 1968 Ottawa sought powers of rent regulation and was told wait for the Landlord and Tenant Act. Then, when we got a Landlord and Tenant Act we were told to wait and see if it works. Now we get the member, the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) and the Solicitor General going off on their own hook in order to placate tenants’ groups that get a bit nasty and nothing else. Therefore, six years later we have no effective protection for tenants. That’s a disgrace in the rental markets we’ve been having.

Eight years since the bold promises of the Design for Development policy, we still get promises from the minister about what’s going to happen through regional development in the east and the north of the province and nothing more. That’s a con, Mr. Chairman, and the people of those regions recognize what’s happening increasingly. They’re recognizing what’s happening to them. They recognize there will be no viable alternatives, no viable opportunities created for them so long as this government stays in power.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk too about the questions of the government’s land policy. I think this centres under this minister too because, in so many areas there is the potential and the need to acquire land in order to implement a true policy of regional development and yet it’s striking how little the opportunity is seized.

Let me take the Toronto-centred region first, Metro Toronto. We have land acquisition at Pickering. When we get to those detailed estimates we can find out more about what the minister intends to do. But there has been no effort between this minister and the Minister of Housing to ensure that there are large amounts of publicly owned land in order to order development and structure development within the Metro Toronto region and its surrounding regional municipalities. North Pickering is still a shimmer, a dream several years away.

There was no effort by the government at all to even discuss with Stelco its plans to locate industry down at Nanticoke. The government simply went along and then it said: “Look at the bold effort we’re making. We’re going to acquire some land.” I won’t go too deeply into who was right about that. There was the rather bizarre consequence of the delays and the trepidation with which the government went forward was that private developers laid their hands on a better tract of land which proved to be more developable at a more economic cost than the site the government thought was worthwhile taking.

The government has now taken advantage of that land assembly and, for a certain fee, has taken over that land that the private developers and the Cherkas group happened to get. But I find it bizarre when in the debate last year we said that that steel development should have gone either to the north shore of Lake Huron or the St. Lawrence corridor in order to spark a tremendous growth of jobs in one of those two regions, and we were laughed down by the government.

I find it bizarre to find out that the member for Grenville-Dundas, who is still absent from these estimates, while wandering through eastern Ontario just the other week -- or maybe it was the Treasurer himself -- said that the government was now considering a major industrial park in the Prescott-Cardinal area which was precisely where I suggested, as a member from eastern Ontario, the Stelco plant might go. What is happening with the government? It is another promise, of course; it is another con. That industrial park will never come to pass while we have a Tory government in power.

The minister smiles to acknowledge that what I say is true. He knows the pattern. He knows that ministers have been given the authority to go around and make any kind of blue-sky suggestion if it will curry friends and win votes in various parts of the province. With an election coming up in a year or so the government can try to look affable, as the minister looks; it can try to be cordial and it can try to spur on people’s hopes. It will only dash them after the next election if the results are favourable to the present government of the province.

That’s the kind of game the minister is playing. We make good suggestions here; they are bandied around by government before the election and then they are eventually lost.

Doesn’t it bother the minister at all to admit that the major development decision in southern Ontario for the remaining third of a century, which was the location of the Stelco plant at Nanticoke, was made exclusively by private enterprise with no government involvement, so little that the minister had to admit he didn’t even know about it until the day it was announced? Even when it was announced, Mr. Chairman, he didn’t feel it was incumbent on him to intervene, to sit down with the company, to talk with Mr. Gordon and other people there and ask what is it they’re about, to find out what their thinking had been about the alternative and what it might take to force them or to influence or to encourage them to move the plant into another area of the province which needed development and where people live now.

Mr. Chairman: Is this a convenient time for the member to break off now? This is the private members’ hour.

Mr. Cassidy: In just a minute, Mr. Chairman. I am about to reach a convenient break in my remarks.

Rather than to permit the creation of a brand new industrial corridor across some of the best land in Ontario along the north shore of Lake Erie in an area where it would aid in the integration of the Ontario economy with the United States, why on earth wouldn’t the minister consider at least sitting down and talking with them? Why won’t he get involved in actively planning for the location of employment in this province rather than passively submitting to the whims, dictates and desires of private enterprise?

Hon. Mr. White moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply has come to certain solutions and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR

FIRE PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Deans moves second reading of Bill 42, An Act relating to the Installation of Automatic Fire-Extinguishing Systems in Buildings.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak at any length on this bill, because I am sure the import of the legislation that I am proposing is known to everyone in the House, everyone meaning 15 of us. I gather from the attendance this afternoon that it is something that everyone feels strongly about and we can expect to see it passed.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Does the member want a quorum call?

Mr. Deans: No, I don’t want a quorum call, it isn’t worthwhile. I do want to talk for a few moments, though, about what I consider to be a major problem confronting an awful lot of people, particularly in the core areas of major municipalities and in areas where we are seeing a reconstruction of older buildings and new buildings being developed.

I think I probably have as much knowledge of firefighting and the perils of fire as anyone in the Legislature; perhaps considerably more than most. I don’t think anyone ever really appreciates what it is like to be in a fire until he has been there. It is hard to tell anyone how a person feels when he is trapped in a building black with smoke, flames crackling all around him, and he is asking himself, “Which way do I turn to find the exit? Which way do I turn to find a window or a door? How can I breathe?” Eyes smarting, he is in a state of absolute panic.

I think that for too long, because most of us never experience it, we have tended to disregard the hazards and perils of being involved in a major fire. We have tended to allow the economics of redevelopment, reconstruction, rooming houses, reconstruction of apartments, reconstruction of office buildings, to take precedence over safety. I have been in more fires than I care to tell you about.

From my experience there is nothing more frightening, or that brings you closer to the realization of death, than to be in the basement of a house and to hear it burning all around you, unable to see, unable to breathe, and to be, in fact, in the knowledge that within the next two or three minutes your number might well be up. We have an obligation as legislators to try to ensure that people are not put in that position unnecessarily.

It is because of that that I have introduced this bill. I don’t expect it to pass. I don’t even, frankly, expect to have unanimous support for it yet. But I am beginning today on what I hope will ultimately result in a change in the law in Ontario. It may take a year or it may take five years. It may even take 10 years. But some day in this Legislature we will invoke legislation which will bring about the kind of protection I am talking about.

Lest there be anyone who misunderstands, let’s talk about the bill for a moment. What I am suggesting is that all buildings approved for construction, reconstruction, or renovation that exceed three storeys in height or 45 ft to the roofline above finished grade, shall require installation of an approved, complete, automatic fire-extinguishing system. The approval of plans and installed systems shall be by the Ontario fire marshal, his designee, or local authorities given jurisdiction.

I make that point because I think it could be something handled by regional municipalities. But it should be handled in a uniform way right across the province. In each municipality there should be the same basic standards to avoid the kind of builder preference, where a builder will move from one municipality to a neighbouring municipality simply because he doesn’t want to be burdened with the additional cost of an automatic sprinkler system.

Beyond that, the buildings affected shall include but not be limited to those used in whole or in part as offices, hotels, motels, apartments, lodging houses, retirement homes, schools, colleges, dormitories, hospitals, health facilities, asylums, opera houses -- if we ever get any -- theatres, assembly buildings of all description, places of detention, factories, warehouses, storage buildings, and any similar structure, whether privately or publicly owned. I gave a good deal of thought to the wide range of the bill, and the different types of structures that might be incorporated within it.

We’ve all read of the recent rooming-house fires in Metro Toronto, and of the deaths and injuries that have occurred as a result of these fires, and I want to tell you they are not new. I’ve been to many of them. The standards in most municipalities for rooming houses are deplorable. Safety standards are virtually non-existent. Secondary means of egress is hardly ever provided. There is little, if any, fire-extinguishing equipment ever provided and certainly none by law.

I suggest that where people are going to be living and sleeping, in their own small cubicles and where they have no control over what their neighbours do, as in most rooming houses, there has to be mandatory protection from fire for those who may very well be careful in their own right. But they may live next door to someone who doesn’t really understand the peril he is placing his fellow room-mates in, either by smoking in bed or cooking on a hot-plate, or by using any number of heating devices when the rooming house isn’t heated to a temperature sufficient to keep them warm in the winter.

And so the legislation that I am proposing today is legislation which will be costly, but not terribly costly in the extreme; not to the point where a person who wants to go into the business of renovating a home and providing a rooming house would be able to say that that would in itself, be sufficient reason not to do it. This legislation will not be sufficient reason for a person building an office to say that he will not put in automatic fire-extinguishing systems or alarm systems because the costs will be outlandish, but, rather, it will be costly to the point where we will be investing some of the money that is currently being used on some frills, in assuring the safety of the people who use the buildings.

I want to refer you, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to a story that appeared some considerable time ago in a professional firefighting magazine. It tells of a fire in New York City -- and I could have chosen any number of fires -- but this particular one was a New York City fire. It was in an office tower, not unlike the Toronto Dominion Bank tower, which recently had a fire.

The office tower in New York City was not yet completed although it was on the verge of being occupied. People were looking around it. Secretaries were in taking a look at the building. They wanted to see just how much office space they would have, and they could smell smoke.

In a building that is not yet completed it is not unusual to smell an acetylene torch burning, or to find, perhaps, a worker working on something that causes smoke to be emitted. So they weren’t concerned. Unfortunately, the smoke they smelt was coming from a fire, and that fire grew. It grew to the point where, in fact, it cost two lives. Fifty people were hospitalized, and in excess of $10 million damage was done to a building not yet occupied.

It occurred primarily because there was neither a detection system, nor an extinguishing system, nor was there any law requiring them. And as a result of that fire, and as a result of others that have occurred throughout the USA, a senator, a state senator, a state representative I suppose he is called, introduced a bill, and the bill was intended to do almost exactly the same as the legislation which I put before you today.

Noting that this thrust was taking place in other parts of the North American continent, and recognizing the tremendous perils of highrise fires; knowing that firefighting equipment is not nearly adequate to reach the levels of highrise buildings, whether office towers or apartments; knowing that we don’t build aerial ladders or snorkels with sufficient reach to get into the 20th and 30th floors; knowing there are extreme hazards in both the material and the manner of developing and building many buildings, the city of Hamilton fire department went before the fire and jail committee of the Hamilton city council and before the board of control of Hamilton city council and asked them to pass a bylaw which would have enacted something similar to that which I am asking for today.

The reaction of the city of Hamilton was that while it approved in principle that there should be automatic sprinkler systems, fire detection systems and smoke detection systems in all new buildings, and while it approved in principle that there should be the same equipment -- if not to the same standard certainly of the same type -- in renovated or reconstructed buildings, it said it was afraid it would drive construction out of the municipality. It was afraid the developer would simply go to Oakville or Burlington or go out into the county or perhaps even come as far as Toronto and build there, and Hamilton would therefore lose the benefit of the assessment, the benefit of the new construction. Therefore, it decided this was a matter which should be dealt with by the Legislature of the Province of Ontario and that it should be a law applicable to every municipality.

For that reason, in addition to my own concern, I have put it before the House. I put it before the members because I’m convinced, as sure as I stand here, that by the time we get to November of this year, we will have additional deaths downtown in Toronto in rooming houses. We will have additional fires in motel complexes. We will have additional fires in hotels in many parts of the province which could have been kept under control if we had insisted at some point on the implementation and installation of automatic sprinklers and alarm systems.

Without taking up a great deal of the time of the House, I simply want to urge that every member who may not have given any thought to this, who may have other concerns which he or she feels are of greater importance, should devote a few minutes between now and the next session of the Legislature -- when no doubt I will be forced to raise it again -- to thinking about his own constituency and the people who live within it: the people who live in the rooming houses of Metro or the rooming houses of Ottawa or Hamilton; the apartments being built day by day of the flimsiest material money can buy; the many warehouses in his area which are being reconstructed and used for purposes for which they were never intended.

I ask those members to look around, to see them for themselves and to decide whether in good conscience they can continue to support the use of substandard accommodation, for whatever purpose, within the province. I ask them whether it doesn’t make sense to go to the cabinet and ask the government to introduce legislation in this province which if it will not eliminate all fire deaths -- I doubt if anything could possibly eliminate all of them -- will certainly cut down substantially on the numbers which occur.

It is a proved fact that sprinkler systems are able to contain the majority of fires in their early stages and that smoke detection systems, properly installed and maintained, almost invariably allow people to leave the confines of the building before they are overcome.

It should be remembered by everyone here that not many people burn to death. Most people who die in fires are asphyxiated. They die because of the gases and the smoke and the panic; they die because they are unable to move, because they don’t know where to go. While the body you drag out of there -- as I have on a number of occasions -- is charred beyond recognition, it isn’t as a result of their having died in the flames; they died in the gas and the smoke.

If we in the province are prepared to take this fairly bold step, we can lead the way on the North American continent. The cost will not be such as to inhibit development and the saving will be immense, although we’ll never really know the extent of it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Algoma.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the member for Wentworth for taking the initiative to introduce this private bill in the House. I know that in this day and age we are very much aware of what can happen in various buildings -- how fires get started in hotels and industrial buildings and so on.

When the member put the limitations in his bill at 45 ft, he had to have something particularly in mind -- perhaps that it wouldn’t interfere with private dwellings and so on. But there are many buildings nowadays that are only one storey high -- for instance nursing homes and various types of senior citizens homes. It is very important that they to have automatic fire equipment such as sprinkling systems.

I think there have been a lot of improvements over the years, and a lot of awareness about having this type of system installed, not just in new buildings but in older buildings which have been renovated. I think it is a very good thing.

In factories and other places the insurance liability would be very high because of not having the right type of fire prevention equipment. But, if you figure the amount of insurance you pay yearly over a period of years and put it toward the installation of automatic fire equipment, it would help in the long run to defray the cost of your insurance from year to year.

I have been involved where lumbering companies have approached me about anticipating installing sprinkling systems, but the cost was very high. But when it was all figured out they went ahead and installed this type of equipment because they could see that within a few years it would pay for itself and you would have the protection so vitally needed.

Years ago I used to be a sailor on the Great Lakes. In fact, I worked on both the boats that burned -- the Hamonic and the Noronic.

Mr. Deans: Did the member smoke?

Mr. Gilbertson: I worked on both of those boats and I didn’t smoke. But compared with the regulations in those days and what you could get away with, there is a vast difference today. Those boats wouldn’t be allowed to sail. They were just a pile of kindling.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Firetraps, eh?

Mr. Gilbertson: They had been painted for years and years -- one coat of paint one year and the next year another coat, and they were almost completely wood structures. All the cabins were almost completely wood. A ship like the Noronic must have been about six decks. When you think of that disaster -- 108 lives were lost and the boat was tied up to the dock -- we would never want something like that to happen again.

Fortunately the Hamonic was a little bit different. It burned right in the daytime, but it was at the dock as well. What happened there was the freight sheds caught fire. There was some type of vehicle that they had on which the gas tank blew up. Those freight sheds were nothing but a pile of kindling and when they caught fire with the way the wind was blowing, cabins on the boat caught fire and burned right at the dock. Fortunately, there weren’t any lives lost on the Hamonic.

With the member introducing this type of a bill, it is a good idea and I’d like to compliment him on it. I think that it is a step in the right direction. We all realize that private bills very seldom ever become legislation, but it might be just a step in the right direction and it might just motivate the government to come up with something that will be almost similar to what is in this bill.

Even if they don’t introduce it in the way this particular bill is -- there might be certain portions of it that the government won’t go along with -- I wouldn’t be a bit surprised some day that there may be some legislation come out that will certainly cover this particular area mentioned in this bill.

I would say I think the idea is good. The only thing I am thinking about is the limitation of 45 ft. There might be buildings that would be higher than that, such as welding shops. They are only one storey but the ceilings are very high on account of the type of work that they do in a welding shop. With the type of fabrication and things that go on there, they have to have a building sometimes only one storey but it is quite a bit higher than 45 ft.

That type of building is not as subject to fires as many others, such as various types of hospitals, convalescent homes, nursing homes, homes for the aged and so on. I certainly agree with the idea of having the proper type of fire prevention, whatever type it might be. Whether it is an automatic sprinkler system or whatever it is, I think it is a very good idea.

I often think of the substitute that we have for this. Fire extinguishers are placed in certain conspicuous places where they can be reached in case of a flash fire, but sometimes there is considerable neglect in checking these fire extinguishers to see whether they are ready and can be used at any time. I know there are many times when a fire extinguisher is used and is not replenished again. You may reach for it sometimes and find out that it hasn’t been recharged, and this is something that is not very good.

Then there are different types of fire extinguishers. There are some that would be all right to put out a wood fire, but if it is a gas fire you need a different type of extinguisher to put out gas. All these things are very important and I am sure the more of these automatic sprinkling systems that we can install, wherever it is feasible to install them, the better. I certainly wouldn’t oppose a bill like this, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ferrier: Would the member speak in caucus to encourage the minister to bring in one like this?

Mr. Gilbertson: I always try to do anything that is reasonable in caucus, as I am a reasonable man. Even though they might be ideas that come from the opposition, I am quite reasonable.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Very flexible.

Mr. Gilbertson: We are a constructive government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Gilbertson: We will listen to anything that is reasonable.

Mr. Ferrier: Glad to hear that the member is that kind of a member.

Mr. Gilbertson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

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

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I rise and wish to support the bill in principle, too -- Bill 42, An Act Relating to the Installation of Automatic Fire-Extinguishing Systems in Buildings.

I want to compliment the member for Wentworth on his comments and his personal experience as a firefighter. I think he knows the problem very well of what a fireman is confronted with in such a type of emergency. I did have some experience a number of years ago as a member of a volunteer fire company in the town of Port Colborne, at that time, and I too know some of the problems that firemen are confronted with.

Speaking to the bill this afternoon is almost like a rehearsal of something that perhaps we shouldn’t even be debating in the Legislature, although it’s a very important subject. As a member of local municipal council, I can well remember that we adopted the principles of the National Building Code, which covered pretty well all of what we are going to discuss this afternoon. It deals with particular types of construction of buildings and the matters concerning fire safety in buildings, such as the firewalls, the fire allowance for certain types of building materials, and a list of about 40 different items dealing with this.

I notice that the province at the present time, through the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement), has a draft of the Ontario Building Code, and hopefully this will be adopted this year. That covers fire-protection pretty well in detail, almost copying the National Building Code. So you see, they are moving in that direction, but perhaps not fast enough.

I am also concerned about the number of deaths that occurred recently in Metropolitan Toronto and perhaps other communities throughout Ontario. It is interesting to note here that from January to March of this year, there have been 38 deaths due to fire causes in Metropolitan Toronto, and that’s rather alarming. When you sit down and look at the regulations that are before us in the different codes -- the National Building Code and the proposals in the provincial building code -- you just have to question that perhaps we are not doing enough as members of the government. And perhaps this is why the member has presented the bill this afternoon, hoping that the government would move in a direction to bring about safety measures that would apply to all buildings. And as I said, we support the bill in principle.

When I read the bill, it says, structures over three storeys “in excess of 45 ft.” Perhaps a number of those 38 deaths that I mentioned here are in those dwellings that are below the 45-ft height. That would include rooming houses and rental units, and one- or two-storey, in fact even three-storey, dwellings. Perhaps this is where the greatest number of deaths do occur in the Province of Ontario and this is where the regulations should apply.

I noted the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) introduced a bill a few weeks ago concerning fire extinguishers. I mentioned at that time that I thought perhaps there was more need for some type of fire prevention control in buildings, and I suggested heat detectors for that type of alarm system. Heat detectors, perhaps, will give a warning a lot sooner than a sprinkler-type system will. In many instances, I know fire departments have them hooked up directly to their master panel so that they can get the warning right at the beginning that there is a fire in a building, and it has been very successful in municipalities. I was hoping that perhaps there would be something in his bill this afternoon mentioning some type of a smoke detector or similar device to give the occupants in any building warning that they must vacate that building.

As the member for Wentworth mentioned before, the biggest concern to all firemen is not so much the fire itself, but the smoke. It’s the most dangerous there is and, of course, when you are dealing with smoke, that means deadly gases.

In talking to some members of the fire department, I was interested to learn that in many instances, when firemen enter a highrise apartment building of perhaps 20 or 26 floors, one of the first pieces of equipment they put on automatically is a Scott air pack or some type of apparatus to carry their supply of oxygen. As I understand it, the supply of oxygen is only good for half an hour, and if you have to go up 20 flights of stairs, it means you spend perhaps 10 or 15 minutes fighting your way through the smoke and flames; by the time you get up there, you almost have to come back down again because you don’t have a sufficient supply of oxygen. Sprinklers will provide that protection to occupants of any building.

I also noted that the fire regulations in the city of Toronto follow much of the National Building Code, and they automatically put sprinkler systems in underground levels of building. In other words, they are saying they want the sprinkler system installed where the greatest fire hazards would be -- around the boiler room, the incinerator room or the electrical room -- and this is where they are put.

I have been informed that there are standpipes on every floor in highrise buildings and that these standpipes have outlets for about a 1½-in. fire hose to provide the fireman with the necessary water supply on any floor. Of course, he has to get up to that floor in the first place. This is also a good system for firefighting purposes, but again I think that sprinklers would solve many of the problems by ensuring that water is there when it is needed -- provided, of course, that there is an adequate municipal water supply.

This raises another question. Sometimes a municipal council will look at an offer that comes into council and say, “Look, we have got a chance for a highrise apartment of 10 floors. This is going to bring assessment to the municipality.” And, of course, it looks good to members of council. In quite a few smaller areas throughout Ontario, councils have gone along and allowed the construction of buildings of five to 10 floors, only to find, in many instances, that by allowing this type of a building to be constructed, it overtaxes the existing fire equipment.

In other words, it may look good to be getting revenue from a highrise apartment building, but you might have to buy an additional piece of fire apparatus -- at a cost of upwards of $135,000 if you are talking about an aerial truck or that kind of equipment. And, incidentally, I wish that councils would consult with the officers in charge of the fire departments to find out, first of all, if they can handle that type of a building in case of an emergency. In many instances, they cannot.

The other question is the matter of an adequate water supply. In many municipalities they do not have a sufficient supply of water, and regardless of whether there are standpipes or sprinkler systems in those highrise apartment buildings, a pump of sufficient capacity is needed to make sure that the water gets up to the top floor. This means a pump with a head pressure of about 50 lb, and since there is friction loss of about 5 lb at each floor level, you would almost need a pump of about 500-lb capacity to provide sufficient pressure. This, of course, adds to the cost of fire protection within a building, but I think that persons who are supporting this type of a highrise complex should provide fire protection for the tenants.

I notice, too, in the --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Those are my comments. We do support the bill in principle, but we would like to see it extended to cover one-storey and multiple use buildings. Regardless of where they are, tenants must be protected for fire purposes.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any other member of the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party who wishes to speak? If not, I will call the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, is there no other government member?

Mr. Speaker: I heard no response to my inquiry.

Mr. B. Newman: I thought there was another government member to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 42, An Act relating to the installation of Automatic Fire-Extinguishing Systems in Buildings. However, the legislation as introduced by the member does not go far enough.

Mr. Deans: Nothing ever does. It goes further than anything the hon. member has introduced, but it doesn’t go far enough.

Mr. B. Newman: The legislation, Mr. Speaker -- I am reading from part 2 of it which says “An automatic fire extinguishing system of a type and in locations prescribed by regulations” -- should have included “heat detectors” in addition to fire extinguishers.

I think, Mr. Speaker, a heat detector is probably the first evidence of the possibility of a fire in a building. If you had had that heat detector in the building at the same time at least you would have been able to alert occupants of the accommodation that there was some type of fire hazard and they had better vacate the building as quickly as possible.

Practically every community today, Mr. Speaker, is on some type of a redevelopment or rehabilitation programme. They go into the core areas where generally most of the rehabilitation is required to take place or does take place and municipalities insist on quite stringent controls.

For example in my own community the core area, over the past six or seven years, has gone through an upgrading programme. The municipality insists that all accommodation, be it on one floor or two floors, must have at least two exits and this has caused quite a financial hardship to many in the community. However, those people who owned the homes followed through with the recommendation of the city, knowing that the safety of the occupant is far more important than the few extra dollars which may be spent to provide a second means of exit.

The bill, Mr. Speaker, because it has a limitation of 45 ft, would not have solved any of the problems we have been reading about recently in the Toronto area where so many lives were lost as a result of fires. I think the limitation of 45 ft is insufficient. There really should be no limitation because if there is a fire hazard, we should attempt to save lives regardless of whether it is a one-floor building or a two-, three- or four-floor one, regardless of the height.

One of the things I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, is that the city of Windsor has always been concerned with the fire hazards of buildings but the province and the federal government have not come out with a uniform building code, a National Building Code. On Dec. 17, 1969, the council passed the following resolution; this resolution originated in Niagara Falls:

“Whereas provisions in building codes used by the fire marshal’s office and other agencies of the Province of Ontario frequently conflict with provisions of the National Building Code, which has been adopted by many Ontario municipalities; and

“Whereas after building plans have been approved by provincial agencies it is often necessary for municipal building authorities to require the plans to be changed to comply with the National Building Code, resulting in additional costs for the applicant; and

“Whereas the Department of Municipal Affairs organized a committee to study uniformity of building codes and it is expected that this committee will be reporting its findings presently.

“Therefore, be it resolved that the provincial government be urged to establish a uniform building code for the Province of Ontario and that it be mandatory for all building authorities, including provincial government agencies as well as municipal building authorities, to use the uniform building code.”

Had we a uniform building code, a lot of the problems involving fires could have been resolved.

On May 30, 1973, the municipality followed through by endorsing a resolution submitted by the city of London. That resolution asked for or required the provision of automatic sprinkler systems in highrise buildings for the additional protection of the occupants in case of fire and incorporating such a requirement in the uniform building code. On Dec. 21, 1973, the city council endorsed a resolution requiring legislation for the certification of maintenance of apartment buildings. In that legislation, they asked for certification annually by the Province of Ontario, as to the ability of the individual to handle the maintenance of all fire facilities in buildings and the ability to certify that maintenance has, in effect, been carried out and that safety information has been supplied to each tenant in the building.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the National Building Code, had it been adopted, would have resolved or would have minimized a lot of the problems that we are confronted with.

The member for Algoma made mention of fire extinguishers in buildings. One of the problems with fire extinguishers is that quite often you don’t know where they are located. They are generally in public buildings tested on a regular basis and there is a little tag attached to the fire extinguisher showing that it is operative. In fact there is the indicator on the fire extinguisher showing the amount of pressure in the extinguisher so that one picking up that extinguisher knows that it is in a workable condition.

One of the unfortunate things in fires Mr. Speaker is that they primarily affect the poor because it is the poor, the disadvantaged, the welfare recipient and the elderly who have to live in these substandard accommodations. One of the things that also surprised me very much was that the Ontario Housing Corp., in their condominium construction didn’t provide for two exits from a building so that if the fire is by the principal entrance to the building, and there not being a second exit, the individual is trapped on the inside and there is no possible chance for him to be rescued.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a recommendation concerning a way of rescuing individuals. In the old days when they hunted for whales, they used a harpoon method. They would shoot a rope in there and they would harpoon the whale and then drag the whale in. It has been brought to my attention that where a fire is so intense that no one could enter the building, you could shoot a rope in there, or metal or hemp of some sort, and at least the individual, if he were conscious, could grab the rope and he could be yanked out. Whether that is practical or not, I don’t know, but at least it is a suggestion.

Another is that I understand no community has ladder equipment sufficiently high to reach the top of a highrise building. Thus as far as occupants living above the height of ladders in the community are concerned, they sort of have left their lives in the hands of the gods, or in the hands of God. To me, all highrise buildings, if they exceed the height of firefighting equipment in the community, should have some type of a hoist system at the top from which a rope, whether it be wire or cloth or hemp or something of that sort, be lowered to the apartment or the area in which the fire is concerned and someone could be lowered into that area to rescue the individual. As it is, if we do nothing about this situation that individual is going to be trapped in there, and as a result will suffocate.

Generally, the individual does not die because of the fire itself. He doesn’t burn to death. He suffocates because of the gases created by the intense heat. In fact, one of the problems is due to one of the components in the building, and that is the floor tile. I understand it is made from polyvinyl chloride, and when exposed to intense heat and fire, it creates gases that are poisonous and can adversely affect the individual.

I know that in the National Building Code certain types of plastic insulators would be banned. We all can recall the insulation that caused the deaths of the three astronauts when they were in a test capsule at the NASA space station. That was as a result of foam insulation that had been used. When it caught fire, it created a gas which by itself was not poisonous, but which when inhaled, combined with the blood stream in a chemical reaction similar to that of inhaling cyanide. Back in 1964 there was a crash of an aircraft in Salt Lake City where 41 of 82 passengers died --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. B. Newman: -- none having broken bones, and they all passed away because of the fumes from the gas.

Mr. Speaker, I think the member has introduced a bit of legislation that can be accepted by the government. It can be amended and put into a manner that would be acceptable to the government, and at the same time would be a forward step in saving the lives of many of our residents.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate? The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I wish to congratulate the member for Wentworth in bringing this bill forward today. I always like to have a member of this House speak from an intimate knowledge of the subject. The hon. member has had years of experience as a firefighter, and I know that we in this House, and the public generally, appreciate the work of the firefighters and what they do in preventing fires and saving lives here in the province.

Here in the city of Toronto, of course, we are concerned with the incidence of fires in rooming houses, and those of us who have visited rooming houses know what the problems are. Even if fire extinguishers are installed there is no guarantee they are going to be there when they are required. There is no guarantee even if it is there that the necessary equipment is workable, and if it is required to be used that it is in working condition.

I know the city of Toronto fire department is concerned about this problem and will have stiffened inspections made of rooming houses still remaining, and especially older rooming houses in the downtown area.

But let us assume, Mr. Speaker, that we did pass this bill, and all buildings over three storeys in the Province of Ontario were required to have automatic sprinkler systems installed. I wonder, as my colleague over here wonders, about the water supply in some areas of the province, and especially in those areas using wells. But I do think, Mr. Speaker, this is a problem that could be resolved because I think the idea the member brings up is a good one indeed.

Probably many of the municipalities in Ontario could do with a backup water supply system. It would seem logical, therefore, to install such a system so the whole fire prevention system could be improved.

I understand that in highrise buildings it takes 150 lb of pressure to move water up a maximum of 15 floors. I further understand that an additional 50 lb is required to get a maximum water flow in fighting fires at 15 floor levels. I do not have an intimate knowledge of what is required to move water up in this way, and what is required to fight fires in highrise buildings. But I know this is a problem that has engaged the public in discussion.

When they look at some of the highrise buildings in Toronto, such as Commerce Court, people wonder what would happen in case of a fire. How could people be rescued in case of a fire? Would they come down elevators? We all know the problem, especially in older buildings, of getting down elevators in the event of a fire.

I did suggest a few years ago that all such highrise buildings should be equipped with a helicopter pad on the top. I know some of them are, and we witnessed a recent fire in South America where a number of people were rescued by having helicopters available. It would seem to me desirable that all highrise buildings should have a helicopter available for rescue purposes.

I agree with the hon. member in the principle of this bill, but do we serve the citizens of the province in the best way in the requirements of this Act, and do we get maximum value for each safety dollar through this Act?

It would seem to me if we made automatic sprinkler systems mandatory throughout the province, surely the developers of highrise buildings would have to take this into account. It seems to me that we should insist on fire-resistant materials, and all the necessary safety equipment when apartment buildings and all highrise types of buildings are constructed.

I would just like to add these few words and again commend the member for Wentworth for bringing this important subject forward. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate?

This concludes this order of business.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to suggest that we call it 6 o’clock. I would then like to say to the House that by agreement we have decided to call certain bills this evening -- Nos. 51, 52, 55 and 69, with the possibility of calling also 60 and 65.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.