Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, on April 2 at approximately 9:45 the hon member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) made a statement in which he suggested, and I quote: “and I want to tell this House that she lied to the public.”

I have drawn this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to have the hon. member retract this statement.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Speaker, I think I suggested that the hon. member did, in fact, deliberately mislead the public in some of her statements surrounding LIP funding and the fact that the province did not have any input --

An hon. member: Withdraw.

Mr. Martel: -- I am not about to withdraw into the way the LIP funds would be allocated in this province.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Withdraw the statement. It is the easiest way.

Mr. Speaker: I must say to the hon. member that he may have thought he said that the hon. minister had deliberately misled the House. Even if this is what took place, that is not permitted in this House. I have reviewed Hansard and the words are: “She lied to the public.” I read that in Hansard myself. I would ask the hon. member if he would kindly withdraw that remark.

Mr. Martel: I will withdraw the remark but she lied and, Mr. Speaker, I just --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Martel: -- add that in my opinion she deliberately misled the public.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member must either withdraw the remark or refuse to; one of the two. Does the hon. member withdraw the remark?

Mr. Martel: I will withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. member: That’s the boy, that’s the boy.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of members of the House the fact that in our galleries today we have with us some 100 students from the Eastwood Collegiate Institute in Kitchener. I hope all the members will join with me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

SPENDING CEILINGS IN EDUCATION

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform members of the House that we have mailed today to every school board in the province copies of the 1974 general legislative grants and apportionment regulations.

An hon. member: About time.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The new regulations contain a number of important refinements and I would like to draw the members’ attention to these.

Last August, when the 1974 expenditure ceilings were announced, it was very clear that inflation was having a significant impact on school board spending. For many boards, despite their best efforts to budget wisely, it was becoming increasingly difficult to cope with rapidly rising costs which were beyond their control. Thus the 1974 ceilings as announced in August were increased by 7.9 per cent over the ceilings of the year previous.

At that time, after evaluation of the predicted impact of inflation, it was felt that the 7.9 per cent increase would adequately accommodate unavoidable cost increases encountered by school boards.

In the ensuing six months, however, the effects of inflation have continued. Now, in the face of rising costs over which school boards have little or no control, we are concerned that boards may be forced to make budget decisions which could have a detrimental effect on educational programmes.

We do not want this to happen. Thus the regulations released today include provisions for an increase in the 1974 expenditure ceilings of a further 2.6 per cent, making the total increases in 1974 ceilings over 1973’s approximately 10.5 per cent.

The revised 1974 ceilings are $704 per elementary school pupil, up 11.75 per cent over 1973; and $1,231 per secondary pupil, up 8.94 per cent over 1973.

Upon careful analysis we believe that the revised ceilings will permit all school boards to maintain the level of quality which they have achieved in their schools, and avoid decisions which might have a detrimental effect on children in the classrooms.

It should be emphasized, however, Mr. Speaker, that any decision by a school board to increase its spending to the new ceiling levels is strictly a local board decision. The ceilings are merely upper spending limits and they still require boards to seek economies in their operations.

The fact that we are today adjusting the 1974 ceilings does not in any way alter the principle of the ceilings which continues to be the policy of this government. The impact of inflation, which has been greater than foreseen earlier, has created a unique situation and we are taking this action to ensure that the ceilings continue to be fair and equitable and reflect the actual conditions faced by school boards.

There are two other changes in the 1974 regulations which deserve mention at this time.

One is that the method of calculating grants for French-language instruction has been changed and simplified and will result in increased assistance to most boards in this province for their French language educational programmes.

Secondly, more grant assistance is also being provided to school boards toward the cost of unapproved debt assumed from the pre-1969 school boards. The maximum mill rate for this purpose will be reduced from 0.75 equalized mills to 0.2 equalized mills for elementary schools and 0.6 equalized mills for secondary schools. Any excess will be met by provincial grants.

It continues to be government policy that provincial grant support be maintained at 60 per cent of the total cost of elementary and secondary education in Ontario and this policy is embodied in the 1974 regulations.

The refinements which have been incorporated into the regulations will permit boards to make financial and educational decisions which will benefit their schools in a tangible way. As always, Mr. Speaker, pupils are our prime concern.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): That was a dignified retreat -- as usual. The minister finally came to his senses.

RYERSON RADIO STATION

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that on Dec. 3 the Premier (Mr. Davis) advised the House of the government’s decision to establish CJRT-FM as a separate and independent corporation with the capability to operate the present CJRT radio station and to continue its educational broadcasting activities.

At that time the Premier also stated that a managing board, including members of the private sector and representatives from Ryerson, would be established.

Mr. Speaker, it is the government’s intention during this session of the Legislature to introduce legislation that will establish the new corporation to run CJRT-FM. In the meantime, I’m pleased to be able to advise hon. members of the establishment of an interim board to help set up the new corporation. The interim board is expected to become the new corporation’s managing board.

Until the new corporation is established, the interim board will work with Ryerson’s board of governors and keep the minister informed of matters affecting the radio station.

Members of the interim board are:

Mr. Donald B. McCaskill (chairman), president, Connlab Holdings Ltd., Toronto; Mrs. Mary Alice Stuart (vice-chairman); Mr. John Twomey, chairman, radio and TV arts, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute; Mr. Frank C. Buckley, vice-president, W. K. Buckley Ltd.; Mr. Cosmo J. Catalano, assistant vice- president, public affairs, Bell Canada; Dr. Abbyann D. Lynch, professor, St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto; Mr. Fred Pollard, principal. Tabor Park Vocational School; Mr. Peter Hunter, president, Sigmun Communications Ltd. and McConnell Advertising Co. Ltd.; Mr. James Pearce, Pearce Audio- Visual Presentations; Mr. John T. Ross, Robert Lawrence Productions Ltd.; Mr. Jack R. Gorman, assistant to the president, Ryerson Polytechnical Institute; Mr. Edward J. Brisbois, president, Challenger Manifold Corp. Ltd.; and Mr. C. R. Finley, acting station manager, CJRT-FM.

HEALTH PLANNING TASK FORCE REPORT

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in late 1972 and early 1973, as you may remember, the Ministry of Health embarked on an extensive programme to integrate and restructure the ministry itself and to develop a single comprehensive health care programme. And, at much the same time -- actually in January, 1973 -- a health planning task force was established by cabinet directive to develop a comprehensive plan to deliver services to meet the health needs of the people of Ontario; in other words, a plan to complement the internal reorganization of the ministry.

The man appointed as chairman of this health planning task force was Dr. Fraser Mustard, dean of the faculty of medicine at McMaster University and vice-president of the McMaster Health Sciences Centre, who has considerable experience in heading task forces on major projects. His task force was made up of members of health professions, universities and the field of economics, together with senior ministry officials. All these members brought to the meetings a wide background of individual knowledge and accumulated experience in their own fields.

Their report, which will be tabled at the appropriate time this afternoon, is a comprehensive study of health care delivery in Ontario. It makes proposals and recommendations that could bring about wide and fundamental changes affecting the entire health care system -- changes in roles, structures and practices at all levels.

These proposals now require close examination and wide discussion before any other action is taken since, if they are implemented, they could, directly or indirectly, affect the lives of every individual in the province.

The government has decided that the subject matter of the report makes it desirable that this publication, despite the colour of its cover, should be regarded strictly as a green paper.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): For Health, that’s a nice colour.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That is clever.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, one of our patients bled on it.

We are committed to the principle of public involvement in the planning of health services. Changes on so wide a scale as the report proposes could not be undertaken by the government without the understanding, co-operation and full support of the public, health professions and health agencies. We want to make sure that these are the issues and that these are the best ways of approaching them. Also we want to find out whether these proposed solutions are the right ones or whether there may be either equally valid or better answers.

We consider a period of, say, three or four months from the date of publication of the report should be allowed for discussion and proper feedbacks by all interested parties. After that, when we have been able to analyze the response, a comprehensive policy will be formulated.

Mr. Foulds: Making up for lost time.

VALIDATION STICKERS

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, there has been a press report from Ottawa indicating that charges against motorists for failure to display 1974 validation stickers have been dismissed. At this time we do not have all the particulars of the decision of the court.

Prior to the implementation of the multi-year licence plate there were two requirements: firstly, that the registration be renewed annually and, secondly, that the plate issued for the current year be displayed. The implications of the introduction of the validation stickers were considered, including their validity.

However, since the decision of the court in Ottawa has been brought to my attention, I am satisfied after further examination of the Act and regulations that they do not clearly relate the validation sticker to the multiyear plate in respect to the requirements of display. Amending legislation will be introduced at this session to clarify the matter.

Mr. Breithaupt: They bungled again.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is no defect in the Act and regulations --

Mr. Singer: No, no. None at all!

Mr. Foulds: Just in the minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- insofar as vehicle owners being required to renew the vehicle registration and pay the prescribed fee.

Mr. Breithaupt: Is the government going to give them their money back?

Mr. Singer: Only in the mind of the judge. If he thinks so we will change the Act.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Also there is no impairment in the identification of vehicles and their owners. In these circumstances, I am prepared to recommend refund of fines levied in respect of convictions for failure to display the validation stickers where the registration fee has been paid.

Mr. Foulds: The hon. member for Armourdale (Mr. Carton) is the most relaxed member of the House.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): He didn’t have to resign over that.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, oh, now we will hear it.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and

Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member has been waiting for it.

Mr. Lewis: Now here it is.

MAPLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I should like to advise the House today of the government’s intention as a result of evaluating feasibility studies for a recreational complex at Maple Mountain in northeastern Ontario. Over the past several months there have been much speculation and comment on what is essentially a normal and continuing programme of my ministry to encourage and support the development --

Mr. Breithaupt: That is the problem.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- and improvement of Ontario’s tourist industry, an industry which is a major source of jobs and income in this province. A key consideration which led to the investigation of the feasibility of this project was the economic benefits and development which could accrue to northeastern Ontario.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Move it to Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Tourism is big business and in 1973 it produced over $2 billion in revenue for Ontario business firms.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, the justification!

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Tourism is the third largest industry in this province and tourist-related businesses account for over 200,000 jobs,

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): The minister will change that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have a potential for more and it is my ministry’s responsibility to seek out and explore opportunities.

Mr. Lewis: What do they pay?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: During the past few months my ministry has been criticized in connection with this programme for being innovative and for seeking ways to improve and enhance Ontario’s tourist facilities. That kind of criticism, Mr. Speaker, I welcome.

My ministry has also been criticised for having feasibility studies prepared on a recreational complex. That kind of criticism is less easy to accept for, as many good businessmen know, before one invests a lot of money in an idea one also has to be very careful and in addition invest a great deal of hard work and a sufficient amount of money to determine its economic feasibility.

Mr. Stokes: Like Minaki.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, like Minaki, a very valuable project in northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Martel: Bailing out the government’s bankrupt friends again.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, over the past several months we have been testing the idea of a Maple Mountain recreational complex to determine how feasible that specific project would be and to provide a more general assessment of the types of tourism-related programmes which show greatest promise for the north. We have also been exploring the various ways a recreational complex like Maple Mountain would develop without government participation.

There have also been suggestions that the government has not made known its intentions clearly enough and has not permitted the public to participate in the planning process. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for such suggestions, my ministry has been quite explicit that to this point it has been studying the feasibility -- and I would like to repeat for the information of those in the opposition, the feasibility of the project only. Policy decisions with regard to whether the project would proceed, and how, would be appropriately left to subsequent phases of the overall decision-making process -- and of course include public participation.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): What does that mean?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Indeed, the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) last Saturday at the resources conference for the Ontario delegations made this very statement.

Mr. Foulds: After the fact -- hold an inquest after the fact.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It would be irresponsible for the government to have raised expectations by making premature announcements.

Mr. Lewis: Raised expectations?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The members opposite have been doing a pretty good job at it.

Mr. Lewis: What is he talking about?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Why doesn’t the NDP leader dry up?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As hon. members know, Mr. Speaker, the Maple Mountain concept has its supporters and its detractors -- that is not unusual for a project of this kind.

There have also been those who have suggested alternative projects for enhancing the economy of the north; or, indeed, for utilizing the land and water around Maple Mountain for non-economic purposes. Such alternative suggestions are neither right nor wrong -- they are just different.

An hon. member: Right.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Based on usual different premises and values.

Mr. Lewis: By public participation instead of public exclusion.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously, all of the different points of view cannot prevail, given their conflicting nature and the limited funds available for the development.

Mr. Breithaupt: How would he know unless he knew?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, our evaluation of the preliminary studies into the economic feasibility of Maple Mountain is now complete, and the government has decided that there is sufficient support for it to widen the basis of its investigation and to proceed into the next phase.

Of immediate importance, of course, will be the registration of caution by the Bear Island Foundation against all ungranted lands --

Mr. Lewis: I should think so.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- in the 110 townships in the North Bay, Sudbury and Haileybury areas, within which Maple Mountain is located. The caution is against the disposition and registration of the land by the Crown and before any further activity can proceed, this matter will have to be satisfactorily resolved.

At the present time the question of the validity of the caution is in the hands of the director of titles who, pursuant to the Land Titles Act must hold a hearing concerning the validity of the registration of the caution.

I can advise the House that the director of titles has asked the Bear Island Foundation for particulars regarding its caution. These have now been received and a hearing will be convened at an early date. When the title of the land has been decided, and if the tide is shown to be in the hands of the Crown, then and only then will my ministry proceed with the second phase of the project.

The second phase will involve a number of studies including environmental impact study, socio-economic study, an attitudinal study, and a mechanism for all interested parties to express their views on the Maple Mountain project.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): What is the point of that -- after the government has decided?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Many groups and individuals have expressed their interest in participating in the discussions regarding the feasibility of such a project, such as the Ontario Ski Resorts Association, the municipal councils in the area affected, the Save the Maple Mountain Association, the general tax- payers of the province of Ontario -- and, of course, the Indian bands in the local community.

The second phase of this project will also involve direct approaches to the federal government to find out the interests of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in providing development grants for northeastern Ontario -- similar to the federal investment of $13 million made in Quebec for the Mont St. Anne resort complex in the eastern part of that province.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): He wants the federal government to finance it for him.

Mr. Breithaupt: We are going to get an airport, too.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Approaches in greater depth will also be made to the private sector to ascertain their interest in investing in the Maple Mountain recreational complex.

Mr. Lewis: The government has already done that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The cost of the studies in the second phase is estimated at $160,000. My ministry will be asking the federal government to share, on an equal basis, the costs of these studies.

I should like to stress, Mr. Speaker, that Maple Mountain is not a fait accompli. There are many decisions still to be made, and many points of view still to be considered. I believe, however, we are now in a position based on the work initiated by my ministry and subject to the hearing respecting the Bear Island caution, to proceed into the second phase.

As promised, Mr. Speaker, I am filing with the Clerk of the Legislature today a copy of the consultants’ reports prepared to date -- and these are available to the public for its evaluation.

Mr. Lewis: A great exercise in public exclusion.

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

MAPLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the hon. minister who just made the statement regarding Maple Mountain, if we are to expect, since he has accepted only phase one -- I see he has provided me with considerable documents in that regard-

Mr. Havrot: Got all the phases there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since he has accepted only phase one and has announced public hearings from the people concerned, presumably in the community of Maple Mountain, in the Tritown area and elsewhere --

Mr. Havrot: They’re all for it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- is it possible that those hearings could recommend to the minister the abandonment of the programme if those views are expressed with force, authority and fact from people concerned? Or are we to accept the minister’s statement that all of these hearings are just a façade, and a fraud and that the basic decision has been made and the programme will go forward? If the latter is true, how much money are we committed for?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I indicated very clearly in the statement that we would have the full hearings --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What’s the use of the hearings?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- once we have the cautions cleared and the title of the land vested in the hands of the Crown.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the point of those hearings if a decision has been made?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The hearings? Well, if the Leader of the Opposition would read the statement and the report, he might understand. Obviously he wasn’t listening to the statement; he was trying to figure out what kind of annoying question he could ask --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I was listening to the minister, and he said he had decided to go forward and have those hearings later.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): He didn’t say that.

An hon. member: The Leader of the Opposition should try again.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, no. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Liberal Party likely is trying to interpret something he’s heard from some other party and not the statement that was made in the House today.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): He’s just catching up.

Mr. Havrot: He hasn’t got a clue what he’s talking about.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I said very clearly that we will be holding the hearings and that all parties in this province -- those who wish to invest, the municipal council, the general public, the Indians bands --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Even the Liberal Party.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- would be given the right and the opportunity of expressing their views. And if, in the opinion of those listening to the hearings and eventually the cabinet of this province, the project should not go forward for obvious reasons given, that’s a decision this cabinet will make.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Good. Will the minister then answer the second part of the question? What is the commitment in dollars if we go forward with the full programme?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if we go ahead with the full programme, the commitment in dollars will be determined at that time. Obviously if the clearing of title takes some period of time and if the hearings should take a period of time, I hope my friend can appreciate that there will be an inflationary effect on the cost of the project.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely there is an estimate in this pile of stuff as to what the commitment would be if we were to go forward now?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Read it over and --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa Centre): Yes, sure, read it over --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that is why I supplied the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) with the complete documentation -- so they might read it and find out.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: But to answer the question, in case the Leader of the Opposition cannot understand the report, we feel that the investment by the Province of Ontario --

An hon. member: Well, that’s possible.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: You’re a real beauty.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): The minister doesn’t understand very much about anything, the pipsqueak.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- for a complete operation, for phase one and phase two of construction -- would be in the range --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: The minister should have a caution against himself --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, I would just take caution if I were the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It would be in the range of about $13.5 million by the Province of Ontario -- and these are projected figures -- and $13.5 million is anticipated from the federal government as well. The balance would come from the private sector.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Supplementary --

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Lewis: I have just read through the studies --

Interjections by hon, members.

An hon. member: Anything I can do --

Mr. Lewis: Well, it’s pretty insubstantial stuff, I’ll tell you. It’s pretty insubstantial.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: The member is not persuaded?

Mr. Lewis: I’m not persuaded, no.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does the member still think it is a hotdog stand?

Mr. Lewis: Now that the minister is through the process of public exclusion and he has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into phase two, can I ask him if it is his intention to go ahead if he does not get the federal funding and the private sector funding?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): We’ve got to hear what the public says first.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let us clear up a situation that seems to be prevailing in the mind of the leader of the NDP: Not so many days ago he said, “Are you going to have public participation in the second phase if you should go forward with it?”

Well, if he would read the statement again he would understand why we are going into a second phase --

Mr. Lewis: This is a commitment --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- but obviously he doesn’t understand English either.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I very clearly stated that, firstly, the government will do its feasibility study number one and, secondly, we will have participation by all interested parties.

Mr. Lewis: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: And we’re not being dragged into this. This government has always asked for public participation and input into the Design for Development programme.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: But before we find ourselves --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is a ridiculous position.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Havrot: Why don’t you give up with your programme?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is a laughing-stock --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, the member is -- and we’ll show the public of northeastern Ontario that he is the laughing-stock --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- because obviously in Timmins last Saturday it was he who couldn’t understand English --

Mr. Lewis: What did I do in Timmins last Sunday?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He certainly made a speech.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously, sir, if we are to have public participation, we’d like to do it from a knowledgeable point of view, and not just complete input from an unknown source of what we intend to do or would like to do. I think that something should be done for northeastern Ontario in a financial way.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the hon. member for Rainy River with a supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could tell us if public input from only the business sector of the community is what he considers public participation? My primary supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: Did the member read it?

Mr. Reid: Yes, I’m a speed reader, too. Can the minister indicate to the House if there are funds to be allocated in the upcoming budget of April 9 and if those funds will, in fact, be earmarked for this project? If this project does not go ahead, will he consider such a project with public participation for the people of northwestern Ontario?

Mr. Havrot: They have got Minaki Lodge.

Mr. Reid: We don’t want that kind.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is our intention --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- to seek not only the business community’s expression of opinion on Maple Mountain recreational complex but indeed that of all the people, the Indian bands included, which is most important.

Mr. Reid: Why ask the business community first?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Because we value the business community’s opinion when we are trying to do a feasibility study. I would think --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, one would think that the business community was not the public of this province. To my understanding, they are taxpayers of this province, the same as you and me. Their opinion, to us, is very valuable.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Secondly, in regard to the funds provided in the 1974-1975 estimates, sir, there are funds in there under special projects.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, to what extent? How much?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That will come all in due course, sir, when the estimates are tabled.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, the hon. member for Cochrane South with a supplementary.

Mr. Ferrier: Does this commitment to proceed to phase 2 mean the minister is not interested in pursuing any other projects of major tourist interest in northeastern Ontario, namely the science centre in our area or some other projects, which might be spread throughout the northeast?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me assure all members of this House that because we happen to be now proceeding with phase two of Maple Mountain it does not cut off --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- our consideration of other developments in the Province of Ontario from a tourist point of view.

An hon. member: I should say not.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That includes, sir, the science centre in Timmins, for which we now have consultants working on its feasibility and whether we can advance it. I hope we will have a report for this House in a matter of six to seven months.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And a hotdog stand in Sudbury, too.

Mr. Renwick: Will the minister advise us in advance of the date on which the local registrar is to hold his hearing under the Land Titles Act?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I think that question would be better placed to the Attorney General of the province (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps the minister could ask his colleague to let the House know.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I would suggest the member ask him.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I think there have been quite a large number of supplementaries. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

INQUIRY INTO HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES’ REMUNERATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a question of the Premier. Now that the ceiling levels for education have been announced, would it be possible for the Premier to make a statement indicating what will be the budgetary controls on the hospitals of the province, particularly the 11 in Metropolitan Toronto which face a strike which, under the law of the province, would be an illegal strike? Could the Premier, either himself or through the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Labour, allow one of his colleagues to attend the negotiations so that the good faith of the province on behalf of the provision of money for hospitals would be made clear and we could avoid what would be an illegal strike by a statement of government policy in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think that is perhaps an oversimplification of the problem. This government obviously is concerned about the possibility of an illegal strike. We will be discussing this with my colleagues, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon), in cabinet and quite frankly at this precise moment, Mr. Speaker, I don’t wish to make any further comment.

I would just say that we recognize the situation, and with great respect, I think the point of having somebody go to indicate what the ceilings may or may not be is something of an oversimplification of the issue.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I realize the Premier said he doesn’t want to say more, but would he not say, surely, that since the ceilings for education have been established it is quite possible, with the budget now only a few days off, to give the specific information to the people concerned so that at least they know the parameters in which they are negotiating?

He doesn’t want to say more, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: The government has just increased the education ceilings quite significantly beyond what most assumed it would increase them; whether they are adequate or not is another matter. Can the Premier at least indicate to those hospitals which have just begun the bargaining process -- the two Scarborough hospitals -- the kind of plan he might have available for them as of May 1, which would set a pattern for the rest of the province? Surely that would make sense?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there are a number of things the government will be considering. I’m interested in the observations from the members opposite but quite frankly I’m not prepared to comment any further here this afternoon.

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

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Is he prepared to let stand his words as quoted in this morning’s Sun indicating that he said that “families earning less than $17,000 don’t have much to look forward to in the way of owning a home.” Surely this flies in the face of his so-called housing action programme, which is designed to provide housing facilities and, we presume, at least some independent housing facilities for those people with earnings well below that level, since the minister’s statement has really put about 60 to 65 per cent of the people in the province out of any hope of owning a home of their own?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for raising the question, because obviously the statement quoted in the Sun is correct but out of context. I made that statement saying that, at the time I made the statement, there did not appear to be anything for people of that income category to look forward to. However, the whole thrust of our programme was to make it possible for people in that income category to look forward with some degree of confidence to owning a home.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: When?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In the near future. We are talking in terms of 1974, 1975, 1976.

Mr. Breithaupt: Like at Malvern?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister aware -- and I am sure he is -- that the only approvals for single-family dwellings in the Metropolitan Toronto area recently have been in Etobicoke, where I understand that 302 approvals have been granted for homes selling for no less than $100,000 with a top limit, at present prices, of $150,000? Surely the minister, if he is prepared to support a programme called “action housing,” is going to have to say something more than action will be available soon? Is there something he can say to the House now, in view of the statistics that come day after day in the local press and media, which are, in fact, increasing the pressures on housing prices in the absence of any kind of concrete policy from the government?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t make a specific statement today and possibly not tomorrow either. We are meeting with regional councils, with area municipalities and with the private sector. We are developing agreements which will be announced, because they will be specific in terms of production targets, production dates, prices, the amount of the developments which will be in the public sector and those which will be in the private sector. I hope that when those announcements are made the hon. Leader of the Opposition will join in the general acclaim for the programme, which I have great confidence in.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, I will when I have a look at it.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How is it that the Ontario housing action programme is emerging in such fits and starts? Has the minister no overall plan? Secondly, of the four projects announced in Mississauga -- which suddenly emerged from, I think, one of the directors of the ministry -- it was said that 30 per cent of the lots requested from the private sector should be put aside for those earning up to $18,000 a year, but since more than 70 per cent of the province earns less than $18,000 a year, why is the minister asking for only 30 per cent of the lots to provide housing for 70 per cent of the people?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the announcement in Mississauga is not the announcement of a specific programme. It is part of negotiations that are ongoing with the municipality and with the developers. I believe that our director, Mr. Strachan, did say, “Say 30 per cent and you may get 40 or 45, depending on our negotiations.”

Mr. Lewis: Or 20, or 15.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There must be an oversupply of serviced lots and the one way to bring that oversupply about is to enable developers to bring their developments on-stream quicker than under the normal procedures.

Mr. Breithaupt: The ministry is not doing that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, we will be, Mr. Speaker. That is the whole thrust of the programme.

Mr. Lewis: It is not happening. It is just not happening.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In the aggregate, we will create an oversupply of serviced lots, which will automatically have a depressing effect on the market.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We do not pretend and never have claimed that this is the answer to all of the housing problems, and there are other activities which will take care of other income groups.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: They will not pass it on to the consumers. They will pick up a big profit.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St George): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary: Are we to take it, then, that the minister is now telling this House that the economic forecasts which have been made, which indicate a major slowdown in the private investment area, are not true? Or what is he, in fact, saying about these forecasts, since he is relying so heavily on the private sector?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I don’t quite understand the hon. member’s question but I will hazard a guess. If there are economic forecasts about a slowdown in investments, that slowdown has not surfaced in the housing field or in the building field. There may be other areas where there is a slowdown.

Mr. Lewis: It hasn’t slowed down in the speculation field.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Can the minister explain why, since he made his original statement about forcing prices down, there has been another five per cent rise in housing prices? Was there any connection with his statement?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, obviously if there was any connection with the statement it did not have the desired effect. What I did say was that we are embarking on a number of programmes which we hope, in the aggregate, will help to solve the problem of housing in Ontario. There is no way that any single programme is going to accomplish that; nor will it be accomplished overnight. We have given ourselves two to three years and we hope the effects will be seen this year and next year.

Mr. Breithaupt: The people aren’t going to give the government that long.

Mrs. Campbell: The situation is hopeless.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, since the minister seems to have some information that he would like to put forward: He says two or three years. What is he going to do when the vacancy rate in the apartments of Metropolitan Toronto falls to zero, as is predicted for this fall, if his programme is simply going to provide some relief within two to three years? We talk about a crisis now. What is he going to do to handle the situation when in September there is simply no accommodation, no matter how much money you have, as far as an apartment is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first of all it’s the opinion of my ministry that some of the predictions about zero vacancy rate are self-serving predictions. We are trying to check into the validity of those, because they do come from a group which would benefit by a zero vacancy rate. We do not believe that prediction is valid.

Mr. Lewis: Good point.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Is it then --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I believe the hon. member for Sudbury East was up first.

Mr. Martel: May I ask the minister, if we put more land on stream, what assurance has he that savings that are going to accrue to the developer will in fact be passed on to the consumer in the form of reduced housing costs?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is quite simple. Before it’s done we will have binding undertakings from the developer which are actionable and enforceable.

Mr. Speaker: Well now, this is developing into a debate, but in order to equalize it I will allow one more question from the Liberal Party. The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister: In view of the fact that the minister is talking pretty tough to the land speculators, recently and again yesterday, and in fact just echoing what his predecessor in the department had said, and in fact what the Premier had said with no apparent improvement in the situation, does he plan to bring on legislation in relation to land speculation or does he plan to continue the charade of his predecessor?

Mr. Martel: Put a 100 per cent tax on it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that the cries of anguish and pain which are arising indicate my words are having some effect.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Yes, prices going up.

Mr. Breithaupt: And the prices go up.

An hon. member: He is like Daniel in the lions’ den.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There has been some reaction; but obviously any legislation to be brought before this House in that regard will be announced in due course.

SEPTIC TANK INSPECTIONS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of the Environment, I wonder if he can explain the delay in bringing forward the regulations under the statutes that give him the authority, as Minister of the Environment, to supervise the inspection of septic tanks across the province? This authority passed to his ministry, I believe on April 1, and the lack of a procedure which is understood across the province is holding up the approvals and once again affecting the supply of serviced lots.

Mr. Ruston: Especially in Essex county.

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member is talking about part VII of the Environmental Protection Act and its proclamation, which will be done very shortly. All our MOHs have been notified in this province to carry on --

Mr. Singer: In the aggregate, yes.

Hon. W. Newman: -- in the way they are now doing things until this Act has been proclaimed, and it will be proclaimed momentarily.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is it considered that even when it is proclaimed the inspection procedure will increase in cost and also increase in the time required for approvals?

Hon. W. Newman: If the Leader of the Opposition waits until my statement comes out next week he will get the answers to those questions.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We can hardly wait.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West. I am sorry; all right, one supplementary.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Will the minister check with his officials to make sure that the medical officers of health in each county health unit are notified to carry on with the procedure as it exists today, specifically Essex county where they are rejecting everything?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, we have no jurisdiction until we do proclaim the Act. We have notified all those who have phoned in requesting information to carry on until the Act is proclaimed.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the delay?

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

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the ministry have the staff to take over next Wednesday -- I am sorry, on April 9 -- when the Act will be proclaimed? Does the ministry have the staff to take over or is it being assumed that the medical officers of health are going to continue on as before but charge the minister’s increased rates of which he wants to take a portion?

An hon. member: One hundred and twenty-five dollars?

Mr. Roy: And bungle it like the Minister of Transportation.

Mr. Good: Does the minister think $125 is not an excessive fee to pay for inspection of a private sewage system?

Mr. Breithaupt: More of the government’s mess.

Hon. W. Newman: If the member is talking about the MOHs, they were all called into a meeting some time ago. They are fully aware of what we plan to do.

An hon. member: No they’re not.

Hon. W. Newman: Oh, yes they are.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. W. Newman: As far as the timing of the fee structure goes I will be making an announcement in the House at the first of the week.

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

LAND BANKING

Mr. Lewis: I would like to ask of the Minister of Housing, amidst all of the speculative land development in Ontario generally and southern Ontario particularly, why did he fasten on the purchase of 4,000 acres in the regional municipality of Durham? I guess it would be in the area between Brooklin and Whitby. How much did the government pay or what form did it take in terms of government acquisition? What exactly does the minister intend to use the land for?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, first, since the assembly is not complete, I don’t believe it would be in the public interest to speak about specific prices or total acreage or even exact locations. There is no question whatsoever, and many of the people in the area know, that Ontario Housing Corp. is engaging in landbanking in the area. It’s part of the long-range landbank plans of Ontario Housing Corp. It will be kept in agricultural production where it is suited for that use. There are no immediate plans for the use of that land in the housing action programme.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister explain then why he has banked land some years in the past if not to service the land and use it for housing now? What about the 3,000 acres in Waterloo region and the 1,000 acres right beside Brantford? What’s the sense of having a bank if when we’re in a crisis situation the government doesn’t service the land and sell the lots?

An hon. member: Get on with it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked a question a few days ago and I had the answer prepared. In regard to the first question, “Why we don’t service it?” it is because the servicing has to be feasible and economical.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. leader would recognize the fact that by servicing isolated landbanks --

Mr. Breithaupt: Isolated land; 3,000 acres of land?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It is isolated in the sense that there are private developments in between which are not slated for early development. There would be speculative gains by those people. In the ordinary course of events land would be developed. However, if the hon. leader really expects the 3,000 acres in Waterloo and the 1,000 acres in Brantford township to be developed immediately, perhaps he should speak to the municipal officials in the area because there’s simply no demand for it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may come back to it. Doesn’t the minister see the folly inherent in the policy of grabbing 4,000 acres here -- incidentally without ever speaking to the regional municipality of Durham about it? He didn’t tell them in advance. They read about it in the Globe and Mail. But the government grabs 4,000 acres here, which --

Mr. Breithaupt: It happened in Waterloo in the same way.

Mr. Lewis: -- may, or may not be maintained in agricultural production. The minister can give no undertaking of servicing or housing. There are 3,000 acres somewhere else which he now says were inappropriately acquired for current housing needs. How hapless is the programme? Has the government no coherence in the acquisition of land --

An hon. member: Not him.

Mr. Lewis: -- in the public sector for the provisions of housing?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m surprised at the hon. member, who decries the speculation being carried on in this province, when --

Mr. Lewis: The government is the chief speculator in Ontario. It is driving the land prices up.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- he suggests that we advise him --

Mr. Lewis: The minister has become the king of speculation.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- we advise the House, and we advise the municipal officials in advance of landbanking activities.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Any consultation of that nature would simply play into the hands of the speculators and we’re not about to do that on this side of the House.

Mr. Lewis: What is the minister talking about?

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): The minister is helping them.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister tell us why he is going to be any better than Macaulay or Randall or the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) and why he and none of the three have been able to produce houses on the 1,700 acres in Malvern since 1954?

Mr. Lewis: He’s worse.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hundreds have gone up.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is 20 years ago.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered by the hon member’s remarks. I hope I can be as good as my predecessors in this Housing ministry.

Mr. Breithaupt: That was so long ago that that was a new government.

Mr. Roy: The minister should have a tête-à-tête with the member for Carleton East (Mr. Lawrence).

Mr. Lewis: I have two supplementaries; I would really be interested in what the minister has to say. Doesn’t the minister believe that when he sets up a regional municipality and decentralizes power and authority, as the Treasurer would have it, that it makes some sense to speak to them, if necessarily privately, in advance about the Ontario government’s intention to acquire a massive acreage for landbanking purposes so that the government’s purposes can mesh with theirs in the planning of a community?

The second supplementary to that is, doesn’t he realize that in all his so-called scare statements without action, he is driving the speculators --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why scare statements?

Mr. Lewis: -- on to an exchange of land which is increasing the speculative price? The minister has become the chief inducement to speculation in Ontario, has he not?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there are two questions here. In regard to the first part of the question, no, I do not believe that, if you wish to acquire land on a confidential basis, you can involve people outside the ministry, including staff of the municipalities who would have to be involved in the planning process.

Mr. Lewis: What happens to their planning?

Mr. Deans: What does the minister do? Plan around their decisions?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They will be able to be involved in the plan when the land acquisition has been completed. I have made a commitment to the Leader of the Opposition to table land assembly as soon as it has been completed and I will continue to do so.

With regard to the second part I have no evidence whatsoever that any threats or words that we have been directing at the speculators have increased speculation. In fact, some people are drawing back from it.

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, no evidence of price increases!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I started these statements about three weeks ago. If the hon. member can complete a land transaction in three weeks he has a secret that many people would like to have.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister assure us, even though he didn’t talk to the officials in the areas where he has bought these lands, that he had somebody look at the official plan to see if the purchases fitted in with the decisions that had been made publicly? I don’t believe the minister even did that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I stated in answer to a previous question that much of this land is agricultural. It will be maintained in agricultural production, which it might not have been if it had been bought by private developers.

Mr. Lewis: Is this government policy to buy up land privately to keep it in agricultural production?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In my view, the government is as good a landbanker as is any private organization.

Mr. Roy: We are going to send this Hansard to the minister’s riding. They will love it.

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

PICKERING AIRPORT

Mr. Lewis: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, of the Treasurer. Since the federal government’s submission to the Pickering airport inquiry shows that if the airport is built Oshawa’s employment will decline in absolute terms, doesn’t the minister think it is now time for the Ontario government to intervene and indicate that that would truly destroy the intent of the Toronto-centred region plan and it must, therefore, oppose the airport?

Hon. Mr. White: This comment is interesting and perhaps helpful, but I haven’t got the leadership in this matter of Pickering. That is the Minister of Housing.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Housing? Hasn’t he enough to do?

Mr. Singer: That he is not doing.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister a supplementary? Surely a matter which destroys the Toronto-centred region plan, and it deals with the federal airport, is rather more his bailiwick than that of the Minister of Housing?

Mr. Stokes: What happened to the Design for Development?

Mr. Lewis: What has happened to the Design for Development now that this kind of proposal will destroy it utterly? Oshawa was a growth centre.

Hon. Mr. White: As the member may recall, last Sept. 13 the Premier announced that the Toronto-centred region plan was being reconsidered and revamped and modernized.

Mr. Reid: He should have thought of doing that to the cabinet.

Hon. Mr. White: He said that a sum of money -- I think $1,500,000 -- was being made available to the municipalities in this very large and important region. That study is going on. Factors, such as the one the member mentioned, will no doubt be considered and we will have a point of view which may be expressed at a later time to the federal government.

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

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Since the whole matter of dispersing and directing growth to the east was a major platform and a major principle of the Toronto-centred region plan, would the Treasurer not consider, in his responsibility for the economic growth and direction of the province, that it is important immediately to prepare a new plan and a new location for the airport or any type of growth incentive far to the east so Oshawa, in fact, will be helped?

Hon. Mr. White: Your friends in Ottawa are the people who decided upon that second airport.

Mr. Deacon: “Your” friends? They are your friends.

Hon. Mr. White: That was not our decision.

Mr. Breithaupt: In this case, they are your friends.

Mr. Roy: How about a statement from the Premier?

Hon. Mr. White: The hon. Premier is perfectly correct in saying we are doing everything humanly possible to increase development in eastern Ontario --

Mr. Good: The government hasn’t done a thing, not one thing.

Hon. Mr. While: -- as evidenced by the very large DREE agreement signed in Cornwall a few weeks ago by me and witnessed by the Minister of Labour.

Mr. Breithaupt: A good thing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, our friends are providing that money.

Hon. Mr. White: I think we signed the deal on a Tuesday, and only a few days later on the following Friday a very large company announced they were creating a very large new plant there employing more than 1,000 employees.

Mr. Breithaupt: Excellent.

Hon. Mr. White: We are moving ahead in this and in a variety of other ways. I suppose there is no point in this answer to recapitulate the improvements made to the Ontario Development Corp. plans. No doubt, as time goes by, the fruitful imaginations of members on this side will create additional innovative plans to create development and employment in eastern Ontario.

Mr. Deacon: What about the airport? That is the key one.

Mr. Breithaupt: This government’s plans and federal money! A great team.

Hon. Mr. White: I haven’t heard a decent idea out of that side of the House for 15 years, not one.

Mr. Breithaupt: Come in more often.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

CORPORATION INCOME TAX PAID BY OIL COMPANIES TO PROVINCE

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the Minister of Revenue, could he indicate to the House whether he knows how many of the major oil companies with operations in the Province of Ontario paid a provincial corporation income tax last year?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): I don’t have that information, Mr. Speaker, but I think I could get it for the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Would he indicate which companies paid a provincial corporation income tax and in what amount -- even in total?

Hon. Mr. Meen: I am not prepared to disclose information as to individual companies, Mr. Speaker. I think I might be able to obtain some general information.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Surely that is public information?

Mr. Singer: But that is public knowledge.

Mr. Lewis: Sorry, I didn’t hear that. The minister is not prepared to disclose the amounts of corporate income tax paid by the oil companies to the Province of Ontario -- public oil companies operating in this province?

Mr. Bullbrook: Does the minister understand the distinction between a private company and a public company?

Mr. Lewis: Now surely we are entitled to that information. Who is the minister protecting?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister had better think about that again.

Hon. Mr. Meen: There are certain restrictions under the Income Tax Act, Mr. Speaker, that I must be bound by. I’ll look into the question.

Mr. Lewis: I am talking about -- what did he say at the end? I’m sorry.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I said I will look into the question.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

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

Mr. Lewis: No, sir.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food has the answer to a question asked previously.

JUDGEMENT AGAINST MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the question that was asked by the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt), which I took as notice, was:

Because of the judgement plus costs awarded today against the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food in the Hartman raspberry case, and because the Ontario taxpayers are going to have to pay for this mistake, could the minister tell me if there have been any changes in personnel at the Vineland research institute by way of resignations or firings; and what does the minister intend to do to see that this doesn’t reoccur?

Mr. Speaker, the question was raised shortly before 3 o’clock on Thursday, March 14, 1974, and refers to “the judgement plus costs awarded today.” The facts of the matter are as follows:

1. The Ontario Court of Appeal issued its judgement in the Hartman case on Nov. 9, 1973;

2. The judgement directed a reference to the local master at St. Thomas for assessment of the damages in the case;

3. The report on assessment of damages was signed, and therefore issued, by the local master, Mr. Justice J. A. Winter, a local master of the Supreme Court of Ontario, St. Thomas, on Friday, March 15, 1974;

4. The report was received by the Crown law office, Ministry of the Attorney General through the mail on Monday, March 18, 1974.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister answer the question? Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I’ll get to the answer.

Mr. Sargent: Not all that doubletalk.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I’ll get to the answer; and if the member for Grey-Bruce were smart enough to listen he would see the implications in what I am saying.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member for Grey-Bruce just got the raspberry.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I am not in a position, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to deal with any judgement plus costs in the Hartman case. It was awarded on Thursday, March 14, 1974, and I wonder how the member for Huron-Bruce could have been in possession of such information on which to base his question. That is very peculiar to me.

Mr. Sargent: It is in the paper. All the papers carried it.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: However, if the question relates to the report on assessment of damages, a document of the Supreme Court of Ontario that had not been signed by the local master until the day following the day on which the question was raised, my information is that the Ministry of the Attorney General, by notice of appeal dated March 25, 1974, has undertaken an appeal from the report of the local master. Accordingly, the case is sub judice and I am not prepared to comment on any aspect of the Hartman case while it is still in the hands of the court.

Mr. Roy: What is the minister doing now?

Mrs. Campbell: Sub judice.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Explain the manipulations of the courts.

Mr. Gaunt: May I ask the minister, on a slightly different matter related to the Hartman case, why Mr. Hartman was refused plants in 1973? Does this represent government policy, not to do business with anyone who has a law suit or --

Mr. Givens: Who doesn’t happen to be a Conservative.

Mr. Gaunt: -- who is undertaking a suit against the provincial government?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Anybody the minister doesn’t like.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have never met Mr. Hartman; as a matter of fact I have never seen him, in answer to the question of my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. To say I don’t like him --I’ve never met the man.

An hon. member: There are lots of people one doesn’t know whom one doesn’t like.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the minister sell him some raspberry plants?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: For the simple reason I didn’t even know he wanted any.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We tried to give the Leader of the Opposition the raspberry for a long time.

Mr. Lewis: Would anyone buy raspberries off a man like that?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not even a used raspberry.

Mr. Bullbrook: Not from the member, but I would from him.

An hon. member: He’s an arch Tory.

Mr. Singer: A supplementary: Would the Minister of Agriculture clear my confusion with regard to his answer? Is he telling the member for Huron-Bruce in that long recital that he’d done something improper? Is he not aware that the member for Huron-Bruce could legitimately get that information on which he based his question by reason of the fact that the formal order may not have been taken out on the day he put the question, and the local master could well have announced it without the formal order having been signed?

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, answer that one; let the minister get some help.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I suppose there is no significance in the fact that the matter was transferred to the court at St. Thomas and was handled by a lawyer who was a former Liberal member for Elgin --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: Right on.

Mr. Lewis: A former Liberal member?

Mr. Singer: A supplementary: Why was it necessary for the Minister of Agriculture to get so incensed about legal procedures which he doesn’t understand, and to make nasty innuendoes about my honest and sincere colleague, the member for Huron-Bruce?

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Lewis: Why is the minister appealing? Just because it was a Liberal lawyer?

Mr. Singer: That’s the only reason.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: Am I to understand that the minister has done $100,000 damage to one citizen and that no one will be fired or no one will be questioned as to the damage done? Will this go on like this or is he going to investigate the whole matter?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the matter is before the courts on appeal to determine what action shall properly be taken.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary: I’m asking if the minister is going to investigate the fact that someone has erred in his job -- to the extent of $100,000 to a citizen -- and is the minister not going to investigate it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is out of order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Get the member for Downsview to give some legal advice.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. minister has indicated that this is before the courts.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t care if it is before the courts. What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Speaker: Nothing, it is before the courts.

Does the hon. minister have the answer to another question? I was informed that he had.

Mr. Roy: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) is absent today and I think I’d best wait until next week.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has the answer to a question recently asked.

COST OF DENTAL CARE

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wentworth asked a question in this House on March 28; really there were two questions. Firstly, and I’m paraphrasing his question directed to me, what was the basis on which dental rates were determined; how were they determined; and secondly why were dentists -- and he referred to a certain plan or plans -- charging more for their services to people under those plans than to those who were uninsured?

I’m advised by the superintendent of insurance, Mr. Speaker, that the premium rates for health insurance plans, such as dental care, covering major companies are negotiated by the insurers, the employer companies and, to a great extent, the union representing the employee group. The rates and coverages offered are determined by the underwriting and claims experience and the extent of coverage subject to deductibles and co-insurance elements. If the hon. member has any specific complaint in regard to the rates relating to one or both of the companies he referred to in his question, I would be glad to discuss it with him.

Insofar as the professional fees charged by the dentists are concerned, this is not within the responsibility or jurisdiction of my ministry but is related to the Ontario Dental Association’s schedule of fees. The insurance contracts usually provide for payments based on this fee schedule. If the member has any other question relating to that --

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: I was under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that the minister was going to ask the superintendent of insurance to inquire into the schedule being paid at the Steel Co. and the Dofasco plants in the city of Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I am sorry, I didn’t understand it that way. If the member would like us to take a look at the actual schedule or the agreement to see if it refers to the ODA schedule of fees, I can obtain that information very quickly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy has the answer to a question asked previously.

OIL PRICES

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, I think, the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young) asked questions relating to inventories of fuel oil, and I have an answer for him.

Spring inventories of middle distillates in Ontario have been more or less constant for the past three years. In other words, there has been no apparent buildup this spring by the oil companies; nor has there been a decline from previous years. Warmer-than-usual weather is the main factor in these inventories not being lower than in previous years.

Statistics are not available for heating oil per se; only middle distillates are reported -- which includes all heating oil, diesel fuel and so on.

But the predominant factor in changes in this total middle distillate inventory is the amount of heating oil, and we assume and can assume that the percentages are relatively the same.

The figures cover all the refinery tankage and major terminals in Ontario west of the Ottawa Valley. They do not include small storage tanks, such as bulk plants, which are assumed to be relatively constant, and therefore not significant in looking at relative inventory changes.

These are from National Energy Board sources, not from Statistics Canada, and Statistics Canada’s May figures sometimes differ slightly when they are published some months hence.

The figures are, Mr. Speaker: as of March 31, 1972, there were about 7.1 million barrels in storage; March 31, 1973, 7.3 million barrels; April 3, 1974, about 7.1 million barrels.

The member also asked -- or perhaps I suggested I would try to find out -- the figure as to storage; and I am informed that there is no meaningful number as to total storage capability because the oil refineries -- where me large volumes are -- swing their storage tanks from one product to another as various product levels change.

A more helpful yardstick might be the peak or the highest middle distillate inventory attained this season. This occurred in October or November, at the start of the season when levels were about 15 million barrels, which is over twice today’s. The figures, starting in June of 1973, 7.1 million; July 8.1; August 10.8: September 13.5; October 14.7; November 15; December 14.8; January 13.6; dropping down to the present 7.1.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I ask a supplementary?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a supplementary?

Mr. Bullbrook: May I assume that the inventory evaluation that the minister has given to the House is based on information provided by the industry itself or through the National Energy Board or Statistics Canada; and does the minister have any independent method of monitoring the propriety of these statistics?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Bullbrook: Would it be the minister’s intention to establish, as they have in the United States, some independent monitoring device?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bullbrook: Could the minister answer why that wouldn’t be in the public interest to do so?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Because the statistics are gathered both by the National Energy Board and by Statistics Canada. There is some large staff involved in that process.

Mr. Reid: Dependent on them.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We have no reason to believe that they are not as accurate as they can be -- and we have no intention of duplicating that process.

Mr. Speaker: Time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Shulman: Not a single private member got in today, not at all.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions:

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Bennett presented the report on the Maple Mountain recreation complex.

Hon. Mrs. Birch presented the report of the health planning task force.

Hon. Mr. Clement: On behalf of the Attorney General, I have the honour to present to this House the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission on motor vehicle accident compensation.

This report, which covers 197 pages, contains an extensive review of the existing system of automobile insurance and sets out the recommendations of the commission for chaises in the system. The commission recommends:

That an integrated scheme specifically concerned with compensation to motor vehicle accident victims, not dependent upon the fault principle, should replace the existing system.

As Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations I will be giving these recommendations careful consideration in developing the most appropriate form of automobile insurance designed to provide economic and efficient compensation to victims of motor vehicle accidents.

Mr. J. A. Taylor, from the standing private bills committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment.

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the City of Belleville.

Bill Pr2, An Act respecting St. Catharines Slovak Club Ltd.

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the Niagara Peninsular Railway Co.

Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Ontario.

Bill Pr10, An Act respecting Root’s Dairy Ltd.

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the Town of Walkerton.

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Borough of North York.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing and penalties, if any, be remitted on Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Motions:

Introduction of bills.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALDIMAND-NORFOLK ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk Act, 1973.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for some minor changes in the work of the new regional council which, incidentally, assumed its important responsibilities this past weekend.

It allows the new regional committee of adjustment and the land division committee to complete any matters not disposed of by the local committees.

This bill also provides that members of the council of the village of Jarvis be deemed a commission under the Public Utilities Act for the purpose of hydro distribution in the Jarvis area.

TOWN OF OAKVILLE ACT

Mr. Kennedy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the town of Oakville.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BUILDING CORP. ACT

Mr. Carruthers, in the absence of Mr. Dymond, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Presbyterian Church Building Corp.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Wardle moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF CHATHAM ACT

Mr. Spence moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Mr. Walker moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

JUDICATURE ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I might give a brief explanation of this bill, under the Judicature Act in this province, English is the only language permitted in the courts. This bill proposes an amendment which is in line with the 1972 Throne Speech presented by the government, which said it would encourage the use of French in the courts, and this is what this bill does.

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Walker moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the University of Western Ontario.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Mr. Speaker, I will just serve notice that I will move in committee that the board of governors in that particular bill be made Canadian, although it does not now say so.

WATERLOO WELLINGTON AIRPORT ACT

Mr. Good moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Waterloo Wellington Airport.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third readings upon motion:

Bill 1, An Act to amend the University Expropriation Powers Act.

Bill 13, The Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, 1974.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before the next order is called, I would like to inform the members of the House that tomorrow His Honour will join us in the chamber for the last time.

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

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Speaker, before I pick up from where I left off the other night, I want to go back to the point of order or the point of personal privilege raised by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. That matter has been resolved in the House. The hon. member may not raise it again.

Mr. Martel: I am not going to raise it, Mr. Speaker. I just want to clarify the press release that I was quoting from and just draw to Mr. Speaker’s attention what was behind the comment. In a press release, a prepared statement by the minister, which was carried in the Globe and Mail on Nov. 21, 1973 -- and I quote the hon. minister -- it states:

The moneys handed out in grants were never adequately managed by the federal government. There was never adequate supervision or accountability within the projects, and without clear accountability the money paid out resembled allowances more than it did salaries. The projects selected seemed to be picked on the basis of how they would sound in the Ottawa press releases rather than by hard scrutiny of the benefits.

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government did in fact have an input, or could have had an input, on each and every grant handed out by LIP. I was on a programme with Mr. Mackie, the director for the distribution of these grants, wherein Mr. Mackie indicated that Ontario had an input on each grant and that if the Ontario government did not want a grant to be paid, Ottawa would not have given it.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): The Church of Satan. How about the Church of Satan?

Mr. Martel: Well, the member’s government had a say in it -- they had the opportunity to have a say in it and veto it, and if they had not taken that opportunity --

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): What’s wrong with the Church of Satan?

Mr. Martel: -- if the government of Ontario had not taken that opportunity then that simply cannot be blamed on Ottawa. To me that is dissembling -- I think that is the term that is used around here occasionally. It is dissembling, because one could have gone on to give the full story to the press so that in fact the public would have been well aware of how the grants were handed out, Mr. Speaker.

By the minister’s failure to indicate that to the public, what in fact the minister was doing of course was starting the long road to finally saying no, we are not funding any of the emerging services. That was the first in a series of statements by the minister which sounded the death knell to the emerging services starting last November. Whether or not the minister took exception to what I said, I still make the point it was dissembling.

I want to go on, Mr. Speaker, and pick up from where I left off the other night. I was talking about the amount of funding provided by the provincial government for immigrant services in this province. The total funding, permanent funding, for immigrant services in Ontario, where in Metro Toronto alone one-third of the populace is made up of immigrants, is $100 a year. That’s the total funding.

Last year the services involving the Chinese, the Greeks, Italians and Portuguese, and there is three staff on each, went to the federal government, to Metro Toronto, and to the province, and asked each of the three levels to put up $10,000 each for the various services. Ultimately the federal government gave $10,000; ultimately Metro Toronto gave $10,000. Finally in June -- the request was made early in the year -- the province wrote back to the immigrant services and said, “Could you cut that back to $5,000?”

This didn’t help the four groups in question and they said no. Ultimately come January 1974, almost a year later, each of these groups received a grand total of $750 each or $3,000. That was Ontario’s contribution. Despite the fact that one-third the population of this city is made up of immigrants, we funded those services to the maximum tune of $750 each, or $15 a week -- $15 a week -- to help in translation for the immigrant community. The chiselling that this government does when it comes to services to people is more than the mind can understand.

The third group that started to emerge some years ago was the multi-service centre, Mr. Speaker. These groups have developed like the rest out of necessity -- the inability of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) to get adequate funding to hire adequate staff to do the job necessary. He just hasn’t got the money to hire the staff.

As I said to the minister during his estimates, if we are going to lose all of the emerging services and the thousands of volunteer workers, then in fact we are in trouble. We are in serious trouble, because what most of the emerging services are asking for is a funding for the permanent staff. Beyond that they then start to draw in all kinds of voluntary staff -- people who are committed to assisting others less fortunate. But we are going to lose those work groups and as I have told the minister on many occasions, he will not get enough money from Treasury Board. Treasury Board will not cough up nearly the money necessary to provide the services that are presently here, because they rely heavily on volunteers.

The government has got to fund the permanent staff. Is that too hard to understand? Otherwise, it’s not only going to lose them but it’s going to lose the thousands upon thousands of volunteer workers, and as a province we simply will not have the money to fund the necessary staff the Ministry of Community and Social Services is going to need in order to meet the needs of people as society becomes more complex.

The multi-service centre takes a family and looks at its total needs, it tries to cut through the red tape and get the total need of the family resolved. The government agencies don’t do that.

A welfare worker goes into a family that has problems. It doesn’t have to be a welfare case, it can be any other type of problem in a family, but whatever the agency is it only looks at the one problem. If there’s an emotionally disturbed child they simply look at the problem of the emotionally disturbed child, they don’t look at the total problem of the family. So we end up with 12 or 13 agencies looking after the needs of one family.

This sort of thing is on record. The minister has it documented over and over again. His staff does one job only. The Ministry of Labour staff will go in and they’ll send another worker in, the Ministry of Health sends a worker in; there’s no co-ordination. There’s nobody there to look after the total need or to make sure that the total need is being looked after by one person who might send the person off in the right direction or get them in touch with the right people and then do the follow-up necessary, looking at it as a total need.

We’ll send them in. We send them in by the hundreds; frequently there are 10 or 12 agencies working with the same family and none of them even know it. They don’t even know there’s another agency involved. That’s where the duplication is, right within government circles; the duplication starts there, not where the minister placed it later on in one of her further statements which I’ll read in a few moments. This is where the duplication is.

Multi-service centres are trying to cut through some of that and look after the total need. Every member of this Legislature knows when he goes home on weekends the number of cases he gets, and I suspect the overwhelming majority are in social needs. Not necessarily welfare or more money on welfare, but a whole range of social needs that we’re not meeting. The Metro work groups which have started to develop are filling the gaps in the ministry’s own jurisdiction.

I just want to read you, Mr. Speaker, what the Metro work group on community services is:

Many of the human services projections initiated through the Local Initiative Programme reflect a trend in service delivery which deserves particular attention. Experienced service workers indicate recipients of service in communities are often most effectively served when a cluster of services are provided in one community location. These could be recreation or leisure services, or interrelated services offered in one setting such as education and counselling or information and referral, food relay, daycare, creative play and parental education. More and more community-based services are multi-faceted in the programmes and services they provide.

There is not, anywhere in government, an agency that does that. It’s totally lacking, and everyone over there knows that. Until we start to pull these pieces together we’re going to be squandering money uselessly.

The first group that developed out of these emerging services two years ago was one involved with daycare centres. The rules and regulations that surround daycare centres, Mr. Speaker, almost boggle the mind. They are so restrictive that in fact they hamper, really hamper, the development of daycare centres.

In the city of Toronto it would be difficult to find those that are funded by the government in any way, shape or form remaining open at night. Yet we have many people who work from 4 to 12, including mothers who might be working 4 to 12 and single-parent families, with no daycare services at night. Those that have the daycare centre service at night are the ones that are looking for funding from the government of Ontario so that in fact they can provide services contrary to what goes on in this province, where most of the services are from 9 o’clock on Monday morning to 5 o’clock on Friday afternoon. What one does for services beyond those hours is difficult to understand. That is when most of the services are available. The crisis situation, the evening services are not there. But this group, because they are grass root, realize that there has to be flexibility in the daycare services. But not so. The government just sits and waits.

They have been led a merry chase too. You will recall the group first met and tried to get funding from the government a year ago May, but on March 15 the crunch came. They had been misled all along into thinking something was coming. Here is part of their statement:

We find it incomprehensible that approximately nine months later, in February, 1974, the daycare community still has no indication of what to expect from the regulations, whether it will turn out to be a token gesture or a redefinition of the concept of daycare and its implications for parents and children in general. If the regulations will prove to be restrictive in relationship to emerging community services, these closely budgeted groups will still be economically harassed from one month to the next and the quality of daycare, an apparent concern to educators and parents, will inevitably suffer.

The Social Arts Services was the sixth group that developed. I read to the House the other night the performances by the Smile Company alone.

In over two years of operation we have played more than 500 performances to a total audience [I hope the minister is listening to this] of 75,000 senior citizens in Metro Toronto alone.

These are people who couldn’t afford to go to the O’Keefe Centre, or people who couldn’t afford to go to see the Toronto Symphony. This group of 11 people took their company into the homes and provided entertainment for over 75,000 senior citizens. Their funding? Well they will die in a couple of weeks.

We as a province spend more money on the fine cultures, the stuff that the upper crust enjoys, than we do funding things for the masses, for the ordinary people. How many of the ordinary people go to watch the ballet? There is a growing interest in it, and I am not saying we shouldn’t fund it, but culture, I am sure, shouldn’t be denied to the other groups. If we are going to fund one level why can’t we fund them all?

The statement from the minister several weeks ago was, “Well we fund through the Ontario Arts Council.” That is great. They fund through the Ontario Arts Council. I would like the minister to be able to tell me why the groups that were providing some theatre for 75,000 senior citizens in the last couple of years, and schools and so on, shouldn’t be adequately funded? I would like to ask the minister how in fact we get the senior citizens out to any of these forms of entertainment? Many of them are not totally bedridden -- many of them are

-- but they can’t make the great trek halfway across Toronto. Why shouldn’t the entertainment come to them? That’s what’s happened; they are not getting funding either. In fact nothing is getting to the senior citizens. He is going to put the panic on there. Interestingly enough, the ministry -- the statement I’m going to read in a few minutes is going to help -- is giving a one-shot deal, $150,000, for senior citizens. That is a magnificent sum. All it is going to do, really, is get a lot of groups active in the province for one year and without a continuing funding. In fact, he is going to overextend the funds already available in the $900,000 for senior citizens.

After 10 or 11 months, surely to God this government --

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): The funds will be there next year.

Mr. Martel: No, it is a one-shot grant.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Give them time to conform.

Mr. Martel: The Ministry of Community and Social Services, to help the emerging services, gave a one-shot grant -- and it is only one-shot, for one year -- of $150,000. That is insufficient and the minister knows that full well; he has had it researched from top to bottom. He has had David Cole and a whole number of civil servants from his ministry on it; those programmes have all been checked out and the recommendations have been positive that the programmes being offered are superb.

Contrary to what the think-piece thinks, they are superb; the minister knows it from David Cole’s report. All the reports the minister has indicate that there isn’t duplication of service and that they are providing a much needed service.

The former provincial secretary accepted the recommendations laid down by David Cole. I’m sure the minister must have. Where did the crunch come? Before Treasury Board, as usual, when it said services to people are irrelevant. The minister and I both know there is no way he is going to be able to provide the services, if these various services fold, which are going on in this city and across Ontario today.

I want to describe some of the programmes very briefly. One is entitled “For a Better Tomorrow”, from Bathurst St., and the objectives are:

We hope to aid the youth of immigrant families in acclimatizing themselves to a new environment and a new language by offering a programme which encompasses both educational and recreational activities.

Members will recall that for immigration, for the newly arrived immigrants, we have $100 permanent funding; we had a total fund last year from the Minister of Community and Social Services of $100,000. The people out there to whom I’ve spoken of late tell me most of the $100,000 goes for cultural events; but to really help those people adjust -- not just the children -- it is going to have to go much beyond children.

It is going to have to go to the adults because they come from a different type of background from the one we know here. The young children are going to be raised in our type of environment, and the rift growing between those groups is almost intolerable; what do we provide for services to overcome it? They are good enough to pay approximately one-third of the tax, I suppose, in Metro Toronto and the government puts in $100 of permanent funding. It’s a disgrace.

Here is the second programme. I could go through 160 of these; I have them all here. I am going to pinpoint a few items from each of the various services.

The Birchcliffe Community Concern Office and its objectives:

To unite the members of the community, those that have and those that need. To give knowledge to all members of the community, to make them better citizens and make their community a better place in which to live.

What does this service provide, for example? Domestic, handyman and volunteer service to the elderly and shut-ins. We talked about that during the minister’s estimates -- if we hope to keep senior citizens out of institutions we are going to have to bring groups together so that those who are capable can assist the elderly to stay in their homes.

Well, what better way? We are not going to have the staff, and does the minister think volunteers can have an ongoing programme if there isn’t some permanent staff? Surely to God the minister must realize that to have ongoing programmes we have to have people who are there constantly -- not all of them -- then we draw on volunteers to do work for these people. But if we are not even going to provide funding, then we are going to have to build more nursing homes and more homes for the aged and put people in places they don’t want to be in. Most of them, if they could get a little assistance, would love to stay in their homes as long as possible, because most of them are very independent.

Community on the Move is just another one. This is a social service for and by the residents of Lawrence Heights, an Ontario Housing development; it provides leadership training, recreational programmes, hot lunch programmes, information centre and a com- munity newspaper.

Agincourt Community Services Association was established to provide an ongoing referral service responding to local needs by instituting programmes to meet various needs in the community and to facilitate information exchange among people living and working in Agincourt.

Community Meals, at 240 Wellesley St., has as its objective to provide nutritious and sociable meals for senior citizens and handicapped persons. That’s going to go down the drain. The meals-on-wheels programme is going to collapse or the government is going to have to eventually fund the whole thing itself -- and it is not going to have the money.

What else does the service provide? In addition to nutritious and sociable meals for senior citizens and handicapped persons, it is interested in expanding into programmes on nutrition and budgeting and an emerging programme of preparing meals for bedridden persons seven days a week. That’ll keep them in their homes. It’ll give them company and make their lives less lonely. But no, this government will watch it go down the drain.

The LIP project. Phase two for Exceptional Adults, aims to introduce and train mentally handicapped adults to enter into society. What does this service provide? It teaches mentally handicapped adults, not acceptable at existing workshops, the basis of home economics, manual workshop skills and elementary office procedures, and trains in speech therapy, social behaviour and physical education. Well, there is another one going down the drain.

Call-A-Service provides social service for the elderly and the handicapped, such as transportation, keeping the elderly independent as long as possible. The transportation is to take senior citizens to see doctors, to go to the hospital, to go shopping, to go visiting, to attend church events, and there is a telephone service for shut-ins.

Inter-City-Angels was established to expose and involve children in the multitude of art forms available in society. Artists in different media are employed to provide workshops for children, mainly in the inner-city elementary schools. And if we know anything about the problems in the inner-city schools in Toronto, we know that those are some of the most deprived schools in Metro. Some of the hardest problems, the toughest sledding is in that area. That doesn’t matter?

Future Opportunity: The objective of this service is to provide an in-depth free tutorial service of high quality to those who would be unable to avail themselves of such assistance due to financial consideration. The service provides tutorial aid in remedial reading, remedial English, English as a second language and mathematics primarily for school-age children and adolescents of immigrants and low-income families. Adults are also accepted if aid is needed for employment or correspondence high school courses.

One service to seniors was set up to help senior citizens in any way -- health, information, transportation, visitation.

The Kuriov Metro Housing Project Youth Service has as its objective to work with the children and the youth in the Ontario Housing area. It provides clubs, sports, craft$, bus trips for children and youth and a summer camp. One has only to have lived in a high-rise for a while or gone out to visit some of the Ontario Housing Corp.’s developments, before they became somewhat more enlightened, to realize the vital need for that type of programme. One only has to go over to St. James Town, where my colleague and I lived for a while, where there are 10,000 or 20,000 people in a knothole to see the total lack of programmes for children.

Interval House is a residential distress centre for sole-support mothers and children. Service is directed to women in emotional, financial and housing crises. But does this service provide basic food, shelter, clothing needs, baby sitting, children’s activity, counselling, residence with referral and follow-up programme and distress calls?

Mr. Speaker, the list is endless. One gets almost to a point of despondency over the reaction of the government of Ontario with respect, as I said the other night, to the service that comes under provincial jurisdiction. Under the constitution of this country, this government is responsible for social needs. The people that are funding it are the federal government, the United Fund and the municipalities. And where in God’s name is Ontario? It’s out in the woodwork. It hasn’t funded a cent.

I’ve seen the game go on in here year and year. I’ve watched it played with the Indian community as the government banters back and forth over who is constitutionally responsible for the Indians. They are the pawns in the game. The minister knows this. Like myself, he comes from northern Ontario where we know the plight of the Indians and what they have been put through and continue to be put through as we play the game of who is responsible.

We know who is responsible in the field of social services in Ontario. We know whose constitutional responsibility it is. And we also know who hasn’t provided the funds to keep these services which everyone, including this minister’s staff, has indicated are absolutely vital and necessary services.

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, with these. I won’t. I want to turn now to something else, if I might. By the way, this whole bundle is the programmes just in Metro Toronto alone that are going to go down the drain. It is surely going to be an interesting day to see what the minister is going to do for staff, if he has to put staff in to meet the demands that have been created by the type of complex society we are in.

I want to turn to the minister’s statement though. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, before I introduce this, that I mentioned that from June on last year -- I guess it was June we met with the then Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Welch) -- that the minister started to dangle the bait in front of these groups. As I indicated the other night, after we left the minister’s office I said to them, “You have just been seduced. The minister will hot give you a cent.” But I said, “You try.” It went on, and there was a whole series of meetings which I put on the record the other night, a whole series of delaying tactics. The whole ball game was all there.

It’s like the information centres. My colleague mentions letters about them for three years. I understand that information centres have actually been studied by the ministry for 13 years, not three; 13 years ago was the first report on information centres. And now, the crunch comes. There is no policy. As my colleague indicated the other night, he had three identical letters from the minister. The only thing changed was the date, as they updated the letters. The ministry said, “We’re studying it, and we’ll announce a policy shortly.”

The government doesn’t have a policy. From June to March 15 would be nine or 10 months. It was a merry chase anyway before there was a statement of Ontario government policy in reference to LIP-initiated projects. Well, this is some statement. This, after months of study, after acceptance by the former think-piece, after having them analysed and accredited and approved, we get this statement of government policy from the ministry:

As you know, for something more than a year the secretariat for social development has been considering the role that the government of Ontario ought to play in financing the project started under the federal government’s LIP grants programme.

Our discussions have invoked many non-governmental groups, including the Metro work group. Since the decisions we have taken owe much to these discussions [Yes, the decisions we have taken have owed much to these discussions] I think it is appropriate that these decisions be announced, in the first instance, to you people as representatives of that group.

Well, that is an insult to anyone’s intelligence, because what they are about to announce is nothing. After all of the input and the approval by David Cole and the various government people. Listen to this:

From the first we have said clearly that the government of Ontario is willing to provide support and assistance to LIP-initiated projects -- within our existing programmes and priorities.

Well, I listed the other night the amounts that the government of Ontario had really contributed. As I said, $100,000 totally for immigrant services. There was nothing in there for the immigrant needs. Community development; $84,000 for the total province. Information centres; really zero. The government managed to give $18,000 in Metro Toronto, but without any policy. It is just a disaster.

From “our existing programmes.” Well, the government has done nothing from its existing programmes to meet the need. Really, it hasn’t. Just look at this material concerning the agencies; the government gave $84,000 in total for community workers -- $84,000. That is the salary of eight people for Ontario.

“But we are not prepared to abandon our normal criteria calling for extensive voluntary involvement ....” What this government wants, in fact, is all voluntary involvement, or they want the federal government to pay the shot, or they want Metro Toronto or the various municipalities or the community organizations to pay the shot. This government’s commitment is zero.

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): It is a good government, and a great minister over there.

Mr. Martel: Good for whom? The wealthy?

I go on: “... involvement in some programme areas and for significant local participation in the funding of many projects.” We have the significant contribution. I put those on the record the other night too, to show you that the community fund had already invested heavily -- very, very heavily -- but in fact the only one who had failed to invest any money was the province. They are on the record anyway, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t got them with me.

“We are not prepared to distort the priorities that we have set for the development and maintenance of social services in Ontario.” That is a lot of gobbledygook, too, because there are no policies.

Using those criteria and within those priorities I am happy to announce that we have committed $150,000 for grants to help programmes serving senior citizens across Ontario to make the transition to normal financing under the Ontario Elderly Persons’ Centres Act. Clearly these grants will benefit a number of LIP projects. The grant will be made on a one-time-only basis.

One time only; $150,000 for the province. That is not going to do anything to meet the needs. It just isn’t.

I go on then to the next one:

In order to make transitional period easier, we will instruct the senior citizens’ bureau to encourage homes for the aged throughout Ontario ...

I am also happy to announce that the regulations under Bill 160 have now been approved so that we will be able to provide limited direct provincial government assistance to community daycare services by early this year. We anticipate that some LIP-initiated projects may qualify for the assistance ....

No one has seen the regulations yet. As I say, that’s 10 months after the legislation was passed; we are still waiting to see the regulations.

Your group and others that we spoke to have expressed a concern that the multi-service approach to social services is not being actively enough explored and developed in Ontario. To reassure you that this is a matter of major concern to us, we are appointing a committee to study [it].

Well, yet another committee. How long do these studies go on? We now have another study with respect to multi-service centres.

Your group also asked us to look at additional financial support for ... “social service arts.” Many programmes of this nature were financed, in whole or in part, through LIP grants. We would recommend that these projects make application to the Province of Ontario Council for the Arts. [Isn’t that a magnificent suggestion?] This agency is able to support a limited number of high quality efforts in the area.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): That’s Tory charity.

Mr. Martel: Yes, and here from my friend -- no, I haven’t got to the point of my friend, the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans). To continue:

You asked, too, that we consider community assistance over and above existing programmes. Both these areas are already marked, particularly in Metro Toronto, by a large degree of duplication ....

Well, we know what that means.

Mr. Laughren: No.

Mr. Martel: Well, if there is duplication, they don’t fund anything.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, I see.

Mr. Martel: You see -- and that’s information centres. After three years, in a recent letter to our colleague, the member for Wentworth, the Minister of Community and Social Services is telling us it’s again being studied. Here, in fact, is what the minister has to say:

Both these areas are already marked, particularly in Metro Toronto, by a large degree of duplication of service.

Mr. Laughren: It is almost deliberately misleading.

Mr. Martel: It’s called dissembling: dissembling, yes.

We agree that such services might be worthwhile, particularly in rural Ontario, and we agree that information centres that are accessible and objective already play an important role in the provision of services in the province and, indeed, the provincial government is already involved in the financing of such services.

It was $18,000 last year; 18,000 bucks. You know, the whole charade for 11 months; it is absolutely nauseating.

Your group has asked us for a number of things. We are taking specific action to help the projects you have started to aid senior citizens [It is $150,000 for the whole province] to meet the requirements of our existing programmes. Our new legislation for day care may benefit ... We will continue on a more formal basis to examine the potential for multi-service delivery ... For your “social service arts” [your community information centres and your immigration services]. We can only recommend that you continue to examine the possibility of working through programmes that already exist in Ontario.

They have been trying for three years -- and there is nothing there to work through.

Mr. Laughren: Well, cabinet is listening today.

Mr. Martel: She says:

I would like to add one personal word. I worked many years as a volunteer in the development of social services in my own community.

And that’s the point I drew the other night. Her information centre is operating on a LIP grant. Isn’t that interesting? “I know some of the sacrifice you people have made” -- $85 a week for three years, no holiday pay, no increases, no fringe benefits, no medical protection. Some sacrifice!

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Would the member say she is an unprogressive Tory?

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Mr. Gisborn: The hon. lady is not a progressive Tory.

Mr. Laughren: She’s no red Tory.

Mr. Martel: And finally:

We have looked carefully at your proposals. We have considered carefully the decisions we have made and I hope that -- to some extent at least -- they meet with your approval.

Well, can you imagine -- can you imagine that junk meeting anyone’s approval?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Martel: Can you imagine --

Mr. Laughren: It meets the approval of the anti-labour member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot).

Mr. Martel: -- the unmitigated gall of a minister of the Crown to come before a group, after that ministry had said in fact all of these programmes were worthwhile, after months of research by the ministry staff recommending that they be funded, the think-piece says: “No, we will put $150,000 in.”

Well, the Metro work group has just recently put out a statement, they make a comparison --

Mr. Drea: Where do they get the money for all of these things they keep mailing out?

Mr. Martel: LIP.

Mr. Drea: LIP mailed that out?

Mr. Martel: I don’t think they mailed this, not to me anyway; they delivered it personally. Well, the member might want to run a red herring into it to cover up his own embarrassment, but please don’t interfere with me.

Mr. Drea: I am not running a red herring over it at all, I just wonder about the money problems. If they’re broke, how come the big mailout?

Mr. Martel: Most of it is being funded by the UFO -- the who? Well, that would be more than the Tory bagmen would give.

Mr. Drea: Well, we are subsidizing it, too.

Mr. Laughren: The member might take some of the land speculation profits of the member for Fort William (Mr. Jessiman) and fund a few LIP projects.

Mr. Martel: If I could sell one acre of land and make $90,000 profit, I could assist a group, I could fund the organization.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): The member wouldn’t want anybody to have an acre of land. Give us something constructive now.

Mr. Laughren: We just want to tax the land speculators. Nothing wrong with that. It’s a good social programme, progressive taxation. The member is not against that surely.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Martel: Community funding? I put all the lists on the record the other night when the member stormed out because it wasn’t his turn to speak. I put them in the Hansard and if the member wants to go back --

Mr. Drea: I wasn’t here the other night, Mr. Speaker, I had engagements elsewhere. Now let’s keep the record straight. I am not going to be insulted in here by some clown.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Tell the truth now; the member got up and stomped out because he couldn’t get the floor.

Mr. Gilbertson: He is wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Drea: That’s not true and the member knows it.

Mr. Martel: The figures were put on the record the other night, if the member wants to check them out, the community funding. The federal government and Metro Toronto have put in large amounts of money. The only one who hasn’t put any money in anything is the member’s own government.

Well, let’s see the response of the Metro work group to this.

Mr. Laughren: We understand the member’s embarrassment.

Mr. Drea: I am not embarrassed.

Mr. Laughren: Well he should be.

Mr. Deans: We don’t understand why he is not.

Mr. Martel: If he is not embarrassed I can’t understand why he is not.

Well on the first position, the minister’s statement of March 15 says:

As you know, for some time, more than a year, the secretariat for social development has been considering the role.

The response of the group:

The Metro work group has been discussing the problems of responsibility in funding of social services. Mrs. Birch persists in discussing LIP. The real issue is the crisis in Metro Toronto of new services, but mostly of the entire community and social service field.

In other words we have been digressing, as I said much earlier. The attack started on the LIP funding so that in fact the province would be in a position to say no. But many of the organizations involved in the Metro work group never received LIP grants, never. There is a whole wide range: The Toronto Social Planning Council, the YMCA, the YWCA; they are all pushing these emerging services if they meet the need. But the think-piece from over there, as she tried to prepare us for the shock of saying no, kept attacking LIP because she was trying to soften up the public to accept the inevitable, that the Ontario government wasn’t going to fund emerging services.

The second point from the minister’s statement:

From the first we have said clearly that the government of Ontario is willing to pro- vide support and assistance to LIP-initiated programmes.

And their response:

It is the continued inadequacy of provincial policies in programme funding which has created the present crisis. Therefore an offer to fund emerging services from within existing programmes and policies is tantamount to refusing any support. For example, there is only $84,000 for community development programmes in the whole of Ontario and not even a policy for information centres (after three years of study).

The minister’s whole statement was a lot oi rubbish.

The third point that the work group made rebutting the minister’s statement --

Mr. Laughren: Don’t buy that.

Mr. Martel: “We are not asking you to distort your government’s priorities.’

Mr. Laughren: The minister mustn’t buy that. I wouldn’t buy anything from the member.

Mr. Martel: “We are merely asking you to finance them.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: Their response goes on:

An unreleased report of the provincial Ministry of Community and Social Services, compiled in June, 1973, indicated that most emerging services in Metro rank very high relative to programme priorities of various ministry departments.

I say that to my friend from --

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Sudbury East?

Mr. Martel: No. I wanted the other member to get that.

An hon. member: Oxford.

Mr. Martel: Oxford. I wanted him to get that because a ministerial report said this. He will file that away, will he?

We endorse the two criteria of volunteerism and local participation [And this has been there. The only commitment we haven’t got is anything from the Tory government]. We meet both of them consistently. However, where local funding is unavailable, often in the area of greatest need, the province must accept its just financial responsibility.

And it hasn’t accepted any.

In the minister’s statement she makes that great announcement of $150,000. Here’s their response to that:

The total operational funding available under the Elderly Persons’ Centres Act in 1973-1974 was $900,000. This level of funding was totally inadequate for existing groups eligible for funding. To activate more groups to compete for this limited funding is an exercise in futility.

The regulations of the Act are themselves unduly restrictive. They prevent the implementation of the full intent of the Act.

We go on as the minister talks about transitional periods:

Tying senior citizens to institutionalized services run from homes for the aged when they are able to function in the community is not an alternative.

The minister has heard me say this for two years, at least. We have got to assist but the government is not assisting. The minister goes on to say:

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Was that a message from Garcia or was that an inter-departmental communication?

Mr. Martel: The recent communique --

Mr. Carruthers: Interdepartmental?

Mr. Laughren: We’re giving him some ammunition.

Mr. Martel: No, I won’t comment because he’s not here. I wouldn’t do it without his attendance.

Mr. Laughren: That would be any labour member.

Mr. Martel: That’s what I was thinking about but I wouldn’t do it The minister said, “I’m also happy to announce that the regulations under Bill 160 have now been approved.” The group responded:

Limited financing of Bill 160 is not a responsible answer to untold daycare needs of working people in Metro Toronto. The province obviously has no sense of urgency for the daycare needs of children.

Mr. Laughren: They have no sense.

Mr. Martel: They go on: “Bill 160 was passed almost 10 months ago and as yet no child nor working mother has benefited.” It was a good Act 10 months ago. The only trouble is that it is not working yet.

Mr. Laughren: Tory commitments.

Mr. Martel: As I said when the minister brought that bill in, Mr. Speaker, and during his estimates, if we only had an election every year we’d get all kinds of daycare centres and so on because that’s the year we fund. I suspect that’s why we’re putting it off and we can bring it in in time for next year and make full implementation of the bill.

Mr. Laughren: It is like the freight rate reductions in northern Ontario.

Mr. Martel: Yes, on the eve of an election.

Mr. Laughren: The ONR has done a lot for them.

Mr. Gilbertson: What would the member do if he was in?

Mr. Martel: Does the member want me to say we would do what the Tories are doing? What they’re doing is nothing.

Mr. Gilbertson: The member will never get the chance.

Mr. Carruthers: The member for Sudbury East can’t say that. It’s the most progressive government this province ever had.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, point 7: The multi-service approach began in 1967. A full study was made on 10 such projects in 1969.

Mr. Carruthers: Is this a reading programme?

Mr. Martel: The hon. member might learn something if he listens long enough, because he won’t do any research on his own.

Mr. Parrott: The hon. member for Sudbury East doesn’t have all that long, though.

Mr. Carruthers: This is carrying it too far. When the hon. member reads, I cannot understand him.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, Tory after Tory reads his speech in its entirety in this House and no one over here says a word. No one says a word as they read their entire speeches.

Mr. Gilbertson: The NDP members are the biggest hecklers in here.

Mr. Carruthers: The hon. member is not reading his own speech.

Mr. Martel: I’m just reading to make sure that these notes that were prepared are precise.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, and to cut down on time.

Mr. Martel: To get back to the point:

The multi-service approach began in 1967. A full study was made on 10 such projects in 1969. The province is presently assisting one such project in York.

Sometimes studies are a good idea -- when you honestly do need more facts.

What have we got here on multi-service centres in the announcement by the hon. minister? He is going to study it again. He is going to have a look at it. We will set up another committee. Well, we have had studies from 1967 to the present, and we are going to have an interdepartmental committee set up and study it again. What are they going to study? More procrastination? How they can avoid it?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Is the hon. member not aware of the funding on the one in North York?

Mr. Martel: Right, since 1967. My God, if the rest of the province has to wait that long, we’ll never see it. We won’t live so long.

Mr. Laughren: The minister won’t be in government so long.

Mr. Martel: Well, Mr. Speaker, the eighth point: The minister suggested the group go to POCA to get funding for providing programmes in the senior citizens’ homes and so on. Their response:

POCA has already indicated that it is severely underfinanced. Ontario shows little concern in making cultural arts accessible to all people, not just the affluent minority.”

That is what I have been saying. We provide all kinds of funding for the affluent minority to enjoy culture, but we don’t provide funding so that the ordinary people can enjoy culture. What is it, is it a sick system we have got over there? Maybe the Speaker could tell me.

As for the immigration and information centres, there is supposed to be overduplication; that’s what the minister said -- there were too many and there was duplication.

Where is the evidence [and this is the question they pose to the minister] to substantiate the claims of duplication?

The United Community Fund has sent out assessment teams of volunteers and professionals, as did the federal Secretary of State, who did not find any duplication.

I hope the minister heard that. The federal Secretary of State did not find any duplication in immigration services, and neither did the United Community Fund. How does the think-tank tell us then that there is duplication? Would the minister tell us some day where there is duplication, instead of making carte blanche statements with no substance?

In fact, both the United Community Fund and the Secretary of State are partially financing many of these services.

If “the provincial government is already involved in the financing of such services,” from where is the funding coming? There are no provincial policies nor budgets to finance information centres or immigration services [none].

We know that over half of the community development budget was raised last year to fund a few information centres. Such cynicism seriously undermines the province’s credibility [in the whole field].

Getting down to the last four points, Mr. Speaker, part of the minister’s statement said, in relation to senior citizens’ groups -- and I quote: “Your group has asked us for a number of things. We are taking specific action to help the projects.” Their response to that particular paragraph of the minister’s statement is:

We also asked you a number of other things. In particular, we asked you to begin using the Canada Assistance Plan -- as do Alberta and BC.

This government only uses the Canada Assistance Plan when it can extract a fair largess without really putting comparable funding in.

The sudden transition of the mentally retarded from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- questions were put in debate last week, questioning the sincerity of that move. By doing that they were able to get an additional $35 million from Ottawa. If that hadn’t been forthcoming there are many people in the community who believe that the treatment for the mentally retarded would have stayed in the Ministry of Health. It wasn’t the consideration of the needs of people at all, it was the consideration of picking up $35 million more from Ottawa -- that is what was really behind it all.

The minister says. “I would like to add one personal word; I worked many years as a volunteer in the development of services in my own community.” And their response: “As a former volunteer and community worker, we would expect you to be assisting us in our proposals and ending our sacrifice.”

I suspect her financial sacrifices weren’t too great. In my experience I’ve seen people working in the community; these professional do-gooders that salve their conscience by going out and doing a little canvassing one night a year for the cancer or for the blind -- that’s their contribution to society. It salves their conscience.

Mr. Gilbertson: Better than nothing.

Mr. Mattel: Yes, these do-gooders, we would be better off without them -- some of them.

Mr. Gilbertson: The member doesn’t know how much good the do-gooders do.

Mr. Martel: Oh yes, right.

Mr. Gilbertson: Why doesn’t the member for Sudbury East try it sometime? It is not as easy as he says.

Mr. Martel: My friend -- no, I can’t be bothered talking to him.

Mr. Deans: The member for Algoma is in enough trouble; they’ve moved him from the other side of the row.

Mr. Gilbertson: Yes, but I’m in the front bench.

Mr. Deans: The member for Algoma is back where he started.

Mr. Gilbertson: I know, but I’m in the front row -- I started at the back.

Mr. Laughren: Don’t forget, they are looking in the Algoma riding to find another candidate.

An hon. member: Don’t forget that.

Mr. Deans: They called to see if we could provide someone.

An hon. member: We said: “No, leave him where he is.”

Mr. Martel: Here is the final statement I want to quote, Mr. Speaker:

The response of the Ontario government does not meet with our approval, nor does it meet with the approval of the wider community concerned with human needs in our city. Clearly, the area of provincial policy and unmet community needs must be reviewed by Premier Davis.

Interestingly enough, they’ve been trying to get a meeting with the Premier (Mr. Davis) since March 15 or 16 -- almost the day after they were told “no way.”

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Stand in line.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Join the club.

Mr. Martel: They tell me that even the Conservative backbenchers have difficulty in getting to see the Premier, so we shouldn’t feel too badly. “Billy the Kid” --

Mr. Carruthers: The member for Sudbury East is way back at the end of the line.

Mr. Martel: He is not very receptive, and there is a line-up of Tory backbenchers.

Mr. Gilbertson: Why doesn’t the member show some respect toward the Premier instead of calling him “Billy the Kid.”

Mr. Martel: What should I do, pay homage to him?

Mr. Gilbertson: The member is supposed to honour those in authority.

Mr. Martel: Am I?

Mr. Gilbertson: And not be so ridiculous.

Mr. Martel: I’ve always had a great deal of faith in law and order men. I look at Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon today -- two of the greatest law and order men in the last decade,

Mr. Gilbertson: Did the member ever look at himself? Did he ever look at himself?

Mr. Martel: Their law and order performance -- those great law and order men.

Mr. Laughren: They moved crime from the streets into the White House,

Mr. Martel: They’ve robbed everybody blind, Spiro is going to be disbarred, but he was a great law and order man -- don’t give me that nonsense.

If you see a social need you move in to help it.

Mr. C. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Come on, the member for Sudbury East should give us the message.

Mr. Martel: This group has been waiting, Mr. Speaker, almost two full weeks to meet with the Premier -- two full weeks. I checked again today with my friend, the former Attorney General, Arthur Wishart, to see if that date had been finalized. It still isn’t finalized.

I checked with Arthur yesterday to see about it. The group has phoned almost daily to get a meeting.

Unless we get serious, Mr. Speaker, and start to fund the groups, they in fact are going to go down the drain. And maybe the member for Durham would like to read these services that are being offered and he wouldn’t sit there with such cynicism.

Mr. Carruthers: I am in one myself; I am dealing with one right now.

Mr. Martel: Yes, well I am dealing on behalf of 160 of these groups right now.

Mr. Carruthers: I am getting results, too. I am getting results.

Mr. Martel: Yes, so am I, without a policy. That’s called the all-embracing arm of the Tory. Well put another patch on the old tube. We don’t resolve the total need, we just keep patching it.

Mr. Carruthers: The member doesn’t go after things the right way.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, if these groups don’t meet with the Premier and if the Premier doesn’t see to it that adequate funding is immediately established, the vast majority of these groups will disappear -- and that’s what the government wants, I am convinced -- and the community of Metro Toronto and the area outside of Metro Toronto, the people who need services, will not have those services. I suggest to the government that this is, first and foremost, directly a provincial responsibility, social needs, and it simply cannot ignore it any longer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Oxford.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether it is the fate of the House to be subjected to discussions from those sitting so close together, but let me tell you, though we may sit together, there is a great gulf between us.

Mr. Laughren: I would hope so, I would hope so.

Interjections by hon, members.

Mr. Parrott: Let me assure you, too, that there is going to be a great gulf in the length of our discussions. Before I comment on that further, I hope that you will convey to the member for Waterloo South (Mr. Renter), who is indeed the Speaker of this House, the best wishes of not only the member for Oxford but indeed all of the people that I represent. As a neighbouring municipality, I think we perhaps have had the privilege of knowing the hon. Speaker perhaps better than some other people of this province, and we have always felt it a great privilege to count on his friendship.

Mr. Laughren: That’s you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Parrott: As I see it, one of the rather strange things that occur in this House is that the remarks that I hear in the chamber and the remarks that I hear outside the chamber about the good humour, about the great respect and about the fine character of the Speaker are consistent. That is a very rare thing to see happen. Usually what is said in the House doesn’t necessarily reflect the same kind of comments that we hear in the corridors. But in this instance I am sure that all of us say with a great deal of sincerity how much we respect you, Mr. Speaker.

There is another area that perhaps is very seldom mentioned, and I would like to dwell on for just a minute, and that is, indeed, the attendants to the Speaker. I think that we are served here in the House by the pages and the other attendants with a great deal of care and consideration and I think we see in these young people probably the finest examples of the youth of Ontario. I, for one, would like to say thanks to them. Just last week I was in my riding and a page who had served in this House just last term was at a meeting and put on a show. He did ventriloquism, some magic, and spoke as well. He did a tremendous job. It is a great experience. I know from those who have served here in this House what a great stimulus to their lives the six-weeks’ service in this House has been, and I hope that all of those who are currently serving and those who have served before will continue and that some day they, too, may serve in this chamber or the chamber in Ottawa. But whether they do that or not I am sure they will, indeed, serve in their communities.

A little comment on the previous speaker. They tell me that if one is going to speak for an hour you need about 30 seconds’ preparation. If it’s for five minutes you need about an hour’s preparation. I don’t know what a three-hour speech might take, but on that basis I suspect 30 seconds’ preparation and three hours delivery is perhaps a ratio. There were comments from the member for Sudbury East that illustrate, as I suggested at the beginning, that there is a great difference between his position and mine, and there is one area that, believe it or not, I would like to follow up on. There is some agreement.

I would like to comment a little bit in these next few minutes on how we, as members, should service our ridings.

Quite frankly, this is not a personal complaint. I knew full well the terms of the contract when I was elected. The terms weren’t quite as good as I had been experiencing prior to my election.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): I am sure of that!

Mr. Parrott: But I didn’t consider that any great problem. In fact, I thought it was the greatest thrill of my life to have been so honoured. And I still think that way.

Mr. Gaunt: What a price to pay for a thrill!

Mr. Parrott: Well, it may be. Thank you, that’s exactly the point I’m coming to. That was a very apt line, sir.

An hon. member: You can always count on the member for Huron-Bruce for assistance.

Mr. Parrott: Before I get into that particular point, I feel that the recommendations of the commission on the Legislature headed by Dalton Camp have given to us many things of which I am personally appreciative.

I think the difference in salary was acceptable. I certainly think the ability to travel in our ridings now is most acceptable and was most necessary. Perhaps all of us have not made any great changes in our methods of going about our ridings. Perhaps most, if not all, of the members considered that a part of the duty, but it seems logical and reasonable that we should be recompensed for that expense. I think for those of us who are from out of town to be recompensed for our accommodation while here is just a logical business approach.

Unfortunately that’s where the business approach stopped as far as I was concerned. It fell very far short when we start to think in terms of how we should service our ridings. The Camp commission, if I can call it that, did recognize a difference in ridings. And I think it should have done so when it got into the area of how we as members could properly look after those people that we try to serve. I guess the reason it hasn’t is that neither that commission nor indeed ourselves have come to the problem of what our basic role is in this assembly and in this province.

I’ve asked myself, and I’m sure many of the members have, am I an ombudsman or am I a legislator? Quite frankly, I would like to think of myself as both. But if indeed I am an ombudsman, it seems to me that I am grossly understaffed and slightly underpaid. If I am a legislator, I think I am perhaps overpaid and have sufficient staff. But we must answer that basic question in my mind, what is our basic role in society?

Mr. Deans: How did the member come to that conclusion?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Which does he consider the most important?

Mr. Deans: Surely his primary function is as a legislator.

Mr. Parrott: I agree that my primary function is a legislator.

Mr. Deans: Well, why would the member say that he is overpaid and understaffed?

Mr. Parrott: As an ombudsman.

Mr. Deans: No. He said that he is overpaid and sufficiently staffed as a legislator.

Mr. Parrott: That’s right. If I had no constituency work to do whatsoever, I honestly believe that I could, with the staff that our caucus research supplies, do a reasonably adequate job as a legislator, provided I was not too encumbered with all of the other details that I am now encumbered with within my riding and within this House. I’m talking about the purism of a legislator with no ombudsman role to play.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I think I should be both and for these reasons. First of all, I would like to keep in touch with reality in both roles. I would use the example, perhaps in my professional life, of someone teaching in a medical or dental school who has not had the great advantage of serving part of his time at least in private practice. I think he loses that sense of reality, of urgency, and of relevance to what he is trying to say to his students. If I had my way, I would like to see in many areas that those in the academic world would have to spend at least a portion of their week within the confines of the work-a-day world.

Secondly, I don’t think the role of the ombudsman is the job of a civil servant. I would like to see him an elected official. Therefore, again I think that is another argument that I should be both an ombudsman and a legislator. I think, in addition, if we were only legislators we would perhaps fail to see to the same degree the needs of our community. If we serve in the dual role, I think legislation could normally be expected to follow, in that we were attempting to serve the needs of our community. As a legislator I would I expect that I could, with some research help, discuss what is necessary for the future, but as an ombudsman I would see very clearly what is necessary today. Again, I submit those as reasons why I think we should be both.

Of recent date, as members well know, the federal government has seen fit, indeed, to provide its members with riding offices. Now just because the federal government has seen fit to do it doesn’t necessarily make it right in my mind for a lot of reasons. I think the fact it has done it has put us, as members of this assembly, in an extremely untenable position. Whether we like it or not, we are going to be in a direct comparative position with our federal counterparts.

Mr. Martel: Quebec has had it for three years.

Mr. Parrott: That may be but in Ontario it is going to be here for us. When one considers that perhaps the provincial member deals far more directly with the problems of people than do the members of the federal House --

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The member doesn’t have to say perhaps.

Mr. Parrott: All right, I will amend that with the member’s approval. Indeed, we do deal with the problems of people far more directly than do our federal friends and that is the great joy of being a member of this House. We are dealing with people and I would not have it otherwise.

I am very mindful of this particular problem right now because, as the members of this chamber well know, I have had the great misfortune to lose my federal friend and member of long-standing for Oxford, the great Wally Nesbitt.

An hon. member: He was a great fellow.

Mr. Parrott: It has given me a new perspective on what the two roles might be.

I know there are a lot of problems with unemployment insurance, but apart from that one the real people problems of this province are related to the activities of this chamber. There is no way that a member, under the present conditions, can even remotely cope with the problem:

I would like to say a word or two about my great friend, Mr. Nesbitt, the member for Oxford for some 20 years. When one looks at the election results of his various terms -- there were seven, eight or nine of them in total; one of the safest seats, I guess, in the Dominion of Canada -- one would have to ask himself why? The reason was very obvious. He served his people well. That record is without question and they knew it on the day of election. That is the way it should be, in my mind, and I think we all lost a great servant of the people when Mr. Nesbitt passed away last Christmas.

If it had worked well for him -- not in the process of being re-elected; if that is the point I have made, I’m sorry, it has been made badly -- it was not that Mr. Nesbitt could be re-elected but, indeed, we could recognize that he was serving the people. One would only need to walk the streets of our communities to know just how deeply he was missed and how greatly he was needed, which is more to the point and right on. He was needed because without a man of his calibre and of his standing there are many injustices in this society which will not be remedied.

It seems to me that we must play this dual role. If that were the case, I felt I had, perhaps, to try an experiment and if I could take a few minutes of the time of this House, I will tell members what we have tried in Oxford. We have simply put the secretary who was normally associated with my office here in Queen’s Park, in the riding on a full-time basis. Let me assure members that experiment is working, if we can measure it by the number of calls she is receiving. I feel sorry for her. Quite frequently, I can’t get the line to get home. She is on that telephone almost incessantly, but there are still some unanswered problems.

What am I able to do here in Queen’s Park? Well, sometimes I am able to scrounge a few typed letters, and I go to the coffee machine and make my own coffee. Indeed, I lick my own envelopes.

Mr. Deans: Oh, heavens, no.

Mr. Parrott: Exactly, “Oh, heavens, no.” It’s a crime --

An hon. member: Gee, that’s tough.

Mr. Parrott: -- that a member who is attempting to serve the people of his area is reduced to an occupation -- and I hope that the members won’t interject here and suggest that I am making derogatory remarks about that type of occupation, not at all; but I think --

Mr. Bullbrook: The hon. member has better things to do with his time than lick envelopes; that’s what he is saying.

Mr. Parrott: Precisely, and I appreciate that comment from the member for Sarnia. He knows what I am saying and I feel that he is agreeing with the comment, at least in part.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’d like the hon. member to recognize the legislative responsibility of the opposition members. Much more onerous tasks are superimposed upon the opposition member’s responsibility.

Mr. Parrott: I am not suggesting that our roles are identical. I recognize that they are different. I am going to come to that in just one minute, but before I do, I am wondering if the people of this province fully recognize that if one does try an experiment, such as the one I am presently attempting in Oxford, someone still has to pay the rent on that office. Someone has to pay for the phone; indeed, if a person wants to call into that office, the citizen has to pay for the long-distance call. That’s not fair. I think that the people of this province should be able to contact their members at will on a direct basis, without cost to themselves. I enjoy that contact with the people of my riding, and I am sure the other members of this House do.

There’s another alternative that we could take: We could consider the possibility of staffing our offices with volunteers. There are many jobs within a member’s office that might be done by volunteers, but I have attempted that experiment and it has failed. I think there is a necessity to have a continuity of secretarial help -- help that a member can count on, that will be there and that will do as he asks and will continue to do so. Volunteer help might be fine for an election, but it doesn’t help the member to serve the riding he represents.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Mr. Camp and those members associated with him on the commission on the Legislature to look again at their recommendations. As I understand it, we still have a report to receive and I think it is not too late. To be a little more specific, I would like to see something similar to what our federal confrères have.

I am not asking for any great change here in the provincial assembly but, following up on the point made by the member for Sarnia, I would say that we can’t treat each riding the same. I think it’s a mistake to try to do so. Some of us are within commuting distance of our ridings. Some of us have to leave on Monday morning and not see our ridings again. Others are home every evening. So we have got to treat our ridings differently -- the report said so -- but there are still some areas where they haven’t recognized the great differences that we are faced with as members.

I am not asking that the commission should not hold us accountable. I am saying, however, that the members could perhaps present themselves to the Speaker’s office with the proposals that they felt were needed to serve his area; and having done so, within certain broad general limits such as our travel allowance, that staffing problem would be solved.

I think that to do less means we cannot properly serve in our role and, secondly, it will keep a lot of people who are more than capable of doing so from serving in this chamber when they see the workload. Not that I think any of us is complaining particularly about that workload; as I said before, we knew it, we asked for it, and many of us are enjoying it. But I think that many of us are still concerned that we are not able to provide the type of service to the people of our ridings that we would like to do, and I hope that those members of the commission on the Legislature may well reconsider their position and give us some individual determination within our ridings, let us be accountable, but let us be able to do a job for the people of Ontario. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very happy once again to take part in this Throne debate. I guess the usual custom is to, first of all, offer congratulations to the new ministers and to the new parliamentary assistants. As I look around the chamber I see one parliamentary assistant here and I just hope that he will pass those congratulations along to the rest.

I also, Mr. Speaker, would like to say that I am pleased to see you back in your position, hale and hearty and presiding over this House with your usual good wit and firm hand --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): The member had better qualify that.

Mr. Edighoffer: -- and I hope you continue to enjoy your duties. I might also say that I am very glad to see that the acting Speaker is looking well today.

In reply to the Throne Speech, Mr. Speaker, I looked it over carefully once, twice, even a third time, and it is really most difficult to explain to anyone really what is contained in those historic 15 pages. The newspapers carried many stories with lots of predictions of what might be contained therein, and it again served the usual purpose for the government, I presume.

It is interesting that after the Throne Speech was read the editorials in many of the papers the next day tried to outline some of the programmes. But the headlines really told the story. One stated, “A Far from Dynamic Programme.” Another one said, “Many Good Proposals in Bland Throne Speech.” Another one said, “Throne Speech General But Not Specific.” And just to be more specific, one editorial stated that when Vincent Massey was Governor General of Canada he noted that his public utterances were confined to “Governor Generalities.”

That same editorial, Mr. Speaker, went on to say:

Many of the proposals are laudable, such as the increase in aid for elderly and disabled persons and for regions such as the northern part of the province which feel that they have been neglected. However, it will be necessary to wait until more details are given to learn the full extent of the proposals. Efforts will be made to make housing more readily available, particularly for those with low incomes, although again the specific details are withheld.

In response to the concern over the growing shortage of good land for agricultural purposes, proposals are advanced to help ensure that land acquired for development will be kept in agricultural production until the development occurs.

Interesting suggestions for improving safety on the highways include compulsory use of seatbelts and new measures against drunken drivers. Presumably a drunk driver with an unfastened seat belt will be in double jeopardy. All in all, it is a programme which should keep the Legislature busy for some months and may well prepare the ground for a new provincial election campaign.

Then it finished off by saying: “Like the federal Throne Speech before it, the provincial one didn’t say very much.”

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that just prior to the Throne Speech here in the Legislature one of our colleagues was in the city of Stratford talking to a group of students and a service club. Naturally the people in the audience, because of their active interest, wanted some up to date information on the operations of government and they questioned the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue about what might be in the Throne Speech. According to the newspaper report the headline said: “MPP Drops Some Hints.” But as I looked over the column, he was not too accurate and did not cover too many problems mentioned in the Throne Speech. The article did mention that he was questioned about finances for political campaign and he did say that he thought there would be legislation calling for disclosure of contributions. He also said:

I would like to cut down on election spending as much as you would, but we have to spend what we think we must to get elected. We don’t like to take chances.

And for your --

An hon. member: The member for London North (Mr. Walker), was it?

Mr. Edighoffer: I’m sorry he’s not here, but I did send out a questionnaire last fall, and on that questionnaire I asked: “Should there be limits on spending by candidates in election campaigns?” The answers that came back were 92.3 per cent yes, and 5.8 per cent no. So it really shows that the government is not fully aware of what the grass-roots opinion really is.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Once more.

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, there is one sentence in the Throne Speech which really intrigued me and it is this: “You will be asked to approve legislation which will require an environmental assessment of major new development projects.”

I like that sentence very much, because after what has been taking place in our area with Ontario Hydro I’m just sorry that this wasn’t in the Throne Speech last year.

My colleague, the member for Huron-Bruce, has spoken very recently and placed in the record of this House his concern and the concern of the people in the area, for the manner in which Ontario Hydro has decided to acquire transmission line rights of way over western Ontario, and particularly over class 1 and 2 farmland. I really feel it’s my duty to add my few words to express the objection of many residents of Wallace township who want to continue farming without huge towers on their property.

I have much faith in the intellect and the reasonableness of farmers; they are in business and want to produce food for us.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): That’s pretty weak.

Mr. Edighoffer: If Ontario Hydro could show that this power is necessary and that there is no other feasible way to get it to the market, I know they would not deprive other people of this source of power.

Last year, Ontario Hydro exported 5.36 billion kw hours to the US at a profit of $31.7 million. It’s expected that this will increase in 1974. These farmers do not see why all this power export is necessary, particularly if it reduces agricultural production.

In this regard, the editor of the Listowel Banner recently commented as follows -- and I think this is important to put on the record. I quote from the editorial dated Feb. 28, 1974:

Hydro might be absolutely right when it states that the amount of land cost to production because of transmission lines is minimal, but a farmer faced with losing a 600-ft wide strip from a 100- or 200-acre farm can hardly be expected to welcome the prospect.

While it might be hard for Hydro engineers and lawyers to understand, most farmers have an attachment to their land bordering on human relationship. Their land, especially if it is a family farm, represents a lot more than soil, trees, crops, or even dollars and cents. It is the result of years of effort, planning, sacrifice, toil and sweat, and to be forced to sign away a foot, let alone a wide strip of such land to make way for monstrous structures of cement and steel is a bitter pill.

It is not that farmers do not realize the value of hydro. They do. Indeed many of them are among Hydro’s best customers. On a day-to-day, man-to-man basis, no one has more respect for the Hydro lineman than does the farmer. But as far as the farmer is concerned, the men at the top of Ontario Hydro are something quite different. They are the people who double-talked their fathers years ago and who are now forcing their neighbours to face land expropriation. Given such a situation, plus the fact that its own maps are not absolutely according to Hoyle, Hydro can hardly be surprised to find good, responsible farmers lining up on the other side of the fence. If Hydro has changed its method as it claims, it is going to take more than words to convince the fanner.

So ends the quote.

Mr. Speaker, this subject is very prominent in the minds of many people in the north part of my riding and in many parts of ridings to the east and to the west. Recently there was a letter in many of the newspapers in Ontario written by a member of a veterinary clinic who, I think, is very much aware of what our land in our area is used for, and how important it is for the production of food.

Just in case the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) or the Premier or members of Ontario Hydro have missed this, I feel it should go on the record because it shows what will take place if this Hydro line goes as Ontario Hydro wants it to. It states:

As individuals who live in and serve the portion of Perth county being affected by the proposed Ontario Hydro corridor from Bradley junction to the Georgetown-Guelph area, we would like to express our grave concern. We serve the farming community at Wallace township as well as adjacent portions of Wellington and Huron counties. In this area we find a high percentage of farms stocked to capacity with, predominantly, cattle and hogs. In fact, they rely on a large volume of their grain needs to come from other areas. Fanners in this area, with 100 acres of land, would lose 13.6 acres, with the exception of approximately six who would lose 60 of the 100 acres.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): It’s also bean country, too.

Mr. Edighoffer: To continue:

This would constitute a loss of 13.6 per cent of their resources to provide adequate feed for their livestock. We are certain that a large portion of farmers would have to reduce the number of livestock kept on these farms.

Perth, Huron and Wellington counties are among the most productive agricultural counties in Ontario. A: Perth county’s total milk production annually is second only to Oxford county in Ontario; B: In 1973 Perth county shipped 78,263 head of cattle, which was more than any other except Waterloo. Perth county shipped 331,049 hogs in 1972 and was second to none. The preferred corridor through Wallace township by Ontario Hydro will require 1,200 acres. In the total length of this one corridor crossing Bruce, Huron, Perth and Wellington counties over 9,000 acres will be required.

Ontario Hydro suggests that if all facets of construction proceed perfectly a minimum of 4½ years per tower line would be required, a total of 4½ years minimum for the construction of the three lines. Therefore, upwards of 9,000 acres, a good portion of which is No. 1 and No. 2 grade agricultural land, will be out of production for at least five crop years. Besides removal of this large acreage temporarily, over 40 acres of prime No. 1 and over 100 acres of No. 2 land would permanently be removed from production by tower line bases.

With consumer food prices climbing at an alarming rate, we cannot justify the removal of this type of land from production. It isn’t that we are self-sufficient. During the dairy year commencing April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974, we will import approximately 47 million pounds of butter as well as a large amount of cheese. It is commonly accepted that American beef is continuously flowing into Canada.

This letter continues on and compares production and shows how it has increased in the last three and four years regarding milk and beef. The final sentence in this letter is most important. It says:

We feel that the agricultural contributions of Perth county and its neighbours are important and hereby request an in-depth objective look at the long-range effects of such a corridor.

This letter was submitted to many newspapers by the Listowel veterinary clinic.

Mr. Speaker, I feel Ontario Hydro should have its policy in black and white well ahead of construction. Because of past experience many land owners feel that they are dealing with a giant steam-roller. Many editorials have been written in this regard. Many people have discussed this. They feel that the people who are working for Hydro out in the area are responsible people, but they are only working on orders from head office here in Toronto and feel that they cannot count on the decisions that are made out there.

Ontario Hydro has spent thousands and maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising how to live better electrically. As people have pointed out on many occasions, maybe we have been brainwashed and maybe we expect too much of Hydro. But now they are reversing their stand. I just read in one of the papers the other day that Ontario Hydro, along with the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, has planned 11 seminars across Ontario. They are alerting companies on how to cut out electricity costs. That article stated they were sending out 7,000 letters to companies across the province telling them about these seminars and how to cut out these electrical costs. It says:

The courses will be designed to convince businessmen that savings of up to 30 per cent are not uncommon with relatively minor investment and new equipment. [Then the article goes on to say] The ministry [and I presume that is the Ministry of Industry and Tourism] will introduce new products aimed at cutting heating costs. One is a thermostat that automatically turns back when plants are empty at night. Another is an infra-red heater that is electrically economical.

However, they will have four lectures and are holding 11 planning seminars. I think the cost will be $5 for the members of industry to be present. It states in the paper the registration will naturally include lunch, because this government loves lunches, and audio-vision displays.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Nobody is going to pay $5 to listen to the Minister of Industry and Tourism. They are wasting their money if they do.

An hon. member: Wining and dining them.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): In that area, yes.

Mr. Roy: The minister should send a tape.

Mr. Haggerty: Wine them and dine them. That’s the government policy. Maybe on Jordan wines.

Mr. Edighoffer: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, Hydro prefers power before food, and that is what a lot of other people may have to live on if Hydro doesn’t change its thinking.

Mr. Haggerty: Or Moog and Davis.

Mr. Edighoffer: Just before I leave the subject of Ontario Hydro, I wish to say that there are a group of concerned farmers of the united townships of Turnberry, Howick, Wallace, Maryborough, Peel, Woolwich and Pilkington who really reject Hydro’s proposal and suggested that these lines could go further north, which would be shorter and probably cheaper. I hope that Ontario Hydro and the cabinet take a good look at their proposal and agree with their wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words about land-use planning. I was hoping to see something substantial in the Throne Speech regarding land-use planning. In 1973 the Throne Speech stated that there would be major new programmes designed to ensure sound planning, and particularly to preserve the land resource for the use and advantage of future generations. That was in 1973, but in 1974 the government has completely forgotten this need.

Last year, as I mentioned earlier, I sent out a questionnaire; and on that questionnaire I asked two questions that had to do with land-use planning. One question was: “Should Ontario have an overall land-use plan?” Again, the people answered with a resounding “yes,” 78.2 per cent for and 9.2 per cent against. I also went a little further and asked: “Should agricultural land be designated and accompanied by a special reduced tax rate?” Again, 67 per cent said “yes,” 21 per cent “no,” and 11 per cent had no comment.

I think the people are really looking for direction, Mr. Speaker, but to date nothing substantial has been offered. If the amount of energy and money that has gone into the government policy regarding regional government had been expended on land-use planning, we would not be in the predicament we are in now.

I also have a word or two to say about nursing homes, Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: Yes, good idea.

Mr. Edighoffer: I was glad to see the new Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) appointed because, of course, he was parliamentary assistant to the previous Minister of Health; I have had experience with him when he was parliamentary assistant, and he took a great interest in extended health care.

With this experience, I hope he will take time to assess the further need for more nursing homes in many areas. To date, though, it appears that the ministry has been approving additions to present homes or approving new facilities and looked at the need only on a statistical basis. That is, if the area has four beds per 1,000 of population, then another area can’t have more beds if they have four beds per 1,000.

I hope that the minister looks a little closer at the need and gives consideration to each area of the province on its own conditions. Many areas find that they are perhaps more dormitory areas or have a bigger percentage of retired people. Naturally, if this is the case, the need could be greater. And if there are a number of good homes in the area, I suggest that he look very closely at updating or adding to the present homes. I know from my own experience in visiting nursing homes in my area, that the smaller nursing home gives the kind of care that those patients and their families appreciate, because of the more home-like and human attitude.

Not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, on March 27, there was an announcement in my riding regarding transportation. I have talked about transportation in this House since 1967, pertaining particularly to better access to Highway 401 from the city of Stratford. On that date, March 27, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications announced that they were considering a new highway from New Hamburg to Stratford; that’s Highway 7 and 8. I’m sure that when you’ve gone up to the festival, Mr. Speaker, you’ve noticed how clogged that road really is. But I have to say that in announcing this highway they stated that we would not have it until 1980 or 1982, and it might not even be constructed until 1985.

An hon. member: Shame.

An hon. member: Terrible.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Edighoffer: Now, they have had a study team there for about 14 or 16 months. I saw a figure of the cost in the newspaper, but I won’t repeat it because I’m not certain that it’s exactly correct. But they’ve had that team working for over a year -- mind you, with some public participation -- trying to sort out the best route. And they finally decided.

However, I found it most interesting -- and I attended many of the public meetings in the area -- that a member of the study team stated specifically at many of the meetings that the minister had the final say and that the local member would have input. I would just like to record at this time that, as far as I am concerned, the representative of the study team was not exactly correct; I’ve talked to the previous minister and to the present minister and to date, after offering my services, I have not been asked for any particular advice on this highway.

This route, Mr. Speaker -- and I am sure you are aware that part of this route is constructed from Kitchener to New Hamburg at the moment -- this route is planned for four lanes. But then that is for 1991. Imagine -- 1991.

This really shows how fast this particular ministry really works.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Does the hon. member want a four-lane highway?

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): The minister will give him one.

Mr. R. F Nixon: I’ll bet they call it “Stewart Highway.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Edighoffer: I’m just coming to that now.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Edighoffer: Well, the minister certainly has been up in Perth quite a bit; he should have heard that.

An hon. member: No, he has never got over losing Perth.

An hon. member: He won’t get over Huron for a long time either.

Mr. Gaunt: We’re pulling the net tighter and tighter.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He’s in the wringer.

Mr. Edighoffer: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s interesting that when this study team was in our area on March 27, they of course tried to soften things a bit and stated that they now would be doing a study to see whether they should upgrade the present Highway 7 and 8.

I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food is most interested in how I feel on this subject, and I would say, first of all, that they should have upgraded the present Highway 7 and 8 five or 10 years ago. So they are way behind time in that respect.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that from my experience of driving on the present two-lane highway from New Hamburg to Kitchener, which is designed to be eventually a four-lane highway, it’s a very badly designed highway for two lanes and, I think, it’s very dangerous. So if this particular highway is going to be built, Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that this highway should be built as a four-lane highway immediately. The only thing else I would add to that is that, since that we have a new Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) and because the announcement came from his office, I would like to invite him to come up to our area as soon as possible. I can’t supply a chauffeur, but I would be glad to take him over the route and discuss it further with him personally.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Why doesn’t the member get the Women’s Institute group and take them along with them?

Mr. Haggerty: That is by hovercraft so he won’t get all the bumps.

Mr. Edighoffer: They are all right now. I was out to see them the other night.

Mr. Speaker, just before closing I would like to say that many areas were covered in the Throne Speech. Mind you, we didn’t get many details, but there was one point I noticed which was left out of the Throne Speech. It seems as if these types of points are quite often left out of government pronouncements. Not too long ago -- I believe it was on March 15 -- the London Free Press had an editorial. I am always interested in the editorials of the London Free Press because generally they are quite favourable to the government. But this one here was entitled, “Lose Your Job At A Profit.” I would just like to quote from this editorial.

The Ontario government has evidently adopted an intriguing programme of job renewal made easy. When it is desired to move a high civil servant out of a job and replace him with the government’s latest choice, just make certain that it is worth his while to leave. It is very simple. It smooths the way for everybody and no one is hurt. It is an even simpler procedure when it is all done with public money.

The latest example of the government’s regime of high-mindedness in job replacement is the disclosure that A. A. Rowan-Legg was paid a total of $42,000 to terminate his employment as Ontario Agent General in Britain and turn the job over to former Londoner Ward Cornell.

Mr. Bullbrook: Who is that?

Mr. Edighoffer: Well, he was also distinguished as Mr. Hockey Night in Canada.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He is really selling Ontario products and food produce.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does he still do those Avco Finance commercials?

Mr. Edighoffer: To go on with the editorial, all that was in there was that he was knows as Mr. Hockey Night in Canada and he was the campaign manager of the Treasurer (Mr. White).

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Could he stick handle?

Mr. Edighoffer: It said he was most interested in supplying public relations expertise to various enterprises of the Ontario Conservative Party.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me tell the member he has been excellent at all those,

Mr. Edighoffer: It could be.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, sir.

Mr. Deans: Financially at least.

Mr. Edighoffer: I am coming to that.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s good.

Mr. Edighoffer: The editorial said:

There was a new twist to the procedure. Mr. Rowan-Legg received $35,000 in severance pay and also $7,000 for job relocation in Toronto. It is logical enough when you think of it. Relocation payments have been in order for urban renewal. Why not for job renewal?

The system was established in a more celebrated case with the Workmen’s Compensation Board. It worked so well then that the Ontario government probably decided to use it regularly. In that instance, a Workmen’s Compensation Board member, Jack Cauley, was, according to testimony at a public hearing, paid handsomely for simply withdrawing from the board two years early, but there was a misunderstanding. Mr. Cauley understood that, in addition to sick leave and vacation credit of $62,000, he was to be paid his regular salary of $27,000 a year. He made quite a fuss.

Then later it was the turn of Mr. Cauley’s boss in the Workmen’s Compensation Board, Brig. Gen. Bruce Legge, to be offered a year’s salary to resign. Mr. Legge had been coping with a series of administrative problems at WCB. He was replaced by Michael Starr, a former federal Conservative labour minister.

It may well be that the province has been a beneficiary in all of these moves. Both Mr. Starr and Mr. Cornell are eminently capable men. It is the implications of the replacement system that are interesting. The discovery may have been made by now in the high echelons of the Ontario civil service that the best way to achieve a profitable retirement or relocation is to find a friend or functionary of the Ontario Conservative Party and make it essential to have him installed in your job.

And that ends the editorial from the London Free Press.

An hon. member: Right on.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The London Free Press?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Great paper.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s distributed in Middlesex too.

Mr. Edighoffer: I think it’s a most interesting editorial. They call it, “A Job Renewal Made Easy programme,” and when I look at the initials, they spell JRME. I really don’t know how you pronounce that, Mr. Speaker, but it sounds like some kind of a germ. I just hope, though, that the people of Ontario will soon see how the taxpayers’ money is being wasted.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I have to say that the Throne Speech again was too general. It has not really shown the widest desire to relieve any of the immediate problems relating to inflation, housing or land-use planning, and I am certainly ready to support the meaty amendment placed by my leader.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My opening remarks are going to be a personal reference to you, sir. Occasionally my oldest daughter, who is now nine years old, makes an appearance in the galleries of the legislative building and, needless to say, your dress and attire and general deportment have convinced her that you are absolutely the No. 1 person in the Province of Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): She shows sound judgement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bounsall: She thinks that you control everything, run everything and that you are scrupulously fair. I have assured her; on all three counts that that is true.

She was therefore very upset at the end of the session last December to find that Mr. Speaker had taken ill. And although she wasn’t down for the opening this time, she was very relieved, satisfied and happy, as we all were, when I reported to her that you were indeed in good health, looking fine and everything was well with the Province of Ontario. She says she certainly hopes that it will continue, as we all do.

My opening remarks in terms of an individual area of concern this year relate to the Americanization, if you like, or the de-Americanization of our universities. I am concerned by a recent incident at the University of Windsor, my old university, with respect to the non-admittance of graduate students -- students who have A averages -- from one section of clinical psychology into the graduate programme, the master’s programme.

One cannot convey to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld), in a question in the House, all of the detailed concepts which I would hope could be carried out in this field. But my question to him earlier this week was to ask if he would see that all of the individual disciplines in the universities of our province devised, by themselves and on common agreement amongst all of these departments from all universities a rational graduate student admission policy that would take into account the differing backgrounds and the different training of students who apply.

When I was department head of chemistry at the University of Windsor, which I became back in 1968, my predecessor and the other department heads of chemistry across this province had already decided that this was what they should do within the discipline of chemistry right across this province. In this way, if they were called upon at any time to justify the numbers of graduate students they were admitting or why they admitted those particular graduate students, there would be common agreement as to the actions taken and why they were taken. By talking to each other, through the experience we had, we attempted to devise what is in effect a rational policy in this area.

It was not an easy thing to do, as we found. It had been going on for about a year before I occupied that particular chair as a representative from the University of Windsor, and it carried on for another year and a half before we could say we had a policy, which we then kept testing each and every year.

The policy was very simply this. No student can be admitted to graduate school in any university in Ontario unless he has a B average. Our experience, and experience at other universities, had shown that if students had a B-plus or better average they performed, with the odd exception, remarkably better in graduate school; the simple B average cutoff point was in fact too low.

So within our own universities, for our own graduates, we established that the minimum would be B-plus. We then said that all those students who have backgrounds with which we are unfamiliar will be required to take the American set, the American-marked graduate record examinations.

These examinations are very important for students in American universities because of the vast background difference from one American university to another. This situation is not true in the universities of the Province of Ontario. One can be fairly well assured that a graduate in chemistry from the Lakehead has an equivalent background to a graduate in chemistry at the University of Toronto or at the University of Windsor or any other university. From experience looking around the rest of Canada, we found this also to be true for the rest of the universities in Canada. There was not, in the field of chemistry, what one would call a weak university in terms of its undergraduate programme. So we could take a student with a B-plus average from Dalhousie University who applied and know that B-plus average was in fact --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Bounsall: That strikes a responsive note.

We would know that was in fact equivalent to a B-plus average from the University of Manitoba or from our own institution.

So in terms of Canadian students we were happy. Anyone who had a B-plus or better was accepted if we had the positions available.

At our own university from time to time -- and this occurred as far as I can recollect in 1965 and 1966 -- we asked our own graduating class in honours chemistry who were thinking of going on to graduate school to write the GR examinations, the graduate record examinations produced for Princeton so that we could compare their scores with those we were getting on other applicants who were let in, from the United States primarily.

We wanted to compare their progress through graduate school. We found a situation that would not surprise anyone. We found the scores attained by the Canadian graduates, those from our department, were not as high as the graduate record examination scores of the Americans.

However, in graduate school there was no measurable difference between the groups. It confirmed to us what we suspected, that the GREs were needed as a test for American graduates because of the wide diversity of universities and the wide differences in programmes. The GREs were needed down there and have been in use for some years. Chemistry departments at most American colleges and universities geared their undergraduate programme around material given to pass a graduate record examination. After the graduate record examinations are given -- and they can be taken three or four times in the course of a given year -- one can get a copy of the examination that had been given in the immediate past. We used to obtain copies of these, and when we looked at them we found they were repetitious in their testing of material in a certain area. That is, one exam did not differ widely in the area it covered from another examination. The questions would differ, but not in the area.

When we looked at those examinations, we could see that by and large they asked no questions in the area of what we would call theoretical chemistry, which we gave all across Ontario and Canada generally as one of our fourth-year subjects. No questions like that appeared. They were more heavily weighted in the area of factual inorganic chemistry than any Canadian or Ontario university was.

We adopted the attitude here in Canada -- and I think it’s a right one -- that there’s no point in burdening one’s mind down with a whole bunch of facts provided one knows where to look for those facts. That was not the attitude, generally speaking, in the United States. So one had a lot of factual material appearing on those examinations.

If we were going to make it a requirement that our graduates take those examinations and we were going to use them as a basis for entering graduate school, we would have had to rearrange our undergraduate programmes in order to see that they were at least exposed to that material. This we were unwilling to do.

We were well aware, by comparison of examinations from year to year, that in fact one could plan an undergraduate programme geared to passing those examinations. This we did not and would not do in Ontario, and therefore we knew that our students writing those same examinations would not score as highly as students taking those examinations in United States universities.

We said that graduate record examinations will not be a test of admittance to graduate school for a Canadian student, but for any student whose background we didn’t know, we would have them take the GRE and use that as a score.

We also knew that those students applying to us from the British Isles also had an aptitude towards chemistry that was rather similar to ours. Their programmes again were not geared to assimilating data but rather to attaining concepts. And because, again, those institutions could be rated as good or better, relative to Ontario ones, we simply said that an upper second class from any British Isles university is acceptable as equivalent to a Canadian student in terms of admission, and we did not require them to take that examination.

We found, by trial and error over the years, that graduates in chemistry from some of the Oriental universities -- the University of Hong Kong, the University of Korea, the University of South Vietnam and the University of Taiwan -- were as good as those from the British institutions. Again, we did not require a GRE from students from those universities, and we were never disappointed. A B-plus or certainly an A average in chemistry from those universities honestly grading students -- and we never found that they didn’t -- was identical to our students. With the US students it was very applicable, as it was with students from India, Pakistan and South America, and we required those students to take the GRE.

By the way, we also policed ourselves very carefully. We always had a meeting in the first week of October, at which time we all brought in the lists of graduate students whom we had accepted and what their GRE scores were if they were in the categories that I’ve outlined; or if they were Canadian students, British or from the University of Hong Kong, we also listed what their grades were. We brought enough copies for every department head in Ontario and laid them on the table. And if there were any extenuating circumstances, if somehow we had let someone in with a B average or with a GRE score of less than 720, which was the cutoff point in the chemistry scores, they really had to justify to us why they had let that particular student in. On the odd time there were good, solid extenuating circumstances why a student who, on the surface of things didn’t meet up, was admitted. We really put the pressure on our colleagues, when, as would happen from time to time, it appeared one institution was getting a little soft.

I am suggesting to the Minister of Colleges and Universities that because in Ontario the province, through its grants to the universities, pays $8,000 a year in round terms for a student on a master’s programme and $12,000 a year in round terms for a student on a PhD programme, those disciplines in the Province of Ontario which have not agreed they should have some common, completely clear, sorted out admission standards, should be told by the minister: “You had better get together and you had better sort them out pretty promptly because we want to ensure that in the Province of Ontario Canadians stand a good chance of getting into graduate school in those institutions, and so that we know a graduate student admitted to the University of Windsor is admitted on the same fair, equitable terms as a graduate student admitted to the University of Toronto or the Lakehead or anywhere else.”

With the department heads working around the province with whoever in their departments helped them with the graduate admissions -- the committees on graduate admissions -- they will be able to devise a common admissions standard which will be fair, and then they apply it. The minister shouldn’t be saying to the separate disciplines, such as psychology which is the case in dispute at Windsor at the moment: “This must be your standard;” but they might well be interested in seeing what the results of those discussion were.

I am suggesting it isn’t going to be a particularly easy task. They can look and see what has happened in other disciplines and how they arrived at their standards, such as the chemistry one I have outlined. In a sense the disciplines do differ from one to another so one leaves it to those disciplines to work out those standards and leaves it to the disciplines to police them, but the minister must say: “This should be done.”

This should and must be done so the public of the Province of Ontario knows it is getting good value for the $8,000 spent for a master’s student and good value for the $12,000 spent for a PhD student. I do not wish to be unduly or subtly anti-American here but if the Province of Ontario is going to be subsidizing masters’ students by $8,000 and PhD students by $12,000 a year for the few openings there are, and because of the tightness of money for colleges and universities in the province, there must be an opportunity for those qualified Canadian undergraduate students to enter into the graduate programme. The Ontario taxpayers’ money must be used to further the education of Canadians first and students of other nationalities second.

We do not drop the standards for graduate student admission to ensure that the programmes are entirely filled with Canadians but we ensure that Canadians get in. If a choice has to be made it should be the Canadian, in general terms, who is accepted first so that, across the province, there can be no charge of the type we have seen in the last week surrounding the clinical psychology division at the University of Windsor.

Before I leave this topic, I might say that some of the disciplines in Ontario have been very keen to do things of this sort. It hasn’t been just the chemistry which has done it, the mathematics disciplines have done it; geography and political science have done it. I believe geology has done it. There are five or six disciplines which have met, set up and reached this common agreement on the admissions standards. Enough have done it to show the other disciplines how they have done it and why, so they may not take 2½ years to arrive at some policy which would be acceptable in this area.

In the statements that were given prior to the question period today, I was rather interested to hear about the licence sticker situation that exists in the province. It occurred to me to make one comment in the Throne Speech debate on those stickers.

The idea of four-year plates with stickers that go on them is a good one. When the stickers came out, however, I was rather disappointed. When I put mine on my car, if I stood 30 feet away from it I couldn’t see it.

There was a difference, there was a sticker on that licence plate but if I took my glasses off I couldn’t see it 10 ft away.

And I’m only short-sighted in one eye, Mr. Speaker, the other is fine. I am tempted to wear a monocle of course.

However, to return to the point, one of the things which always reminded people, as January wound its way into February and so on, to get their new licence plates was that they could see the startling difference; and here we have a sticker which one really can’t see.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Maybe the member should get his eyes tested.

Mr. Bounsall: Maybe the one good eye isn’t functioning quite up to par. The member is not saying, surely, that these stickers markedly show themselves, that they jump out and say that the licence plates have changed?

I lived for a year in Los Angeles doing some graduate work and they had the same system. They have had it all through the sixties. A licence plate lasts for four years, but their stickers, when put on the corner, are markedly different. They glow in the dark, and when the time of year comes when one needs to put that sticker on, one can see that sticker as one drives down the street; you are constantly reminded of it.

In that period when you have to purchase the new stickers, by the very way in which they visually present them to you, one says: “Ah, I haven’t got mine yet.”

I think that contributed very much this year to the very slow sales that progressed through almost to the end of February, that fact that people were not reminded by seeing a marked difference in licence plates. That marked difference could be achieved by having a sticker fixed to that plate which in fact would catch the attention.

I suggest to the new Minister of Transportation and Communication that next year’s sticker be one which glows in the dark; black on blaze orange would be very acceptable on licence plates in this province, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say a few words in the area of health. The Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) relying very much on an internally-produced report from one of the departments, has said there should not be a heart-lung pump machine at IODE Windsor Western Hospital.

Well, I tend to agree with some of the thinking that led to that recommendation; the thinking being that where these machines have been in operation in other parts of the province it has been shown that the first 10 or 11 times these machines are used the patients in fact died, that it takes a little use of the machine by the team that has been collected to use it before the expertise is arrived at where the patient survives. They have very legitimate concern in Windsor there may not be enough use of that heart-lung machine -- really it is a heart bypass pump -- so that the team would be adequately experienced.

In the input on that decision they went back into OHIP records to see how many people from Windsor had been treated with a heart-lung pump or a bypass pump in other centres in Ontario or the United States and were billing OHIP for it. Then they said: “Look, the use of Windsor people of this device is only 20 or 25 cases a year, and on that basis the demand is not large enough -- to give a team in the city of Windsor any expertise. Therefore the results of the operations using this pump would not be highly satisfactory.”

The counter-argument from the medical staff most concerned with this at IODE hospital was that there were many instances -- and their guess was 100 a year -- when that pump would be used. Because there was no pump in the area, the patients died, or the hospitals knew they were in such poor shape they could not be transported to London or Toronto or Cleveland where that machine could be used. They subsequently died, perhaps not as a result of not having used it, but they were never in good enough shape to get them to a place where it could be used. If all those patients were counted, we would have a per patient use of about 100-a-year at Windsor and that would certainly give the team using this device enough expertise that the patients would not be dying as the result of an inexperienced team.

The disagreement really came down to do we have 20 or 100 patients a year who’d use it in the Windsor area? The ministry just said no, it said no also for another reason. It had two other reasons and one of them, I think was fairly valid, one of them was invalid.

One reason was that internal medicine had advanced to the stage where the internists were saying that most of the operations in which a heart bypass pump was used could now be corrected by chemical treatment. The internists were saying this but the heart specialists were disagreeing with the internists on that point. It appeared that the Ministry of Health bought the argument of the internists but it still isn’t proved that chemical treatment can replace the use of a heart-lung pump machine.

The second reason is the one which is invalid; that first one was invalid enough but one could say it’s at least a philosophical, intellectual argument the ministry adopted.

The other one was that wherever there has been a heart-lung pump machine -- or rather we fear that if there is a heart-lung pump machine the same team which becomes expert in the usage of that heart pump bypass would want to get into open-heart surgery. Therefore we don’t want to take the risk of putting in this type of machine in Windsor because they might use it for a couple of years; then the team gets expert at it and says, “Here we are, experienced with a heart bypass machine; we want now to start operating on the heart.”

Where are the guts in the ministry? If it says: “No, it is not going to be expanded to open-heart surgery and that is the only use we are going to let you put it to,” it should be able to say that at any given time and not fear a request of that type coming in. It should have approved the heart-lung machine.

The ministry goes around and says; “We really want co-operation from the public. We want to give decision-making powers to the regional health councils and what-have-you.” In the Essex county committee there were great disagreements within the committee for a while, once the money for this machine was raised by a group of individuals, as to whether nor not they should have it.

They finally said: “We’ll try it for a year. If the medical staff at IODE thinks there are 100 in the course of the year, okay, let’s give it a year’s trial. If the first 10 or 11 die until that team gets used to each other, so be it. That’s the choice of the people on whom the machine will be used; the team will have time with the patients after that to become expert on it and after a year’s time we’ll know whether there are 100 patients and whether there are enough people around to use the machine for a valid use so the team becomes expert on it; and whether the team, in fact, is a good team to be using it.”

They said: “We approve it. Let’s put it on a one-year trial basis.”

So help me, I can’t see why the Ministry of Health could not have said: “Okay, on a year’s trial basis. We know your concerns down there in Essex county regarding its use, and we’ll be watching along with you.”

There is no excuse, in my mind, why they could not have bought the decision of that Essex county medical advisory committee. By not so doing what the ministry hasn’t seemed to grasp is that they have pretty well killed forever co-operation by citizen groups in Windsor around health projects because of this experience. They have certainly got a much more cynical group of people, a much more suspicious group of people with respect to the Health Ministry sitting on the Essex county health advisory committee. And it has not given them any encouragement to proceed along new lines with respect to other medicine and other medical events m that county.

If I was a member of that committee and had fought through the decisions and listened to all the arguments from both sides -- the heart people in Windsor and the internists in Windsor -- and then had the health ministry cancel the decision just like that. I would have been pretty disappointed; and pretty put off by the ministry officials.

I’m still saying to the ministry officials, put it back in -- let it go for a year’s trial and then see.

One of their arguments is money; that they are going to have to pay so much each time that machine is used. There is a certain fee submitted to OHIP for it. Well let me tell members what happens when a Windsor patient has to be taken to Detroit. After a lot of letter writing to the Ministry of Health, it is determined that only 90 per cent of the Ontario medical rate is paid to the doctor -- but somehow they always end up paying a fair amount of the hospital bill, thank God, on behalf of the patient.

If one patient was in hospital in a month in Detroit, and that is not an undue length of hospital time for a patient -- the size of the bill would pay the entire operating costs of the use of that machine for a whole year at IODE Western hospital in Windsor.

So on economic terms they have absolutely no argument whatsoever in having a trial period for that machine in Windsor.

When the point came up the other day in the House I suggested to the Minister of Health that -- and this is where a crunch really comes, personally -- if a patient is taken to London, is taken to Toronto, is taken to Montreal, is taken to Cleveland in order that one of these heart bypasses be used, you have the family very concerned. At least one member of that family wants to be with them. That’s not a surprising attitude for the member of that family to take. But we find that the cost of the transportation down and the cost of the accommodation for at least the three or four critical days around the time of its use is high -- and in many cases they can’t afford it.

I made a suggestion to the Minister of Health, not just for the Windsor situation but for any other community across the province, that if the family has to go -- and it’s reasonable that they should -- to a different city because the Ministry of Health in its economizing policy say: “We are not going to scatter these things around in a way that you all might like to see;” then the Ministry of Health should at least pay their transportation costs -- and go a long way to pay most of their accommodation costs as well.

That is the humane thing to do in this situation. They might not want to pay for eight members of the family for three or four days, but they should be able to pay it for one for three or four days.

It’s a tense enough situation anyway -- an emotional situation. The patient is going in to undergo heart surgery, or heart bypass surgery, and the family should not have the economic burden as well.

There is one other small point with respect to health in the city of Windsor. A couple of years ago a group of people came to see me who were all rehabilitated alcoholics. Many of them had been through that excellent treatment centre, the Donwood Institute in the Metro Toronto area. They had run across a particular problem which they brought to me to see if I could help them out.

They are now off alcohol. They are ex-alcoholics. They are making a good attempt to stay off it. However, all their old friends still exist. Whenever they go over to visit any of their old friends socially they find they are offered a drink. I mean, their old friends aren’t alcoholics, but they are still drinkers and in the course of the evening they have a drink.

They feel very embarrassed because they can’t, though very tempted I suppose in many cases, and they found that they were tending to stay at home and not visit any of their old friends because their old friends always had drink around. Or their old friends, in their presence, would not haul out a beer because they knew it might upset them. They were making their friends uncomfortable and they found that they had to really terminate their old friendships and there was not much way in which they could easily establish new

They said to me: “Is there some place in the city of Windsor where we could get together and set up a social centre for rehabilitated alcoholics, where we can go and have a social evening and not experience any pressure to have any alcohol and alcohol will not be there?”

I gave them a hand in tracking down some places and they got very admirably set up in the old library in the Adie Knox Community Centre, which is very centrally located on a bus line in Windsor. They got some funding at that time through LIP grants, but they have all run out. They need about $15,000 to $18,000 a year to keep that centre in operation as they have in the past. It has worked remarkably successfully. There are a lot of people who are getting a lot of strength and sustenance from coming to that centre and knowing they can come there and associate, on a social basis pure and simple, with people who have had the same problem that they have but are in no danger of encountering any alcohol on the premises.

I would suggest to the Ministry of Health, or to any other ministry that might be interested, that this is a project worth funding. It has become very satisfying and is reaching and serving a real need in Windsor.

Mr. Speaker, I have further remarks. I could start them now for half a minute or wait until 8 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: Well, if the hon. member finds this a convenient spot to break his remarks I think it would be appropriate.

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