Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that you and the members of this Legislature would like to join with me and welcome the students here today from Lawrence Park Collegiate, along with their teacher, Mr. Skeoch.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): What riding is that?

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): North York.

Mr. Reilly: The great riding of Eglinton.

Mr. R. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have 35 or so students from the High School of Commerce from the city of Windsor, Ont., up in the east gallery. They are accompanied by their teachers, a Mrs. Lange and a Mr. Maynard. I’m sure that you and the members of the Legislature extend to them a most cordial welcome.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I’m sure you will join with me in welcoming a very fine group of grade 7 students from St. Raphael’s School in North York, with their teacher, Mr. Nastasiuk. I’m sure all of us agree that we are delighted to see them here today and give them a real welcome.

POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, I want to rise in my place at the first public opportunity to respond to the Premier’s statement on Saturday --

An hon. member: He’d better retract.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- that figures that I put forward were incorrect --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and, in fact, one report said he called me a liar.

An hon. member: A liar?

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): The Leader of the Opposition can hand it out, but he can’t take it.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Oh, what prattle!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like, Mr. Speaker, to put before the House the specific figures that are in question. The government of Ontario spent 80 per cent more on tourist promotion within Canada in 1971, an election year, than it did in 1972. --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I just have two sentences, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the Ministry of Industry and Tourism spent $311,865 for advertising in Canadian media, including newspapers, magazines, radio and television, during the calendar year 1971. During the calendar year 1972, advertising expenditures within Canada, by the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, dropped to $173,051. The 1971 expenditure was therefore 80.215 per cent higher than the 1972 expenditure, and this is what I stated on Friday. The Premier (Mr. Davis) is, as usual, misinformed and irresponsible in his statements.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Not only that, he’s not here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): The member is corrupting himself and his party. Why didn’t he advise him?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Give him advice? It sounds like the Treasurer’s advice. He is talking through his hat --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has raised two points, one of which has to do with the apparent mis-statement of figures. I did read certain figures and percentages in the morning paper. Of course, I have no way of determining which figures are right at this moment.

Mr. Bullbrook: In your heart you know.

Mr. Speaker: I have been told I’m heartless sometimes. The other point by the hon. Leader of the Opposition has to do with the alleged words of the Premier of the province, in that he was a liar. I am not aware of that. I will certainly check into it and, in any event, in the absence of the Premier I think no response can be made and the Premier should be given the opportunity to respond before any such ruling should be made.

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

Mr. Bullbrook: Look who is talking.

Hon. Mr. White: He waits until those members are out of town.

Mr. Bullbrook: There were only 13 days.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Well, for heaven’s sake, are these the right figures?

PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce to the House a world-scale petrochemical complex commitment in Ontario. The four member companies involved in the Sarnia olefins and aromatics project, better known as SOAP, today jointly announced the formation of a new company, Petrosar Ltd.

Partners in the new company are Polysar Ltd. with a 51 per cent interest which makes it a major holding for Canada; Dupont of Canada; Koch Canada Fuels Ltd.; and Union Carbide Canada Ltd., each with a 16 1/2 per cent interest.

Petrosar has been authorized to proceed with the construction of the world-scale petrochemical plant once confirmation of the by-law to rezone the necessary land for industrial use has been received from the Ontario Municipal Board. The proposed location for the Petrosar facility is in the Moore township community of Corunna, just south of Sarnia. Petrosar will continue to work closely with the elected and appointed officials in the community to ensure maximum benefits to the industrial base and future plans of the area.

In the announcement, Mr. Speaker, the president of Petrosar pointed out it will be a major step in Canadian achievement of petrochemical prominency. The proposed plant, along with the opportunities for petro-chemical production that currently exist in Alberta and the previously announced Quebec expansion in this field will help Canada become world competitive in these products.

The petrochemical opportunities for Canada are bright. It is noteworthy that when Petrosar is working, the needs of the partners for raw materials will still require them to seek further supplies from other sources. The partners added that improved economic conditions contributed significantly to their decision to proceed with the project. They noted that the current corporate tax rates put Canada on a comparable footing with producers in other countries and that faster depreciation allowances help offset the risks associated with today’s rapidly escalating construction costs.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The Tories are in bed with the Liberals.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Getting crowded over there.

Mr. Cassidy: On these issues the Tories are there and we are not.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: F. C. Rush, president of Polysar, is chairman of the new company.

The president and chief executive officer is Silas T. Smith, formerly senior vice-president of the chemical and plastics division of Union Carbide Corp. Mr. Smith has extensive background in the planning and start-up of world-scale petrochemical complexes.

Mr. Speaker, this project is extremely significant in a Canadian and Ontario context. It will develop a Canadian self-sufficiency and reduce our current $250 million per year trade imbalance in these products. The refinery and downstream operations are expected to provide at least 1,800 new jobs with many of them of a highly advanced technological nature. It will establish a base for additional growth in the 1980s after coming onstream in early 1977.

In addition, it will assist in developing for Ontario a balance in our energy requirements from domestic sources. And it will achieve a great deal in our efforts to obtain the optimum upgrading of Canadian resources. The overall investment, refinery and downstream, will exceed $1.25 billion.

Mr. Speaker, this project would not have been possible without the thousands of man-hours put in by the staff of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and the Ministry of Energy. I would like, at this time to recognize the energies of the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) who has been most helpful in co-operating with my ministry and the principals involved in this project.

If I may be permitted, I would like to point out one individual in the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, Mr. Frank Plumb, for the hours he spent in co-ordinating the efforts of this organization.

The commitment of the member companies of Petrosar to this project is warmly welcomed in Ontario and we believe it will greatly benefit our citizens and our economy.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): What’s the matter with the NDP?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It sounds a little bit too fulsome.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We will wait until we see it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister of the Environment.

Mr. Bullbrook: We’ve known about it --

Interjections by hon. members.

PRIVATE SEWAGE SYSTEMS

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to proclaim part VII of the Environmental Protection Act on Monday, April 15, bringing into force regulations establishing uniform provincial standards for private sewage disposal systems and placing the responsibility for inspection and control with my ministry.

As the hon. members are probably aware, there are widely differing standards being applied at present across the province by the local medical officers of health. With the proclamation of part VII, this condition will be rectified.

Before going further, I would like to emphasize that these changes will have no effect on systems already installed and operating. This measure covers proposed installations of this type following the day of proclamation.

Initially this new approval and inspection programme will be carried out in three ways. One, where possible staff of the Ministry of the Environment will perform this function. Secondly, in some cases, due to shortages of trained staff, the ministry will enter into agreements with local authorities to continue this programme on its behalf. This will be a temporary measure until the number of ministry inspectors is sufficient to perform this service. We see the maximum length of such agreements being three years.

Thirdly, in areas where there are regional governments, we plan to enter into an agreement with the MOH to carry on this function until such time as the regional government can acquire the necessary people. It is our intention that these inspections and approvals would be handled by the regional governments concerned.

In each of these cases where the approvals are delegated, it would be the uniform, province-wide standards set by the Ministry of the Environment that would be enforced by the local health units and the regional governments.

Regardless of which of these three -- Environment Ontario, the MOH, or regional government -- administers this programme, the procedure would be as follows: A certificate of approval would be required before construction could begin on a new private sewage disposal system or any building to be served by such a system. After construction the system would be inspected to ensure it complied with the plans originally approved and a use permit issued.

There would be a fee of $15 involved in processing this application for a certificate of approval. This would include the subsequent inspections and issuance of a use permit

Also, under part VII and the accompanying regulations will be provision for the ministry to evaluate the suitability of land proposed for subdivision where this land would be served by private sewage systems. There would be a fee of $10 per lot for this assessment and evaluation.

At present, both the Ministry of the Environment and the health units are responsible for various aspects of approval, maintenance and upgrading of private sewage disposal installations. As of April 15 these duties will be supervised by one agency, part of the consolidation of environmental protection services under one roof that began with the formation of the Ministry of the Environment two years ago. The health units have performed admirably in these inspections and approvals in the past and we will be drawing on their experience and expertise in the initial change-over period.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Is he now prepared to dismiss the board of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and replace them with people who are able to set guidelines for an administration with that particular function that would be in the best interests of the taxpayers of the province, and particularly the people of that part of the province who have not been well served in the past years under the present administration?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to dismiss the board nor am I prepared to accept the criticism that has been levelled by the Leader of the Opposition which he bases almost entirely on newspaper reports that are not necessarily factual.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Because the minister has not made the reports public.

A supplementary: Will the minister then explain to the House why the special audit that was required of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Havrot: Prove it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- by his predecessor was never made public, and if in fact the special auditors from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications were working with the audit carried out by the Provincial Auditor in this special review of the business of the Ontario Northland Railway and Star Transport?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the audit was an internal audit; the information was made available to the ministry for its consideration. I think all of the information has been communicated to the Provincial Auditor, and as I understand it the Provincial Auditor is prepared to appear before the public accounts committee tomorrow to make a statement.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, I would hope he would be.

Supplementary: Can the minister then refute the statements made in the two articles by Mr. McAuliffe in the Globe and Mail and indicate that they are not based on facts, since he himself is the only one that we are aware of who has access to the special audits, the secret audits, that were carried out by the Provincial Auditor and by his own ministry? Nobody else has it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all, these have not been secret audits as has been indicated both in the press and by the Leader of the Opposition. These audits are internal matters that have been dealt with as they have been in many other ministries and as will continue to be done. I would be quite prepared to answer the particular question as to the contents of the article. However, I don’t think the Leader of the Opposition would like me to take the necessary time --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh yes, we would.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- to deal with it point by point. If that is so, I’ll take the time right now.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, do it right now.

By way of supplementary, does the minister not think he owes it to the House, or at least to his colleagues sitting behind him, that he set out for the Legislature where the government disagrees with the copyrighted stories, and that indeed he should have done that before the orders of the day by way of ministerial statement?

Mr. Bullbrook: He shouldn’t waste our time. Make it a statement of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to take the individual points and deal with them. I may not follow them in --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We do want the information. Could it be possible, sir, that we could revert to statements and hear the minister’s views in this important matter?

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Right. That’s what he should have done in the first place.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would like a complete and detailed statement, I have not had adequate time to prepare a complete and detailed statement as he has requested. I would be pleased to prepare that and present it in the form of a statement. If he wishes me to deal with them point by point, I have had an opportunity to make some contacts, to discuss some of these problems that have been brought forth in the Globe and Mail, and I will be happy to deal with them point by point at this time if he wishes as a question or a statement later.

Mr. Lewis: The Speaker can apply the appropriate rule.

Mr. Speaker: It does seem to me that the oral question period is a period in which the hon. members may direct questions to the ministry. They should be questions of urgent current public importance, I believe. There is a provision in our standing orders that lengthy replies, of course, should be given as a ministerial statement, prior to the oral question period.

This is precisely I believe what the hon. minister has undertaken to do. It seems to me that to answer the numerous items in the article would be a misuse of the question period, that it would be a repetition of the same topic and would occupy a great deal of the time in this question period.

Mr. Renwick: Revert to statements.

Mr. Speaker: It seems to me that if the hon. minister is not ready to make a complete statement, he should be given the opportunity to do so tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, before the other minister responds to your comments, I would like to point out that, while the Provincial Auditor is included in the estimates of the Treasury ministry, the fact is the Provincial Auditor is a servant of this Legislature and reports to this Legislature. The only vehicle he has for reporting to the Legislature is through the public accounts committee. Quite obviously, he cannot be questioned here. He cannot have an opportunity to refute the very serious allegations in the morning paper. My suggestion is, sir, that those allegations should be clarified in the public accounts committee meeting tomorrow --

Mr. Renwick: The allegations aren’t against the ministry.

Hon. Mr. White: -- where he and his lieutenants will have an opportunity to meet the criticism, overt and covert, contained in that document.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you are aware, I am sure, although the Treasurer may not be, that there was a special audit under the jurisdiction directly of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, and it is the report of that audit we have asked for specifically here.

Might I say, sir, in your own words, that you said the question period was to deal with matters of direct and immediate importance, which obviously this matter is, since it is the first time it has come to the attention of the general membership of the Legislature. For that reason, sir, I would like you to ask the House if we could revert to statements. That permission may be denied, although it is usually given from this side when the government asks for it. On the other hand --

Hon. Mr. White: Not always.

Mr. Cassidy: It is a cover-up again.

Mr. Lewis: Government members will give it today or they will never give it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- if the minister is prepared to give specific answers, then we should hear them now.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, I think whatever questioning may take place here now should not attempt to clarify the responsibilities and the way in which those responsibilities have been fulfilled by the Provincial Auditor, who quite obviously must be given his opportunity to respond to these charges on his own, in that he is not responsible to this House through either the Minister of Transportation and Communications or through me. Therefore, whatever questioning takes place here should not impinge upon the Provincial Auditor’s opportunities to defend himself in the public accounts committee tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is however the Minister of Transportation and Communications through whom the ONTC reports, and therefore he is the responsible minister. And one does not leave it yet another day if it can be avoided. You have often, Mr. Speaker, applied a rule that says that after four or five minutes of response to questions you deduct the time from the question period, and I think the minister should at least endeavour to clear up some of the matters now.

Mr. Speaker: Well, adding to the comments that I had originally made, it seems to me that to take the report, which is rather a lengthy report, and to deal with it in the words of the hon. minister, item by item, would probably entail a great part of the time for oral questions.

I have no objections to the hon. members directing a few questions to the minister, those of the greatest importance in their minds, as long as the matter does not develop into a full-scale debate.

If the minister is agreed and he is prepared to answer some of these questions, I certainly have no objections to some questions being directed to him; but I should point out to the hon. members that I will be advised to cut it off when it does constitute a debate.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, in furtherance to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. minister could tell the House specifically where the reports were wrong. It did cover the report in the Globe; two columns did cover a wide-ranging survey of activities and serious charges of maladministration, and I would like to hear the minister’s defence of those areas where he believes the conclusions were incorrect.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am sorry; where the conclusions were believed to be incorrect?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, well I will not necessarily follow in the order in which they have appeared in the articles.

Mr. Speaker, one of the items that was commented on was that a fee of $40,000 had been paid to a legal firm. The fee, in fact, was $3,541.69 and was paid to a firm known as Cheadle, Bryan and Mitchell from Thunder Bay. I believe Mr. David Cheadle is very well known to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does that mean he is a Liberal? I don’t know; I haven’t got my list here.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was Ontario Northland’s intent to purchase or subsidize this company in order to reduce freight rates -- that is the Lakehead freight rates -- but the fee was $30,541.69 and not the $40,000 as referred to in the article.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: Did the minister say $30,000?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It was $3,541.69.

Mr. Bullbrook: The first time the minister said $3,500 and the second time $30,000. Which is it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My apologies. It is $3,541.69.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. That is one mistake. He is right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On the question of failure to pay sales tax to the Province of Ontario, there were interest charges of $7,291 that were levied against the ONR. That was the result of a challenge of the sales tax charges against various items. It was the opinion of the ONR that they should not have been paid. They challenged it and they were not successful and as a result they were required to pay the taxes and the interest charges.

I point out that the same type of approach was done with the question of passenger fees, and they dealt with the federal government in that area.

There was $8,000 referred to as being spent on plans for a new 100-unit complex to be staged over a four- to five-year period. That is correct; there was $8,000 spent. However, those plans are still in the possession of the Ontario Northland Railway. It is intended they will be used. They were paid for and they have them. The proposal was just too rich for them to go ahead and develop that.

There was $35,000 spent, and that was on a renovation programme to the Moosonee Lodge -- and that was very, very much needed. It is a very old facility. I am sure some members have been there and will recognize that these renovations were needed. The renovations were carried out by a contractor here in Toronto. In fact no tenders were called, but I think many of you would appreciate, again, that to get firms to go into the Moosonee area is not an easy chore. This particular firm was already doing work in the area and the price was very, very reasonable.

It was suggested that the Ontario Northland Railway was operating the ship Chief Commanda in an unseaworthy condition. In fact, there is a certificate of seaworthiness that has been issued by the federal Ministry of Transport. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge the ship meets the qualifications as far as the federal ministry is concerned.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They don’t trust the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Never at any time was it stated that there would be $50,000 spent on the vessel to refurbish the ship for one year’s operation.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They just don’t trust the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We know that there is a new ship coming. If that new ship had not been coming, then there would have been a substantial outlay of funds, approximately in the area of $50,000, to keep the ship operating, but with the fact that a new one is coming that money was not to be spent. That was an estimate that had been brought forth if, in fact, they wanted to keep the ship operating in place of another.

May I comment, Mr. Speaker, on the question of railway ties that had been donated to the North Bay Golf Club? Normally there is no sale value for used rail ties. In fact, in the years 1971 and 1972 there had been a request by the Ontario Northland for ties to be given to various organizations. These were not available, but through the good offices of the ONR contacts were made with other railroads which did in fact supply ties free of charge to various organizations in the area served by ONR which had made the request. In 1973 there was a limited market for 3,300 ties to a firm, I understand, in Whitby and they did purchase them at 75 cents per tie. One thousand ties were donated to the North Bay Golf Club. The remaining 1,700 ties were made available to other interested parties. For example, the Knights of Columbus, which wanted ties to help repair their docks at their boys’ camp.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They were made available to the crippled children’s association and quite a number of other organizations in the North Bay area and in the area served by the Ontario Northland Railway. Now, if anyone objects to that, please stand up and say so. There were 1,000 ties to the North Bay club. It was suggested in the article that members of the executive of the Ontario Northland Railway belonged to the North Bay club. That is correct. Three of the senior executive of the ONR belong to the North Bay Golf Club. I would also point out that a great many members of that club are employees of the ONR and are members of the union and members of the labouring force. They belong to it and I am sure members would agree that if anything could be done to help that club, it would be helping those individuals as well.

I would like to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to comment on the insinuations as to the irregularities of the travel of the chairman. I am sure that, if necessary, he can reply more competently than I, but he did make a number of personal trips on Ontario Northland Railway business. It averaged about one and a half trips per month during the period of January, 1973, to March of 1974, between Thunder Bay, Toronto and North Bay, plus a Jan. 7 trip from Fort Lauderdale to Toronto. That was to attend a management board meeting called on Jan. 8.

There were chartered trips: April 30 to Timmins for a commission meeting; May 29 to North Bay for a commission meeting; and Oct. 10 to Timmins for a meeting to deal with the relocation of the rail in that community. At no time has there been any question as to the regularity of these trips, and it is my understanding that at no time were they ever questioned either by the commission or by the audit that was done of the particular books.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It’s about time they were.

Mr. Deans: They are being questioned now, I will tell you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: One other point I would like to make too, Mr. Speaker, is that there was reference made to a fee of $9,000 being paid to the Automotive Transport Association as dues by Star Transfer. That is not correct. The fee paid is $1,300. That’s an annual fee of the firm to belong to that association.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Before the hon. Leader of the Opposition asks further supplementaries, I might say that this answer took precisely 6 1/2 minutes, which was a little longer than an ordinary reply. I will therefore add four minutes to the question period.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Rather than use up the time, Mr. Speaker, under your former direction, in asking more specific matters that came out in the report, must we assume then that the things that the minister has not referred to directly are in fact at least parallel with the facts and that he is not prepared to say that the conclusions were wrong? For example, in the payments to the resort facilities owned by Mr. Kennedy, I believe, a member of the board.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, that is correct. There were payments made for the use of Pinewood Lodge. I believe the incident referred to in the press was a result of a meeting that was held in that lodge when the office facilities of the Ontario Northland Railway were under repair and there was no area for them to meet in. They then went to the Pinewood Lodge to hold their meeting there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Just a supplementary: For the procedure on this matter, is it the minister’s understanding that he and the chairman of the ONR will be available for meetings of the public accounts committee, presumably along with the auditor, to clarify this matter and get the facts public? And secondly, is the minister prepared to table the audit reports that are under his jurisdiction so that all of the information will be available to the members of this House?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I will not make a commitment that I will table that audit report at this time.

Mr. Bullbrook: Why not?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I will not either necessarily make a commitment as to when I would be prepared to appear before the public accounts committee until such time as the Provincial Auditor has made his statement.

May I take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to clear up one point for fear that it might be considered that I thought it was correct? It had been mentioned in the press reports that $100,000 had been paid to a grocer in Cochrane prices for groceries at over-the-counter. This is not correct; the fee is $59,000 -- the total amount is $59,000 -- and that price to the Ontario Northland is five per cent over the grocer’s invoice.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): What’s right about it?

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary if I could, Mr. Speaker. Now that all of the material has emerged and there are some conflicts -- presumably the Provincial Auditor will clear up his audit before the public accounts committee, why would the minister not make his internal audit public now since it is a contentious matter?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have not referred to the internal audit; I have referred only to material that I have been able to gather that touched on items that were discussed in these two articles that appeared in the press --

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): It could be wrong then?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- one on Saturday and one again today. I would be quite happy to give that consideration after the Provincial Auditor has appeared before the public accounts committee.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Did I understand the minister earlier to state that all of the internal audit material had been turned over to the Provincial Auditor? And if that is the case then would it not be available to the public accounts committee through the Provincial Auditor?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I can’t reply to that. My information is that the internal audit material has been turned over to the Provincial Auditor for his consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, if you’ll permit: Have all of the auditor’s findings been turned over on a regular basis to the Ministry of Transportation and Communications? That is, was there a sharing of information both ways on this supposedly independent double audit?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accurately answer that; as you can appreciate I came into this matter early this morning and I have been working diligently to get information that I could have available for our members opposite at this time. There are some points I just haven’t been able to get into in detail.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Op- position.

DEEP WELL POLLUTION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment if a study of Innisfil township just south of Barrie has been recently made available to him, or made public, which indicates that there is a considerable amount -- in fact a frightening amount -- of deep well pollution rapidly growing in that area around Lake Simcoe, amounting to -- depending upon the community -- pollution of 65 to 80 per cent of the wells in that area which could become a serious public matter, particularly when the weather warms up in the holiday season when it gets into full swing this summer?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Leader of the Opposition, I will look into this matter and report back to the member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister aware of such a report?

Hon. W. Newman: No.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is not aware?

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL GRANTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Health if the reports that have been circulating that the grants to the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, although they are only slightly reduced in the upcoming year, will, in fact, interfere with the expanding facilities that had been planned for that hospital, which cares for the mental illness in a very large segment of Ontario’s population?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): No, Mr. Speaker, I can’t specifically answer that question. I know the whole role of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital has been under review by the ministry over the past year. It is one of the two hospitals in the province that has an advisory board from the community to assist it in that review.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can the minister dispel any fears that have been stated by some people associated with the Lakeshore Hospital that the decision may have been made to phase it out and replace it with other facilities, or is that in fact the intention of the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The decision to phase out Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital as a psychiatric facility certainly has not been made. To say that there has not been some consideration of that possibility would not necessarily be correct.

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

ACTIVITY OF MULTI-MALLS NEAR TILLSONBURG

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, Mr. Speaker, on a rather different matter, if I may. Does the minister recall the Multi-Malls development outside Tillsonburg which is being fought assiduously by the provincial Treasurer? And is he aware that Multi-Malls requires approval by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for road access before that shopping centre can proceed?

Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: All right, a further supplementary: Why has the minister apparently given Multi-Malls -- which is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, a subsidiary of the CNA investors group -- approval in principle, although not yet in writing, for the shopping centre, when his colleague has, pretty bitterly and publicly, climbed aboard them for their efforts to set up a shopping centre directly in competition with the redevelopment plans designed for Tillsonburg?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge I have not given any sort of approval, in principle or otherwise, to an entrance to this particular development.

Mr. Lewis: Fine. By way of supplementary, since Multi-Malls must also have a building permit from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications under section 31(2)(d) of the Highway Improvement Act, can the minister indicate to the House now and to the people of the area, who would be immensely relieved, that he will join with his colleague, the Treasurer, in saying “no” to Multi-Malls in that area, thereby killing that particular project in its place?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, Mr. Speaker, as far as I’m concerned, if all of the requirements of any particular company, be it Multi-Malls or any other, can meet the necessary criteria to qualify for an entrance, I don’t believe the ministry has the right to deny them access if they legally are entitled to it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: What are they clapping for?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, when the Treasurer --

Mr. MacDonald: Those boys are really quite mindless in their reactions.

Mr. Lewis: -- talks about Multi-Malls as a developer who thwarts the plans and intentions of town councils by building shopping centres just outside town boundaries; when he says, “I can think of far worse things to say about the developers who build shopping centres just outside the boundaries of urban municipalities”; when he says, “If our programme of persuasion does not bring about the necessary results, we will have to examine other measures,” etc., why would the minister approve the location of Multi-Malls outside Tillsonburg, directly contrary to the expressed opinion of the Treasurer, when it is entirely within the minister’s prerogative to say to them, “no”?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would assume that if there are actions to be taken by other ministries of this government that would not permit the development to take place, then of course it would behove the Ministry of Transportation and Communications not to issue a permit for an access.

Mr. Lewis: He’s already taken those actions. He tried to stop it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My only answer to the hon. gentleman is that we have not issued such a permit. We have not permitted access and, to the best of my knowledge, we have no intention to do so at this time. But I repeat, if there is no legal way that the ministry can deny access --

Mr. Lewis: Yes, there is.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If there is, Mr. Speaker, then I’m sure we’ll look at it in that light.

Mr. MacDonald: Maybe the minister should put it on the cabinet agenda and discuss it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Surely the minister is aware that his predecessor gave the same kind of access to precisely the same company just outside of Chatham, which is in the backyard of the former chief planner --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): That’s right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and presently major spokesman for the government in most areas? The same kind of access in the same county was given to Multi-Malls, the same company, just to the east of Woodstock, off Highway 2. And while it may have gone against what the Treasurer says he believes, certainly it didn’t go against --

Mr. Speaker: Is this a question?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- the policy of the government.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, it may be, Mr. Speaker, that the Treasurer and I get along better.

Mr. Lewis: It may be that they should get along at all!

Mr. MacDonald: Discuss it in the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

There was a report from the Canadian Press which indicated that once the Minaki Lodge facility becomes a successful operation, when the government has bailed it out and reinstituted it, that it is then the minister’s intention to sell it back to private enterprise. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have made that remark on behalf of cabinet that we are putting some heavy capital investments into Minaki. Once it’s successful, it would be our intention to make sure that it goes back into private enterprise Canadian ownership.

Mr. Breithaupt: He’s going to recycle it.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, how much public money is being spent to bail out the ODC loan, then to pay off the other loans and to get the company back into operation? Why can’t we leave it as a Crown corporation instead of selling it off to private enterprise again, which failed us once?

Hon. Mr. White: Because we’re not Socialists.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, come on. It doesn’t take socialism to come to one’s senses!

Mr. Deans: What right has the government to use taxpayers’ money to bail out the private sector?

Mr. Lewis: Exactly.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breithaupt: They’re just going to recycle it.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not socialism; that’s just common sense.

Mr. Deans: It’s a kind of Robin Hood theory -- only it’s robbing the people.

Hon. Mr. White: The NDP would like to be Robin Hood!

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Supplementary: What assurance can the minister give the entrepreneurs in northern Ontario who have pretty well paddled their own canoes that they won’t be competing against an entrepreneur who has been almost totally subsidized by the taxpayers of this province?

Mr. Dean: Who does the minister have in mind, and when is he retiring?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before the government decided to move in and take over the operation of Minaki Lodge we had a great number of talks with people in private operations in that part of the province, including the chambers of commerce, the elected officials, and people in the private resort business. It was obvious from our discussions with them that it was most important that Minaki be retained as a prime resort area in that part of northwestern Ontario, and that without it there would not be a catalyst that would help to draw the business into that part of the province.

Mr. Deans: Those private entrepreneurs weren’t prepared to do it.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member would listen. Obviously, with his --

Mr. Deans: I am listening and I can hardly believe what I heard.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Sometimes we have trouble believing it when he is up, too.

Mr. Speaker, we went over the situation with the private people and we were very concerned along with them that if Minaki was not retained it could have a very great detrimental effect on the balance of their industry. After long discussions with them and after reviewing it with various people, it was the decision of government that we should move in and retain Minaki and build it up, to be the catalyst to develop the tourist industry even further in northwestern Ontario, and we sincerely believe it will succeed in doing just that for that part of the province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. Lewis: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of the Environment, if I may: Is the minister prepared to table the report of the inquiry officer under the hearing of necessity, the Expropriation Procedures Act, applied on Jan. 23 to, I think, five or six Crown properties in the area of the Arnprior dam project?

Hon. W. Newman: That’s a very good question. At this point in time I can’t say whether there are legal ramifications or whether I can or cannot table the report, but I will look into it and let the member know tomorrow.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary? Has the minister turned the inquiry officer’s reports over to the Attorney General (Mr. Welch) as yet?

Hon. W. Newman: Not at this point in time.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that he is meant to give approval to further expropriations in the area, and if he is aware, has he in fact done so, as required under the Expropriations Act?

Hon. W. Newman: I will give an answer to all of that tomorrow, okay?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

Mr. Cassidy: May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker? In view of the intention of the Expropriation Procedures Act, does the minister not consider that it is at least undesirable that work on the dam now proceeding will flood land on which no expropriation orders have been taken out? What pressure has he put on Ontario Hydro to get them to bring down the expropriation orders on land which they now intend to flood?

Hon. W. Newman: I think any pressure on Ontario Hydro should come from the Minister of Energy and I would discuss the matter with him.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that the cost per home on the average in Metro Toronto jumped last month to $50,340, the single biggest jump in a monthly period in some considerable time, and that that means it will now cost the average purchaser over the lifetime of the home something in the vicinity of $159,563 at current interest rates? Can he, therefore, indicate to the House whether there is a single specific policy, either by way of numbers of lots or planned homes over the next period of time, to do something about the accelerating prices?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I will have to trust the hon. member’s mathematics because I haven’t had an opportunity to check them out. I am aware that the average price, not the cost, of single family homes in the Metropolitan Toronto area did increase by approximately the amount stated, which is also a reflection of the very heavy demand for homes. Apparently people seem to have the money to buy them and the builders are charging those prices.

Mr. MacDonald: Who are they? But some are speculators, using laundered money.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we have announced from time to time a number of programmes. There is no one single programme which is going to solve the problem. I never pretended that there was.

Mr. Lewis: Can the minister give us a specific?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are a number of programmes such as LIP, RAP, OHAP, HOME. All of these, Mr. Speaker, taken in the aggregate will have an effect on home prices. If the hon. member will just be patient, I believe in a matter of a week or two weeks or three weeks I will be able to actually specify a number of lots which are being accelerated, the amount of money that that means to the consumers of Ontario and the areas in which those lots will be located.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce was up first with a supplementary.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Wouldn’t the minister agree that a large portion of the high cost of housing is because it takes two years to get a plan through all the bureaucracy? Would the minister agree with that?

Mr. Huston: Three years in most cases.

Mr. Sargent: Does the minister know that in the United States the FHA programme guarantees complete project approval in 90 days? Why can’t he adapt a programme like that here in this province? Send a crash organization down there to find out what is going on and bring it up here and let’s do something.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that some of the problems which have occurred in latter years are the result of demand by the public for a much stricter planning process, protection of the environment, road planning and all of the various infrastructure planning processes which must take place. It is quite obvious.

Mr. Sargent: They have all those things in the States too.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I think we have gone quite a bit farther in accommodating the feeling of the people in that respect than most other jurisdictions. We recognize the counterproductive effect this has had on housing and we are doing everything possible to speed up the process. The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Spence) asked the other day about the number of official plans which have been brought before the ministry and which he felt were being unduly delayed. In fact, since Oct. 1, 1973, there have been 37 official plans brought before my ministry, and I’m pleased to announce that since that date there have been 40 new official plans approved.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If any member has any specific --

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer could not. He cannot run a peanut stand without public money.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If any member has any specific plan which he feels is being unduly delayed I would be pleased to look into it:

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to the hon. members --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: I should point out to the hon. members that there are only 10 minutes remaining in the normal question period. No minister, as yet, has had the opportunity to give replies to previous questions. No members other than leaders have asked any questions. Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Sargent: A further supplementary here.

Mr. Speaker: I’ll permit one more.

Mr. Sargent: To summarize this, Mr. Speaker, if I fly the minister down there, will he come down and have a look at it? Will he?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, it’s a policy in my ministry not to go on unauthorized trips.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Treasurer has the answer to a question asked previously.

RESTRUCTURING OF RENFREW COUNTY

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, the hon. leader of the official opposition, not to be confused with the leader of the real opposition, raised a question about some concerns of the mayor of the town of Renfrew.

Mr. Lewis: The Treasurer should just cut that out.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. member for Scarborough West rise on a point of privilege?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ruston: You fellows have been together for a long time.

Mr. Breithaupt: The NDP always supports the government.

Mr. Bullbrook: Is that one of those 28-cent ties?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. White: I’ll tell the House, if the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) doesn’t ruin the Liberal Party here nobody can.

Mr. Ruston: We didn’t know the Treasurer cared.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, I now have had an opportunity to read the letter from the mayor of Renfrew.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): I think the Treasurer has got them on the run; I think he’s got them on the run,

Hon. Mr. White: Although it must be said he has got a lot of helpers.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Yes, he’s not alone over there.

Mr. MacDonald: Is the Treasurer trying to take all the 10 minutes?

Hon. Mr. White: I have now read the correspondence from the mayor of Renfrew. He has sent me three letters, two very recently. Some time ago I answered the first one, notwithstanding the allegations, and today I sent out responses to his two more recent letters.

The mayor apparently believes that I’ve struck a committee to set terms of reference for a study. In fact, I have not. In late January the county and the city of Pembroke approached me and asked that I consider assisting them in a study. I agreed to, provided the county council, which includes representatives from all municipalities in the county except Pembroke, and the city council of Pembroke passed a resolution requesting a study. The county has since sent me such a resolution but I haven’t received one from the city.

The understanding I had with the representatives with whom I met was that I would have a member of my staff meet with whichever members of their staff they nominated, once these two resolutions were received. The staff would then submit to the council a suggested study approach. At that time Renfrew county would follow whatever course it felt was appropriate in considering the study outline. If it chose to seek the opinion of each of the municipalities in the county, that would be its choice.

The county system is the system of local government we have and I intend to respect it.

Mr. Cassidy: This is a speech, Mr. Speaker, and it is an abuse of the question period,

Hon. Mr. White: I will not interfere with the prerogative of the county council to make decisions on how to consult its member municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Housing has the answer to questions asked previously.

HOUSING IN WINDSOR AREA

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville asked a question concerning senior citizen and family dwellings in the Windsor area. The corporation has just signed a contract for 300 senior citizen units on Riverside Dr. which will commence shortly. The design is being finalized for 130 more units which will be located on a Mill St site and a call for tenders will be issued in April, that is, this month. As well, negotiations are under way for the acquisition of additional senior citizen sites.

In respect to the family housing requirements, OHC has satisfied all municipal resolutions to date. About 30 to 50 family units are vacated each month and the Windsor Housing Authority is satisfied that this turnover is sufficient to service the current waiting list.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet I would like to answer similar questions.

Mr. Speaker: If that was the completion of one answer, a supplementary will be permitted. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Yes. Is the minister aware that the request for senior citizen housing has kept increasing since approximately July of last year, and that at the rate that it continues to increase there is very little chance that the ministry will ever meet the continuing demand?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These are great programmes by this government. More people are living long.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It just seems that way.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that the supply of senior citizen housing is running slightly behind demand, though not all that critically. As of February, there were 1,000 --

Mr. Cassidy: Stop trying to pretend there is no problem. There is a problem out there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister cannot snap his fingers and make it go away.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We are not snapping our fingers, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: It seems that way.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There are slightly under 1,000 applicants on the waiting list for senior citizen housing in Windsor.

Mr. B. Newman: Under 1,000?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Under 1,000; yes, that’s the figure I have, slightly under 1,000.

Mr. B. Newman: It is over 1,000.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It has been our experience, Mr. Speaker, that the number of applicants do not always correspond to the supply. In other words, we will not build senior citizen housing equal to the number of applicants because in most cases we would have an oversupply.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Isn’t the minister aware that the number of applicants is small, because the people know there is no point in applying because the ministry is not building a sufficient number of houses?

Interjections by hon. member.

Mr. Deans: Isn’t he aware that there are five times as many people looking for them as there are applicants, because they know there is no point in applying?

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. minister going to reply to that statement?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No reply.

Mr. Deans: It’s true.

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

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): On the question of family housing in the Windsor area that the minister mentioned, is he aware that there are over 300 applications for two bedroom accommodations, that there are very few units of two-bedroom accommodations in Windsor at the moment and that any amount of turnover will not meet the demand for that?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say about family housing is that we’ve responded to every resolution of municipal council. I might suggest to the hon. member that he may wish to discuss this further with the acting chairman of the

Windsor Housing Authority which submits requests to the ministry.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is incredible. He won’t last. He is a nice fellow, but he won’t last.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have further answers?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) isn’t here. He asked about OHC.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. members agree to having the answer given in the absence of the member?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Then the hon. minister will withhold the answer. The hon. member for Waterloo North.

ALLEGED SALE OF FARMLAND TO JAPANESE INTERESTS

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Has the minister heard any reports concerning the alleged story that Japanese interests are trying to assemble 50,000 acres of agricultural land in southern Ontario between Toronto and Windsor? If he is not aware of it, would he make an effort to find out if that is correct?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: Could we have the minister’s assurance that he will look into it, and if it is correct, would he be concerned about this and what could be done?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member expect me to contact every farmer in Ontario and ask if he has sold his farm recently to some agricultural representative from Japan? What a senseless question to ask in the first place! Of course, we are interested.

Mr. Bullbrook: The minister is in one of his venomous moods today.

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

ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCILS IN UNORGANIZED MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister without Portfolio, responsible for municipal affairs.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections by hon. members.

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

Mr. Stokes: Could the minister indicate when the promise contained in the Throne Speech with regard to the setting up of councils in unorganized communities might be introduced in the Legislature?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Port- folio): Mr. Speaker, we are considering this matter very fully. I would expect to introduce legislation in the next few weeks. I would say before the end of this session, but I can’t give him a definite time.

Mr. Stokes: Has the minister any advice for some of these unorganized municipalities which might set the wheels in motion to organizing themselves into councils so they can take advantage of this programme?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we would be pleased to hear from them. If they have any ideas that they wish to relate to us, I would be happy to meet with them.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wellington South was attempting to get the floor previously.

GUELPH CORRECTIONAL CENTRE

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): A question of the Minister of Correctional Services: Have the recommendations of the group studying the working conditions at the Guelph Correctional Centre last year been implemented as yet?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): I haven’t heard about that.

Mr. Worton: Doesn’t the minister know about it?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Well, I don’t know what study the member is talking about.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s our man.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, last year there were some goings-on at the centre that were investigated and the ministry set up a committee to study them; I want to know if they have been implemented.

An hon. member: Here we go again.

An hon. member: Déjà vu --

Hon. Mr. Potter: I would assume so, Mr. Speaker. I was in Guelph at the correctional centre just last week, and there were no particular problems at that time --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Potter: -- and the superintendent of the institution took me around and showed me the changes that are being made. I would expect these are the ones that the hon. member is referring to. Certainly there have been many changes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The big problem is that once they are in, they still want to get out.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Worton: Could we have a report on that?

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. Will the minister require those in his ministry responsible for provision of ambulance service to meet with the city of Burlington --

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): All that’s being done.

Mr. Deans: -- the Halton-Peel county council, or regional council, and citizens who have expressed --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: -- a grave concern over the in- adequacy of the ambulance service? And will the minister --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Getting no action from the --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Attend the meeting tomorrow at 1 o’clock.

Mr. Deans: I wish the minister would be quiet. When I have a question for him, I’ll ask him. There is nothing to ask the minister; he doesn’t do anything.

An hon. member: That’s just terrible.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Does that upset the hon. member?

Mr. Deans: And will the minister make known whether or not there is in fact a deficiency in the services currently available, recognizing there is only one ambulance in Burlington?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think no matter what problems we may face with ambulances from time to time in the Province of Ontario, we should be very proud of the fact that we have the best ambulance system in North America. That’s a fact.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Did the minister rehearse that?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, there’s a machine up here and I just had to plug the right digit.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister always makes the same answer: “The best in the western world.”

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, we can’t help it if we excel in everything.

An hon. member: We can’t improve.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister doesn’t have to apologize.

Mr. Speaker: The question period has just about expired.

An hon. member: So has the minister.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, he is helping me. I would be glad to look into the specific problem on the member’s behalf, because I want to have good ambulance service in any part of the province as important as Burlington.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. MacDonald: Why didn’t the minister say that in the first place?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall last week I asked him about the plan to tender for ambulance service across Ontario. He didn’t know anything about that. Well, now he is doing it in another area. What’s going on?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have to say the member is wrong unfortunately. We are not tendering for ambulance services anywhere in the Province of Ontario. We have not sent out letters of that nature. I think he should specifically look at that letter that is supposed to be a tender. If, in fact, I have been given the wrong information, bring it to me, because we are just not doing it.

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

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: What does the minister mean he’s been given the wrong information?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I said the member has.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: How about a little order?

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister know what’s going on?

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

MTC RENTS FOR FARMLAND

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the minister’s justified concern about the pressures that are driving farmers off the land in Ontario, will the minister request the Minister of Transportation and Communications to cancel the ministry’s programme of increasing rent by 30 to 50 per cent on lands owned by that ministry between Woodstock and Cobourg, as some farmers are unable to pay these increased rents and are going to move off the farms?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it’s the first I’ve heard of this. I’ll be glad to discuss it with my hon. friend.

Mr. Sargent: Atta boy.

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

An hon. member: Way to go.

THERAPY WORKSHOPS PAY RATES

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Is the going industrial rate paid by those industrial companies who are using the industrial therapy workshops to produce some of their materials in our psychiatric hospitals, or -- this is a question of the Minister of Health before he --

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health, please. A question is being directed to him.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is getting the answer.

Mr. Bounsall: Or is the 10 to 20 cents an hour paid by the psychiatric hospitals to the workers within those industrial workshops in fact a saving to the companies which are having work performed therein?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I was being sidetracked there for part of the time and I’m afraid I need to ask for the question to be repeated.

Mr. Bounsall: Is the going industrial rate being paid by those companies which have work performed for them by the inmates of the industrial therapy workshops in our psychiatric hospitals?

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): In- mates? Patients. Patients.

Mr. Bounsall: Or is the 10 to 20 cents an hour paid to those patients, in fact, a subsidy to those companies which are getting the work done?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would think in all fairness we could categorically say it is not a subsidy toward the industries. In fact, I think we owe a vote of thanks to companies that will, in some cases, spend more money to allow us to have programmes within the psychiatric hospitals that will help our patients. It’s very important that these people carry out duties of some type in the rehabilitation process.

I’ve personally been involved, and when you realize the amount of material handling alone that’s involved in moving the goods to these patients so that they may perform the duties within the hospital grounds, you realize that we’re not doing it simply on the basis of the economics. It’s very critical in the rehabilitative process that such work be available. So its not a question of the minimum wage being got around by a devious means, its a question of giving these people a sense of accomplishment, treatment and some money all at once.

Mr. Speaker: Question period has now been completed.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that from tomorrow this House may resolve itself into committee of supply.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT

Mr. Worton moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT

Mr. Villeneuve, in the absence of Mr. Morrow, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT TRUSTS ACT

Mr. Villeneuve, in the absence of Mr. Morrow, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting Savings and Investment Trusts.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. members agree to revert to the order, presentation of reports? One of the hon. ministers, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, has overlooked presenting reports. Would the hon. members agree to that?

Motion agreed to.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. members of the opposition for their courtesy.

In compliance with the provisions of subsection 2 of section 20 of the Securities Act, I am tabling a copy of the Ontario Securities Commission order and summary of facts in connection with the Canada Development Corp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House.

Mr. Lewis: For the minister, almost anything.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Pardon?

Mr. Lewis: For the minister, almost anything. For the others very little.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

POINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise to state a point of privilege. My point is that during the Throne Speech debate I was denied the opportunity to communicate with my constituents under my privilege of immunity because no one in the chamber except members is permitted to take notes, use recorders or use cine cameras. While the precedent of ignoring note-taking by the members of the press gallery was observed, this same ignoring was not extended to either recorders or cine cameras in the gallery. To communicate electronically with my constituents I would have had to waive my immunity. I submit that such a compulsory waiver is an infringement of my privilege as a member as defined in May’s, chapter 5, page 64, particularly the lines dealing with unimpeded services of members.

In the outline of collective and individual privileges, page 65, chapter 5 of May’s, it is quite specific that freedom of speech belongs primarily to individual members. While historically, privilege belongs solely to Mr. Speaker, since 1554 the privileges of freedom of speech, freedom from arrest and freedom of access, have belonged to the members. I would also call attention to --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. If the hon. member has a long résumé of some excerpts from May or other parliamentary authority I think he should first clearly state his point of privilege.

Mr. Drea: The point of privilege I was raising, Mr. Speaker, is that, as the privilege of an individual member, had I been permitted to state my privilege last Friday, I would have asked that I be allowed the use of television cameras in the chamber while delivering my reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to state the remainder of it, sir.

Mr. Lewis: What is the member talking about?

Mr. Drea: What am I talking about?

Mr. Deans: We don’t understand. We would like to help him if he would tell us.

Mr. Sargent: That is a good point. Let’s find out.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, can I elaborate or would you prefer me to read this?

Mr. Speaker: I am trying very desperately to follow the hon. member to determine if he has a point of privilege. If I recall correctly, on Friday the hon. member intimated that the Speaker had arbitrarily made a ruling which prevented him from exercising his privilege. I am waiting to hear what that privilege is.

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, with due respect, sir, I stated it just a moment ago, perhaps somewhat ambiguously, but I will state it very clearly. It is my position, in raising the point of privilege, that I should be entitled as a member to have televised the portion of the debate on the Speech from the Throne in which I am speaking.

Mr. Deans: Who would watch it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will please observe the rules of this House. There is no such privilege which has been extended to any hon. member in this House at any time. I do not say that it should not be or will not be, but the hon. member certainly does not have any right to raise this as a point of privilege. There is certainly no point of privilege that has been denied the hon. member.

If he wishes this sort of procedure to take place, there are ways and means by which he might pursue that; but certainly there has been no ruling on the part of this Speaker, or any previous Speaker to my knowledge. It simply has not been permitted under the rules of the House and I do rule there is no point of privilege.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if you were willing to have the speeches of the member for Scarborough Centre televised, we would pay for the cost, sir.

Mr. Speaker: I would be glad to take that under consideration.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, if we can allow the media to televise the budget speech, why hasn’t this member got the same rights as the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I don’t think it’s incumbent upon the Speaker to deal with this at all. I would explain to the hon. member that there have been arrangements made, and agreements indeed, amongst the parties that the budget will be televised. There never has been any arrangement otherwise for the hon. members. I think if the hon. member will deal with the matter through his party he would get a little bit more information. If he wishes I will be glad to speak to him privately on it.

Mr. Drea: Just a point --

Mr. Speaker: I made a ruling on the hon. member’s alleged point of privilege. Now if the point of order has to do with my ruling, it is not in order.

Mr. Drea: No, it does not.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Mr. Drea: I am not going to question your ruling, sir, I just want to raise the question that twice members have been allowed this privilege, sir. Maybe it’s a matter of semantics, but in my memory I have seen the Leader of the Opposition make the reply and I have seen the former leader of the NDP (Mr. MacDonald) make the reply on television.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By unanimous consent; and we would consent to the member going on. Bring in a resolution and we will support it.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, may I first add my voice to all those who have spoken before me in expressing our pleasure that you have regained your health and are enabled to carry on your duties. I would hope that they would not be onerous, Mr. Speaker, but I am afraid that you can- not count on that.

When I have considered the government programmes and proposals, I have varied in my feelings, first from being heartsick, to being tremendously angry; and Mr. Speaker anyone who knows me, including my caucus members, would recognize how difficult it is indeed to anger me.

However, I realized later I had no right to be angry, and for these reasons: St. Paul was never one of my favourite saints, for obvious reasons, but for the first time I understood and recognized in this government the loss of that quality without which it is but a sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal, and if it were not for the effect upon the people of Ontario I would be filled only with pity for such a government.

It is true they have finally discovered the north; and I am sure that the roads will be built, because after 30 years of Tory rule the north was ready to secede, and that was indeed an achievement. I trust, however, that they will not expect to set aside a holiday in honour of a great discoverer, since much of the programme consists of feasibility studies which, if I remember correctly, were also undertaken by the government under the late Premier Frost.

The measure of a civilization is the way in which it treats its children. Let us look at this government’s record with that in mind.

The Attorney General (Mr. Welch), in a daring statement, announced that this government would delete from all its legislation all reference to illegitimacy; and this, again daringly, without the necessity of a task force on the subject. Truly, it is moving into the 19th century.

I had hoped that by now we would have had a statement of policy from this government with reference to the protection of awards for handicapped, poor children. Let me give you some examples, Mr. Speaker. We drew to the attention of the appropriate ministers the story of a little girl who, as a result of a motor vehicle accident, lost her leg. There was an award paid into court, in the amount of $2,000; and immediately this generous government, so concerned with the taxpayers of the province, began harassing that mother, advising that she would have to go to court on an application to have paid out $1,000 of that $2,000 or she would, with her family, be cut off welfare.

In another case of a small boy, who suffered permanent lung damage in a similar case, this government harassed that mother and said: “You will apply to remove from that award of that child $4,000 of the $5,000 which was available to that child.”

It is true that since drawing the government’s attention to those two cases from my own riding, together with a third case from the riding of Parry Sound, I received a letter from one of the mothers who said that she was most grateful for my intervention, that mothers’ allowance people are not going to take away the moneys. My worker said: “You should consider yourself lucky that they’re not.”

This is what frightens me, Mr. Speaker. Are those three cases the only ones that are not going to be harassed? Or is there going to be a policy to state that we do not need to save tax dollars at the expense of poor handicapped children in this province?

And I may say that since I have brought this matter to the attention of the taxpayers both in the cities and in the rural areas, the government really isn’t going to have to set up a task force on this one either, because the taxpayers believe that these children should be protected. If it’s only a matter of saving money, which is, perhaps all that concerns the government, perhaps if this money is left to the credit of these children, they will be enabled to have the kinds of things that can eventually help them to break the poverty cycle. I would urge, therefore, that somewhere along the line this government take some responsibility.

Again, I was interested to note that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) -- as a result, I would suggest, of the consistent prodding of the opposition -- has made a statement that policy now is going to be changed. Whereas, in the past. once a young physically handicapped person attained the age of 19 years, if that child could not live in the community and if the community did not have other facilities available, that child could have no other alternative than to be relegated to a home for the aged. Mr. Speaker, I will welcome the specifics of the minister’s proposal since he spoke only generally in answer to a question on the legislation pertaining to the mental retardation programmes.

Again, there has been an announced policy that training schools shall be close to the homes. This, Mr. Speaker, raises a great many questions. Does this indicate that the Oakville Assessment Centre has failed? I would not think it had been in operation long enough for that to happen. Yet it was set up to assess the needs of the child. Does this indicate that the DARE programme has failed? We don’t seem to have heard too much about that lately. Incidentally, it would be interesting to know whether it ever did expand as a programme to include girls.

What of the policy itself? It has that public relations-oriented ring. There is no question that for some it could be a very worthy policy but if a child lives in the heart of a large city and if the environment in that city around the home of that child is such that any return to the home or any close proximity to the home during this period could only continue the unfortunate activities which brought the child before the courts in the first place, perhaps it would be better if children in such a downtown area were able to find their way into care in the vicinity, for example, of the Kawarthas. There they could learn something of this magnificent province and of its beauty and something of what ought to be the heritage of all Canadian children. Living near home, in a training school near home, could be a disaster.

Incidentally, I do hope the new Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter) will make an announcement soon. Is there going to be any plan to remove training schools from his ministry into the Ministry of Community and Social Services? While there is a dearth of imaginative ideas in the latter ministry, it could be that with the $13 million then forthcoming from the federal government we might catch up on programmes to assist these young people.

Nor is there any commitment, Mr. Speaker, to ensuring that children shall have an absolute right to be represented before the courts when their rights are involved. There is no statement that they shall no longer be parcelled out with the furniture, in such matters as divorce and custody, without adequate representation.

When is this government going to recognize the fact that a child who is the victim of a criminal act, such as in contributing, may well need financial support? Why should such a child not have a right to apply to the fund as the victim of a criminal act, and why should the fund not be expanded to cover adequate assistance to such a child?

When a child is placed on probation what happens in our courts? I have to express my appreciation to the efforts of the former Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Apps) in that he did try to bring some equity to bear in the probation services. Mr. Speaker, when you have children before the courts, you should indeed ensure that those who are trained probation officers are persons who understand the culture and the language of both the child and the parents. I can recall very well a case when a young Portuguese boy was in serious trouble. Because I was new in the courts, in my order of probation I directed that he have a Portuguese probation officer. Subsequently, the child was brought back before the courts and the probation officer said: “Your honour, I think I have been chosen because I once flew over Portugal.”

A probation officer is a very important person in the family court. He or she is not just an official to whom a child reports but a person who helps to bridge a gap between the child and the family, and once the child is in trouble before the courts there is usually that kind of a gap. If that officer can’t speak the language of the parents, then he or she becomes relatively ineffective in that important area.

Lastly, it is important that our children have an education. We have seen the way in which education in this province has deteriorated, causing parents great concern. I am certain that the public school system as it is today is doomed unless steps are taken to reassure those parents who are removing their children from the public schools and placing them in separate, private schools or in a tutorial system. This, Mr. Speaker, is the result of the chaos into which this government has placed the whole subject of education. Let us also level with our students and ensure that we do not completely alienate them by providing extensive and costly training without trying to ensure that jobs will be available on graduation or that they know the situation before they start.

Then we come to those glib phrases dealing with the status of women. It would appear that what has happened is that this government again is tying up this matter in a complex property law reform situation or a tortuous reform of family court.

Let us look at what has been done to date. This government set up the Women’s Bureau with limited funds and it disappeared. Then the council was set up under the able chairmanship of Laura Sabia, but to date with inadequate funding. Now we have set up another group dealing with Crown employees. Mr. Speaker, I do hope there will be enough money there to purchase enough Meccano sets so that these women may achieve a promotion.

On this subject, I would like to say that wherever I have gone I have advised people that the Treasurer (Mr. White) of this province has stated that playing with Meccano sets appears to be the criterion for getting ahead in this government. Therefore, I have suggested that parents ensure that all of their children, both male and female, become accomplished in this activity.

I am so afraid, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Moog may now require further challenges and that a public relations team would sell the Premier on the idea of the Taj Mahal to indicate his dedication, not to one woman but to the cause of women. But please remember, the Taj Mahal is nonetheless a tomb.

What is lacking is any statement of this government on this subject. What does it have to reply to what has been said by Dr. Pearson, who is I believe the dean of science at the University of Waterloo? He states that he has never, as he was accused of doing, said that he would ensure that no married woman professor would be given tenure in his faculty, and in fairness to him that should be stated. He goes on to say: “If a woman’s other commitments in life tend to make this system work to her disadvantage, then I think we should recognize this forthwith.”

Of course it does work to her disadvantage; but I thought, and most people thought, that there was indicated in the law a statement that marital status should not be considered in hiring under the Human Rights Code. Apparently, we don’t believe it.

If this government really is concerned about the matter of the status of women it can take the first step forward and advise the colleges and universities that it is not prepared to continue funding these institutions when they are, in themselves, guilty of discrimination against women, both in their hiring or in granting tenures and in the salaries which range in various colleges, as I have it, from between $1,800 to $4,000 a year less than for men in equivalent positions.

And what about the often-given promises that this government would indeed look into the whole matter of pensions over which it has control?

Then we come to the total welfare field and the commitment of this government. The Ontario Economic Council Report No. 3, “The Evolution of Policy in Contemporary Ontario,” at page 49 states:

“Provincial gross expenditure in the area of welfare was far behind. But that makes the fact the direct federal expenditure in various income transfers to Ontario residents was nearly $1.3 billion in 1971, an amount which at that time exceeded gross Ontario government expenditures either on health or on primary and secondary education.”

And the welfare maintenance for social services has gone from 0.3 in 1946 to 0.9 in 1971.

This government has consistently and systematically attacked groups in our community to mask the inadequacies of its own programmes and used tax dollars to advertise its position. Nowhere has this been more true than in the fields of welfare and health, although teachers have seen some of this thrust.

We have heard the new Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) speak of LIP grants and, unlike the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) I would admit that I believe there were some LIP grants that I would not have funded, some LIP grants that may not have been significant. Because if we do anything, we are bound to do something wrong occasionally; it is only when we do nothing that we usually don’t make too many mistakes.

Frankly, I was bitterly disappointed that the new provincial secretary should have made such insipid statements, particularly, I suppose, since I had hoped that as a woman she might have made some more significant contribution in the field of social reform. What does she say? She says:

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

Of course, that is the rub. Because these programmes were providing some service to that sieve-like quality of maintenance in the welfare field, and of course filling gaps that are not covered by existing programmes.

She says too:

“That in order to reassure you that this is a matter of major concern to us” [that is, the multi-service approach], “we are appointing a committee to study the potential of the multi-service centre.”

Why doesn’t she just read the reports oi those very substantial people who have been concerned in this field under the LIP grant legislation? Why another committee? Well, if it is for the good of people, it is a good time to stall or to get task forces or to do something.

Then on page two of her statement she says:

“In the matter of community immigration services and information centres, both these areas are already marked, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto, by a large degree of duplication of service.”

There are at least two reports outstanding which clearly indicate that is not true.

Then we come to the statement of the work group, which while it is a Metro work group does in fact speak with the same sense of feeling that all of these people across the province feel --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): That’s right.

Mrs. Campbell: -- in dealing with this particular programme and policy.

This is what these people say. These are young people and one can make a great deal of impact on the public by what this minister did in trying to decry them, trying to denigrate them and trying to say that these young people were rather shiftless people who made a habit of trying to work their way into this kind of a job. One has to bear in mind that in this particular group one has the support of the conventional agencies, the social planning councils, the United Way and labour. All of these people have now realized from what they have seen that they are filling a very great gap in services.

Young people who are making or taking home $85 a week, I believe, without any kind of benefits -- highly trained and highly skilled and highly dedicated -- make this reply: “We are deeply disappointed at the inadequacy of Ontario policy in many areas, which not only affects emerging services but the entire community social service field.”

There is no policy or special funding for information centres after three years of study; no policy or special funding for immigrant services. I suppose we should exempt the welcome wagon that the government has taken on. There is no special funding of community managed multiservice centres. This area is to be studied further, as the minister has explained.

There is limited financing of Bill 160 for daycare co-ops but regulations are still not available after being promised 10 months ago. There is limited special assistance for community senior citizens’ services -- when one thinks of the spending we are talking about in this House, $150,000 for the whole of Ontario! There is no significant provision for increases in funding of elderly persons’ centres nor in reviewing obstacles in the current EPC funding. There are no increased uses of the Canada Assistance Plan by Ontario to acquire more federal dollars for preventive services in the community.

So they go. Finally, in refusing to change its pattern of neglect the province places the full funding burden on the more limited revenue bases of municipalities and the voluntary sector. Both these sectors are currently stretched to their financial limits in support of community social services. If this crisis is not met head-on by the province, many emerging services will die and established services will be forced to curtail their work drastically. One of the interesting things is that under this work group there have been programmes of assistance to older people and handicapped people. Because of this kind of a programme these people have been able to continue to live in their own homes, and this is what they want to do as long as they can.

Again, I would think that if you are only trying to save money in this area it’s worth thinking about because you probably won’t pay as much money to keep this kind of a programme going as you will pay to take these reluctant people and place them in nursing homes.

Why can we not learn from countries other than the United States? Sweden has looked into this principle and it has seen that you should have a multiplicity of services. But I am beginning to see that this government, by its niggardly approach, is very anxious to show people, you see, we give this money and it doesn’t change anything, we still have these people on welfare. Well, let me say that in my opinion, from what I have seen in Metropolitan Toronto, this can change if there is a sincere desire to assist people to get off welfare.

I will not support what the member for Sudbury East had to say about the support for ballet, symphony, the opera and so forth. Indeed, I would institute programmes to allow the poor to be a part of the symphony, the ballet and the opera.

I can recall some years ago when, with the wonderful support of Mr. Russell, with whom -- as the director of, I believe, ballet and opera, I’m not sure about that -- we worked out an arrangement where tickets from O’Keefe Centre were available to the people in Cabbagetown. I recall my concern on one occasion, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Russell phoned and said: “We’ve got a group of children coming down to the ballet and, Margaret, they are almost all boys.” I was a little frightened about what might happen. However, they went and I learned and Wally

Russell learned and a lot of other people learned these children were eager for this kind of an experience.

However, there is never enough room and there are never enough tickets available. But surely if we can support these major arts programmes we could find a little money available for Smile, the Inner City Angels and those groups who spend their time trying to give something to the poor and the handicapped in this province.

Surely it is still as true as it ever was that man does not live by bread alone, and that it is important that the spirit be enriched at the same time as we look at the physical and housing needs of the poor.

Incidentally, there is an organization which has come to my attention which is called PARD. I do hope there will be an eagerness in this government to support it. It is a unique organization in the whole North American continent. A group of people interested in riding, of all things, have set up a riding programme and they take our handicapped people -- the blind, the spinabifidas, and others -- out to ride. They have doctors and paramedicals there, to ensure their safety. But think of what it must do to somebody to have a sense of freedom of mobility just at least once in awhile.

I would like to refer to a couple of items in Health. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have consistently spoken of the home-care programme as a do-it-yourself medical treatment plan and I shall continue to do so until I see something done about it.

During his estimates, the former Minister of Health (Mr. Potter) referred to his meals-on-wheels programme. Frankly, I thought this was something new, but it wasn’t. Most people in Ontario, and I guess we are lucky to this extent, have learned to eat daily. They don’t budget it out. They try to eat once a day. It may not seem necessary to the government, but that is the habit the people afford.

I think of a woman in her eighties who had broken both hips, but she was no longer forced to be bedridden; she had a Victorian Order nurse and she had a physiotherapist, and then she had meals on wheels. It happened that I saw her last July. She said: “You know, I am a little concerned about one thing. During the winter I get one meal a day four days in the week, and because that meal is a pretty substantial meal I can make it spread to two. But now they tell me that during the summer they are going to cut the meals to one to two days and I am not quite sure how I am going to manage.”

What kind of provision is made in a city this size for special diets? I was up in Orillia recently and I understand that there the hospitals run this programme and they do provide, in this type of dietary concern, for individual idiosyncrasies. But that isn’t being done here.

While I am speaking about the programme I do want to express my deep appreciation for those who give of their time and talent to make the programme work to the extent that it does work. Without them I don’t know what would happen to these people.

The other matter which I wish to speak to briefly is the matter of the nursing home care. We have heard today a question and an answer involving the possible closing down of a psychiatric facility. Granted it was stated it had been considered and no decision had been made, but we do know that people are being removed from active treatment hospitals.

Why does this government not look at the situation which exists, for example in Alberta? There is recognition given there of the phasing of need in nursing care. They recognize the fact that people should be able to stay in their homes. That is covered. Then they recognize a 1.5 programme where most of the patients are ambulatory and largely independent but who require some assistance. They look at the situation of the nursing home care between the 1.5 and the 2.5 where obviously more assistance is needed.

Why have we not looked into the standard of care in nursing homes? We have heard criticism about it, but why haven’t we done anything about it? Could it be that this government has basically set them up at 2.5, and then without provision of alternatives expects them to provide, at additional cost to them but not to the government, care of those who require up to 4.6 or five hours of nursing care per day?

Is it a fact that this government is removing patients from hospitals, including psychiatric hospitals, to nursing homes, nursing homes ill prepared or equipped to receive them, to save money in the cost of the delivery of health services? These questions surely must be answered since many of the nursing homes are taking the position they have patients who require up to five hours care and they cannot get beds for them in the facilities which have to be available for that purpose.

Lastly, I would like to look for a few moments in time to the matter of housing. I have said that this government has systematically attacked groups to mask its own inadequacy. In this particular case, I wonder with horror whether this government is taking on all of the people of Ontario to serve its ends in a federal election.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) has stated that this government can do nothing to curb inflation and that only the election of Mr. Stanfield can achieve this. I believe that this government can do nothing because it does not choose to do anything. Is it perhaps actively promoting inflation? Let the record show.

This government purchased lands in Malvern some years ago, one property at $800 an acre and another at something over $1,000 an acre. The cost of servicing was $25,000, according to any figures I can get.

Incidentally, on that question, I would like an answer as to why our costs are the highest in the whole of Canada. Even in Halifax, where they are blasting rock, they don’t have the figures that we have in this cost.

However, I am informed that at the present time this government is now engaged in selling those lots at current prices. If this is so, would the government explain why this is not adding to the problem of inflation?

According to figures which have been given to Metropolitan Toronto, it is indicated that for all classes in 1971, 16.6 per cent had a family income of over $15,000 and under $25,000; 3.4 per cent had over $25,000. So, a total of 20 per cent of the population had an income of over $15,000 per annum. In Metro, 22.8 per cent were over $15,000, but we see that 63.2 per cent of families have an income under $12,000.

How have these figures affected the housing costs across the province -- that is the figures which I have given about the government’s dealing in land -- as it relates to the incomes of people in this province and their ability to purchase, or indeed to rent housing?

When answering a question of my leader (Mr. R. F. Nixon) the other day concerning the 3,000-acre purchase in the Kitchener-Waterloo area and the servicing thereof, the minister stated that that question should be addressed to the municipality, although he admitted that the purchase had been made without the knowledge of the municipality or their co-operation in future planning. So there is nothing new at all so far in the policy for servicing lots, notwithstanding the statements that are repeatedly made that in the fullness of time there will be such a statement coming forth.

The same minister is reported earlier to have said that developers would not be allowed to let farmland fall out of production, thus increasing the cost of food. Well why not, when the government consistently follows this policy? How much more farmland must be taken off the market before the people realize that this has inflated food prices and that it has been a deliberate policy?

During the Sixties we saw developers un- conscionably block-busting neighbourhoods in our cities to satisfy their own hunger and thirst for profit. This was a frightful practice. How much more so when that block-busting technique in the rural areas destroys the food production; and how much worse is it when these tactics are employed by the government itself?

Together with this, what is the land policy of this government? Last year, a property in Metropolitan Toronto was purchased for $300,000 and sold two weeks ago to a foreign investor for $1.3 million -- a cruel $1-million profit on land which our people can’t afford to buy for homes to live in.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Shame.

Mrs. Campbell: Surely there is no other country in the world which allows substantial portions of its land to go completely into foreign control. When are we going to face up to what is happening under our government policies in this area?

Mr. Gaunt: It’s going to be left to the Liberals to do it.

Mrs. Campbell: And that’s going to be the problem; by that time it may be irreversible they’ve had so much going on it

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It’ll be a busy time.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Nothing’s too big for the Liberals this afternoon. We’ll tackle it

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): The hon. member doesn’t believe that, does he?

Mrs. Campbell: In a report called “The Rent Race,” which was presented to Metropolitan Toronto and commissioned by the Social Planning Council -- and I’m sure some hon. members have at least seen it -- they say, on page 1:

“Tens of thousands of families living in Metropolitan Toronto today are caught up in what might well be termed ‘the rent race.’ Most of these people have middle incomes that at one time might have afforded a clearly adequate style of living but that are precariously low in a time of rampant inflation. Still others have low incomes that allow little or no room for increased allocation to housing. Both groups are hard-pressed by the realities of the housing market. Most know that they will never be able to afford the security of owning their own home.”

And it goes on to paint a very dismal picture of the situation here. On page 3:

“Most of the losers in the rent race are beaten before they start because of low retirement incomes, low wages, uneven employment, disability and other reasons.”

As you must be aware, Mr. Speaker, if anyone reads the Toronto newspapers -- and I think there are a few here who do -- Metropolitan Toronto council was so concerned about this report that it set aside an additional $2 million to assist those who were on municipal welfare, because the report makes it abundantly clear that these people haven’t a hope.

But, as you read the report, Mr. Speaker, just add in all those groups right up to middle income, because this report talks about people doubling up. Well let me tell you, sir, they’re doubling up like mad because they can’t afford apartment accommodation.

And we have some people who come out in the press and say those who wanted to stop apartments are the ones responsible for the housing shortage. I say this is just balderdash. You don’t have to destroy everything to provide housing. But unfortunately. again this government, awaiting the initiatives of the federal government, came into a NIP, RAP, and whatever other initial programme, certainly at a time when in this area, as I see it, it is already too late.

When you look at those pockets of blight we used to talk about, such as Trefann Court and the cost of housing there today, you have to know there is no room for the poor in areas where they used to find some shelter.

In the population figures of this report it states:

“This study focuses on social assistance families receiving major or supplementary benefits from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. In October of 1973 this population comprised approximately 15,600 families and individuals receiving general welfare assistance and 15,800 families and individuals in receipt of family benefits.”

And of course you have to know that Metropolitan Toronto is not prepared to give subsidies to those on family benefits. Their position is if the province isn’t concerned we can’t pay the money for the people who should be in their concern.

There is a devastating description in this report of substandard housing the people are forced to live in for lack of anything else. In the report they say:

“The reader should be alert to the following cautions:

“1. The assessment of housing adequacy is aimed only toward providing a general review of the adequacy of housing obtained by social assistance recipients. It is not, for example, to be confused with analyses that might be used to project housing stock requirements.

“2. Only when we present our composite index, which combines most of these data, can a clear judgement be made as to the housing quality faced by social assistance recipients. The details presented here are illuminating none the less.”

I am not going to go on into this report, much as I have been tempted to do so, and as you will see I clearly came prepared to read further excerpts. I just trust that someone over there is going to read very carefully what that report has to say.

Mr. Speaker, I am not normally a person who cries out in dramatic terms. I wish I had that sort of flair sometimes, but I honestly and sincerely believe that at this time when our middle income group is now becoming the disadvantaged poor, housing-wise, or is joining the disadvantaged housing poor, we may well think in terms of what Willy Brandt had to say about the future of our democracy and this kind of chaos. These sorts of statements, the sounding brass and the tinkling cymbal, are not going to satisfy the people of this province any longer and we can no longer permit the waste of our land and the waste of the talents of our people.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate, it is my intention to deal with a few variations on a single theme, that of the cost of living.

There is rather an interesting contrast in this country at the present time. In Ottawa, the Conservative Party poses as one deeply, almost exclusively, preoccupied with the cost of living. It has presented a rather simplistic programme but nobody is persuaded of its validity except itself and in most countries where it has been attempted it has failed. The public image is that of a party which is concerned and if it only had the power, if it hadn’t been cheated of power, it would be doing something about it. Let’s leave Ottawa to itself.

Down here we have a Conservative Party in power. The Tories have the power and what are they doing about it, Mr. Speaker? The simple answer is they’re doing virtually nothing. In addition to all of these specific instances that might be cited and which the hon. member who has just taken her seat did cite in reference to housing -- where government policy has been a thrust to the inflationary spiral -- I have been rather interested in the last few days in the reaction of the government. Periodically, when the issue of inflation and its importance has come before the House, the Premier has risen and verbally browbeaten Ottawa for not doing anything and then indicated that down here this government is doing something. In a mindless sort of way, spontaneously, there would break out applause from all the backbenches on the government side of the House.

It was rather interesting that on two occasions the Premier deigned to indicate to us what he thought this government was doing. In so doing, he borrowed from the comments of the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) whom he has seen on TV on some occasions stating, I assume, essentially what the member said in the House this morning -- namely that one of the major thrusts to inflation in this country is the excessive and growing expenditures of government. By implication, the Premier was suggesting that this government has not been contributing to inflation by excessive expenditure. Mr. Speaker, I don’t know whether wittingly or unwittingly the Premier is trying to deceive the public or if he is operating on the assumption the bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed, because just for one moment let us pause and consider what has happened during the years of this Premier’s administration. Let’s not go back any further.

In the year 1970, the budget in the Province of Ontario was $5,216 million. In the year 1971, it was $6,027 million. In the year 1972 it was $6,509 million. In the year 1973, it was $7,269 million; and I predict that when the budget comes down tomorrow the budget in the Province of Ontario will be close to, if not in excess of $8 billion.

What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It simply means that in the last three years -- three years of this administration in the 1970s -- the budget in the Province of Ontario has gone up in excess of $2 billion. Do you know what is interesting, to throw that into perspective, Mr. Speaker? The provincial budget in 1967 was just a shade under $2 billion. In other words, it took us 100 years to build a budget of $2 billion in this province and in three years of this government we’ve added that amount to it within the Province of Ontario.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): They bought their way into power with our money.

Mr. MacDonald: Look, our government expenditures are going up and I’m not so much decrying it as calling on the government and upon the Premier to cut out the blatant deception and suggestion to the people of Ontario that this government has been playing its role -- presumably in this way only -- to check inflation by not spending excessively, when in fact, Mr. Speaker, this government has boosted its budgets in a fashion that would match if not exceed those of virtually any government you want to point to.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): What’s a billion?

Mr. MacDonald: Now, Mr. Speaker, if there was any doubt there was a vacuum in government policy in this important issue all you have to do is take a look at the Throne Speech, which we are now debating.

That Throne Speech had one fleeting paragraph. Let me read that paragraph into the record again. The leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) did so in the initial response on behalf of this party; but I want to read it in again and then I want to take a good detailed look at it. It read as follows:

“While my government will employ all practical means at its disposal to alleviate the causes and effects of inflation, nevertheless it bears repeating that the problem can only be dealt with in a national context, with all governments co-operating.”

In short, Mr. Speaker, what this government is guilty of is an almost total 100 per cent cop-out. It has two sections in that paragraph. The second one is in effect saying that nothing can be done at the provincial level if the federal government isn’t willing to co-operate.

Look, obviously there has got to be co-operation between provincial and the federal government. Quite frankly, the federal government is doing more than the provincial government, primarily because of pressure from the opposition -- on occasion even from the Tories but mainly from the NDP -- so they are doing something. But this government is doing nothing; and they are doing nothing because they are in effect suggesting that it isn’t a provincial responsibility. I’m going to give specific cases later in dealing with certain themes. The government simply cops out and says “that’s a federal responsibility,” let’s just pause, Mr. Speaker, and deal with this issue of what is the constitutional responsibility of a province in this country with regard to price controls and the inflation that flows from it.

I want to quote, Mr. Speaker, because it does it so very succinctly, one paragraph from an article that appeared in the Queen’s Quarterly, winter edition, 1973, on the constitutional implications of price control legislation by Terrence Morley. It reads as follows:

“The provinces, of course, can impose price controls within their own boundaries. The British Columbia case of Home Oil Distributors Ltd. vs. Attorney General of British Columbia in 1940, SCR 444, in which it was held that a province could pass legislation fixing the wholesale and retail prices of fuel oil and gasoline, clearly implies similar provincial powers over other commodities. It is equally clear, however, that the imposition of different levels of price controls over different commodities by some, but not all provinces, would led to economic chaos and to the dismemberment of the nation.

“Moreover, in the final analysis provincial price controls might well be found to be ultra vires, since they could be said to constitute internal trade barriers which the Supreme Court recently struck down in Attorney General for Manitoba vs the Manitoba Egg Marketing Board of 1971, SCR 689.”

That’s the end of the quotation.

Now I agree, Mr. Speaker, that you can’t move in any great distance within one province in terms of price controls because you get out of step with all of the other provinces. As Mr. Morley states, that would create economic chaos; everybody concedes this.

But that’s no excuse for doing nothing at all, and that’s what this government is doing. I agree that the lawyers argue that if the province were to get into the field that then ultimately, by getting into the field, it might be interpreted that they were intervening in interprovincial trade and violating the constitution and the BNA Act.

That’s a possibility, and on rare occasions it has happened. But to use that ultimate possibility, Mr. Speaker, as an excuse for not doing anything at all, and then by not doing anything at all adopting a posture which is almost exclusively one of verbal browbeating of Ottawa, means to cop-out totally as far as the Province of Ontario is concerned.

I want to suggest that on this business of blaming Ottawa and saying you have no responsibility, there simply is no justification for it. The province has the constitutional power. There may be limitations upon which it can exercise that power, because of the intervention on interprovincial trade and because of price variations that would create economic chaos; but they have the power, and if they want Ottawa to move, surely they are going to put the pressure on Ottawa to move when they prove willingness on their part to start the whole process, to go half way, to assume their responsibility. Then they will be on firm ground in shouting and screaming politically at Ottawa to do a bit more if we really want to come to grips with this important problem of inflation.

So there is the one aspect of this sort of cop-out. However, let me deal with the second aspect, because it is even more important. That was where, in the first part of that paragraph in the Throne Speech, it said: “While my government will employ all practical means at its disposal to alleviate the causes and effects of inflation.”

“All practical means at its disposal to alleviate the causes and the effects of inflation.” Well you know, Mr. Speaker, that is just unmitigated rot.

I want to proceed with a few instances to show just how this government is doing virtually nothing; and secondly how it is ignoring other practical means that are at its disposal, that other provinces across this country are resorting to with ever greater frequency.

Let me begin by going back to the summary that the leader of the New Democratic Party made of the efforts of one minister -- this is my first point -- the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) after he got into this whole exercise about last August or September when there was a great public furor burst upon this nation because of rising prices. Indeed the questions, rather embarrassing questions, were put to the Premier when he was down in Charlottetown at the Premiers’ conference, and he said he was going to speak to the minister.

The minister said he was going to call in the top brass of the supermarkets, and one got the impression that, boy the show was really on the road. But what we got, as usual from this government, was a conference, a food conference to look into conflicts.

No, there were no prayers about it at all, may I say, to the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. R. G. Hodgson) I think it is. As a matter of fact, if it had been prayers it might have been more useful than what did go on at the conference. Because out of the conference emerged a lot of promises and suggestions about what the ministry was going to do.

As I said, the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis), the New Democratic leader, referred to these. Just let me recall them to the House. The minister promised a business practices Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices. Where is it? We haven’t seen it yet.

He promised that the courts would be given power to rule on what were unconscionable profits. Well where is it? We’ve had no legislation on that level.

Third, he would explore cease and desist orders in case of unconscionable prices. Well where is the legislation? This is an urgent problem. Eight months have gone by. The minister is ruminating. Nothing is happening. We have no legislation.

Fourth, he would arm the government with authority to act against food hoarding, speculating, profiteering and fraud. Oh boy, he was huffing and puffing those days. He was really going to scare every wolf out of the free-enterprise patch, so to speak.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): He was reading the member’s old speeches.

Mr. MacDonald: But there was nothing done and there has been nothing done. It’s huffing and puffing and nothing more.

Finally, he was going to monitor regional price disparities. He was going to find out why you had these price disparities and he was going to document them, and indeed as of about two weeks ago he said the report was going to come into the House. He told us a week ago Friday that it was going to be in this past week.

I sent a note over to him last Monday saying: “When will it be in?” He said: “Thursday.” Well Thursday has gone and Friday has gone and the weekend has gone. We are back to Monday and we still haven’t got the report. In other words, we have had an absolute blank. A great deal of bluffing and a great deal of bluster, but we have had nothing from this whole ministry, which presumably is the ministry within this government which is designed to protect the consumer.

I was hoping I was going to have his report on some examination of pricing procedures in the supermarkets so that I might be able to deal with it. In the absence of the report I want to make a few comments to the minister and to the House. With regard to this very difficult problem of how one copes with pricing in the supermarkets and so on.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a tendency, and quite frankly I think maybe in the New Democratic Party we are guilty of it too, to speak too exclusively --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: That’s for sure.

Mr. MacDonald: The member doesn’t even know what I’m talking about. He mindlessly started supporting the Premier when he said nothing. He supports me before I’ve spoken.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I agree with the member.

Mr. MacDonald: Well it’s ill advised; just wait till I speak.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Sure, when he is wrong.

Mr. MacDonald: Just wait till I speak.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Don’t trust him.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Is the member for Victoria-Haliburton still waiting on the call for parliamentary assistant?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: No, I am not.

Mr. MacDonald: What I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, was there has perhaps been undue attention focused on the profits of the supermarkets. The profits of the supermarkets aren’t inconsequential. The very fact that they got away from what is the normal and the legitimate standards of measuring profits, namely the profit one has based on the equity capital one puts into it and have now come up with this gimmick that their profits are a cent or a cent and a quarter or three-quarters of a cent on each dollar of the turnover when they’ve got such a massive turnover, is an indication they are trying to camouflage the size of their profits.

Mr. Speaker, the important thing about the operation of modem supermarket retailing isn’t just the profits. It is, firstly, the amount of money the consumer pays to engage in this rather futile, uneconomic, wasteful exercise of advertising for a purpose which is completely different from advertising in days gone by. And I’ll deal with that in a bit more detail in a moment.

And secondly, there is the amount of the consumer dollar that is spent in all manner of gimmickry and excessively plush, affluent kinds of facilities for which the consumer is paying.

Those three ingredients, not just profits, represent the kind of gouging by the supermarket which also serves their other purposes, namely to kill off virtually all other competition, particularly the independent.

I don’t know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have had a chance to read two of the articles on the cost of food in the current issue of Maclean’s Magazine, the April, 1974, issue of Maclean’s Magazine. There is one article by Walter Stewart in which he traces the fascinating history of the development of Safeway’s in western Canada. Incidentally, before I go any further, he points out that Safeway’s, which has even cleaned out many other supermarkets in western Canada, is moving into northwestern Ontario with about 16 outlets and is gradually moving down this way. So this is going to be our problem as well as its manifestations in western Canada already.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): They have one in Oshawa.

Mr. MacDonald: They have one in Oshawa already? Maybe that’s one of the 16.

He traces and studies the development of Safeway’s in western Canada and how they achieved their particular position. Mr. Speaker, let me quote to give you the flavour and the substance, just two or three paragraphs.

“What all this suggests for the consumer is that the cutthroat competition which supermarkets so anxiously tell us about is not likely in the long run to bring food prices down. In the shuffle for position among the food giants, the chief casualties are the independents. The net result of price wars appears to be to cripple the independents and transfer the cost of the campaign against them on to everybody else’s grocery bill.”

Here is a third quotation. In fact, this is a quotation credited to Prof. R. E. Owley, vice-president of Consumers’ Association of Canada, who drew the moral. I quote:

“Advertising by food chains and price wars are a sign of oligopoly not competition. These rivalries result in self-cancelling advertising that result in almost exclusive emphasis on very shiny war-located retail store premises whose costs are borne by the consumer.”

A little earlier in this article Walter Stewart quotes Eric Blackman, who is Safeway’s merchandising chief, and Blackman wanted to make one thing perfectly clear. I quote: “What they were charging us with -- ” -- I should intervene, Mr. Speaker, to say that this quote is made in the context of the Federal Combines Commission having laid a charge and taken the store to court for being in the combine. He said, “What they were charging us with was standard business practice and nothing immoral or illegal.”

In other words what we have in the instance of Safeway, Mr. Speaker -- and the history is there to be seen and the consequences are there to be seen in western Canada -- is the operations of a company operating not in violation of the tenets of free enterprise but untrammelled free enterprise; which stomped on the opposition, which indulged in cutthroat procedures until it got rid of the opposition and then would increase its prices.

When, for example, studies were made and they found that Safeway was charging more in those areas which were the poor areas of some of the western cities in Canada, they didn’t deny it. They said they weren’t charging more because they happened to be the poor areas; they were charging more because there was no competition there and therefore the market was free to be gouged.

Fewer stores will go into the poorer areas. Safeway goes in because it knows it will have less competition. It doesn’t even have to spend money to kill the competition. It just gouges the market and the fact that it happens to be the poorer people of the city is of no particular concern to them.

Mr. Speaker, what I am telling you is not new. I have here in my hand a copy of the report of the royal commission on consumer problems in inflation which was conducted and reported on in 1968 for the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. In that there is documentation of the operation and the consequences of the operation, in terms of higher cost to the consumers, of retailing in western Canada.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, those retailers who dominated the scene in western Canada are now moving into Ontario. If the Tories want, let me borrow that phrase again, “practical means to alleviate the causes and effects of inflation,” they have a prescription of practical means in that particular area. All they have to do is to apply it to the conditions in Ontario; and indeed if they don’t apply it Safeway and some of the boys are going to apply it and give them an illustration of it right there.

However, Mr. Speaker, that is only part of the story --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Are they leaving those NDP provinces already?

Mr. MacDonald: Pardon?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: They are not leaving those NDP provinces already, are they?

Mr. Havrot: They sure are.

Mr. MacDonald: The member should wait until they have a chance to do something about it out there, which they are proceeding with now.

Mr. Havrot: They’re leaving Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Mr. MacDonald: The member shouldn’t hold his breath. However I want to come back home.

Mr. Havrot: Like rats on a sinking ship.

Mr. MacDonald: I have in my hand a document which I have referred to with increasing frequency during the past year because it is an Ontario document. It is a document, research report No. 14, of the special committee on farm incomes, which was, if I recall correctly, The Challenge of Abundance, tabled in January, 1969 or 1970. This research report deals with wholesaling and retailing of food in Ontario. It was done by William Janssen, who by no strange coincidence has since risen and is now a Deputy Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba. It was also done by a man by the name of Harry Weijs -- I don’t know the correct pronunciation -- who happens to be today one of the top partners in Topecon, agricultural consultants here in the city of Toronto. I will come back to him a minute or so later.

Let me give you some very brief quotations out of this, Mr. Speaker, to show you what I am drawing to the attention of the minister, who is going to bring down a report which I am almost dead certain in advance will be a vacuous report of certain discrepancies that he can’t do anything about.

He can’t do anything about it, because he isn’t willing and able to make a fundamental attack and recognize that this is a very bizarre operation -- the free enterprise system at its very worst.

What has got to be done is to have governments move in and civilize them, because free enterprisers without some regulations are the most uncivilized and ruthless characters in the world. That’s the way the system operates.

Okay, one or two quotations from this report of 1969, prepared as a study paper for a report to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) here in the Province of Ontario. On page 11: “Competition among supermarkets has taken on a form that is essentially different from price competition.” On page 12, and this is a quotation, interestingly enough, from the Canadian Grocer of June, 1968, by O. E. Olley, “Inflation of Frills Has Brought Constant Public Scrutiny.” The paragraph that is quoted from his article in the Canadian Grocer is this:

“For large-scale advertising to work, the buyer must be only partially informed about the nature of what he is buying and the products must be complex enough so that the precise evaluation is not possible. These conditions are perfectly met by grocery re- tailing.”

Just let me pause and paraphrase, Mr. Speaker. What in effect he is saying is that the purpose of advertising isn’t to inform the prospective consumer or purchaser, rather it is to partially inform him so that he can’t evaluate precisely the product. It is a deliberate and calculated confusing of the issue rather than the clarification of it.

I go on to the next page:

“In essence, variable-price merchandising involves the simultaneous and sequential manipulation of selected prices upwards and downwards in order to draw attention to the market offerings of the firm and to differentiate them from those of the competitors.”

In other words, Mr. Speaker, what the advertising is doing is deliberately manipulating prices up and down and then trying to persuade the public by partial information -- by deception -- that they have got a bargain. But they can’t assess it in any precise way, because the purpose of the advertising is that they shall not be able to assess it. I continue:

“It is commonly accepted that the price of an item bears some definite relationship to its cost, as it would if a standard mark-up were employed. This is no longer valid for items sold in the supermarkets. The advantages to the supermarkets of this type of pricing policy are quite clear. If they were to operate with set price lists, consumers would have the opportunity of making comparisons over extended periods of time and of discovering the stores which, for their particular needs, were most economical.”

But you see, Mr. Speaker, that’s precisely what the supermarkets don’t want -- that the public can find out what they are offering at a price and come to a conclusion. So they come to a conclusion in this study:

“The best price mix for the store would be a minimum of strategic items at lower prices to attract the customers, and a maximum of higher-priced items to increase the profits.”

The point I am making, Mr. Speaker, is this. If this government or any government, including the NDP governments out in western Canada, is going to do anything about what has now been documented quite a number of times -- that the net effect of the operation of the supermarkets in their pursuit of the so-called free enterprise approach is to establish a monopoly or at least an oligopoly, to destroy their competitors, and to do it by cut-throat procedures and advertising and gimmickry, all of which is taken out of the consumer’s dollar, and then when it’s ended, they are in a position to charge what they please -- if the government is going to clean up that kind of situation, it has got to have the courage to make a fresh, new start.

And the government is not going to be able to do it within the legalities of the Combines Act; it may be able to make some measure of progress but not too much, as events have already proven, because all one has got to do is get, really, a rather mediocre lawyer and one can tie that up in trying to match reality with the law.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Maybe they should change the Act.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is right. And I noticed with what alacrity and detail the Tories did it when Diefenbaker was in power. And I notice with what alacrity and detail the Liberals are doing it now that they are in power.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How far back does the member want to go in history?

Mr. MacDonald: That is far enough. I’ve got both parties in the same bag at the same time -- and it’s the right bag for both of them on this issue. They won’t change it.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Where they rightfully belong.

Mr. MacDonald: Right.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: What bag?

Mr. Deans: It wouldn’t even require a large bag to get them in, they are so close together.

Mr. MacDonald: Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps before we can move to get legislation -- and I look forward with great interest to what this minister is going to bring in now that he has had all this eight months of study; that’s a long enough gestation period for production. We will see what he produces.

My guess is the mountain is going to produce a mouse, but let me not prejudge it.

All I am saying is that before the government is able to move it may have to get some more facts about the conditions in the Province of Ontario. And that brings us back to the basics as far as our policy in the New Democratic Party is concerned in the Province of Ontario. The only way we are going to get the basics is to set up some kind of prices review board; and not a strait jacket that is going to impose price and wage controls for an alleged 90-day period -- that kind of simplistic nonsense nobody, including many who are promoting it, will believe. We need a prices review board that can zero in on the obvious cases of exorbitant pricing, smoke them out, get the facts, provide them to the public and, where necessary, have the legislative power to impose rollbacks.

That, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, in the phraseology of the Throne Speech, is a practical means at the disposal of this government to alleviate some of both the causes and the effects of inflation. And that’s point one, which I draw to the attention of the minister, where the government has copped out completely.

Let me move to the second point, which is in the field of agriculture. I was very interested early in March, when the Legislature resumed, to draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food that the four western Premiers had met and decided, at the end of their conference, that they were going to establish a prices review mechanism to look into the pricing procedures of two of the major farm inputs, namely fertilizer and farm machinery.

I had to remind the Minister of Agriculture and Food, because he had momentarily forgotten, that while the Premiers of three of those provinces in western Canada are NDP -- and therefore it’s not surprising that they are moving -- the fourth one, who presumably is moving with equal enthusiasm, happens to be Peter Lougheed, who is a Tory; and each of these governments is now moving to establish a prices review mechanism.

The minister here said they had an alternative approach; they were going to call a conference down at the Four Seasons Hotel, and it was held the following week. Well, Mr. Speaker, of all the futile exercises, that conference took the cake. All it did was to prove what everybody knew before the conference was held, namely that there is a desperate and growing shortage of fertilizer and that the companies are using that shortage to boost prices and to rip off farmers, even those who aren’t able to get a portion of the fertilizer they need.

So when I pursued this once again with the minister, and asked; “What are you going to do about it?” he said in effect that he didn’t know what could be done about it; in short this government is going to do nothing. Well, again for the benefit of the minister -- in fact, before I get into that, let me draw to the attention of the House the comments of Farm and Country magazine. Now Farm and Country is perhaps the most --

Mr. Deans: Most Socialist magazine.

Mr. MacDonald: -- the most well-read and perhaps the most authoritative farm magazine in the Province of Ontario. I wish on occasion it wouldn’t operate as though it were a sort of company sheet of the government -- a sort of in-plant sheet, so to speak -- but on this occasion when it is as critical as this, one can come to the conclusion the criticism is really doubly valid.

On the front page of the March 26 issue, they refer to this conference that was held under the sponsorship -- at what cost, who knows? -- of the Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food. Let me read four paragraphs:

“Edward Thompson, a Guelph area cash cropper, fertilizer dealer and active Ontario Federation of Agriculture member, broke up the recent National Fertilizer Conference with his accusation that the meeting was a whitewash. The speakers had repeatedly told the 180 delegates present that farmers everywhere will have serious problems finding enough fertilizer for the next three years. No farmer organization was asked to present a brief or even comment on the speakers’ statements. Question periods were minimal.

“‘There’s no fertilizer crisis in Canada,’ Thompson explained. ‘I sat at the meeting for a day and a half and listened to 26 speakers all from the government and the fertilizer industry, while they justified their positions!’

“After Thompson slammed the meeting for making no real effort to solve the fertilizer supply situation, he was supported by OFA president, Gordon Hill, National Farmers’ Union vice president, Walter Miller, and Christian Farmers’ Federation president Martin Verkuyl.”

Well, there you have it, Mr. Speaker, All farm organizations in effect saying that it was a whitewash and a useless gesture. And what’s going to happen? The government isn’t going to do anything.

Well, again by way of suggesting that maybe this is a practical means at their disposal, may I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, another study that is being done in western Canada. Fertilizer Marketing, Manitoba, came out about three weeks ago. It happens to be a study done by that company I referred to earlier, Topecon, which is a Toronto-based company.

The major person involved in the study, which was really a royal commission, was that Harry Weijs I referred to who happened to be a co-author with William Janssen in the earlier document, that special study on wholesaling and retailing food prices in Ontario. In short, he knows Ontario and he knows the agricultural industry. But he was asked to do a special study of the situation in Manitoba.

And you know, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know to what extent those conditions out there apply here in Ontario, but I have a healthy suspicion, which I will insist in sticking to until I have some evidence that they don’t apply in Ontario. And what were the conditions in western Canada?

First, they confessed they were guilty of price manipulation. I’m sorry, I should have mentioned that the major focus was not only on Cominco and one or two other major manufacturers of fertilizer, but on Simplot, a plant in Brandon, Manitoba, which is a subsidiary of an American plant making fertilizer. It was a plant, incidentally, which was built through the Manitoba Development Corp. providing $23 million in loans and the federal government providing $5 million in grants in order to provide Manitoba with an adequate supply of fertilizer at reasonable prices. That’s the bit of background that I should have given members so they might grasp the significance of the royal commission conclusions.

Simplot conceded they were guilty of price manipulation. They conceded they engaged in price discrimination. They admitted what had really provoked the study in the first place; namely that they were selling Manitoba manufactured fertilizer cheaper in the United States than they were to Canadians, in spite of the fact that the plant was built with $28 million in Canadian public funds or grants.

They gave no valid explanation for the fact that one of the stipulations in that agreement that the Manitoba Development Corp. had signed with Simplot was that the parent company in the United States would have available an assured supply of phosphoric acid and other necessary ingredients for making phosphate fertilizer. In 1971 the plant in the United States cut off these supplies to the Canadian plant, and as the report said, they got rather fuzzy and vague explanations as to why.

But finally, and most important, Mr. Speaker, this plant, Simplot -- privately owned ostensibly, but built with such a chunk of the public funds -- along with all of the three or four other plants in western Canada that are privately owned, in the private sector, are all part of a marketing zone that includes American fertilizer plants in the states just south of the border below the three western provinces. They document in this report the price manipulation, the price discrimination, the selling at lower prices to Americans of Canadian-produced fertilizer -- all of these practices within a zone that takes in Canada and the adjoining northern part of the United States.

Now, Mr. Speaker, can you assure me that kind of thing isn’t going on in the Province of Ontario? Of course you can’t. In fact the odds that it is are very high. The boundary is invisible as far as these boys are concerned. They may be an American company ostensibly and a Canadian company ostensibly, but they will get together and they will carve out a zone that spans the border and in which they are manipulating and engaging in discriminatory pricing practices. I am convinced it is going on in the Province of Ontario.

And if this government wants -- I cite as a second case -- a practical means of prevention at its disposal, let it follow the example of the four western provinces and move in with some kind of a price review mechanism, at least on these isolated two major farm inputs that contribute so much to farm costs. Let them get out the facts, and then when they have got the facts perhaps even they will screw up their courage sufficiently that they will pass legislation to roll back prices and to call a halt to the unconscionable gouging that is going on.

That’s the second point. Let me move on to the third.

The role of the energy board --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I should point out to the hon. member that it is my understanding that there is going to be a private members’ hour at 5 o’clock. This might be an appropriate place for the hon. member to move adjournment.

Mr. MacDonald: Well Mr. Speaker, I have to state that I have another commitment outside the House. I can’t get away; I have to speak to the farmers of Oxford county, and I know my hon. friend there would be deeply hurt if I didn’t go out there. I have given you a taste of what can be given and I shall have to leave the remainder of it for a later date.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have further comments?

Mr. MacDonald: I have many further comments, but I shall not have the opportunity to give them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let him send them over to me and I will make them for the hon. member.

Mr. Deans: Perhaps the member for Scar- borough Centre would allow him to continue for another 15 minutes?

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, if he needs four or five minutes more he can cut into my time if he wishes.

Mr. MacDonald: No, I can’t do it in four or five minutes.

Look, I don’t want to impose on the rules of the House, if the rules of the House are such. All I have done is begin to document what is a yawning case of this government’s inaction in the field where there are a lot of practical things that can be done.

Mr. Speaker: Then do I understand the hon. member for York South correctly that he would have further remarks but that he cannot make them in view of other commitments after the conclusion?

Mr. MacDonald: You understand, with your normal perception and precision, sir.

Hon. Mr. Grossman moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: RIGHTS OF LABOUR ACT

Mr. Drea moves second reading of Bill 15, An Act respecting the Rights of Labour.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough Centre.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, it is with some degree of sadness that I introduce this bill because it represents, unfortunately, a rather complex time in our heritage of industrial democracy. By the very introduction of this bill it is apparent that the traditional role of the free trade union in our society has been unable to cope with some of the recent innovations in that industrial society and that is, to wit, the crook.

Mr. Speaker, I wish that I did not have to introduce a bill called An Act respecting the Rights of Labour. I would prefer that the labour movement collectively could deal with the abuses by the minority of that movement by its own action. If I thought that the ethical practices committee of the Canadian Labour Congress could deal with certain situations, I would not introduce this bill. Unfortunately, by default they have shown that they cannot. If I thought that the Ontario Federation of Labour, through internal discipline, could deal with the type of situation that I am concerned about, then once again I would not have introduced this bill.

Perhaps it is expecting too much for organizations that are essentially voluntary, for organizations that have had a difficult and occasionally insurmountable struggle, to achieve respectability. By respectability, I mean the right to carry on their affairs without harassment from a law and order society. I suppose it might be asking a bit too much of them now to have the type of stringent internal discipline that would enable them to clean up the minority.

Mr. Speaker, there are very many fine unions in this province. In fact, I would say to you, sir, that at least 95 per cent of the people who are engaged in full-time or voluntary union activity in this province are the type of people that you and I would be very proud to take home to dinner on Sunday.

Unfortunately, and particularly in the last few years, there has evolved a new concept of unionism, albeit by a minority, that unionism is a business.

We have seen the rise of such business unionists as the unlamented Hal Chamberlain Banks. We have seen, in our own area of southern Ontario, the rise of a great number of people into the labour movement. Unfortunately, they have not gone into the labour movement for the same things that motivated people a generation or so ago. We have seen in our own construction industry, here in southern Ontario, a rather sordid parade of so-called union leaders whose only goal was to enrich themselves at the expense of the people they were sworn to protect.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the type of legislation I am proposing here today is more necessary today than ever before, because we in this country, and particularly in Ontario, have virtually an open door for immigration. Many of the abuses concern labour organizations that deal almost exclusively, when it comes to membership, with people who have one thing in common; that is, their inability to speak English or to know the laws and the rights of this province.

I think it is particularly wilful of a person who takes advantage of a name and a heritage as honourable as that of the trade union movement and then uses it to line his own pockets while denying any form of justice to those who are compelled to belong to his organization as the price of keeping their job.

Mr. Speaker, in the last few years in this Legislature we have heard about violence. We have heard about union leaders whose biggest asset is the number of bodyguards they have. We have heard about loans to union officers from companies they were dealing with. We have heard about loans to union officials from unions and from their own treasuries. We have heard about special favours. We have heard about special vacations. We have heard about a great number of irregularities.

In short, Mr. Speaker, we now have a problem in industrial society in Ontario where there is a desperate need for regulation of the minority that is threatening to erode all the decent concepts of trade unionism in this province. I say to you if there was only one man or so who was taking a bribe, because that is what all of those loans and favours and vacations and trips and houses and what have you are, if there was only one or two taking a bribe and it was roundly condemned by the rest of the movement, then, Mr. Speaker, perhaps a bill or some type of enforcement would not be necessary.

It pains me a great deal that this type of thing goes on and the criticism does not come publicly from within the labour movement -- not that the majority of men and women in the labour movement in this province are anything but honest and honourable. I suggest to you, sir, the system has tied them so much hand and foot that they are unable to criticize others. By the very fact that that system denies them the right to discipline the bad apples, the crooks, the hangers-on and those who would exploit a man or a woman who cannot understand English so that they might have a better position in society themselves, I suggest to you Mr. Speaker, the time has come to look very inwardly into that type of system.

I remember the former Provincial Secretary for Justice, Mr. A. F. Lawrence, and the dreadful dilemma he was in. As the law enforcement officer for the province, did he send the police out fully equipped, and I’m not talking in terms of revolvers or billy clubs or anything like that -- and enable them to use all of the tools at their disposal to find out those who were using unions as a racket base? The dreadful dilemma, Mr. Speaker, is that in a free society what happens when you send the police out into the internal operations of one of the integral parts of industrial democracy, is that when you get to that point you are getting perilously close to trade unionism as it exists from the Rio Grande down through South America. You can understand the very painful position that the police have. When bribes and so forth are reported to them, how far can they go?

Mr. Speaker, the very content of this bill is to recognize that these are not, at least in the first instance, a matter of police responsibility. Rather I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, they are a matter for the particular branch of government that is most concerned with working people, and that is the Ministry of Labour in this province.

You will note that in this Act there is a preamble. That is by deliberate design for, after all, the Labour Relations Act of this province contains a preamble, and so does much of the labour legislation that we pass in this province. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is there for a reason, because this government is very cognizant of the rights of working people. When we are going to change or alter those rights --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Why is the member for Scarborough Centre bringing the bill in instead of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon)?

Mr. Drea: What is the member for Rainy River’s problem today?

Mr. Reid: Why is the member bringing in the bill instead of the Minister of Labour? Is he at all concerned about it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): That is a very good question.

Mr. Drea: I really still haven’t followed all of that, but we’ll get around to it.

Mr. Lawlor: Answer that question.

Mr. Drea: I will, if I could understand the question and members give the time on this. What is the question?

Mr. Reid: The member is saying that the government is so concerned about these things. Why then isn’t the Minister of Labour bringing in the bill?

Mr. Drea: The member might be very surprised about what the Minister of Labour does with this bill.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The member is just jumping the gun.

Mr. Reid: I’d be surprised if he did anything.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the hon. member has the floor.

Mr. Drea: Coming from the party the members do, I can understand their surprise at any kind of action at all, other than quoting inaccurate figures.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying about the preamble to this, this government is very cognizant of the rights of working people --

Mr. Lawlor: That remark wasn’t worthy of the member.

Mr. Drea: -- unlike certain other parties, which have attempted over the years to rather ruthlessly deny it, even to the point of using tanks. And that is why the preamble, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the principle of part I, the principle of the definition of an associate, is very essential to any kind of unravelling of the insider operations, because after all, if one is to become a labour racketeer, it is like becoming any other type of racketeer; one does not go out and take up a billboard and disclose how they are getting their finances.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): That’s good old Toryism -- good old Toryism.

Mr. Drea: It is concealed, it is hidden through sons or daughters, wives, bank accounts in other communities, relatives, and so on and so forth.

I think that one of the questions that has been raised in the past is the inability of anyone to define the particular kind of insider relationship that exists within those who have adopted the occupation of labour racketeer or labour gangster. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you the definition in part I that fits insider trading within the meaning of the Ontario Securities Act certainly should be sufficient for any type of insider operation within a trade union.

I very seldom agree with the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), but about a year ago he said something. He said there are crooked unions and there are good unions in this province; the crooked ones need regulation. There are crooked companies and there are good companies in this province; the crooked companies need regulation. That is what I have attempted to do in this particular bill.

I have attempted to make it a balance. Because, 1 suggest to you, in industrial relations, for every union racketeer there is a management racketeer, although, unfortunately the management racketeer hides himself behind the name of consultant, or what have you, and somehow his activities never generate either the publicity or the revulsion that associated with those of the union gangster.

I think there is good reason for that. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we must recognize that people expect more of their union representatives than they do of the boss, and while they are perfectly prepared to admit that the boss may hire a never-ending series of rather peculiar people of dubious reputation, they do not expect their union leaders to behave in that way. After all, there is a fundamental difference between the two. A union official is elected, or at least should be elected, and perhaps later in this session, Mr. Speaker, since I have another train of thought concerning union elections, we might very well get into how some of these people are elected and how they seem to stay in office.

It’s rather a remarkable thing, Mr. Speaker, there are some very good union leaders who I have known who have not been able to stay in office, or they have been defeated after one term or two, and I thought they did a pretty good job. Yet I see people who have negotiated wage cuts for five, six or seven years in a row, and somehow they stay in office; and perhaps later in the session, Mr. Speaker, I may have something to bring to bear upon that situation.

Mr. Speaker, passing on to the principle of part III, this, I suggest to you, comes to the very crux of the matter. I believe that the full glare of public opinion is the one area where we can focus the maximum amount of scrutiny upon this type of thing, short of bringing us back to the old police days when there were massive dossiers and so forth on virtually every union leader and every type of person in the field of labour relations in this province. I don’t want that. That is why I have gone to some lengths to try and produce an effort whereby these things will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Labour.

The Minister of Labour will have powers to act, and the availability of the Minister of Labour will have powers to act, and the availability of the Minister of Labour will be open to the individual trade union member. Furthermore, there will be a lot more than the basic protection we have now because the only protection we have now is that upon request an audited statement of the union’s activities will be presented to the member.

The mind boggles at the prospect of a man or a woman who has been in this country a couple of years being told his or her basic protection against the kind of person I am talking about is an audited statement. The audited statement hasn’t been a protection for many shareholders over the years until we brought in some rather rigid company laws. The audited statement isn’t much of a protection unless there is very tough regulation.

The section on disclosure and reporting, Mr. Speaker, is a very simple chronology of all the things involving finances which the labour organization or, more particularly, the full-time person in a labour organization is doing including what I suggest might be the most important one which is No. 13, the issuance of work permits. Why is it that in Toronto so many people who can’t speak English have only a work permit which is non-renewable? Why is it so many people who speak English seem to have a full-time competency card? Mr. Speaker, why is it that in the Province of Quebec, when they get into the James Bay problem, they are going to find out about the issuance of work permits -- who got them, who paid for them, and a lot of other things that nobody wants to admit are behind some of the things which took place?

One doesn’t send muscle into a place unless there is a need for it and unless the financial concerns warrant it. I suggest right now that muscle for unions is coming at a pretty high premium.

I don’t think that disclosure by those in a trade union is enough. I think there is an onus upon management, particularly the kind of management which would betray the Minister of Labour in this province, the kind of management there is at Artistic Woodwork. Artistic Woodwork didn’t tell the Minister of Labour in this province that it had a company spy on the other side. Artistic Woodwork didn’t say exactly what that man was doing.

Supposedly it came to the Minister of Labour in this province with clean hands and said, “Settle our strike. We are at the mercy of the union and the picket line.” But it didn’t say it had a man on the picket line. In retrospect, how much longer did he keep that picket line operative than if he had not been there?

Mr. Reid: What about the man from the labour union?

Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think one can come to terms with the rise of the private detective industry in this province, particularly as regards labour relations, by trying to legislate them away from the strike.

I think a far simpler way is we say to management that when it hires a consultant or a private detective or a special person who has anything to do with the collective bargaining process -- and collective bargaining, one will notice in the definition, is not from the time of the first contract but from the time the first card is signed -- if he has anything to do with the operations of the union during any or all of that time, management files with the Minister of Labour his name, his salary and what he is supposed to be doing.

Then we shall see how many of these people are down on picket lines and how many of them are in the restaurant when people start to sign cards --

Mr. Gisborn: What does one do with the information when the minister has got it? Let everybody have a look at it?

Mr. Drea: Yes.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Why not forbid it?

Mr. Drea: Because I don’t think by forbidding it we come to the roots of the problem. I think we get too tied up in property rights and an awful lot of other things which perhaps the member and I don’t find very important but which somehow come to an impasse in law. I say to my friend, who is from Hamilton East and has had a lot more experience than I have, I think having it in the newspapers that so-and-so has hired four people to break up the union, and the total aggregate salary is $40,000 a year will, I suggest to you, sir, have more value than a blanket prohibition.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to you that I have tried to balance this. I realize that we are into a complex, complicated and frankly often peculiar time of industrial relations in this province. I think, Mr. Speaker, to weight the scales too much on one side or attempt to remedy so much that everything came over, I don’t think that that is the answer.

Neither, sir, do I think that a patchwork piece of legislation that tries to attack a single problem is the answer. I suggest to you that the outline of regulations and the vast new powers for the Minister of Labour are far more preferable than having an anti-labour racketeering police squad.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, finally and in all sincerity that there are tens of thousands of people out there who are not fortunate enough to belong to organizations like the Steelworkers or the Auto Workers. Unfortunately, the system within the labour movement often consigns them to unions they want nothing to do with and there is nothing that you or I could do about it because that is the labour union set up in this country.

I suggest to you, sir, that they are looking for someone who will at least champion their cause; for someone who will at least give them some of the weapons they need to combat the inroads of labour racketeering that now mean that instead of a union that will be a benefit to them, it is a union that is a benefit to someone who can put down on an application form: Last occupation, union gangster.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill being debated this afternoon, a private member’s bill sponsored by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, has indicated that not all is well within labour in Ontario. Certain unions have not been above board. I suppose the intent of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the necessary steps to eliminate or prevent improper practices on the part of labour organizations or activities in Ontario.

As I go deeper into the bill, Mr. Speaker, I find that it is perhaps drafted rather hastily. It doesn’t cover everything, but I suppose it follows the principle of the Labour Management Reporting and Disclosure Act passed by the United States government in 1959. That Act, Mr. Speaker, is to:

“Provide for the reporting and disclosure of certain financial transactions or administrative practices of labour organizations and employees to prevent abuses in the administration by trustees of labour organizations and to provide with respect to the election of officers in labour organizations and for other purposes.”

Now, I suppose if one looks at the principle of the bill here and goes into detail in the bill this afternoon, Bill 15, in comparison the American bill provides: Title one: The bill of rights of a member of labour organization. Title two: Reporting by labour organization officers and employees of labour organizations and employees. Title three: Trusteeship. Title four: Elections. Title four: Safeguards for labour organizations. Title five: Miscellaneous provisions.

I think I can quite agree with the hon. member for Scarborough Centre that there is corruption and illegal practices within the unions themselves. I speak not perhaps as a member of that particular union, but I am talking about a particular trade union, the AFL trades. I was a member of the CIO-AFL, if you want to put it that way, but it was the United Steelworkers of America.

I can recall many instances in my working days when we would walk into a certain plant to do a particular job of construction, either putting up the building or putting up pipelines -- you just name it, it was there -- but I know in certain instances that because we didn’t belong to this union, we were denied the right of employment. I have seen instances where plants have been shut down because we didn’t belong to the particular union, or the threat was there that “if you don’t pull this group of men out the plant will shut down and we will put up a picket line” and so forth.

I believe, looking at it from a union angle, that the union member himself can do more than the union agent or his organization; and if they attended the union meetings, they wouldn’t have these kinds of corruption and malpractices in the labour field. The simple reason may be -- and the hon. member made a good point -- that those of ethnic origin, through some problem of speech, perhaps can’t understand some of the rules. I quite agree with him on that; it is quite true that this does happen in the industry. I think the fault again lies with the Minister of Labour, who perhaps should produce some type of information or literature to inform those persons of their rights.

The bill itself, Mr. Speaker, perhaps jumps the gun. We know that hearings have been held on organized crime in labour in Ontario, and I believe that much of the intent of this bill is to perhaps jump in right off the bat and perhaps is guessing what this report will bring down. I am sure it is going to bring down some recommendations, and perhaps they will be along the lines of the labour bill that was passed in the United States in 1959.

I know that there is a certain amount of blacklisting going on in the hiring halls of unions today. I have had persons come to my place and tell me this, and I have said, “Well, put it in writing.” And they have said, “If I put it in writing, I’ll never get a job again. I know of cases where persons have been asked to pay a substantial amount of money to get a job.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter here. I won’t give the name of the person, but he came to my office here back in December. He is a little Italian fellow who was concerned about the crime hearings being held here in Ontario. He came into my office a couple of times; I know he went around to other members, who perhaps didn’t listen to him -- but I listened to him. I thought that what he told me had quite a bit of truth in it.

What he told me was happening at the union halls was that if he got up and said anything at the union hall, he would be slapped down if he wasn’t going along with what the agent had said. He informed me that if he wanted a job, it cost him $100 every time they sent him out to get a different job. And it was reported from one of the crime hearings -- and I can’t recall his name -- that one union agent had some $17,000 that he couldn’t account for. This fellow who came to my office told me, “The agent has got some of my $100 bills in the $17,000 that he couldn’t account for.”

He went on to tell me that job after job had cost him $100, and he had complained about it at a union meeting. Do you know what happened to this gentleman, Mr. Speaker? For some unknown reason, he had an industrial accident. He told me, “I know somebody was on this scaffold with me. I was bending down, finishing my work” [he’s a cement finisher], “and I felt the person on the scaffold. When I stood up, the safety chain at the back was gone, and he was gone too.” When he came into mv office he was crippled on one side and could hardly speak. This is the kind of activity that is going on in many of these unions today. But I know there is a sledge-hammer being held over their heads and they are forced to go along with this. I think the member has also said this, but again I think we have to look back and see what the unions have done for the labourers throughout Canada. They play an important role in our society. We wouldn’t have the health and wealth, particularly the wealth, that this nation has today, had it not been for the changes the unions have brought.

I can recall some number of years ago in certain industries in the city of Port Colborne that there were some illegal hiring practices going on. This was 30 or 40 years ago -- before my time -- but I often heard my dad talk to me about this. He told me that if you wanted a job in a certain industry, you had to pay the foreman. Well, unions came along and changed that. But for some reason the unions today have slipped back to this type of payola to hold and maintain a job. I think these are the things that perhaps the member is trying to get through to us here this afternoon.

Mr. Young: Did the member say all unions?

Mr. Haggerty: I didn’t say all unions, no, not all the unions. There are certain ones there. These are some of the things that I’m concerned about.

Before I would consider endorsing this bill, I would like to see the report from the hearings on the organized crime in labour in Ontario. As I said before, the bill is a little bit scanty as to what the intent is.

I think if we brought in a bill similar to the one they have in the United States, the Labour Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, I think this party perhaps might go along with such proposals. I’m sure that bill did remove the unscrupulous problems that unions had over employees or over the hiring halls in the United States and it did correct them to some extent. Whether it would do it here or not in the Province of Ontario, I’m not quite sure. But I think again it’s worthwhile looking into.

I know it’s taken quite a bit of courage for the hon. member to introduce this bill this afternoon. I think it’s going to take quite a bit of encouragement from any of us to speak on it, because sometimes they say that the minute you stand up here you’re against labour. No, I’m not against labour, but there’s much that can be improved in labour relations in the Province of Ontario which is not covered by the Labour Relations Act.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Nor in this bill.

An hon. member: That’s what he said, too.

Mr. Haggerty: I think this is where some of these persons have been blacklisted and blackballed in hiring throughout different unions in the Province of Ontario -- not all unions, but certain ones. When you find out particularly, Mr. Speaker, that these unions originated in the United States and that the constitutions of these unions overrule anything that goes on in the Labour Relations Act in the Province of Ontario, that is what’s wrong with it. If we’re going to control our unions and bring in justice in the Province of Ontario, then it must be contained and controlled by Canadian employees in the industry in the Province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In rising to speak to this bill. An Act respecting the Rights of Labour, what disturbs me is the whole flavour of this bill. It’s trying to knock down open doors and trying to do with legislation what the vast majority of unions in this province and in this country already do. Before I get into the meat of my remarks, let me make a few comments on remarks already made.

A hell of a lot more employers have been caught taking funds from or cheating their employees than unions have ever been. It’s a factor upon factor greater. It is ridiculous to imply in a bill like this, which has a very restrictive, discriminatory flavour to it, that unions engage in this as a matter of course, or even that more than a very, very small percentage ever do this, which is what the whole field of this bill is about.

This Tory party or this government or any of its backbenchers over there have nothing to teach the unions about ethics, morals or participatory democracy.

Mr. Drea: Ho! Ho! Let the member speak for himself.

Mr. Bounsall: We’ve seen enough of it and heard enough of it in the last couple of years to know that that is true.

Mr. Drea: How about the promises made about the Canadian unions?

Mr. Bounsall: One of the things that every union that belongs to the Canadian Labour Congress must subscribe to, Mr. Speaker, is the code of ethical practices. In the preamble to that code, the Canadian Labour Congress recognizes that the record of union democracy, like our own country’s democracy, is not perfect. Nevertheless, there’s a set of principles to which all members of that Canadian Labour Congress must subscribe. There are a few unions that don’t belong; they’ve been kicked out of it because they haven’t subscribed to it.

Mr. Drea: A few which belong don’t subscribe, too.

Mr. Bounsall: The member for Scarborough Centre has had his say. Don’t try to get another 10 minutes.

Mr. Drea: I wouldn’t need 10 with the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: The ones that have been kicked out are, by and large, those very nationalistic friends which our party to the right over here likes to talk about -- Kent Rowley’s boys, Pat Murphy’s boys and so on -- are not in the Canadian Labour Congress be- cause of their non-ethical practices.

Mr. Drea: A few weeks ago the member loved Rowley. During the Artistic strike he was his hero. Now he is a crook.

Mr. Bounsall: The code of ethical practices is this:

“The Canadian Labour Congress and each of its affiliated unions shall undertake the obligation to appropriate constitutional or administrative measures in orderly procedure to ensure that any person who exercises a corrupt influence or who engages in corrupt practices shall not hold office of any kind in any such trade unions or organizations.

“No person shall hold or retain office or appointed position in the CLC, or any of its affiliated national or international unions or subordinate bodies thereof who has been proven guilty through union procedures or courts of law of preying on the labour movement and its good name for corrupt purposes.

“Each member of a union shall have the right to full and free participation in union self-government. This shall include the right:

“(a) To vote periodically for his local, national and/or international officers, either directly by referendum vote, or through delegate bodies;

“(b) To honest elections;

“(c) To stand for and hold office subject only to fair qualifications uniformly imposed; and

“(d) To voice his views as to the method in which the union’s affairs should be conducted.”

It goes on and on.

Those are three points out of 14, all of which are very tough and clear, and to which, if you wish to retain membership in the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Speaker, you must subscribe. If you pick up the constitution of virtually any of the unions affiliated to the Canadian Labour Congress and turn to its section -- and they are all there; they all have them -- on ethical practices codes, you’ll find these general statements contained here spelled out in much more detail. I am looking at one now, under democratic practices:

“1. Each union member shall be entitled to a full share in union self-government.

“Each member shall have full freedom of speech and the right to participate in the democratic decisions of the union.

“Each member shall have the right to run for office, to nominate and to vote in free, fair and honest elections, and shall have the right to criticize the policies and personalities of union officials” [and so on and so forth].

There is a strong section on financial practices and a strong section on the health, welfare and retirement fund, which says:

“No official who exercises responsibilities or influence in the administration of health, welfare and retirement programmes or the placement of insurance contracts shall have any compromising personal ties, direct or indirect, with outside agencies such as insurance carriers, brokers or consultants doing business with the health, welfare and retirement fund.”

I am just giving them very briefly here. I am not putting in nearly all of the points that are outlined in detail.

Under business and financial activities of union officials -- a very strong section -- it says:

“Every officer and representative must avoid any outside transaction which even gives the appearance of a conflict of interest. The mailing lists of the union are valuable assets and they cannot be in any sense turned over to any outsider for use in the promotion or sale of any goods or services.

“No officer or representative shall have a personal or financial interest which conflicts with his union duties” [and so on].

It is very finely typed, consisting of four or five pages of ethical practices which appear in most unions, and all of those unions which are members of the Canadian Labour Congress.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to have a bill that deals with the rights of labour and what it should have, it should really be a useful bill that would adequately protect an employee from the difficulties he encounters in the workplace. We should be talking about what should be done with our present labour legislation. The right to organize and bargain collectively should he available to all employees. That is the type of bill we would like to see in this House, one that covers teachers, agricultural workers, plant guards and even managerial employees.

The decision as to whether or not to join a union should be made by the employees. The right, therefore, of the company to appear before the Labour Relations Board to challenge this right should be removed. It takes months to get hearings before the board. The administrative procedures of that board must be streamlined to avoid legalism and undue delay. This is the kind of bill on the rights of labour we should be having before this House, rather than the one we have.

Current provisions are wholly inadequate to prevent employers’ discrimination against employees for union activities. The discharged employee is the injured party and the onus should be on the employer to show that the employer’s action was proper in the discharge -- not the way it works now, which is the other way around.

Evidence of 50 per cent of the membership should be sufficient for automatic certification, and since the union is required to represent all members at the bargaining table, and because it must represent them all fairly and can be charged with not representing them properly if it doesn’t, certification should carry with it the automatic right to a dues check-off.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member has reached his time limit.

Mr. Bounsall: That’s the type of legislation which would be useful in this House, Mr. Speaker.

Just let me end up by saying this. There’s so much that isn’t covered in this bill that would be of use to labour in this province. The whole flavour of this bill is so discriminatory against labour that this bill in itself should ensure permanent relegation to the backbench forever, if there was any doubt about that, for the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Algoma.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to participate in this discussion on Bill 15, the private member’s bill introduced by the member for Scarborough Centre. Many of the members will probably wonder, “What’s this back-bencher from Algoma going to say about it?”

Mr. Gisborn: The member is so right.

Mr. Reid: We’re waiting with bated breath.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The member for Algoma and the member for Welland (Mr. Morningstar) we think of as front-benchers.

Mr. Gilbertson: You never know. That’s right; I shouldn’t say “that back-bencher” any more because I am in the front bench.

Mr. Lawlor: That’s right. The member has graduated.

An hon. member: And he’s on the far left too.

Mr. Renwick: And he is at the far left.

Mr. Gilbertson: Say, that’s true isn’t it, eh? Then it’s very appropriate that I participate in this particular debate.

Mr. Lawlor: As long as the member doesn’t agree wholeheartedly with the bill.

Mr. Gilbertson: I’m not that familiar with it but I’ve looked over parts of it. I might say that as an employer, although I’ve had men working for me for perhaps 25 years, and all the government departments know it -- Workmen’s Compensation, the tax department and everybody; they come around and they assess, they come and audit your books from time to time -- I’ve always had a very legitimate operation and I’ve always had, I would say, reasonably good relations with my employees. I never had any occasion where a union came along to try to get my men to --

Mr. Renwick: Disrupt the small happy family that the member has.

Mr. Gilbertson: -- organize and disrupt the small happy family. But I think there is room for this type of legislation that the hon. member for Scarborough Centre is introducing.

Mr. Lawlor: The member even thinks there may be room for trade unions.

Mr. Gilbertson: As I understand it, it’s very seldom that a private member’s bill ever becomes legislation.

Mr. Renwick: Thank God about this one.

Mr. Gilbertson: I take it that some of the opposition members are not wholly in favour of this particular bill. I wonder if there’s any part of it that they feel is all right. I’m sure that the reason the member felt the need to introduce a bill like this is for the simple reason -- I can give the members a few reasons.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Is the member for Algoma in labour?

Mr. Gilbertson: “Contractors Cheated Men of $3,000 a Week, Probe Told.” This is from the Toronto Star. Then there are others. Here’s a gentleman -- perhaps most of the members know him better than I do -- by the name of Edward Thompson. He said: “I couldn’t put up with that sort of thing.” He speaks or kangaroo courts and all that. He just gave up. He just couldn’t put up with all that.

Another one here -- let’s see this one -- “Lath Contractor Appears In Court On Perjury Charges.”

I’m not reading off all this because I’m against unions, sir. I think unions are something which is needed and most of them are very legitimate and do a good job, but I’m sure the purpose of introducing this bill is on account of those which do not perform well. All this proves it. Of course, one can’t believe everything one reads in the news media but at least these are headlines here -- “Lath Contractor Appears In Court on Perjury Charges.”

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Does the member believe that?

Mr. Gilbertson: I’ll let the member be judge of this and whether or not he believes it. “Unionist Says He Tried To Pay For Gift Car.” All these things are what I call skulduggery, which goes on within the bad unions. “Two Builders Deny Awarding Contracts In Return For Cash.” These are some of the reasons for the member for Scarborough Centre implementing this bill.

Here is another one. This is the Toronto Star, Nov. 7, 1973: “Probe Witness Says He Cannot Recall $1,000 Gift To Wife.” Things like that no doubt induced this member to --

Mr. Bounsall: Is the member against giving gifts to wives?

Mr. Gilbertson: No, I don’t think any of us are, if it is done in the proper manner.

Mr. Lawlor: My wife wouldn’t recall it.

Mr. Gilbertson: Nov. 1, 1973: “Pile Association Director Says Money Was Goodwill.” All these things --

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Goodwill?

Mr. Gilbertson: -- just don’t smell right for some reason.

Mr. Renwick: Has Judge Waisberg’s report come in yet? Has the member seen it?

Mr. Gilbertson: October, 1973, “Builder Says He Bribed Union Men To Get Jobs.”

Mr. Young: Who was doing the bribing here?

Mr. Gilbertson: It says “Builder Says He Bribed Union Men.” The member can read the article if he wants.

Mr. Young: Was it the union or the employer?

Mr. Morningstar: Let him read it after.

Mr. Young: Who was doing the bribing?

Mr. Gilbertson: It says here “Builder Says He Bribed Union Men To Get Jobs.”

Mr. Young: Was it the union or the employer?

Mr. Renwick: Who was doing the bribing?

Mr. Young: Who was doing the bribing?

Mr. Gilbertson: Here’s another one: “Police Hold Hammer To My Head.” This is Oct. 18, 1973. “Family Terrorized, Tearful Unionist Tells Building Probe.” “Builders Say They Gave $1,000 Each To Unionists”. Builders -- it probably didn’t give the names here; these are excerpts from the Toronto Star.

Mr. Drea: Who was taking the bribe?

Mr. Young: Who was giving the bribe?

Mr. Bounsall: One can’t trust anyone.

Mr. Young: Is the member saying that the legislation should be to curb the builders here?

Mr. Gilbertson: “Builder Justifies Union Costs In $500,000 Contract”. “Hired By Union, As Bodyguard, Ex-fighter Says.”

Mr. Bounsall: Those builders intimidate them as well as bribe them.

Mr. Gilbertson: These are the bad ones. “Contractor Says Union Payoff Went Astray.”

Mr. Bounsall: They can’t even find the right address, those builders.

Mr. Gilbertson: “His Family Terrorized, Unionist Tells Inquiry.”

Mr. Reid: Is the member’s time up?

Mr. Sargent: Time, time.

Mr. Speaker: No, the member has about two minutes.

Mr. Young: Let him keep going; he is doing a good job.

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Speaker, I think in looking over this bill I would have to say that --

Mr. Reid: Has he read it?

Mr. Gilbertson: -- if I didn’t endorse it fully I’m certainly in favour of a lot of things in it. I think they are good and I want to compliment the member for Scarborough Centre for his efforts in implementing this bill and bringing it before the House.

Mr. Young: He is gone.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: I’m sorry to wake the member up. Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill I do so as the only Liberal-Labour member of the Ontario Legislature. Of course, I am personally, vitally interested in matters relating to labour.

I’d like to commend the member who has introduced this bill, in a way. It’s one of his more lucid and rational attempts at a private member’s bill. I think that I can agree with the principle that he was trying to get at, and that is that there should be public disclosure of matters affecting the trusteeship of the money that the unions hold in trust for their union members and that the various other business dealings of the unions should be available.

I say that, Mr. Speaker, because I have had some personal experience in this line, in that I have had union members come to me and ask if I could find out about certain transactions that had taken place within their union, the circumstances surrounding which they had not been able to find out on their own. So I can understand and I approve of the principle of the bill.

However, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the member, in eulogizing his efforts in this regard, told us at some length about the great concern that the present government of the province has concerning the labouring person, and I can hardly agree with that statement. If it is so concerned, then the government itself, through the Minister of Labour, should bring in legislation. I would suggest, as my colleague from Welland South has already done, that it be based perhaps on the bill that was presented in the American Congress in regard to this matter, a bill that protected not only the rights of the working man, but also the rights of the public and also the rights of management.

So it seems to me odd that the member would go on at great length when his government, or the government of which he is a member, is not prepared to introduce such legislation. I would suggest that higher on the list of priorities, Mr. Speaker, should be matters relating to ex-parte injunctions and matters dealing with picket lines and international and Canadian unionism. This is important --

Mr. Drea: The member’s party is in favour of Canadian unionism?

Mr. Reid: Pardon me?

Mr. Drea: The member is asking for it -- his party and Canadian unionism? Go ahead.

An hon. member: He says the member for Rainy River is fighting against Canadian unionism.

Mr. Reid: No, I am not fighting. I am speaking to the Speaker; he at least can understand me. Sorry, I don’t --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): At least he has to pretend he does.

Mr. Reid: That’s right; but at least he doesn’t interrupt me with ridiculous statements.

Mr. Drea: It is not a matter of interrupting --

Mr. Reid: In any case, Mr. Speaker, there are matters, I think, that are very pressing, that this government should bring in in regard to labour relations in the Province of Ontario. One of the things, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, that appealed to me was the call in the bill for secret ballots.

I have been involved in a number of strikes -- wildcat and otherwise -- and I have been in union meetings where I have seen the kind of pressure that is put on the individual union member when it comes to a vote on whether to go back to work or not and when a secret ballot is not held. I would agree with the member for Windsor West when he says that most of these matters are well handled by the unions. But there is the odd one, and there are always some bad apples in the barrel who are slightly less than taken with the democratic approach, and subsequently the rights of the individual worker are trampled on. So there is need for some kind of legislation along these lines.

Mr. Speaker, I will wind up because I know there are others who want to participate in the debate, and say that I can approve of the principle of the bill. I don’t agree with the entire bill but I think it is an important matter and it should have been brought to the attention of the chamber. I would hope to see legislation dealing with matters raised in this bill. And as well, the legislation to ban ex-parte injunctions to regulate more closely the activities on picket lines -- and other matters that are perhaps as oppressing in regard to labour relations in the province.

Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I wouldn’t support such a bill as this one is written under any circumstances. The insider provisions and impositions in this bill are more iniquitous than anything I have ever heard of, either in terms of the stock exchange or any kind of legislation that tends to keep the finger on people who have a responsible position.

You know, we even talk about the associate, his spouse, his son-in-law, his son, the daughter and his connections with the trade union movement through the whole insider provision.

There are some striking clauses in the bill, and of course we can’t deal with them section by section because we are supposed to be dealing with the principle of the bill; but it’s a long bill and has a lot of very pertinent clauses in it. They are the important sections of this kind of a document.

The originator of the bill says on page 2 -- and I guess it’s in the interpretations, in the last section:

“Trade union means an organization of employees formed for purposes that include the regulation of relations between employees and employers.”

Well, that kind of an interpretation says a lot to me, because the trade union movement in my history includes reading and participating in the introduction of the Ontario provincial government’s Labour Relations Act from 1944, which was just that kind of a bill to provide for the regulations of procedures between unions and employers.

But the unions accepted it reluctantly because of the war issue and the coming into Canada of the industrial unions. They said yes, they would accept that kind of an Act, which did lay out a method of procedure, certain terms of collective bargaining, conciliation and provisions for arbitration, and so on. That was a bill imposed upon the trade union movement because they had no Act when they really got their foothold. They got it through sheer slugging, wanting to improve their benefits and their conditions across the province.

And in saying that, I agree with a lot of the things that are the concerns of the member for Scarborough Centre and which he has presented. But this is not the solution to some of the concern in the unions today; that is, the bad parts of some of the unions. But we must remember that the bad things that are happening in unions today affect only a fraction of one per cent of membership.

I think we need a publicity programme. If the member for Welland has that kind of a problem in Welland, he should speak out and go to the public. Come to the Minister of Labour with the kinds of problems we find and get him to do the job.

When you read the whole bill and get to the end, it makes me think that the author has plagiarized the thoughts and the writings of the John Birch Society and William Buckley, all at one time, and certainly we can’t have any part of that.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Gisborn: I’ll bet you Senator Ray Lawson would just love to have this bill in front of him to send back to some of his colleagues in the Teamsters’ Union. But I don’t know what the thinking was as you go through the bill. It just doesn’t add up to any kind of sense at all. The other members have expressed what should be in a bill of rights for labour, and we have presented it.

The concerns are well taken but surely the member could have done better than that? I hope that sometime other spokesmen for the government will inform this party that this kind of legislation is not part of the thinking of the Conservative Party because we will want to know before the next election, as we will about two or three other bills the member has brought in which are very useful to the opposition and which are just as iniquitous as this bill is as far as the unions are concerned.

Mr. Drea: The NDP pays the piper.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: This completes the private members’ hour. I believe it is the intention to sit through the supper hour.

The hon. member for Huron is next.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (CONCLUDED)

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I might say I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Speech from the Throne but before doing so I would like to echo the sentiments of previous speakers in welcoming you back after your brief illness and to say how pleased we are to see you resume your responsibilities as Speaker of the House. We trust you will continue to conduct the business of the House in a fair and orderly manner and that in maintaining order you will use the services of the Sergeant-at-Arms as sparingly as possible.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Don’t forget that, in the gallery.

Mr. Riddell: The reason I say this, Mr. Speaker, is that I was deeply annoyed when I entered the House the other day and while in the process of directing my wife to her seat in the section here under the Speaker’s gallery I was confronted by the Sergeant and told to take a seat immediately or leave the House.

An hon. member: Who said that?

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): The Gestapo.

Mr. Riddell: I am sure the Sergeant thought he was talking to a visitor, Mr. Speaker, which added insult to injury for I pride myself on having a relatively good attendance record in the House. Having occupied my seat for over a year now, I would think that the Sergeant would surely recognize a familiar face.

Mr. Speaker: If I may say to the hon. member I observed the incident and I think he will agree that I did apologize on behalf of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Mr. Riddell: I accepted those apologies, sir, I am coming to that. I would suggest Mr. Speaker, that you request the Sergeant to relax his rigidity of composure and take the time at his disposal to look around him occasionally if for no other reason than to try to identify the members of the Legislature. However, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that you immediately recognized the folly of the Sergeant. You expressed your apologies and I trust you have cautioned the Sergeant against further activities in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that I have completed one year of service as a member of the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. B. Newman: A good year.

Mr. Riddell: Correspondingly, I have had a year to observe the functioning of government which to me has been an invaluable experience and quite gratifying but certainly not without its many frustrations. Ignorance is bliss, so the saying goes, and I suppose I was much more content with our system of government as an outsider looking in than I am as one who has had a chance to observe government in action from the inside.

I could elaborate on the many follies and inefficiencies of the present government as I see them but I think these have been adequately reported to the public through the news media, particularly within the last year or two. I do not wish to dwell on this matter.

However, I would like to comment on one routine in the House which I personally believe should be changed. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the time wasted by cabinet ministers during each day’s question and answer period in answering previous days’ questions is completely inexcusable. The ministers very cunningly give nothing short of ministerial statements in answering questions from the previous day or the previous week, knowing full well they use up time which could be better spent for further questioning by members in the interest of urgent public concern.

I would like to recommend, Mr. Speaker, that answers to previous days’ questions precede the daily question and answer period but are not included in the time allotment for this particular order of business.

Mr. B. Newman: Good idea.

Mr. Sargent: Has the House leader (Mr. Winkler) got this?

Mr. Riddell: If the cabinet ministers are fulfilling their responsibilities they should be able to field the questions with some degree of knowledge at the time or relinquish their positions to someone who can.

Reflecting on my maiden speech of last spring, I predicted that many government members would be thinking seriously of relinquishing their positions in government because of the government’s loss of credibility under the leadership of the Premier (Mr. Davis). I firmly believe that my predictions are bearing fruit. The recent cabinet shuffle, without a doubt, has caused dissensions in the ranks. We see the Conservative caucus losing its solidarity. We read in here of government members’ intentions to retire at the end of this session.

I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that this loss will present serious problems, but I will say I was disappointed to learn that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) is yearning to make his departure from public life. I say I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, for I personally believe that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has served his portfolio well, and he will be missed by the government as one of the more capable ministers, as a knowledgeable agriculturalist and as a hard core politician. Apart from my disappointment in seeing the portfolio vacated, I am equally alarmed as to the affect it might have on the agricultural industry in Ontario. I cannot see a suitable replacement for the Minister of Agriculture and Food under our present government structure, as both ability and experience in this most important industry are lacking within the Conservative caucus.

Mr. Sargent: They have somebody lined up.

Mr. Riddell: However, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the people of Ontario will take this matter in hand during the next election, recognizing the great potential of the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt), who has been involved in agriculture all his life and who has been very effective as the agricultural critic for the Liberal caucus.

An hon. member: So has the member for Huron.

Mr. Riddell: Speaking of the hon. member for Huron-Bruce, I listened carefully to his remarks during the debate on the Throne Speech and I would heartily endorse the criticism that he levelled at Ontario Hydro in its dealings with the land owners of land to be acquired for the proposed power corridor from Douglas Point to Bradley junction and thence to Georgetown and Seaforth.

I am equally concerned about the nuclear expansion programme announced by Ontario Hydro, and needless to say my concern is shared by many people in the Huron riding and more particularly by a group of citizens who formed an organization known as “Cantdu” which was established to investigate the potential danger of nuclear energy which Ontario Hydro is reluctant to reveal to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I will be commenting on the findings of this organization and I will be using direct quotes from the reports which have been written in an attempt to point out the potential dangers of further nuclear expansion at this time. While we are all aware of our energy needs and the desire of Ontario toward independence in energy production, I am sure we would all agree that much more needs to be known about the potential hazards of this source of energy and more research needs to be done on alternate sources of energy before the nuclear programme is accelerated. There remain too many uncertainties in the nuclear programme. Arguments advanced in defence of nuclear power are short-sighted and inconclusive, and reliance on nuclear power now will keep us from really solving our energy problems.

One outstanding uncertainty is the storage of atomic waste. Those working in atomic energy and a few informed laymen know and admit that we are storing plutonium waste that will remain radioactive for generations in storage facilities that will be too long outlived by the plutonium. Proponents claim the storage programme is reasonable because it is managed and as long as it is managed it is safe. Environmentalists believe that because the storage programme must be managed, and managed by people yet unborn in a society which may be vastly different from ours, it is clearly unsafe. As long as the nuclear power programme necessarily commits the management of atomic waste to not only our generation but also to future generations, who are consulted on neither the ways we produce our energy nor on the ways we use it, the storage problem is clearly unsolved.

The claim that more is known about nuclear power than about most of society’s previous energy ventures is misleading. Studies of projected safety are contradictory, with opponents of nuclear power crying, “Unsafe”; and proponents crying, “The cleanest thing yet.” In any case, that safety can only be projected. We do not have sufficient history in nuclear power production to make real conclusions on safety. We have not been in the business long enough, and although our knowledge of the atom and its potential and effects has exploded in relatively recent years, science is still exploring the effects of radiation.

To quote Dr. Schumacher in his Desvoeux memorial lecture in England in 1967:

“Of all the changes introduced by man into the household of nature, large-scale nuclear fission is undoubtedly the most dangerous and profound. As a result, ionizing radiation has become the most serious agent of pollution of the environment and the greatest threat to man’s survival on earth.”

There has been much learned about radiation in relatively recent years. Scientists know that low-level radioactive materials are found in varying quantities in all natural environments.

A very definite correlation has been established between the incidence of such diseases as leukaemia, cancer, etc., and the level of natural radiation to which the inhabitants of an area are habitually exposed. These studies established that naturally occurring ionizing radiation though unavoidable, is harmful.

Radioactive materials are also artificially produced. A nuclear reactor produces about 100 tons of various types of radioactive isotopes a year. About one per cent of these are released and over 99 per cent are stored. During its operation, the reactor continually releases into the environment small, but nonetheless significant quantities of radioactive products. These are released through ventilation stacks, cooling fluids and other systems.

It appears to be technically impractical and certainly uneconomical to eliminate the escape of a very small fraction of the total radioactive output of the reactor. The policy has been to set up permissible levels of radioactive pollution. These are usually compared to natural background radiation, the implication being that what is natural therefore must be safe or harmless.

Atomic Energy of Canada’s claim that present releases of radioactive material into the environment do not exceed one per cent of the permissible level, should be considered in conjunction with another prediction made by them that by the year 2000 the installed and operating nuclear generating capacity will have increased by a thousand-fold over the 1970 capacity. An even greater expansion is predicted in the United States.

Considerable increases in the release of radioactive materials may also be expected in such fields as medicine, industry, research, etc., not to mention war weapons testing and the increasing probability of nuclear accidents.

Perhaps it would be worth considering some of the radioactive pollutants at this time. Tritium 2 is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen with a half-life of 12 years. It is briefly described here as an example of a new man-made, odourless, invisible poison released into the environment in significant quantities by reactors, both in their vented gases and coolants.

In the CANDU heavy water reactor the output of this pollutant is expected to increase tenfold as the reactor matures, thus tritium releases monitored at Pickering and publicized are obviously misleading, despite the fact that officials admit that present re- leases of tritium are a little high and the matter is being given attention.

The tritium molecule is so small that it will readily diffuse through solid barriers of aluminum and stainless steel. The problems of storing and containing this toxic and very soluble gas are not difficult to appreciate.

Each nuclear reactor must also dispose of over 100 cubic yards of radioactive garbage each year, such as contaminated paper, piping, failed components, and especially spent ion exchange columns, the devices that attempt to remove contamination from gases and fluids to be returned to the environment. This material is ultimately buried in disposables’ areas set aside for this purpose.

The vast bulk of the radioactive materials produced by a reactor remains in the form of spent fuel. As it leaves the reactor, this spent fuel is highly radioactive and very hot. Some of the fission products it contains include caesium 137, strontium 90, plutonium 239, which have half-lives of 30.2, 28.9 and 24,400 years respectively. This means the first two will take approximately 1,000 years to decay to a point where they will no longer have to be isolated. The plutonium 239 will take at least 800,000 years to return to the radioactive level of raw uranium. After 300 years the spent fuel is still generating heat.

The amounts of radioactive waste further magnify the problem. As previously mentioned, Atomic Energy of Canada predicts that by the year 2000, total nuclear generating capacity will be 1,000 times that of 1970 and will have produced in excess of 100,000 tons of spent fuel. When we stop to analyse the situation we find the waste will have to be moved continually as storage facilities wear out, for at least 800,000 years. Atomic Energy of Canada, does not consider permanent disposal acceptable but is leaving to future generations the burden of continual monitoring and transfer of deadly radioactive materials.

Apparently Atomic Energy of Canada considers this to be an acceptable solution to the waste problem but it is really an act of deferring responsibility and determining that acceptability by future generations will naturally follow.

A second fallacy is the assumption of stable social and geological conditions over the next one million years. While all the electrical generating facilities produce large quantities of unusable waste heat, nuclear power plants produce from 50 to 60 per cent more than fossil-fuelled power stations of equal electrical output. Only some 29 per cent of the vast quantities of heat generated by the reactor can economically be converted into electrical energy. The rest is released into nearby bodies of water in the form of warmed cooling water.

The Pickering nuclear power plant with an output of 2,160 million watts returns to the environment the equivalent of 6,480 million watts of energy in the form of heat, mostly in the cooling water. Using the factor watts times Btu per hour, this quantity of wasted energy would be equivalent to over 22,000 Btu per hour or sufficient heat to raise the temperature of over 14.5 million gal. of water from 60 degrees Fahrenheit to boiling point each hour.

With present serious energy shortages, the dumping of this vast amount of heat to the obvious detriment of the environment can only be described as a major defeat of modem technology. If calculations such as these are superimposed on projected expansions of nuclear power plants along both the United States and Canadian shores of the Great Lakes system, significant changes in the temperatures of these lakes are inevitable. Add to this the probable increase in nutrients from various sources and we may expect to see some profound changes in the ecology of the upper lakes.

Mr. Speaker, I can anticipate the question by those proponents of nuclear energy -- namely, what alternatives do I propose to replace nuclear energy? In answer to this question I may say that in the years prior to 1973 the headlong rush to keep pace with increasing energy demands was an elementary fact of pouring more fuel or more electricity into the multitude of existing industries, businesses and homes.

Suddenly, a crunch occurred. Hitherto reliable and inexhaustible supplies of fossil fuel were in critically short supply. The search for alternatives has been intensified and it has taken two basic directions. The foremost of these has been the spontaneous expansion of nuclear power developments.

Throughout the western world nation after nation plunged forward on the premise that nuclear power was the answer. Unlike Sweden, which in 1973 curtailed its nuclear plants in the light of new information, Canada remains among those countries providing economic answers to the energy question in terms of nuclear power.

The second search is played down and often belittled, yet its ultimate results will be far more dramatic and conclusively more infinite in scope. The alternatives in this lesser research receive little or any government support. Public funds have not been made available to assist the pioneers in the search for clean energy sources.

Such alternatives include solar energy, wind energy, methane from organic waste, hydro-gen as a primary fuel, geo-thermal power, sea-thermal power, electronic power boosters, tidal power and the biosphere concept.

Not only is their government support minimal, but politicians have refused to give serious consideration to the many feasibility studies which indicate the economic viability of such power systems. Solar energy as a source for man’s power needs has generally been ridiculed. The Hansard from Queen’s Park will verify the non-answers of government ministers when questioned in these matters. Yet it is generally agreed that the earth intercepts 173 to the power of 15 watts of thermal power from the sun every 24 hours. This figure represents 100,000 times more than the entire world’s present electrical power capacity.

It has further been stated that the average daily amount of solar energy that falls on Lake Erie exceeds the total consumption figure for our neighbour the United States from all energy sources combined during the same time period. The astounding point to be made is that this energy is not only clean but in rather weighty economic terms it is free. A sampling of examples in which the application of solar energy is the key to solution of energy problems would include such items as heat concentration, direct conversion and the biosphere concept. Sunlight in the form of solar heat is collected, used to boil water or some other liquid, which in turn is used in the conventional manner to produce electricity.

The Meinel plan at the University of Arizona is the most technically advanced system in North America at this time. Solar farms are envisioned for the southwestern deserts that will collect heat, generate steam and operate electrical turbines. By using solid state electronics a Meinel associate. Dr. B. O. Seraphin, also of the University of Arizona, has developed interference stacks as heat concentrators, which will not only reduce the ultimate size of such solar farm collectors, but also bring such proposal within the realm of the present economic criteria for developing such proposals.

The second proposal for using solar power is more versatile and would provide power where it is needed, thus eliminating costly and offensive powerline systems. The Arthur D. Little Co., a research firm in Massachusetts has proposed space screens for the direct conversion of sunlight into electricity, coupled with a laser projection system to beam power directly to the location of need, to the industrial hearts in the northeast of this continent.

The sun can also be used as a power source on an independent household basis. In some instances, the roof becomes a solar collector and supplies an individual home with energy needs. Coupled with a storage system, such independent systems are now in use in the United States.

The biosphere is an integrated approach. It combines a living area, a greenhouse, a solar heater and a solar still. Proponents claim several power functions can be operated independently from any public utility at a lower cost than conventional sources for heat, water and waste disposal.

Systems to harness the wind have been operating on a small scale for many years. In the production of electricity conventional windmill systems producing power for independent household use have been available since 1938. Several firms presently offer such systems with capacities up to 12,000 watts. Canadian scientists have recently developed radically new concepts for wind generating systems. It is hoped to bring this approach into operation in the Canadian Arctic.

There has been much discussion in Ontario in the last few months on the topic of producing methane gas from organic waste. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has been urging the government of Ontario to take a serious look at the possibilities in this area. They would be well advised to direct their attention to the work of the Gobar Gas research station in India and the work of Ram Bux Singh over the last 20 years.

The engineering firm of J. Hilbert Anderson, of Pennsylvania, has produced a system of heat difference conversion using the oceans as the power source. The system operates on the principle of heat differences between two water sources, such as the 45 deg. difference in surface Gulf Stream temperatures compared to temperatures several thousand feet below the surface. A floating power station provides the additional benefit of using waste heat to desalinate water.

The preceding sampling of alternatives is not intended to be exhaustive. The main purpose is to demonstrate that work is progressing. Each activity, however, shares the same financial problem. Development depends entirely on funds for engineering schemes to bring existing proposals into reality. Unlike nuclear fusion, which has been much discussed but not yet invented, the second set of alternatives rests within the limits of man’s present technical knowledge. The successful development of such power projects will be difficult, however, and environmental problems with some of them would be unreasonable to deny.

Yet the problems seem slight when compared to the unique danger and unknown implications of nuclear power. Our search for energy need not be a desperate, unthinking plunge. All that is required is the decision of government agencies to provide the much-needed funds.

The proponents of nuclear energy, Mr. Speaker, have misled the public into believing that nuclear power is the safest and cleanest form of energy. The problem of radioactive waste and the potential hazards of such waste are completely ignored.

At the same time that misleading information has discouraged responsible choice it has encouraged the demand. If an energy source is widely broadcast as safe and if it is relatively inconvenient and seen as unnecessary to obtain in-depth information, why not continue unquestionably to demand the energy? Why not go along with an acceleration of the demand, a doubling every 10 years? If it is there and if it is clean, why not use it?

In spite of reference lately, to using energy wisely, the very use of the term “demand” encourages the demand itself; or at least discourages critical evaluation of demand priorities. By calling current and predicted uses of electricity “demands,” we are encouraged in seeing our need for electricity not as something society is responsible for or has any measure of control over, but as something divorced from us that is absolute and not relative to other considerations.

We nourish an atmosphere that is afraid to look at whether the sources are really safe and that is afraid to take time to explore safer alternatives; and we are apt then to allow actions to be taken to meet that demand which would seem preposterous to a more objective observer. We are all participants in our culture and co-operate in the use and misuse of energy, but the public cannot be held responsible for nuclear power because the public has not been allowed really to examine and respond to the issues.

The economics of nuclear power can also be questioned, Mr. Speaker. Because of the very large but obscure investment of both federal and provincial government funds, the comparison of costs between nuclear and fossil-powered generating plants can be quite misleading. The much higher capital investment of a nuclear station has to be regarded as a total write-off at the end of 30 years, the estimated life of the reactor. Due to radioactive contamination, it is improbable that much of value will be economically recycled.

Loss of land and caretaking of abandoned nuclear power stations should be charged against their productive lives. On-site generating costs constitute only a small fraction of the cost of electrical energy delivered to the consumer. Because of the policy of locating nuclear power stations at points remote from the areas of major consumption, transmission costs will be high. Power corridors connecting nuclear generating stations to the grid system and modifications of the grid to carry the extra load should be charged to nuclear power.

I fail to understand, Mr. Speaker, the policy of locating nuclear power stations at points remote from the area of major consumption, for such plants could logically be established in areas of the Canadian shield where water is plentiful and where land does not lend itself to agricultural production. Suitable sites in the Canadian shield are also much closer to the large urban centres such as Toronto than is Douglas Point.

There is talk about the construction of another nuclear plant in Huron county south of Goderich where over 80 per cent of the land is prime agricultural land. Such a plant would be situated in the heart of cash-crop country. I think you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that such crops as white beans are subject to a disease known as bronzing on which the pollutants in the atmosphere have a direct bearing.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. Riddell: Not only will the nuclear station in the power corridors connecting this station to the grid system use up good agricultural land, but the waste products of energy production will interfere with crop production and it can only lead to more serious food shortages and higher costs to the consumer.

We can’t afford to lose another acre of prime agricultural land. How completely irresponsible it is to sacrifice essential energy from food to nuclear energy which could well prove to be the greatest threat to man’s survival on earth.

I would like to turn briefly to another matter, Mr. Speaker, and by way of introduction I would like to read part of an editorial which appeared recently in the London Free Press. The editorial was entitled:

“METRO -- ONTARIO’S WELFARE CASE

“Taxpayers elsewhere in Ontario should flinch whenever they look at Metro Toronto. That is their money disappearing into Metro’s maw.

“By its very size and the nature of urban problems, Metro commands the greatest share of provincial funds, but how much is enough? Or to put it another way, how much is disproportionately at the expense of the rest of the province?

“To what degree, for example, should taxpayers outside Metro be responsible for cushioning Metro’s welfare families from high shelter costs by subsidizing rents paid to private landlords? Rents in Metro are doubtless the highest in the province and some allowance should be made for regional variations in living costs, but there should be a uniform policy stressing the use of public housing, not an ad hoc system of providing provincial assistance to the urban community raising the most clamour and thereby monopolizing provincial attention.

“It invariably seems a lot easier for Metro Toronto to gain provincial sympathy than for a small community like Centralia or Clinton, say, to provoke provincial response to a social problem such as a factory closing whose local impact is equally severe.”

That’s the end of the article.

I would like to pause here for a minute, Mr. Speaker, and to reflect on the government’s complete irresponsibility and insensitivity in the past year to two problems which had very serious social implications.

The only packing plant which existed between Kitchener and Windsor, the heart of concentrated livestock production, went bankrupt because of internal family-management problems resulting in financial difficulties which could not be considered exorbitant. The Ontario government, through the ODC programme, could have helped interested concerns to reactivate the plant in the interest of the agricultural industry in southwestern Ontario but chose rather to turn a deaf ear to the pleas and calls of those who expressed their concern.

I was somewhat surprised at the attitude of the government in this matter, considering that Middlesex county both north and south, is represented by Conservative members, as is the city of London.

Failure by the government to assist the packing plant in reactivating its operation has resulted in the loss of another buyer of agricultural produce and a supplier of consumer food.

Hog and beef producers rely on open competition for the sale of their livestock, and the Coleman Packing Co. had a good reputation for dealing fairly with the farmers and doing an excellent job of processing the meat to the satisfaction of the consumer.

A similar situation, Mr. Speaker, but one that is closer to home and one in which I became directly involved was the closing of the Hall Lamp Co. at Huron Park. Huron Park was taken over by the Ontario Development Corp. after the air force base was phased out. The houses on the base were rented and industry was encouraged through both forgivable and unforgivable loans to make use of the existing buildings. Hall Lamp was a subsidiary of an American concern but it was one part of the overall business that continued to show a net profit each year. Needless to say, the profits were used for business ventures in the United States by the American owners, but the Hall Lamp Co. did provide jobs for 400 people, most of whom resided in Huron county.

The business went into receivership because of the non-profitable business ventures in the United States and then later went into trusteeship. The former managerial staff of Hall Lamp was prepared to purchase the assets from Hall Lamp and to continue its operations, provided it received assistance from the Ontario Development Corp. as well as from other lending agencies.

We arranged a meeting with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon) and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) to discuss the financial obligations of the former company to its employees, and to seek out support from the Ontario Development Corp, for the purchase of the assets and the operation of the plant divorced of any American interest. The Minister of Industry and Tour- ism was supposedly occupied with promoting Canadian sales abroad so we were forced to discuss the matter with the managing director of ODC, Mr. Etchen.

Mr. Etchen was good enough to send two of his staff to Huron Park to work with the former managerial staff of Hall Lamp in preparing a bid which would be reasonable to submit to the receiver. Everything seemed to be moving along quite nicely, but for some reason, at the last minute, the Ontario Development Corp. withdrew its support and, as a result, the plant ceased to function. The majority of the former employees are still without work.

The business is now in trusteeship. When the trustee gets possession of the assets from the receiver he will advertise for bids. Failing the acceptance of a bid for the assets as a whole, he will advertise for bids partial in an attempt to sell the business in part. The last resort will be the selling of the assets by auction.

Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that once again the Ontario government could have come to the rescue and saved an industry which was so important in this part of Ontario, having such limited industrial development. There are problems outside of Toronto, Mr. Speaker, that require the Ontario government’s consideration. It’s time the Ontario government realized that it is not the duty of the rest of the province to cater inexhaustibly to Metro’s wishes.

I might just say here, Mr. Speaker, that the closing of Hall Lamp jeopardized the continued operations of many satellite companies operating in the area. Once again, the government seems insensitive to the needs of small business.

Another matter which gravely concerns the people in southwestern Ontario is the continued centralizing tendencies of the Ontario government. The government’s attempt at achieving economies of scale by centralizing municipal decisions has backfired, and the dramatic increases in regional government costs are now adding to the inflationary pressure in our economy. The cost of services assumed by regional municipalities has increased from 36 per cent in some municipalities to 120 per cent in others.

Residents in some regional municipalities are faced this year with tax increases of 500 per cent -- or more specifically a man who paid municipal taxes of $106 last year will pay $496 on the same property this year. Suffice to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, that the provincial government’s programme of imposing regional government throughout Ontario must be stopped.

To add fuel to the fire, the Premier’s announcement on Feb. 14, 1974, of a 12-member Ontario Hydro board means that the government, in effect, is taking over the assets of a system it does not own. Really, what it boils down to is that the Ontario government is on the verge of administrating

$800,000 right out of existence. The 12 members of the Ontario Hydro board include only two representatives of the Ontario Municipal Electric Association. The government fails to recollect that municipalities founded the system more than 60 years ago, and through their electric commissions have built an investment in it worth about $800 million. The Ontario Municipal Electric Association represents more than two million electricity consumers, and its member commissions own about 70 per cent of the electrical supply system.

The government’s proposal of restructuring, whether it be municipalities or public utilities, should be only for the purpose of making municipalities stronger and more meaningful, and to transfer responsibilities from Queen’s Park to the municipalities and not from the municipalities to Queen’s Park.

Local public utility commissions are concerned about the report of the government committee on restructuring of public utilities in Ontario, and their main concern is the danger of losing local autonomy. Many local utilities are completely self-sufficient and do not contract work to private companies or to Ontario Hydro. They do, however, perform work for utilities in adjoining municipalities when requested to do so.

Local utilities are suggesting that a number of items be considered when rationalization studies are being taken into account. Rationalization of utilities should only be considered after studies are completed that lead to the reorganization of municipalities in the counties or regions considering restructuring. This action will allow more opportunities for existing self-sustaining utilities to expand, to take the responsibilities of a restructured and a larger municipality. If a regional electrical utility is not viable, and where there exists one or more electrical utilities within areas of a region or re- structured county, local option should determine whether the existing utility or utilities will assume responsibility for electricity within the new area municipality.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): That’s the way it is done.

Mr. Riddell: A predetermined population count --

Mr. W. Hodgson: What is he talking about?

Mr. Riddell: -- should not be a deciding factor, but the criterion should be whether an existing utility should be expanded to take care of the new area municipality. The whole concept of regionalization or restructuring is to expand the municipalities in order that they can operate more of their services on the regional or lower level. Every effort should be made to operate the distribution system as an electrical utility controlled by a commission. To eliminate utilities that could be expanded and to give the responsibility to the power district would be contrary to the whole concept of restructuring, which in our understanding is to give more authority to local government. The liaison between the utility --

Mr. W. Hodgson: That is not what the member’s deputy leader says. He wants to take it away from the trustees; he wants to give it to the regional government.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Oh no, that’s another story.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Thai’s right. He wants to take it away from the York commission so he can give it to the government.

Mr. Riddell: The liaison between the utility and the municipal council in most cases is quite compatible, as a public utility takes a prominent part in the community life of any municipality and is sensitive to community and municipal council’s requirements.

When studies regarding restructuring take place, distance, as well as the weather conditions at the respected areas, should be considered. Areas in the snowbelt are often isolated by snow for periods of several hours, and in some cases for several days. During this time of adverse weather conditions, the temperatures are usually below normal and the overhead clamp is susceptible to damage. The importance of readily available service crews during these periods must be a prime consideration.

If as a last resort a utility must be absorbed by the power district, every effort should be made to absorb the work force of the utility. The report on restructuring did not mention employees moving from a utility to Ontario Hydro. These benefits and positions should be protected in the same manner as they are for Ontario Hydro employees who move to a utility.

I do not want to dwell on this subject any longer, Mr. Speaker, other than to say that in my opinion the municipal utilities own the electrical systems and that fair and lasting representation of municipalities on the Ontario Hydro board is essential to protect the basic rights of Ontario citizens to high-quality electricity service at a reasonable cost.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a number of members debate the Speech from the Throne and criticize the government for its lack of policy to curb inflation. The high cost of food is mentioned time and time again, and inevitably the former is labelled as being the culprit.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): No.

Mr. Riddell: I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the misunderstanding between the farmer who produces our food and the consumer.

Mr. Renwick: That’s a straw man; that is not true.

Mr. Riddell: Many consumers believe that the cost of food has risen too quickly, and that the farmers are getting a higher than necessary share of the consumers’ dollar. Farmers, on the other hand, feel that the prices they receive for their products have not increased in proportion with the prices they must pay for the goods and services which they buy.

Farmers need and deserve increased income. I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, when I say that a thriving agricultural industry is essential to a strong and growing Canadian economy.

The Canadian farmers are second to none in their ability to produce food of the quality and quantity desired by Canadian consumers. Farmer producers are justified in expecting a fair price for their product, and a reasonable profit from their efforts.

Inflation seems to be a central theme in many of the debates that I have listened to in this session of the Legislature, and I would like to try to bring the whole matter of food costs into perspective.

Food prices in Canada rose by 17 per cent in 1973, and will probably rise another 10 per cent this year. Food prices have caught up to general wage gains. The portion of disposable income Canadians spent on food, after declining for a number of years to about 18 per cent, will rise in the next two years to 20 to 21 per cent.

Although Canadians are better off than most nations, the sharp increases threaten us all and particularly those on low and fixed incomes. On the one hand we have the poor families caught in the price spiral, but on the other hand there are those who have been beneficiaries.

Farm incomes have risen from disastrously low levels to more reasonable ones. Wholesale prices of farm products, which dropped despite increasing costs to the farmer during 1970 and 1971, rose 23.4 per cent in the period January to July, 1973, enough to cover rising costs of 11.6 per cent and more. Farmers have improved their poor position.

Processers and retailers who were already doing very well, that is 10.8 per cent on every dollar invested in 1970 for the food manufacturers and 11 per cent for the retailers, are for the most part making handsome profits. Average corporate profits rose 34 per cent in the first half of 1973, while the food processing companies were up 56 per cent over 1972.

In a time of rapidly rising food prices most of us are inclined to think that someone in the industry is making extraordinary profit at the consumer’s expense. The leader of the NDP (Mr. Lewis) is inclined to blame the supermarkets, and to some extent the middleman; but I’m pleased to see that he did not levy the blame on the farmers.

In the complex food industry it is very difficult to obtain reliable cost and profit figures. Individual variables can be so important. And if I may use an example, an efficient farmer might be able to turn a profit where a not so efficient farmer cannot. Some commodities are sold in two ways -- by spot purchase or by contract -- making it difficult to determine average prices from one week to the next. Growing seasons vary across the country, as do freight charges and distribution costs.

Retailers’ prices are subject to the vagaries of supply and demand and to changing market strategy. Profits can turn into losses quicker than one can bat an eye. Despite these difficulties, advisers in the food industry have been able to prepare -- from the most reliable information possible -- the cost and profits involved in certain food items.

This review of cost and profit was reported in the latest edition of Maclean’s Magazine and I believe certain figures are worth mentioning at this time.

A typical Canadian meal was used as an example to show how the consumer’s price is derived. A food item such as peas returned the farmers a profit of two cents a pound, the processor a profit of seven cents a pound and the retailer a profit of ten cents a pound. The farmer sold the peas for six cents a pound, and the consumer pays 43 cents a pound in the supermarket.

Milk made the farmer a profit of three cents a quart, the processor a profit of two cents a quart and the retailer lost 3.5 cents for every quart of milk sold. A pint of ice cream made from six ounces of industrial milk made the farmer a profit of two-tenths of a cent for the milk, the processor of three cents for the milk and the retailer a profit of 12.3 cents for the milk. The milk sold to make three ounces of butter made the farmer a profit of six-tenths of a cent, the processor a profit of six-tenths of a cent and the retailer had a net loss of seven-tenths of a cent when he sold the butter.

Two pounds of potatoes made the farmer a profit of two cents, the processor a profit of two cents and the retailer a profit of 2.2 cents. The tomatoes used to make four ounces of tomato juice made the farmer a profit of 1.6 cents, the processor two cents and the retailer one-tenth of a cent. A three pound chicken made the farmer a profit of 15 cents, the processor a profit of nine cents and the retailer a profit of six cents.

The final cost of the meal, including the items which I have just mentioned, was $3.76. It cost the farmer a total of $1.28 to produce the commodity and his share of the final profits was 24 cents. The processors’ cost was $2.63 and they made a total profit of 26 cents. The costs were highest at the retail level, $3.49, and the profits were 27 cents.

Walter Stewart’s article on Canada Safeway Ltd. suggests that supermarket giants are running up our grocery bills, not because of any excess profits which they make but because of the marketing methods they use to lure us into their stores. While it does not appear that the retail stores are making an excessive profit, we must bear in mind that competition in the food industry has been greatly diminished as the independents have been bought out by a few large grocery chains. The cutthroat competition that supermarkets so anxiously tell us about is not likely in the long run to bring food prices down. In the shuffle for position among the food giants, the chief casualties are the independents.

The grocery chains spend a lot of money battling each other. They do this through extensive promotions. They build more stores than they need and install fancier equipment than we want and tag on free parking, cheap credit and a host of other extras. In the end most of these campaigns tend to be self-cancelling. As soon as one chain does it another follows and no advantage accrues to anyone. Advertising by food chains and price wars are a sign of oligopoly, not competition. These rivalries result in self-cancelling advertising. The result is an exclusive emphasis on very shiny, well located, retail store premises whose costs are borne by the consumer.

In 1962 independent stores accounted for 54.8 per cent of the market and chains for 45.2 per cent. By 1972 their positions were reversed. The chains had 54.5 per cent and the independents 45.5 per cent. The trend is continuing and before long the independents will be only a minor force in the market. If prices have come down as a result of this increase in chain dominance, word has not reached the consumers yet. The net result, Mr. Speaker, is that price wars appear to cripple the independent and transfer the cost of the campaign against them onto everyone else’s grocery bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of what has happened to the food processing industry over the years. Canada Safeway Ltd. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Safeway Stores Inc. of Oakland, Calif., the second largest food retail chain in the United States. Canada Safeway was set up in 1929 in western Canada and immediately began to grow, mainly by purchasing not only other retail stores but wholesalers and food processors.

With this running start, Safeway grew to a huge, fully-integrated grocery business with control not only over its own supermarkets but over its suppliers as well. Its wholly-owned subsidiary, Macdonald’s Consolidated, operates a wholesale grocery business, bakery, a fruit and vegetable plant, a coffee roasting factory and a jam and jelly plant. Safeway has its own canners, its own frozen food operation, its own fluid milk plant, ice cream factory, tea packing firm, cheese-cutting operation and its own beverages and egg suppliers.

It even has a company, Wingate Equipment Lessors Ltd., which owns and leases the furniture, machinery and appliances used in Safeway stores and warehouses. Safeway’s policy has been to take control of the market, and one can assume this has led to monopoly pricing. I believe, Mr. Speaker, what it boils down to is that we need more adequate legislation in order to protect Canadian consumers against soaring food prices, which in my opinion are a direct result of the monopoly situation of a few large chain stores.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that if there is a villain in the marketplace, then the finger must be pointed at government, and both the provincial and federal governments must share the responsibility. What effective legislation has government passed, or indeed if such legislation does exist, what action has the government taken to curtail vertical integration, which we know to be the cause and effect of monopoly pricing and consumer gouging? What steps has government taken in recent times to curtail deficit spending, which we know contributes to inflation? What programmes have government introduced to assist the small entrepreneur in either establishing a business or continuing a viable operation, which permits free and open competition to operate effectively in the marketplace?

I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that programmes have been initiated to protect the small family farm. But government has completely lost sight of the need to protect the small family farm. This government is disillusioned in its conception that everything that is big is also good. It is time this government realized there is merit in competition, there is a place in our economy for the small businessman and there is a need in our democratic process for local autonomy.

Mr. Speaker, much could be and has been said about other causes of inflation and about the housing crisis that looms large in Ontario at the present time. I do not intend to reiterate what already has been said about this very great problem. I do hope, however, that the views, criticisms and suggestions of my leader in his amendments to the Throne Speech, will be seriously considered by this government in its attempt to formulate policy and propose legislation which will be for the good of all people and not just for a choice few.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, one could say, “Thank God for Maclean’s magazine” -- otherwise both opposition parties wouldn’t have any research. One can appreciate their research efforts by reading Maclean’s magazine and listen to them quoting the articles, as was done by the member who just spoke and by the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon), because they use Maclean’s magazine extensively for the subjects of their speeches.

Mr. Riddell: It’s a good thing somebody does some research.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I was also struck by the fact that the member for Downsview (Mr. Singer), in one part of his speech today, referred to his discussion with a reporter in the press gallery. He then referred to the article the reporter had written and quoted it as gospel and as substantiation of what he was saying.

It sounds very good. But I do think there is more to the media and more to research, and there’s more to understanding some of the problems today. One of the best places to get that sort of information is by talking to the person on the street and understanding what that person is going through.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Or go to the barbershop.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Well, one can get a lot of information in the barbershop.

Mr. Renwick: Is that barber still around in Lindsay.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: He could be, but perhaps he is somewhat like the NDP. I mean, the hon. member who just finished speaking was talking about a machine to make energy from the wind. Well if it runs like the official opposition party, I would hate to see how efficient it would be, because it would have very much the same amount of stops and starts --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: -- and it would certainly not be acceptable as an alternative. The New Democratic Party, of course have great memories of those old-timers who tried to produce a perpetual motion machine. So far they have developed it very well with their hinges on their jaws -- but that’s as far as it has gone.

Mr. Renwick: That’s a joke. That’s a real joke.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Now I would like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that in our Throne Speech there is a reference to making seat belts mandatory. I would like to say at the outset that I’m against such legislation.

Mr. Renwick: Why?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Well, I will tell the hon. member some of the reasons.

Mr. Gaunt: Come on over here.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I happen to be one of the few people in Ontario who had their lives saved by a hard hat -- that’s safety equipment. I happen to be one of the few members of this Legislature, I think, who had his life saved by a hardhat. I happen to be one of the few members of this Legislature who is a director of a safety association, one of the seven in Ontario, and I have devoted time to their work. I also am an honorary director of a safety association of Ontario, in recognition of some of the work I have done in safety.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): The member has done a good job, too.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I have to say to the members that there is quite a difference between a hardhat or safety protection equipment, and mandatory wearing of a seatbelt by law. I have quite a few letters from people who have had their sons’ and daughters’ lives saved by not wearing a seatbelt. I have so far only two who have had their lives supposedly saved by wearing a seatbelt. My father’s life was saved by not wearing a seatbelt. My colleague from Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), who sits on my right, had his life saved recently by not wearing a seatbelt.

Mr. Renwick: How does the member know?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Because he has the OPP and other people who observed the scene of the accident who are willing to swear that if he had been wearing a seatbelt he would not be here today.

A very personal friend of mine last November lost his life by wearing a seatbelt -- in the opinion of experts and officers who came to the scene of the accident.

So I have to say to the members that I think this is one thing that should not be mandatory in law, not only for all the reasons regarding the fact that the law can’t be enforced, and a law that can’t be enforced is a poor law. I think there are other reasons. I think that when we hear the statistics about Australia, we have to compare the Australian scene with conditions in this country -- such as the speed limits.

We have noticed that in the United States the accident ratio has come down drastically because of the lowering of the speed limit. We have to look at that.

There are a lot of things that I don’t think have very much merit with regard to making seatbelts mandatory, I think it is quite a different thing if one is talking about the passengers in a car, rather than the driver. I think there are two different situations here.

I think, first of all, if one looks at many wrecks in wrecking yards, he will notice that the passenger’s head has often broken the windshield. Therefore I think there is some merit, perhaps, in a passenger in a car wearing a seatbelt. In the case of the driver, the seatbelt often locks the driver in so he can’t move to get away from the impact of the steering wheel or he can’t be thrown aside. Since he is on the side closest to the approaching car in most cases, he is going to take the full impact of the accident.

So I think there is much to be looked at here and much assessment needed before any government considers making mandatory the wearing of seatbelts in a car by everyone in the car. I think passengers and drivers are two different kettles of fish. I think you have two different situations, Mr. Speaker, and they should be looked at carefully before such things are undertaken.

Mr. Gaunt: Is the member going to vote against it?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Yes, I will. If the government brings it in, insists on bringing it in, I will vote against it.

Mr. Renwick: What about the courts? They are taking that into account when they are awarding damages now.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Does the member always consider that justice is levied by courts?

Mr. Renwick: No, I am asking a question, what about the courts?

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: My hon. friend from Riverdale talks about the courts. I say to him, what is going to be the damage situation with regard to insurance after there is a law to wear a seatbelt and we have a person who has undergone an accident in violation of the law because he wasn’t wearing a seatbelt and lost his life? Is his insurance company going to carry that out and pay full fees? I doubt it very much. I think the lawyers will have another very lucrative base to work on.

Mr. Renwick: Two things bother me. One is that the courts take into account whether the victim has been wearing a seatbelt or not, and the other is that the motor vehicle accident reports of the police force of the Metropolitan Toronto area ascertain as one of the facts in their reports whether a seatbelt was being worn.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Yes, but I think the member also has to look at all the accident reports of the province. There are some times of the year when, if a driver drove into a ditch -- for instance now -- and the ditch was full of water and he was locked in by a seatbelt, he very likely would be drowned as a result of wearing one. If one has a situation where the front seat of one’s car is torn loose and one is dumped down into the front, underneath the steering wheel, one could lose one’s life because the car rolls on.

There are a lot of things that I think one has to take into consideration here.

There is no substantiation, in my opinion, for making the driver of a car wear a seatbelt; I think there is more hazard to that driver wearing a seatbelt than there is safety in his wearing one. I simply say I think there is a drastic difference here.

However, I want to talk for a moment about Ontario’s natural resources, especially in regard to timber and trees. Northern Ontario is a very slow growth area as far as trees are concerned, and it has always seemed to me that while it is being done, there should be even more trees planted in the north and there should be more done than there is now.

I might say that if a government or a country was thinking about a full return for the dollar, middle Ontario has a very rapid, high growth rate for trees. We have a relatively small amount of trees being planted today. I am particularly struck by this, because some articles I read recently about the United States caused me great caution and made me pause to consider the future of the forest industry in Ontario; what is it going to be 30 years from now?

First of all, they have developed a species of tree that matures in 30 years. In 30 years they are going to have, perhaps, a very great forest resource; but at the rate Ontario is planting trees and doing forest improvement work, I doubt if in 30 years we shall have as much timber resource as we have today. Yet we’ll have more people and we’ll have more demand on that resource.

Mr. Renwick: A damning indictment of the government.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I don’t doubt that for a minute. I think it is a damning indictment of any government which has allowed a situation like this to exist.

Mr. Renwick: Thirty years of Tory rule.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I simply say it is bad practice to not plant more trees than we cut.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Not too much order.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Especially when much of our wealth, much of our employment, much of our house building and home building -- all these things -- depend on our resources of timber in Ontario. I worry about this because I can see what’s happening.

We do not have enough programme money for forest improvement in hardwood areas, in the hardwood band of Ontario. It will take money to thin the trees, to upgrade the trees and this sort of thing if we are going to have a hardwood forest in our future. My lady’s high heels may be passing fancy but when one realizes that most of them are made from maple today, we might not have them in existence in any quantity in a few years.

I have two counties on whose behalf I have resisted the legislative action of this government with regard to cutting off the wolf bounty. I accepted the idea of a better predator control programme; I’m still waiting for it. Much of Ontario is still waiting for it, most especially the counties and districts surrounding Algonquin Park --

Mr. Gilbertson: Algoma is in the same predicament.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: -- that protected area of Ontario under the complete control and supervision of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Wildlife is not interfered with there by the hunter, by the trapper or by any individual; it is protected in many thousands of acres. Predators are also protected but many species of wildlife are in dire straits, almost disappearing from Algonquin Park. As a result the predators have moved on, they’ve moved into our area. They’ve moved on through our area into other sections of Ontario and a predator control programme which does not manage predators in connection with wildlife does tremendous harm to the future of this country.

New Zealand exports venison and so do many other countries of the world, but they manage their predators. In the neighbouring states, hunting licences allow one to take as many as two deer and so on, because they have managed their predators. Some of the finest speckled trout fishing in the world is in Newfoundland, where they don’t have a predator on speckled trout.

Yet it seems to me the policy of the Natural Resources people in the biology field here in Ontario is to protect the predator and destroy the game -- animal, fish what have you -- by not protecting yet by supervising the predators. It is a poor policy, I think. I have seen speckled trout lakes ruined by perch and other predators.

I have noticed one big improvement, and it gives me a great satisfaction, and that is the increase in the price of coon fur this year. I feel that back will come some of the ducks in our area, back will come some of the loons, because these are the predators on the loon and the duck eggs in my particular section of Ontario. So the high price for that fur, I think, will have a beneficial effect on most wildlife and birds in my area.

It will be interesting to see. It happened in the Thirties where we had a tremendous increase in the wild fowl by elimination of predators because of the high fur rates for those and the subsequent drop off.

I would like to say a bit about uranium. The province recently announced that we are hoping to expand our uranium mines and our production. I have part of the Bancroft mining camp in my riding, that section where licences were taken away several years ago to the then Prime Minister of Canada’s riding; taken from ours and taken up there. They closed the mines in my riding by such a method.

There is going to be an expansion of the uranium mines in Ontario. I would like to see our area thought about in this connection. I would like to suggest that the government of Ontario should be fully involved, because the idea that we would again have a mining bust and boom sort of situation, in my riding in particular, would be against my wishes. I think the Ontario government could manage the uranium mining camp and it might take into consideration the development of a mining process in connection with the province or with the federal government in co-operation.

Mr. Renwick: Public ownership of the uranium industry this year is essential.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I don’t think they have to. I think they can produce the ore and bring it to a central mining processing plant that may well be owned by the province. I think there is place for both free enterprise and the province to be involved in the common enterprise in producing uranium ore.

Mr. Renwick: Not in our major source of fuel.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: In my area at the moment Imperial Oil is doing a lot of prospecting for uranium. There is Faraday, which is mainly owned by American interests. There are several other very good deposits of uranium and to my way of thinking we could have a 30 or 40 year production there. But if high-grading is allowed we may have 10 years of boom and 20 or 30 years of bust again, and I don’t think that would serve anybody; because in the village of Bancroft, for instance, in the last uranium boom we had as many as three or four banks, and today we have one or two. Stores went out of business and people lost money through investments and all that sort of thing. I think that there is a better way, especially when uranium is under the control of governments and can be continued that way.

I would like to suggest one other thing. Much of Ontario has a very high-cost education plant in existence today because of the requirements of the HS-I. It seems to me there is discussion and rumour today that we are going to start high schools on a semesters basis. If we do this nobody, but nobody, can manage the cost of education.

Just think of a high school that has planned its teaching staff and its school rooms at the start of a school year in September, with everything going, and say 200 of your pupils take off for community college or university in December. Where does it leave you?

Where will it leave the cost of education?

And this is what some of the rumours are in education today. It seems to me that if we got back to a few mandatory courses, rather than some of the permissive stuff we have, it would become a lot cheaper and a better and sounder educational system in the Province of Ontario.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Let me first thank you for the many courtesies afforded to me in the Legislature. I am extremely pleased to see that you have recovered from overexposure to the workload of the last session. I know at times there were hectic moments in many of the debates of the last session. I am sure all members of the House will agree that we are extremely impressed with the manner in which you accept the daily challenge, and particularly pleased with your impartiality in this Legislature.

I have noticed on several occasions, Mr. Speaker, that you have been annoyed by some members, perhaps under strain, who have caused disruption of the proceedings in this assembly; members who have been noisy in character. Sometimes I wish you would crack the whip and be a little more firm, particularly during the shouting match by members in the question period. And perhaps I raise this, at this time, Mr. Speaker, because many of the members of this House, particularly in the back rows, have very little opportunity afforded them to ask or raise their questions in the assembly. Sometimes they are rather important questions to the back-benchers in this assembly, and I wish perhaps more consideration could be given to some of us in the back rows.

But above all, Mr. Speaker, I want to wish you continued good health, and hope that all members will share in your patience and respect for the important office you hold.

I might add at this time too, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to convey my best to the Deputy Speakers of this assembly. I feel they have treated all members fairly well.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the seventh Throne Speech debate in which I have had the pleasure to participate. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett) for moving the address to his Honour the Lieutenant Governor, and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot) for seconding this motion.

I was interested in what they had to say in their reply to the Throne Speech. Both members agreed to support the proposal for a prescription drug plan for senior citizens and stated that previous assistance was outdated. This party has been clear and forceful on many occasions in advocating policy changes to assist senior citizens in a comprehensive drug plan.

I ask the government to give further consideration to the Throne Speech and to consider those persons who are in the grey area and who need special medical care -- those who are not 65 years old but who require special services; and particularly those persons between the ages of 55 and 65 who have very little assistance to maintain a proper living standard in the Province of Ontario, those people who do not receive old age security cheques.

The member for Timiskaming has suggested the need for younger and more vigorous commissioners for the Ontario Northland Railway and the appointment of a commissioner to represent labour. Well that is a Tory switch, and I am sure all members of the opposition agree to these two proposals. I wish this member well in moving the government in this direction; and of course if one has read the Globe and Mail in the past couple of days, I hope that they move in this direction much more quickly than he has suggested.

We in the official opposition can also agree and support the suggestion of issuing credit cards for the health services programme in Ontario. I can recall that this is not the first instance of which this suggestion has been placed before the House. I believe it was the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith), who as this party’s health critic a few years ago suggested this was one step in the right direction to reduce the red tape and confusion that existed in the early stages of the Ontario health insurance plan. It would also provide a clear cut picture of services rendered by the medical profession to the patient and no doubt speed up payments to the medical doctors.

Mr. Speaker, during the Throne Speech members can well appreciate the consideration that the government has finally taken to improve the standard of living for citizens in remote areas of northern Ontario. I have also noted that the federal government will be sharing in expansion programmes in northern Ontario. The programme is long overdue and will be supported by members on this side of the House. The establishments of local councils in unorganized territories will no doubt be welcomed by many citizens in northern Ontario. The first decentralization of power from Queen’s Park in itself is a major step. This will allow citizens a voice and participation in local issues, so that they will be able to make their own decisions in the best interest and welfare of their communities. I commend the government for this proposal.

The question of mandatory use of seatbelts has not been well received by Ontario motorists. The old saying “Speed kills,” promoted by safety crusaders, is well substantiated by the recent drop in traffic fatalities in the United States. Speed limits were reduced as a fuel-saving measure in the oil crisis that hit the United States and there was a noticeable decrease in the total number of accidents. The government of Ontario should give consideration to reducing the speed limits on our highways in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the weakest point raised in the Throne Speech dealt with a paragraph concerning inflation. Quoting:

“My government will employ all practical means at its disposal to alleviate the causes of and effects of inflation. Nevertheless, it bears repeating that the problem can only be dealt with in a national con- text, with all governments co-operating.”

Surely, Mr. Speaker, this government has a great responsibility in the problem of inflation. Approximately one-third of the population of Canada lives in Ontario. We in Ontario have the highest average weekly wages and salaries of any province in Canada at almost $170 a week. It is a province with vast resources, minerals, precious metals, forest products and an excellent fanning industry and sufficient energy, in fact we export energy.

Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech clearly indicates that this government is not concerned with the continued growth rate of inflation and has no intention of grappling with the causes of inflation. It is most degrading or dishonest for the government of the day to allow inflation to continue to rise day after day, destroying family incomes.

The average hourly earnings are substantially less than the increase in the cost of living. Those employees working in industry who negotiated agreements some two or three years ago have been hit the hardest. We’ve all seen the food prices in this country increased by approximately 17 per cent in 1973. I believe, as other members do, that the farmer is not the one to be blamed for these increases.

Mr. Speaker, it is often taken for granted that unions and their members, and I should also include farmers, are responsible for inflation. But let us now take a look at the Globe and Mail of Wednesday, March 20, 1974. This is in the Report on Business:

“BASE METALS HOLD LEAD IN PROFIT PERFORMANCE FOR THIRD SUCCESSIVE YEAR

“The base metals group, aided by higher prices and production, turned in the best profit performance in the Report on Business sampling of the final fourth quarter after-tax profits of Canadian companies. This is the third time in succession that group has topped the list.

“Following the base metals were the industrial mines group, the paper and forest products, real estate companies, and golds. At the other end of the scale were miscellaneous financial companies, trust and loan companies, and pipelines.”

Referring particularly to the trust and loan companies, I believe that they perhaps have reached one of the highest profits in all of Canadian history in the Province of Ontario. When we look at the profits that some of these trust and loan companies make, maybe we should come in with some legislation to control the cost of borrowing, particularly to the loan companies. I believe it is almost -- what is it? -- 24 per cent as set out by statute. I think this is away too high.

I was asked to be present one night when a chap had to go into a finance company to pay off his final debt. He came back out and I told him what I thought he should do -- ask for a complete statement. He came back out and said a statement wasn’t available. I said: “Don’t go back and pay anything until they can produce a statement.” In a period of about three years he almost paid double what he borrowed. Of course, there were other hidden clauses in there that raised the actual costs of borrowing to him.

I believe there should be some restrictions brought in, because 24 per cent is too high at this time -- or at any time I should say.

“Banks: For the first time in a profit survey, balance of revenue after provision for income taxes has been reported for the banks. Previously, the balance of revenue before income taxes was included in the surveys. The changeover allows a better comparison of bank profits with those of other groups.

“In the fourth quarter the balance of revenue for banks rose by 26.2 per cent to $93.8 million from $74.3 million” [in comparison with the similar quarter of 1973].

“Steel: Exceptionally strong world and domestic demand for steel pushed production, sales and in some cases profit levels of steelmakers to record levels. Raw steel production by Algoma Steel Ltd. of Sault Ste. Marie rose to 2,650,000 tons from 2,426,000 in 1972 and steel product shipments in- creased to 1,920,000 tons from 1,740,000 tons. The profit of $2.45 a share in 1973 was up sharply from the year earlier $1.37 a share....”

I might add that I have made some inquires to local industries in my area in the past two or three weeks. I specifically inquired about the price of steel, Mr. Speaker, and I was amazed to learn that the so-called shortage of steel, which might have been manufactured or created by the steel industry, means that the fabricators cannot buy the type of steel they want. There is one catch, however. They can buy it if they want to pay the price. And if they want quick delivery, they pay the price and they will get it, although the price perhaps will be far above the price that is usually quoted in estimates.

I imagine, with the commercial developments that are taking place in downtown Toronto and the highrise buildings that are going up here, that it is going to be pretty hard in the coming year for a contractor to make a decent estimate on the cost of a building. I don’t know how he is going to stay in business, because he can’t get a commitment from any of these companies, say a six month commitment, that the price of steel will remain at that level. This again is going to cause inflation in the cost of building in the Province of Ontario.

“Food processing: Profit of 12 food processing companies rose by 81.1 per cent in the fourth quarter and 59.6 per cent for the year. Maple Leaf Mills Limited of Toronto, one of the larger companies included in the group, had a profit before extraordinary items of $7,859,000 in 1973, compared with $3,150,000 in 1972. George Weston Ltd., of Toronto showed a $34,629,000 profit in 1973....”

I believe the member for Huron stated that he thought one of the problems with the food chains stores in the Province of Ontario was that perhaps they were adding extra profits and the consumer again is paying for it.

Mr. Speaker, we as Canadians do agree that corporations must maintain a fair margin in profits to remain competitive and to preserve a strong labour force. There are many Canadians, and I am one of those, who are concerned about the high cost of food.

We can readily see the profiteering at a time when there is supposed to be national crisis of oil in Canada. There was an increase in windfall profits on an average of more than 46 per cent that applies to four or five of the major national oil companies located in Canada, and perhaps I should name a few -- Imperial Oil, Shell Oil, Gulf Oil and BP, as well as Exxon and Texaco.

Most of these companies are related or partners in perhaps the world’s largest oil syndicate, namely Aramco -- Arabian-American Oil Co. Look at the Royal Dutch-Shell group 1973 profits -- $1.71 billion, as compared with $675.4 million.

Mr. Speaker, I said, and perhaps it is worth repeating again, that the oil crisis was manufactured or created by a consortium of multinational corporations with one goal: to increase their profits well above any reasonable profit year, thereby adding further to inflationary costs perhaps to a breaking point that many countries will not survive. This unnecessary impact is gouging the consumer.

I have another report here that I thought I should read into the record, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it will back up some of the arguments I have put forth so far. This is from the monthly letter of the Royal Bank of Canada, which has its head office in Montreal:

“Applying to business this principle of the basic need to survive, the deputy chairman and executive vice-president of this bank said to Canada-United Kingdom Chamber of Commerce in London in May: ‘Profit is an essential condition for the survival and growth of an enterprise. Profit is also, of course, the required incentive and reward to the providers of capital. Profit is also the most effective measure of an enterprise’s operation.’

“Then he went on to speak of the second obligation: ‘If corporations are not seen to act, and do not in fact act, in a socially responsible manner, their long-term survival could be threatened.’”

I believe that is a warning. That is a warning at this time, Mr. Speaker, that the situation is perhaps not too healthy in many countries throughout the world.

Much of the manufactured increase of crude oil prices originated in the United States by a consortium of oil magnates solely for their personal capital gains. At present, Senate hearings being held in the United States have indicated and lead one to believe that it is the world’s largest swindle. It is even cropping up in the Watergate hearings.

In the past, the United States government has given certain tax concessions, as well as imposing an embargo, on crude oil coming into the United States, supposedly to encourage further development of oil resources. This has failed for the simple reason that the companies have not used the tax credits for exploration in the United States, but in some small instances in other areas throughout the world.

The question of higher prices to the oil companies, as announced this past week by all smiling Premiers of this great Dominion, is no guarantee of increased exploration and development here in Canada.

With the tax concessions already present, such as depreciation allowance, reports indicate that they will pay less than six per cent on their book profits.

It is my hope that Canadian ownership and control of our vast resources in Ontario and throughout Canada remain totally in the hands of Canadians. Also that the revenue developed by the two-price system for oil be used directly by truly Canadian-owned corporations as announced by the federal government in creating a national petroleum corporation with investments and control of production in Canada, in particular of the Athabaska tar sands.

I say to members of this House and to all Canadians, we have been taken by the multinational corporations. We have allowed corporate profiteers to pile up windfall profits at the expense of the people of this great Dominion, and in particular that of the people of this Province of Ontario. The government of Canada and the provincial government of Ontario should have initiated a fullscale public investigation of oil profits before there was any agreement to allow an increase in the price of crude oil, which in the long run will be paid to the oil companies.

In the recent investigation into oil profits by a United States Senate committee it was revealed that four or more oil companies were reaping windfall profits. As members of this Legislature we have all read reports of substantial increases in profits of mining corporations. In some instances, it is well over 200 per cent. Perhaps I should go back to that article of the Globe and Mail, if I can find it here.

Well, for example, base metals. In 1973, their profits had increased by 358.5 per cent. Industrial mines increased by 160.5 in profits. So members can see there’s been a substantial increase to the mining industry in the Province of Ontario.

This indicates corporation profits, as a share of the gross national product, increased in 1973 while Canadian workers’ share of the gross national product actually declined.

And perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I’ll go back to the Royal Bank of Canada monthly newsletter, to sum it up as the deputy chairman and executive vice-president of the Royal Bank summed it up when he said:

“We are fast reaching the point where the social and political climate almost everywhere in the world will make it increasingly necessary for businesses to justify their existence on grounds other than purely economic success as expressed in terms of profit to shareholders.”

Again he picks it out and it’s another warning to the corporations in Canada, particularly in Ontario, that there is no need for some of the high increases in profits without returning some of it to those persons who supply the labour to produce the profits for them.

Mr. Speaker, one solution to this problem of inflationary costs to the consumer, to ease some of the struggle to keep the family head above water, is to bring in legislation which will allow a cost of living factor to apply to every wage earner in Ontario. Of course, this might be too easy a solution to the problem. The registered pension plans should also be required to include a cost of living escalator provision in their agreements.

Or the government can move in another simple direction by making use of already existing legislation, be it federal or provincial, the Combines Investigations Act. I am sure if this government was concerned about inflation it would move in this direction. No doubt it would open up a can of worms in price fixing. Present governments, federal and provincial, today well need to come to grips with excess profits, the pros and cons of large increases in profits; I am sure they must agree to tax windfall and excess profits in order to assure the Canadian public that in our tax system there is justice.

The question is what is the government going to do? If one follows the statement of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), he’s going to do many things. Ontario plans changes in mining legislation to bring about an acreage tax increase which would develop approximately $13.5 million. We on this side would agree to that proposal, providing the revenue was returned to the present mining municipalities and the proposed new local governments, as proposed in the Throne Speech, for their own use based upon municipal land assessment for tax purposes. I hope this would give them the additional revenue required to provide the needs of and services for those communities.

Mr. Speaker, I was also interested in reading in the Globe and Mail on March 9 that another programme for mining support would be introduced in the budget proposals, with tax incentives or tax write-offs for mining exploration. Surely, Mr. Speaker, one has to question the government’s further moving in the direction of tax concessions to corporations in the mining industries in Ontario. The government continuously gives additional tax credits and I believe it has been well documented in the House by previous speakers that at present the mining industries in Ontario pay far less than the average taxpayer in Ontario pays in personal income tax.

I believe it has been stated that corporations pay an average of 5.2 per cent in taxes. It is interesting to note that in the auditor’s reports for 1972 and 1973, revenue and expenditure for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1973, for natural resources, revenue amounted to $55,161,863; expenditures were $138,797,387, an imbalance of approximately $84 million.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, with these vast resources of forests and minerals in Ontario this is one department of the government that should generate a surplus of income for the Province of Ontario. This has been mentioned before by previous speakers. If the government is going to control inflation, this is one place where it should start.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Where’s that?

Mr. Haggerty: That is from the Provincial Auditor’s report; a very important report. I suggest that all members should be reading it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s a lot better than the Sun which his leader has been reading for tomorrow’s question period.

Mr. Haggerty: The point I raise here, Mr. Speaker, is that with --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I’m finding a job for the minister in the want ads.

Mr. Haggerty: -- all the resources which are available in the mining industry and in the forest industry in the Province of Ontario, surely there should be enough profit generated from them to pay for the operations of that department. In other words, what I am saying is it’s a giveaway now to the mining corporations and to the forest industries in the Province of Ontario. The members know and I know that not enough revenue is generated to pay for the reforestation programme, for example. It’s the Province of Ontario which pays for it, not the forest industry.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right. The member for Victoria-Haliburton was saying so too.

Mr. Haggerty: It is also interesting to have read the article in the Globe and Mail with the headline, “Base Metals Hold Lead.” There is no use repeating myself, but the point I want to bring to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker, is that Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. revenue was recorded at $438.2 million last year, up from $274.6 million in 1972. This was after the concession for depletion and depreciation costs and tax rebates.

I was interested last year during the estimates of the Minister of Natural Resources, when the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) brought up the working conditions, particularly at Falconbridge in the Sudbury basin. I believe at that time the minister’s staff had stated that the conditions were not favourable for any person to be working in that type of industry. I was just wondering, with profits as enormous as that, surely this government can move in some direction to give those workers in that industry good, clean working conditions. I suggest the government take a good hard look at this and see that something is done for those workers up in that industry.

Mr. Speaker, there is not a day goes by without notice that the public is being informed of the large revenue increases by corporations, such as oil, mining, banks and trust companies. Many others have piled up incredibly high profits. Prices are increasing day after day and the purchasing power of the lower-income families is the one that suffers the most in the inflationary squeeze.

The matter of excess profits, includes land speculations by foreign interests, again at the sacrifice of Canadians. This must also be controlled by the government. Again I understand through federal legislation there are certain tax concessions given to foreign capital that comes in here to buy land. I suppose that if you wanted to deal with the facts, Mr. Speaker, you only have to go down to the

Niagara region to find the amount of land bought by foreign money in the area. I suppose it is even evident here in Toronto when you go to look at it.

An hon. member: It is only the beginning.

Mr. Haggerty: It is only the beginning; that’s right. Here again this government has failed to control the present cost to a purchaser of a home in Ontario, which far out-distances ability to produce an income capable of financing a home. The present Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman) has stated that if the family is going to be able to purchase a new home his income, or both, will have to exceed $18,000 per year. How on earth can a family man in Ontario, earning an average income of around $9,000 per year, ever hope to find better living quarters under the present housing programme in Ontario? Under existing conditions speculators are encouraged to hoard land by the present system of government land controls.

Present planning regulations are not geared to an individual, but for developers who in many instances have reaped a good return for their investment, adding further to the inflationary cost in home ownership. It is rather disappointing that the province finds itself in this predicament and disheartening to a number of prospective home buyers here in Ontario. If citizens in this province ever hope to own a home, then the government must move in the direction of a source of better income for Canadian workers, or seriously take a hard look at the housing industry in Ontario.

All I’ve seen so far in the last month or so since we have a new Minister of Housing is that we have NIP and RAP. I remember the member for Downsview speaking on it here on Friday morning. I think I shouted across to him: “Yes, it is nothing but a paper housing programme.”

An hon. member: That was in my headline.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister looking at the want ads?

Mr. Haggerty: To continue, Mr. Speaker, I think we should have control over land speculators; remove some of the planning delays caused by bureaucratic decisions made here at Queen’s Park; provide the financial resources to supply essential services for land development, such as sewer and water systems; bring in lower interest rates for financing family housing, and remove the provincial sales tax on residential housing in Ontario.

It was also interesting to read the news release on March 25 from the Ministry of Industry and Tourism about a two-week long export mission to Italy and Spain sponsored by the minister’s trade division. One of the important products for sale overseas is the pre-fab wooden home. Surely this Minister of Housing is not going along with this export programme when a housing crisis exists in this province? Has not the minister a responsibility to establish Ontario priorities first? It would also be interesting to know what these homes cost to manufacture in Ontario and what the export price is.

I have also been informed that the houses in the United States sell for far less compared with the price of such a home here in Ontario. Yet large quantities of Ontario forest products are exported to the United States. Is it not now time for a two-price system for lumber in Ontario? Why not establish Ontario priorities first?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Haggerty: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, one other important item that is missing from the Throne Speech is the lack of any farm policy for the Province of Ontario. The Minister of Agriculture and Food in the past has done an excellent job for the farmers of Ontario, but I think he is tired and he wants to be replaced. We can see that very little has been done in the past year, or is being done now, for the farmers in the Province of Ontario. In fact, he has done nothing in control of the farmlands to see that they are maintained as workable farmlands.

I am going to say this to the Minister of Transportation and Communications: we have cultivated more farmlands for highways and hydro towers in the province than has actually been brought into new production.

Mr. Gaunt: Some of us haven’t got any faith left.

Mr. Haggerty: And for example, Mr. Speaker, if you read the recent study that is going to come out in the Niagara region now on highway proposals in that area, the minister is going to build a four-lane expressway on top of the Niagara Escarpment, cut across down through the town of Pelham which has some of the best fruitlands in the Province of Ontario; he is going to destroy all of that if he creates this new road. It is not needed.

I suggest the minister goes and talks to Prof. Pleva at the University of Western Ontario, a man who is knowledgeable on land control. You know what he suggests, Mr. Speaker? He said some 15 years ago that the government is wasting taxpayers’ money. When you have roadways already there -- the right of way is there, much of the roads are built up, the stone is on, the gravel is on, some are even paved -- why go and build a four-lane road? He says the simplest way to do it is make a one-way road here, go over to the next concession and make another one-way road the other way. You have one-way streets in the city of Toronto; there is no traffic congestion. People are used to it, and accommodate to it. Perhaps the minister should be looking at this.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Would the member support that?

Mr. Haggerty: You bet I would.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member would support that?

Mr. Haggerty: I would support that, that’s why I am saying this to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member is saying that because he knows he’ll never have to do it -- so he supports it.

Mr. Haggerty: It has merits.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): What does the minister mean, we’ll never have to do it?

Mr. Haggerty: It has merit.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Okay. That’s --

Mr. Haggerty: You don’t cut a road diagonally across a municipality and destroy the whole social --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, no. I want to know, will the member support plans --

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister going to stop them in the cities now?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- for a highway eastbound here; and a mile away one westbound?

Mr. Haggerty: The roads are set only about five-eighths of a mile or half a mile apart, not a mile away.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Well, even half a mile. Does the member support that?

Mr. Haggerty: It has merit and in some cases it can work. For example, let’s take the Nanticoke development. The minister is talking about a four-lane expressway there, isn’t he? It’s in one of his proposals. Could it not be worked there?

Does the minister mean to tell me that he’s going to go 600 ft or 700 ft from another highway and construct a brand-new four-lane expressway -- that he cannot improve some of the existing roadways? Many of the people don’t want it. I think the minister’s got the measure already.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Maybe they won’t need it.

Mr. Haggerty: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Maybe it won’t be there.

Mr. Haggerty: But I think it’s worthwhile looking at. I suggest he sends some of his high-priced help to Western University to talk to this man.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What’s his name?

Mr. Haggerty: Pleva.

An hon. member: P-l-e-v-a.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I heard him 20 years ago.

Mr. Haggerty: Never heard of him, eh?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Oh yes.

Mrs. Campbell: Where --

Mr. Haggerty: Never listen to him.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South has the floor.

Mr. Haggerty: This is good, Mr. Speaker, I am getting some of his ideas. I want to know what’s going to take place in the Niagara region.

Mr. Speaker: We haven’t time for repartee.

Mr. Haggerty: Perhaps the minister should be moving to more rapid transportation programmes in certain areas. While we are into this discussion across the floor I suggested that the minister should be looking at this instead of Highway 406 in the Niagara region, instead of going through there, cutting up city property and taking homes away. There is an old existing railroad right of way that used to carry people years ago by trolley from the city of Port Colborne to Port Dalhousie. Of course 20 years ago I guess the government at that time said it was outdated. It is like the horse and buggy days, it is outdated. But today this is the way to move masses of people.

I suggest before the government really gets into setting out a route for Highway 406 -- and has problems with it -- it looks at the rapid transit system. Eventually the cities of Port Colborne, Welland and St. Catharines will be one urbanized area right across the peninsula, right across the corridor. Maybe the government should be providing us with hovercraft so we could use the canal. Maybe that would be the simplest way yet.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I hope the member’s local press is gobbling all this up for the member.

Mr. Haggerty: The local press said this -- this is where I am getting it.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The release has al- ready gone out --

Mr. Haggerty: But they are not listening to them. So I hope that the minister does.

I was interested in the proposals of the federal government that it is coming in with an agricultural policy. I have to give credit to the federal Minister of Agriculture. In the short time he has been in there, less than a year, he has done more for the farmers in Canada and in Ontario than our provincial minister who has been in the portfolio, for some 10 years I guess it is.

An hon. member: Almost 12.

Mr. Haggerty: In his short span in office, the federal minister has done more for the farmers in Canada and in Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Well, he is a good Essex county product. He comes from the sunshine parlour, that is why.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Eugene who?

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Whelan, just Gene.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: He wouldn’t know him.

Mr. Haggerty: But I will tell you this much, Mr. Speaker, he is concerned about the loss of milk production in Canada, in Ontario. I believe it has dropped 4.7 per cent.

An hon. member: A shortfall of over five per cent now.

Mr. Haggerty: Over five per cent? It is rather a serious problem here in the Province of Ontario. One of the hardest things about it is that farmers who want to increase the production of milk have a hard time in trying to get a loan. I don’t blame this on the provincial government but --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is the only thing the member hasn’t.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the province at one time had the junior farmers’ loan programme.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Haggerty: I believe the minister stated at that time this was a duplication of a federal loan programme and removed it from the Province of Ontario. I suggest that the minister should get back into it again.

An hon. member: He is doing a great job.

Mr. Haggerty: There are many young farmers who perhaps aren’t qualified for loans, in some instances through family ties, and I suggest that perhaps we should be moving back into the junior farmer credit loan programme in the province. I am sure that we could get a lot of these youngsters back in the farming industry in the Province of Ontario.

I would like to read what the federal Minister of Agricultural is going to do:

“To complement this programme the federal government will extend its assistance programme for the construction of new storage facilities. In many regions storage facilities are not adequate today, while in other regions storage is outdated and better facilities should be constructed.

“Storage construction assistance is now being provided for specialized fruit and vegetable stores and this programme will be continued and extended to other suitable crops.

“The farmers of Canada will benefit through better market places and consumers will benefit from the increased supplies throughout the year through better quality food kept in the top-notch storage facilities. Our research group have proved that some commodities can be placed in proper storage and then taken out in just as good a condition as when they went in, or in some instances even better. This will provide the consumer with more stable prices and more even prices for the producer.”

I believe, Mr. Speaker, last year in the Throne Speech debate I had suggested something similar to this; that we should have more storage facilities for farm commodities or farm produce in Canada -- and this is one of the problems right now. The consumer is paying a high price for the food because we have to have it imported or it’s just not available. That’s one of the reasons why it’s not available.

I suggested to the Minister of Agriculture and Food at that time that in the Niagara Peninsula he should be moving into the tender fruit business in that area, and putting in a fast-frozen food plant. Much of the crop there is wasted. It’s not being picked and there just aren’t facilities for storing it. The canners are filled up with what they want and the rest of it goes to waste.

I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture and Food should be looking at this, perhaps through some joint programme with the federal Minister of Agriculture, so that we could get into a good food storage programme in Ontario. The adverse weather conditions are one of the other reasons that we should have a food storage facility.

Mr. Gilbertson: They want to sell it to their developer friends.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, that’s what they are doing -- or moving in with highways or something like that, trying to cultivate asphalt in the Province of Ontario.

These are some of the things I’m concerned about, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the government would take note of what I’ve said tonight. I do want to support my leader and his motion that he put forward here in the Throne debate. Perhaps it’s worthwhile reading it into the record again. Perhaps some of the members have forgotten.

“Mr. Nixon moves, seconded by Mr. Breithaupt, that the following words be added to the motion:

“For its failure to establish a prices review committee of the Legislature, which together with a reduction in provincial deficit spending, would exert control on inflation;

“For its inadequate land-use policy which continues to permit the unreasonable loss of farmland to government and private development, and the unnatural inflationary pressures of foreign land purchases without safeguarding Canadian ownership and interest;

“For its failure to establish planning and land servicing programmes without which serviced-lot costs have escalated housing out of the financial reach of our residents.”

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will sit down and let the next speaker take the floor.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to see the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) who has taken on the new responsibility as Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. I had hoped that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) would have been in the chamber tonight so I could exchange a few views with him with regard to recent developments in the resource industries, but since he is not here and his new --

Mr. Gilbertson: He will be in.

Mr. Stokes: -- parliamentary assistant isn’t here, perhaps the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development can pass on some of my concerns and apprehensions about recent developments.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will take the message for him.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I want to report to the Legislature that a lot of the jargon that has been used by the former Department of Lands and Forests, and now the new Ministry of Natural Resources, is no longer valid. It was the conventional wisdom in this Legislature and in the Ministry of Natural Resources that we were fairly well up on allowable cuts and sustained yields, that we had a very accurate inventory of what our resource was, that we had a fairly good idea of what the age classes were and what the availability of wood fibre in the various species was.

It’s just slowly coming home now to the Minister of Natural Resources and his ministry that they really don’t know what end is up. They haven’t got a clue as to what the sustained yield is in the boreal forest in the Province of Ontario. They have no idea what the allowable cut should be.

We have been contracting wood fibre out in large quantities to companies like Anglo-Canadian, where they have announced an expansion of a quarter of a billion dollars in the Dryden, Ear Falls, Red Lake area. We have got a recent expansion of $120 million by Great Lakes in Thunder Bay. We have another expansion in the city of Thunder Bay by MacMillan Bloedel, which is going to be operated by a wholly-owned subsidiary of theirs, Laidlaw Lumber Co. We have an expansion that was to take place by Domtar, at their mill at Red Rock, of anywhere from $70 million to $90 million -- and lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, we get an announcement within the last two weeks from Domtar that unless additional wood fibre is made available to them they won’t be able to go ahead with their proposed expansion. We are led to believe that unless there’s some kind of rationalization in the forest industry with regard to the allocation of timber we are in real difficulty.

As a matter of fact, the vice president of Domtar only two weeks ago said that particular company was going to be in trouble if it couldn’t get in and cut timber within the confines of Quetico Park. Now, Domtar is a company that operates in northwestern Ontario, that geographically speaking has one of the largest timber limits in all of Ontario, and yet we are led to believe by this company that unless it can have additional supplies of wood, it doesn’t know whether it can keep existing mills open, let alone carry out a planned expansion to maintain its relative position in the marketplace.

Domtar is a company that, as recently as four or five years ago -- we were told by the Ministry of Natural Resources -- had a sustained yield on an allowable cut of 600,000 cords a year. Domtar at the present time is harvesting about 130,000 to 150,000 cords a year. Where’s the other 450,000 to 500,000 cords a year they were supposed to have on their limits on a sustained yield basis?

When I asked the timber branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources, they said: “Well, we were out a little bit. We thought they had this kind of timber on their limits but we find out that it just isn’t there.”

Domtar is a company that has timber limits stretching from Lake Superior right up beyond the northern line of the Canadian National Railways and right up to the Ogoki reservoir. The town of Armstrong has been having a particularly difficult time since the federal Department of National Defence decided to phase out a radar base, so we naturally look to the forest industry to provide an alternative to lend some viability to a community such as Armstrong.

We asked Domtar if they would go in and utilize some of the wood on their limits that has been going to waste and over-maturity over the last 35 years, and they say there isn’t enough timber. We asked the

Ministry of Natural Resources what the inventory is in that block that has been allocated to Domtar over the last 35 years. Domtar doesn’t know what’s on the limit. The Ministry of Natural Resources doesn’t know what’s on the limit. A third party who wants to go in tells me there could be as much as three million cords of mature and over-mature timber but they can’t get at it.

We have had two assessments made of that timber limit in the past six months. Domtar has engaged in another assessment of what the inventory is and what is the allowable cut and we still don’t know what it is. I’ve had assessments of from 450,000 cords on that particular block to three million cords, depending on who one listens to.

The reason I bring it to the attention of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development is because I fear that unless somebody starts asking some pretty pertinent questions we are going to allow that timber to become over-mature, to go down the drain and be lost to the economy of this province and lost to the people of Armstrong who so badly need it.

Going back over the last four or five years we were led to believe by the Ministry of Natural Resources that every cunit, that is every 100 cu. ft of wood we cut, provided over $100 of new wealth to the economy of the Province of Ontario.

Even if there are only 450,000 cords of saw log material upon which to start a saw log industry, multiply that by 100 and that will give members some idea of the new wealth which will be created if we utilize that resource which is in a mature and an over-mature state at the present time. That’s the rock bottom -- 450,000 cords going unharvested at the present time. It could be as much as 1 1/2 million or it could be as much at 2 1/2 million cords.

Because of all the contracts this government has been entering into recently for greater utilization -- and I’m not against greater utilization as long as we know the values we are talking about -- but if we are going to get involved in allocating timber the value of which we don’t know and the quantity of which we don’t know, we are going to be in real trouble in the Province of Ontario. We heard the member for Victoria-Haliburton say how far behind we were with regard to our regeneration, our silviculture and our reforestation programme in the Province of Ontario when we compare that with other jurisdictions such as Scandinavia and the United States.

I don’t know what the allowable cut is in the Province of Ontario. I thought I knew. I have made a study of it ever since I’ve been in this Legislature, taking the word of the Ministry of Natural Resources and taking the word of the former Department of Lands and Forests; but they were selling me a bill of goods. They are just coming to admit right now that we don’t know what the inventory is in the Province of Ontario with regard to species, with regard to age classes and with regard to the availability on specific timber limits. It seems to me that we can no longer leave it to guesswork or the very imprecise way we have had in the past of saying we have all kinds of it so we really don’t have to worry too much.

When we get a well-established company like Domtar coming to this government and saying: “We think we are in real trouble,” I think it is high time that the Ministry of Natural Resources and the resources policy field got those people from the timber branch off their fannies and out into the field instead of acting as administrators. As I go through the province and I talk to the foresters within the Ministry of Natural Resources, they tell me they are so busy acting as administrators and office boys that they never get out. They never get a chance to get out into the field and find out what the proper timber inventory should be.

Wherever I go, I get the people who are really concerned, the concerned foresters, who say: “I just wish I knew what the situation was, but I’m so busy tied down to this desk doing administrative work that I can’t get out and do the job I was hired to do; and that is proper management of our forest resources.”

Mr. Speaker, when you heard the present Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) talking about allowable cuts and sustained yields in the past, when you heard me talking about it, and when you heard the now Minister of Natural Resources talking about sustained yields and allowable cuts and all of this; it was all a bunch of malarky, because we were sold a bill of goods.

I’m sure the Minister of Community and Social Services and the hon. member for Cochrane North can verify what I’m going to say. He represents an area of this province where the economy depends almost entirely upon our ability to manage our forest resources. Mr. Speaker, you talk about what happens in Cochrane with a waferboard mill or a chipboard mill. You talk about the saw log industry in Hearst that he’s vitally interested in. Go and ask those people whether they have an assured supply of timber over the next 10 to 15 years, and they will start to scratch their heads because they don’t know where it’s coming from. They just don’t know, because you cant believe what the Ministry of Natural Resources tells you any more with regard to the allocation of timber and the availability of timber over whatever length of time it’s going to take to recover a $100 million or $150 million expansion investment.

We’re in real trouble in the Province of Ontario with regard to the allocation of timber, if we don’t get off our fannies, find out what the allowable cut is, what the sustained yield is, and whether we’re going to allocate a sufficient number of dollars for reforestation, and regeneration so that 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years from now we can come back and say: yes, we’ve still got a viable pulp and paper industry; we’ve got a viable saw log industry; we’ve got a viable plywood industry.

It’s not going to happen by itself. I think this House should know that unless we get our foresters into the bush and get them managing our forests, and unless we’re going to get the kind of dollars from the industry to pay for the kind of management that’s been so sadly lacking over the years, we’re not going to have a viable pulp and paper industry very long in the Province of Ontario.

Don’t take my word for it. Ask the questions that I have been asking of the timber branch.

Mr. W. Hodgson: Don’t worry; we won’t.

Mr. Stokes: Don’t take my word for it. Go and ask the timber branch what the allowable cut is on Great Lakes limits. Go and ask them what the allowable cut is on Domtar limits. Ask them what the allowable cut is on Kimberly-Clark limits.

They won’t be able to tell you, because a lot of the data we thought was valid is 20 years out of date. You have a Canadian company like Domtar scratching for wood to sustain a mild expansion in their mill at Red Rock. You get a company like MacMillan Bloedel, that just set up on the outskirts of Thunder Bay, and the Ministry of Natural Resources saying to everybody who cuts a stick of birch or poplar on Crown land that it must go to MacMillan Bloedel and they can’t sell it any place else. If you cut it on Crown land it must be sold to MacMillan Bloedel, Mr. Speaker.

They’ve got captive buyers. You can cut all of the wood you want on Crown land, but if it’s of that species it must go to that one company. That gives you some idea about where we are in the Province of Ontario today, Mr. Speaker.

I’m not saying that the industry is going to cave in; what I’m saying is that the kind of information that we’ve been going along with for the last 20 years in this province, we find out is not accurate and is not reliable. I think it’s time we took a good hard look at where we are going with regard to an industry that is so vitally important, not only to northern Ontario that I represent but to the economy of the entire province.

I do hope the minister will take it seriously. I’m not usually this forceful in my criticism of a ministry, but I think in this particular case it is justified and I think the government is going to have to get after the Ministry of Natural Resources for a more accurate allocation of timber on the basis of need.

We have companies that can never hope to use all of the wood that is under licence to them. I could take members to stands of timber that are 130 to 150 years of age that have never been touched. The wood is falling over and it is rotting, when others are crying for the timber to keep their mills open.

Why? It is because of our present licensing system. There are a good many jurisdictions where they don’t hand out licences to large feudal domains. They’ll say: “We will assure you wood on a volume agreement.” But we don’t do it that way, with very few exceptions; I suppose we have one or two volume agreements across the province.

What we have been doing is saying: “Okay, we’ll carve up the province and we’ll give this block to company A, we’ll give this block to company B, we’ll give this block to company C and so on down the line.”

Let’s assume company A has this block and builds its mill here. What they do is, from the time they start operating the mill, they start high-grading around the mill.

What happens over here? When they were issued the licence there was over-mature wood here. Maybe 30 years have passed in the interim and of course they haven’t even been concerned about this wood. So now they have stands away up here in the northern part of their limits that are mature and over- mature by 30 years.

That’s just like saying to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: “We’ll plant a crop and because there is lots to satisfy us within 40 acres of the barn, we won’t bother harvesting that.”

You just don’t do things that way; that isn’t the way to manage a renewable resource. You look at the total package and you say: “Okay, in this year, 1965, there is a block of timber that is mature and it’s at its maximum. We will go in there and we will cut that.” They didn’t do things that way; they aren’t doing things like that today.

They are high-grading -- wherever they can get the cheapest wood within closest proximity to the mill, or where they are about to use it; they couldn’t care less about what is over-maturing and falling down and being lost to the economy. That’s why we have tremendous stands of timber that have gone unused in the past, that are falling over and that are rotting.

As I suggest to the House, it is coming back to haunt us. We can no longer afford to let these prime licence-holders high-grade these timber limits. They must manage the entire limit, not just high-grade within close proximity to the mill. That’s the reason why millions of cords are being lost to the economy and that’s why, unless there is some rationalization in timber limits and unless there is good management of the resource, we are going to continue to get this waste and it’s going to come back to haunt us. If we let this stuff that is mature now sit there for even another five years, the values will be so low that it wouldn’t be worth while to go in to cut it and it will just lie there and rot.

I suggest we can’t allow that to happen, because between now and 1980 to 1985 the need for wood fibre in North America is going to double. We are told that between the year 2000 and 2010 it is going to quadruple. Where is it going to come from, unless we make up our minds right here and now that we are going to manage our timber resources in a way that maximum benefit will accrue to people living in this province. We want to make sure when we do make an inventory that it is based on reliable information and that we are, in effect, harvesting it on an allowable cut basis and on a sustained yield basis; which isn’t happening at the present time.

There is one other topic I want to get into, Mr. Speaker, and that is this commitment in the Throne Speech:

“Northern communities in unorganized territories will, through enabling legislation, have the opportunity to establish local community councils. Fire protection, water, roads and other such services will become the responsibility of these community councils. Implementation of this plan will follow full consultation with residents of communities that wish to participate.”

I asked the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Irvine) who is responsible for the introduction of this covering legislation about it. He didn’t know what form it was to take. He didn’t know just when it would be brought in.

This is one of the things that I have been harping about ever since I have had the pleasure to represent Thunder Bay riding in this Legislature. I don’t know whether I have got more unorganized communities than anybody else in this Legislature, but I know the problems confronting those unorganized communities seem to be greater than in those communities represented by other members. I welcome this and I just hope that when they do bring in the legislation there will be a transfer of funds or there will be sufficient funds made available for water, sewage systems, fire protection and all of the kinds of services that people have come to expect today but which people in unorganized communities will never aspire to without some kind of financial assistance.

I do hope that when the legislation is introduced there will be a commitment to enable the Ontario government to finance the kind of programme that will make this kind of legislation meaningful and of worthwhile assistance to these unorganized territories.

There is one other brief topic that I wanted to talk about tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry that the Minister of Transportation and Communications left, because it concerns an announcement that was made in the Throne Speech about a commitment to assist people in far northern communities with regard to the high cost of transportation. In a seminar that was held here about two weeks ago, a commitment was made, and I quote:

“A study of new ways to lower the cost of food and essential services for remote Indian bands will be made by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, according to an announcement made by the Hon. Leo Bernier in a meeting in Toronto with more than 70 members of Treaty 9 Indian bands.”

There was a mention made that they had spent over $4 million thus far in the highway-in-the-sky programme. That is, they had established airstrips -- places like Sandy Lake, places like Big Trout Lake, places like Fort Albany, Fort Severn -- and in total they had spent in excess of $4 million and they had come to the conclusion that they had better take another look at the various and different modes of transportation in order to bring down the unit cost of goods and services to many remote areas of northern Ontario. The minister said:

“In recent years, the government has instituted a highway-in-the-sky programme to provide our Indian people with year-round air transport. It was envisaged that these air strips would reduce the cost of food in the north by permitting larger aircraft, such as DC-3s, to service the community on regular scheduled service. But the experience to date indicates that this programme is not yet having the desired effect of reducing costs.”

Well, how did the minister expect it was going to reduce costs unless he said to the air carrier: “You will pass any inherent cost or any saving on to the consumer using those new facilities in those remote communities.”

I know that when I travel to Big Trout Lake and when I travel to Fort Severn, I don’t see any air carriers lowering the cost just because they were able to ship foodstuffs by DC-3 as opposed to a Cessna 180.

I am sure that my friend the minister, the member for Cochrane North -- as he travels the northern part of his riding -- is not aware of Hudson’s Bay stores or anybody like that lowering the unit cost of a loaf of bread or a pound of butter just because somebody flew in a load in a DC-3 as opposed to a Cessna 180.

If the government is going to spend in excess of $4 million -- as it has done -- to provide an airstrip, it is going to have to say: “Sure, we collectively as a government will provide the facility but we expect, as a matter of fact we demand, that you pass any additional saving on to the consumer, because that’s the intent of the programme.”

The government could provide a facility that would allow it to drop a DC-9 or a 747 in there and it would really lower the unit cost of transporting goods and services to the north, but unless the government tells the people that are going to use them that any enhanced saving is to be passed on to the consumer, it’s just not going to happen.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): We are experimenting with winter roads.

Mr. Stokes: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are experimenting with winter roads.

Mr. Stokes: Well, sure the government is going to experiment with winter roads, but when Andy Rickert, who is the president of Treaty No. 3 -- I wasn’t invited to this conference and I understand the minister wasn’t either; at least he wasn’t there. I know I wasn’t invited to it, and I would have dearly loved to have gone down to that conference and heard what went on. But I heard about the confrontation.

Andy Rickert said: “Let’s put our eggs in one basket and let’s talk about winter roads.”

The Minister of Natural Resources said: “No, we aren’t sold on the validity of all-winter roads. Sure, we will give you an experiment. We will start with Moosonee and we will go up to Albany and Attawapiskat.”

And then they started in my riding and they said:

“We will give you another pilot project where we will go from Pickle Lake to Round Lake to some place else.” But he didn’t accept holus-bolus that concept of winter roads.

Sure I agree that maybe it’s going to take a combination of several things in order to bring down the unit cost, but the former Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Carton) did not.

The minister will recall last summer when we were both travelling in the far north -- I to places like Fort Severn and he to places like Attawapiskat, Fort Albany and Winisk in his own riding -- where we know that the unit cost of shipping things in by barge is much less than flying things in by air. So I asked and the minister supported the concept that we should get more barge runs going during the shipping season along the north coast to bring down the unit cost. And, of course, the former Minister of Transportation and Communications said: “No, I don’t see that as a valid alternative and it’s not our intention to get into bargeing.”

Now, for whatever it’s worth --

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This will be done.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, sure. For whatever it’s worth, the Hudson’s Bay Co. has been bargeing ever since living memory in the Hudson Bay and James Bay areas. They didn’t just happen upon it because there was nothing else. They could have flown things in. They happen to think that it’s the cheapest way to move things in the north during the shipping season. So there’s another alternative the government should get into.

But all I want to say to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, because transportation too falls within his purview and it’s something that if he hasn’t already got on his plate, he is going to have it on his plate very very shortly, is to suggest that unless we opt for a mode of transportation where we can transmit the saving to the consumer, nothing is going to happen, because no matter who the carrier is, whether it is bargeing, a winter roads setup or an expansion of the highways-in-the-sky programme; unless there is a commitment that the enhanced saving is passed on to the consumer, the programme isn’t even going to come close to doing what it was designed to do.

There is no one person who has all of the answers about the high cost of transportation in the north. What I am saying is, though, that this government has spent over $4 million on a highways-in-the-sky programme, which obviously hasn’t worked. I am sure that benefits have accrued, but I suspect that the benefits have accrued to the air carriers as opposed to the native people, on whose behalf this project was undertaken.

I have many other matters that I would have liked to have raised, but I know that we do have some time constraints and I will reserve any further comment for the budget debate, Mr. Speaker. But I do hope that the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development will heed my words about the problems that we are having in the rationalization of timber limits. I also hope that he will relay some of my questions to the timber branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources and see what kind of answers he gets from them, because I want to assure him that I am not getting the kinds of answers that are satisfactory. And I am sure there are a good many people in the industry who would like to know in what direction they are going and what the future holds for the timber, pulp and paper and plywood industries in the Province of Ontario.

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

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My first words should be to say how pleased I am to see you in fighting trim and once again assuming your responsibilities in the chair, as you have so ably done in the past. It is nice to see you conducting the affairs of this House in the able manner in which you have conducted them during the past few years.

Likewise, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations to all of those in the House on the government benches who assumed additional responsibilities. Maybe I should also congratulate those who have left that added burden to become back-benchers once again and able to enjoy some of the pleasures of the House.

I would like to extend congratulations to the new parliamentary assistants, Mr. Speaker, but if there is one more round of appointments, there won’t be anyone on that side of the House to put in as parliamentary assistants. If the Premier can’t find them over there, he needn’t hesitate to come over here. There are a lot of extremely capable members sitting on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, probably the first item of major importance in this House is that of the issue of inflation. One would have no difficulty bringing to the attention of the House the serious effects of inflation, not only on the residents of the Province of Ontario but also on residents throughout the length and breadth of Canada; I could even go beyond the bounds of our own country and say throughout the world.

What concerns me most, Mr. Speaker, are the effects of inflation on the low wage earner, the working poor, the pensioner, the handicapped, those on government assistance programmes, and indeed, on those who probably are affected most adversely by it, the elderly.

We in this House can’t appreciate the effects of inflation on the individual because we are not personally affected by it to any great extent. My comments concerning inflation will terminate at this point because when the budget is brought down tomorrow, we will have another opportunity to speak in the budget debate, and bring to the attention of this government the serious effects that inflation and the government’s lack of action are having.

It is funny, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the Conservative Party in Canada looks upon it as being a topic of greatest importance yet this government which controls 40 per cent of the manufacturing in Canada and the greatest percentage of other types of private enterprise does little or next to nothing to overcome the effects of inflation. We can see that the Tory party, Mr. Speaker, is on both sides of the fence.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: As usual.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, my --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Hypocritical, that’s what they are.

Mr. B. Newman: Very much so. My leader certainly has pointed out to you most ably, Mr. Speaker, how hypocritical the members opposite and their government happen to be on the issue of inflation. They are not concerned with inflation; they talk a lot but they do nothing.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): With all that hot air over there, there’s lots of inflation.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, my first comments on anything other than to do with this House should be to thank the many concerned citizens of the city of Windsor who rushed to the scene of the disaster or the misfortune that took place on Wednesday, April 3, in the city of Windsor when a tornado struck the Chrysler plant, bounced over three or four blocks of homes and hit the Windsor Curling Club. As a result of that, and we are all aware of this, eight people, seven fine men and one fine lady, lost their lives.

It was very nice to see how the community responded to this serious emergency; how workers from the Chrysler plant, plus others at the French-Canadian centre which was right across from the Windsor Curling Club, pitched in to assist in not only removing the rubble which was the result of the tornado striking the curling club but also to assist the doctors, the ambulance attendants and so forth in seeing that those who did survive got the best possible treatment at the time.

My commendations certainly do go out to all of those who contributed their services above and beyond the call of duty when their fellow man was confronted with such a serious disaster.

Mr. Speaker, the first real topic I intend to introduce is the need for housing in the Province of Ontario. Rather than go into the provincial aspect, I’ll be a little more parochial and refer to it in relation to my own community and that is the city of Windsor. The new minister is simply repeating what we have heard in this House now for some 15 or 16 years. We have had housing by headline ever since I have been in this House and I don’t think this government intends to build any more houses other than through the headline fashion.

Were the government as concerned as it maintains and claims it is, we would not be confronted with the situations we have throughout the length and breadth of Ontario. I can recall, Mr. Speaker, in practically every year I have had the opportunity of speaking in this House, bringing to the attention of the government the serious need for housing in the Windsor area, especially in relation to the senior citizens.

I have brought out statistics showing how the government, in its attempt to resolve the problem, wasn’t coming close to the resolution. The need for housing continues to rise, then fall slightly and then rise substantially and unless this government becomes extremely serious about the housing situation, we are not going to accommodate many of those senior citizens whose days are numbered and whose one dream is to be able to spend the golden years of their lives in accommodation of which they are rightfully deserving.

Mr. Speaker, this government certainly does not look upon the needs of the senior citizens in the light by which it should be looking on them. I have presented to it alternatives to the construction of highrise and other senior citizen accommodation.

Many of the senior citizens are satisfied with the accommodations in which they happen to live. But they can’t afford the rentals, and government could very easily have accommodated them by picking up the tab or by subsidizing their rental payments in the accommodations in which they live. A rent subsidy programme, Mr. Speaker, I first espoused in 1966. Government has been much too reticent, much too slow in picking up the idea.

It claims that it has difficulty in getting landlords who are willing to go into the rental subsidy scheme, to lease their properties to the government of Ontario. I think that is hollow talk, Mr. Speaker. They could approach the many senior citizens who live in satisfactory accommodations but can’t afford them because of the high rental. They could approach those landlords and I’m positive they could come to some accommodation so that the senior citizen would stay in those accommodations, be satisfied, and government in turn may not have to accelerate a senior citizen housing programme.

I make mention of senior citizens; I could likewise make mention, Mr. Speaker, of the handicapped. I think it is time that government looked at those who are physically and otherwise handicapped, and provided for them, either on a co-op basis or some basis, accommodations the like of which they need. The government should consult with them in the building programme so that the accommodations provided for the handicapped meet with their approval -- and not only meets with their approval, but is satisfactory in terms of easy access and egress.

Mr. Speaker, senior citizen accommodations in the city of Windsor have at one time been as high as 1,600. At present, and these are the statistics as of April 1 this year, 1,076 senior citizens have filed applications with Ontario Housing in the city of Windsor; 613 families have applied for housing accommodations; the total of the two comes to 1,689 families who have asked for accommodations in the city. That figure does fluctuate where the government has been doing a more substantial job, has been in family rental or in family geared-to-income housing, but not in senior citizen housing.

One of the things that does disturb me very much, Mr. Speaker, is that although 1,076 senior citizens have applied, many have not applied because they know they don’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hades of ever getting accommodation and as a result forget about applying. They figure they won’t be too long for this world so why go ahead and take an added strain and burden on their own heart hoping that maybe they would have their last dream in life come to fruition.

Of the 1,076 senior citizens who have applied, Mr. Speaker, the Windsor Housing Authority has not even investigated 753 as to whether their cases are genuine or whether their cases are extremely serious. When three-quarters of those who have asked for senior citizens housing do not even have an investigator from Ontario Housing, that is the Windsor Housing Authority in the city, look into their problem, then you wonder what this government is doing concerning the needs for these individuals. They certainly aren’t as concerned as they should be, Mr. Speaker.

I maintain that one of the solutions to the problem is by vastly expanding the rent subsidy programme so that many who are satisfied with the accommodations in which they live today could still stay there but have their rentals subsidized.

You know, it is not fair, Mr. Speaker, to provide housing accommodation to some people who, either through political ability or through other ways, are able to get government geared-to-income accommodation, unlike others who are timid, shy, backward, or who are not as brazen as they probably should be in going into Ontario Housing and demanding accommodation. I think we should treat all of them in the same fashion.

If you provide geared-to-income housing for one so that it has cost that individual only $45 or $50 a month, then that senior citizen living under the same financial umbrella, having the same finances with which to take care of himself, should have his rental subsidized to exactly that same degree. He should not be paying any more than $45 or $50 for housing accommodation whether he lives in geared-to-income housing or in the commercial housing market. The government has to expand its programme on the rent subsidy.

Mr. Speaker, I could make extensive comments concerning shoddy workmanship in home construction. I could make comments concerning the need for a warranty programme on all types of construction so that the individual who purchases a home knows that he is buying what he thought he was buying at the time of purchase.

I can recall, Mr. Speaker, bringing to the attention of the previous minister responsible for housing, problems concerning Elizabeth Gardens in the city of Windsor. I don’t intend to repeat them. The problem still remains there. The individuals who bought housing in this project were not satisfied with the construction and have had to fight all the time with the builder to get their problem resolved -- and the problem today is still not reserved.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): They haven’t got their mortgages yet.

Mr. B. Newman: That’s right, they have been clamouring and clamouring to get their mortgages and they are still held up.

Mr. Burr: After two years.

Mr. B. Newman: I don’t know whose fault it is, Mr. Speaker, but I think the Minister of Housing should look into this and see that that problem is resolved and resolved immediately.

One of the problems in providing housing accommodation, Mr. Speaker, could be resolved if the government accepted the resolution originally passed by the city of London and endorsed by the city of Windsor as recently as March 18 of this year. That would enable the Ontario Municipal Board to shorten the interval of time between the passing of a zoning bylaw and the time at which construction starts. If that were taken care of, Mr. Speaker, some of the housing problems could be overcome.

Mr. Speaker, I had intentions of speaking at quite some length concerning the place that mobile housing plays in resolving housing accommodation problems. I can recall in 1966 mentioning that there would have been the need for at least 10,000 mobile homes in the Province of Ontario, so the government of the day could have properly planned and maybe phased-in housing accommodation throughout the length and breadth of Ontario in a programmed fashion. The government was not interested in the mobile housing field.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, the only chance that many residents in the Province of Ontario are going to have to own a home of their own, to have a place that they can call their castle, is by way of purchasing a mobile home. Government has to look into the mobile home field more seriously than it has done in the past.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That’s the problem, most of them don’t.

Mr. B. Newman: Mobile home living is not tincan living. It is not trailer living. It is nice accommodation generally; the type of accommodation that the individual wants, at two stages in life, either at the retiring stage or in the early marriage stage where he needs limited housing accommodation and not the two- or three-bedroom accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, the next topic that I wanted to mention is auto plant health hazards and overtime. Dr. Sidney Wolfe, the director of Health Research Group, a group funded by contributions to consumer advocate Ralph Nader, had presented to them a 43-page report of a two-year study.

This two-year study of Michigan auto workers said that potentially fatal heart and lung diseases are more likely to hit foundry workers, machinists and metal workers, who are exposed to either dust, smoke and dirt, dangerous chemicals or forklift exhaust fumes.

The 43-page report originally had been compiled by a Dr. Janet Sherman, a Detroit internist who for some two years studied 489 Michigan workers, 459 of them being auto industry workers. Her data were collected between January, 1970, and January, 1972; so there was a two-year study period.

The conclusions of the report include five that I will bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker. The first is that workers exposed to dirt, dust and smoke have about a 50 per cent greater chance of having bronchitis and heart disease than workers not exposed to these elements.

The second finding of the health study is that workers exposed to fumes from substances such as molten metal and hydraulic fluids face about a 40 per cent greater likelihood of getting bronchitis and heart disease than those not exposed.

The third finding is that foundry workers have a 14 per cent greater chance of having bronchitis than non-foundry workers.

The fourth is that machinists have a 30 per cent greater chance of having heart disease than non-machinists.

And the last that I’ll mention is that coarse metal finishers have a 70 per cent greater chance of getting heart problems.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, this report showed that persons exposed to exhaust fumes from forklift trucks in plants have a 15 per cent greater chance of getting heart disease.

I bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because in the past week or so the Chrysler workers walked off their jobs as a result of what I understand were some of the safety aspects concerning the job, in addition to their demand for the elimination of overtime. I have shown to you, sir, that industrial factory work has greater health hazards than is generally accepted.

The workers who walked out were not only concerned with their health, they were concerned with the excessive use of overtime. I think that the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) has to look at the overtime picture in the auto industry, especially to- day, when there are so many unemployed in towns associated with the auto industry.

In the city of Windsor there are over 3,000 who are unemployed in the auto industry, in addition to those who would be working in feeder plants. While we have a large number of unemployed -- and I think the number is well over 7,000 if we count in non-auto workers -- while we have as many as 7,000 unemployed in the city, I can’t see why there should be the need for the use of overtime. In fact, there has been formed in the community a committee on full employment. This committee is chaired by a gentleman by the name of Cleveland McGee, a laid-off Ford worker; and the committee’s work is being supported by the Windsor and District Labour Council.

I happen to know Cleveland McGee personally, because in his younger days he happened to be a gymnast that I had the opportunity of coaching, and an extremely accomplished one at that, who did not further his education but preferred to serve his country and come back and became an auto worker. Now Cleveland McGee, the spark plug behind the group, is extremely concerned with this excessive use of overtime, as are not only those who are laid off but also those who are working in the plant.

The 300 people who recently walked out of the Chrysler plant did not walk out simply because they were, it was said, told to walk out by one of their union stewards. They were extremely concerned. They were concerned for their fellow worker who is on the unemployed list while the factory continually asks the Ministry of Labour to issue overtime work permits.

I think there has to be some association between the numbers of unemployed in the community and the issuing of additional overtime work permits. I think the Ministry of Labour has to consult with the union involved to find out if the union will accept additional overtime. While we have large numbers of unemployed in any community, not only in the community from which I come, Mr. Speaker, the issuance of overtime permits should be an exception and not the rule.

Mr. Speaker, in one of the comments concerning the issuing of overtime permits, a fellow asked, “How easy are they to get?” and here was the reply: “Apparently they are easier to get than a newspaper.” I hope that isn’t the position of the Ministry of Labour in giving work permits while people are walking the lines seeking employment throughout the length and breadth of the community, knowing full well that their opportunity or their chance of getting employment is extremely slim.

Mr. Speaker, the companies have a responsibility at this time of growing layoffs in the auto industry to sit down with the union and to clearly define needs for any overtime in any case. The failure of the company to come along and consult with the union and minimize its requests for overtime and not hiring additional workers to take up this slack, I think is only asking for trouble in the auto industry. We don’t want to see any trouble in there but I think, Mr. Speaker, the government has to be a little more cautious concerning the use of overtime for the auto worker in my own community.

Mr. Speaker, while I’m talking concerning the auto industry, I think it would be only fit and proper to make mention that the auto trade agreement needs some re-examination. I think the re-examination of the agreement should be in consultation with the unions, who are involved, who know the problem, who point out to government that quite often some of the so-called Canadian content that is in the manufacture of an automobile is simply three holes punched in a panel in Canada, with the article coming in from the United States or coming in from a foreign country, slipping through one door in a Canadian plant, out the other door and then going over to the US and being labelled, so I am told, as Canadian content.

Mr. Speaker, there is the need for a commission on technological change to monitor the impact of technology on employment opportunities and to have the authority to protect jobs. Industry keeps promoting technological change and the more technological change that does take place the fewer the job opportunities.

There is the need for a job security programme and you are only going to have this if you have some committee on technological change that has teeth in it and can enforce -- yes, can enforce -- a job opportunity programme.

Mr. Speaker, we have gone by the day where we are going to think always of a balance of payments; the fact that we in Canada have exported to the United States or another country $4 billion worth of merchandise and we’ve imported $4 billion or $5 billion worth of merchandise. I think the dollar and cents approach is passé.

We’ve got to forget about it and look now on how many jobs we have exported and how many jobs we have imported. You can have one massive part of a body of an automobile, the whole floor panel or the whole roof, Mr. Speaker. It’s a big piece, so to speak. There may be three minutes of labour involved in the processing of that in an auto industry plant but we can have a little thing like a wrist watch that might have hours of labour involved.

We’ve got to get away from the dollar and cents point of view. We’ve got to look at how many jobs we have imported and how many jobs we have exported. We have to come along, Mr. Speaker, through the Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon), and know exactly the job content of every item manufactured. Industry knows that. Industry can provide us with the figures. Industry knows how many minutes it takes to manufacture one little stamping. In their bids to have suppliers supply them with the part, they know to the second, so to speak, how much labour content is involved in the manufacturing of that piece, plus the assembling of that piece to make the larger component.

In an attempt to arrive at a balance in our auto trade agreement, Mr. Speaker, we have to know how many hours of labour have been put in in Canada on the manufacture of the automobile and how many hours of labour have been put in on that same part coming into Canada, either for assembly or for additional work, and then re-exported to the United States for assembly over there.

We’ve got to look at the job content, the man-hour content or the hour content of everything that we manufacture, so that our balance of payments between countries is not in dollars and cents only but is -- in how many jobs we have exported when we export the material and how many jobs we have imported when we import the finished material. Were we to know the job content we would find that our balance of payments, not in dollars and cents but in jobs, would be really to the detriment of the Canadian worker. We export our raw materials but we import our finished product. How many more Canadians and Ontarians would be employed were we to take the raw material and process it here in Canada, and, not only process through one of the stages but process it through the finished stage. We have to look at the auto trade agreement, not from a dollar and cent point of view, but a labour content point of view so that our export as far as labour is exactly the same as our import, or as close as possible to what we would like to see.

Mr. Speaker, the third topic that I would like to really talk on is the bill that I had introduced last year and that was Bill 179, An Act to establish an Ontario Waste Disposal and Reclamation Commission. This was on the order paper last year. It got first reading but that’s as far as it got. I didn’t see the ministry come along and do anything concerning it. I didn’t see them refute or attempt to refute the merits of such a proposal. It’s easy to conclude that our present method of garbage disposal represents a destruction of resources accompanied by economic, environmental and possibly public health damage. A new method of garbage handling is needed that is not harmful to the environment and that at the same time conserves and recycles some of the reusable ingredients of garbage.

Mr. Speaker, I proposed last year that the province establish an Ontario waste disposal and reclamation commission that would operate on the same basis as Ontario Hydro. In other words, it would become a provincial authority or a provincial utility. This commission would be responsible for all waste disposal in the province including sanitary landfill and incineration. However, before disposal, the garbage would be processed in a plant for reclamation of paper, metals and glass, and the commission then could market the reclaimed materials to industry for recycling.

Mr. Speaker, many municipalities would find it extremely difficult to set up their own reclamation plants because of the great financial burden involved. Therefore, the province should have the responsibility of setting up these plants on a regional basis. It’s estimated that processing 200,000 tons of waste annually would make the operation of such a plant economically feasible. In regions and towns where waste collection procedures are uneconomical for local authorities the commission would provide collection services as well. In more densely populated regions and municipalities, collections would continue to be provided by local authorities but disposal and reclamation would be provided by the commission. I think, Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of the Environment has a responsibility to look into this and to act.

On Feb. 21, one of the articles in the Windsor Star said, “New Wonder Fuel -- Would You Believe It? -- Garbage.” Surely if the ministry followed the suggestion that I have made, not only could they reclaim a lot of material but you could have watts from waste. The city manager in the city of Windsor has been looking forward to gold in garbage. He, an extremely astute man, is looking to the fact that garbage can provide revenue to a community.

In fact, to show the revenue it can provide, on Jan. 30 in the Detroit Free Press a column under the byline of Sylvia Porter, a well-known journalist, talks about “Recycling -- a Way To Combat Shortages.” In Hempstead, Long Island, she writes, where a city ordinance makes all solid wastes the property of the city, more than $100,000 was netted by the community within one year from the collection and sale of waste paper and other recyclable scrap materials. In Fort Worth, Tex., two garbage trucks make once-a-week collection of old newspapers in various neighbourhoods. It is estimated that an income of $250,000 annually will be obtained from this waste paper sale alone without any additional capital outlay on the city’s part. This is at the price of $9.50 a ton for waste paper, and I understand waste paper today is well over $25 a ton.

Mr. Sargent: Sixty-five dollars.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, to bring to your attention the amount of materials that are discarded and not reclaimed, we find that only 49 per cent of our aluminum scrap is recycled; 42 per cent of our lead is recycled; 17 per cent of our textiles; 26 per cent of our steel; 61 per cent of our copper, but 88 per cent of our stainless steel and 75 per cent of our precious metals. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that we’ve a long way to go in reclaiming and recycling many or the materials that have been discarded. In Wisconsin, the state Legislature is on the way to passing a law that would create a solid waste recovery authority to initiate and manage a state-wide recycling programme.

Mr. Speaker, how about Ontario? Are we leaders or are we followers? And if we are followers, how far behind do we follow?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): We’ve been leaders for a long time in the province of Ontario.

Mr. B. Newman: I beg the minister’s pardon?

Hon. W. Newman: We’ve been leaders for a long time in the Province of Ontario and the member knows it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Leaders of the western world.

Mr. B. Newman: Leaders of the western world. I imagine that if --

Hon. W. Newman: If the member is interested in our programmes he can read about them.

Mr. B. Newman: If the government is a leader, it is leader of the gab, but as far as action is concerned, there is little action over there.

An hon. member: How about the housing programme? This government builds by headlines, that’s all.

Mr. B. Newman: The government members aren’t even interested in coming into the House to get educated and to learn something as to what other jurisdictions are doing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. B. Newman: Well, we’ll see what the government will do concerning pollution, Mr. Speaker. We’ll see how quickly the Minister of the Environment will take care of the transboundary pollution, whether he will put a monitor next to the Ford Motor Co. foundry in the city of Windsor to give the true reading to the people who live in that area -- not a fictitious reading, saying regarding the pollution in that area that, “Well, we’ll average it out for the whole city.” If the minister lived behind the foundry and saw the amount of pollution that has been coming from there, then he would talk with a different tone.

Hon. W. Newman: Is that where the member lives?

Mr. B. Newman: The minister is so blooming new to the game --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He’ll deliver everything in Ontario South.

Mr. B. Newman: I’ll say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he has a long way to go. He has got the right name; he has got the right last name.

An hon. member: A new man.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Don’t pull that old gag --

Mr. B. Newman: And we hope that he will be just as his name implies -- a new man, a new individual concerned with the environment and hoping to resolve the problem. Let’s get at the recycling of waste products. Let’s get at the reclamation of these waste products. Ontario is ahead of the game. If you look at it from the other end they are at the head, but you have got to go to the back end to find that, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to bring up a few minor topics -- I shouldn’t say minor topics, but topics at which I won’t spend much time. First, I am waiting for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to come through with a bus colour proposal, as well as regulations concerning the number of people who can be accommodated in a bus, especially when it comes to school buses. Surely after the one year that the ministry has had the proposal, the minister should by now have been able to introduce legislation controlling the colours of buses.

We have school buses that are sold to construction companies. The construction companies don’t bother changing the colour. They are driving along our highways; students are waiting at the comer, assuming that that is the school bus; they walk into the road thinking the bus is going to stop for them and that they are going to get on the bus. Lo and behold, too late they find out that this is a construction company bus, it is not a school bus. They have been misled by the colour. As a result unfortunate mishaps have taken place in the province. I can recall one where a young student was killed; that was in the Essex county area.

I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that the chrome yellow colour is used exclusively for school buses. When school buses are sold, they should not be allowed to be used by any concern or organization before the colour has been changed. The colour must be changed before the ministry issues a permit to use that bus to the purchaser.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Ministry of the Environment has looked into the dumping of mercury-contaminated lake sludge on to an island in the St. Clair River. It’s an American island, not a Canadian island; we have no jurisdiction over it. But perhaps the dumping of that mercury contaminated sludge is going to affect water quality along the Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River where water intake pipes are located for many of the cities or towns in the area. If that is going to adversely affect our water supplies, then I think the ministry should have its people look into this and should make strong objections to what is taking place.

Hon. W. Newman: We already have.

Mr. B. Newman: I commend the minister for it if he has; I hope it was after I brought it to his attention. Well, I am pleased that he has because I think he has done the right thing there.

Mr. Speaker, I could come along and talk on a whole series of other topics, but there are others who would like to speak. I would like at this time simply to say, Mr. Speaker, I am awfully pleased to see you in the chair. We hope that this will be a permanent appointment. We will see to it that if you aren’t there after the next election, you will be along the front benches anyway when we do form the government. At this time I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, I will make the balance of my comments in the budget debate. Thank you very much.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Madam Speaker, I would like to say that the three-cornered hat wouldn’t look good on you in that chair. I do want to say to you that you have become the chair. In this opportunity I have to speak in the Throne debate --

Mr. Deans: The member has become the Speaker. I am not sure about becoming the chair.

Mr. Stokes: One could say the chair becomes the Speaker.

Mr. Sargent: It is a matter of opinion, and how one says it. I do want to say I welcome the chance to add my remarks to the kind remarks all members have made about the Speaker. I believe every one of the speakers here has sincerely conveyed his warm feelings for our referee and we are glad he is back.

One time I sent a note across the House to John Robarts about his pending operation. In a note he said: “I don’t think I ever told you that when I was in the hospital three or four years ago I received a letter saying, ‘Dear Mr. Robarts, I hope your illness is not trivial’.”

I am glad the Speaker is back in good health. In view of our differences from time to time I will say that I tip my hat to him as a politician and I tip my heart to him as a friend. I do mean that. I think we all feel that way toward him. I think he is one hell of a guy to put up with the things he does in this House.

Also, if I may, Madam Speaker, I want to convey my best wishes to the member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith), who is in the House tonight. I am glad to see him back in good form.

Usually a speaker starts his speech by saying that he is glad to be here. Well, after what has happened to me in the past year, I am glad to be anywhere. Getting on to my speech here, I would like to say at the outset that I am going to forego the fact of being non-political tonight. I think I will be a bit biased in my remarks.

Mr. Deans: No!

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Shame!

Mr. Sargent: I am going to talk about some of the things members know about and some of the things they don’t know about and some of the things people in this province are thinking and talking about.

The other day I was in Chicago and I picked up the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper there, and the masthead says:

“This newspaper is an institution developed by modern civilization to present the news of the day, to foster commerce and industry, to inform and lead public opinion and to furnish that check upon government which no constitution has ever been able to provide.”

Gentlemen, more and more in Ontario this check is needed on government today. The press, believe me, is the sole auditor of expenditures and performance in this province. It is the sole auditor. I pay tribute as an individual, as a citizen, to the Globe and Mail and Norman Webster for their objective reporting, to seek out corruption in this organized crime we have here in Queen’s Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): And Gerald McAuliffe, the reporter.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): That used to be the opposition.

Mr. Sargent: I think, getting down to business here, we might as well get a few preliminary things out of the way such as giving the Premier (Mr. Davis) a bit of advice. For instance, he should have, in the Throne Speech, named Gerhard Moog as the most valuable player of the year.

Mr. McIlveen: He always spoke well of the member.

Mr. Sargent: I suggest it is things like this which have prompted the Premier to go about the province making speeches such as he has made. The three-column headline in the Kitchener paper says, “Davis Pleads For The Defeat of Unruly Eddie Sargent.” He says he is going to spare no money or nothing to win

Grey-Bruce. In support of that a month ago he brought down to Queen’s Park a very good friend of mine, my step-brother, and he, along with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and Mr. DeGeer, offered this step-brother of mine the post of the Minister of Agriculture and a blank cheque --

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Come off it. That’s wrong, and the member knows it.

Mr. Sargent: All right. I am glad the minister said that, because that’s what he told me. We are off and running now. Here we go.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Step-brother is really hitting below the belt.

Mr. Sargent: Well, this is the way we operate. He has a blank cheque and he has the post of Minister of Agriculture and Food if he wins Grey-Bruce. Well, I don’t think the name of Davis is going to help him very much up there.

An hon. member: There’s no way he’ll win.

Mr. Worton: Heaven knows it isn’t going to help any.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Maybe the Premier will go up and help him.

Mr. Sargent: This may be the last speech in the Throne Speech debate that anyone of this House will make in this province --

Mr. Shulman: I hope so.

Mr. Sargent: I am sorry it is the last by the member for High Park if he means that. I really mean it. I am sorry --

Mr. Shulman: The member for Grey-Bruce may be here next year.

Mr. Sargent: He is a credit to the Legislature; I say that kindly.

Mr. Shulman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Sargent: We need people like him in government, because God knows that mess over there needs somebody fearless to take a poke at it --

Mr. McIlveen: We are all right here. We always speak well of the Liberals.

Mr. Sargent: But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in view of the thrust of the Liberal Party today and the way that our leader is scoring across the province as well as our deputy leader and our House leader -- we have a new team here -- the Premier doesn’t want this to get into full gear. And I project and prophesy for the press, which loves to hear it, that there will be an election in June in Ontario --

Mr. McIlveen: When did the member make up with his leader?

Mr. Sargent: -- so the doctor can start doing his homework.

Last Friday, Mr. Speaker, I objected to the do-nothing policy of this government insofar as it concerns all the trucking companies in this province writing a blank cheque for freight rates. Every trucking company in this province writes its own ticket. We in the Grey-Bruce area have no railroads, so we are dependent on the trucking business. And all of these lines that have monopoly routes write their own freight rates and naturally, as we all know across the province, this reflects in the cost of living. It is a shocking thing that this government will not take the steps to right this wrong.

On top of this we have the situation of monopoly routes, exclusive routes across the province. No one can get excited about this, Mr. Speaker, but this is a billion-dollar business -- and this is probably costing every consumer of this province hundreds of dollars a year in extra costs because of trucking rates. They should be brought into line and the prices reviewed like every other commodity, because transportation is a basic commodity.

An hon. member: A hundred miles is 100 miles.

Mr. Sargent: Right. I questioned the ethics of the former Highways Minister, Mr. MacNaughton, sitting as a director of Laidlaw Transport and appearing before the Highway Transport Board, of which he was formerly the head. I questioned the ethics of former Premier Robarts appearing as a counsel for Dominion Consolidated before the Highway Transport Board. The Premier didn’t know how to answer me, so he said, “I suggest that the member check his own ethics.”

Well, one thing I am sure of is that the people in my area know that my ethics in politics are pretty good.

Mr. McIlveen: He hasn’t got any.

Mr. Sargent: I am not here being a good guy, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I will stack mine against the Premier’s any time, especially in view of what I am going to bring before you.

Mr. McIlveen: Don’t ask us to vote on it.

Mr. Sargent: Let’s look at this man who questions my ethics. I have thought for the past few months that the goings-on in this Legislature and in this province could be the basis of a movie or a TV series.

Mr. Shulman: We could call it “Wojeck.”

Mr. Sargent: Well, we could; we could have a fearless guy like Wojeck -- but it is a story on organized crime in Queen’s Park. The simple facts are so incredible the people wouldn’t believe them. We should put on film all the factual knowledge we have here, even the “Hydrogate” inquiry -- reveal all the facts there.

The series could open with our hero, the head of the state here, who makes a complete shambles of our educational system, costing us God knows how much -- maybe $500 million in school consolidation programmes. He inherits the political machine from a former premier, and he starts to shake down government contracts to his bagmen, to corporations who have or want government contracts. He has a real pork barrel fund, about $5 million we are told. And here in an upcoming election he does a saturation TV campaign, and sweeps to power again and again.

After looking after the well-oiled machine, which he keeps greased with money from sales of government contracts, an unknown firm called Fidinam, which couldn’t pay a $1,500 account, a Swiss firm, all of a sudden gets a $10 million loan and a $20 million contract to build the Workmen’s Compensation Board building. This happens because they pay their bagman $50,000. When asked about this, the president of the company said, “No way. It’s not true.” But when they produced the cheque he admitted it was true.

Here we have the party which runs this province engaged in a criminal act, for which, if under American law, the leader would be impeached. But the Premier immediately starts to guard this thing off. As a citizen -- I’ll interrupt this in the scenario here -- I spent about $700 in legal fees trying to take an injunction against the Workmen’s Compensation Board to block the loan of $10 million to Fidinam. The Premier, seeing that this was going to be a hot issue in the opening of the House, decided to do some- thing about it.

I got up in the House at the opening of the House and tried to forego the hearings of the sittings of the House to ask for a special inquiry into Fidinam. I was booted out by the good Sergeant-at-Arms, rightfully so I guess, if the government’s going to carry on with this. The Premier immediately brings in a conflict-of-interest bill. In no way would that conflict-of-interest bill ever have appeared here if Fidinam hadn’t happened.

We now have him lily pure again. He is going to stop all this hanky-panky and smelling of corruption. Now he’s a good guy again.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He’s clean again.

Mr. Sargent: He’s clean again. But he still has the $50,000. I already bet him $50,000 if he would reveal where he got the $5 million -- that if any one of those government contracts being held by people who supply money to the party were announced there I would give him $50,000, but he wouldn’t even listen to that.

We have the Premier whose legal firm acts as counsel for Mr. Moog. Here’s where this television thing comes in great. This Mr. Moog is a former U-boat commander, a romantic figure. The Premier and he decide to go to Europe to raise some money for the Hydro building. It’s going to be a $44 million deal; it’s a big deal. They don’t worry about the calling of tenders. They end up in Switzerland; they get into a few bottles of wine according to the hearing and they decide to race down to their interview at the bank to get the money. They have a flat tire, and in fixing it they get their clothes soiled a bit. They race to keep their appointment and they have trouble getting into the bank because of their appearance, but finally they get into the inner sanctum of the bank, and the rest of the episode is well known.

The Premier didn’t want to stay at the other end of the room, he stayed at this end of the room, and they talked German down there when they talked about the financing. Anyway, the big project gets under way and no one else has a shot at the tenders.

Now, I think that this would make a beautiful television series. Some of us should get into the act and produce that, because it would have top TV ratings, I believe.

Mr. Haggerty: The National Dream.

Mr. Shulman: We will form a company.

Mr. Sargent: Well, the member for Scarborough Centre wanted to be televised during his part of the Throne Speech debate. Now, that is one thing I wouldn’t want, because I don’t come across very well. But if the people in Ontario could see what the hell goes on in this place, that gang wouldn’t be there very long, I’ll tell you that.

Mr. Shulman: “Laugh-In” would be out of business.

Mr. Maeck: Don’t forget that --

Mr. Sargent: So you see what I am trying to say is that if ever there was a time when the people needed a new deal in this province, it is now.

An hon. member: Right. Right on.

Mr. Sargent: I believe that people of this province have had enough, enough.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Havrot: The member would give them the fast shuffle, wouldn’t he?

Mr. Sargent: Now, with President Nixon and Watergate, we have a very close pal of Premier Davis and his “Hydrogate.” Let’s have a look at President Nixon and his position.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Sargent: I believe if there is an evidence of an impeachable offence the Congress will impeach, if not, they will exonerate. I think we all agree that impeachment is a cumbersome thing and much as I feel that he is a disgrace to his office, I hope for the sake of the American people that they do not impeach him.

But I believe that in this province the people have made in their own minds a political judgment. We don’t want a runaway process. In the USA and Ontario the people have received a great education in the past year. People in their own minds can render a judgement. As with President Nixon, Premier Davis is fast losing his credibility. I believe sincerely that there is an intuitive reaction on the part of people that things are not right, that there is and has been corruption.

I want to say right now I don’t for one moment think there is a crooked bone in the Premier’s body, but I think the machine is corrupt -- at least part of the machine. If anyone had said a year ago that President Nixon, with his landslide victory, would be up for impeachment, that he would go on television and say “I am not a crook;” if anyone had prophesied that one year ago, he would’ve been called a lunatic.

But here we have two leaders who place themselves above government, above the law; there is complete abuse of power. And what we lack in our process here is a method to bring these people to heel, because in every election the combined forces of the Liberals and the NDP defeat each other. And they will continue to do so. If we ever heard of a banana republic in South America having 35 years of solid government, we wouldn’t believe it, but it’s happened right here in this province.

Certainly the Premier is the sole authority on what will be investigated and what will not be investigated. A case in point, the Fidinam affair. We have ample evidence of criminal activity and criminal procedures which should be handled by the political process. We have ample evidence of the Premier holidaying in Muskoka, holidaying in Florida, cruising on Mr. Moog’s yacht, going to Europe to raise a loan, and so on, as I mentioned before.

But I suggest to you the big ball game now is not the $44 million that Mr. Moog and the Premier were involved in. The big ball game now is the $15 billion nuclear programme and the vested interests the government is working with now on Hydro.

We have 100 people working in the Premier’s office, more than Mr. Trudeau has. His office costs more than that of the Prime Minister of Canada. Who does he think he is? What right does he have to spend our money like this?

The Globe and Mail carried a story this week on what’s going on in Ontario spending. There has been a jump of 37 per cent in government payrolls for ministries, for those people who have the power to sign these documents. They increase their expenditure of moneys 37 per cent. It isn’t their money, it belongs to the taxpayers.

Mr. Haggerty: The Minister of Labour hasn’t an assistant yet.

Mr. Sargent: I think there are here, in this summary, four people making more than $50,000 a year, plus expenses, and there are hundreds making more than $30,000 a year. And to save time I will not read the amounts here.

But I want to say, in summary of this point I’ve been on now, of these things I’ve talked about, Mr. Speaker, regardless of the verdict, the whitewash in the Hydrogate hearing, the people know exactly what is going on.

A summary in the Sun some time ago by Brian Vallee was talking about the vacuum cleaner that the Premier had working here. It says: “Bill Davis brought out his vacuum cleaner yesterday, but he missed part of the dirt.”

It goes on to show how he went through the cabinet and how he cleaned out all the skulduggery, the conflicts of interest, and mentions about 10 or 12 ministers who went down the pipe here. Then he says, at the final paragraph: “One wonders if Davis himself would have been sucked into the vacuum cleaner if he wasn’t the one who was operating it.”

Well, you can believe that one. He would have been the first one to go!

We are talking now in this country about the gas and oil shortage. What a bunch of baloney this is. I was coming back from New York, first class, American, about a month ago, and I sat with the vice president of one of the four major oil companies in Canada. He confided to me that there was no oil shortage, no gas shortage. In effect he said: “The ball is in our court now. The oil companies are all on strike against the public, and we’re going to get ours first. All of our refineries are full, all the ships are full, all the cars are full. There is no oil shortage.” And I think it’s a shocking thing -- here he comes, well oiled!

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) has arrived.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: I think it’s a shocking thing that we have the power in this government -- pardon me?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: I was talking about oil, so it’s all right. We have the power, Mr. Speaker, in this government to control prices. To me it is a scandalous thing when these companies --

Mr. Havrot: Come on, the member doesn’t believe that.

Mr. Sargent: -- experiencing the largest profits in history -- from 45 per cent to 70 per cent increase in profits over last year -- can be given the right to increase their prices by six to 10 cents a gallon. This is a shocking situation. I believe that Trudeau is right, that we do need a national oil company. We do need some stake in this great commodity if transportation is to continue in this country.

Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being on the wrong side of the fence once again, to me it is shocking that this government of Ontario is hell bent in a nuclear development programme. Committed as we are to and involved in a $16 billion programme, we are shooting craps with destiny.

Today, the member for Huron made a splendid address on the dangers of nuclear power, and I wish that those fellows had been here to hear it. I know you can’t be everyplace. But I was talking to the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Morrow) today, Mr. Speaker, and back in the House a few years ago, when a member got up to speak, the House was here to hear him. When you made a speech in the Legislature it meant something --

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): We’re listening to the member though.

Mr. Sargent: -- because you had rapport with the press. But the only things that get in the press today are these sensational things, the things that count. You may criticize us backbenchers for talking so long, but we have something to say. We are in here to speak for our people, and that’s why we speak.

Mr. Havrot: Well, say it!

Mr. Deans: Come on, he’s getting to the member.

Mr. Sargent: We’re in a programme for development of energy, in which, Mr. Speaker, no insurance company in North America will insure anyone, any place, or any property, or anything against radiation damage.

Now this is a fact. The insurance companies here watched the growth and burgeoning of the nuclear power, and have lost no time in taking steps to protect their industry. They have, Mr. Speaker, specifically planned to protect the insurance industry against the nuclear power industry. I ask anyone in this audience, in Hansard and in Ontario to check their insurance policies and they will see that there is a complete exclusion from the hazards of nuclear power.

In Douglas Point we have had two gas leaks. Two years ago they made a $1-million mistake and they would have covered it up but I found out by accident about this $1-million mistake. I revealed it in the Legislature and they denied it here, but finally they admitted there was a $1-million mistake. They are now building huts to protect the people up there and they are closing a park because of fallout and radiation and the odours and dangers.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Energy here in the House about the fact that the officials of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. have refused to meet scientists on a TV show and let the public know the facts and the hazards. The problem with nuclear radioactivity is that as much long-lived radioactivity is produced in one large nuclear power plant every year as there is in the explosion of about 1,000 Hiroshima bombs. And when we say long-lived radioactivity, we mean long. Some kinds last for 100 years, 300 years and even 240,000 years before decaying fully.

Get this, Mr. Speaker, unprotected, above- ground, nuclear power plants, loaded with radioactivity in their cores, would certainly be large liabilities if this country were ever under attack. They seem to make this country virtually indefensible. Quite aside from the sabotage, an accident allowing just one per cent of the inner radioactivity to escape from one plant, would put as much harmful contamination directly into the environment as 10 bombs. It would not be spread out all over the globe like a bomb’s fallout, it would be all concentrated in just a few areas.

Instead of the government preventing this extraordinary possibility, when we observe, Mr. Speaker, that the government allowed harmful conditions to develop in our air and water -- for example, Lake Erie’s contamination from other pollutants -- then it is clear that citizens had better not count on the government to prevent nuclear pollution for them either. It is time that this government told the people the truth of the dangers we are faced with.

Above and beyond all this, we are committed to a $15-billion programme. I’m not talking $15 million, I’m talking $15 billion. The interest upon this, alone is $3 million a day. Here we are. We are now committed to an $8-billion debenture debt in this province. The interest on this is about $2.50 million a day. Now we are going to jump to another $3 million a day interest on this. It is no wonder the Minister of Energy, in his offer to start sharing the profits with his friends, wants to share some of the load here.

On April Fool’s Day, last Monday, the Minister of Energy said in the Toronto Star that he wants a consortium between Union Gas, Consumers’ Gas, GE, Acres -- all of these firms now feeding at the public trough fairly handsomely -- he wants to give them a piece of the action. Isn’t that just dandy?

In the first column he says: “It’s good Tory philosophy.” Good Tory philosophy. On the drunken spending spree that they are now on he admits: “Although we aren’t broke, our credit is going to be drained.”

Let me tell the minister something. He can get these corporations into the act and they will raise the hydro rates across this province pronto. But this is a public commodity and I say he should leave it alone.

Since Adam Beck was in the act 68 years ago --

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Ask the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Snow) how much it cost to have his restaurant.

Mr. Sargent: -- we’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ money to create Ontario Hydro and an arrogant wheeler-dealer like the Energy Minister wants to share this package with his friends, the big boys, in the corporate group.

I was on the Hydro commission for 15 years in Owen Sound.

Mr. Drea: Why doesn’t the member ask how much it cost to have the power line to his restaurant?

Mr. Sargent: What’s the member’s problem?

Mr. Drea: Why doesn’t the member ask the minister how much it cost to have the power line through to his restaurant? With that question, don’t ask him.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I was on the Hydro commission for 15 years and I saw how firms like GE and Westinghouse took the people of this province by their price-fixing. We’ll have no more of it as far as I’m concerned.

To say the least, this story of the Minister of Energy -- with a picture there -- saying that he is going to open the doors of Hydro to private business, is I think a scandalous admission. It’s scandalous that he says that secret negotiations are now going on with these large firms to share this whole package with private concerns. Any one of the members, whether he sits with the government or among the opposition, should be concerned about the unlimited powers that this man has. As a taxpayer I think it’s time that someone should take action against him to block it.

Mr. Drea: Why doesn’t the member ask the Minister of Government Services?

Mr. Sargent: I’m going to try and respect the time factor here.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The minister pretends he can’t hear.

Mr. Sargent: What’s happening in this great province of ours, the most dynamic province of our confederation? We have an $8 billion debenture debt. BC and Alberta are debt-free. Now the Treasurer is looking for another $15 billion. He’s going to have another big $700 million deficit this year probably.

Mr. Haggerty: The Treasurer is aware of that. That’s why he’s going. He’s packing it in.

Mr. Sargent: We’re paying about $2.5 million in interest now. We’re committed to a $1.5 billion transit programme, a $1 billion land acquisition programme and no state in America -- and the Treasurer knows it -- is in such bad shape as this province of Ontario.

Who’s laughing? How can you spend $6 million a day in interest and not be in trouble and the Minister of Energy admits in the Star that we’re in trouble.

Mr. Drea: The member’s got a conflict of interest. He’s got a liquor licence. Sit down.

Mr. Sargent: What’s happened to this province when a farmer can’t sell his own land? He’s paid taxes all his life on it -- and the Treasurer should know about that.

An hon. member: Tell him. Tell him.

Mr. Haggerty: That’s small beans to a man like the Treasurer.

Mr. Sargent: And what happens when a small businessman can’t hire any help because a man can get paid more money on relief than he can working for a living? What happens when thousands of Canadian companies don’t pay any income tax?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Sargent: What happens when all the taxation and assessments are controlled from Queen’s Park? And what happens when the municipalities we are elected to represent can only spend 15 cents on the dollar? Centralized control and we’re in one helluva mess.

Mr. Reid: That’s right.

Mr. Sargent: I say it’s time -- and I have said it before -- that we made this a public trust instead of a public trough and that’s what it is tonight.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): We couldn’t eat out of the public trust.

Mr. Cassidy: Let the member tell us about the eight million again.

Mr. Sargent: Pardon?

Mr. Cassidy: Tell us about the eight million again; we liked it the second time.

Mr. Drea: A piece of the action.

Mr. Sargent: I have a few important things to say for us living in the air age. We do need a positive approach to air travel. We heard today that the government turned down the right to buy Tobermory airport. It was available at a bargain price but the government turned it down. There is no airport now in Tobermory. We have none in Owen Sound but the little State of Iowa --

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): I thought there was one in Owen Sound?

Mr. Sargent: Come on; the minister knows better than that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Is it only for the member’s plane?

Mr. Sargent: He knows better than that. The little State of Iowa has a beautiful map; it has 63 communities with lighted airports, put in by the legislature, by government programmes. Every state in the United States has an air map but we have nothing in Ontario. I think there should be a consciousness on the part of the government about air travel. It is talking about closing down the Island airport.

Mr. Drea: If there is nothing in Ontario it is because of the member.

Mr. Sargent: Last year the Island airport had a $300,000 operating loss and they are going to close it. That, to me, is the most valuable asset the city of Toronto has and the minister should know that. It’s a shocking thing that the city of Toronto, one of the proudest cities on the North American continent, can’t supply or afford a downtown airport. Here is the government drifting along, going to close it because it had an operating loss of $300,000. That’s one of the busiest airports in Canada and the minister knows it. We are doing nothing about it and I wish like hell that somebody would do something about it.

Mr. Haggerty: Put in a STOL programme.

Mr. Sargent: We need a positive programme.

With regard to housing, I’ll be very brief -- there’s the time factor here. As I’ve said before, the costs of housing are mainly because of the red tape and bureaucracy. The editor of the publication Canadian Building says that a bureaucratic conspiracy is the reason for the scandalous hidden costs in the building industry. I mentioned today in the House that there are formats for getting project approval through in 90 days and I suggest this government should take a hard look at getting moving along this way.

I’d like to talk briefly, in closing, about money.

Mr. Drea: That would be a godsend.

Mr. Sargent: The member is great; he stays right in there and pitches.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Sargent: I can’t imagine why he would want to be on television. I can’t figure it out.

Mr. Drea: The first time I’d get a freak-out like the member I’d be winning.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, freedom implies a series of choices; if one has no options, one is not free. This is particularly relevant to the management or mismanagement of money in this country. There are few options when one needs money in a hurry and usually they are unnecessarily painful. Money is or should be just another consumer item in our society and the manipulation of this economy, in a credit society, can no longer be successfully based on making money tight.

When we have money available people are paying 10 per cent or 10 1/2 per cent for first mortgages; 13 to 14 per cent for a second mortgage; and trust companies are making the biggest profits in their histories. A $25,000 mortgage now will cost $103,000 by the time it matures. And hundreds and thousands of people in this province, while waiting for a better day, find themselves paying 18 per cent while trying to regain their solvency. It’s a dead-end street.

Mr. Drea: What is the member charging for a drink?

Mr. Sargent: Yet the largest bank in the world really owns nothing. We found that out in our depression; when people took their money out of the banks, the banks went broke. We should use our Province of Ontario Savings Offices to knock these Shylocks out of business and give the people money loaned to them at a decent rate. But now we are charging everybody 18 per cent across the board.

Mr. Drea: That’s my speech.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I feel I am losing rapport with the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr. Drea: That’s my speech.

Mr. Cassidy: He lost rapport with the member a long time ago.

Mr. Drea: It’s my speech. Give credit, eh?

Mr. Sargent: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry you weren’t here. I am glad to see you well and hearty. I yield the floor to my colleague here.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That, I must confess, was a bit of an anti-climax. I was waiting for the end.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He didn’t drop the other shoe.

Mr. Deans: I suppose I am the anti-climax. The leader for the Liberal Party says so, and he always is right, because it depends on who one believes whether he is always right or not. I notice the Premier doesn’t seem to think so.

Mr. Cassidy: I thought he was the anti-climax for the Liberal Party.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak for a few moments in this debate. I want first of all to say to you, as other people have said, I am pleased to see you back. I am pleased to see you back for reasons that other perhaps won’t understand.

I had moments of severe remorse in December when, after a confrontation in the House, I walked outside to give the Christmas message. Just prior to standing up, I discovered you had taken ill and had to be taken from the House. Frankly I wished that we hadn’t had quite the exchange we had had just immediately prior to that.

I say to you now, as I have said to you privately, I am delighted that you are back in the chair to exercise your responsibilities in a way that no other in the House could, and I personally have no reservations about saying how pleased I am to have you as a Speaker.

I can’t say the same about the government, unfortunately, that you belong to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Try hard. Give it the old college try.

Mr. Deans: I would like to be able to extend to them the same kind of feeling, but frankly I can’t --

Mr. Gilbertson: Go ahead.

Mr. Deans: -- because I have come to the conclusion, after watching for nearly seven years, that the kind of responsibilities which they exercise or which they seem to feel they ought to exercise are certainly not in keeping with what I believe.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We are unbeatable. After seven years, we are unbeatable.

Mr. Deans: Before dealing with what I consider to be the major issues in the Throne Speech, I want to raise a couple of matters that are of purely local concern. They are matters which we in the Hamilton area have felt rather strongly about and which the government is going to have to pay some attention to in the near future or we are going to be faced with some major problems.

The first relates directly to the people who live on what is known as the Hamilton beach strip. The people who live on the beach strip have been faced with a number of severe problems over the last five, six or seven years. Matters came to a head last year with the extremely severe flooding, which caused many of the septic systems in the area to cease functioning adequately and which caused many of the people to have an obvious loss in the value of the properties which they had owned and kept up for a good length of time.

The government has indicated, Mr. Speaker, that there is the possibility that it might acquire the land on the beach strip in Hamilton as a public park. By making a statement such as that, it has placed the people who currently live there in a very invidious position. If it is the intention of the government to promote the development of a public park in that area, then it should state it categorically now and it should proceed with the acquisition of the properties. The people who are currently living there are finding it extremely difficult (1) to decide whether or not it’s worth their while to maintain and develop their properties and (2) to decide whether or not it’s worth their while financially to expend any additional moneys on septic systems in order that the properties can be used at an adequate level. Thirdly, people are finding it virtually impossible to acquire mortgages in the event that they want to sell the properties. Many of those who are currently in the field of providing mortgage funds are unwilling to provide additional funds for any of the properties on the beach strip because the future of the area and of the homes in the area is very uncertain, and therefore the people who are living there are gradually losing their equity and investment.

The final point I want to make with regard to the beach strip is this, that there are a small number of businesses in that area that have served that particular community well. They have not been what one would call excessive in their profit taking. They have simply been a corner store operation that has provided access for people to the kinds of day to day foodstuffs and other commodities that they require, and because of the government’s inactivity and because there is a gradual erosion of the numbers of people who are currently on the beach strip those businesses are suffering immeasurably.

I think the government has an obligation now to move into the area, to make it perfectly clear it is its intention to acquire all of the properties, to sit down with the business people and discuss what, in fact, is the real worth of the business and to come to some satisfactory arrangement as to compensation. I think we have waited long enough.

I think the people in the area have been extremely patient and I feel that this government has an obligation now, if it is its intention to involve itself in the development of a park area in the beach strip of the Hamilton area, to do so with some forthright announcement and let’s begin the process and give the people a fair opportunity to return to themselves some of the equity and investment that they have.

The second point I want to raise, Mr. Speaker, that is purely local, is with regard to regional government. If it is the government’s intention ever again to implement a regional government, I want to suggest that there are some lessons to be learned from the implementation in the Hamilton area. The major lesson that I see to be learned is that there has to be more lead time. If there is going to be a regional government set up then I strongly suggest that there be much more lead time available for the kind of determination that has to be taken by the regional municipality with regard to its responsibilities.

The regional government of Hamilton-Wentworth is currently having considerable difficulty in trying to determine what its budget will be, trying to determine the scope of its operation, trying to decide what, if anything, will become solely regional, what if anything is going to be a shared responsibility and how the costs might be distributed throughout the area.

I think that given that there were only two months before the actual implementation of the region legally from the time that the councillors were elected, and given that during that two-month period a great number of people had to be hired who were going to make the region operative, I can’t help feeling that it would be a very useful exercise if the government were to allow for the election in the spring of any given year, with the region not to become fully implemented until the first of the following year, and allow at least six months for the kinds of operational changes that have to take place.

I think that that is one of the major problems with the region. I think that if this is ever to be done again, I hope to heaven that the government doesn’t do it the way it did the Hamilton one, but if it is ever done again I hope that it recognizes that it can’t be done in a two-month period and that there has to be some lead time available.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to the Throne Speech. I want to say to you, sir, that I have always believed the government had a responsibility in four basic areas. Any time I have spoken in the House I have spoken about those four basic areas, because I believe that they are, in fact, the primary responsibility of any government worth its salt, and they fall into these categories:

The government has a responsibility to ensure that people in the community over which it has jurisdiction are able to acquire food at a cost that they can afford. The government also has a responsibility to ensure that people who live in the community over which it has jurisdiction have an opportunity to acquire shelter at a cost that they can afford. The government further has a responsibility to ensure that people within its jurisdiction have an opportunity to acquire health care at a cost that they can afford. And finally, it has the same kind of responsibility with regard to the provision of education.

I think it fair to say that if one were to analyse its actions over the past 10 or 15 years, he would come to the conclusion that the government has failed miserably if these are to be the criteria against which it is measured. I think it is fair to say that in three of the four areas the government has not exercised any of its responsibility at all. In the last area, whatever responsibility it did exercise, it certainly has fallen far short of what ought to have been done.

I want tonight to deal with three of the areas: I want to deal with the cost of food in the Province of Ontario, and the rising cost of living in the Province of Ontario. I want to deal briefly with the problems of health.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, at the time my leader spoke in the Throne Speech debate he moved an amendment. That amendment said, and I want to read it to you:

“That this government be further condemned for its failure to institute satisfactory actions in the following areas:”

Under the heading “Inflation in the cost of living,” he went on to say that the government had failed to “investigate increases in profit to ensure no excess profit-taking.”

That the government had failed to “establish a price and profit review tribunal with power to investigate every aspect of price increases and take whatever action is necessary to ensure no unreasonable increases, or to have selected increases rolled back.”

That the government had failed “to establish a consumer protection code extending not only to marketplace transactions and commodities, but to the provision of services.”

That the government had failed “to institute a province-wide warranty for home building standards.”

That the government had failed “to institute a public automobile insurance programme.”

And in the area of northern development, he went on to say the government had failed “to establish economic growth in northern Ontario based on the resource potential as a catalyst for secondary development.”

And that the government had failed “to establish northern economic development and employment based on long-term secondary growth as a number one priority.”

And that the government had failed “to recognize the massive economic disparity between northern and southern Ontario and the adverse effects of the two-price system in this province, and failure to take appropriate measures to bring about equality.”

And under land use and urban growth, he said that the government had failed “to move immediately to acquire for the public sector sufficient land to meet the projected housing needs over the next 20 years.”

And that the government had failed “to begin a house building programme aimed at producing at least 250,000 homes, both private and public, within 18 months.”

And that the government had failed “to develop a land-use policy and overall development plan to meet recreational requirements in all areas of the province, with immediate emphasis in the ‘golden-horseshoe’ area.”

And further, that the government had failed “to establish rent review and control measures.”

And under employer and employee relations, my leader pointed out that the government had failed “to amend the Labour Relations Act to meet the legitimate request of the Ontario Federation of Labour as conveyed to all members of the Legislature.”

And the government had failed to exercise its responsibility “by allowing conditions of work and wages for the hospital workers of Ontario to deteriorate to a substandard level.”

And further, that the government had failed to exercise its responsibility “by creating a confrontation with teachers in this province and then failing to respond to the consequences” of its actions.

And that the government had failed in its responsibility “by inflicting compulsory arbitration on Crown employees;” and that finally the government had failed “to legislate against strike-breaking in the use of firms and individuals to disrupt orderly, legal strikes.”

And under the policy heading “income maintenance,” my leader pointed out that this government had failed “to institute an income maintenance programme to meet the legitimate needs of the elderly.”

And that this government had failed to establish “adequate income levels for the disabled and other disadvantaged people in Ontario.”

And under the heading of “health,” my leader pointed out that this government had failed “to provide a sufficient range of institutional facilities to ensure adequate health care at the lowest possible cost;” that it had failed “to institute dental and drug-care programmes;’ and it had further failed “to take initiatives which would upgrade the value of preventive medicine.”

Mr. Renwick: Why don’t those ministers who are here simply resign and let somebody else take over?

Mr. Deans: And he then said in conclusion to his remarks --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): There is nowhere to go but up.

Mr. Renwick: It is absolutely shocking that this government can have that litany of failures and still sit there complacently in their places tonight.

Mr. Deans: The leader of the New Democratic Party then said in concluding his remarks that the government had shown “gross negligence in its refusal to tax the resource industries of Ontario at a level which would allow individuals and families in this province to experience major relief from the inequitable and oppressive system of taxation presently in effect.”

Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this House who would deny the accuracy of that litany. There is no one in this House who would claim that this government had, in fact, acted properly in any of those areas. There is no one in this House who could stand in his place and refute the statements made by the leader of the NDP at the time that he spoke in the Throne Speech debate.

Mr. Cassidy: Even the Tories admit it by acquiescence.

Mr. Deans: And what we are faced with is a government that has brought in a Throne Speech completely inadequate to meet the needs of the people of the Province of Ontario, a government that has brought in a Throne Speech without any of the specifics which could by any stretch of the imagination be considered to be the kinds of programmes that we might need to have in order to correct the imbalances which currently prevail right across the spectrum of the people of the province.

Mr. Renwick: There are two ministers engaged in conversation and four engaged in studied indifference to what is being said. They can’t do their paper work in their offices during the day. They bring it into the Legislature at night and insult the members of the Legislature. Why don’t they put down their pencils and their papers and listen to what is being said about the government of the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Havrot: We heard it last year.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Timiskaming should say they had heard it last year, because little does he realize that that is exactly the problem. To have had to say it year after year after year and not get any response of any kind from this government is a clear indication of the government’s indifference toward the needs of the people of the Province of Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: The member for Timiskaming in an attempt to be humorous and comical obviously isn’t aware of the responsibilities of government. I don’t blame him. If I were to sit so far from the government, I doubt if I would be aware of it either.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He was passed over again.

Mr. Havrot: Don’t worry about me.

Mr. Laughren: He is after the chairmanship of the ONR.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There will be a vacancy there.

Mr. Havrot: Thank you for your support.

Mr. Deans: I want to deal briefly, Mr. Speaker, with the area of housing, with the cost of living and with some problems of the aged, and then I intend to yield the floor.

I want, first, to say, Mr. Speaker, that this government’s attitude toward housing is atrocious. The government in 1967, as my colleague from Wentworth North (Mr. Ewen) will well remember it, announced a great housing project in the Hamilton area. That housing project has yet to yield a single house. That project was announced in 1967 two weeks prior to the election. To this date some seven years later, there isn’t a single basement, there isn’t a single house and there isn’t a single thing that anyone could point to as being an indication of the government’s commitment toward housing.

The government, first of ail, doesn’t recognize that a sizable portion of the people of the Province of Ontario live in rented accommodation, and that within the rented accommodation the people who are living there are very much at the mercy of the landlords. The landlords of the Province of Ontario, in spite of what they might say, appear to be in the business of maximizing profit regardless of the impact of their actions on the people who currently rent from them.

Mr. Renwick: The government is in a shambles.

Mr. Deans: The city of Toronto has been faced in the last year --

Mr. Renwick: Never has it been in such disarray as it is tonight.

Mr. Deans: -- with increases which average 25 per cent in the area of apartment rental. The UDI, which represents or purports to represent a number of the rental accommodations in the Province of Ontario, had the gall to suggest to its members recently that they should be asking for a 10 to 12 per cent increase in rental this year. One wouldn’t mind too much, an increase of 10 to 12 per cent if that increase were justified. One wouldn’t mind too much the increase in the cost of rental accommodation if the increase were, in fact, legitimate. It wouldn’t be unacceptable if the increase reflected a legitimate and honest increase in the cost of providing the service and the accommodation. But the fact of the matter is that the increases that are being demanded --

Mr. Renwick: Why doesn’t the Minister of Industry and Tourism go back to his office and do his work there?

Mr. Laughren: The junior achiever of Ontario is not accomplishing anything in here.

Mr. Deans: -- are not justified and are not increases which reflect increases in cost, but are rather an attempt by the owners of apartments in the Province of Ontario to extract the maximum amount of money from their tenants without any consideration.

Mr. Renwick: The Minister of Agriculture and Food is getting credit for the highest prices in food.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: The junior achiever of Ontario is not accomplishing anything in here.

Mr. Deans: The increases that are being demanded, Mr. Speaker, are not justified, are not increases which reflect increases in cost, but rather are an attempt by the owners of apartments in the Province of Ontario to extract the maximum amount of money from their tenants without any consideration --

Mr. Renwick: The Minister of Agriculture and Food --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: -- takes credit for the highest food prices that have ever existed in the Province of Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Laughren: The people are speaking to the government --

Mr. Deans: -- without any consideration, as I say, for the ability of the people who live in the apartments to pay, or for that matter for the ability of the community as a whole to pay.

I was interested in speaking with people at the landlord and tenant bureau, and I discover that by far the majority of the complaints which they receive are directly related to rent increases; that ranging upwards of 100 every week are complaints from people about unjustified, unsubstantiated rent in- creases in apartments in which they have been tenants for a long period of time. I had one brought to my attention which I think is absolutely atrocious and which this government has to recognize as being not the exception but the norm in the way in which apartment owners deal with tenants.

An 88-year-old man who is in a position of being unable to move around freely received a notice from his landlord that his rent was going from $190 to $230 a month. And it’s not uncommon to find rent increases from $150 to $170, from $260 to $325, from $220 to $260 without the least bit of justification. Throughout the rental accommodation business we find that apartment owners are, without any consideration for their tenants, raising the rents, and the rents are being raised by 25, 30 and 50 per cent. It’s time that this government exercised its responsibility in the field and moved in and said, “No, not in the Province of Ontario.” It’s time that this government followed the example of the Province of British Columbia, or perhaps the Province of Manitoba, or maybe even the city of Halifax, which have all recognized that the kind of rent gouging that is going on right across this country -- it’s not unique to the Province of Ontario, it’s going on right across this country -- is unconscionable and unacceptable, and that it is not in keeping with the best practices of government or the responsibility of government to allow this kind of thing to occur within its jurisdiction.

Mr. Cassidy: They even do it in Quebec.

Mr. Deans: It is time for this government to face up to reality, and the reality is that unless you are prepared as a government to institute a tribunal before which those asking for rent increases must appear and justify their rent increases, we are going to see people gouged and more and more of their income taken in order to provide just basic shelter.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: I want to tell you the kind of justification that people get when their rents are increased, and I’ll read you a letter. It’s a letter sent out by Hillbrook Investments in Hamilton and it says:

“Dear Mr. and Mrs. Whoever:

“Please be advised that the current tenancy agreement on the above premises is hereby terminated by the landlord on its anniversary date. Due to unprecedented inflationary costs which have affected the residential rental industry since the rate was last determined and which show no sign of abatement, the monthly rental on the above stipulated premises beginning June 1 will be the amount of $130.” [This is an increase of $15 a month.]

“A new tenancy agreement may be negotiated on request. The advantages to the tenant of any contract during an inflationary period are clearly obvious. However, the contract offered, as you may know, carries the added advantage of a $5 discount for prompt payment of rent. This discount cannot be claimed until a tenancy agreement is fully executed.” [And then comes the crunch clause, because this really aggravates me.]

“When rent increases occur, most customers want to know what the extra dollars are buying. The answer, unfortunately, is next to nothing. Or to put it another way, the building in which you live would not be able to operate at all without increasing the number of now much smaller dollars you are requested to pay. Such is the unproductive nature of inflation. We have appreciated your tenancy and trust you will permit us to continue to serve you.”

I want to say to the government that this is not justification for a rent increase. The gobbledegook that’s written in there is an attempt to hoodwink the people who live in the apartment building. It’s an attempt to justify a rent increase. It doesn’t say that the cost of heat and taxes has gone up by X dollars or that they have to absorb additional costs in maintenance or whatever. It simply places the responsibility in an area where the people have no opportunity to check it. And that should not be permitted in the Province of Ontario.

If the government has any sense of responsibility at all toward the many thousands of people right across the province who are unfortunately tenants, then it has an obligation to institute a review board that will demand that people like Hillbrook Investments come before that review board and open their books and say, “These are the reasons why we have to ask for a rent increase.”

In this time of rising inflation it is true, no doubt, that the costs of operating apartment buildings rise, as do the costs of all other things. But there is no reason at all why tenants should not be given the benefit of the same kind of information that home- owners have when they have to pay more to maintain and heat their properties and to pay more taxes.

Homeowners know, as they receive their bills on a day-to-day basis, what it is that’s costing them more and why the cost of providing themselves with accommodation is rising. Tenants don’t have the benefit of that, and it’s time that this province woke up.

It’s time that this government woke up and recognized that tenants are not second-class citizens and that they are entitled to the same kinds of privileges as everyone else in the Province of Ontario. And they should be given the kind of protection that ensures that no landlord, whether he lives in Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa or any other place, is entitled to implement a rent increase without first showing the justification for it.

Beyond that, it’s time that we had a standard lease form in the Province of Ontario. A standard lease form in the Province of Ontario should be brought out by this government and should be in mandatory use for all rental accommodation. I suggest that if there is any deviation from that standard lease form, that deviation should be marked clearly on the form and it should be subject to the agreement of both parties.

Until such time as this government is prepared to take these kinds of actions, it has decided by itself to relegate the people who live in rented accommodation to the status of second-class citizens. I, frankly, don’t abide it, and no one in this party does. I make the commitment that were we given the opportunity, notwithstanding the difficulties that might be brought about, we would in fact institute the kinds of things that we’re asking this government to do.

We’re asking this government further not to do things that no one else has ever done. We’re asking them simply to look around and recognize that other more enlightened jurisdictions have recognized what we have been telling this government for years, that unless they pull the landlords into line they’re going to gouge the people of this Province of Ontario to the point where the people can’t afford to live in apartment buildings -- and I don’t know where in heaven’s name they’re going to go.

What we have happening is that more and more of the dollars that ought to be spent on food, clothing and other necessities are being tied up in providing accommodation. And it’s wrong, fundamentally and basically wrong. This government has an obligation to move in the field, and if it doesn’t, I suggest that at some point the people of the Province of Ontario will rise up -- and what they’ll have to say to the government they’ll say at the ballot box.

I want also to tell you, Mr. Speaker, about the increases in the cost of accommodation in the housing field. I think we have spoken more frequently in the last few weeks about housing than any other single topic. It’s been one of those areas where the opposition has raised with the government a number of basic problems that have been confronting people across the province; and I think the government believes that if it speaks long enough and promises often enough, something will happen.

I like the Minister of Housing (Mr. Handleman). I sat with him on a committee for two years, and we got along well. But I’m going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if they give him enough rope he’ll be walking on his own tongue pretty soon.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a mixed metaphor.

Mr. Deans: Well, it’s true. If he’s given sufficient leeway --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Give him enough rope and he will walk on his own tongue!

Mr. Deans: -- he’ll be walking on his own tongue. He’s making statements which he is unable to back up. He’s making statements about the government’s intentions, which he knows full well the government has no intention of implementing. When the Minister of Housing says that simply by making it known to the speculator that the government may move in will be sufficient to discourage the speculator from getting into the field, I want to give him the other side of that. By telling the speculator what the government might well do, the speculator is doing all in his power to drive the prices as high as they can go now to make sure that he maximizes profit today. Beyond that I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and through you the government that I am convinced there isn’t a land speculator anywhere in the Province of Ontario who honestly believes that this government will take any action, there isn’t a land speculator anywhere in the Province of Ontario or a housing speculator anywhere in the Province of Ontario who, given the record of this government in land speculation and action or inaction, believes for one moment that the government is ever going to move in and put an end to the speculation in housing.

Mr. Cassidy: Even the backbench speculators aren’t afraid.

Mr. Deans: My colleague from Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith) sent me a copy of today’s Hamilton Spectator and he obviously didn’t read it very closely because in the Spectator I noticed the conflict between the Tories here at Queen’s Park and the Tories in Ottawa. Here we have this fellow Robert Stanfield who is saying --

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Who is he?

Mr. Havrot: Great man.

Mr. Deans: -- and I quote from a story in the Spectator, April 8, 1974, “PCs Favour House Price Controls” -- house price controls. It says, “Opposition Leader Robert Stanfield says a Progressive Conservative government would use price controls to stop the shocking and shameful increase in house prices.”

Mr. Laughren: Sheer hypocrisy.

Mr. Cassidy: Sure, look at the record of the Tory government down here.

Mr. Ferrier: They don’t go along with Bob Stanfield.

Mr. Renwick: This is the group which is going to support them all in the next federal election.

An hon. member: The gall of those people over there; the sheer gall.

Mr. Deans: I want to tell members that the statement of the Premier on the weekend when he guaranteed the Conservatives in Toronto the full support of the Conservative government at Queen’s Park to try to win the next federal election was obviously a farce when one considers the kinds of statements being made by the federal leader of the Conservative Party which don’t gibe in any sense with what this government is doing here. There is absolutely no intention on the part of the Conservatives in Ontario to deal forthrightly and effectively with the problem of the spiralling costs of housing.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member would permit an interruption, I might point out to the member that 10:30 is the adjournment hour, unless otherwise ordered by government motion.

Mr. Renwick: Let’s adjourn, there is nobody here from the government. The Premier isn’t here; it is his Throne Speech debate.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the House sit beyond the normal adjournment hour of 10:30.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Renwick: No.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of the motion please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth. I appreciate his courtesy in letting me interrupt.

Mr. Deans: Thank you; it was a very appropriate moment anyway.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. Deans: I didn’t think I had a choice; I suppose I did.

I want to go on, Mr. Speaker, to say to you that in looking back over the record of the Conservatives at Queen’s Park in considering the actions they have taken with regard to housing over the last seven years, and recognizing that rather than being competitors to the private sector, they have been, in fact, complementing the private sector in its efforts to drive the housing prices up, I can’t believe, not for one moment, that the federal Progressive Conservatives would have the support of Ontario in any effort they might undertake to impose restrictions on the increasing cost of housing.

This government’s record in housing is atrocious. The minister may stand up and speak about the hundreds and thousands of housing units which have been developed in the Province of Ontario but this government has done absolutely nothing in the time I’ve been here to try to curb the spiralling costs. This government, in fact, when it went out to build houses under the HOME programme, checked in advance to find out what were the current free-market prices for the lots before establishing the prices it would charge. Did it charge less than the free market price?

Mr. Cassidy: It probably charged more.

Mr. Deans: They charged the same and more than the free-market price. When I asked the question of the minister in charge at the time, Hon. Stanley Randall in that day, he told me that this government wasn’t in the business of undercutting the private entrepreneur.

Mr. Laughren: They had to protect the member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko).

Mr. Deans: Oh no! This government was in the business of shoring up the private sector. Well, when the government made that statement back in 1968, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it was at that point that the private sector decided that they were going to take from the housing market every single cent that they could get. And by God they’ve taken every cent that they can get. They have pushed the price of housing right across the Province of Ontario to a level where all but the elite few of young people coming into the housing market are unable to buy.

Mr. Speaker, I go and speak to young people in schools about the future that is out there waiting for them. I talk to them in the following way and I ask anyone to disprove it, that if any single one of them went out from the school and was able to move into the job that his father currently held, earning the same salary for the same amount of work, he couldn’t buy the house they live in. Do you know that’s true of over 80 per cent of the population, Mr. Speaker? Do you know that over 80 per cent of the population, if they were to go out in today’s market with the salaries that they currently earn and try to buy the house they live in, they couldn’t do it.

Mr. Stokes: Shame! Disgraceful!

Mr. Deans: They don’t earn enough to buy the house they live in. It’s only by the grace of God that they bought them some years ago and are able to meet the payments.

And this government has sat back. It’s a measure of the inactivity and lack of concern that this government has shown in the housing field, because this trend became obvious back in the mid-1960s. It became obvious about 1965 that housing prices were rising more quickly than the ability of the average consumer to purchase. It became obvious about 1965 that, with the ceilings taken off mortgage interest rates, mortgage interest rates for housing were going to rise at a level which would make the monthly payments outside the realm of possibility for the majority of earners in the Province of Ontario.

It became obvious in 1965 that it was the intention of the land speculator to derive from the land the absolute maximum amount that could be extracted. Yet this government, though it was aware of those things, failed to move and to take any action. What we now have is a housing situation right across the Province of Ontario which is absolutely intolerable. What we now have are houses in Metropolitan Toronto, that this month averaged in price $50,340. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, if a person were to have a house, even a house of $47,000, and even if they were to raise the $4,700 for the down payment, they would have to amortize a mortgage of $42,300. Do you know that the monthly payment for that, just the interest rate, if they amortized it over 25 years, would be $378.37? And do you know that over the course of the time they would be paying for that house they would pay to the mortgagor a sum of $113,512.05 to buy a $47,000-house.

But let me tell you something even more shocking than some of the other figures, because 25-year mortgages are no longer common in the Province of Ontario. People can’t afford to pay their houses off in 25 years, and now 35- and 40-year mortgages are common.

Mr. Haggerty: Forty years from now.

Mr. Deans: Let me tell you that $40,000 amortized over 30 years at 10 per cent means a payment to the finance company, the bank, the mortgagor, whoever it may be, of $124,228; and $45,000 mortgaged over 30 years is nearly $140,000 out of the earnings of the average person in the Province of Ontario.

An hon. member: Don’t buy it.

Mr. Deans: And if they go to 35 years, which is the common thing today, you find that a $45,000 mortgage would cost $160,000 to pay off -- $160,000 to buy a house. That’s how much it would cost.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: This government stands condemned for allowing this to happen in the Province of Ontario. This government has shown absolutely no concern. And let me just tell you that if you were to take the average $50,000 sale in Metropolitan Toronto and amortize it over 35 years it would cost $177,292 to pay it off.

Mr. Laughren: Shame, shame!

Mr. Deans: Now what working man in the Province of Ontario can afford to pay $178,000 out just to buy a house?

Mr. Laughren: The member for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root).

Mr. Deans: Where is the responsibility of this government to provide decent shelter at a price that people can afford? Where is the action of this government to try to provide housing for people who work in the Province of Ontario with average earnings at around $12,000 per family? How can a family earning an average of $12,000 ever hope to pay $180,000 over 35 years for a house? That doesn’t even include the taxes. That doesn’t include the upkeep. The whole thing is just so ludicrous that to speak about it in the House and to have everyone sitting reading newspapers and doing their homework is almost too much to bear.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): It’s a joke over there.

Mr. Deans: Because the fact of the matter is that this government doesn’t really give a damn.

Mr. Martel: They have their finger in the pie.

Mr. Deans: Let’s take a look at what the average person has to pay out, Mr. Speaker, because I know that you are interested though nobody else on the other side is.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that if a person were to purchase a $47,000 house and if he were to pay 10 per cent down and if he wanted to amortize it over 25 years -- think about the 25 years for a moment; that means that that person, by the time he is 35, would have to have been married and have saved sufficient money for a down payment in order to enter into a 25-year mortgage if he wanted to have it paid off by the time he was 60 -- it would cost $378.37 a month simply to amortize the balance.

The taxes would cost approximately $55 a month. The insurance would be $6.50 a month. The heating would average $30 a month. The maintenance over 25 years would be about $40 a month. The hot water would average $5 a month and the electricity about $20 a month and rising every day.

Mr. Martel: Where is the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement)?

Mr. Deans: So it would require a person in the Province of Ontario, just to make his house payments, to put out --

Mr. Sargent: The member said that 10 minutes ago.

Mr. Deans: -- $534.87 every month.

Mr. Martel: That’s why they have so many parliamentary assistants over there -- so the members can pay for their housing.

Mr. Deans: That means that for the family earning $12,000, over half of their income would go on house payments -- over half. And you’ve got to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that in fact in 1974 less than 30 per cent of the families in the province earn over $16,000. That means that in fact something in excess of 70 per cent of the Province of Ontario earn less than $16,000, and yet to live in Metropolitan Toronto and to buy a house at the average price, just the average price, would require them to set out in excess of $6,000 every single year just to meet their commitments.

Yet this government talks about its housing initiatives. This government talks in the Throne Speech with some pride about its housing policies. This government talks about how it is going to continue providing housing at a rate of about 100,000 a year. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is not nearly good enough. That is not beginning to meet the need in the Province of Ontario.

If the government is not prepared to step up this programme; if it isn’t prepared to move in in competition with the private sector and to develop housing in sufficient numbers to ensure that the kind of gouging that is taking place can no longer take place; if this government isn’t prepared to expand the operations of, say, the Savings Office in order to ensure that there are mortgages available at rates which we in the Province of Ontario can somehow have some control over; if this government isn’t prepared to land-bank in the areas where the greatest need is and to make use of the land that it currently has to put housing on the market; if the government isn’t prepared to take advantage of the inventory which has already been done by the Ministry of Revenue and showing average price increases right across the Province of Ontario and base its policy on the trend that that shows, then it will have failed to provide housing for the people in the Province of Ontario.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that last Friday, when we raised the matter of the decision of the Toronto Real Estate Board that it wasn’t going to make available the index which previously had been yielded every month, I had some questions about why the Toronto Real Estate Board didn’t want to do that. I think it has become fairly obvious, with regard to statistics, that the reason they didn’t want to do it was because they were afraid that the government might, through some inadvertence, be forced to move into the field and put a stop to the kind of gouging that has been occurring right across Metropolitan Toronto and the Province of Ontario.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, one need only look at the statistics in housing to see exactly where this government has failed.

In 1969 in Ontario the average house price was $25,665; by 1973 that had risen to $36,877. This represented an increase of 26.3 per cent from 1972 to 1973 and an increase of 13.4 from 1969 to 1972.

To be a little bit more specific for my colleague, in Ottawa in 1969 the average price of a house was $27,292; by 1973 that average price had risen to $39,909, reflecting an increase from 1972 to 1973 of 23.5 per cent.

In Hamilton, where I come from, in 1969 the average price was $23,368; by 1973 it had risen to $33,615, indicating an increase in one year, from 1972 to 1973, of 22.5 per cent.

Mr. Laughren: Hamilton Tories are speculating, too.

Mr. Deans: In Kitchener the 1969 average price was $28,176; by 1973 it was $36,982, and there was an increase from 1972 to 1973 of 28 per cent.

In Windsor, represented by two colleagues of mine and by a Liberal member, in 1969 the average was $20,866, and by 1973 that had risen to $28,573. From 1972 to 1973 the rate of increase was 27.2 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how this government has the gall to bring in a Throne Speech that doesn’t have as its basis a massive move in the field of housing. I don’t know how this government has the gall to go before the people of the Province of Ontario to ask for their continued support on the basis of the kinds of things that have happened in the housing field alone.

I don’t know how this government even has the gall to come into the House, and ask its own backbenchers, who come from many of the areas that I have spoken about, to support them when there is nothing in the Throne Speech which indicates that this government has any intention at all of changing the trends that it has not only allowed but encouraged in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: And has benefited from.

Mr. Deans: I can only suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if there was only one reason why I couldn’t support the Throne Speech, that would be reason enough. Because this government, in spite of its head lights -- and I can well remember when the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development stood up and spoke in glowing terms two years ago about the tremendous housing programme the government was going to undertake and how the government recognized --

Mrs. Campbell: But he did not say when.

Mr. Deans: -- the great problems in the housing field and how this government was going to get under way with a great housing programme and bring about a change. I am going to tell members that if the action in the last two years, which have seen the kinds of increases I have just spoken about, is the kind of action we can expect from the Tory government in the field of housing then God relieve us from the burden of having them in office.

Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin): The member has pretty feeble support.

Mr. Deans: He wouldn’t know it even if he heard it. Let me go on, Mr. Speaker, to say that it’s not only in the field of housing. If it were only one field, maybe someone could argue that a government is entitled not to be good at everything but I am going to tell you something -- this government has failed equally miserably in the area of the cost of living. There is a litany so long that I hesitate to become involved in that area but I am going to tell members --

Mr. Singer: He is going to do it anyway.

Mr. Deans: I want to say this. I am going to take my lead from the member for Downsview who, knowing that the things he had to say were of vital importance to the future of the province, felt it necessary to take whatever length of time was needed in order to say them.

Mr. Singer: Right.

Mr. Deans: In fact, I was delighted when the member decided he wanted to add a little to what he had said since he had read the paper and noticed something else. I am not going to stand in his way; any time he wants to make a speech he may do so.

Mr. Singer: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Deans: Let me say to members about the cost of living --

Mr. Singer: Can I make one now?

Mr. Deans: He certainly may.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He feels one coming on.

Mr. Deans: Let me say something about the cost of living, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that we suggested in the amendment we made that it was time for a review of price increases, profit-taking and increased revenue in many sectors of the economy; that it was time for the government to exercise one of its primary responsibilities, that being to ensure that food could be purchased by the people of the Province of Ontario at a price they could afford.

We said to the government that if it had no other obligation it certainly had an obligation to institute a review board which could investigate what appeared on the surface to be unconscionable increases in price and profit and that it had an obligation, if it discovered there was not the kind of justification, to roll back the price.

I want to begin by saying we totally reject that there’s any argument with regard to constitutionality. We believe, in this party, that the Province of Ontario has both the constitutional right and the moral obligation to move in this field.

Mr. Ferrier: Right on.

Mr. Deans: We further believe, in spite of whatever difficulties there may be with one individual province moving, if the Province of Ontario showed the initiative it would have the effect of reducing the cost of living for all right across the Dominion of Canada. If the federal Liberals are unwilling to move --

Mr. Laughren: And they are.

Mr. Deans: -- I suggest that the provincial Tories have an obligation to move. The argument always seems to develop that the government doesn’t really want to move into the private sector. What right has it, after all, to infringe on the profit-taking of its friends? Some even argue that the profit margins have not been excessive over the last few years. It’s simply a recovery of some of the losses which may have occurred.

Mr. Speaker, I want to put on the record a few statistics in this regard and I won’t be long. They cover the fourth quarter of last year in a number of different sectors -- I am going to deal with them one by one.

In the banking sector, in the fourth quarter of last year, there was an increase of 26.2 per cent in the profit; in base metals in the fourth quarter of last year there was an increase of 358.5 per cent in profit; in beverages an increase of 10 per cent; in chemicals an increase of 54.9 per cent; in communications an increase of 15.4 per cent; in construction materials an increase of 36.5 per cent; in food processing -- and this is a key area -- in the fourth quarter of last year there was an increase of 81.1 per cent over the fourth quarter of the previous year.

In general manufacturing there was an increase of 2.1 per cent; in golds an increase of 92.5 per cent; in industrial mines an increase of 160.5 per cent over the fourth quarter of the previous year; in merchandising an increase of 9.5 per cent -- and on and on.

In the paper and forest industries, an increase of 104 per cent; in real estate -- which I have just spoken about -- an increase of 96.1 per cent in profit; in steel an increase of 72.6 per cent; in transportation an increase of 53.5 per cent; and in oils an increase of 81.4 per cent in the fourth quarter of last year. That’s in the profit in the fourth quarter of last year over the fourth quarter of the year before.

You hear of increases of these types in real estate, 96.1 per cent; in oils, 81.4 per cent; and then we go and negotiate a further increase in Ottawa just a week ago -- a further increase.

And, if you take a look at the year-end figures, 1973 over 1972, you’ll find -- and I won’t quote them all -- but in base metals a 237.3 per cent increase in profit over the previous year; in oils a 52.1 per cent increase over the previous year; in real estate a 115.6 per cent profit increase over the previous year.

Mr. Speaker, those kinds of increases in profit indicate to me that there is excessive profit-taking in many of the sectors in the Dominion of Canada, and in most of the sectors centred in the Province of Ontario.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it’s time that this government exercised its responsibility and insisted that the justification for that kind of profit-taking be laid before the public at a public inquiry; and that this government exercise its responsibility and make sure that where those profits were not justified that there be a rollback; and that that rollback be in the form of a direct tax on the profits that had been made, and in addition to that, a rollback in the price of the commodities as they appear today.

I want to tell you that not only in the individual sectors do the profits show up as being extremely large, but in the individual companies one can pick and choose -- and I’m not going to pick and choose too many, but I could go through them all.

Maple Leaf Mills, for example, showed a 149 per cent profit increase in 1973 over 1972; Massey-Ferguson showed a 76 per cent profit increase in 1973 over 1972 -- and all the way down the line. Robin Red Lake Mines showed an increase from $430,000 up to $993,000, over 100 per cent, and on and on; there were so many of them that I hesitate to put them on the record.

But I bring them to your attention, sir, because I think they provide the justification for what we are asking for in our amendment. And what we are asking for in our amendment is this government to move for the first time in its history toward ensuring that the people of the Province of Ontario are protected against the kind of gouging that their friends are undertaking in this province.

When Silverwood Dairies shows an increase of 72 per cent, 1973 over 1972, then there is something to be asked; when in the banking field you find the Royal Bank with an increase of 21.5 per cent; the Bank of Commerce an increase on 20.4 per cent; the

Bank of Montreal an increase of 16.2 per cent; and these are all in profit after taxes -- profit after taxes.

When you see the Toronto-Dominion Bank with an increase of 55.8 per cent, it’s not difficult to see why the people of this province are having extreme difficulty in meeting their commitments on the wages that they earn, because the increases in salaries and wages have certainly not kept pace with the increase in profits the companies have enjoyed.

The Becker Milk Co., an old favourite of mine, showed an increase in profit in 1973 over 1972 of 43 per cent. It has always been a pretty profitable place, let me tell you. I don’t want to leave the impression that I have any particular grudge against Becker; I just happen to think they treat their employees rather shabbily. But they don’t seem to suffer as a result when they can show a 43 per cent increase in profit after taxes in 1973 over 1972.

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying in a nutshell is that in the area of cost of living, there is sufficient justification available to the government to enable them to move with the full support of the total community toward an investigation of the profit-taking of the major producers of foodstuffs and commodities in the Province of Ontario. There is not only sufficient justification, there is an obvious need. I am suggesting to you, sir, that this government has an obligation to move in that regard; and if it doesn’t move in that regard, it has an obligation to give up the reins of government because it is not exercising its responsibilities.

Let me tell you one final thing, Mr. Speaker, before I close. Every year we hear from the senior citizens of the province, and when we talk of housing and the cost of living there are few people in the province so hard-hit and who suffer to such an extent as do the senior citizens.

When we in this party tried last fall to have this government recognize the need to establish a basic income for senior citizens, this government refused. When we suggested to this government that it could have been done both economically and sensibly well within the means of the Province of Ontario, this government refused. When we told the government that the senior citizens of the province needed an income of no less than $215 a month, this government refused to act; and it carried on with its $50 Christmas bonus arrangement which we and others pointed out was totally inadequate and was in fact a little bit of political bribery.

The senior citizens have come forward, year after year with a well-documented brief. I think they are perhaps getting a little upset, and I don’t blame them. Let me tell you, sir, that they have asked again that education taxes be removed from residential properties and that tenants be reimbursed in full. I think that makes a lot of sense. They have also asked that there be a $200 minimum income established for old age pensioners in the Province of Ontario. They have further asked that the Ontario government pay all accounts in full if proper receipts are produced under the OHIP plan. They say that one of the difficulties they have is that if they travel out of the province, the basis for payment is not the same in other parts of the North American continent as in the Province of Ontario. They say that they are being unduly restricted and that their incomes won’t stretch far enough to allow them to pay the difference, and I think we in the Province of Ontario can afford to cover them.

They also point out that there is a need for housing. They point out that there is a need for homes for the aged and nursing homes. They point out that there is a need to extend drugs, dentures, hearing aids and glasses to senior citizens.

In other words, what they are really saying is that there is a need in the Province of Ontario for the establishment of an agency to deal primarily with the needs of those who are pensioners, to deal forthrightly with the problems they have, to make recommendations to government and to implement the recommendations.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that’s something this government ought to have done years ago and it hasn’t. There is no question that for those senior citizens fortunate enough to be able to get into rented senior citizens accommodation life is certainly a bit better. But there are so few apartments available for senior citizens that it is, in fact, discriminatory. It is a discriminatory measure by the government and the government should undertake to ensure a supplement to senior citizens in order to guarantee that their incomes are equalized across the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, there are any number of other things which ought to be raised. There’s the government’s attitude toward the north which has been, to say the least, atrocious. There’s the attitude of this government toward the people of the north, an attitude which is reflected, I might say, in the proposal for the development of Maple Mountain.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: I’m glad he got back. I really am. I want to tell members this about Maple Mountain -- I’m not about to get involved in a long discussion about it.

Mr. Havrot: He doesn’t know what he is talking about. Get some facts.

Mr. Ferrier: The government is going to look after its friends.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Is that why it is going to pay $80 million to re-elect the member? It’s going to cost $80 million to re-elect him.

Mr. Havrot: Why doesn’t he get some facts?

Mr. Germa: That’s all he is doing -- buying his ticket back in.

Mr. Havrot: Let him get some facts before he goes mouthing off. That is typical of him.

Mr. Germa: We don’t need that member. He should crawl back under his rock.

Mr. Deans: Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the government’s attitude toward both employment and the north are very clearly set out in the Maple Mountain proposal.

Mr. Havrot: Why doesn’t the member look after his own problems? Let him solve those of his own riding.

Mr. Germa: The member should crawl under his rock.

Mr. Deans: Without giving any consideration to the merits of the location, which themselves are somewhat suspect, let me talk about the job-creating capacity of the project.

In the submission placed before the government, there’s an indication there will be approximately 800 new jobs created by the Maple Mountain project. Unfortunately, over 500 of the 800 jobs are, if one wants to categorize them, of a domestic nature.

Mr. Havrot: It must be good; the member is against it.

Mr. Deans: They’re going to be making beds, waiting on tables, cleaning up after the American tourist when he comes in --

Mr. Havrot: The member is prejudging the project -- what an expert!

Mr. Deans: -- and they’re going to be paid the minimum wage in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Havrot: How does the member know? How can he prejudge it?

Mr. Ferrier: One only has to go to Ontario Place to find that out.

Mr. Havrot: They know it all; that’s the whole trouble with them.

Mr. Germa: Every Tory only pays $2 an hour.

Mr. Havrot: Why doesn’t he shut up? He is just talking through his ear as usual.

Mr. Deans: What I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, is this: That if this government is looking for a way to invest $40 million or $50 million in a project in Ontario --

Mr. Havrot: It’s not $40 million or $50 million; get the facts.

Mr. Deans: If the government is looking for a way to invest $40 million or $50 million in the Province of Ontario, let it at least invest it in something which will be substantial, which will provide something called meaningful employment for the area, employment which will pay them a decent living wage --

Mr. Havrot: Give us a clue.

Mr. Deans: I’ll give the member a clue; I’ll tell him what we’d do. Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, what could be done. If this government had moved at the time the Steel Co. of Canada and Dominion Foundries and Steel were in the process of acquiring land at the shores of Lake Erie and if this government had taken the money it’s prepared to invest in Maple Mountain --

Mr. Havrot: That has nothing to do with the north.

Mr. Deans: -- and had put that into the development in northern Ontario of a manufacturing process similar to the one which is currently being proposed --

Mr. Havrot: Like they did in Saskatchewan where they all went broke?

Mr. Deans: -- for the Lake Erie shoreline, we would have had a substantial manufacturing development which in itself would have acted as a catalyst; which would have provided at least 5,000 new jobs in northern Ontario; which would have paid a minimum of $4 an hour and which would have been the basis upon which the north could have been developed.

Mr. Ferrier: That’s the kind of planning we need.

Mr. Deans: That’s the kind of development that northern Ontario needs.

Mr. Speaker, when we speak --

Mr. Havrot: Don’t talk to me about government-run industries, like in Saskatchewan. Why doesn’t the member talk about shoe factories and the fish hatcheries --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, when we speak in our amendment about northern development and say that this government has failed to establish economic growth in northern Ontario, based on its resource potential, we are talking about just such a project as that. And when we say that this government has failed to establish northern economic development and employment, based on long-term secondary growth as a No. 1 priority, we are talking about a development just such as that. And we are saying to the member for Timiskaming that if he has nothing but a small-town mentality --

Mr. Havrot: That’s what the member has got.

Mr. Ferrier: The member for Timiskaming hasn’t got faith in the north; that’s his problem.

Mr. Deans: -- if he is unable to see the tremendous potential that the resources of the north afford to the government for secondary development, and if the member for Timiskaming is unable to see that it would be entirely possible --

Mr. Havrot: Oh, the member is so brilliant!

Mr. Deans: -- to make better use of the many millions of dollars that will be spent by this government in the development of Maple Mountain --

Mr. Martel: Just some secondary industries.

Mr. Havrot: How long will the natural resources last?

Mr. Deans: -- by producing the kind of secondary development we are talking about, then obviously he is not very farsighted.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Ferrier: The member hasn’t got faith in the north; that’s his problem.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I say, on behalf of this party, that this government has failed to win the support of the House by its Throne Speech. It obviously has few, if any, policies aimed at reaching and combating the major problems confronting the people of the Province of Ontario, and we will not support the motion on the Throne Speech.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to begin by complimenting the prior speaker on his contribution to this debate -- with the exception of the final remarks on Maple Mountain; I am not too knowledgeable about Maple Mountain --

Mr. Havrot: Ah, there is an honest man.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member for Timiskaming somewhat coerced him into that diversion.

Mr. Laughren: The anti-labour member who is quite happy to see people work for the minimum wage.

Mr. Havrot: The member for Nickel Belt doesn’t know what work is. He never worked a day in his life, the little pipsqueak.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why don’t the two of them step outside?

Mr. Bullbrook: I find the member for Timiskaming a very unique individual.

An hon. member: That’s true.

Mr. Bullbrook: He’s the only member I know who can stay in his riding and still be recorded in a voice vote in this House.

Mr. Havrot: Doesn’t the member wish he had that talent? At least I haven’t got one of the squeaky female voices like he has.

Mr. Bullbrook: He is running a close second by the member for Middlesex South (Mr. Eaton), the new parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. They were going to make him vice-chairman of the hog marketing board in charge of colic, but he couldn’t quite make it.

Mr. Havrot: And the member is going to be the head chairman.

Mr. Bullbrook: But I want to compliment the House leader of the New Democratic Party for his statistical evaluation of the problems of government. Sometimes statistics can be very cold, sometimes telling and meaningful and sometimes agonizing lengthy. But in any event they are recorded for posterity and, I recognize, upon a foundation of sincere regard for the problems of the people of Ontario in the context of the Throne Speech.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Bullbrook: I realize it’s late in the evening, but I want to record that Henry Aaron, tonight, at about 8:15 by our time, hit the 715th home run of his career and broke the all-time home-run record. I think as an aficionado of sports, along with my colleague from Downsview --

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Who was the pitcher?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They are two different sports, I’ll tell you.

Mr. Singer: Jealousy will get the minister nowhere.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- that we should record our respect for that gentleman, whom we know as a gentle man, a man with great integrity of purpose. Obviously the effort that he has put forward now shines in the public eye, much as will the efforts of my leader in connection with the integrity of purpose that he has put forward.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He has yet to hit his first home run.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would be the last to say that was a non-sequitur.

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you personally, and I’m most appreciative of the fact that you are in the chair at the present moment, that you join with me in recognizing that two of our colleagues who were taken by illness, my colleague in this party, the member for Nipissing, and our colleague the hon. member for Hamilton East, have now rejoined us and we, with you, welcome them back for their contribution and wisdom and experience in connection with the deliberations of this House.

But more so I join with the other members who have spoken previously in their appreciation and gratitude for your return to the House. I hadn’t recognized, until the self-confession tonight, that it was a speech by the member for Wentworth that made you sick. That has happened to me on several occasions. But I think you really take things too seriously when you have to be carried from the chamber. Recognizing that sometimes those remarks are difficult to take, bear with us and bear with it.

Sir, I want to begin by digressing. It is not my intention to stand necessarily as a spokesman for the Liberal Party, nor is it my intention to necessarily dwell entirely upon the Throne Speech. That is a vacuous document at the best of times. I want to give some thoughts if I may, even at this late hour, in connection with some of the things that have crossed my attention in the last year. The first thing is the enterprise that was undertaken by my colleague from Huron-Bruce and myself with respect to the select committee on Hydro, and I confess in this regard a change of attitude perhaps. I’m not going to talk about the merits of the situation itself, but I want to record this: I wonder now whether the select committee is really the appropriate vehicle to undertake that type of investigative endeavour.

I must say that I was all for the fact that the legislative process would be better served by having my colleagues and perhaps myself undertake this type of responsibility. I must say now, after having given it great consideration, notwithstanding the great assistance of many of our colleagues in the House, that I wonder if we didn’t really require the direction as to relevance and probative value of somebody of more judicial training than the chairman. Recognizing again that the chairman himself, under the direction of counsel, did a magnificent job in this regard, I must say to you that sometimes I feel that perhaps the reputation of individuals in the Province of Ontario, without foundation in fact, might have been adversely affected, and I don’t think we can afford the luxury of that type of thing.

So I invite the Premier in his absence -- and may I say this to you, sir, the very words “the Premier in his absence,” leave me with some consideration. It really is an unfortunate circumstance --

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): On a point of order, the Premier was to be here and is not feeling well tonight.

Mr. Bullbrook: An unfortunate situation. Then I will not say that which I was going to say. If the Premier is ill, we regret that.

An hon. member: The Premier is here now.

Mr. Bullbrook: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, if that minister were the Premier, Tara Explorations would have no problem whatsoever, and that’s a fact.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Premier is ill, one would think that with respect to the winding up of the address of His Honour in connection with the Speech from the Throne, that more than a scattering of cabinet ministers should have been here to make their contribution. We look forward to the contribution on behalf of the government party by the Solicitor General. We recognize that he will be able to defend, in his own inimitable style, the path that was put forward and pressed upon the Lieutenant Governor, on -- I believe I can’t recall the date.

By the way, I often wonder, and I mean this in no disrespect, if the pages that were left out of that speech by the Lieutenant Governor were done without deliberate motivation. As I read them in Hansard, and as members have the opportunity to read them, I can understand that His Honour, as the great Liberal that he was, would have great difficulty actually reading them. I think probably there might have been some purpose in that. However, we’ll never know.

I wanted to say to you, sir, in connection with the establishment of that particular committee, that I would hope that the Camp commission, rather than dwelling upon the emoluments of our office, might now undertake something with respect to the responsibilities that we have. I think one of the things that they might do is look at the whole structure of the select committee, because I think we all agree that some of the things that have been done to select committees might well lead to our own deprivation in connection with the utilization of select committees.

I don’t want again to burden this House with respect to individuals who, I would suggest with the greatest respect, undertake responsibilities placed upon them without, I think, a degree of altruism but rather with a motivation of their own financial interest in connection with those responsibilities. The fact of the matter is that when I was elected to this House in 1967 $200,000 was spent with respect to the establishment of nine select committees. In the fiscal year 1972-1973 $800,000 was spent with respect to the establishment of nine select committees or exactly four times the amount. Notwithstanding the propensity one individual committee had to diffuse its largess in a most concentric fashion throughout the Province of Ontario, I think, with some partisan motivation, one has to recognize that select committees have a purpose and an intent and a function and a responsibility with respect to our process.

Mr. Speaker, through you I invite all my colleagues to press upon those who regard select committees as an opportunity to make $50 or $60 a day to chasten them and to say to them that no longer will we permit that type of enterprise. They are not at fault solely themselves. The Premier, when he establishes select committees without defined terms of reference and without any terminal position, invites the type of abuse that the Provincial Auditor has brought to our attention.

I have stood in my place on many occasions and said that select committees have a significant function to play in the life of this House. The problem is that we must all tonight consider what the function of this House is, because one has to wonder whether the whole process is going to continue if the people are going to be told that to look into the use of schools you have to travel to the United Kingdom; to look into drainage you have to travel to Florida and to look into snowmobiles you have to travel outside the Province of Ontario.

I’m serious and sincere in saying this to you, Mr. Speaker, that we must be careful that if we continue on this charade of our own the complete credibility of our process is going to be called into question. If we do then what we should do, if we say we lost four million man-hours of work in the last two years because of strikes in this province, and we establish a select committee to look into labour relations and to try to lead the world in connection with the resolution of those problems, they might regard us in the same context and with the same integrity of enterprise as those people on the drainage committee who went on those larks of their own. We can’t afford that.

I’ve spoken personally to chairmen of select committees. No longer is politics a game that you play for your own advantage. That’s all right on county council, it’s not all right here. We can’t do it any more. We can’t spend the public funds this way any more. It isn’t a game of spreading largess to ourselves and those of our confidantes and those people whom we want to give it to for partisan advantage. None of us, including myself, can afford that any more because if we do that in the context of what I’m going to talk about afterwards, then you must recognize that you’re beginning to fracture the system.

Let’s look at our colleagues who do these things. Let’s do that, Mr. Speaker. Let’s say to ourselves that no longer can we continue with this. Let’s say to the Premier, if we can, please make it a relevant enterprise.

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Camp commission said that select committees shouldn’t be paid. I don’t know about that. I would be inclined to think that they should not, but I think that human nature being what it is and responsibilities being what they that extra emolument. I don’t know; I are that perhaps we need the propulsion of would hope not, but I am inclined to think that perhaps we do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you, as sincerely and with as much devotion as I can, that we must be careful about all the institutions of this Legislature, because I tell you people are talking to me about it. They are saying, “What are you politicians doing?” And I will talk about that afterwards. I want to tell you that basically the framework of my feeling tonight is, “Where are we going?”

All one has to do is sit through the question period here -- and you in your labour and responsibility must sit through it every day -- and recognize perhaps the contest of partisan advantage that goes on, notwithstanding the fact that there are so many problems facing people today. One has to wonder really -- and one has to hate to use the word, it has been used so often -- but one wonders about the relevancy of the Treasurer of Ontario with his magnificent responsibility saying, “Way to go, Bob.” We’ll talk about the Treasurer afterwards and what his responsibilities are -- and I contribute myself. I am trying to unburden what I sincerely feel tonight.

If that is going to be the charade that goes on every day, if that is what the function of select committees is, then one has to wonder whether the people are right when they say “a plague on all your houses,” because that is really what they are coming to say. And it is not the poor any more who are coming to say it. It is not the rich who are coming to say it. It is those in that broad spectrum of society who are taxed to death, who carry the burden on behalf of the rich and the poor, and who don’t seem to really have any viable alternative when you look at us collectively in this House.

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I wonder about government. I am sure you wonder about government. I have met Mr. Cronyn, a most sincere man, to try to get some education into the whole new superstructure of government, because I just can’t get to it. It is so malleable to me; I can’t grasp it at all.

I think he tried to explain to me, again with sincerity, what he was attempting to do. I tried to tell him experiences I have had in connection with the superstructure of government, with the creation of TEIGA, which I thought was almost the rape of the right of people to directly deal with a minister who understood planning, who understood land use, who had a direct responsibility to municipalities.

I told him experiences that I have had -- two experiences I had, as one member from one riding dealing with two ministries. I want to tell you about them tonight, recognizing the lateness of the hour.

I knew some time ago that because of economic pressures the Minister of Health was entertaining the amalgamation of certain services in city of Sarnia with respect to our hospitals. As a result on Jan. 22, 1973, I wrote a letter to the then Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Welch), Parliament Buildings, Queen’s Park. I want to read it into the record:

“Re:

“The amalgamation of services, Sarnia General Hospital.

“I wish to confirm my conversation with you of recent date when I voiced a great deal of displeasure in connection with the general concept of amalgamation of services relative to our two general hospitals in the city of Sarnia. Recognizing a superior knowledge on the part of the officials of the Department of Health and on the part of members of the boards and commissions of the two hospitals concerned, I want to reflect a significant degree of displeasure and disenchantment being voiced by my constituents to me in connection with the directions of the government.

“While we understand the need for certain financial restraints, the attitude of many of my constituents is that both hospitals have been considered general hospitals and that the concept of a general hospital should be for the delivery of general health services to the public at large.

“I want to also point out to you that I have had discussions with members of the medical profession, some of whom are also concerned about such amalgamation of services. One doctor in particular pointed out to me that the establishment in one hospital alone of a cardiac care service would, in fact, disentitle some people in the other hospital to the benefit of such services in an emergency situation.

“However, the main purpose of my telephone conversation and this particular letter is to voice not only my constituents’ displeasure but my particular displeasure at the concept of transference of obstetrical services to St. Joseph’s Hospital.

“After having discussed this matter with people concerned and knowledgeable I recognize the economic advantage to such a move. You will recognize that there are certain ethical restrictions placed upon patients within St. Joseph’s Hospital because of the ethical standards established by the Sisters of St. Joseph who administer and operate the hospital.

“I want to make it amply clear that I do not in any way wish to fetter the Sisters of St. Joseph in their obvious right to maintain such ethical standards as they see fit. I do not subscribe to some of my constituents who say that since such a hospital is subsidized by public funds the standards imposed by the Sisters of St. Joseph should be waived.

“I take the position that on a voluntary basis anyone who wishes to enter St. Joseph’s Hospital for the delivery of health services should abide by standards and restrictions imposed by the administration. I want to underline for your consideration the word “voluntary.” What concerns me now is that to establish a single obstetrical service at St. Joseph’s Hospital would force many of my constituents who do not abide by or believe in or want to be restricted by the ethical standards of the Sisters of St. Joseph to be restricted. There is an attempt, which I believe to be a rationalization, that after the normal obstetrical service is provided, many of my constituents who wish additional services outside the ethical tradition of the Sisters of St Joseph could secure such services at Sarnia General Hospital.

“I believe that to be fallacious. I believe, in point of fact, that in medical terms it would not always be beneficial to the patient so to do, and I believe frankly that if a person goes into a hospital on a directed basis they should be entitled to the normal and general health delivery services under the law.

“I have heard it said that some are attempting to distinguish between the delivery of obstetrical and the delivery of gynaecological services. Perhaps I am unable to understand fully the significance of such a distinction, but I must as a lay person admit that I can’t see from the point of view of a benefit to the patient the obligation of the doctor that there is any significant distinction between the services provided. I believe them all to be part of a total service to be provided by the doctors to the patient.

“I want to close this letter by making it amply clear that as long as patients attend at St. Joseph’s Hospital on a voluntary basis they must recognize the right of the administration to establish certain terms of reference in connection with the services being provided by such hospital. The key ingredient to my decision in this connection lies in the fact that many of my constituents would be forced into attending for services at St. Joseph’s Hospital.

“I want to express, if I may, a feeling of displeasure in the government and your secretariat in not having recognized prior to the adoption of this type of policy the collateral affect it might have upon communities. In point of fact, this type of decision has reared a narrower feeling in a segment of our community between sectarian groups than any I have seen since I was a child. It is indeed unfortunate that your advisors, Mr. Secretary, did not recognize this possibility.”

And that’s the end of the letter.

That begins a letter to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in connection with the impact of an economic decision upon the social rights and traditions, responsibilities and freedoms of my constituents, directed to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. I read you his response dated Jan. 31, 1973.

“I would like to acknowledge and thank you for your articulate letter of Jan. 22 outlining some of the difficulties being faced in the Sarnia area.” [And here’s the telling paragraph] “I forwarded a copy of your letter to the Hon. Richard Potter, Minister of Health, for his careful consideration and I appreciate very much the trouble you’ve taken to outline the situation in detail.”

I had intended, Mr. Speaker, to read you the total volume of correspondence, but those two letters in essence give you the problem that I face. What does the Provincial Secretary for Social Development do if he doesn’t come to grips with that type of problem? COGP said that the function of the secretariat is to develop policies in the context of those ministries for which they have the tactile or direct responsibility.

A letter was sent to the secretary for social development talking about the impact on my society of an economic decision and the response was directed to the Minister of Health who COGP says has nothing to do with the establishment of that policy but undertakes to administer the policy once it’s made manifest.

Eventually in this House in a moment of, I suppose, less than temperance I said to him during the course of a debate that he hadn’t responded to me. I said to the present Provincial Secretary for Justice, the present Attorney General (Mr. Welch) -- which very phrase, may I interject, should make COGP gag. The Provincial Secretary for Justice and the Attorney General is the very thing that COGP said should never take place. The purpose of the development of a secretariat was to relieve him of those administrative responsibilities. Of course it’s long gone. When he was secretary for social development, they made him Minister of Housing at the same time.

An hon. member: He had to do something.

Mr. Bullbrook: I said to him that he had not responded. I got up in my place, I apologized to him and I subsequently wrote this letter to him and I want to read it into the record:

“I wish to acknowledge your letter of March 15 and I apologize personally as well as I have publicly in the House. You certainly did answer my letters and it was obvious that I was wrong in thinking that the impact of the amalgamation of services on the ethical tradition of the Sisters of St. Joseph would be a matter for the secretary for social development. As you mentioned, you referred it to the Minister of Health.

“I say, frankly, it gives one pause for thought. If that wasn’t a matter for the secretary for social development, then surely there isn’t anything that is a matter for the secretary for social development.

“I am pleased now that since you are Provincial Secretary for Justice you will have something to do. My question is, will it be as Attorney General or secretary for justice?

“I am having lunch on Wednesday with John Cronyn and I will ask him.”

Mr. Havrot: The member is funny.

Mr. Bullbrook: I did ask Mr. Cronyn and his response, I believe not of a confidential nature, was that the success of the redevelopment of the structure of government depended upon the individuals who occupied the positions. One recognizes that from start to beginning!

Mr. Singer: A couple of them are smiling.

Mr. Bullbrook: The reason I bring this up is that the House leader of the NDP has talked about people wondering where government is going and where our money is going. Let me tell members something for a moment. When we began the superstructure of policy secretaries, in the first year we estimated their expenditures at $844,717. Last year, including the Premier’s office, it got up to $2,372,000.

That’s why I talk about it; a 300 per cent increase in two years for people to do what? This is what we ask: For people who do what? It might seem picayune, an elevation of only $1.6 million, but regard that in the context of all the spending because it isn’t only the secretary for social development whom we wonder about.

I want members to hearken back to the famous case of the route of the oil pipeline. Do they remember that one? I often wonder what type of resource development policy -- the present secretary wasn’t there but he finally made the statement. Let me synthesize for a moment; let me just read the headlines and a few things which were said, if I can. These headlines are a story unto themselves to tell members about the development of policy with respect to a matter which had been ongoing for four months by the federal government without one tittle of intrusion by the provincial government -- it is professed now by both the federal people and the provincial government there was not one tittle of intrusion as to provincial responsibility. Let’s see what type of policy had been developed in connection with this. The first headline is: “Two Ontario Cabinet Ministers Favour Moving Pipeline Route North”. Those two are those famous, famous liberals, the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food and the Treasurer of Ontario.

Now the only thing I’m going to say about the Minister of Agriculture, as I said in a press release once, he was only 400 per cent wrong in connection with his estimate. His original estimate was 10,000 acres to be taken --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I was right, the member was wrong.

Mr. Bullbrook: Ten thousand acres to be taken and they are taking about 2,700 by the time they are finished in connection with arable land in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That’s not what I said.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): How would the member for Sarnia know?

Mr. Bullbrook: Let me read to the members the telling quote by the chief planner. This is the chief planner of the Province of Ontario:

“Mr. White said that from previous experience Ontario had a close to zero ‘chance of persuading Ottawa to change the route. Bumping this line out of the agricultural land in southern Ontario into the north will be better accomplished by the Federation of Agriculture making representations.’”

Now there is the chief planner, the man knowledgeable about the use of land in the Province of Ontario, saying that we’ll never get that line moved north ourselves, and not knowing that the line from Sarnia to Burlington was already there. The line was there. The right of way was there.

Mr. Eaton: Does the member think they want it on the other line?

Mr. Bullbrook: Not one hectare of additional land would they take; and there’s the chief planner for Ontario saying, “we can’t get that moved north because the Ontario Federation of Agriculture says -- ”

Mr. Eaton: They aren’t going to build a new line on top of the old pipe.

Mr. Ruston: Do a little more squeaking over there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: “ -- that we can’t have it north.” So we begin: “Two Ontario Cabinet Ministers Favour Moving The Pipeline Route North.”

Mr. Riddell: This is an example of the next Minister of Agriculture?

Mr. Bullbrook: Now the second headline --

Mr. Eaton: He wants it to go through there, and the member for Huron wants it to go through. I suppose he also wants hydro fines.

Mr. Bullbrook: The second headline says -- Would someone tell that lady over there to be quiet?

The second headline says: “London North MPP Backs Northern Oil Pipeline Route.”

The third headline says: “Bernier Suggests Northern Route Proper One.”

An hon. member: A tight one too.

Mr. Bullbrook: Then we have the next headline: “McKeough Supports South Route.”

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): What does Bullbrook support?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Let’s have Anderson.

Mr. Bullbrook: An article by Bob Anderson -- I’m sorry, Harold Greer -- “Ontario Cabinet Ministers Ought To Talk To McKeough.”

Hon. Mr. Stewart: And what about Bob Anderson?

Mr. Bullbrook: Then the next headline is: “Ministers Divided On Pipeline Route.”

An hon. member: Well they are consistent.

Mr. Bullbrook: Then the next editorial says: “Strange Hiatus In Ontario Politics.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We haven’t had one of those since Robarts left.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: And finally we have the pronouncement ex cathedra, which reads: “Davis Denies Cabinet Split Over Route.” As I read those headlines I recognized that if the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development isn’t victim of ad hoc-ery, nobody is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Having a hell of a time making it.

Mr. Bullbrook: That was the development of policy, because he had to stand up in this House in his own fashion -- not tall, but stand -- and say, “We won’t intervene in connection with the application before for the National Energy Board, but we feel for the farmers.”

That had to be really the most ludicrous exercise in government futility, stupidity, devisivenness and frustration that the minister has ever had -- really.

I tell you, the magnificent aspect of it is that the Premier of Ontario rids himself of people like the member for Armourdale (Mr. Carton), the member for York Mills (Mr. Bales), and the member for Carleton East (Mr. Lawrence), and keeps the Minister of Agriculture and the Treasurer; those two who began the uphill fight that was a slide downhill before it ever started.

But that’s to be understood with this particular Premier. Any person, of course, who after that particular charade that went on for 10 days who would get up and say “Premier Denies Cabinet Rift.” It was as if we had a microphone in the cabinet room. We could see them fighting. The poor member for London North (Mr. Walker) was told by the Treasurer: “Get on the bandwagon or the people of London ain’t going to be with you.” But the tragedy of it all, really, and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Agriculture, he never knew that Interprovincial were going to use the right of way they had at the time, did he? He didn’t know it at all.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Of course I did.

Mr. Bullbrook: Well, why did the minister talk about arable land in southwestern Ontario that was already used?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Will the member permit a question?

Mr. Speaker: Will the member permit a question?

Mr. Bullbrook: No.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I just want to ask why IPL is negotiating with the farmers of southern Ontario today, because they haven’t sufficient land to accommodate their equipment to lay the new pipeline.

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

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The Liberal Party through the member for Sarnia displays an abysmal lack of concern for the farmers of Ontario.

Mr. Eaton: And the Liberals are all for it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Minister of Agriculture and Food is here. The Tories haven’t got any farmers over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, I wonder if the member would --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: Listen, the Minister of Energy had his voice changed. Why don’t you see where he got his operation?

I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, we sometimes find him an arch Tory, and that’s to be understood, but I say to you, nobody works harder, in connection with the cabinet of Ontario, than does the Minister of Agriculture and Food. No one. He works so much overtime that he had to make an application under the Employment Standards Act to work overtime, and the two criteria to get that type of discretion exercised were, “Are you going to be handicapped or mentally retarded?” and he qualified on both counts.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The member for Sarnia is a very smart lad.

Mr. Bullbrook: There is the Chairman of the Management Board. There is a talent, really.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: Eleven of us made a list of those cabinet ministers who would go. He was unique --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the member would speak to the chair.

Mr. Bullbrook: I certainly will. He was unique and he led every list, the Chairman of the Management Board.

Mr. Havrot: Tell the Speaker not to scream, eh.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member for Timiskaming says don’t scream.

Mr. Havrot: He has just broken my record. They can hear him in his riding, too.

Mr. Bullbrook: I think I will give some example, if I may, Mr. Speaker, of the type of waste that has been perpetuated by this particular government.

For example, today you have the establishment of four additional parliamentary assistants. They might be needed, I think, to prop up some of the cabinet ministers. They each need two assistants. I’m not certain of it, but I doubt if there are six people on the government side now who don’t have some type of extra emolument to their office that would benefit them in the long run from a pension point of view.

I don’t think there are six; there might be. We have taken care of the past, we are taking care of the present, and we hope like hell that they can take care of the future. That’s exactly the way they feel at the present time.

But we are not worried so much about the future of the members on the government side, because we feel that’s limited. Our present purpose is to worry about the present of the people of Ontario.

Now I don’t intend to take too much time in connection with reiteration of those things put forth so vigorously and well, with respect to our amendment to His Honour’s address, by my leader.

I want to say this to you, there are two things that our people are concerned with, because we are all concerned with them; the first is housing. I don’t have any great statistical evaluation to give you. I want to say this to you, that I don’t want to put it in the context of statistics. I want to put it in the context of people. I want to say this to you, that in my city the problems that we face are developers coming in and buying a lot, perhaps for $2,000, and attempting to put the plan through, as my colleague from Grey-Bruce questioned about today, finding themselves, at every turn, resisted by levels of government; paying prime bank interest at a usurious rate of 11 per cent; called upon to dedicate five per cent to the government for public purposes; in most municipalities called upon to pay $700 to $1000 for impost for future main service charges, eventually finding themselves when they build a house put to the test by both the federal and provincial government of something in the neighborhood of 18 per cent tax on building materials; then called upon to pay a real estate commission for resale of five per cent; looking at lawyers’ fees at a basic rate of 1 1/4 per cent; paying a one per cent charge to CMHC in connection with possible defalcation, and as a matter of interest in that respect, their default rate is less than one per cent and they have got a fund built up of something in the neighbourhood of $300 million; paying a 1 1/2 percentage fee in connection with MICC loans, high ratio loans, again for things that basically in the context of our law require no risk at all; charged exorbitant rates of interest, having regard to the risk incurred by the lending institution, and finding, after that, that they spent years of their lives to acquire a down payment on a home --

Mr. Eaton: The member forgot the lawyer’s fee on all that.

Mr. Huston: That shows that the member doesn’t listen.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- that the House leader of the NDP statistically catalogued in connection with this problem as to how long they pay it out.

I want to say this to you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple in my riding who are exemplary of the situation that faces society today and if I seem melodramatic I apologize to you. There was a time in the life of the senior members of this assembly when the first child to be born to a married couple, when the understanding that the child was on the way was a time for happiness. Do you realize with young people today who are attempting to buy a home, or who have bought a home and saddled themselves on the dependency of a double income, in the context of the requirements of society today and the amount of money they must put down and their obligations for carrying it, that the announcement of a first child is a tragedy?

I think that’s what is really happening to society, and those are the things that I think we should be coming to grips with. And you can’t really say that a Throne Speech of that nature comes to grips at all with that type of problem.

The thing is, we have tried time and time again -- and I think with sincerity on the other side you have attempted -- to come together and try to work out some method. What is the method? I don’t know, but surely the method can’t be the way things are being run now. I wonder what the answer is? I wonder if people can continue to bear the burden of cost and inflation that they do?

There is nothing Socialist about this. One has to shave in the morning and look at himself and say, “I wonder what we are doing on behalf of the people?” If we come down here and have a responsibility other than to yak back and forth at each other, then we have to say, “Where are we going?”

Where are we going in a society that increased the profit ratio of corporations in 1973 by 37 per cent, to a total of $14.8 billion, so that corporate profits became 10.5 per cent of the gross national profit. This isn’t a Socialist ripoff. It is not a Socialist ripoff at all. What it is, I think, is a recognition by all of us, and it should be a recognition by all of us, of a need for equitability in our tax structure. Believe me, I sincerely believe this, something has gone awry. The federal Liberals have gone awry in this respect -- and

I speak personally in this respect -- I don’t think there is any doubt. How can you possibly rationalize the building of the Toronto Dominion Centre and the continuing of an unrealistic capital cost allowance that says that they can effectively write off that structure in 20 years? You can’t when you know the life of the building has to be 50 years at least.

Hon. Mr. Snow: How does the member rate that --

Mr. Bullbrook: Less than 50 years if you would like to get into the 20 per cent rate. Effectively write that type of thing off in 50 years; you can’t possibly rationalize that.

I was telling some of my colleagues one time about a programme I had seen several weeks ago where Frank Magee was talking to the president of Exxon and he said to him: “Do you recognize, Mr. President, that you pay a lesser tax rate on your corporate profits than a janitor does who sweeps the office?” He said he didn’t know that. And he pointed out that the janitors’ effective rate in the United States was something like 15.4 per cent on his earnings. And Exxon, on profits of $2.2 billion, had paid an effective rate of 5.2 per cent. That’s not Socialist, but may I say that’s got to stop.

Mr. Laughren: Wait until the Treasurer --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): One has to be an executive.

Mr. Bullbrook: The middle-income people of the Dominion of Canada are not going to tolerate that to continue. We live and I live in the context of a free society, a free enterprise, wherein an individual or a collection of individuals are entitled, under our system, to flourish. But I for one, Mr. Speaker, say to my colleagues, through you, that we’re not going to flourish in that type of tax structure.

I say to you, sir, that I for one opt away from these types of tax concessions. I want to say that I for one don’t buy the rationale of the federal Minister of Finance, and the rationale we’re going to get again tomorrow in connection with the budget speech --

Mr. W. Hodgson: The member has been talking to the member for High Park, has he?

Mr. Bullbrook: -- which says that we must have this type of profit ratio to develop capital for increased employment. I don’t believe that for a moment. It’s the same rationale that the government gives in connection with International Nickel -- the same pap again, all the time. What the government does is it lets them write off their expense for exploration against their current profits, and then, by some circumlocution of logic, it says that they can then deplete the resource itself against their gross income. As if the resource was theirs to deplete!

We give it to them twice, and we sit back, as the fat cats that they are and I am, and we say to the people who earn $15,000 and $16,000 a year and are raising three or four children, that they go forward and pay an effective rate of 22 per cent, in some cases 28 per cent, on that type of revenue.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s known as the corporate ripoff.

Mr. W. Hodgson: It’s the lawyer ripoff!

Mr. Bullbrook: May I say to my friend that it might have been coined as a corporate ripoff --

Mr. Jessiman: Is the member talking about legal aid?

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t for one say that it might not be a corporate ripoff. I say, for myself --

Mr. W. Hodgson: It has involved thousands of dollars over 10 years.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- that no longer can society as a whole tolerate that type or infrastructure of inequitable taxation. They just cannot do it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Why doesn’t the member move over there?

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t have to move anywhere. I’m quite happy where I am!

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He can’t be; the member for Downsview doesn’t agree with him. Move over.

Mr. Bullbrook: Say to the Toronto-Dominion Bank: “We appreciate very much the infusion of that capital into the building industry”. And say to them, realistically --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- realistically: “Write that building off.”

Mrs. Campbell: Look who’s talking!

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member should move over and take the member for St. George with him. Move over!

Mr. Bullbrook: “Write that building off.” There is nothing wrong with that.

The concept of giving them a capital cost allowance is a true concept in our society, but the concept of giving them a write-off well short of the life of the asset is in itself a ripoff and always will be a ripoff.

These are the things I think people are talking about today. They’re saying to themselves -- I know they’re saying these things to me -- and I think we all, collectively, no matter whether we’re Conservative, Liberal or NDP, we had better have a look at these things. Perhaps that’s the beginning of a select committee that we might look at -- to look at the equitability of taxation in the Province of Ontario; we can lead the way there because we are the richest province. But one wouldn’t know it in the Throne Speech.

What has the Throne Speech said? It hasn’t said anything about that. But I tell you what the budget will say tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. It will say less than nothing in connection with the restructuring of equitable taxation. It’ll say nothing at all about it because this government is hand in glove with those people. All that the government wants is their advantage, but not the advantage of the normal and ordinary taxpayer in the Province of Ontario. The Throne Speech said nothing; as a matter of fact, I don’t want to dwell on the Throne Speech at this late hour.

I want to say there’s one thing in the Throne Speech that we agreed with, one thing that was said in that Throne Speech where, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the government did come to grips, and they’re to be complimented in coming to grips, with a problem. That was when they said: “May Divine Providence guide you in your deliberations and assist you in your responsibilities,” because that translates itself into “God help us.” If we continue with the type of initiative that worries about the environment in the context of billboards, then God do help us.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Solicitor General is lucky, he just lost the hon. member for Downsview.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with other members of the House in saying how happy and pleased I am that the member for Waterloo South continues to occupy the chair and, as the member for Grey-Bruce has said, still wears that three-cornered hat. The Speaker, as everybody knows in the House, presides over this House in a fair and efficient manner and he is a credit to the Legislature. May he continue to preside over us for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, the Throne Speech debate gives members an opportunity to air their views on various matters of concern. The recent Throne Speech dealt with several major themes. Tonight I should like to single out five of these for the members’ attention.

They are, first of all, inflation in the economy, then, land management, law reform, housing and northern development.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Five more?

Mr. Laughren: In that order.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Last year, Ontario had an increase in real growth of 7.2 per cent over 1972 and ended the year with a reduced unemployment average of just over four per cent. The outlook for this year is closely linked to the world-wide energy situation and, relative to other countries, Ontario and Canada, in my opinion, are well placed. But Canada must squarely face the continuing and debilitating effects of inflation which cannot and must not be ignored. If we don’t, the benefits of our relatively strong energy position will be lost.

Toward the end of last year, the 10th annual review of the Economic Council of Canada, in reviewing the growth of the government sector in Canada, stressed the need for co-ordination between the federal government and the provinces of their respective economic policies. Here in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, we have been urging a complete revision of federal-provincial economic responsibilities. It is our firm belief that righting the existing fiscal imbalances will go a long way to solving the problem we face.

Six months ago our Premier appealed to the Prime Minister of Canada for the federal government to meet with the provinces to consider practical measures to control inflation. The federal government has ignored this appeal. The present economic situation must be confronted by governments at the highest level. Ontario has in the past co-operated with the provinces and the federal government to seek national solutions to economic and other problems. We will continue to do so in the future in any and all matters of import to the province and to the nation as a whole.

With respect to land management, governments everywhere these days find themselves facing shifting priorities --

Mr. Lawlor: Is that the best the minister can do with inflation?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and increasing conflict between the traditional rights of the individual and the rights or expectations of the community. This government has faced up to the challenge and has dealt with these two forces on the basis of merit and priority. The overriding criterion has been, is it best for our society and our province and, where larger issues are involved, is it best for Canada?

Land use is a good example of such conflicting objectives. When regulations concerning the use of land, our own land, walk in the door, the notion of the collective good often flies out the window. It’s generally agreed today that something has to be done and a government has the responsibility of exploring every possible means of resolving the issue as equitably as possible.

It is not easy. The political decisions are frequently tough. It would be far easier to do nothing or, as in the case of one political party in this province, to roll back the clock, hypocritically suggesting to people that things can be as they were 10 or 20 years ago.

This, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, is to ignore reality. It’s the politically motivated fabrication of a dream world and the people see it for precisely what it is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sounds like the Liberal Party.

Mr. Sargent: Who wrote that? Did the minister write that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Certainly we have tackled tough issues head on.

Mr. Sargent: Did he write that?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have dealt with the escarpment, the parkway and regional governments.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sure the member opposite didn’t write it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have placed ceilings on the growth rate of secondary and elementary educational expenditures. The Ministry of Health has contained its expenditures within reasonable levels. I think the worst thing a government can do today is to be dishonest with the people and say everything is all right and that it will maintain the status quo and nothing needs to be done. That may be the most politically attractive approach to take, Mr. Speaker, but it cannot be the approach of any responsible government in the 1970s.

We have taken action to check and control urban sprawl and its attendant problems.

Mr. Lawlor: Is he going to make a clean breast of it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The government introduced a new Ontario Planning and Development Act, the Niagara Escarpment Act and the Parkway Belt Act to provide development planning to achieve this goal. The government has taken steps to meet the growth problems in central Ontario by legislating a development plan for approximately 1.3 million acres of land in the Niagara Escarpment and by establishing a broadly representative commission to be responsible for future planning in that area.

Land-use regulations introduced for a parkway belt system from Dundas to Markham and ultimately to Oshawa --

Mr. Lawlor: That’s the Hydro corridor, isn’t it?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- recognize an urgent need for the channelling of utilized -- yes --

Mr. Lawlor: The minister is telling me.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and for ensuring that unbridled urban sprawl does not destroy neighbourhood and community identities.

Mr. Lawlor: Where is the parkway?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The government, Mr. Speaker, is also determined to ensure that farmers are given every assistance in retaining good lands in agricultural production.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We’ve now --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He cannot get his mind off the pipeline. Let’s go over that pipeline again.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: We have now received a report of the farm classification advisory committee which was created last year --

Mr. Lawlor: Why did he talk about honesty a few moments ago?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Its recommendations on our initiatives to ensure continued agricultural production on lands being held for future development offer a positive course of action for farming and food production in Ontario.

The quality of life, Mr. Speaker, which we enjoy in this province owes much to the stability of our courts, law enforcement and public safety programmes.

My colleague, the Attorney General (Mr. Welch), recently tabled in the Legislature the Ontario Law Reform Commissions report on family law. It is the government’s intention to introduce legislation during this session which will guard against a Murdoch case happening in Ontario. We propose to introduce provisions to protect the individual rights of both spouses during marriage, to ensure equitable property rights, to remove all discrimination against children born out of wedlock and to strengthen and unify our family court system so that it can be more effective.

One of the most important priorities of the Ministry of the Solicitor General is the recognized need for a close relationship between the public and our law enforcement agencies. The report of the task force on policing was recently submitted and much of its content promises to be an extremely significant document in influencing the future of improved police relations here.

The task force report produced 170 individual recommendations. Many of the recommendations concern the improvement of the standards of police training and place greater emphasis on humanitarianism in law enforcement. We must ensure that our police are professionally trained and are equipped with modern methods of detection and solution. Toward this goal, construction will commence on a new police training college at Aylmer next month.

A broad programme of innovative training and of new standards of professionalism recommended by the task force is being closely studied.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The report raised such questions as the need for more women and more ethnic representation in our police ranks and the adoption of a constable-centred management style.

We intend, Mr. Speaker, to enlist and train more and more native people in policing their own reserves. After exhaustive negotiations, it is hoped that an agreement with the federal government will be reached on such policing during the next few weeks. It is also my hope that at least some of the task force recommendations will be implemented in legislation during this current session.

Mr. Speaker, we realize that land suitable and appropriate for housing is of immediate and pressing concern and that this type of land-use should not completely override other desirable objectives. We must continue to be concerned for the population densities and for well planned communities. In short, while we must concentrate on quantity, quality must not be ignored.

For the second consecutive year, dwelling starts in Ontario have exceeded 100,000 units, a rate of construction which is consistent with the government’s overall objective of one million new dwelling units in 10 years. A number of new housing programmes have been introduced to increase and upgrade the total housing stock. For example, the Ministry of Housing has introduced a programme of assistance to community groups in developing and managing their own housing projects. This com- munity-sponsored housing programme will promote co-operative and non-profit housing generally.

This is another means of producing a combination for modern income earners and establishing another method of integrating public housing units in the community. The community groups to be assisted will include people of many income levels and with a wide variety of special interests and goals, such organizations as service clubs, charitable bodies, and those dedicated to aiding the elderly and the disabled.

The programme will complement and add to federal programmes in three ways. It will provide grants of up to 10 per cent of the value of the housing projects to be paid over a 15-year period to reduce the mortgage payments. It will financially help in the rent payments of those in the lower and moderate income groups through the rent-supplement programme. In return for the grants, the community-sponsored groups will provide generally up to 25 per cent of their units for use under the rent-supplement programme.

It will make available ongoing support in the form of expertise or other assistance in the areas of both the development and management of housing projects. The government is also prepared to lease provincial lands, where available, to community-sponsored groups having difficulty finding sites at a reasonable cost.

Complementary to the community-sponsored housing programme is the Ontario home renewal programme. This includes the recent extension of the programme to provide municipalities with provincial funds for housing. These can then be used as municipal grants and low-interest loans for home improvement in districts either inside or outside designated neighbourhood improvement areas. Approximately $10,000 will be made available to municipalities for this programme during this fiscal year.

Mr. Lawlor: How much?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It will be $10 million. Did I say $10,000? I am sorry, $10 million.

The funds will be allocated to municipalities that apply for them on a per-capita-grant basis. Twenty-five per cent of this money, Mr. Speaker, will be set aside for municipalities with populations of 5,000 people or less. This will guarantee that the rural and northern areas of the province are assured special consideration under the programme.

Mr. Speaker, various items announced in the Speech from the Throne highlight the present and future role of the government in the development of northern Ontario. My colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes), recently announced a major telecommunications project to link the communities of the remote northern area of Ontario with one another and the outside world. This three-year project will provide 31 communities north of the 51st parallel with standard two-way telephone service capable of connecting with any switchboard in the world. The basic design of the system will allow for the carrying of radio programmes for broadcast in the future. Further, the Telestat communications satellite will also be incorporated into the system.

A prior and added advantage is that electrical power will be required for the communications equipment. To this end, Ontario will negotiate with the federal government to co-ordinate its community electrification schedule with that of the communications programme.

Mr. Sargent: They can do all these things, but they can’t fix up Highway 10.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They have got to get a good member in there.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, two major development proposals for northwestern Ontario --

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Just wait until Harvey Davis gets in there.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- will create 3,000 new jobs over the next four years.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The expansion plans announced by the Great Lakes Paper Co, in Thunder Bay and the Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Co, in Dryden --

Mr. Sargent: It had better be in the budget tomorrow or else the government will be in trouble.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- constitute an investment of some $450 million over the same period.

Today’s technology has opened a new path for the future use of nuclear energy and its attendant dependence on uranium. Ontario policy for future uranium exploration and use was tabled in the House just in recent weeks. In this area also, fully recognizing the importance of this resource, we have taken a broad national outlook. At the same time, Ontario fully intends to ensure that the interests of the north and the province as a whole are met.

Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to learn that the Conservation Council of Ontario considers that “public participation in planning major projects by the Ontario government and its agencies has become the norm rather than the exception.”

Mr. Stokes: They still said the government had a long way to go.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well, we are making headway.

This government has indicated, through its establishment of the Solandt commission and its intention to introduce legislation for an environmental assessment agency, that it welcomes public participation.

Regarding the issue of decentralization, the government has restructured local government so that it can respond better to the stresses of urbanization. Approximately 62 per cent of Ontario’s population lives within the boundaries of a regional government, with its greater capacity to plan and govern their own affairs.

Mr. Deans: Those aren’t the issues.

An hon. member: Ask them how they like it.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: As hon. members know, the province has increased substantially its unconditional grants to municipalities, and we wait for tomorrow.

Also, contrary to the view that many of the members opposite have, civil servants are not all here at Queen’s Park. The fact is that civil servants are located throughout the province in about the same proportion as the population of Ontario. If any difference does exist, northern Ontario has a slight edge. More public servants are located there proportionately than in the rest of the province. There is significant decentralization --

Mr. Ferrier: Look how far they have to travel.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Renwick: It’s not a question of statistics. The government uses statistics for its own purposes.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It’s true; there is significant decentralization of government expenditure programmes. School boards, hospital boards, universities, children’s aid societies and conservation authorities receive the largest share of the provincial budget. Local decision-making really is the keystone of such programmes.

Mr. Speaker, individuals seeking assistance from government are not overlooked, and programmes from the Consumers’ Byline to the citizens’ inquiry bureau are available to the public -- all designed to assist individuals and to complement the work of a member of the Legislature.

To touch briefly on one or two other areas, as members are aware, Mr. Speaker, the concerns of the government with regard to health care and costs led to the establishment of a health planning task force under the chairmanship of Dr. Fraser Mustard about two years ago. The report has now been tabled and, following the incorporation of recommendations of the Committee on the Healing Arts and the McRuer report into legislative proposals, the Health Disciplines Act has also been introduced. This major bill and the Mustard report will have a strong impact on future delivery of health care services.

Mr. Ruston: He’s telling us!

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Income support programmes mentioned in this year’s Throne Speech, as well as a prescription drug plan, will add to the benefits received by Ontario senior citizens. Last year, a $100 pensioners’ tax credit was instituted. This benefit, together with the provincial property tax credit and the sales tax credit, for which all other citizens are eligible, will bring a measure of relief to many of our older citizens.

Mr. Deans: The words are a “measure of relief.”

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Well, what’s a measure?

Mr. Deans: Yes, what’s a measure?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the government is moving and moving effectively in the major areas covered by the Speech from the Throne, despite the criticism of some members opposite.

Mr. Lawler: Did the minister write this himself?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It is interesting to watch the almost desperate efforts of some of the members opposite to find evidence of failure in these areas.

Mr. Deans: Evidence of desperate efforts.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Sometimes it appears that the members opposite are almost praying for failure.

An hon. member: Well, of course we are.

Mr. Deans: “Praying for failure” -- we don’t have to; this government fails consistently.

Mr. Lawlor: We are praying for it just a little.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Since the rebirth, really, of the Leader of the Opposition and his fragmented ranks of the Liberal Party --

Mr. Renwick: I think that this is a partisan speech.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- he is sort of putting his programme together with scissors and paste from the latest editorials of the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hold it a minute while the opposition heckle each other.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The cold hard fact of the matter is that the Leader of the Opposition and some members opposite --

An hon. member: Is this the windup? --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- are adrift in the sea of political opportunism.

An hon. member: Great stuff.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: They know full well that no matter how much they may posture in politics the real responsibility, for example, for cooling the fires of inflation lies with the Liberal government in Ottawa -- and it has been the same government that has held power for the past decade.

Mr. Riddell: Who wrote this speech? Shakespeare?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: And the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) knows full well that he could help to alleviate some of the major economic problems facing this province --

An hon. member: With his father’s help.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and the nation by talking to his daddy and his friends in Ottawa --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s where he is now, I guess.

Mr. Renwick: It has been what has saved the country so far.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- who sustained the present federal administration no matter how it might compromise party principles.

Mr. Ruston: I think the minister had better start his windup speech.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne provides a framework for effective action by a government --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Now we know why they kept the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development around here.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- which has demonstrated time and again that it is concerned about people and their problems and has the determination to solve them. I hope that as legislation is introduced in many of these areas in the weeks ahead this determination will be clear enough even for my friends opposite, it says here.

An hon. member: That’s what it says there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: I am glad he read the decision.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I would urge all members of the House to support the motion moved by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett) --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That was a weak one.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- and seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming without amendment.

Mr. Deans: The minister is embarrassed, isn’t he?

Mr. Speaker: The Throne debate now being concluded I shall call for the vote as follows:

Mr. Beckett moves, seconded by Mr. Havrot, that a humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald, PC, CD, QC, LLD, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario;

“May it please Your Honour:

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon moves, seconded by Mr. Breithaupt, that the following words be added to the motion:

“But this House condemns the government:

“1. For its chaotic education policy which has led to the inability of teachers and school boards to reach a reasonable agreement and resulted in the dislocation of our education system.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Continuing:

“2. For its failure to establish a prices review committee of the Legislature which together with a reduction in provincial deficit spending would exert control on inflation;

“3. For its inadequate land-use policy which continues to permit the unreasonable loss of farmland to government and private development -- ”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Continuing:

“ -- and the unnatural inflationary pressures of foreign land purchases without safeguarding Canadian ownership and interest;

“4. For its failure to establish planning and land servicing programmes without which serviced-lot costs have escalated housing out of the financial reach of our residents.”

Mr. Lewis moves, seconded by Mr. Deans that this government be further condemned for its failure to institute satisfactory actions in the following policy areas:

Inflation and the cost of living:

1. Failure to investigate increases in profits to ensure no excess profit taking;

2. Failure to establish a price and profit review tribunal with power to investigate every aspect of price increases and take whatever action is necessary to ensure no unreasonable increases or to have selected increases rolled back;

3. Failure to establish a consumer protection code extending not only to marketplace transactions and commodities but to the provision of services;

4. Failure to institute a province-wide warranty for home building standards;

5. Failure to institute a public automobile insurance programme.

Northern development:

1. Failure to establish economic growth in northern Ontario based on the resource potential as a catalyst for secondary development;

2. Failure to establish northern economic development in employment based on long-term secondary growth as a No. 1 priority;

3. Failure to recognize the massive economic disparity between northern and southern Ontario and the adverse effects of the two-price system in this province, and failure to take appropriate measures to bring about equality.

Land use and urban growth:

1. Failure to move immediately to acquire for the public sector sufficient land to meet the projected housing needs over the next 20 years;

2. Failure to begin a house building programme aimed at producing at least 250,000 homes, both private and public, within 18 months;

3. Failure to develop a land-use policy and overall development plan to meet recreation requirements in all areas of the province with immediate emphasis on the “golden horseshoe” area:

4. Failure to establish rent review and control measures.

Employer-employee relations:

1. Failure to amend the Ontario Labour Relations Act to meet the legitimate requests of the Ontario Federation of Labour as conveyed to all members of the Legislature;

2. By allowing conditions of work and wages for the hospital workers of Ontario to deteriorate to a substandard level;

3. By creating a confrontation with teachers in this province and then failing to respond to the consequences of this action;

4. By inflicting compulsory arbitration on Crown employees;

5. Failure to legislate against strike-breaking and the use of firms and individuals to disrupt orderly legal strikes.

Income maintenance:

1. By failing to institute an income maintenance programme to meet the legitimate needs of the elderly;

2. By failing to establish adequate income levels for the disabled and other disadvantaged people of Ontario.

Health:

1. Failure to provide a sufficient range of institutional facilities to ensure adequate health care at lowest costs;

2. By failing to institute a dental and drug care programme;

3. By failing to take initiatives which would upgrade the value of preventive medicine;

And, further, that the government shows gross negligence in its refusal to tax the resources industry of Ontario at a level which would allow individuals and families in this province to experience major relief from the inequitable and oppressive system of taxation presently in effect.

We will first vote on the amendment to the amendment moved by Mr. Lewis.

The House divided on the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Lewis, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Bounsall Braithwaite Breithaupt Bullbrook Burr Campbell Davison Deans Ferrier Gaunt Germa Givens Good Haggerty Laughren Lawlor Martel Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon (Brant) Paterson Renwick Riddell Ruston Sargent Singer Smith (Nipissing) Spence Stokes Worton Young-30.

Allan Auld Beckett Bennett Clement Downer Drea Dymond Eaton Evans Ewen Gilbertson Grossman Guindon Havrot Henderson Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Irvine Jessiman Kennedy Kerr MacBeth Maeck McIlveen McNeil Meen Miller Morningstar Morrow Newman (Ontario South) Nuttall Parrott Potter Reilly Rhodes Rollins Root Rowe Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Stewart Taylor Timbrell Villeneuve Walker Wardle Welch Wells White Winkler Wiseman Yaremko-54.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 30, the “nays” 54.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

We will now vote on the amendment moved by Mr. R. F. Nixon. Is it agreeable that the same vote be accepted?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. We will now vote on the motion moved by Mr. Beckett. Will it be agreeable to take the same vote in reverse?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

RESOLVED: That a humble address be presented to the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald, Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Ontario:

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

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, tomorrow, prior to the introduction of the budget, we will --

Mr. Renwick: The minister means today.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Today, thank you. If time permits we will deal with Bills 20 and 21.

Mr. Renwick: I’m glad to hear that.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: On Thursday, I will also call further legislation.

The following week, on Tuesday, we will give the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to reply to the budget, and Thursday of that week will be the date assigned to the leader of the NOP.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 12:45 o’clock, a.m.