Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: I should like to inform the hon. members that today we are honoured with a very special guest in the Speaker’s gallery -- Sir Alan R. Fletcher, Minister of Education and Cultural Affairs for Queensland, Australia, accompanied by Mr. A. E. Guymer, Director General of Education, and Mr. K. B. George, his private secretary. I am sure we want to extend a really sincere welcome to them.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, also in your gallery we have another very distinguished visitor to the Province of Ontario, in the person of the Hon. Real Lima Patino who is the Minister of Mines and Metallurgy for the country of Bolivia.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): Can we welcome back the provincial Treasurer (Mr. White) too? As a visitor? I never saw him speechless before.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): But it is a pleasure.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

HOME PLAN PRICES

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to inform the hon. members of a basic policy change concerning the establishment of construction price levels for houses built on leased lots provided by Ontario Housing Corp. under the Home Ownership Made Easy plan.

One of the basic concepts of the programme is that house prices should not exceed certain levels. The original price limit in 1967 was $15,000, and last year prices peaked at $21,000 for a five-bedroom bungalow in Malvern.

Due to the construction cost price spiral, however, we have now reached the stage where our fixed price policy has been rendered ineffective, to the point where it is no longer serving the lot lease programme or the public.

Faced with rising prices, fewer and fewer builders last year participated in the land lease programme. In some locations OHC got no response to its calls while in others it was fortunate to get one viable proposal.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): That shows how effective the minister is.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In order to revive builder interest in the lot lease programme, while retaining its basic objective of making home ownership available to moderate-income families, a more flexible approach toward building price limitations has been adopted.

When OHC is prepared to offer serviced building lots in a municipality, it will establish target prices for basic, no-frill houses. These prices will be based on current appraised building costs in the municipality and therefore may vary from location to location.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That was the minister’s mistake with land, by the way. He shouldn’t make the same mistake again.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Builders will be invited to submit their best prices in relation to the target levels --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): They’ll be the best for them.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- This means that some prices may be right at these levels, while others may be above or below the target levels.

Proposals will be judged in terms of four basic considerations: architectural merit, value, price levels, and the relationship to the income range that OHC is attempting to serve with this programme. The point rating system, which is used to evaluate builders’ submissions, will therefore give greater weight to those proposals containing prices below the target levels and to those proposals with prices that will serve a variety of income levels within OHC’s range.

OHC plans to market some 6,000 serviced building lots this year, and we are confident this new and flexible price policy will enable the building industry to respond in a positive manner and produce the houses so desperately needed.

Mr. Lewis: So what is 6,000?

Mr. Deans: Is that the extent of OHC’s involvement this year?

Mr. Renwick: Boy, that’s massive. If ever there was a massive programme, that’s it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mortgage financing for this housing will be available through Housing Corp. Ltd, on a five-year term, amortized over 35 years at 8.75 per cent interest.

Mr. Lewis: This is the first concrete thing the hon. member has done as Minister of Housing. He is announcing an increase in the cost.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The first thing he has done since he became minister is to increase the cost of housing on OHC land. That’s some record since Feb. 26!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

An hon. member: Why don’t the members opposite listen to the minister?

Mr. Renwick: The minister needs an accountant. That is massive housing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In order to make the benefits of low-cost housing available to a wider range of families, the upper income limit for single-income families has been increased to $14,500.

Mr. Lewis: Two months today the hon. member has been minister, and this is his first statement.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The limit for two-income families has been set at $17,000 and when determining the eligibility for such families, 100 per cent of both incomes will be included in the calculations.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, because I was barracking the minister I missed his last sentence. Did he say --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Well, on a point of order, I admit it in advance. Did the minister say the minimum income was $17,000?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No. The upper income limit for single-income families has been increased from $12,500 to $14,500, making more people eligible. The limit for two-income families has been set at $17,000; however, when determining the eligibility for such families, 100 per cent of both incomes will be included in the calculations.

Mr. Deans: What about the people earning $8,000? What is the minister doing about them?

Mr. MacDonald: It is what is known as upward flexibility?

BURNING OF WILDERNESS CABINS

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct a statement I made in the Legislature yesterday concerning the illegal occupation of Crown land by a Mr. Dennis Hobischuck.

Mr. Lewis: Ah ha.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) was right.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Information has come to my attention this morning that the building in question, which was to have been removed from Crown land by officials of my ministry, was not dismantled prior to clearing the site.

It appears that a judgement was made that removal of the building was impractical due to distance and the cost of returning the materials for public sale. After the removal of personal effects, the building was destroyed by fire.

Mr. MacDonald: Legalized arson.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: While it is the policy of my ministry not to destroy a habitable building by fire, at the same time we cannot permit the deliberate construction on public lands of private dwellings contrary to the public interest.

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) practises theft. This minister practises arson. What is left to those people over there?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: A directive has been sent from my office to all field staff to ensure that this policy is rigidly adhered to.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Don’t burn down any more houses.

Mr. Renwick: That is a wonderful Friday morning statement.

Mr. Lewis: The ministers are certainly doing well this morning.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: Another announcement?

Mr. Renwick: What is the minister going to put to the torch this weekend?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

RURAL SHOPPING CENTRES

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, on Feb. 4, 1974, in an address to the Ontario Association of Rural Municipalities in Hamilton, the hon. Treasurer outlined this government’s growing concern over the trend to locate major shopping facilities in rural areas of our province.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): That’s all it is -- a concern.

Mr. MacDonald: He’s concerned all right.

Mr. Stokes: He’s going too.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He indicated that the lack of adequate land-use controls in many rural townships has permitted the construction of certain shopping centres within these areas.

The lack of zoning allows such development to occur simply upon the issuance of a building permit --

Mr. Shulman: Burn them down.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- without any investigation of the potential impact that such a centre would have. Without any zoning, a municipality cannot refuse a building permit even if it were inclined to do so.

I am sure all members are aware that a large-scale shopping centre can affect a very wide area and therefore its impact should be carefully investigated before such development is allowed to proceed.

Mr. Renwick: That’s what I have been saying about Riverdale riding.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: In the last year, a number of permits were granted for these shopping centres in direct conflict with this government’s policy, as well as being contrary to the provisions contained within local official plans.

It appears that a number of shopping centre developers have adopted a policy of seeking out those townships lacking adequate zoning controls, which are adjacent to small and medium-sized towns.

It has become apparent that it is necessary to introduce special measures to overcome this problem. This government is convinced that the proper agency to introduce these controls is the municipal council, and my staff in the past has spent a great deal of time trying to persuade rural councils to carry out this responsibility.

Although we have had a great deal of success in this programme, as can be witnessed by the great number of municipalities that have introduced planning measures, we have found it necessary to impose minister’s zoning orders on a number of municipalities over the last year.

Such orders, as you will recall Mr. Speaker, have been placed on the townships of Chatham, Raleigh, Harwich, Blandford, East Zorra, Vespra, North Monaghan, Goderich, Colborne and recently in Mono township. Also, three former townships in the new city of Timmins have been covered.

In these cases, we became aware of potential shopping centres because of information provided to us by the adjacent town or by the municipality itself. But in several of these cases a building permit had already been issued prior to our order coining into effect.

In recognition of this problem, my colleague, the Treasurer of Ontario, wrote to 70 municipalities in December, 1973, indicating our concerns about the lack of controls and informing these municipalities that the approval of shopping centres in rural municipalities could prejudice the long-range planning goals of the adjoining urban municipalities.

In February of this year, after this matter had become the responsibility of the Ministry of Housing, my predecessor in this portfolio (Mr. Welch) --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): How long was he the minister’s predecessor?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- again wrote to the majority of these municipalities requesting a report on the action taken by councils since receipt of the Treasurer’s letter.

Mr. Reid: He wasn’t in there long enough to get an answer.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The response which was received from these municipalities indicated that a few were about to begin planning studies or had been working on such studies for some time. A few municipalities indicated they had already reached the point where adequate local land-use controls had been adopted. The majority of others, however, do not appear to have taken steps to develop an adequate capacity to deal with their planning responsibilities for commercial land use.

Accordingly, in view of the seriousness of this situation and the lack of any significant local response to our requests for action, I have today most reluctantly imposed ministerial zoning orders on 62 municipalities. These controls have the effect of prohibiting only commercial development, except where it is in accordance with an approved official plan. These rural municipalities are listed as an appendage to this statement, which is being distributed.

Mr. Shulman: That means no October election.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Since this government has always encouraged strong local government, I am loath to take this step.

Mr. Reid: Now he’s a comedian as well as a housing minister.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: However, I will assure the councils of the municipalities involved that the orders will be rescinded as soon as proper local land-use controls are developed. In this regard, I am pleased to state that my ministry is prepared to give assistance to those municipalities in the preparation of the appropriate planning measures. This may be in the form of financial assistance for the developing of zoning bylaws or staff assistance actually to prepare these bylaws.

I wish to stress also, Mr. Speaker, that during this period, the plans administration division of my ministry will ensure that applications to amend these orders to permit legitimate commercial operations will be processed as rapidly as possible. Every effort will be made so that those commercial uses which rightly belong in these rural townships will not be delayed in any way.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The member for Kitchener.

RURAL SHOPPING CENTRES

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Housing following the statement he has just presented to the House.

Can the minister advise if he is prepared to cover all of the financial costs for the zoning bylaws which will now be proceeded with, hopefully as promptly as possible, in these municipalities which are now subject to his order?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, in the statement I indicated we were prepared to offer financial assistance or actually to sit down with staff and help prepare the bylaws. The form of assistance will undoubtedly vary according to the request received from each individual municipality. We are quite prepared to start talking to them on Monday or this afternoon if necessary.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): A supplementary.

Mr. Reid: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister, by way of supplementary, what is the time frame in regard to this ministerial order? Does it have to do with projects that are now under way or will be under way in a short time but where actual construction has not begun?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Speaker, it’s effective from this morning as the filing of the ministerial orders takes place. My understanding is they have been completed at this time; they are indefinite but they have no retroactive application whatsoever.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Then what the minister is saying is that Multi-Malls, outside Tillsonburg in Elgin township, will not be affected if it proceeds, and that all those who have taken options on land, particularly Multi-Malls, will not be affected in any way; the minister is dealing only with future possibilities. Well, that’s some policy.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, what we’re saying is that those who have taken building permits quite legally have a legal right to proceed and we had no legal right to do anything about them. That’s why we have taken this order. We had no legal right and we said we didn’t.

Mr. Lewis: Of course the minister had a legal right through the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview with a supplementary.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell us to what extent, if at all, his ministry is putting official plans on these municipalities on its own initiative? It is obvious that the availability of planning talent and probably the availability of money is almost non-existent in most of these municipalities. Is the minister availing himself of the provisions of the Planning Act which allows the minister to put on official plans?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we still believe that the official plan initiation should come from the municipality.

Mr. Singer: Oh yes?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: We are prepared to assist in every way we can but I don’t believe that my ministry --

Mr. Singer: Now, now!

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- wants to be in the position of imposing plans on a municipality with no consultation at all.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): The minister is kidding!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. Martel: That’s what he has done here.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary of the minister.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ruston: Does this mean he will speed up approval of plans from many municipalities now in his offices?

Mr. Singer: Speed up his office -- as he has promised so many times.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, we have been doubling our output over the past two or three months and will continue to increase the rate of approvals.

Interjections by hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

DISCLOSURE OF MINISTERS’ ASSETS

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Can the Chairman of the Management Board advise us when the assets of the cabinet ministers who were appointed two months ago will be tabled with the Clerk of the House in accordance with the stated policy of the government?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): No, I can’t give a definite answer but I’ll certainly get it for the hon. member.

ROCHDALE COLLEGE

Mr. Breithaupt: A further question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister aware that Rochdale College is for sale at $8.5 million, although we are told it needs some repairs?

Mr. Lewis: It certainly is not a very good buy.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Breithaupt: Will the minister investigate the possibility at least of taking over that project for possible use as senior citizens’ accommodation?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): The member is kidding?

Mr. Lewis: There is on the walls what is called Tory graffiti.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, no offer has been made to us. If CMHC gains complete occupancy of the building and is prepared to discuss with us its possible conversion I am sure we are prepared to enter into discussions with them, but not until that stage has been reached.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Only if they get vacant possession.

An hon. member: Right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They tried that a couple of years ago.

Interjections by hon. members.

FOOD COST ALLOWANCES

Mr. Breithaupt: One further question, Mr. Speaker, of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Since food costs have increased by some 19 per cent since the last adjustment in the family allowance payments in January, 1973, and since a single parent with a child is paid only $250 in family assistance benefits --

Mr. Stokes: That’s in the winter.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- will the minister consider the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner of Social Services in Metro Toronto and work through her policy secretariat to increase the allowance for food costs?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, those claims are under consideration at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

The member for Scarborough West.

HOME PLAN PRICES

Mr. Lewis: Yes, a question first of the Minister of Housing.

Referring to his first statement and the accounting principles which he set out, what is it going to mean in dollar terms? What kind of percentage increase on the costs of a house or building materials are we really talking about? That wasn’t included in his statement.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, in the statement it was made quite clear that this would vary from location to location.

If I might use eastern Ontario -- an area that is dear to my heart -- as an example, the building price limits for detached three, four and five-bedroom houses have ranged from $17,050 to $19,300, under the ceilings. Now under the new programme there may be an increase for three, four and five-bedroom homes of approximately $500, $600 or $700 but it will vary from municipality to municipality based on target prices.

Of course, as to the question of what income groups it will serve, it is designed to serve the same income groups as before, based on the five per cent minimum down payment and the 30 per cent of gross monthly income which can be paid for carrying charges.

In a particular case, a person earning in the vicinity of $9,000 in Kingston township, for example, will be able to afford a three-bedroom home under our new proposal which is going out today.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, I take it that he is envisaging price increases on the $21,000 figure, which the minister used in his statement, of $1,000 to $2,000 per home on the average. If the minister is not, is he just using that kind of percentage relationship in eastern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to accomplish here, first of all, is to get some houses built under the HOME programme over the 1,500 starts which occurred last year under the ceilings.

We are also trying to ensure there is a broad mix of housing ranging from the house for the $9,000 income earner up to our maximum now of $14,500. Our point system will be designed in such a way that the successful bidder will have to supply a broad mix of housing.

It may very well be that at the upper end of that the price will go up and it may go up in ratio to what the hon. member has stated. But there will continue to be a broad mix of housing and we expect to have four times as many starts under this programme as we had under the old programme.

Mr. Lewis: One more supplementary: He has now been minister for two months and there has been nothing specific said in the House about the Ontario housing action programme -- which developers he has settled with; how many lots; where they are serviced; how many homes -- this is his first announcement which implies or asserts an --

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question coming?

Mr. Lewis: Yes -- increase in the cost of housing. When will we hear about the Ontario housing action programme?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, as soon as we have some -- I have already stated on many occasions that this is a three-way partnership between the developers, the province and the municipalities. We expect to have some very concrete proposals made by one municipality in this area at a council meeting on Monday night. I would not want to pre-empt that council’s prerogative of announcing the programme in its own area.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The minister’s first concrete announcement is that the cost of HOME housing is going to go up when we expected some announcement that the cost of housing would be coming down.

Some hon. members: No!

Mr. Lewis: That’s right. That is what happened today. It’s the first announcement.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Can the minister say how many housing starts he expects this year under the HOME programme and how many starts next year and whether land is being prepared in order to ensure that the HOME programme will continue after 1974?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I would like to thank the member for a chance to repeat what I said in the statement.

We plan to market some 6,000 -- and that is a minimum -- serviced building lots in such major centres as Hamilton, London, North Bay, Ottawa-Carleton, Sarnia, Scarborough, Sudbury and Thunder Bay, and in smaller centres such as Hawkesbury, Kenora, Port Elgin, Wallaceburg, Kingston township and others. That is four times the number started last year because of the fact we were not getting any bids --

Mr. Lewis: It is 4,500 more homes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Four times as many as last year, I prefer to put it, Mr. Speaker. Also, we expect this programme to be expanded as our housing action programme results in firm agreements to permit the province to develop part of die private land which is now being held.

METRO TORONTO HOSPITAL DISPUTE

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough-West.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, may I address questions on the hospital workers’ situation to the Minister of Health? I expected the Minister of Labour would be --

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): He will be here.

Mr. Lewis: Here is the Minister of Labour now. I’m asking him a question as he is coming in. Is he prepared to make a statement? Would he like us to revert to ministerial statements or shall I simply put a question to him and ask him to report on the breakdown of negotiations?

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): I will answer questions.

Mr. Lewis: All right. Could the minister make a report whenever it is convenient?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I’d like to tell the hon. members that the mediation proceedings between the 12 hospitals in Metro Toronto and their relative locals of the Canadian Union of Public Employees were terminated early this morning. My mediators, Mr. W. H. Dickie, assistant deputy minister, and Mr. Vic Scott, director of conciliation and mediation, placed before the parties a basis for settlement, the terms of which provided a collective agreement to expire Dec. 31, 1975; a wage increase of $1.30 per hour over that period; a commitment to joint bargaining in the next round of negotiations; also a job security clause that would protect the employees; and a clause providing commencement of negotiations on Oct. 1, 1975, 90 days prior to termination of the collective agreement.

The proposals were acceptable to the hospital negotiators but the union committee declined to recommend their acceptance to their members.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary -- perhaps we’d better tell the full story then -- may I ask the minister, first, is he willing to discuss publicly the fact that he offered 66 cents in the first year to raise the average cleaner’s salary, the basis on which this is being discussed, to $3.66, compared to $4.64 an hour for cleaners in other parts of the public sector?

Is the minister prepared to discuss that in the second year he was going to raise it to $4.30 an hour, compared to $5.06 an hour in the other areas of the public sector, so that it would take until 1980 for the average wage of the hospital worker to catch up with his colleagues doing equivalent work in other sectors?

Why does not the minister also tell the House that the union came back and said, instead of offering us $1.30 over two years, we’re asking for only $1.50 over two years, just 20 cents more; or alternatively a fringe benefit package reflecting that 20 cents. And it was management that turned that down, and that’s what broke off the negotiations?

Mr. MacDonald: Is that accurate?

Mr. Lewis: In fact, it is accurate to the “t”.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at this time is that I think this is perhaps not an overgenerous proposal, but I would like to tell the hon. members that, as far as we are concerned --

Mr. Lewis: No, it is not overgenerous.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: -- it is equitable and it is a fair and credible proposal.

Mr. Reid: By way of supplementary, does this indicate that the Ministry of Health, in fact, has stated to the hospitals that it will provide extra money over and above the ceilings to provide for this wage settlement?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, that’s a question the Minister of Labour cannot answer. It would have to be asked of the Minister of Health.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister hasn’t denied what the leader of the New Democratic Party has indicated as to what went on in the hearings. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, if that is the case the minister misinformed the House.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. MacDonald: It is so partial a story that it is calculated misinformation.

Mr. Lewis: It’s a management position on the part of the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. MacDonald: It is a management --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

First, it is not a point of order. I think the hon. member should not indicate that the hon. minister has misinformed the House. There is an implication by the member that he has deliberately done so.

Mr. Lewis: But he has.

Mr. MacDonald: He has partially misinformed the House.

Mr. Speaker: As long as the hon. member is not accusing the minister of deliberately misleading the House, I can’t ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. MacDonald: I didn’t say “deliberately.”

Mr. Speaker: I don’t think he said deliberately.

Mr. MacDonald: I said he “partially.”

Mr. Speaker: I did not think he said “deliberately.” Therefore there is no basis on which I can ask him to withdraw it, but certainly it is not a point of order.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister think it is legitimate to invite a strike of 6,000 workers on Wednesday next for a difference of 20 cents over two years or the equivalent in fringe benefits? Is he aware that what the workers asked for in fringe benefits was three weeks’ holidays after one year, which they have in Newfoundland; that what they asked for was a day and a half sick leave per month, which they already have in several hospitals; and that what they asked for was full payment of OHIP, which they already have in several hospitals?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: The minister knows we are facing a shutdown of 12 Metro hospitals and he is allowing it to break down for 20 cents.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member has asked several questions. I think the minister should respond.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: It was a statement, not a question.

Mr. Speaker: Yes; but there were interrogations included in the remarks.

An hon. member: It was a statement.

Mr. Speaker: No, it was a question.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend from Scarborough West is not aware that the question of fringe benefits was decided. It was decided this would not be discussed in the package but that all the money available should go in the package. That’s a counter-proposal from the union.

Mr. Lewis: The union was generous. They gave up a point.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: It was a counterproposal from the union. It was agreed by both sides before that all the money available would be put in the wage package.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Yes,

Mr. Shulman: If, in fact, this means a strike in our hospitals, what steps is the government taking to safeguard the health of the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: The Minister of Labour never talks in terms of strikes, never. I think the hon, members of this House should be perhaps more helpful, more co-operative; because who wants a strike? I am sure my hon. friends opposite do not want it either.

Mr. MacDonald: Well don’t create conditions that lead to the inevitable.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: We think once the membership looks at the package --

Mr. Lewis: Oh, the old game.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: -- sincerely, and takes time to see all that is there, we think the membership should really seriously consider what has been offered.

Mr. Speaker: Who has a supplementary here? The hon. member --

Mr. MacDonald: Somebody should put a bomb under the Management Board.

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

Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister of Health not think, given the continuing disparity in wages reflected in this management offer, that he could come up with the additional 20 cents over two years to avert a strike on Wednesday? Is that not a legitimate request?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think the member is playing one ministry against the other, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that my job is to say that I can or cannot provide the funds on the basis --

Mr. MacDonald: I thought they were both in the same government.

Mr. Stokes: Which are you, Alphonse or Gaston?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am Gaston today, okay? My job is to determine whether I can provide the funds that the negotiators have agreed are fair. Somebody asked that question earlier, would I provide the funds for the settlement discussed today? The answer is unequivocally, yes.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the minister will concede that the department lines have been open -- as everybody knows, as Mr. Dickie has admitted, as Mr. Scott has admitted -- throughout these negotiations to determine what the government would give. Will the minister give another 20 cents over two years to resolve this dispute?

Mr. Deans: He is going to have to do something.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. minister have any response to the question? Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacDonald: They are a penny-pinching bunch; 20 cents and they invite a strike.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Look at what we are talking about, $87 a week take home pay.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy --

Mr. Lewis: That is what the minister spends on drinks here in a week. He is doing it deliberately.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: What is he doing deliberately?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: He is committing the Minister of Labour to a management position.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order please. The hon. Minister of Energy has the answer to a question previously answered.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Previously answered?

Mrs. Campbell: We don’t need two answers!

UNION GAS

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, last Friday the hon. member for Scarborough West asked a question about whether we had had any complaints with regard to pipeline construction in Raleigh township. I have ascertained that there have been no complaints to the Energy Board, the energy branch of Consumer and Commercial Relations or the Ministry of Energy. However, we have been in touch with the officials in Raleigh township and have suggested they get in touch with the local representative from the energy branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the problem will be dealt with.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The question is, are the NDP socialists?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce, I believe, is first.

ENIERGY BOARD COUNSEL

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy. In view of the amazing revelation last night that Mr. Macaulay is being paid at the rate of $1,000 per day and has already received $170,000 in the last four months, I would like to ask the minister what guarantee do we have that --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: -- other inside deals are not being made with friends of the government?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: Secondly, does Mr. Macaulay’s contract or arrangement with the government carry on to infinity? How much will he make this year? Half a million dollars? How much?

Mr. Lewis: He will make a lot more than any of the hospital workers.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I can give the assurance that no deals -- not any other deals, no deals -- are being made with friends of the government. Mr. Macaulay has been retained by the Energy Board as counsel for the --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Macaulay has been retained by the Energy Board as counsel for the Hydro hearings, which will continue on this year. How long, I don’t know. Therefore, I think it is difficult to say how much will be paid to the Thomson Rogers firm and/or the consultants retained by Thomson Rogers. Mr. Macaulay has also been retained from time to time by the Ministry of Energy in certain constitutional and other matters -- and we fully expect to do so this year.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, then he could well make himself $365,000 this year as counsel here?

Mr. Speaker: Is that a question?

Mr. Sargent: That’s a question; yes. Is that right or wrong?

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

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: How much is he going to make then?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, when we ascertain how long the Hydro hearings go on and we know what other actions -- not actions but interventions that Mr. Macaulay or his firm -- and it’s not just Mr. Macaulay; there are others in that firm who have been involved in the Hydro hearings and certain oil hearings. Out of that, from time to time, Thomson Rogers have retained consultants directly. So it isn’t a question of a payment to Mr. Macaulay of $345,000 or $170,000 -- or anything like that. How much it will be, we won’t know until the end of the year.

Mr. Sargent: The minister said $170,000 last night.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I said $170,000 to the firm of Thomson Rogers.

Mr. Sargent: A final supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, this will be final.

Mr. Sargent: Does Mr. Macaulay have carte blanche to hire any other counsel he wants at the rate of $75 an hour?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker, he does not. Before Mr. Macaulay -- in the case of the Hydro hearings -- hires consultants, he would check that with the Energy Board. He is, of course, subject to the total fees or subject to the amount which is approved from time to time by Management Board. The consultants that are hired by the Thomson Rogers firm or directly by the Energy Board in the various hearings may be at the rate of -- I doubt very much if any of them are at the rate of $75 an hour; some of them are less, some of them on an hourly basis might well work out to more.

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

REGIONAL PLANNERS FOR NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. Why has it taken almost two years to enlist the services of a senior policy planner and several regional planners to restudy and to implement policy associated with the Design for Development for northern Ontario; and is this his ministry’s commitment to design for development; and why is he going to locate these planners in Toronto rather than having them in the field, where they would have a much closer liaison with the municipalities, as he announced in Dryden this last week?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): There is certainly a great demand for planners by regional governments, by ourselves and others; and I suppose the reason we are not able to hire as many as we would wish as quickly as we would like is because of that general shortage. I suppose this is not our fault.

On point No. 2, our inability to hire as many planners as quickly as we would wish is no reflection on our attitudes towards northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Sargent: The Treasurer started the whole mess.

Hon. Mr. White: As my speech in Dryden a week ago today might indicate, as the preparations for the DREE announcement might indicate, as 101 different plans for northwestern Ontario might prove, we are deeply committed to economic progress in that area, with all of the social improvement that will involve. Now, we are establishing an important facility for the government of Ontario in Thunder Bay, and this will become a form of regional capital, so to speak.

Mr. Reid: Sort of a mini-Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mr. White: Whether or not it is wise to allocate planners to that office, I really don’t know. I expect that their services, which will be dedicated at some point to that area, will on other occasions be required elsewhere; and I suppose that by having a unit here in Toronto we can allocate those resources to different parts of the province as changing circumstances require.

Mr. Stokes: Well as a supplementary, does the minister not think it wise to have those people who are going to implement the recommendations contained in Design for Development that has become government policy -- does he not feel, since he now has a local presence in the municipal liaison committee that he is about to structure, does he not think it wise to have planners and implementers in the region rather than having them in the Frost Building down here?

Hon. Mr. White: We will be announcing a new regional office director very soon. We’ve been running a competition, as members may know. We had something like 135 applications, we’ve interviewed some large number -- I don’t mean myself, I mean a selection board created for the purpose -- and the successful candidate will be announced very soon. So we are moving resources into that regional headquarters. The programme is phased so that the number of people to be moved initially will be supplemented as the concentration continues and as we are able to digest these moves internally.

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

NUCLEAR GENERATORS MARKET

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Is the minister aware of the speech made in Montreal by Mr. S. H. Russell of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., in which he indicates that by the year 2000 there will be something like $60 billion worth of Canadian money, particularly Ontario and Quebec money, spent on nuclear components, and his remarks that most of this stuff will be bought outside of Canada? Is the minister taking any action to ensure that at least some of these components will be able to be manufactured in Canada, particularly seamless carbon steel or stainless steel tubing? Has he had any discussions with AECL or even the provincial Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) in regard to this huge field?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I have only seen the press report, and I know there was no one from our ministry at that particular conference, although I believe there were people there from the Ministry of Natural Resources.

But in response to the question, I noticed the press report and I have already sent a memorandum to the chairman of Hydro and asked him for his comments. I think it’s something which we have to look at. Hydro, I imagine, have looked at it. In my view Hydro have, over the years, done a great deal, and I detailed this in a speech some time ago, to encourage Canadian technology, to encourage Canadian manufacturing. Turbo generators, which have been the subject of discussion in the House, raised by the hon. member for Scarborough West three or four years ago, is an emerging Canadian industry, or Canadian-located industry. It so happens that both major firms -- General Electric and Howden Parsons -- are foreign owned but through the action of Hydro in stimulating and apportioning the manufacture of turbo generators, two very strong, in my view, Canadian firms are being built and proof of the fact is that they’re now from Canada. One of them, General Electric, was awarded a contract at the Grand Coulee dam.

Hydro have made a policy of that sort of stimulation and obviously, if the figures are correct -- and I have no doubt they are -- which were quoted from the Montreal statement, there’s a whole lot more to do. I’m sure Hydro are getting along with it and they’ll have our full support.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: The minister would agree then, in view of the fact that Canada and Ontario in particular have gone a long way in developing nuclear capacity, that it should be this province and this country that takes advantage of the hardware that has to be produced for it. I would ask the minister if he will have discussions with the provincial Minister of Industry and Tourism in regard to this to stimulate it?

And if I may, one more thing: Does the minister not feel that perhaps the almost monopoly position that CGE has in these matters is maybe one of the reasons why we haven’t more capacity in Canada to produce these kinds of materials?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I wouldn’t agree with that, because the business is split between a number of firms. In terms of turbo generators, which are the biggest single items, I think perhaps more of them to date have gone to Howden Parsons than have gone to General Electric.

I’ve forgotten the name of the chap, in Milton I think it was or Georgetown, who was producing for Hydro. There are a great number of very small firms as well. Muirhead in Scarborough have been in to see me. Foster Wheeler in St. Catharines are thinking of stepping up their input into the whole nuclear generation business. And I’ve been handed a note to indicate that Industry and Tourism have already had a meeting and are approaching, with Hydro, the subjects raised in the Montreal speech by Mr. Russell. They had a meeting before the speech, as a matter of fact.

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

ONTARIO HOSPITALS’ REPORT

Mr. Shulman: Thank you. I have a question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: How much money is being wasted as the result of duplication of services between his department and the Ontario Hospitals, as laid out in the report which was presented to him?

Point two, why has he not done anything about this duplication of services; and is that money equivalent to the 20 cents that is being asked for by the unions?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I will start with the last question first, Mr. Speaker. The answer obviously would be no.

Mr. Lewis: Why?

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is not equivalent to the 20 cents being asked for by the unions.

The question of duplication of hospital services is one we are working on very steadily. It was brought up by one of the members the other day and I think we are making very admirable strides in the attempt to rationalize hospital services throughout the Province of Ontario. I have to say only this, that the place we run into the most resistance is not within our ministry, but within the communities which have a vested interest in the established institutions.

Mr. Sargent: The minister hasn’t heard anything yet.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may: The minister has misunderstood my question. The duplication in this report refers to a duplication not between hospitals, but between the Ontario Hospitals on the one hand and his ministry on the other. My question was how much money is involved?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I can’t speak for the number of dollars there, Mr. Speaker, but again we are on a course of rationalizing that particular type of operation. We have been moving a great number of people out of our own hospitals into community hospitals in the last few years. We are cutting staff at the rate, I think, of 200 a year at the present time in the Ontario Hospitals as we gradually shift the emphasis back to the community.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, we will permit one more.

Mr. Shulman: If the ministry has cut staff, why is it the number of people on its payroll is going up?

Hon. Mr. Miller: In my total payroll, I would think so; but I think you will find that the Ministry of Health’s --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Not the Ontario Hospital section. “You are on my staff but not my payroll.” You have heard that statement made before.

Mr. Reid: In the minister’s case it is the opposite way. They are on his payroll but not on his staff.

Hon. Mr. Miller: They may be on the payroll. I think the federal government discovered a lot of horses there once, didn’t they?

Mr. Reid: And a few other parts of the horse, too.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, well they sit opposite sometimes.

Mr. Breithaupt: Yes, they certainly do.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It depends on the way the mirror works.

Mr. Speaker, this is an ongoing problem. I think the whole future of the Ontario Hospitals as such is really under review in our ministry right now, whether, in fact, district units should operate under our ministry.

I think if you check back to two years ago when we came out with our reorganizational plan for the ministry, it was stated that the ministry should get out of direct services such as the Ontario Hospital’s if, as and when it could.

Mr. Shulman: Has the minister read the report? Has he seen it?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Peterborough.

CSAO TELEGRAM ON MAIL DELIVERY

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board. I would ask the minister if he is aware of a telegram which was sent by the CSAO regarding mail delivery?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I was ready to answer that question yesterday. I am not sure whether I have that information with me or not.

Mrs. Campbell: He was ready yesterday, but he doesn’t know it today.

Mr. Turner: Nobody asked him.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather serious situation, though maybe less so today than it was yesterday when it was much more current. Although the agreement, as I understand it, with the postal employees is not ratified --

Mr. Sargent: Who told the minister this?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- it then may be appropriate yet this morning. It is true there was a telegram forwarded from the directors of the CSAO, wherein the CSAO board of directors passed a motion on April 23 instructing all branch presidents to inform their members not to carry any mail for which they can be accused of strike-breaking, that is mail normally delivered by a postal worker. If in doubt on any issue, the office was to have been contacted.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that action on behalf of the CSAO was irresponsible due to the implications of many people who await and depend upon the cheques that arrive in the mail at this particular time of the month. We directed a letter back to the chairman of the CSAO, accordingly, informing them that we disagreed. I would like, if the members wish, to put the letter on the record. It doesn’t really matter much to me, but we did express our concern at that sort of message being transmitted to the members of the CSAO and we deplore that sort of activity.

Mr. Lewis: The minister is not manipulating them the way he used to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: My communication is wide open.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Waterloo North is next.

PARKS IN SHELBURNE AREA

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Due to the local concern in the town of Shelburne regarding the establishment of the Boine River Park and also Mono Park, does the minister have his studies completed far enough to tell us how much active farmland will be taken out of production by the establishment of the Boine River Park? How much tax loss will there be by the assessment of the municipalities; and what is the difference between the actual present tax and the amount which will be given under the Provincial Parks Act? And would the minister tell us whether there has been an environmental impact study completed for the Boine River Park and the Mono Park?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this particular matter, and the matters to which the member is referring, have been very actively pursued by the member for Dufferin, is it?

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Wellington.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Wellington?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Wellington-Dufferin.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Wellington-Dufferin.

Mr. Reid: He’s one of the minister’s colleagues.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We’ve had several meetings with these two members, along with representatives from the various municipalities and the interested landowners. I’ve indicated to them at those particular meetings that we will tone down the size of the Boine River Park. I’ve asked our consultants to come up with some specific recommendations and when they are in my hand I will be prepared to make comment to the member on the questions that he’s asked.

Mr. Good: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Last week, at least the other day, it came to light the minister created a provincial park with a subdivision in it. This provincial park has a municipal landfill site in it.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question?

Mr. Good: Will the minister ensure the town of Shelburne that he will not jeopardize the local landfill site nor will he impede the growth of the municipality by the establishment of this park right up against its eastern border? Will he ensure the municipality the roadwork in the area will be done prior to any development of the park so that their fears of this local municipality can be allayed?

Mr. Root: The member is a month late getting into it. We have been onto this for a month.

Mr. Reid: What has the member for Wellington-Dufferin done about it? They can’t even remember his name.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The whole case was resolved before the member for Waterloo North ever heard of it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Root: The member is wrong for once; that’s for sure. We’ve been on that for weeks; before he ever heard of it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that our approach to the development of the Boine River Park is the same as we’ve used for the development of other parks throughout the province. When there is an adjoining municipality all those fears which he’s raised are thoroughly discussed with the municipality and they are very carefully considered.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

HAMILTON BAY PROPERTY

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. What assurance will the minister give the House in any negotiations undertaken by his ministry with Lax Brothers in Hamilton for the acquisition of bay-front property owned by them, that from the point of view of the ministry the negotiated price will begin with the base of $280,000 -- give or take a few dollars -- which is the approximate amount that they have in fact invested in the property, rather than the $6.7 million which is the current appraised value?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to give any consideration to that particular question at this time, because there has been no decision to even purchase that particular property.

Mr. Deans: Is it true -- by way of supplementary question -- that the ministry is currently investigating the possibility of purchase of the property, and if it is true is the minister aware that Lax doesn’t own much of the property outright but rather has an option on the property which expires on Dec. 31 this year, and that the appraised value of the property is not, in fact, a reflection of its actual value?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out earlier, we are not dealing with any specific properties in that particular area. I set up a study within my ministry to look at the overall requirements of the recreational needs of the Hamilton area. We are looking at a number of properties and the Lax property may well be one of them.

An hon. member: On the lake front.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

READMISSIONS TO ONTARIO HOSPITALS

Mrs. Campbell: My question is of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker.

Could he advise this House why it is that when I asked a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development on when I would have information about readmissions to Ontario Hospitals, I was assured I would have it, and now the Minister of Health comes forward, changes that answer and says it will be released on a qualified basis? Who is directing this show? May I know what the qualified basis is and when I am going to get the material I asked for?

Hon. Mr. Miller: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the Minister of Health and as such I am responsible for that ministry. As long as we understand that we’ll be on the first step.

Mrs. Campbell: The provincial secretary has nothing to do with it?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Held: That’s the smartest thing he has said so far.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The second thing I would say to the member is if she would read in Hansard the question she asked the other day and read the answer given by the provincial secretary, she will discover that she said she would get the answer to the question. She did not say she would release the figures and I believe she will confirm that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: She simply said the answer to the question would be made available and she would see the member got it. She got it, and we have decided to release it.

Mr. Breithaupt: That answer would be available.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The word “qualified” is essential because unless we tell members why readmissions occur, they can misinterpret them; at least members will know why they occurred.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since this is a matter which should be public information, since the public is paying the price --

Mr. Good: That’s right.

Mrs. Campbell: -- what is the qualified basis and when do I get the material I have been seeking?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I cannot speak to the qualified basis until I have talked with psychiatrists and those people who are involved. They will give the member explanatory information and she will get it quickly.

I think she did us a service. I am not disagreeing with the question at all. I am very pleased she raised the point the other day in the House as to this question of readmission because it caused me, as the result of the provincial secretary asking the question of me, to find out what was the basis for the current policy. When I asked that question I discovered the basis was no longer valid. Having determined that, I elected to release the information on the basis that people would get some explanation with it so they could make their judgements.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: There are only a few minutes remaining and the member for Sudbury East has a question.

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Martel: A question of the Minister of Natural Resources: In view of the fact that management at Elliot Lake refuses to continue any type of negotiations until the men resume work, could the minister use his good offices to persuade Denison that the men have a legitimate concern with 140 silicosis oases, and that he should sit down to start negotiations with the men?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I must admit to the member for Sudbury East that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) also approached me last night with a similar request. I think he is aware that this particular strike is an illegal strike. They have a collective agreement and they have illegally walked out in the middle of that collective agreement. It’s a labour matter and possibly something that my colleague, the Minister of Labour should be looking into.

As I said yesterday in my comment, I am as concerned as the member for Sudbury East with the conditions in the mine.

An hon. member: More so.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have been given a very lengthy list of a number of items and I have insisted my staff look into each one in detail. But I do say to the hon. members that some of the items that they have brought to my attention cannot be examined until the mine is in operation. This is one of the problems. For me to get directly involved at this point in time and try to break a collective agreement, I just don’t know how I could do it legally.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, sir, if I may: I want to say, and I have had it checked out, that the Minister of Labour has again inadvertently misled the House. In the negotiations with the hospital workers fringe benefits were never taken off the table. They were simply seen as something that would be discussed after the monetary matters had been reviewed.

I think the minister should be more careful in what he reports to the House about negotiations as sensitive as these.

Mr. Speaker: Well, there is really no point of order. It is a question of an opinion by one member as opposed to that expressed by another.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. minister wishes to respond, I will permit it

Hon. Mr. Guindon: To reply very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the hon. member’s source of information?

Mr. Lewis: The minister wants to know my source of information? The source of information is directly from those involved in his ministry. That is the original source, although they have not spoken to me personally about it.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Certainly not from my assistant deputy minister.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t know who his assistant deputy minister is, Mr. Speaker, but no, the minister can set his mind at rest.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, sir, if I may. This is awkward, but I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to put it.

Under the legislative assembly of Ontario standing orders, order No. 30 allows for an emergency debate provided that notice is given in writing two hours before the sitting of the House.

The hospital workers negotiations broke down at approximately 4 or 4:30 this morning. Friday is a very difficult day in which to get a notice in writing to the Speaker two hours in advance of the sitting of the House, indeed the news of the breakdown of hospital worker negotiations did not actually come publicly across the airwaves until after 8 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker, this situation is so critical and is growing in proportion to the extent that I think it is a matter of urgent public importance. It falls squarely with standing order 30 as it was intended, and I would therefore like to ask, Mr. Speaker, that unanimous consent of the House be given to allow us to proceed under standing order 30 as it was intended.

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is a fair statement for the hon. member to say that the talks have broken down. It’s a --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. With respect to the minister, I think before there can be any debate or expressions of opinion we must deal with the point raised by the hon. member.

The standing orders do provide that two hours’ written notice must be given prior to the sitting of the House in order to enter into the matter of whether or not the question to be raised, and whether the ordinary business of the House be set aside, is in fact of urgent public importance.

The request by the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party is simply to obtain unanimous consent of the House to waive the requirement to provide written notice two hours before the sitting of the House. This is as I understand it.

Mr. Lewis: Essentially that is it.

Mr. Speaker: Right. Do we have unanimous consent of the House to waive that notice?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: I regret that there are dissenting voices. We therefore cannot waive that notice.

Mr. Lewis: Well, on a point of order, I want to know where the “noes” came from? I would like the members to be identified.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I heard several “noes”.

Mr. Lewis: The member for York North (Mr. W. Hodgson) was one. I want to know who it is that won’t allow the House --

Mr. Speaker: I heard several “noes.”

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you, sir, for an indication of from whom you heard the “noes” or to call the question again so that we can get it more clearly.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): We heard several.

Mr. Speaker: There is no provision in the standing orders to indicate those who dissent. I did put the question to the House. I said: “Do I have that unanimous consent?”

Mr. Lewis: Can you put it again, sir?

Mr. Speaker: I put it again: Do we have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Speaker: So there are several members who have said no. I think the matter is properly disposed of.

Mr. Breithaupt: I think it’s fair to say, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, that the “noes” came from the government side of the House.

Mr. Lewis: Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the hospital workers are receiving $1.20 an hour less than --

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

CITY OF BELLEVILLE ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Taylor, moves second reading of Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the City of Belleville.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

ST. CATHARINES SLOVAK CLUB LTD.

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Johnston, moves second reading of Bill Pr2, An Act respecting St. Catharines Slovak Club Ltd.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. J. R. Smith, moves second reading of Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): No.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of second reading of Bill Pr3 --

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to second reading, sir, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Mr. Deans: Forgive me just in catching my breath.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in opposition to the passage of this bill. And I do so, as I did before the private bills committee, in the earnest hope that the members who are here will listen to what I have to say.

I want to oppose it because I firmly believe that it is a wrong principle to establish. I want to oppose it because I think it is a precedent that is going to be set which will be detrimental and damaging to further judicial inquiries which may well be necessary. And I want to oppose it because I think the very fact that the city of Hamilton did not have the authority to do that which it is now asking for authority to do is an indication that we in the Legislature didn’t believe that that authority should have been granted in the first place.

Let me tell you what it is about, if I may, sir.

There was a judicial inquiry in Hamilton some time ago into the falling marble and general state of the city hall. That inquiry required that a number of people be called as witnesses. Those people were subpoenaed, as is the normal practice in an inquiry. And one of the people subpoenaed was one Stanley Roscoe.

Mr. Roscoe was subpoenaed because he had direct knowledge of the development and building of the city hall at the time it was built. Mr. Roscoe was subpoenaed because he was in fact the architect in the employ of the city of Hamilton at the time that it was built. Mr. Roscoe appeared at the hearing under subpoena, like every other witness. He, of his own volition, decided it was necessary for him to hire a solicitor. He decided that to protect his own interests it was necessary for him and his solicitor to be present at every single day -- 40 in number -- of the hearings.

Mr. Roscoe then decided, for whatever reason, to submit a bill to the city of Hamilton for, as I recall, some $79,000 for his attendance at this judicial inquiry.

I don’t deny for a moment it might have been better had the city of Hamilton decided to hire Stanley Roscoe as an adviser. I don’t deny for a moment that he might well have had some valuable contribution to make. But I do deny the right of a person subpoenaed to appear as a witness to submit a bill to any municipality for his being there and protecting his own interests.

Mr. Roscoe was on the witness stand for less than two days as a witness. He was on the witness stand for less than two days; he was paid the normal witnesses fees. I feel sorry that Stanley Roscoe felt it necessary to be there every day, and I feel sorry that he feels that his business suffered, and I regret that he had to hire a very expensive lawyer to defend his own personal interests. But I’ll be damned if I can see why the citizens of Hamilton, or the citizens of the Province of Ontario indirectly, should have to pay the bill. Now, I’m asking --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: -- that there be a consideration given to this bill unlike that which is normally given to private bills. It’s not often that members speak on private bills and I urge my colleagues from Hamilton who supported the bill -- the member for Wentworth North and the member for Hamilton West (Mr. McNie), I presume -- not to speak in favour of Stanley Roscoe getting paid, in favour of setting up a precedent of paying witnesses fees and then paying witnesses whatever it is that they submit as a bill for services rendered, services which were never hired, which were never contracted for and which were never agreed were necessary.

Stanley Roscoe went to the city of Hamilton and he asked whether or not the city required his services at that particular inquiry. He was told no.

Mr. D. W. Ewen (Wentworth North): Well, the city made an error

Mr. Deans: It may very well be, as I said, that the city council made an error in not hiring him. If the city council made an error in not hiring him, then the city council has an obligation to find a way to rectify that error, but he can’t be paid for the witness time that he was there. If he gets paid for the witness time then every single witness who appeared there, who sat in that courtroom to protect his own interests, is equally entitled to claim payment. If they pay this one individual whose knowledge was extensive, then they may find themselves in a position of having to pay all other individuals whose knowledge was equally extensive and who were required to appear by subpoena before a judicial committee.

I ask the House, please don’t pass this bill. It is a bad bill. It is a wrong bill. It is a bill which will set up precedents which we in this House will not be able to afford and it is a bill which will make judicial inquiries extremely expensive. We don’t have many of them in any event. It is not as if it is an abused principle. They are set up very discreetly. They are set up after a great deal of consideration and there is no reason to suspect that anything other than what has gone on in the past will go on in the future.

I want to say this to you, Mr. Speaker. Think for a moment about witnesses at all kinds of inquiries.

I sat on the committee investigating the Hydro head office building. It was not unlike a judicial inquiry investigating a matter not unlike the matter of the Hamilton city hall. Every single person who had an axe to grind or every single person who knew anything about that particular development was required to come before the committee. Those people hired lawyers, extremely expensive counsel, the best in the city of Toronto, the best in the land. I urge members to consider that if we set this kind of a precedent they may feel, with some justification, since they were required to be away from their businesses and since they were required to spend considerable sums of money defending their interests, that they might reasonably expect to have their expenses and costs covered by this Legislature.

I also sat on the Workmen’s Compensation Board inquiry, as did other members of the House. At that same inquiry a number of people in the same category were called, all subpoenaed and they, too, hired expensive counsel. They, too, might have the same rights. Any future inquiry that will be conducted by this House could well be undertaken on the same basis as this which is being asked for by Stanley Roscoe.

I have no axe to grind with Stanley Roscoe. I don’t even know him. I met him tor the first time at the committee, and I wouldn’t have recognized the man if I had seen him before. I am sorry that he lost money. He gained in favour and he gained because his reputation was cleared. But I think the principle in this bill is a wrong principle. We in this Legislature should never consider it in order to safeguard any future inquiries that might be taken.

One final point, when a man works for the Steel Co. of Canada or when a man works for Dominion Foundries or when a man works for Algoma Mines and is required to take time from his place of business to go to a hearing as a witness, he is paid witnesses fees. His employer normally doesn’t undertake to pay him his normal day’s wages. It is a loss which is incurred by a witness at a trial or a witness at an inquiry. For most people, if you don’t punch in you don’t get paid. They don’t have a choice. They have to be there. Stanley Roscoe had a choice. He chose to be there. The costs are his, not ours. I urge members not to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to this bill?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): I would, Mr. Speaker. I’ve listened with interest to the hon. member’s comments, and it’s my understanding that this bill received consideration during the private bills committee meeting, at this particular time. The hon. member was present, I hope.

Mr. Deans: I was there and spoke.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And spoke.

Mr. Deans: The minister might have been there, too, since he was interested in it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think probably I was.

Mr. Deans: He was not.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’m just pointing out to the hon. member that I think he had ample opportunity at that time to convince the members of the committee whether or not this bill --

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I don’t require to be chastised by the minister for raising a matter which is rightfully raised before the House here today. I don’t require to be lectured by the minister on where I should make my point.

Mr. Speaker: There’s no point of order. Order, please!

Mr. Deans: I’m entitled to sit in the House and I don’t need his backchat.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member doesn’t need it, but the hon. minister has every right to express an opinion. That’s all he was doing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I think the private bills committee took into --

Mr. Deans: He wasn’t there.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- full consideration all aspects of this particular bill. It is the right of the elected people of the city of Hamilton to bring forth a private bill. They have chosen that right. They have asked the committee to approve it and it has been approved. And regardless of the views of the hon. member, I say that since the private bills committee has approved it, we in this Legislature should also approve it.

Mr. Deans: This is not an automatic place, for heaven’s sake. That’s the purpose of this item on the order paper.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): I would like to go back to the record and document how often the government has overruled a decision of the private bills committee.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): As a member of the private bills committee, and having sat through the sessions on this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, I recall a fair amount of discussion on it. There were amendments from the original bill and the bill was amended in the private bills committee. The original wording had “damages” -- costs, damages and so forth -- and “damages” was taken out and the wording was changed to include “pay all or part of the costs incurred.” There was considerable discussion, as I’ve said, in the private bills committee and I’m concerned about the method of this type of legislation.

About a year ago I got up to speak briefly on the second reading of a private bill, and I was chastised by the Speaker, whoever was in the chair that day, that in effect we weren’t really supposed to speak in opposition to or in support of these bills, that they were private bills and when the committee passed them then it was assumed that the Legislature here would automatically pass them. I’m not sure that I like this procedure of the way we bring a private bill to a committee, and as long as the seven, eight or 10 members of the Legislature in that committee pass it, then the rest of us here, the 117 here, are supposed to accept that.

Normally, if something is passed in the committee it is then brought to the Legislature and can be voted on. But as far as I’m concerned on this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, I agree with it in principle. I think we did alter it enough to satisfy the majority of the members of the committee and it now is left in the hands of the city of Hamilton council who have sole responsibility, and they are elected people.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to speak to the substance of this, but there’s a point raised by the minister that I think should be clarified, and I would just like to attempt to clarify it. On many, many occasions decisions taken in the private bills committee have been brought back to this House. On some occasions they were decisions that were taken by a majority of government members and were brought to this House and reversed by the cabinet because the cabinet didn’t agree with them. So, the proposition --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): The university bills.

Mr. MacDonald: The university bills, right. I wasn’t trying to cite any one because I haven’t gone back to check on it. Normally a bill coming to the private bills committee is finally decided there and it doesn’t have to come to the House. That’s the normal rule. But there are exceptions, and this is the superior body and this is where we deal with those exceptions.

Hon. J. McNie (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, because I had to attend a cabinet meeting at the time this item was discussed, I didn’t have an opportunity to speak to it. I would just like to make one or two brief points.

First of all, I think Mr. Speaker, the issue here is whether an injustice has been done to an employee -- and I repeat, to an employee -- of the city of Hamilton, and whether the city of Hamilton should be given an opportunity to correct that injustice, which the speaker opposite has indicated might well have been done, in his not being called as an adviser, and in the long hearings having vindicated him but not without considerable expense to him and his reputation, notwithstanding what one may say, I think, Mr. Speaker, this bill should be passed without any further discussion.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other members wishing to speak to this bill?

While there have been certain comments made which were not raised as points of order, I believe they actually were points of order and I believe that while the Speaker is not to enter into debate I should clarify my position as Speaker since it was alleged that a ruling had been made.

I do not recall having made any such ruling that there would be no debate. In fact, I believe it is quite in order to debate a private member’s bill at second reading.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. J. R. Smith, moves second reading of Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

WELLINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT

Mr. Worton moves second reading of Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

NIAGARA PENINSULAR RAILWAY CO. ACT

Mr. Breithaupt, in the absence of Mr. Deacon, moves second reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the Niagara Peninsular Railway Co.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

INCORPORATED SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF ONTARIO ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, moves second reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Ontario.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

TOWN OF STRATHROY ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Eaton, moves second reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Town of Strathroy.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

ROOTS DAIRY LTD. ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Allan, moves second reading of Bill Pr10, An Act respecting Root’s Dairy Ltd.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

TOWN OF INGERSOLL ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Parrott, moves second reading of Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Town of Ingersoll.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

TARA EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mrs. Scrivener, moves second reading of Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Tara Exploration and Development Co. Act.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

TOWN OF WALKERTON ACT

Mr. Sargent moves second reading of Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the Town of Walkerton.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

CITY OF KITCHENER ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moves second reading of Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

CITY OF ORILLIA ACT

Mr. G. E. Smith moves second reading of Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of Orillia.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

DIAMOND AND GREEN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. ACT

Mr. Breithaupt, in the absence of Mr. Singer, moves second reading of Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Diamond and Green Construction Co. Ltd.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

VICTORIA HOSPITAL CORP. ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Walker, moves seconding reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Victoria Hospital Corp. and the War Memorial Children’s Hospital of Western Ontario.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

BOROUGH OF NORTH YORK ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Bales, moves second reading of Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Borough of North York.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Walker, moves second reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the University of Western Ontario.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

WATERLOO-WELLINGTON AIRPORT ACT

Mr. Good moves second reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Waterloo-Wellington Airport.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

CITY OF CHATHAM ACT

Mr. Breithaupt, in the absence of Mr. Spence, moves second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT TRUST ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Morrow, moves second reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting Savings and Investment Trust.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

LAKE OF THE WOODS DISTRICT HOSPITAL ACT

Mr. Maeck moves second reading of Bill Pr26, An Act respecting Lake of the Woods District Hospital.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

PRESBYTERIAN BUILDING CORP. ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Dymond, moves second reading of Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the Presbyterian Building Corp.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT

Mr. B. Newman moves second reading of Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

CITY OF LONDON ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, in the absence of Mr. Walker, moves second reading of Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the City of Belleville.

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

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of third reading of the bill will please say “aye”.

Those opposed will please say “nay”.

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

I declare the motion carried.

THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education.

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

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

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Town of Strathroy.

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

Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Town of Ingersoll.

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Tara Exploration and Development Co. Ltd.

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the Town of Walkerton.

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of Orillia.

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Diamond and Green Construction Co. Ltd.

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Victoria Hospital Corp. and the War Memorial Children’s Hospital of Western Ontario.

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

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the University of Western Ontario.

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Waterloo-Wellington Airport.

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting Savings and Investment Trust.

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting Lake of the Woods District Hospital.

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the Presbyterian Church Building Corp.

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of London.

Bill 26, the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The motion is for third reading of Bill 26. Shall the motion carry?

Mr. Breithaupt: No.

Mr. Speaker: Those in favour of furthering Bill 26 will please say “aye.”

Those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “ayes” have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.

Clerk of the House: The 19th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF ENERGY (CONTINUED)

On votes 1801 and 1802:

Mr. Chairman: Last night when we adjourned we were dealing with votes 1801 and 1802. Does any speaker wish to speak on 1801?

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce

Mr. Sargent: I have a few brief questions, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the estimates last night, the minister made a statement, and in Hansard he was quoted as saying that BP was still making less than 10 per cent return on its investment and I interjected with, “Is that bad?” The minister said, “I would say it is completely wrong when I can make 11 per cent on someone’s mortgage.” I said, “One per cent, you mean.”

My point is, Mr. Chairman, is that the man who is in charge of spending $2 million under this estimate and who is also charged with directing $8 billion of Hydro funds, doesn’t know that money today is worth about 11 or 12 per cent. He thinks he is making 11 per cent profit on an 11 per cent mortgage. In other words, here is a man entrusted with all these moneys and he thinks it is okay for the oil companies to make 45 to 70 per cent profit over last year. He thinks they should be making more than 10 per cent and 18 per cent like Imperial is on invested capital. He comes up with a brainwave; I’ll say again just for the record, he said “I would say it is completely wrong where I can make 11 per cent on somebody’s mortgage.” That is the intelligence of the man who directs this ministry.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Sargent: What do you mean, order? He is the one who is out of order. He does not know what in hell is going on.

Mr. Chairman: Let’s get back to the vote.

Mr. Sargent: I would ask the minister --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The minister must have patience.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): In fact, your patience is infinite.

Mr. Sargent: Insofar as this energy policy is concerned, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister what coverage is Ontario Hydro, in consort with AECL, giving insofar as protection and insurance are concerned to the people of Ontario at this point?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): I don’t think that is a question I can answer. I don’t think AECL is providing insurance. The organization which is perhaps providing not insurance but which is charged with the responsibility for safety is the Atomic Energy Control Board. I think it has as high if not higher standards than anybody in the world.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, in this ministry and the area in which I live, we have had a $1 million mistake at Douglas Point. We have had leakages and they are closing the park; they are putting up huts to protect the people. It’s a matter of record that no insurance company in Ontario or Canada will give any insurance against nuclear power radiation.

The insurance companies have watched the growth and burgeoning of the nuclear power programme and have lost no time in taking steps to protect their industry. They have, Mr. Chairman, specifically planned to protect the insurance industry against the nuclear power industry. I ask anyone in this Legislature, anyone in Ontario, to check their insurance policies on anything they have -- property, buildings, life or anything or personal safety. They will see there is complete exclusion from the hazards of nuclear power.

In Douglas Point we have had, as I said, two gas leaks. Two years ago they made a $1 million mistake and they would have covered this up but I found it out by accident. I brought it up in the House and they denied it in the House. They finally admitted there was a $1 million mistake and they are now building huts to protect the people up there. They are closing our park because of fallout and radiation and the odours and dangers.

I asked the minister, Mr. Chairman, in the House a month or so ago about the fact that the officials of the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada have refused to meet scientists, the ones who have written the book called, “Poison Power”, and who are the outstanding authorities in the case against nuclear power plants in America. They wanted to come to Canada to go on television to discuss the situation here with people and to let them know what is going on. The officials of AECL have refused to meet these scientists on a TV show and to let the public know the facts and the hazards. I asked the minister about this and his response to me was, “Talk this over with your friends at Ottawa.”

The minister is the one who is charged with this programme here in Ontario and he is the one who should have some answers. What is he afraid of? What is he trying to cover up? Why doesn’t the minister tell the people and let them know the facts and what’s involved in this $8-billion programme that he is involved in? The problem with nuclear radioactivity is that there is much more long-lived radioactivity produced in one large nuclear power plant every year than there is in the explosion of about 1,000 Hiroshima bombs. When I say long-lived radioactivity I mean long-lived. Some lasts for 100 years, some for 200 years and even 240,000 years before decaying fully.

Get this, Mr. Chairman, on the energy programme we are involved in. Unprotected, above ground nuclear power plants loaded with radioactivity in their cores would certainly be large liabilities in this country if we were ever under attack. They seem, I believe, to make this country completely indefensible. Aside from the fact of sabotage or 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 Hiroshima Bombs. It would not be spread out all over the atmosphere, it would be concentrated in just one or a few areas.

Instead of the government preventing this extraordinary possibility, hell-bent as they are on the programme we are now involved in, we have observed that the government allowed harmful conditions to happen in Lake Erie, in our air and water, for example, and other pollutants. It is clear that the citizens had better not hope for the government to save them from the dangers we are faced with in nuclear power. Under the same energy programme, I am concerned about the fact that there is no insurance coverage against it. The insurance companies do not trust this source of energy.

Regardless of this minister and his friends and vested interests involved in the great profits, I am told by an authority in Hydro that, if you think, Mr. Chairman, there was hanky-panky going on with Mr. Moog and the Premier (Mr. Davis) in the $44 million deal of the building of the Hydro building, you should see what is going on in the contracts being let in the $8-billion programme in buying equipment on a no-tender basis.

We could talk forever about this and I know we will never get through. The facts are that the people do not know what they are involved with.

What I am concerned about, as I mentioned last night, is that we have, Mr. Chairman, ongoing secret negotiations with about 60 major firms, most of them all-American, to get them into the act and, to use the words of the minister, give them a piece of the action of Hydro. The minister conceded last night that they have boiled them down to five firms and they are going to announce to the House what five firms have a piece of the $600 million action, as he calls it.

I think it’s an insult to the people of Ontario that these deals can go on behind closed doors to sell out Hydro to the vested interests which this minister and this government protect. So I insist, Mr. Minister -- and I would hope you would answer this -- that you tell the House who the five firms are and that these firms are not foreign controlled at this point, which will take a large bite out of the future rates of Hydro and the people of Ontario. I wait for your answer on that point right now.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I indicated last night, Mr. Chairman, that I wasn’t yet aware which were the five firms which have made proposals. As for the 60 firms, I don’t know whether there were that many that the material went out to, or whether they all expressed an interest or not. I am not sure. That information has not yet come from the board of directors of Hydro to me. When it does, I will be glad to answer the question, but it is a matter which is being considered by the Hydro board at the moment and on which no decision has been reached, to my knowledge, and therefore it has not come forward to me.

So I simply can’t give the member the answer to the question, but I can say this, to my knowledge a number of firms which expressed interest were American firms, American firms located in Canada, 100 per cent Canadian-owned firms, British firms, and I think somewhere I seem to recall there was interest from a German firm as well, but as I say, this is in terms of financing particularly and they were not all American firms. There was a sizable representation of Canadian interests on the list of interested parties.

The member asked a couple of other questions which perhaps I could clear up now. The member did ask in the house about AECL officials refusing to meet with certain scientists. AECL is an emanation, a Crown corporation, of the government of Canada and I certainly can’t account for it. However, Hydro did send the member’s comments in the Throne debate to AECL, and they have no knowledge of any request which has been made to AECL officials to appear on any televised debate in Ontario. They have, in fact, appeared on a number of television programmes in various parts of Canada, but specifically they don’t know what the member is talking about in this particular instance. I suppose if he has more specific information they would be glad to try and indicate why --

Mr. Sargent: His name was Dr. Dewar of AECL. I gave you that before.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Dr. -- well --

Mr. Sargent: AECL.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Well, all I can go by is that AECL have indicated that to their knowledge, their people have not refused to appear in debates. They do express the reservation that they have appeared in debates. They can’t always do so. They would prefer to debate, I think, with Canadian people rather than with imports from across the border, which seems reasonable, but they do their best, as do Hydro, to meet public requests for information, for debates, for speeches and so on, and in my certain knowledge, AECL have been most forthcoming and willing to appear. Dr. Dewar, I am just informed, is not with the --

Mr. Sargent: AECB, I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He is with AECB, which of course is the safety arm of the government of Canada. I don’t know that we have been in touch -- yes, Hydro contacted the president of the board of AECB and they have not been requested to take part in any debate on radiation effects or nuclear power, so that’s the only information I can give the member.

The member also talked about insurance and I am informed that the federal government indemnifies the utility or contractors against claims arising from nuclear hazards, that is, damage arising from a nuclear accident, and in fact the government of Canada is carrying the insurance.

Mr. Sargent: How much is the coverage?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think it is unlimited.

Mr. Sargent: I suggest the minister doesn’t know what he is talking about -- and further, Dr. Dewar of AECB told me that he “refuses to sit with critics who would attack us.” That is his quote to me and I challenge the minister to get him up off his butt and to find out why. We are the ones concerned here, not AECB; it is the people of Ontario I am concerned about and who should know exactly what is going on.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The doctor, of course, is in effect a federal civil servant and I have no authority to move him from --

Mr. Sargent: Well the minister had better get some authority if you are going to run that ministry. The minister had better know what is going on.

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

Mr. Sargent: I still have the floor, Mr. Chairman; I am still on the floor.

The area that I am concerned about is the Douglas Point area. We have a report from Mr. Norman Pearson with regard to the Bruce nuclear power development and the adjacent municipalities and the preliminary assessment of the impact it is going to have on our area. Has the minister seen that report as yet?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know that I have specifically seen that. Hydro has commissioned a report -- the Dillon report -- which is an impact study on the whole of Bruce county and the area; a financial report covering a whole variety of areas. That report is in the process of being produced. As I recall, it was going to be available probably this June. They are meeting with local officials, with school boards, with the hospital board, with whoever wants to come forward -- and certainly the municipal councils. Out of this will come probably recommendations as to what Hydro should do or not do in terms of -- not minimizing the impact, I suppose easing the impact might be a better word, of the very large construction programme which will be under way at Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, we are talking about and looking at $22 million of money which will have to be forthcoming from somebody, according to this study. We need, for example, in the town of Chesley, $1,786,000; Port Elgin, $3,012,000; Southampton, $2,147,000; Paisley, $836,615; and the townships of Bruce, Huron, Kincardine and Saugeen, they range from $765,000 to $1.5 million.

I am most concerned that the government is going to go this dangerous route for power, when we have ample hydro power in the north country. There are millions of lakes up there that will provide all the power we will need and we have a cushion right now of power.

We are almost bankrupt in this province. We are paying now about $2.5 million a day on the debt we owe; we are pioneering for the world. Let somebody else do this hell-bent nuclear power search the government is on now. The minister in his own words said that although “we are not broke we are going to be drained severely.” So the government is now looking for help from the private sector to continue.

I want to ask the minister one thing before I sit down. We have been committed for another $3 billion since the minister took office. Now, was that $3 billion on the plan being borrowed by Hydro, or did the minister put it into effect? The minister has stepped up the programme to an $8 billion programme.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The programme has not been stepped up just since I have been minister; the programme has gone forward since the time I have been minister.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Minister, in the last four months we have stepped the programme up to a new figure -- it is an $8 billion commitment in Hydro, and that is a fact.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Over what period of time?

Mr. Sargent: Until 1982.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It goes much beyond that. There has been no substantial change in the figures, and there have been really no large tender calls yet in terms of the nuclear programme. As those calls come in, I imagine the figures will be adjusted; but there has been no increase in the megawatt --

Mr. Sargent: The minister knows that when he took over there was a $3.5 billion programme -- and now that has jumped to $8 billion. I want to know: Did he start that or did Hydro start that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Hydro.

Mr. Sargent: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. We had better alternate.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): I won’t be long.

Mr. Lewis: It is all right. He was on his feet; he won’t be long.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a few comments concerning this estimate and one is the need for some clarification on the part of governments -- not necessarily the government of Ontario -- concerning nuclear energy. Because when one reads in the paper, you get one point of view one day that it is extremely hazardous, dangerous, that people are going to be subjected to all types of radiation; and the next day you read a completely opposite point of view.

The minister knows of the Fermi plant in the State of Michigan, on the way to Toledo out of Detroit. That plant was started in 1955 and has never been active; it has had problems ever since, and that’s going on to some 19 years. In addition, when we look at the State of Michigan, we see that they are going to have 10 large atomic plants by the year 1983. I know their technology is different from ours and, as a result, there may be some types of radiation hazards. But as the winds are prevailing westerlies, and if radiation is generated as a result of faulty construction, poor technology and so forth, naturally the fallout would effect the Province of Ontario.

I think it is incumbent upon governments -- our own, provincially and federally, even world governments -- to perhaps clarify once and for all the hazards that we may be subjected to as a result of the amount of technology we have today or our lack of technology in relation to the use of atomic energy.

Could I get a response from the minister on that? Then I have two other items I would like to talk about.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I suppose the latest study so far as Ontario is concerned, would be the report No. 3 of Task Force Hydro, which indicated that so far as we are concerned, nothing can be completely guaranteed but that in their view -- and I think we accept this -- the Candu system is a safe system and that every step is being taken to make it as safe as possible. I think the evidence of scientific opinion in this country, certainly in this country, would support that.

But when one picks up the paper, I quite agree, one finds someone sounding off every second day that nuclear power is unsafe. I don’t suppose this will ever be completely resolved to anybody’s satisfaction. Certainly I am not capable of saying whether something is safe or not. We rely on the advice of experts, and I think the experts who not only advise the Ontario government but the government of Canada, through the Atomic Energy Control Board -- and the advisory committee includes Ontario civil servants -- are satisfied that what we are doing, we are doing in as safe a way as is possible. It’s a value judgement.

There is no question, I suppose, that an automobile is not as safe as a horse and buggy, but a decision was made by society that we liked automobiles. And it’s our decision that we like cheap power, hopefully -- and it is -- safe power, therefore we have gone nuclear.

The member for Grey-Bruce talked about waterpower; that simply isn’t correct. He talked about all the lakes in northern Ontario. The fact is, I think -- the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa), has asked this question on several occasions -- that, as I recall the figures, there are about 2,000 mw or 3,000 mw of power which might be developed in northern Ontario, roughly the size of the Pickering nuclear generating station.

I think it is also fair to say that my friend from Thunder Bay and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) would say that it will not be easy to develop most of those sites because of the legitimate concerns of the local people, of the native people. I recall the difficulty that the hon. member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) got into when he suggested playing around with a little bit of water in the north.

I don’t say that Hydro won’t develop that 2,000 mw or 3,000 mw, or some part of it, in the next few years, the next decade or two or three decades. I think it will not be an easy thing to do and it certainly won’t be done until we’re sure there are full studies of the environmental, economic and socio-economic impact on the area and on the people. To simply say we should be developing waterpower -- it is an alternative which is no longer open to us.

In the country as a whole we have enough; there is enough unused waterpower, something like 40,000 mw or 50,000 mw, roughly the amount the country is now using totally to generate electricity. There are enormous resources still of unused waterpower but very little of it is in Ontario; quite a bit of it is in Newfoundland and I suppose a lot of it is in British Columbia. In British Columbia the further development of waterpower is practically coming to a standstill because of environmental reasons. That is not true in Newfoundland and probably not true in Labrador.

I think the country as a whole will develop considerably more electrical power from water sources but that is not really an option which is open to us in Ontario.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am told that plant, by the way, has produced power; not much, but it has --

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Twenty-six days.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Six days?

Mr. Burr: Twenty-six days.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would have to say, of course, that it points up the superiority of the Canadian system.

Mr. B. Newman: I am not going to argue with that, Mr. Chairman; I would always hope that we were a match for, if not superior to, many other parts of the world. We may be a little slow at developing certain other types of exotic energy but I personally would prefer to see a lot of the experimentation being done and the heavy financial outlay being expended by countries which are a little more affluent or have greater financial resources than we have. I think we can benefit by a lot of experimentation which goes on in other jurisdictions.

Time magazine on May 7, a year ago, had a very nice article concerning other exotic sources of energy -- maybe not exotic but other sources of energy. They mentioned in their article that Russia will in a very short period of time obtain 10 per cent of its electrical energy from a new source called magnetic hydrodynamics. According to their information, it is supposed to be the most efficient power generation scheme. Naturally, they would always claim that theirs is the most efficient. Anyone who develops a scheme claims that his scheme for the generation of power is the most efficient.

Magnetic hydrodynamics creates an electric current by passing a stream of hot ionized gas at high speed through a powerful magnetic field and it operates, so they claim, at 50 per cent efficiency. I think we have to look -- and I would assume that the minister’s officials as well as the officials on the federal level are looking -- at experimentation which is going on in all jurisdictions.

I don’t think we necessarily have to send all of our specialists to all of these meetings but we would be getting -- I think the minister’s officials are capable and intelligent enough to keep abreast with what is going on in all parts of the world as far as the generation of energy is concerned.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: They want to go but I’m afraid the member on the right is going to check up on how much we are going to spend on lunches and so on.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking for myself only.

Mr. Lewis: One of the 22 Liberal positions.

Mr. B. Newman: There are only 19 on your side.

Mr. Lewis: But we have immense solidarity.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Just on what you’ve said, because I am interested in what you say. What you have said is you wonder why Canada, as a small country, put the resources it did into a particular brand of nuclear programme. I could wonder about that, too.

When one looks back, it has been an enormous gamble. When one looks at the lack of success in the United Kingdom and to some extent the lack of success in Toledo, right next door to us, one wonders, quite frankly, at the courage which AECL, the government of Canada, Hydro and this government have shown. I’m somewhat staggered by what we did, and we’ve been more than lucky. We’ve been successful and Canadian technology and hard work have produced something which is highly successful.

What you’re also saying though, I think, is should we be looking at other things which to some extent is in contradiction to the point that you’ve made. If you feel that perhaps Canada was awfully venturesome in going the Candu nuclear route, and I could agree with you, then perhaps it’s better for us to sit back and see what some other people are doing before we go that route again. This is one of the reasons why I feel it’s important in going the next step, whatever it may be, if we can find a partner, and the UK looks like a reasonable partner.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Is the minister saying that he is uncomfortable in the role as a leader?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I’m not uncomfortable in the role of a leader, but I recognize the fact that you’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars and that you’re talking about very high technology and scientific skill. If we obtain a partner in the UK, for example, to go the next step then I think that it makes a lot of sense.

The other point the member mentioned was MHD, for example, I’m told that Russia has one 25 mw plant which is not running. My officials would disagree with the article in Time magazine. That particular process was looked at and a great deal of money was spent on it by Britain, France, Germany, and they’ve all dropped it. Perhaps they are going ahead in Russia.

Russia has enormous resources of both uncommitted water power and thermal power, and that’s the route I think that they’ll continue to go for a long time. They’re into every brand of nuclear reactor, as I understand it, on a very small scale and just on an experimentation basis, but most of their power for a long time to come will come from water power and fossil fuels of which they have an abundance.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. It just goes to show how incorrect information can be. That’s why I earlier made mention of the hazards of atomic radiation.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Right.

Mr. B. Newman: One hears one side of the story one day and the opposite side of the story next day. It’s the same with solar energy. We hear that it is extremely important and that it can by the year 2000 provide all of the energy needs of the United States. Yet, if it could do it by the year 2000, it’s kind of strange that the US Congress itself is going very slowly on it. In fact, on April 10 of this year, the Detroit Free Press carried a story from the New York Times service headlined: “Interest Cools Toward Solar Power as Fuel Alternative.” The US is only allocating, according to this article, some $700 million for all types of experimentation in new, exotic forms of energy. Really, that’s just a drop in the bucket for a big jurisdiction like that which recently was almost on its knees as a result of oil embargos from the Middle East.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Or so they tell you.

Mr. B. Newman: Even the head scientist in the US who was supposed to have been involved in the experimentation with solar power -- and the fellow’s name is Dr. H. Guyford Stever, director of the National Science Foundation and chief science adviser to President Nixon -- is sceptical about the whole thing. So you see how confused the picture is when it comes to energy sources.

I would think that there will be a breakthrough in the not too distant future and that we will be able to get energy from sources that we haven’t dreamed of today. When we look at technology and how far it has progressed in the last 25 years, with the use today of the computer and the most brilliant people we’ve ever had since man has been on the face of God’s earth, I certainly think there will be a breakthrough and it will be a breakthrough which will not come along and adversely affect us environmentally and otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister, in the estimation of power need for the province, how do you break down your needs? Do you break it down the same way they do in the US where they have estimated that industry needs approximately 40 per cent of the power generated, that transportation requires about 25 per cent, and that housing and home consumption is approximately 35 per cent? Also, in figuring your estimates concerning our power needs, are you taking into consideration the slowing up of the birth rate, reduced immigration and the new social trends taking place, such as population not growing as rapidly as it has in the past, and looking forward to ZPG, zero population growth?

May I have some comments from the minister concerning this because I am disturbed that maybe we are overbuilding a lot of these energy sources? Remember how some eight or 10 years ago we clamoured for schools, schools all over, hospitals all over? Now we find we have surplus of schools. Sometimes the surplus happens to be not in the right location. It could be exactly the same thing -- we might be planning for tremendous surpluses in energy resources.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Before I deal with that, let me assure the member, the House and my friend from Sandwich-Riverside that I agree with a great deal of what the member has said in terms of solar energy or what he referred to as exotic forms. To put it very simply, in our view the day for them hasn’t arrived. That is the advice of our people. We will continue to monitor what other people are finding and the day the breakthrough comes on any one of them, we will be on that bandwagon. I am sure of that and we will take advantage of the breakthroughs as they occur but they are a long way from occurring as yet.

Returning to the safety matter for a minute and what you read in the paper one day and what you read in the paper the next day. I suppose the only comparison I can make is that for 15, 20 or 25 years, I guess, as long as I have been smoking, I have read in the paper one day that it was safe and the next day that it wasn’t. There is an impressive array of advisers on both sides of that issue -- people who would say that it is not good. Yet in Elgin county and elsewhere we go on growing tobacco and producing cigarette and pipe tobacco.

I think to some extent the clash between scientific opinions can be compared to the same thing. All I can say is I am confident that the advice we are getting in terms of the safety aspects and the controls which are placed by the AECB on Douglas Point, Bruce and Pickering are as tight and as tough as they can be. Those aren’t just federal controls, as I’ve said. They come from advice from our own ministries -- Health, Environment, Natural Resources, Labour. They all sit on an advisory committee to the AECB; the local MOH, I think is on the committee or somebody from health is. I think we are getting as good advice as we can and we are satisfied with the results of it.

You asked about forecasting. I would agree with what the member has said. There, is a forecast unit in Hydro, which is where the whole thing begins, and where the projections are made. It becomes more difficult, really, than hospitals or schools; much more difficult because the lead times are longer. You can start to plan and build a hospital -- if you can get rid of the red tape, I suppose -- in three or four years; a school in something less than that. I suppose, really, the minimum time today for a nuclear generating station or even a fossil fuel station -- because of the environmental considerations, because of the steps of public participation, because of ordering the equipment and because of the sheer size of it -- I think you are looking at something that isn’t really less than 10 years. Therefore, if you are out in the first year, the probability is, you are going to be much further out in the 10th year. It is an immensely difficult exercise.

All the things that you mentioned -- population growth, immigration, change in the birth rate, industrial trends in terms of industrial consumption, household trends -- all those things are being fed into the forecast unit and I think they are satisfied that they are doing the very best job that they can. Having said that, that was one of the items which Mr. Macaulay spent some time on at the Energy Board hearings. I wasn’t there but I read that particular part of the transcript and he devoted more than a little bit of time to it and directed the board’s attention to that aspect in his summary at the end of phase one.

As I recall, and I am not passing judgement on this, he suggested strongly that the forecast unit should be further strengthened. I think he wanted some economists or something in the forecast unit. I have forgotten what his recommendations were. Now, whether the board, in their wisdom, decide that those suggestions make sense or not, I don’t know. The phase one report will be out -- I don’t know how soon -- in a couple of months, and we will see what the board thinks about Macaulay’s views of the forecast unit and they will certainly be looked at then by Hydro. But it’s not just in Hydro, it’s an immensely difficult area.

One of the things that somewhat worries me, in looking at a whole host of projections, in the oil hearings, we have seen that the figures from the oil hearings which the various companies and the board itself has prepared as to the projected size of the market, this was also true in AEC, it was also true I think in Task Force Hydro, and most of these projections, which go on 15 or 20 years, show electrical energy as having about the same size of the total energy market as it presently has, something like 20 per cent in this province, perhaps growing a bit. But if there were a dramatic switch, and it doesn’t happen overnight, to electric heat, if somebody made a breakthrough in terms of an electric car -- and the CPR, you may have noticed, are starting to talk about the possibility of conversion from diesel to electrification on the Windsor-Montreal run as being a place to start -- if some of those things start to happen and it will only be a change of a half per cent a year, less than that I suppose, then the power needs of the province which are being put forward now by Ontario Hydro before the Energy Board will grow very rapidly and very quickly in spite of whatever conservation measures are adopted or in spite of escalating costs reducing demand.

If there is a switch in the total energy package, from oil or gas to electricity, for example, then to use the phrase “We haven’t seen anything yet.” That worries Hydro and it worries me, but what the distribution will be I don’t know. I am sorry I can’t say more about the forecast unit. I can tell you that they think they do a very good job. Hydro think they do a very good job and they are continually updating themselves to make sure they are doing the best job possible, but it is a highly difficult area.

Mr. B. Newman: I just wondered if the minister’s officials took into consideration the growing national trend for the greater processing of our raw materials. We are primarily exporters of a lot of the raw material and as our people become more and more conscious of it they are going to want the resources of our mines and forests processed into the finished product in Canada, or processed to a greater degree than they are now, and I would assume that, would mean a tremendous requirement of energy.

I wanted to ask another question of the minister, and this is the last one, concerning the super power lines. I can recall reading an article in one of the American newspapers, which mentioned that the electric force from a high-power line has so much energy that an individual could carry a fluorescent tube in his hand and it would glow if he were within 150 ft of the carrying towers. Is there some hazard as a result of these high-tension wires and super power lines being placed all over the environment, all over our farmland and so forth, and likewise coming into our cities?

There is also the comment that automotive equipment will not start if it is parked directly under one of these transmission towers. Is there any danger at all, physical danger to the individual, as a result of the extremely high voltages carried by these super power lines?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I am informed that there is no hazard. It’s static electricity and is like walking on this rug. In builtup areas you see fences around the bottom of towers. They are there to stop kids and people from climbing up the towers, not because there is an electrical danger per se.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, you’re referring to towers that are carrying probably 100,000 volts or so. But I understand that once you go over 500,000 then it’s a completely different story. I’m no expert but I’m simply telling you what I happen to have read.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think so, but we’ll be glad to get an answer for the hon. member and perhaps put it in writing for him.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’d be interested, too.

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

Mr. Lewis: Could the Minister of Energy refresh my mind about the uranium contracts that have been entered into with Japan and, I think, are in the process of arrangement with Spain, either on behalf of Denison or Rio Algom?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, I couldn’t offhand. I don’t think we’ve got that information here. The two contracts which have been announced are Denison and Rio Algom to Japan and to the UK --

Mr. Lewis: Oh.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- neither one of which has been approved, as we understand it, by the government of Canada. But I can’t give the hon. member the figures or the tonnages offhand.

Mr. Lewis: Explain the process to me for a moment. Does it go to the National Energy Board, or is it a cabinet decision in the export of uranium?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s not the National Energy Board, which we would say perhaps it should be. No, I think it’s EMR and probably AECB, and then I think ultimately it is a cabinet decision. It’s a grey area because the regulations and the legislation simply aren’t there as clearly as they should be. But I think it’s a cabinet decision ultimately; it’s not an NEB decision and I don’t think there’s any provision for public hearings anywhere along the line. Again, we think there should be and -- this is what our uranium paper attempted to point out -- we think there should be procedures as there are in oil and gas, which may or may not have worked well, but there should be procedures which presumably will work better than no procedures.

Mr. Lewis: I appreciate that. I’m not going to take very long, but I’m going to get to the end-point I want in a rather circuitous route; I suppose that’s the normal political process.

I think obviously the federal government is going to approve the export of these large quantums of uranium ore, primarily because it will be argued, and I guess legitimately, that it is for peaceful purposes, and that the government of Canada is not likely to inhibit the export for peaceful purposes. Obviously the Province of Ontario sees the approval being given, and obviously you see uranium centring or focusing more and more as a resource and a need in this province and beyond its borders, otherwise you would not have made the statement which you made, jointly with the Premier, some weeks ago about exercising rather greater control over the production and distribution of uranium in Ontario, asking in effect the federal government to relinquish some of that control, and indeed going so far as to suggest that the privatization of the uranium industry should extend now to greater foreign control than was previously the case.

I’m not going to argue with you on the philosophic legitimacy of greater foreign control in the uranium industry; we wouldn’t get anywhere. You have a view and the NDP has a view, and we are diametrically on opposite sides of the fence.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I don’t think we are. I see what the member has said from time to time. Let me put this in simple terms. We think there should be greater exploration for uranium in this country, not just in Ontario, but it Saskatchewan as well and probably in Newfoundland. One of the things which is seriously inhibiting exploration -- and you can read this on all sides and this is in our paper -- is the very severe ownership requirements which were applied retroactively by the government of Canada to stop the Denison sale. I disagree with retroactive steps, although occasionally they have to be taken. What is wrong is that that step was taken four years ago and is still nothing more, I think, than a ministerial statement. There is no legislation and no regulation. The rules, which are more than has applied in any other industry, in effect, were a 90 per cent Canadian control, which we don’t impose on any other industry, and don’t suggest should be imposed on any other industry.

I should send to you some of the people from the Bancroft area and from the Elliot Lake area. I am talking now about small Canadian prospectors, who may or may not have anything -- I don’t know -- who will tell you how very inhibited they are in looking for uranium and finding uranium, let alone doing anything about it, because of these ownership controls. The only company which I know of in the mining business which would qualify -- and they may today and not tomorrow -- to go out and look for uranium under those kinds of rules is Noranda which is 89 or 91 per cent owned in Canada.

I think that is wrong. I think there is a place for other Canadian firms. I think there is a place for Inco, which now by the way, is about 51 per cent Canadian-owned.

Mr. Martel: It went the other way last week.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It went down again?

Mr. Martel: It went the other way last week. I was talking to them.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Lord knows what the definition is of ownership. Outside the House, I said my definition in this case would probably be 51 per cent with some strings attached. The strings might be on the size of the block in the 49 per cent. If the 51 per cent were very widely held by a great number of people, then a block of 20 or 30 per cent might well control the total. I think there have to be some strings. Our real plea is, for heaven’s sake, define the ground rules and make them known, so that the exploration for this resource can get on. We have companies which are looking for uranium now with some success -- some of them foreign-owned -- who don’t know what they are going to do when they find it, because they don’t know what the ground rules are.

Perhaps where we have a difference would be that you would say because the rules -- and I don’t think you are saying this -- are established at 90, this is some sort of a retreat. If I were asked for a definition of Canadian control, I would say 51 per cent of Shell Oil and 51 per cent of General Motors and 51 per cent of the Ford Motor Co. I wouldn’t worry about the other 49 per cent if the rest were held here in Canada.

Mr. MacDonald: You are the most militant socialist in the House.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think we have to own 100 per cent. I think we will jeopardize our position as a trading nation if we set out to make that our goal. I really think to some extent 90 per cent is in that category.

The primary thrust of the paper is to encourage the finding of uranium. This is the disturbing thing about the sales. I think I said this to the member for York South some months ago after the first sale, that to the best of our knowledge and information we are not disturbed about the size of those two sales. I don’t think you should think they are fait accompli either.

Mr. Lewis: Okay.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I hear some rumours otherwise from time to time. If you had half a dozen sales of that size, you would start to worry. You particularly worry because nobody has been out looking for uranium.

One of the ways, of course, to stimulate the looking for it is to get the sales going, but that is the story which we were told for years by the oil industry, and I don’t think it is quite good enough to accept it today. We have got a hangup here.

It’s obvious in the paper, as prepared by ourselves and the mines branch, that the conventional wisdom would say find the uranium and encourage the selling of it. We say that isn’t good enough any more, that we would like to have a much better idea of what’s there before we start worrying about the exporting of it. I don’t think we are that far apart.

Mr. Lewis: Well --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Certainly not as far apart as we were last night.

Mr. Lewis: No, no. We are just as far apart as we were last night. The minister is as unrepenting and unremitting a Tory as he always has been and I am as conscious a socialist as others in our caucus. And I know that makes the minister feel better, whether it’s Thursday night or Friday morning, so I say it to put his mind at rest.

We are just as far apart because it’s not just a matter of exploration for additional uranium. It’s a matter of protecting the ore body that presently exists for domestic use, if that is our priority, given the patterns of export of energy resources over the past several years. And obviously, then, having some considerable control over the nationality of those who develop it.

I won’t argue the minister’s 51 per cent with him. If next month, 51 per cent of Shell and of CM and of Ford were Canadian-owned, I would consider that a modest first step on the road to repatriating our economy. We’ll probably settle for that as a goal for May. I won’t tell you what my goal is for June. But in uranium -- in uranium we don’t settle for that kind of halting step. We think the 90 per cent figure is deficient because it should be 100 per cent.

Now, ideologically we would nationalize the uranium industry as an energy resource which belongs in the public sector. That’s quite clear. Though that puts us so far apart that there is no coming together, except around Ontario Hydro, there is no question that we think there should be 100 per cent Canadian ownership if it can’t be in the public sector. However, I am willing to accept, and New Democrats are willing to accept, that foreign capital may wish to participate in the exploration for and development of the uranium industry; or indeed other mining and energy resource sectors -- I’m not sure we would inhibit that either. If they want to invest and participate and receive a fair rate of return on investment, fine. But we would not give them equity.

Those foreign companies do not have a right to equity in the primary energy resource that this province has left; if that is how this government intends to develop it. And that’s again a simple, philosophic difference which is pretty profound and cannot be bridged.

What my colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside, has been asking and asking very compellingly is whether we’re right of course to continue the whole nuclear development at all. And I must say that when he asks that I have to be honest about it -- New Democrats, both in our provincial policy and on our federal policy, have not come as far as the member for Sandwich-Riverside has come. We still have nuclear power generation within the NDP provincial programme in Ontario. It’s there and it is members like the member for Sandwich-Riverside who are trying to change party policy on this matter.

I would point out that the Social Democrats in Sweden are in the process of reversing their dependence on nuclear energy because of what they consider to be the hazards of the storage of radioactive wastes and the implications of the terrorist kind of attack which my colleague mentioned last night.

The New Democrats in British Columbia, in convention -- I’m not saying that this means that the Premier and the cabinet will accept it -- have passed a very anti-nuclear development resolution. And they didn’t do it mindlessly. They did it in the context of the great debate that began with the atomic scientists and rages to this day and clearly raises enormous questions.

I remember sitting in Goderich a number of weeks ago with a number of people from the Bruce plant. I’m not going to name their names; some of them were very highly placed. I was in a private home and it was for two to three hours of one evening. And they talked to me very feelingly and entirely in moral terms about the possibilities of visiting what amounts to terror on subsequent generations -- and how the devil do you make these moral decisions about the storage of radioactive wastes now which may wreak havoc 100 years from now?

Well, Mr. Chairman, there just have to be human beings around like the member for Sandwich-Riverside. There have to be people -- politicians in this House -- who stand and say that in terms of a moral imperative we are launched on a self-destructive course, and who have to warn, as others before him have warned, that once you set this process in motion you may be inviting destruction. He has his impact on this party. He has his impact on the debates in the House. I would have thought that the minister might be more generous and more open in his view of alternatives. Some of the comments have been a trifle specious. I don’t mean to be deprecating when I say that. It’s not like moving from horse and buggy to automobile, with respect. It is much more profound than that in terms of some of the social consequences, the social implications. I would have thought you would have been a little more flexible about looking at some of the alternatives.

The innovative possibilities for the Province of Ontario are enormous. What you say you are going to do with magnetic levitation in terms of the whole transportation system in the western world, which you are initiating as a provincial government, rightly or wrongly for good or ill, you might conceivably initiate in terms of alternative sources of energy.

What my colleague from Sandwich-Riverside is putting is not in the slightest farfetched. He just suffers the anguish of being a man ahead of his time -- he doesn’t suffer any anguish; he just tenaciously continues to press what he senses to be the logic in the situation, that there have to be clean sources and safe sources of energy generation which cannot even be questioned, rather than dirty sources and questionable sources which are under constant public scrutiny. And I am glad he does it. I am kind of pleased that it is coming from this caucus in that way, and it should continue to come that way.

The truth of the matter is that for whatever reason -- and obviously they are primarily economic and technological and scientific, and I accept all that; I haven’t sorted it out in my own mind, I must admit -- you have decided on a nuclear course. Now you will see where my circuitous reasoning is getting me to. You could have guessed it had you thought for a moment. You are committed to the nuclear course.

You are going to develop X number of plants around Ontario. Some of them will be announced precipitately and inappropriately in advance by certain senior members of Hydro who will then back and fill frantically to reassure people in western Ontario that they are not going to be losing their bean crop and their land. Some of them will be presented a little more thoughtfully and sensitively by senior personnel in Hydro, so that the sites which are chosen, whether they are in the northwest or on the north shore, in western Ontario, will have a lead time and the public will be persuaded rather than having it raised as a matter of fear.

Whatever the decision, you are launched on a course of massive nuclear generation in Ontario. That means you are tying the uranium industry in this province right in to Ontario’s future generating needs and that’s one of the reasons why you have asked for your provincial controls that you set out in your statement two or three weeks ago.

All of that being true, Mr. Minister, I want to say to you as a friend and a colleague in the House, as well as a Minister of Energy, that you have got to do something rather more serious about the men, and perhaps eventually the women, who are working in the mines to provide you with the uranium on which your entire programme is based. You cannot, as Minister of Energy, simply say, “Our job is the generation of power from whatever source after it’s there.” You have to take a look at your colleagues and the responsibilities back to the source.

Something is happening in this province which is so perverse and so destructive it’s really reprehensible. If we cannot persuade some of your colleagues of it, then perhaps we can take just a minute to persuade you of it.

I had a telegram from Elliot Lake. I want to read it to you. It came to me, I guess, three or four days ago, and it read as follows:

THE FOLLOWING TELEGRAM WAS SENT TO THE HON. LEO BERNIER AT 11:35 A.M., APRIL 22, 1974:

SEVEN HUNDRED URANIUM MINERS, EMPLOYEES OF DENISON MINES IN ELLIOT LAKE, ARE REFUSING TO CONTINUE TO WORK UNDER UNSAFE AND UNHEALTHY CONDITIONS. OUR MEMBERS OF LOCAL 5762 LEFT THEIR JOBS THURSDAY, APRIL 18, 1974, IN PROTEST OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DEMAND IMMEDIATE ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM. OVER 60 UNSAFE AND UNHEALTHY ITEMS WHICH EXISTED FOR MANY YEARS AND ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COMPANIES. I AM ASKING YOU TO SEND SENIOR OFFICIALS OF YOUR DEPARTMENT TO ELLIOT LAKE IMMEDIATELY. OUR MEMBERS DEMAND THAT IMMEDIATE CORRECTIVE MEASURES MUST BE TAKEN TO REDUCE HUMAN SUFFERING AND FURTHER LOSS OF LIFE.

It is signed by G. H. Gilchrist, area supervisor, United Steelworkers of America.

Mr. Chairman, I visited Elliot Lake back in November. I met with members of the council, I met with the leaders of the union and I talked to them about the conditions of the mine, and I was talking to people who are frantically concerned about what is happening to them and to their friends and citizens in the community.

I was back to the Sudbury basin not very long ago -- a week or 10 days ago -- and I met again with the leadership of the Steelworkers, who are the representatives in Sudbury. I met with the president of the union at Rio Algom and the president of the union at Denison. Again they set out to me, almost frantically, their concerns about the conditions in the mine.

I want to remind the minister that what we are talking about here are health hazards so acute that there are very few parallels anywhere else in the mining industry. What has happened in the 18 years of Denison is that we have now discovered that nearly 10 per cent of the present work force suffers from continuing silicosis, that 140 silicotic pensions have been given between Jan. 1, 1974, and March 1, 1974, by the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

When I talked to the president of the Denison union last week, he talked to me -- in tones that were kind of hushed, kind of traumatized -- of the young man who had been taken down to the Princess Margaret Hospital that afternoon with confirmed cancer. Maybe that isn’t a direct consequence of the mine. I don’t know.

Certainly the levels of radiation hazard and what the men are hearing have persuaded them that cancer is now a serious possibility. Certainly the Ministry of Health has begun to take it seriously, because for the first time in as many years as we can remember, the Ministry of Health is starting to do tests.

But all the testing in the world is of no consequence unless the Ministry of Natural Resources changes the conditions beneath the ground and does something about the conditions in the Rio Algom and Denison mines, although Denison uses much older equipment.

I guess what I am saying to the minister is that if we are going to build the economic base of Ontario over the next generation on the provision of energy from nuclear sources, then the government has got a moral responsibility to protect -- almost more zealously than it has ever protected any other workers in its life -- those who are in the mines at Denison and Rio Algom in Elliot Lake.

I want to tell the minister -- I know he will rise and defend his colleague, and I fully expect him to do that; I understand cabinet solidarity -- I want to tell him that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) doesn’t understand what is happening in Denison and Rio Algom -- and he doesn’t care very much. Otherwise, he would not make the kind of defensive and apologetic statements he made in the House; otherwise he would not go outside the House and talk about the miners exaggerating the problem.

Who in hell is he, sitting here day after day in these plush surroundings, to say whether the miners working underground in Denison are exaggerating the problems when 10 per cent of them have silicosis and when they are discovering cancer cases! What kind of preposterous self-indulgence is that on the part of the Minister of Natural Resources? Where does he get the insufferable presumption to toy with human life in that fashion? Because that is what was being done both here in the House and outside the House.

The people in the Ministry of Energy have some kind of responsibility, I think, to say to the Minister of Natural Resources that 700 men don’t walk off the job like that; they don’t submit that kind of argument if there is not a basis for it. The ministry had a mining investigative report in 1961 which prophesied what would happen. Not a thing has happened from that day to this, except through the Ministry of Health.

I don’t exempt the Ministry of Health, but so that you know I am not coming to you as a kind of mindless partisan, I concede to you that the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) and the ministry are doing something. They are taking it seriously. I know my colleague from Sudbury East has been speaking to the Deputy Minister of Health quite frequently over the last two months and assures me that at least from Health there is a response. From Natural Resources, I say to you, there is no response at all. And it kind of terrorizes a whole community, because the spectre of silicosis and cancer is one that a government just pounces on. You just go into Denison and Rio Algom and you change the rules underground in a way that you’ve never dealt with those companies before in your life.

Now, then, there was a meeting. On the day that the minister was making the statement about how good things were and how hard they were working at it, on that very day there was a meeting in Elliot Lake. Five hundred miners emerged at that meeting -- my colleague from Sudbury East can tell you more about it in detail because he was there -- miner after miner came to the microphone and talked about the conditions in the mine. And it would cause your hair to stand on end. If you were Minister of Natural Resources you would not tolerate it. Let me tell you that, as someone who knows you a trifle. And the fact that these miners should emerge -- they are on a wildcat, for heaven’s sake, they are out on strike. They know that it’s not legal. They know that. The meeting was --

Mr. Martel: What have they got to lose?

Mr. Lewis: The meeting was absolutely orderly. Usually wildcats’ meetings are tumultuous, almost always. I’ve been to some of them. In this case, the meeting was absolutely orderly.

It was fully self-disciplined. One after the other they described the conditions in the mines. And as my colleague from Sudbury East says, what have they got to lose? They are talking about their lives. I mean, I don’t think there is much greater reason for going out on strike than to preserve one’s life, and that’s what the issue now is in Elliot Lake. It’s nothing less than that. And it can’t be fobbed off with the kind of trivial responses which we got in the House.

Let me just read to you and then I’ll sit down. Let me just tell you of the kind of complaints which they registered with the public and with Denison:

18-38 panel roadway too dry and too much dust.

ST8 smokes too much -- operators complain eyes, nose and chest burning.

ST2 S-tram trainee seat too close to the yoke, could cut legs off a trainee.

Grizzly not safe. Jeeps and Unimogs do not stop, they proceed uphill at the same time as the scoop tram.

Have you ever seen a scoop tram, Mr. Minister? Have you ever seen a scoop tram?

My colleague from Nickel Belt and my colleague from Sudbury East and I were down at the 2,200 level of the North mine of International Nickel a week or 10 days ago and we toured the mine at some considerable length and we watched those scoop trams and I want to tell you they are bloody terrifying machines. I have never seen a machine like it. The way they move, the way they pick up the ore, the way they discharge it -- it’s like a juggernaut coming at you. And the proposition that in any mine the workers should be concerned about the operation of a scoop tram is something that cannot be defended on the part of government. The workers should not be concerned about that kind of thing. And that they set it out is something worth thinking about. In fact, I want to invite you to go down underground in Denison. I think you should.

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: I think as Minister of Energy, using these men as the source of supply for all that you want to construct in Ontario, you should take a day with some of your senior staff and go down underground in Denison.

Mr. Martel: And don’t let them prepare it two days ahead of time.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, the mine we were down in International Nickel had the best safety record of all the mines underground that Inco runs, all 10 of them. But I’d like you to see Denison. I have a feeling that you would have a rather different perspective on what is happening in the generation of nuclear power and the need to safeguard it in advance as well at the end.

To continue:

24209 panel misfired round, was mucked out -- this is not a safe procedure.

26 panel -- bad ventilation.

24 panel -- no visibility.

9671 JDT travelling in own smoke -- burns eyes and chest -- operators complain.

Jeeps smoke too much.

D6 operators complain of too much smoke.

I could go through them one after another. There were 60 specific violations of the Mining Act and scores upon scores of specific hazards raised. Some of them are marginally comic, except if you are a worker.

There are a lot of workers in that Denison Mine for whom there aren’t even washrooms. They relieve themselves beside their equipment. That’s the nature of the mine at a number of levels in Denison. You have got primitive conditions; you have got bad ventilation and dust levels and radiation hazards. You have got serious and now proved violations of human health, dangers to human health, and nothing is happening except for the Ministry of Health testing.

I say to you as strongly as I can that the lives of the workers in Elliot Lake cannot be toyed with. You are putting too much dependence on them to do that to them. I am not talking to you about wages; I am not talking to you about fringe benefits. I am not talking to you about the cost of living index. I am just talking to you about the right of those who are engaged in the mining of uranium ores to be protected. The present situation is scandalous and the Ministry of Natural Resources isn’t doing a bloody thing about it. The Ministry of Natural Resources suffers in its mining section from too many people from the industry; too many old boys from the industry, from management side, who find it tough to understand what the workers are experiencing in the mine.

Let me make one last point to you. Maybe some of it gets through, maybe none of it gets through, I don’t know. I know you listen and you absorb but whether it ever has any influence I don’t know. The workers who work in Denison can find no alternative employment. No one will hire them. Almost all of them suffer a disability already; almost all of them are silicotic in some degree or so it is now suspected; 10 per cent of them to a very considerable degree, proved. What do these people do? The uranium mines, for the majority of them now, are the only place to make a living. They are not acceptable anywhere else; they can’t get jobs anywhere else.

Have you taken a look at the life expectancy table of these workers? Have you seen how long they live on the average after they’re pensioned? Have you seen how many of them are on a disability pension now? It is like consigning them to a shorter life expectancy than all other kinds of workers in Ontario and then making no effort to provide them with security and safety on the job. That’s just not acceptable. That ranges into the moral argument which my colleague from Sandwich-Riverside made last night.

Last night, on the three moral grounds he gave you in discussing the whole generation of nuclear energy, he started with ground No. 1: If it is going to cost the life of a single worker is it worth it? You are not without recourse for doing something about the mines in Elliot Lake.

Mr. Martel: Clean up the ventilation.

Mr. Lewis: You can move in there and do it overnight. You are not going to offend the companies by coming down hard. You will embrace the admiration of the whole community and the appreciation of a very large number of people.

All right. I have transgressed slightly but I think appropriately on the minister’s estimates. We will have to pursue some of these things, not all of them, with the Minister of Natural Resources but clearly we must raise it here now because this is where it all begins. This is where your ministry originates for the next period of time.

I plead with you to speak to some of your colleagues, particularly the Minister of Natural Resources, and tell them to stop toying with human life. I use the phrase advisedly. There is no other way of describing the abdication of the mining branch of the Ministry of Natural Resources as it relates to Denison, Rio Algom and the community of Elliot Lake.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few comments, not on the particular subject raised by the last speaker. I wanted to go into --

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I want to continue along precisely this line.

Mr. Reid: That’s fine, go ahead.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury East then.

Mr. Martel: I won’t talk too long on this. I spent last Monday evening in Elliot Lake and I listened and I taped. I could provide the minister with the tape of the entire programme as the men spoke with despair. There is no hope.

I questioned the minister this morning about getting de Bastiani to sit down and to start to talk to the men. The minister replied again that it is an illegal strike and that there is very little they can do. The minister kept emphasizing it is an illegal strike. Sure it is an illegal strike. I don’t blame the men for not going back and they aren’t going back and the situation is going to get nasty because of the 60 demands which were submitted to de Bastiani and to which he was to reply yesterday. He now has refused to reply in totality and he refuses to even consider negotiations until the men go back to work.

It would be ludicrous for the men to go back to work. They walked out because at least 10 per cent have silicosis. There are three terminal cancer cases and there is one man who has already died. We are talking of working people by the thousands. As one young man so eloquently put it the other night that, “I’m just a little over 30,” he said. “If I stay in, I won’t be around to play with my kids and I won’t be around to pay for them to get to university if they want to go. What is the sense of going back to work?”

I put the question to the minister. What is the sense of those men going in unless there is some assurance from management and from the government, that it will be cleaned up? The Minister of Natural Resources has indicated that they are willing to do something now. This report was in 1961. I read to you only the first sentence. “In the Elliot Lake mines there is both a dust and a radiation problem.” The mines branch, to my knowledge, has not conducted a test since that time. Not a single solitary test was conducted, as far as the mining commission goes, until late last fall. That was an interesting test. The federal government, as I understand it, was either invited in by the province or vice versa, and they went up to Elliot Lake and they conducted some tests underground.

Talking to the men who came down from Elliot Lake yesterday, I was told the mine was watered down for two days. That means that every effort was being made to get the dust to settle. Six hours before the provincial people and the federal people went in to do the testing, all the pressures were turned off. So the type of analysis you would get after watering the place down for two days, after turning all of the pressures off, isn’t an indication of the conditions the men work under daily.

I appreciate the shortness of time left with respect to this, but as the leader of the party has said, there are 60 problems. If you would look at them you would see that the overwhelming majority deal with gas fumes from the diesels and with dust counts of which there is no accurate analysis. There is really no way that we are going to improve that situation. The battle lines are only going to harden unless the government intervenes and indicates to the men in a rather forthright manner that the ventilation is going to be improved and that the testing is going to be done regularly. Otherwise, there is so little hope or so little future for the overwhelming majority of men that they are not going back.

You can’t blame them with at least 10 per cent of them, or 140 roughly, with silicosis and at least four with cancer, those four being terminal cases. You can’t blame them for not going back in. If Denison isn’t going to move and sit down and negotiate in a frank, forthright manner before they go back then they are not going back because the future holds no hope. I would urge it upon this minister to impress upon his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources -- one of his chief men is directly out of the mines at Elliot Lake. The head of the mining division, Mr. Jewett, was the mines manager for Rio Tinto. The minister doesn’t expect him to have lost all his allegiance to the company. Some one other than the Minister of Natural Resources is going to have to take the bull by the horns over there, and I would urge it upon this minister to be the man to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Could I just determine from the hon. member for Rainy River, does he have lengthy remarks?

Mr. Reid: It will take five or 10 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the committee rise and report progress an ask leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report. agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty The Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

ROYAL ASSENT

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 26, the Land Transfer Act, 1974.

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the City of Belleville.

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

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the Wellington County Board of Education.

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

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

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Town of Strathroy.

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

Bill Pr11, An Act respecting the Town of Ingersoll.

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Tara Exploration and Development Co. Ltd.

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the Town of Walkerton.

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of Kitchener.

Bill Pr16, An Act respecting the City of Orillia.

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting Diamond and Green Construction Co. Ltd.

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting Victoria Hospital Corp. and the War Memorial Children’s Hospital of Western Ontario.

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

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the University of Western Ontario.

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Waterloo-Wellington Airport.

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting Savings and Investment Trust.

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting Lake of the Woods District Hospital.

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the Presbyterian Church Building Corp.

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Bill Pr31, An Act respecting the City of London.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman Management Board of Cabinet): On Monday, Mr. Speaker, because there is some urgency -- and I think I alluded to it last evening -- I will call first, item 10, Bill 31, and then item 9, Bill 25.

On Tuesday, I would hope to call, again because of some urgency -- a local matter of jurisdiction -- item 8, Bill 23; and I believe, sir, not contentious. Then item 7, Bill 22; and I will reiterate that the House will not sit on Tuesday evening, but that we will sit until 6 o’clock.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Monday night?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Monday night, yes.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): On a point of order, I am sorry -- the House leader did not call then the Land Speculation Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, item 9.

Mr. Lewis: Did he?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Are we not going back to these estimates?

Mr. Lewis: Then we are not likely to return to the estimates until about Thursday, I think.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, that is correct.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.