Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The Minister of Revenue.

REPORT ON LAND TAX ACTS

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, following passage of the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974 and of the Land Speculation Tax Act, a number of professionally interested groups and individuals, either voluntarily or in response to requests from my ministry, presented letters and briefs to us concerning the implementation of these important new pieces of legislation. These many submissions have been invaluable in aiding my staff as we have worked to further refine the legislation.

Additionally, an ad hoc committee was formed under the chairmanship of Mr. Ronald Anson-Cartwright, a partner with Price, Waterhouse and Co., chartered accountants, to review general submissions to the minister and to recommend administrative procedures or regulations required to implement the Acts. The committee’s report was presented to me on July 26, and because within its own proposals it deals with many of the suggestions contained in other submissions we received, I believe the ad hoc committee’s report would be a valuable reference for members of this House. I will, therefore, table the report today for the members’ perusal. Copies will be made available to all members.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It is out of date. That was July 26. It would have been invaluable on July 26.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food.

BEEF CALF LOAN PROGRAMME

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce at this time the introduction of a new programme called the Ontario beef calf loan programme and certain amendments to existing programmes of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food which will help to alleviate some of the extreme financial pressures being experienced by the province’s beef calf producers. Under the new programme, guaranteed bank loans will be provided to those producers of beef feeder calves who reside in the Province of Ontario. Loans may be used to pay operating expenses such as mortgage payments, taxes, rent, interest, and to purchase feed, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, farm supplies and any other material used in beef cow-calf production.

The loans will be available from Dec. 1, 1974, to March 31, 1975, with the term of the loan being for three years and repayable at any time, but the payment of full principal and interest is required when the loan is due. Loans will be based on the number of calves produced by a farmer and in his ownership on or after Aug. 1, 1974, up to $75 per calf to a maximum of 100 calves. The current commercial lending rate plus one per cent will apply to the loans, this can fluctuate if the rate changes, but the farmer will not be required to assume any increase in interest rates that might occur over and above the interest rate prevailing at the time the loan is made.

I hope this guaranteed loan programme will encourage beef-calf producers to hold their calves over where possible. I also hope beef producers will retain their best breeding stock, but cull out -- and I want to emphasize those words, Mr. Speaker -- but cull out and dispose of any undesirable beef cows, replacing them with quality beef heifers. This loan programme should assist producers to meet obligations that could have been taken care of if beef feeder calf prices had been more in keeping with the cost of production.

We believe this programme will assist farmers to maintain and upgrade the Ontario beef cow herd during this period of depressed feeder calf prices, thereby reducing the possibility of a beef scarcity developing in the next few years.

In 1972 we introduced the Ontario beef heifer loan programme to make credit available for the purchase of female beef breeding stocks. Certain amendments to that programme have been approved.

The present programme allows for a seven-year term with interest only during the first two years and principal plus interest over the remaining five years. Under the amended programme, the interest-only period will be extended up to three years instead of two and the term up to eight years instead of seven. This will allow those producers who are entering the third year of the programme to delay payment of the principal for another year. After that period, I sincerely hope the producer may then be in a better financial position to honour his commitments.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would inform the House that in view of the extreme shortages of hay and grain experienced as a result of unfavourable weather conditions in the Kenora, Rainy River and Dryden areas, the government of Ontario will be making funds available to the local agricultural committee to assist in transportation costs. This will allow the committee to locate adequate sources of hay and if hay is not available, hay equivalents in the form of grains, to meet the demands of livestock producers in the districts named. This, I might add, Mr. Speaker, is essentially the same programme as applied in the Thunder Bay district last year where similar problems affected livestock producers and which helped a great deal. I would like our friends in the north to know that we are looking after their interests.

Through the programmes I have just outlined I feel confident that farmers of this province will now have a more solid footing from which to make production decisions to ultimately assure Ontario consumers of an adequate supply of beef in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Any further statements by the ministry?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I presume this is the appropriate time to introduce a group in the gallery. I would like to draw the attention of the hon. members to a group in the west gallery; they are new Canadians who are taking a special course at Brant Public School under the able leadership of Mrs. M. Weinstock. I have, Mr. Speaker, from time to time introduced groups which I call “new Canadian groups”; really there is no other way to describe them. But I would like to point out that this is especially important work which is being done for new Canadians who are from all over the world, literally, and I am sure the hon. members would like to greet them.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to this House, and have the House join with me in welcoming a group of about 110 students from the C. W. Jefferys Secondary School in Yorkview, under the guidance of Mrs. Hamilton and Mr. Thom. Let us welcome them and hope they have a good visit here today.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

BEEF CALF LOAN PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food if he is aware that one of the problems that the beef producers of the type who are to be served by the programme announced this morning will continue to have is simply an income problem. And is he prepared to reject the proposals then put forward by the Federation of Agriculture for a programme which would at least come to grips in some measure with the fact that cow-calf producers, if they don’t have any other farm production for a basis of income, are going to be left high and dry? Those loans are simply not going to enable them to continue their operations.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition has certainly raised a valid point, and I recognize the problem with those people who depend entirely on beef cattle production. I would say, however, that generally speaking throughout the province most of the beef calves produced in Ontario are produced by people who have other sources of income. They may not be great, but many of them have off-farm sources of income; they may have cash crops and use the rough land pasture that may be available to them to run a herd of beef cows, to produce beef calves, in some cases pasturing their cows over the winter on cornstalks that may be left as refuse from the cash crop of corn.

Now, this doesn’t pertain in every case. However, we think that this type of programme will in some cases assist them to hold their calves over for another year, to grass them, and let them come back on the market next fall. In some cases, where the calves have already been sold and the debts have to be paid for this year’s production expenses, this will help them to meet those commitments, where they may not be able to get the money in any other way.

I would add, however, as I said yesterday, that there would seem to be considerable merit in the presentation made by the Federation of Agriculture. On the other hand, I think all of us, and certainly the beef producers of Ontario, recognize that certain adjustments have to be made. We felt that it wasn’t in the long-term best interest of consumers of beef or the total beef industry in this province, to do away with 20 per cent of the beef-cow herd in the Province of Ontario, as was proposed by the federation. Even though they suggested that those cows be replaced with heifer calves, there was no assurance whatever that those heifer calves would be retained for beef-calf production in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that over the years we have been bringing into the Province of Ontario approximately 400,000 head of feeder calves from western Canada on almost an annual basis, and it was with the thought in mind that we might be able to become a little more self-supporting -- certainly not totally self-supporting, but a little more so -- that we introduced the beef-heifer loan programme. That programme, I think, has contributed something to the increase of the beef-cow herd in Ontario -- I’m sure it has.

There are many others who have gone out on their own to expand the beef-cow herd in this province. And, unfortunately, with the trend in world economics and particularly -- and I associate this without any fear of contradiction -- the trend towards spending money for energy in many areas rather than on buying beef, has slowed up the use of beef in many countries; This has generated, to a very marked degree, the world surplus of beef which now appears. It virtually appeared out of nowhere, but it appeared simultaneously with the energy problem.

So, I simply suggest that there is that period of adjustment we are going to go through; and I don’t think that we can be all things to all people. But I do feel that the programme we have introduced this morning is a responsible one and is responsive to a need that we all recognize does exist.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: With a world surplus in beef, and the fact that the prices here are still at $1.79 to $1.89 per pound for red brand beef, would the minister not consider it a part of his function to stimulate these markets, which he is attempting to assist in this loan programme, by making the lower grades of beef available on a more readily marketable basis? Anybody who is looking for a lower grade of beef finds it difficult to obtain. Most stores simply carry the red brand products.

In an effort to make consumption of those grades more readily available to those who feel that $1.89 is a price that they are not prepared to pay, is there anything that this ministry, through the food council, can do in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has suggested the going price of the top quality beef over the counter. As I mentioned yesterday, and as I am sure he fully realizes, the price of the top quality fed cattle -- that is, slaughtered cattle -- has not really depreciated that much.

The problem is with the young calves that have to be grown out; and because of the high cost of grain, the farmers are simply not able to pay the prices they would like to be able to pay for those feeder cattle.

The price of some of the lower grades of beef has indeed come down, and I’m referring to stewing beef and to hamburg. It has come down substantially from last year’s prices, by a substantial margin -- I don’t have the figures at my fingertips, but if memory serves me correctly, about 50 cents a pound. In fact, I think in some cases there has been a drop greater than 50 cents a pound from this time last year.

This, of course, reflects the increased input of the feeder calves that are going directly to slaughter. The slaughter of these feeder calves, between 400 and 550 lb, has already increased by 20,000 head this year over last year in the United States.

There is a substantial increase here in Ontario and in Canada. There is certainly a substantial increase in beef cow kill in the United States, but it hasn’t really been reflected here in Canada yet. There are also substantial quantities of processing beef coming in from Australia and New Zealand. This is being reflected in a much lower cost for those grades of beef in most of the food markets.

MEAT PLANT INSPECTION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This could be a new question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Has he assured himself that provincial inspection, particularly having to do with ground beef, is at the level that is certainly expected? Or is there a possibility that some of the ground beef we have been hearing about, at least in reports from the House of Commons, where federal inspection has been less than perfect in that regard -- have we any responsibility in this? A good deal of this product comes directly under provincial inspection.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have. We have taken steps as late as a year ago to assure that in any plant where processing of ground beef took place that adequate health precautions and cleanliness were observed. We instructed our inspectors as late as a year ago to take the proper steps necessary to see that adequate sanitary protection was provided.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): A supplementary, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary; the hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: How many inspectors do we have in Ontario directly involved in the inspection of meat for the purposes of health and safety, or bacteria count or whatever, doing that specific job? The revelation that there are only 10 actually involved in meat with the federal government prompts one to ask that question of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give the hon. member the exact figure on that. We have a sizable number of meat inspectors throughout the province providing provincial meat inspection in the slaughter plants. Some of those plants process meat; that’s hamburg or cooked meat products where the product is cooked there. Not all of the plants do that by any means. Most of them simply slaughter the beef and then sell it direct to consumers or to butcher shops which then sell it to the retail trade.

I can’t give that answer at the moment. I just don’t have the figure.

Mr. Lewis: The minister can get it though, I take it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: In light of the fact that the State of Oregon does have bacterial count standards and that the State of Ohio has coliform standards, and also that the city of Edmonton has bacterial count standards, is the ministry considering legislation that would require bacterial count standards for fresh and ground beef?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I see the wisdom of having those standards established and we would certainly support the establishment of standards, but we frankly feel that because of the federal involvement in federally inspected slaughter plants and processing plants, and the involvement of provincial inspection as well, the standards should be established at federal level and then those would apply uniformly. Our jurisdiction would have no authority in plants where federal inspection takes place, but I think that if there was a standard established -- and I understand from newspaper reports that this is being considered -- then we would support that position.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may: By what standards then do the provincial inspectors judge? To what extent do they concern themselves with bacteria counts and with the measurement of potential health hazards in their inspection?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is not done on the basis of actual bacteria count. It’s done on the basis of making sure that the plant and the equipment and the procedure used is satisfactory and appropriate, so that the unfortunate instances that we have all become aware of recently simply do not occur, and I have reasonable assurance that this certainly is the case.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

RELEASE OF GERALD HUBBARD

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Correctional Services if he has any jurisdiction over the facilities at Penetanguishene and the prison patients who are sent there by the courts?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): No, I don’t, Mr. Speaker. That comes under the Ministry of Health.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), and also the Attorney General (Mr. Welch), I wonder if he might see that the House is provided with information next week having to do with the procedures which enabled Gerald Hubbard to be released from Penetang on Sept. 5, 1973? Mr. Hubbard took up residence in Brantford, committed a murder on Jan. 5, 1974, has been tried and convicted for that murder and there is every indication that the supervision under his loose warrant, as it is called, was inadequate in this regard. I ask the question only because of the continued absence of the ministers who would be directly responsible.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, I will bring this to the attention of the Attorney General and have him check it out for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

BREAKDOWN AT PICKERING HYDRO STATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, I would like to ask the Minister of Energy if he can report to the House the situation at Pickering which we have been reading about recently, involving a breakdown to some extent in the system, which has reduced the level of energy being produced there. Can he give us some indication of what the timetable will be for the correction of this and what the additional cost in the provision of fossil fuel is while the breakdown is keeping the flow of energy reduced?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): On the specific question the Leader of the Opposition has asked, Mr. Speaker, I can’t answer as to what the timetable is. The testing is still going on. It’s only in one unit, of course, and the one unit was down for repairs. I think in any case that Hydro’s investigations to date, interestingly enough, have concluded that the problem, which is a mechanical or an engineering problem and not in any way a safety problem, is caused when that unit is not running. I suppose the answer is to keep them running, but obviously they have to be down at certain times.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Do they break down when they are not running?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The defect resulted from the fact that the unit was too cold and not running. It didn’t happen when it was running. There were the original three tubes and I think they have discovered seven more. The testing will continue until Hydro is certain that all the leaking pressure tubes have been identified and replaced before starting up the reactor again. I can’t give the Leader of the Opposition the timetable on that.

In terms of the cost which the member asked about, it is about $3,000 an hour in replacement fuel for fossil fuel, if fossil fuel is being used, and that depends on the time of the day or the day of the year. Of course, the other three units are working and they, theoretically, are saving the $3,000 in fossil fuel.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: What’s going to happen when they shut them down for their regular inspection? Are their tubes going to crack?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that’s the conclusion that Hydro has come to. They will be closed down and the same procedure will be gone through. It is a mechanical thing. Any generating unit of any kind, shape or description periodically has maintenance problems. I think that’s how this is best described. They’re in a learning process as to what caused this.

Mr. Lewis: Certainly that is the most reassuring description.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since the minister is here and before he goes up to the Arctic, perhaps he would also give us a report on the situation at Nanticoke. Is it possible that those other generators there are going to have the very far-reaching difficulties that were experienced when they had the fire down there some months ago?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think so. I’m sorry, I’m not up on it. I’ll get that information for the hon. member, but I don’t think so. I think the investigation to date there indicates that it was a problem with one unit which will not necessarily be a problem in the other units. That’s a Howden unit and the people are out from the UK testing it, and so on. I don’t think we have any final answer on it as yet.

I am not going to the Arctic. As a matter of fact, I’m going up to the riding of Brant today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Brantford.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the hon. member for Welland South.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Wait until the Leader of the Opposition’s constituents hear that he referred to it as the Arctic.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Is there any production at all of energy coming out of the Nanticoke plant now?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No.

Mr. Haggerty: Is it completely shut down?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It’s completely shut down.

Mr. Haggerty: Then where is Hydro purchasing the energy from?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Other than on an intermittent basis, we are not purchasing any energy. Everything else -- the three units at Pickering -- are working well. The Clarke Keith unit in Windsor, which is a very small unit, has been used probably more than it normally would have been. Basically, because of the reserve margin at this moment in time, we have not found it necessary to purchase any power. As a matter of fact, in the last report I had we are still in a position to be exporting at a very nice profit a considerable amount of power to the United States. This would indicate that at this moment -- I’ll answer the question before the member asks it -- perhaps we’re somewhat overbuilt. Six months from now we won’t be.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No.

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

REVERSAL OF INQUIRY OFFICER’S REPORT IN CHATHAM AREA

Mr. Lewis: I have a question first, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of the Environment to satisfy my curiosity to know where to proceed after this question period. Is the legal controversy in which we discovered the minister is engaged, with the farmers in the Chatham area, such that it is sub judice and he is not able to speak on it in committee, or will he, in fact, be able to discuss his reversal of the inquiry officer’s report?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have talked to my legal people this morning. As I said to the member last night, I would be glad to talk to him about it, but they have advised me that because it’s coming before the courts and notice has been given, I should really not be discussing it at this point in time. It would be illegal or wrong for me to do it and they advise that I do not do this.

Mr. Renwick: It actually wouldn’t be wrong for the minister to do that.

Hon. W. Newman: In this particular case, I have to go by the legal advice that I get.

Mr. Renwick: Ask any lawyer and he’ll give the minister that answer. The minister knows, as well as I do, that in this Legislature that is --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary -- and we can presumably come back to this in committee, but I just want to get it in here -- does the minister mean, as a minister of the Crown who did the unprecedented thing of reversing an inquiry officer’s report in toto, he is not now entitled in the Legislature to discuss the reasons for his reversal with members of this House simply because somebody is challenging that reversal?

Hon. W. Newman: Well, the legal people tell me that since there has been an action brought to set aside, I should not be discussing the case because it would be coming before the courts.

Mr. Renwick: They are not members of the assembly and they don’t understand the authority of this House.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): And the courts can’t look at the records of this House.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, I have to take the legal advice that is given to me.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I am going to raise it in the committee anyway when we get there, but I would ask you, sir, to look into this matter to see whether the rights of the members of the Legislature are not being infringed upon by the effective silencing of the minister with legal authority which I think is utter nonsense. I would appreciate your looking at this because it is a very important matter.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. member that I will pursue it.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you, sir.

RE-EMPLOYMENT OF DISABLED MINERS

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Subsequent to the discussions about Elliot Lake and the hazards to the miners and the levels of compensation benefits, has his ministry engaged in any discussion with the Workmen’s Compensation Board about the miners who are now on pension with a heavy silicotic disability level, what will happen to them now and in the future?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Not my ministry, Mr. Speaker. I have had some discussions with the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board and those discussions are continuing. But my ministry as such has not had any discussions with them that I know of.

Mr. Lewis: All right. By way of supplementary, is the minister aware that medical authority via the board is being given in Elliot Lake to return miners, in this case a man with a 35 per cent silicotic disability, to an area of the mine with significant dust exposure? Can the minister possibly explain to me how these things can continue to occur when there is obvious public awareness that to return a person to that kind of condition is to reduce his life expectancy?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know that that is going on. I would hope it would not be going on if there is any medical risk.

Mr. Lewis: It is going on.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I know at points they decide that these people are fit to return to some sort of duty, and I hope that that decision is based on sound medical evidence. If the member has any particular cases he would like me to investigate, I will be glad to do so.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister think that anyone on a permanent disability pension, for something like 35 per cent silicotic disability, should ever return to any area of the mine where dust exposure occurs? Can the minister find any medical opinion where that would be justified?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that would be a medical opinion. As a layman, my off-the-cuff opinion probably would be the same as that of the hon. member. It doesn’t make sense.

Mr. Lewis: The problem is the doctors should work in the mines for a while.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That is the difficulty. Those doctors should find out what it is like to work in these places.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: But medically I have no idea whether that is reasonable or not, but I will certainly be glad to get some more particular information.

EAGLE MACHINE CO. LTD. BANKRUPTCY

Mr. Lewis: A further question of the Minister of Labour.

Has it been brought to the attention of the minister that on Thursday, Oct. 17, at 4:15 p.m., Eagle Machine Co Ltd in London closed down on a voluntary bankruptcy affecting 75 employees, 60 of whom have been told that they will not receive back pay, severance payments or vacation pay under the Employment Standards Act until all of the other creditors have been served?

Is there any way of intervention for his ministry to assure, for a change in Ontario, that the workers have an entitlement prior to that of the banks?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been determined that vacation pay is regarded as trust pay and that it has priority as such. The rest of it, I am afraid, is under the bankruptcy law. We are doing everything that we can to have the federal government give priority to wages. We are of the opinion -- and I think with very good reason -- that the old tradition is wrong that the Crown, whether federal or provincial, should take priority in bankruptcy to that of the worker who has earned his money. We think that is wrong. We want the federal government to change it.

I have no knowledge of this particular case but, apart from vacation pay, I would think that they would have to rank as the bankruptcy law currently ranks them, after the preferred and secured creditors.

Mr. Lewis: The injustice is so constant. Is there nothing that the province can do by way of legislative activity which would dictate that the workers who have earned their wages have first call on the closing of a plant? Is there no precedence that could be established in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t think there is any precedence in Ontario, but I understand, Mr. Speaker, that they have passed this in British Columbia -- and so far it hasn’t been challenged.

Mr. Lewis: So why not here?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The constitutionality of it is rather doubtful, but I don’t think there have been any test cases in British Columbia. It may be worth a try. I would rather see the federal government change their law.

Mr. Lewis: Well, this government should try first, and we’ll wait for them.

DAYCARE SERVICES

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Community and Social Services -- because I’m still vague about all of this -- if the advisory council on day care which he appointed, met to discuss the regulations set out by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) on June 4 -- have they actually discussed the regulations as they relate to ratios and to staff qualifications?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member probably saw the terms of reference of the advisory committee, and the terms of reference are very broad; this whole aspect is being looked into. We have a very important advisory committee, geographically comprised of various organizations --

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- and this is one of the matters where they are looking at the whole spectrum. Our objective is to provide as much daycare service in this province as possible and, at the same time, to keep a high standard. We have a good reputation, a very enviable reputation, and we are building upon it.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Probably the best in the world.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Just to give you an example -- and I don’t know if the member is aware of this -- so far we’ve received over 200 applications under our new programme.

Mr. Lewis: I am sure the minister did.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We’ve approved more than 20 so far, in municipalities, Indian bands, associations. We have a tremendous interest in day care.

Mr. Lewis: Right. I would appreciate an answer to the question.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, very comprehensive.

Mr. Lewis: All right, I’ll put it again.

No. 1, has the advisory committee which the minister appointed yet discussed the controversial aspects of the regulations set out by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development?

No. 2, will they get a chance to discuss those regulations before they are gazetted and become law in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I told the advisory committee that I appointed them to look into the whole aspect of day care, everything.

Mr. Lewis: Why not answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This includes fire regulations, everything.

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on. The minister knows which regulations.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Listen to me. They have the authority to look into everything concerning daycare regulations. I don’t know how one can be more specific.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The concern of the community in day care is not with the fire regulations, which seem to be of fairly high standard, and the provision of other services -- which seem to be, as the minister pointed out, as good or better than anywhere in the world -- but the concern is with the policy to reduce the quality of the day care itself.

In light of the fact that many people in this area think that the minister is not totally in support of his colleague’s statement, shouldn’t the minister make a clear statement with regard to the putting of these specific areas of concern before his advisory committee, rather than trying to put a cloud over the whole thing by discussing fire regulations?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The really contentious area is staff ratio. There are some parents who will bring their children at 7 o’clock in the morning and pick them up at 6 o’clock at night. There are others who will bring them in for two hours; others for half a day. So this whole spectrum is one which needs clarification; and this is one of the purposes of the advisory committee, to give us guidance --

Mr. Foulds: Have they met about it?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of supplementary question, let me try once more to get what we want from the minister. Will the minister give an undertaking to the House that the regulations will not be filed and gazetted until such time as the advisory committee has made a report on the draft regulations and that report has been made available to members of this assembly?

Mr. Lewis: Exactly; perfect.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, I would like to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the advisory committee has the authority to look into the regulations concerning all aspects.

Mr. Lewis: No, they haven’t. The minister has been stalling the advisory committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Has Margaret Birch come to a meeting of the advisory committee to discuss the regulations which the minister promulgated?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lewis: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the hon. member that he should refer to the minister by her title and not her name.

Mr. Foulds: That would be unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Provincial Secretary for Social Development met specifically with the advisory committee to discuss the controversial regulations of June 4? Why is the minister barring the advisory committee from presenting a report to this House before you put those regulations into effect? Why are you bulling those regulations through in Ontario before the right of your own committee to pronounce on them?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are not bulling any regulations.

Mr. Lewis: You certainly are.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I have met with the advisory council. I don’t know whether my colleague has or not.

Mr. Lewis: Why don’t you know? It is your advisory committee.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Are you aware of all that your colleagues are doing?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member know where the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) is today?

Mr. Lewis: He is at the commodity market.

LAND-USE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Mr. Lewis: I have one last question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. What has come of your land-use development plan for Ontario, discussed and articulated at La Scala at lunch with John White and several businessmen?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Those matters are still under very active consideration, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: At dinner, no doubt.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I didn’t think the NDP frequented such posh places.

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

PROVINCIAL JAIL AT FORT FRANCES

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services. May I ask the minister if his ministry has chosen a location for a new provincial jail in the Fort Frances area? If so, when can we expect construction to begin and completion to take place?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Speaker, there hasn’t been any decision made on that at the present time. When the time comes I’ll certainly advise the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for York Centre.

MOTHERS ON FAMILY BENEFITS

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. What is the minister’s attitude toward the wishes of mothers who are on family benefits and who have dependent families to improve the incentives and the opportunities for them to add to their earnings by outside employment? What is the attitude toward the question of providing them with the same benefits and same support that foster parents are given for the care of children? Has the minister given consideration particularly to the first aspect, that of not leaving these people in what is an effective 75 per cent income tax bracket?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We certainly have, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member is aware that prior to Oct. 1 a mother was only allowed to earn $24, plus $12 for each child. As of Oct. 1, a mother is allowed, if she is a single person, to earn $50 without any deductions, and if she has children she can earn up to $100.

Just as a hypothetical example, a mother with three children would get from family benefits about $350 a month -- I could be out a few dollars. She can earn an additional $100 through part-time work which, without any deductions, would bring her total income to $450. Of course, as the hon. member is aware, she is also entitled to free OHIP premiums, drug assistance and so forth.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, it is fantastically generous.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, it is.

Mr. Lewis: It is amazing.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Those people opposite have all the easy solutions.

Mr. Lewis: That is why the mother-led union is on the march.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: This is one of the most generous earning ceiling exemptions in Canada.

Mr. Lewis: Oh yes, it is really beneficial.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Now, what the NDP doesn’t understand is this: There are many people in this province, the so-called low-wage earners, the working poor --

Mr. Lewis: So-called, right.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- and if the exemptions are raised too high then it will be a disincentive for people to work.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, yes. The minister wouldn’t want to make welfare too high; he wants to keep people in dependency to maintain the class difference.

Mr. Renwick: He has to get those low-paying jobs performed, doesn’t he?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Now the member’s second question.

Mr. Lewis: Next the minister will be advocating birth control for low/middle-income families.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: He must have had a bad night, Mr. Speaker. The second question.

Mr. Lewis: Bad night? We have spent a week here.

Mr. Renwick: We have been through this argument too many times.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We do not believe it would be advisable to give the mothers on family benefits the same income as foster parents have. Foster parents receive somewhere around -- it depends, I think it is $75 for the first child. Therefore we do not believe that this is advisable.

Mr. Lewis: Too much opportunity.

Mr. Renwick: Make them struggle.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As the provincial Treasurer mentioned, the highest priority was the elderly and those who are blind and physically disabled.

Mr. Lewis: The children are different. They are made differently; their needs are different. So why give them more money?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They are not made differently.

Mr. Renwick: I think the minister has the same attitude as that fellow in England that belongs to his party -- Sir Keith Joseph or whatever his name is.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: We are aware that families with children today are having a very difficult time in view of inflation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have increased our assistance as of Oct. 1. The assistance in the past year to those on social assistance has been an average of about 30 per cent. But the whole area of more assistance to families with children is under very active consideration.

Mr. Deacon: Supplementary: Would the minister not agree that instead of increasing these amounts that they can earn without paying any tax, as in the form he is doing, he should actually have reduced the effective rate of tax applying to these people? For example, I would think there are very few people in this province would understand that at an income level of say $6,500 these people would be facing a 75 per cent rate of tax on all income over the $5,400 level, which is what he is now saying; a 75 per cent rate of income tax.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Has the member introduced the question yet?

Mr. Deacon: I was asking the minister to consider changing the level of tax.

Mr. Renwick: Question?

Mr. Deacon: Okay. I’m sorry I’m not being technical enough to satisfy the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I just want a question, that’s all. It is question period.

Mr. Deacon: Will the minister consider reducing the effective rate of tax from 75 per cent to one that is more in keeping with the rate of tax that ordinary folk who are not in need of this kind of support have to pay? Will the minister consider changing the level so that at $5,400 the effective rate of tax is down around the 25 or 30 per cent level?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, we certainly have an open mind on this and it’s a subject that we will be discussing next month. It’s a subject that the federal government and the provinces are very interested in.

As the hon. members know, there is an income security review that has been going on for some time. It’s a subject that there is no easy answer to, but it is certainly one that we are willing to receive suggestions on and are trying to provide as much assistance as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

REPORT ON LAND TAX ACTS

Mr. Renwick: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. I have just had an opportunity to read the interim report of his advisory committee.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is what you call fast reading.

Mr. Lewis: What does he mean? It is a mere bagatelle for the member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: I’d like to know whether the committee is continuing and whether it has been given further terms of reference? I would like to know whether there is any intention on the minister’s part to draft regulations to implement any of the recommendations? I would like to know whether he intends to introduce amendments to either one or both of those statutes during this session? And if he is going to introduce regulations, will he give us an opportunity to see them tabled in this House in draft form before they are promulgated?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, the committee is not continuing at the present time. It is not officially disbanded so far as I know. The chairman, Mr. Anson-Cartwright, will be and is, I expect, in constant touch with his colleagues on that committee. But at the present time, I have not assigned any further material to them.

In answer to the second question by the hon. member: Yes, we do intend to implement many of the recommendations of the committee with respect to both of these Acts, both by amendments to the Acts and by regulations. I will not undertake to tender the proposed regulations in total to the House or to committee, but I do intend to introduce later today amendments to the Land Speculation Tax Act and, as soon as the drafting can be completed, appropriate amendments to the Land Transfer Tax Act, perhaps as early as Friday of next week if the drafting can be completed by that time.

I might add that since the Act is in place and since, in many respects, they both seem to be working quite well and there isn’t the same urgency toward completion of the amendments --

Mr. Lawlor: Nothing is moving in the province.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- as there was to getting the Acts in place in the spring --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister is the only person in the province who thinks they are working well.

Mr. Lawlor: Frozen.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- I’m looking forward, following second reading of these amendment Acts, to putting them into standing committee where we can have a real go at them, both from the opposition and from other interested parties.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale with his supplementary.

Mr. Renwick: Would the minister let us know whether or not any progress has been made on the vexed question of the deductibility of the taxes for federal income tax and Ontario corporations tax purposes?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that any real progress has been made. The Treasurer and I spent what I felt was a very productive couple of hours --

Mr. Reid: At La Scala.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue in Ottawa on Wednesday, the 16th of this month, and I gained the distinct impression from that meeting that the federal people are in sympathy with our objectives. They have some difficulties in dealing with our Act, of course, having to represent all of Canada. I have no specifics from the Minister of Finance yet as to the course of action to be taken, but I hope that there will be some statement forthcoming from the federal government in the near future.

In the meantime, I do want to emphasize, and I have been actively emphasizing, that there is no intention on the part of this government to make our land speculation tax confiscatory or punitive. And there’s no intention that the net tax result on the taxpayers of this province would exceed the figures set out in the Treasurer’s budget statement of April 9, namely a maximum of about 86 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, particularly arising out of the minister’s last remarks, can I take those as a commitment that in the event the provincial taxes are not deductible from federal tax as an expense of doing business, that the provincial tax will make an adjustment, retroactive if necessary?

The second supplementary I wish to put is that in view of the volume of queries, inquiries, rulings and suggestions, doesn’t the minister find it a little hard to say that the tax is working well? Has he not heard the great concern amongst others, such as industrial developers, about the almost complete impossibility of getting on with industrial development in this province in view of the effect of these taxes?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, we think the Acts are working well. I think it’s fair to say that it isn’t only these Acts that have had the effect of tending to flatten out real estate prices. We do recognize that there are some perhaps unnecessary inhibitions that have been imposed in some sectors. I think when the hon. member for Downsview has had a chance to read through the recommendations of the report, as evidently the member for Riverdale already has done --

Mr. Singer: I glanced at them.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- there are some recommendations that will ease the difficulties in some sectors.

Mr. Singer: Page 103 puzzles me very much.

Hon. Mr. Meen: As to the member’s first question, all I am saying is that in one way or another -- and there are various ways in which we could tackle the question of the allowability or the non-allowability of the tax for purposes of computation of federal income tax -- by one method or another we will see that the net tax result to the taxpayers does not exceed those figures set out by the Treasurer, whether it be by amendment to the Act or otherwise; and certainly any such effect would be retroactive.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Singer: I have one more supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The time is just about finished. We should take the balance of the time on questions.

Mr. Singer: This is so vital to the economy of the province --

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

SPECIAL PERMITS IN NORTHWESTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Reid: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Has the minister taken any steps to reply or take action on the request of the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association in regard to special permits? Has he seen his way clear to do something about setting up an office somewhere in northwestern Ontario to serve that area of the province so that special permits can be obtained readily?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I have received written communications along these lines from several communities in northwestern Ontario. I am considering it now, and I will be prepared to make a statement when we introduce new legislation later in this session.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Thunder Bay have a question?

The member for Wentworth.

ELEVATOR SAFETY

Mr. Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations as soon as I can get his attention.

I would like to ask whether the minister would consider rewriting the regulations governing the inspection of elevators to ensure that when the mechanisms are tampered with or when the warning systems are not operative that the elevator itself will not be able to function?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s fine so long as one is not in it.

Mr. Deans: It’s fine as long as one is not in it. What is the point of having a warning system if it is not working?

Hon. Mr. Clement: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that is already covered in the existing regulations. That’s only my impression. I’ll have to look into it and get back to the hon. member. So that I can understand it, is the member suggesting that if something is tampered with that the device just won’t operate?

Mr. Deans: No. I refer the minister to a recent death in the city of Hamilton, where an elevator was able to operate even though the warning device had been disconnected. What happened was that the elevator could be stopped and played around with and the warning device, the bell which rings to inform whoever looks after it that there’s something wrong with it, has been disconnected and wasn’t operating.

I suggest to the minister that, if and when some tampering is undertaken with whatever the mechanical operation of the elevator is, the elevator ought not to be able to operate until such time as it’s corrected. I mean mechanically unable to operate. I don’t mean it shouldn’t be allowed to. It shouldn’t be able to.

Hon. Mr. Clement: It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that that’s something that won’t be corrected by regulations. It should be perhaps corrected in the design of the elevator.

I spoke to the technical standards director the other day about this very incident. I take it the member is referring to the tragedy in Hamilton some days ago when a little girl fell. Any elevator, I am advised, can be stopped by pushing the emergency button which will stop it between floors. Then with certain degrees of pressure one can pry those doors open and can insert a hand or a knee and force those doors completely open between floors.

I don’t wish to comment on the matter in Hamilton because I expect an inquest has been ordered or will be ordered in that matter. But I stress that it may be an imperfection in the design and not in any breach of any regulations. I don’t see how we can correct this with the law. I think it should be done, if it’s a design problem, in that way. I’ll follow up on that.

Mr. Deans: We will talk about it. I can’t do it here.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has now expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Meen presented the report of the minister’s advisory committee on the Land Transfer Tax Act, 1974, and the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Grossman moves that the House will sit on Wednesday next, Oct. 30, at the usual hour of 2 p.m.

Mr. Reid: Including the evening?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It could be evening. I understand that that is probably the intention.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills. The hon. Minister of Revenue.

LAND SPECULATION TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of the Land Speculation Tax Act, 1974, at the time of the April, 1974 budget, we made the point that it would be pioneering legislation and indicated then that we anticipated changes. This amending bill results from our various investigations, suggestions from hon. members of this House and submissions such as that of the ad hoc committee that I tabled earlier, in addition to our own experiences with the administration of the Act.

These new refinements will facilitate the administration and ease problems which the public may still be experiencing, without undermining the integrity of the Act.

The major adjustments in the bill are outlined as follows:

1. A clarification of the treatment of dispositions of farming land.

2. A change in the treatment of leases under the Act so that leases of 50 years or less will not be taxable, while leases exceeding 50 years will be taxed as dispositions at fair market value of the land underlying the lease.

3. A considerable expansion of the investment property reduction available to the owners of rented residential accommodation. The requirement to wait until April 9, 1977, before claiming this reduction has been eliminated, and the period for which the reduction can be claimed may include the period prior to April 9, 1974.

In addition, the investment property reduction concept has been extended to include farm property, and provision is made to reduce the tax on farm property to zero if the farm has been farmed in the family for 10 years prior to its disposition outside the family. The 10-year period may include time prior to April 9, 1974.

4. A new and more effective method of exempting dispositions of subdivided serviced land is proposed. This exemption will now depend on the availability of building permits and on the expenditure of money to service the land by the developer who seeks the benefit of the exemption.

5. A roll-over to allow shareholders of a corporation that is being wound-up or dissolved to take the land out of the corporation free of tax, but at the acquisition cost of the designated land to the corporation. This will apply whether or not the corporation has 50 per cent or more of its assets in designated land.

The experience of my own ministry in the administration of this Act over the past six months indicates that the changes proposed here are desirable, but that problems may continue to arise in the application of the Act to particular situations.

More changes in the Act may prove to be necessary as these problems are analysed by my ministry, and by the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. But the changes proposed today will go a long way in clarifying the application of the Act to many areas of endeavour in Ontario.

And, in conclusion, I might add, the Land Speculation Tax Act will continue to operate with full force in helping to restrain inflationary pressures on land values in this province.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Might as well rescind the whole Act.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

MOOSONEE DEVELOPMENT AREA BOARD ACT

Mr. Deacon moves first reading of bill intituled An Act to amend the Moosonee Development Area Board Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the election of members to the board by means of a general election rather than by designation by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

I don’t think a community of 2,000 people, most of whom are Indians, should be discriminated against by having no right to --

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the time for debate of course.

Mr. Deacon: -- vote, and this is to give them that right.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 17th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES OF THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Chairman: Estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Chairman, I hope you will forgive me just for a moment to make a comment which is not related to the estimates.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): I would hope not.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hope that Mrs. Weinstock will explain to her new Canadian class that the small attendance on Friday is not indicative of the usual attendance of the members of this House.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Oh yes it is.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The weekend is usually the time when out-of-town members, some of whom have to travel long distances, are not here.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): We will let her know that that is not, strictly speaking, true.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t know why the hon. member is getting so excited. I am also apologizing for all of his members who are absent, 17 of them.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Go back to the estimates.

Mr. Deacon: We do far better when you don’t have to apologize.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t know why you had to interrupt. I’m sure the member feels badly about the attendance just the same as anyone does.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, to get back to the estimates; with your permission, it’s my intention to open the estimates of the policy field committee on Resources Development with a brief statement concerning the policy field concept.

Even though it was introduced nearly three years ago, there is still a good deal of misunderstanding about this system of government. Therefore, I thought it might be helpful to go into some of the work of the policy field secretariats generally.

The Committee on Government Productivity correctly anticipated the problems this government -- indeed governments across Canada and in much of the western world -- would be facing because of the ever increasing interrelated nature of issues today. Swollen and multi-faceted, the economic, social and environmental tasks before government are so entwined they no longer can be dealt with independently of each other. There has been from time to time, since the policy field system was first established by this government, criticism from some across this House as to the need for the secretariats.

Mr. Deans: No, on the effectiveness, not the need.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right. Many of these same critics have called for a return to the former system designed in and for days long gone. Many of these same critics have called for a return to the former system which, as I say, hasn’t worked in modern times. That’s not good enough, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): How many ministers in the Resources Development field are with the minister today?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member is going to have all the time he wants to ask questions.

Mr. Deans: No he isn’t.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Suddenly, Mr. Chairman, in the last few years, as has happened with all modern governments, the problems have become horizontal, affecting the programmes and policies of several ministries at once.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): It is just the ministers who have become horizontal.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A return to the days of vertical isolation, where ministries often acted quite independently of each other, is not only outmoded and outdated but I can tell you, sir, most definitely out of the question. The policy field concept has allowed us to develop a smooth, efficient, integrated relationship between all ministries concerned --

Mr. Stokes: That’s why they’re all here today.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- with a given problem, and between the government of Ontario and the public.

Mr. Lawlor: Where are all these ministers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, as a former vice-chairman and a current member of Management Board, I continue to retain a keen interest in government organization. When we accepted COGP report No. 3 at Management Board, we did so only after a tremendous amount of discussion and review. But we were confident it would work; and, sir, it does work.

Let me quote briefly from COGP report No. 3:

“As members of the policy and priorities board of cabinet, policy ministers would assume a leadership role in initiating, developing, assessing and modifying new policies and programmes. The second major aspect of a policy minister’s role affects his relationship with the general public. Once freed from the administrative responsibilities of a portfolio, a policy minister would be in a position to devote considerably more time to achieving improvements in the linkages between government and citizens. Such a task has always been of major importance to any government, but it is taking on added significance in a period when many citizens are no longer content to leave decision-making on public questions entirely in the hands of elected representatives.”

Mr. Lawlor: How are the minister’s linkages these days?

Mr. Foulds: It sounds like sausages to me.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To continue:

“Policy ministers, as here conceived, would have the opportunity to spend more time gathering reactions from citizens as to the effectiveness of government programmes.”

That’s the end of the quote from the report. These two points stand out, Mr. Chairman, and here I repeat that particular quote:

“A leadership role in initiating, developing, assessing and modifying new policies and programmes; and gathering reactions from citizens.”

Mr. Foulds: It means a slowing down.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, our cabinet committee meets at least 45 times a year and averages more than four items per meeting. We cover more than 200 policy issues annually.

Mr. Lawlor: I am amazed that more doesn’t get done.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The policy and priorities board, of which each provincial secretary is a member, follows a similar pattern.

Mr. Stokes: Not one of those ministers is here today.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t know that that proves anything. If the hon. member wants to discuss it later, I would be very pleased to do so.

Mr. Foulds: Some of the links are missing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no more reason for them being here at this particular time than there is for me being here when a particular minister in my policy field makes a statement. Nothing would get done if we ever insisted upon that sort of thing.

Mr. Foulds: Something would get done if you knew what you were doing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, leadership in policy development is indeed a major aspect of the provincial secretaries’ role.

This work may not be very newsworthy, but through this system the people of Ontario are assured of policies and legislation which in turn produce good government.

On the subject of good communication with the people, I refer hon. members to the many delegations who have found considerable satisfaction in being able to deal with a single provincial secretary or his committee on issues which touch several ministries.

The public’s frustration in previous times in having to knock on several doors to get its views across is well documented. But because of the provincial secretariat system, this is virtually a thing of the past.

An hon. member: Oh yeah!

Mr. Lawlor: I would like to see that documented.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Our policy committee recently completed a two-day session in Kimberley. At that time, we met 30 delegations. We heard their problems. We exchanged views. We solved some difficulties right on the spot. And the remaining items are being followed up. This was our fourth field trip.

We plan to go to eastern Ontario early in the new year and elsewhere in the province in the spring.

The secretariats have developed a comprehensive understanding of the total government process. We know who is doing what and who to bring together to deal with particular problems.

In the Resources Development policy field, some issues affect all seven ministries. We examine these issues from all sides, insuring the ministries concerned are brought into the discussion. We spearhead the resolution. We set targets and monitor progress. We are, in effect Mr. Chairman, the government project managers for policy development.

Take, for instance, a major industrial or mineral development. One needs to weave together all the major policy strands to insure the proposal is adequately considered from the standpoint of environmental impact, manpower implications, infrastructure needs, energy demands and other factors.

This takes a lot of time and effort. It requires the capacity to identify where action must come from and the initiative to pull it together.

It is not an exaggeration, Mr. Chairman, to say that in the previous system, expedition of such integrated efforts would have been virtually impossible, especially with the volume of considerations this government is faced with on a day-to-day basis.

I will not, of course, go into all the policy issues we are currently considering, but perhaps it might be helpful to single out a few to show how the process works.

As an example, Alexander Centre Industries has proposed a port on Little La Cloche Island in northern Georgian Bay. Earlier this year a delegation of MacGregor Bay Association cottagers concerned about the proposal met with me and subsequently with the cabinet committee on resources development.

My staff and I visited the proposed site last spring, viewing the area by land and by air. We also held discussions with the proponent at that time about the proposed harbour.

Subsequently, the matter was discussed again at the cabinet committee level and a recommendation went forward to full cabinet.

The decision was that as part of our consideration of Alexander Centre’s application for a water lot lease, the government would require the company to carry out an environmental impact study.

Mr. Chairman, last March the Speech from the Throne stated that feasibility studies would be carried out regarding construction of a harbour in James Bay to bring in potential supplies of gas, oil and minerals from the eastern Arctic.

Consultants have been asked to bid for the first two studies which will examine the resources available in the eastern Arctic and the economics of transporting them to southern Ontario. One of the alternative ways of transporting these resources could be through a port on James Bay.

I should add that the project has been discussed with Mr. Andrew Rickard, president of the Grand Council of Treaty Nine Indians, who will be kept informed and involved in all discussions on the matter.

It was decided to do the economic studies before any environmental, social or technical studies were carried out, so it would be possible to determine the economic feasibility of the concept, another area where there is an overlap in many ministries.

At public hearings of the Solandt commission, held earlier this year in Port Hope and Belleville on three possible alignments of the proposed Lennox to Oshawa 500-kilo-volt transmission corridor, two additional routes were suggested by the public, over and above those studied by Ontario Hydro and its consultants.

One of these passed to the north through the Ganaraska forest, while the other was to the south along the lakeshore between Wesleyville and the proposed Bowmanville generating station.

A consultant was hired by the commission to investigate these new alternatives. Further hearings are to be held in November to give the public an opportunity to examine the consultant’s report and express views before Dr. Solandt submits his report.

Mr. Chairman, an interministerial committee reporting to the secretariat has been studying the implications of the proposed development of the Lake St. Joseph iron ore deposit on the development of that area of northwestern Ontario. A report on this matter has been considered by the cabinet committee for resources development and a recommendation has been made to the full cabinet. My colleague, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), will report on this matter in due course.

There has been some public debate recently about the future of the community of Armstrong. The cabinet committee on resources development has taken the initiative in trying to resolve the difficulties of Armstrong aggravated by the recent closing of the radar base there by the federal government.

As I mentioned Tuesday in the House, the federal government has now nominated Mr. Andras to co-ordinate Armstrong matters on behalf of Ottawa. As promised, Mr. Chairman, I shall read a statement concerning Armstrong to the House next week.

Mr. Chairman, the Speech from the Throne also stated:

“The government of Ontario will establish structures to develop and co-ordinate science policy, both within our province and in co-operation with the government of Canada and other provinces.”

In the past, sir, there have been repeated calls for science policy structures which would cut horizontally across the traditional vertical structure of government. In Ontario, the provincial secretariats provide us with such a system.

Science policy-making decisions require involvement from every ministry. Science policies formulated for one section of government can have important consequences, especially in the long run, on the goals in a different sector. For example, decisions on research funding in universities may in the future materially affect the supply of trained experts in fields such as mining and health care research.

The need for a small body of people who are familiar with the policy making and programmes of all ministries is essential to science policy formulation, and this is what the secretariat system provides. Either myself or my staff can discuss science matters with three or four colleagues and very quickly pick up policy implications in any other area.

When Dr. Aurelio Paccei, founder of the Club of Rome, discussed science and technology, he called upon governments to create more dynamic research structures and to evaluate the multi-disciplinary approach. I submit to you, sir, that the secretariat system in Ontario does just that for science policy determination.

As to the question of the need for new structures in government, the need for bureaucratic reorganization was vividly expressed by Alvin Toffler in his now famous book, “Future Shock.”

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): We get daily shocks.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member will be getting more shocks.

Mr. Renwick: The minister doesn’t have to quote Alvin Toffler; that book is nonsense, he ought to know that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I quote, sir: “In short, the organizational geography of super industrial society can be expected to become increasingly kinetic, filled with turbulence and change.”

Mr. Lawlor: Kinetic -- my Lord.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: “The more rapidly the environment changes, the shorter the lifespan of organization forms. In administrative structure, just as in architectural structure, we are moving from long-enduring” --

Mr. Renwick: Jeez, I never thought Alvin Toffler would be quoted to me in this Legislature. It is a second-rate book by a second-rate author, just like a second-rate government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: “In administrative structure,” I repeat, “just as in architectural structure, we are moving from long-enduring to temporary forms, from permanence to transience.” That’s the end of the quote, sir.

Mr. Lawlor: I hope you are going to transience.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The internationally known science policy expert, Dr. Alexander King, who has consented to advise and assist the secretariat in developing a science and technology policy for Ontario, says in a work published just this month -- and I hope the hon. member opposite won’t claim that Dr. King is second rate: “There is a need for the development of new techniques of long-term reflection and planning, preferably of an integrated nature.”

Mr. Foulds: You are doing an awful lot of name dropping.

Mr. Deans: Have you no work of your own to quote from?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To continue:

“Equally essential is the need to alert the public to the gravity of some of the longer term issues and the need for preventative rather than remedial action. Recent work has also indicated in relation to some of the global problems the enormous costs, both in monetary terms and in human suffering, of delays in taking critical decisions.”

Mr. Lawlor: King contradicted Toffler and probably King is right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I submit that we have proven in the policy field structure of government the ability to deal with interwoven complexity of today’s problems in the well thought out yet expeditious manner so necessary in today’s world.

Mr. Foulds: Who writes that stuff?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Indeed, other jurisdictions have either adopted our policy field system or variations of it. As a matter of fact, in a few days a government delegation from Australia arrives at Queen’s Park to discuss and study our policy field system.

Mr. Chairman, I present for the consideration of hon. members the estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development.

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

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I am interested to listen to this plea to justify the continuation of this bureaucracy, and I think I feel like the rest of the members in this House -- we are not impressed by the long diatribe we have just listened to. One of the things we have to recognize is that a major need is to get back to simpler structures, not to the more complex structures of bureaucracy which we have here. We have an ideal form for developing more theory, perhaps, but very little evidence of practical involvement.

The minister has indicated some 45 meetings to co-ordinate a lot of projects, but I haven’t seen any evidence of this secretariat dealing with some of the really vital and important issues that face us today in this province.

One of the most important issues, surely, is the destruction of our first grade agricultural land in this province. This government has just announced plans under one of the ministries within this secretariat to literally destroy thousands of acres of the best land we have in this province. We darn well should recognize that it’s under this new guise of a secretariat that he’s trying to justify his future existence, when he has done nothing so far in that field to show his concern, in the remedies he’s developed with this supposed method of integrating the ministries responsible for this work, he has done nothing to divert the location of development in other areas.

When I see the best producing land being gobbled up at an enormous rate -- a faster rate every year -- because this government is doing nothing, I realize that the $504,500 in this secretariat is just going to become another item of waste.

And it is waste that is worse than normal waste, because this minister is pretending that he’s doing something about such an important matter as the long-term planning for the future of this province.

When we allow plans to proceed which are going to devour faster than ever our best agricultural land, then we certainly are in need of getting rid of this secretariat or changing the minister.

The second point that I note is the minister making some pretense at considering developments in other parts of the province to encourage development where it is so badly needed. I am pleased to hear that he went to Armstrong and such centres to try to consider methods by which activities can be continued. We certainly don’t want to have artificially-created ventures that cannot justify themselves over the long run.

The federal government’s defence location, whatever they had up there, is certainly not something that we are glad to see go, but if that’s the trend -- reducing the defence expenditures in that direction and in other directions -- we’ve got to find other methods of providing an economic base for those communities.

What has this secretariat done to consider such an alternative, for example, as providing this province with a much more sensible and more realistic east-west traffic corridor? If the minister looks at that country across the north of Lake Nipigon, has he recognized the fact that that area has the soil conditions that make for a low-cost development of roads, unlike the area to the south where the rocks and other features make it much more difficult. In fact, the CN route through Armstrong is one where within the last six years very fine roads have been built at such low cost as $15,000 a mile, roads that can carry 30-ton logging trucks at 50 or 60 mph and stand up very well.

In considering the total economic future of this province, has this secretariat looked at the possibility of a new traffic corridor which would move through northern Ontario 75 per cent of the road traffic that now passes across through the states from east to west? Canadian freight traffic that now goes by road from Winnipeg to eastern Canada via the states could be moved across through northern Ontario, and moving that traffic through there would provide a commercial and economic base for such communities as Armstrong which were, after all, originally developed as transportation centres.

Have you considered what that road corridor could do, if it had plenty of passing lanes and had good service facilities along the way, to help open up other opportunities for development in the north?

Mr. Stokes: We’ve been after it for five years.

Mr. Deacon: Nothing has been done about it at all. They talk about studies; but here is a secretariat in which we spent $364,000 the first year, $389,000 last year and we are going to be spending $504,000 this year; what has this secretariat got to show us in the way of evidence of a means of dispersing opportunities and development to that important part of Ontario?

There is another major factor which affects this area on which I don’t hear any comment. I’ve seen nothing come through from this secretariat about that all-important development in the bottom end of the minister’s own riding, the Metro Centre. What has been done by this ministry in recognition of the fact that that is the most important transportation hub in this province? It isn’t being designed to fit the needs of transportation -- as an interface of various modes of transportation -- but it is being designed as a profitable commercial development with the transportation taking second consideration.

Yet we hear nothing in the way of comments from this ministry or of studies to show what, in fact, would be the most modern, up-to-date means of making that hub a model in the world of good transportation interchange.

Surely those factors -- factors of preserving agricultural land, doing something realistic and dynamic to justify and to make economic over tile long term, economic development in other parts of this province; and a programme that would improve public transportation in a centre such as this metropolitan area -- would be three major programmes this secretariat should be dealing with and have something to report on? But no, it is just a continuation of what we have heard before there was such a thing as a secretariat. It seems to me we have evidence that this is just another way of spending money, of giving jobs to friends and not really producing anything in the way of new dynamic programmes for this province. For that reason, we are very concerned about the continuation of this waste of the taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: We are also concerned. We are concerned, but not so much about the new things that aren’t being done, because frankly we are not exactly clear what is being done.

I think a lot of the problems that have been with us for a number of years are still around and that the policy secretariat should be the place in which the problems of future development in the province are undertaken and solutions are found. I can well imagine that we are not going to be taken into the confidence of the policy minister with regard to what sorts of things they are currently studying and the direction they are contemplating travelling in, simply because it has always been a statement of government that they will announce their policy in due course, and we will hear about it either just immediately prior to or immediately after it has been implemented.

Unfortunately, that isn’t good enough, because for many of us the work of the province, the future of the province and its development is a top priority and something that we are vitally concerned about. No matter on which side of the House we sit, the majority of members do, in fact, spend a considerable amount of time thinking about and planning out what they think might be useful in trying to combat immediate and future difficulties that we imagine this generation and other generations are going to face.

I looked at the policy secretariat idea when it was first brought in. Quite frankly, I thought that, given an opportunity, it might work fairly well and that it made sense that there should be a co-ordination of the various ministries and they ought to be discussing with each other, on an ongoing basis the methods they intended to adapt to solve transportation, relocation, industrial growth and environmental problems. I would expect that the ministers would be particularly interested in the whole area of the jurisdiction the policy minister has and would be vitally interested today in hearing what might be said about the policies of the government of Ontario and what direction those policies might take. It might not even be a bad idea if a couple of the ministers could drop by and pay attention to what’s going to be said about their particular areas of concern as they relate to the overall policy development of the province.

It’s interesting to note that out of seven different policies and seven different ministerial areas that this policy secretariat has responsibility for, only the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) has the courtesy to sit in the House and at least to pay some attention to what might be said.

I understand that the minister is going to come back and say that it’s his policy field and he will report back to them and they can read what’s going to be said in this House. That’s not the problem. The problem is this, that this ministry doesn’t make policy; the policy secretariat doesn’t make policy. It simply integrates policy, it sifts through policy and it discusses with the various ministries what methods can be used to try to adopt those policies and adapt those policies. Therefore, for us to talk to you about specific policy areas may not make much sense.

If that doesn’t make any sense, then comes the question of what real function do you perform other than to be the chairman of the various ministers. If they are going to be charged with the responsibility of developing the individual policy, and if they are going to be charged with the responsibility of making the presentation, and if they are going to be charged with the responsibility of implementing the policy, then do you simply chair the policy meeting so that there isn’t a big argument that develops; or do you referee to ensure that the proper priorities are sought?

Then do you set priorities; because you have the policy and priorities board? I understand they set the priorities; you don’t set them. Who does set the priorities in the government? If it’s not the policy secretariat, then who does it? I want to know this. Does the policy minister go forward to the policy and priorities board with the overall policy objectives of the areas under his administration?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Deans: You then sort out which of the ministers are going to be given priority with regard to their particular projects that are under way, and from there that’s taken by you to the policy and priorities board for some kind of approval?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. member want me to interrupt at this point?

Mr. Deans: No, you can tell me in a minute, because I’m really quite perplexed about how it works and what is the integration of the various policy ministries. How does one integrate social policy with this particular resources policy field, because quite obviously any undertakings in resources policy have tremendous social consequences? Who is the responsible persons or body which determines that kind of policy? Is that done by the policy priorities board or is that a decision of the Premier (Mr. Davis), or is that an overall cabinet decision? Do you have to then rehash everything again to try to decide what should be done by whom and when?

Anyway, I want to turn to three specific matters that I think should be dealt with. I put them forward to you as suggestions from this side of the House about three particular policy areas that are of concern to us that fall within your jurisdiction. I am not suggesting for a minute that they are the only concerns that we have. Because I isolate them from the many other concerns, I don’t want you to feel there aren’t matters within the other ministries that we wouldn’t like to see given priority by this government. But we do feel, given the mood of the province at the moment and given the urgency of the problems, these are things that ought to be undertaken and should be given top priority by your ministry.

The first thing I want to talk about is the report that was just recently issued on the matter of Algonquin Provincial Park. We’ve had an opportunity to take a look through the report and to try to understand what this report has really said. While the time has been short to have accomplished any really meaningful digging in this regard, I think it’s fair to say that since your ministry’s estimates are called today and the opportunity to discuss it again may not be for some considerable period of time, I want to take this opportunity to tell you a few things about what’s happened.

To begin with, we’re not at all satisfied with the solutions offered by the report on Algonquin Park. We don’t happen to believe that they go any way to meeting the problems that are emerging in that area.

To begin with, it’s imperative and vital that we understand that Algonquin Park is an absolute requirement for recreational purposes for a great many people in southern Ontario and we’ve got to establish that as being the priority matter. In recreational terms, it cannot be replaced. It is in itself unique. The destruction of Algonquin Park, whether it be destroyed over a course of time or whether it be destroyed in one fell swoop, is unconscionable and cannot be tolerated.

I want to raise with you some specific matters related to your report and to the availability of timber in Algonquin Park and in the immediate areas surrounding Algonquin Park. I refer you to page 15 of your own report where you indicate that something in the order of 75 per cent -- 74.9 to be exact -- of the park area will be available for cutting. While it may be argued by those who are going to be in the business of timber harvesting that they’re not going to go in there and cut it all at one time; and while you may point out to me that in fact you’re only going to permit a cut of one per cent in any given year and that you’re only going to permit a maximum cut of between 15 and 17 million cubic feet a year; I want to point out now that the maximum cut you are allowing for a year in Algonquin Park is 80 per cent higher than the actual cut in Algonquin Park by your own statistics. The maximum cut allowed by this report in Algonquin Park ranges up to 80 per cent higher than the actual cut of timber in the park at the present time. If that isn’t the policy that pursues destruction for Algonquin Park, then I don’t know what it is.

Beyond that, let me tell you that the 17 million cu. ft. you are prepared to admit could or may be cut within Algonquin Park at this time is in fact 50 per cent of the available cut in the area within a 50-mile radius of Algonquin Park, excluding the park itself. If you were to adopt what one of your ministers recognizes as being factual, that there is within a 50-mile radius of Algonquin Park sufficient timber to allow for a cut which would be at least the equivalent of that which you intend to allow within the park itself --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): That is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Deans: It is not nonsense.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Sure it is.

Mr. Deans: Well, let me quote from the statistics of the ministry --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I don’t care what statistics you want to quote from, you don’t know the facts. Go up and count the trees.

Mr. Deans: Let me quote from the statistics of the ministry itself -- and I want to suggest that if the member for Victoria-Haliburton --

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: I happen to know something about it.

Mr. Deans: If the member for Victoria-Haliburton would check with the ministry officials he would find that the statistics I am about to quote are taken from their records.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: They are wrong; they are not right.

Mr. Deans: The statistics were put on the record by the leader of this party some considerable time ago and they have never been refuted by the ministry.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: They were as wrong as the ones you are giving.

Mr. Deans: They were published on three separate occasions, and not once did one single ministry official suggest that the figures weren’t correct.

Good friends though we are, if you are going to sit and tell me that because you happen to have been associated at some point with the timber industry, that you know more about the available cut in a 50-mile radius of Algonquin Park than the ministry does, that the statistics they put forward in their defence are wrong, and that you personally got out and counted all the trees, then I am going to tell you I don’t believe you.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: We have a lot of squirrels up there.

Mr. Stokes: And a lot of squirrelly people too.

Mr. Deans: The 1972-1973 figures for the area surrounding Algonquin Park show initially that there is a substantial amount of hardwood in a 50-mile radius around the park, and that there is 34.1 million cu ft of allowable hardwood outside the park gates -- and that is not the total amount, but an amount established as being accessible and available for cutting. Given that arrangements could be worked out either with the owners or with the Crown and given the 50 per cent application that is used by the ministry in terms of the actual amount of top-grade hardwood in any total cut that is made, you would have a total allowable cut of top-grade hardwood of 17.6 million cu ft in the area outside Algonquin Park, but within a 50-mile radius of the park itself.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: One company cuts twice as much as that a year.

Mr. Deans: Now let me tell you that the 17.6 million cu ft is the equivalent of the amount that is to be allowed for cutting within the park. That is the equivalent, according to the statistics. You are going to permit a cut in the prime recreational area of the park which would be the equivalent of the amount which could be cut outside of the park, using your statistics and your percentage of allowable cut.

What I am telling you is that you don’t have to go into the park for other than yellow birch, and even that’s going to be discussed. But for all other forms of soft and hard wood, for all other forms of timber that we require that is available within the park, there is an opportunity to make the appropriate and allowable cuts outside of the park, which could enable us to maintain the park in its present state for recreational purposes. I suggest to you that that’s one of the things that has to be done.

Given that we may have problems with yellow birch -- and I am not an expert; my colleague from Thunder Bay is much more of an expert than I am on this -- but given that we might have problems, it is entirely possible that an arrangement could be worked out whereby it could be harvested over a short period of time, until either alternatives are found within the country -- or for that matter, until we have made arrangements outside of the country for the exporting or importing of that particular wood product.

We can’t simply allow the park to be torn apart because we need yellow birch. I think you have got to agree with that; that we can’t allow the destruction of the park simply for the purpose of harvesting one particular type of tree that may not be as readily available elsewhere. And that is what this programme and policy that has been set out by the government is going to mean.

The arguments that are put forward are arguments both in terms of jobs and in terms of the need to harvest, for reforestation and development purposes. Quite obviously the job argument is one which we are vitally concerned about. The argument with regard to cutting for the purpose of getting out deadwood and keeping forest fires to a minimum and the like --

Mr. Stokes: Therapeutic logging.

Mr. Deans: Therapeutic laundering is it?

Mr. Stokes: Logging.

Mr. Deans: Therapeutic logging says my colleague. That, of course, makes a lot of sense and can be carried on. It has to be carried on if we are going to have a healthy stand of timber in the area. But as far as the job argument is concerned, if in fact it is true that there is available timber outside the park within the radius that I described, then the jobs which are currently available within the park would then be available outside the park in an area which would be reasonably close to allow for a minimal of dislocation; an absolute minimal of dislocation.

I suggest that one of the statements of the minister himself, when dealing with his opening statements, sort of bears out the philosophy that I am trying to get through to you.

You quoted Dr. Alexander King and you said that it is equally essential that the long-term issues and the need for preventative rather than remedial action be made available to the public. Well, I am going to tell you that is exactly what I am talking about. I am talking about preventative action now, rather than remedial action later. I am saying to you that you cannot regrow Algonquin Park.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Why can’t you?

Mr. Deans: In terms of the future generations of this province, it is virtually impossible.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: You don’t know very much about it, do you?

Mr. Deans: -- given the period of time available for us to redevelop that park, if you permit the kind of indiscriminate cutting that you are proposing to permit now.

You are going to permit by your policy an increase in the take from Algonquin Park from something in the order of 12.4 million cu ft -- which is the current take from the park -- to a maximum of 17 million cu ft. For many of us, the 12.4 million cu. ft. is eating into the very areas of the park which are most accessible and most necessary for recreational purposes.

This government has decided by putting forward a policy of permitting a 12 million cu ft cut, to make further inroads into the timber of the park and to permit further desecration by way of timber cutting and by way of the forest industry.

Well it isn’t necessary. If it were the only alternative, then we might say okay. If there were no other alternatives, if it was absolutely vital to the economy of the province that they cut in Algonquin Park, we would have to take a second look. If there wasn’t another area anywhere in the province where those trees could be harvested, then we might take a second look.

If it was even economically unfeasible, given either distance or difficulty in harvesting, to harvest the equivalent amount outside of Algonquin Park, we might take another look. But the facts of the matter are that within easy access of the park there is a sufficient amount of timber to allow for the timber cutting which you propose to allow within the park.

Mr. R. G. Hodgson: Where?

Mr. Deans: -- And within easy access of the park there will be job opportunities for the people who are currently employed in the timber industry within the park; and within easy access of the park there is an opportunity for the continued development of the timber industry; that the yield to them in terms of dollars will be, if not the equivalent, certainly close to the equivalent they are currently getting. And we will have taken the necessary steps to ensure that Algonquin Park will be available for recreational purposes for the many millions of people who are ultimately going to require it.

Now for heaven’s sake don’t make the same mistake in Algonquin that was made generations ago along Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. Don’t, for God’s sake, sit back now and adopt a policy which allows a little bit of pollution, hoping that it will finally all go away and it will all be integrated into the overall system.

There was a time when they made a decision with regard to Lake Erie to allow people to pollute it because it was such a big body of water and that it would regenerate itself. Well we have lived to rue that day. We have now found ourselves in a position of being almost unable to reclaim the lake.

I suggest to you that the kind of policies you are following in this regard are parallel to those former policies. You are about to allow a gradual erosion which will not readily be stopped.

I want to tell you or remind you that it is within your power at the moment, given that in March of 1975, 27 of the 31 or 34 companies who are logging in the park -- let me just make sure I have got the right figure -- 27 of the 33 companies that are currently logging in the park have their licences expire.

On March 31, 1975, twenty-seven thirty-firsts of the logging ceases, by company if not by volume; and by 1983, the last of the current licences will expire. I suggest to you that between now and 1983 there simply has to be a complete change of policy, so that whatever harvesting is done in there is of the therapeutic type described by my colleague from Thunder Bay.

I urge you not to adopt the policy that has been put forward in this booklet. I suggest to you there are alternatives that are yet to be pursued -- only one of which I have mentioned. That alternative, I think, in the long run makes a lot more sense than the pursuit of a policy which will destroy an area which cannot in its totality be replaced. That cannot, no matter how carefully you try to reforestate; that cannot, no matter how carefully you try to ensure that the harvesting is done under close supervision; that cannot be put back in the kind of state that it is currently in.

I don’t think we in this generation have the right to destroy what may well be required by future generations for recreational purposes. If you are going to argue with me that it can’t be done elsewhere I am going to tell you that is balderdash.

Let me go on to one other area -- two other areas that I want to discuss with you. I am vitally concerned about the problems that we have had confronting us in the last few months with regard to labour relations. I see a policy of this government being developed that is totally destructive. I have watched this government set about to create confrontation between the workers of the province and the people of the province.

I watched while you failed to insist on action being taken early enough in the transit dispute, though there was ample evidence of bad faith bargaining. I watched while there was a major dispute developing between the teachers of the province, though there was ample evidence of bad faith bargaining: I have watched while there was a dispute in the city of Hamilton, currently in negotiation again, but which has gone on for nine months in which there was ample evidence of bad faith bargaining.

I have seen, year after year in this House, labour disputes emerging and labour disputes being carried on in which the main problem has been an element of bad faith bargaining. And I watch it right now between this government and its own civil service.

I see the scenario. I can just picture in my mind’s eye what is going on at the moment.

I see it as continuous refusal to permit meaningful negotiations to take place. This will ultimately result in an illegal strike in the Province of Ontario and will ultimately result in the pitting of the people of the Province of Ontario against their own employees. When that occurs, I want to assure you that the responsibility will have rested with this government.

The attitude of this government toward the collective bargaining system, the attitude of this government toward ensuring that the collective bargaining system works effectively is disgusting. There is little effort and little thought and little consideration given to the whole area of what constitutes bargaining in bad faith. In fact, if industry in the Province of Ontario wants to take a look at bad faith bargaining, all they have to do is look at the civil service and its employers to find out where the worst of the worst in bad faith bargaining takes place.

When a government can sit down and can so restrict the opportunities for meaningful collective bargaining by an Act of this Legislature, in spite of all of the protestations and warnings of people who have some knowledge in the field, and can they cry because its employees are resorting to standing up and speaking publicly about the problems which are currently confronting them and which cannot be resolved at the bargaining table because there is no avenue for resolution, then there is something drastically wrong with the way the government perceives the bargaining process.

Beyond that, out in the private sector, when a company can by use of outside sources bring into this province and into this country the products that it must sell at a price that will allow it to continue to sell across the markets without any decrease in profit, while its employees are standing at the gate asking for the opportunity to negotiate, then there is something drastically wrong with the industry policies of this government.

When there is evidence presented time after time, as was presented in this House by members of the opposition -- and, I suspect, probably by members of the government -- when there is evidence presented time after time about the attitudes of the Karl Mallettes of the world towards their own employees and the decisions which they come to with regard to ensuring those employees are not given a decent opportunity to negotiate sensibly at the bargaining table; and when this government sits back and does nothing about it; then you don’t understand the collective bargaining system, and by not understanding it you are bent on destroying it.

When it’s evident from the actions and deeds of the chairman of the Toronto Transit Commission, for example, that he has no intentions at all of bargaining in good faith; and when this government refuses to recognize that some changes in the legislation are required in order to ensure that it can more readily identify bad faith bargaining, which can be more readily dealt with by the courts or by the Labour Relations Board, then there is a basic and fundamental problem in the way in which the collective bargaining system is or is not going to work.

I suggest to you that it is about time you went out and you honestly sought the views of the people who are most involved in the collective bargaining system. I want to assure you of one thing, that in the main the collective bargaining system is a very humane system, that it works extremely well, that they are not at each others’ throats all of the time, and that by far the majority of contract negotiations result in a settlement -- over 90 per cent, perhaps even over 95 per cent. In those areas where there are problems, they are almost without exception the result of bad faith bargaining. They are the result in most instances -- not all, but in most instances -- of individuals refusing to recognize the legitimate needs of the other side.

I think it would serve this government well if it were to try to find out from the people who do the bargaining what it is that can be done to strengthen the collective bargaining procedure in order to ensure that it will work even better than it currently works.

There is no point in talking about the destruction of the system if you are going to continue with the policies you have adopted with regard to the employees of the province. There is no point in saying that someone away out there with whom you have no relation has got to do something different when in fact you have adopted within your own government the most restrictive and most unnecessary regulations and laws governing the right to collectively bargain between the Crown employees and the Crown of the Province of Ontario.

There have to be some very major changes, not only in the legislation, because legislation in itself is really not of much value, but in the attitude of this government towards the people who have to work on behalf of the government and on behalf of the people of the Province of Ontario.

If this isn’t undertaken, let me tell you that the warning bells are being sounded; the people of the province are being told that the government is bent on bringing about a strike in the civil service in an effort to divert the attentions of the people of this province away from the ineptness of the Premier and the cabinet and towards the civil service of the Province of Ontario who have worked so desperately hard to try to create a decent government atmosphere.

I say further to you that by March of this coming year, unless there is a discernible change in attitude, there will be a major confrontation that will have been brought about by the process of destruction that this government began to follow in the days of Charlie MacNaughton and that will destroy both the attitude and the commitment of the people within the civil service.

As I have said on so many occasions in this House, it’s frequently not wages that cause the basic problems in negotiation but rather the discussions about working conditions and how the employee and the employer will relate. And you have in your own civil service Act the most restrictive management rights clause that I can recall in anything I have read that has been written over the last 50 years.

You are moving backwards -- and you are going to create a confrontation. I see it as being Machiavellian, as being a conscious effort on the part of this government to divert the people of the province away from the ineptness of the government and to vent their frustrations and anger on the civil service. We are not going to stand for it. I urge you to make some very quick and careful corrections, otherwise you are going to be faced with some very serious problems.

I have one other policy matter I want to deal with. I want to talk to you about recent changes in the revenue derived from the mining companies of the Province of Ontario.

We have long felt that the resource sector of the Province of Ontario is the backbone of the province, that the strength of the province, that its future, the future of the people of this province, depends to a great extent on the careful utilization of resources.

It depends to a great extent on ensuring that the resources which we believe are the property of the people of the province are harvested in such a way and utilized in such a way as to yield the maximum benefit for the people of this province.

As part of that maximizing of benefit to the people, we are of the opinion that there has to be a much more substantial direct yield to the coffers of the province by way of taxation from the resources which are being taken from this province and which are depletable and which will some day be gone.

We are convinced that over the course of the history of this government, the government has kowtowed and has gone on bended knees to the mining operations of this province. But it has failed in every single way to establish the proprietary right of the people of the province. It has neglected in the most damning ways its obligation to ensure that that which belongs to the people is purchased from the people at a fair price. And that is what the tax system is all about in my view. That tax system is designed to ensure that as those depletable resources are taken from the ground in this province that not only is the job a consideration, not only is the location and development of municipalities a consideration, but also the benefit which must flow to the entire community of Ontario -- for that matter beyond, to Canada -- has to be of primary consideration.

The taxing structure is the vehicle that this government has chosen -- and I think perhaps quite rightly so, given the history of development -- to yield back to the province a sufficient amount of revenue to compensate for the loss of the resource.

If that is so, then I want to stress with you that your taxing system is woefully inadequate; that even with the changes, even with the recently announced changes in the budget of this year, the tax structure of the Province of Ontario is deplorable as related to the revenues and profits of the mining corporations. It doesn’t in any sense begin to meet the basic needs in terms of either the development of the areas from which the ores are extracted or, for that matter, even to begin to meet the basic needs that are reflected in a fair market value for the resources which is ours and which is being used privately for private gain.

I want to tell you, as briefly as I can, what we think. We frankly believe that the natural resources of Ontario are rightfully the property of the people of Ontario. Our objective, quite frankly, is to obtain the full economic rent from these resources for the people of the province. The economic rent, as we define it, is the value of our resources.

We have a feeling that this government, and perhaps governments before it -- though it is hard to remember governments before it -- have let the private companies run rampant in this province in the resource field.

The rate and the nature of resource development should be determined by the people of Ontario through its government; it should be tied in with an overall industrial strategy for the Province of Ontario.

We believe there has to be a programme, not unlike the programme put forward by the select committee of the Legislature, of which I was a member and on which my colleague, the member for Sudbury East, and other colleagues in the House also served.

It is time that the government of the Province of Ontario exercised its prerogative to maintain an equity interest in the development of the resources of the Province of Ontario. The policy put forward by that committee, though perhaps not the panacea for future development, certainly is a large step along the way to ensure that the resources of the province would in fact be used to the benefit of the people of the province. Until all the resources in the resource industries are brought under a form of either joint or public control we have to make sure that there is a sufficient yield from the tax structure.

We despair, quite frankly, at the pitiful amounts of money that have been raised as a result of the resource taxes. I think my colleague from Sudbury East fairly recently outlined in quite considerable detail -- and I won’t do it again today -- the actual yield to the province from the resource taxes of the province. They run at a level that is so pitifully low as to be almost laughable. In fact, you could laugh if you weren’t crying.

Mr. Foulds: Right, it’s scandalous.

Mr. Deans: Because it’s a shame that the government of the Province of Ontario would be prepared to yield all of its power to the private corporations in the resource sector and allow them to run rampant and to rape the province in whatever way they so desire without any act of retribution.

Mr. Foulds: And American corporations at that.

Mr. Deans: The profit margins for the majority of the resource sector have leaped almost unbelievably in the last few years. They have gone, quite frankly, from a very high level to an exorbitantly high level, because they were running considerably above the average yield for other types of industrial development and enterprise within this province, or within this country for that matter.

I want to say that if there was ever a place where the government could look, seriously look, in an effort to find the revenues that it is going to require to undertake the kinds of programmes that obviously will have to be undertaken to meet the social needs of the people, the resource sector is that one place that has as yet not been attacked.

In fact, one would get the impression that the pitiful amounts that were paid in were simply paid in for favours granted, and that the government responded favourably to the resource industries simply because of the very close relationship which they have enjoyed over the years.

Anyhow, what we are telling you is that in the discussion of policy you have an obligation. That obligation is, in addition to the other things that are raised, to address yourself to the very basic problems that confront us, and one of the big problems is the last one I raised with you; that of finding sufficient revenue for the ongoing programmes and for the development of new programmes.

I suggest to you that right within your own policy area there is an opportunity to provide capital in amounts which would be sufficient to meet many of the programmes which are either currently under way or will be required within a short period of time.

That could be done without exacting any particular hardship on the operations as they exist. In those operations the yield on investment, the current yield on sales or the profit as related to either or all of the various factors that are considered, is considerably higher than is either tolerated or is considered reasonable in most other sectors of the economy.

Even if we were to exact from the resource sector twice as much as you currently propose, they would still be in a very healthy state, and you would then be able, without any difficulty, to carry on with your housing programmes, to carry on with your road-building programmes, to carry on with the development of transit -- not all necessarily in one year, but over the course of time -- and to develop a policy which would utilize the flow of those funds in order to ensure that there would be sufficient moneys available to make the province into what you perhaps think it ought to be or at least what the people of the province require of you.

I would urge you to reconsider your policy on Algonquin Park. I want to urge you to reconsider your policy as regard to labour relations and, in particular, with regard to good faith bargaining. I want, finally, to urge you to reconsider your policies with regard to the taxation field as it is applicable to the resource sector, because in these three areas alone there is a sufficient amount of room to do so much more good that would create a much better environment within this province both economically and socially.

Until you do those things, then you are playing a game when you tell me that your policy secretariat is doing worthwhile things.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question before the minister replies to the critics of his department?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Kent has a question.

Mr. Spence: Yes. This is the second Throne Speech since I’ve been a member, that has announced a survey of port facilities at James Bay. I know the minister was in the cabinet at the time that the government announced a survey of port facilities around James Bay. I have nothing against any development for those in northern Ontario, but since that was announced in that Throne Speech I never heard a word about the survey nor have I ever heard of any development taking place. I might say that I quite remember the debates on that survey on port facilities on James Bay.

I believe the Throne Speech said that to transport gas from the Arctic is the reason why the government is announcing a survey to be made. I quite well remember the debates about port facilities on James Bay by members from northern Ontario. They said that if they started to construct a port there and started to remove the quicksand, the quicksand would flow in as fast as they dug it out, and this would be one of the things that would stop unemployment in Ontario and in Canada because it would take so many workmen we’d never have unemployment again.

I wonder if the minister has made use of the surveys that were made in 1959 or in 1963 of what had taken place and if it is possible that they can build a port at James Bay.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, to reply briefly, I don’t recall that there was any previous Throne Speech in which was announced precisely what we were talking about here. It may very well be. I can’t recall it. All I can tell the hon. member, if he’s questioning the sincerity of our effort or whether we are really making an effort, is that I would draw his attention to the advertisement which appeared in the press late in August, a copy of which I have here, in which we have called for letters of qualification from various consulting firms to find out those who might be qualified to do this study, and we prequalified six firms. I suppose one of them will be chosen in a matter of a few days or a few weeks. So this is proceeding.

In respect of any reports which the federal government may have in its records, or any surveys that have been made previously, I would certainly hope that any qualified consultant doing a survey here would take advantage of those reports. Just in case he may not be aware of them, which I would doubt, we would certainly draw that to the attention of the consultants. This survey is being pursued very vigorously. I can assure the hon. member about that.

Mr. Deacon: It might be a good idea if the minister would check into what his ministry has been doing itself.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can’t recall if this has been done. I have asked the deputy provincial secretary who is sitting here and who has been with the government for some time and deeply involved in many of these matters. He can’t recall it either. However, we’ll look into it and find out.

Mr. Deacon: It’s not difficult to understand. There are so many of these things that your ministry doesn’t do anything about.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To say that there are so many of these things that we don’t do anything about is a very, very flat statement which is easy to make but not that easy to prove.

In the first place, of course, Mr. Chairman, I am not unmindful of the fact and I listened to the debates in previous years before I held this post -- that it is a simple matter to attempt, through the process of questioning the provincial secretary of whatever particular field happens to be under discussion in respect of various details of the various ministries within his or her secretariat, to “prove” to those who may be listening and may be unfamiliar or uninitiated in the matter and I don’t mean the people in this House, but just in case the press might print something on this, which I doubt, or anybody who may be in the House at that time -- that the provincial secretary is not familiar with his work, and of course it is easy to give that impression to the uninitiated.

Mr. Deans: Especially if it is true.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course it is true. Such a provincial secretary would not only have to be -- to quote the euphemism that has been used in the past quite improperly to describe the job -- a superminister, but he would also have to be a Superman. Indeed, it is hard enough for a line minister --

Mr. Foulds: Aren’t you a Superman?

Mr. Deans: I didn’t raise anything that you ought not to know about.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, of course the hon. member did. I will deal with that. I am speaking of the --

Mr. Deans: Don’t make excuses; give answers.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if the hon. member will do me the courtesy, he asked me not to interrupt him, and I didn’t --

Mr. Deans: I didn’t ask you that at all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, the hon. member did. If he will check Hansard, he’ll see he said, “You can answer me later.” All right, give me a chance.

I am dealing with this in general terms in respect of the attempt to make it appear that a provincial secretary should know about everything that is going on in seven ministries, which is an utter impossibility. It is an impossibility generally for a minister to know everything that is going on in his own ministry.

Mr. Foulds: Everybody passes the buck.

Mr. Deans: Another red herring.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Indeed, if the hon. member will do me the courtesy again of listening and allow me the opportunity to make my point --

Mr. Deans: I am listening. I can’t believe --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if the hon. member will listen with his mouth closed, it will help a lot more.

Mr. Deans: It might not. The fact of the matter is that you are not answering --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I haven’t had an opportunity, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Please allow the minister to answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member should read again -- and I could read it for him -- the quote from the COGP report as to the proposed operations of a secretariat. It says:

“As members of the Policy and Priorities Board of cabinet, policy ministers would assume a leadership role in initiating, developing, assessing and modifying new policies and programmes.”

Now that doesn’t mean -- indeed, it would be foolish -- that any provincial secretary should attempt to deal with the specifics as they relate to specific ministries. That is what those ministers are here to do. It would be foolish in any case even if I were prepared to do it. If I were a minister of an operating department, I would resent it very much if anyone else got up and dealt with those matters which have been assigned to me by this Legislature and by the government generally.

I am supposed to do exactly what we were talking about earlier -- to co-ordinate, initiate and discuss policy as it affects the whole of the government and to make sure that they are inter-related with other ministries so that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. Then we can come in here with a policy which has been considered in relation to all of the ministries and in relation to all of their work, and deal with the priorities. The hon. member mentioned that; I will deal with that in a moment.

The hon. member for York Centre said that we haven’t dealt with the so-called destruction of agricultural land. Well, of course, that is a presumption. Of course we have dealt with this; we have dealt with this in some great detail. If the hon. member hasn’t heard my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), speak publicly in this House and outside about his concern about this and say that this was being given a great deal of study, then I don’t know where he has been.

Mr. Deacon: Well, you are doing nothing about it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are doing a lot about it. That’s where integration with the policies of other ministries has to come into play.

The hon. member will know perfectly well that he is one of those -- maybe I would do the same thing if I were in opposition -- who go across the country talking about the need for more housing in this province, and go someplace else and talk about the need for preserving agricultural land, and go someplace else talking about Metro Centre and the need for making sure we don’t have highrise. Each problem by itself shows a great deal of concern for that particular aspect of society’s problems today, but doesn’t really deal with how you correlate them with each other.

Mr. Deacon: There is plenty of poor land available in Ontario on which to build houses. Why do you persist in using up the good land?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s precisely what we’re struggling with now as we go along. I think this government has done more than any other government in the Province of Ontario in giving leadership to this particular problem.

Mr. Foulds: That is not saying much. That’s not hard to do.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I pointed out in my comments a very few examples of how a secretariat worked in relation to integrating policy.

A situation comes to mind where there was a steel mill going to establish in a community and it was very badly wanted by a very large portion of the citizens of that community because it would bring industry. Another large portion of the community, quite properly, also concerned themselves with the effects on the environment in the area. We had some conflicts within the policy field, as we do almost weekly, as between ministers who have their special responsibilities. In this case it would be Industry, it would be Agriculture, it would be Environment. And that had to be resolved.

As a matter of fact, it was resolved, in that we told the owners that they could not establish there. We would do everything possible to find another location for them.

Mr. Deacon: Must be Atikokan.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The last I recall, we have found some suitable place for them and they will establish someplace else. If you want me to spend five or six days --

Mr. Deans: When did that announcement come out?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- going into all the results of all the discussions we’ve had on many of the policy issues we’ve had to resolve, I could do that. But again, you could argue that they’re sitting there -- and maybe I would do the same thing -- and all they’re doing is trying to justify the fact that somebody provided a job for them. As a matter of fact, that’s what the hon. member for York Centre suggested, and it would be interesting to know what he meant by that. He said something about the secretaries being really just established for the purpose -- and I’ll try to quote him verbatim --

Mr. Stokes: To find jobs for your friends.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- of “giving jobs to friends.” I don’t know what that means. First, there’s an assumption that there are friends who have been given these jobs. There’s an implication there that the Committee on Government Productivity, with all of the distinguished citizens who have served on it --

Mr. Deans: I met John Cronyn.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- recommended this system so that the government would have a place to look after its friends. I don’t know what he’s referring to. It may make him feel a little happy that he’s filled in a few words in his speech, but it’s mean; just mean.

Mr. Foulds: Besides, maybe the member for York Centre doesn’t have any friends.

Mr. Deans: I met John Cronyn at the Hydro inquiry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He also dealt with Armstrong, just in a passing way, and he said we should concern ourselves more with doing something about it. I’ll talk to him about that.

Mr. Deacon: I think more than in passing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The point he was making was that we shouldn’t provide some sort of make-work operation or make-work industry to keep Armstrong going. I think that’s what he was saying.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’ll tell the hon. member, if that’s the last resort, and that’s all we can find for them, I’d be happy to find that. Because even make-work, as he calls it, is better than just handing out welfare cheques.

Mr. Deacon: Well, there isn’t --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And that’s precisely what may happen. It would be much better, rather than taking the approach the hon. member did, that after all, if the Ministry of National Defence of the federal government has decided it no longer needs a radar base it should close them up. That’s the import of his words -- close them up, because you don’t want to have make-work. I don’t disagree that if you no longer have any use for a base it should be closed up, but, damn it, the federal government should have started to think, two or three or four years ago when they started a programme of closing down radar bases --

Mr. Foulds: Which started in 1961.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- about making some arrangements then, well in advance, for the people in that community. Because the people are important there.

Mr. Foulds: They could have started to plan in --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All that’s really happening now is that we’re running around like chickens on a hot griddle in the last moment, in the 11th hour, trying to find some damn way to keep the federal government from closing them down on D-day regardless of what happens to the people.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Tell us about Burwash.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and given us an opportunity to do something, instead of pulling out and saying: “Well, the provincial government will have to deal with those people -- the hell with them.” That in fact is what has happened.

Mr. B. Newman: Tell us about Burwash.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t know how Burwash has anything to do with my -- Do you want me to talk about Burwash? I would love to, because the hon. member knows I had to deal with that for eight years. All I can do is just repeat what my colleague, the Minister of Correctional Services, did in fact point out; that for years I was hammered here when I was Minister of Correctional Services with, “Why don’t you close down that place?” Of course, the hon. leader of the NDP forgot he had made those statements in the House.

Mr. Deans: No, no.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They were playing it both ways. “Close down the place,” they said, and the member for Sudbury kept saying: “Look, you have got to look after the employment of these people. You can’t close down the place.” As a matter of fact, all correctional people across this province recommended its closing and I agreed with them, and I started to close out those isolated correctional institutions. I agreed that it’s no place to keep inmates of correctional institutions, far removed from any relatives or friends so a mother or father or sister or brother could never come and visit them.

However, we are getting into another policy field.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t think the hon. member for Wentworth misunderstands what the secretariats are supposed to do. As he said, he agreed with it in principle, and when he read the COG report I think he said he agreed with the system that they were recommended. Well, if he reads again their terms of reference, he will see what he is suggesting is that we should go away out beyond that.

Mr. Deans: Read that slowly and let me respond to it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if I have an opportunity before our time expires --

Mr. Deans: You missed a very key phrase.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In fact we don’t make policy for the whole government and that’s not what the COG report recommends.

Mr. Deans: Nobody asked you to.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s what the hon. member said.

Mr. Deans: No, I said --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We do -- that’s exactly what we do.

And he referred to priorities. Priorities is an area where the policy field committees are very important. That is where, in fact, we have a great deal of influence on policy making because we deal with priorities.

For instance, we have just finished an exercise recently where we dealt with I think it was about 130 new policy initiatives of the various ministries within our policy field. We had to make a decision on priorities because there are all sorts of implications involved, particularly money. We had to deal with them within the context of a multi-year programme. That is where our policy field dealt with priorities, and we put our priorities forward to the Management Board, priorities board and to cabinet as to how we felt those priorities should be. There wasn’t complete agreement in many instances but we did deal with them and we made recommendations as to one, two and three priorities. That is an exercise which has taken a tremendous amount of time.

I didn’t mention it in the outset of my remarks, but if there are no other reasons, the hon. members I am sure appreciate that in modern society, with the tremendous number of problems we have to deal with today, it would be impossible for any cabinet to deal with all of those problems in any depth at all. If for no other reason, the secretariats are very important. The policy field committees are very important so they can go through some of this proposed legislation and policies and so on in greater depth so that the cabinet would have more time for general overall policies rather than go into the detail of each policy and each piece of legislation which is presented presently through the policy fields.

The member asked if we had any co-ordination with other policy fields. We have. There is, for example, the hon. member for Hamilton --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Mountain.

Mr. Deans: West. It has to be Hamilton West, because the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. J. R. Smith) is not capable.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Hamilton West. The Minister without Portfolio from Hamilton West (Mr. McNie) was the liaison between our committee, our policy field, and the Social Development policy field. He is responsible for the liaison with respect to manpower between the two policy fields. There is no concern about the interrelationship as between the ministries and the secretariats. That has been resolved.

We have at our committees a representative of TEIGA, because TEIGA is a sort of an all-embracing thing. It’s involved in practically everything we do. We have a representative of Management Board who attends every one of those meetings. They have a representative from the cabinet office.

I suppose it’s too much to expect from the opposition in our Legislature, but the government should be commended for taking that step, because it was something new; it was something very difficult to even attempt. And this government has taken leadership in Canada in respect of this new structure of government. Of course, there has been a lot of trial and error.

Mr. Reid: That is why the ministers change every week.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That may be, but I would recommend to you that author, who the member for Riverdale suggested was a second-rate author -- although I think his would be more interesting reading than any books that the member would write.

Mr. Deans: That is pretty petty.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of personal privilege on behalf of the member for Riverdale -- that is slander.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right. I commend Alvin Toffler’s book to him as to the need for rapid change --

Mr. Foulds: The fact is that the minister cannot read, and he resents it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- as to the need for quick and rapid change within government structures, as well as the private sector, because what we used to be able to take five or six years to do, now has to be done within a matter of months, and may even become obsolete by the end of that time. It is one of the problems that all governments have to struggle with today. You can argue what degree of success we’re having with it if you like, but I’m saying that at least we are taking the steps any reasonable person would expect a government to take today that is alert to the needs of the times.

I’m sure when the hon. members opposite are in some other jurisdictions and they see what’s happening there, they probably say: “You should come to Ontario and see the structure of government we have there. It’s one of the best in the world.”

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t bet on that.

Mr. Reid: And they’re disappointed when they look at the front benches.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m not so sure.

Mr. Deans: I wouldn’t bet on that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I’m sure you wouldn’t. I always tell them, and I’m sure most of the members here do, about our Legislature and the way we do it here; that the opposition is entitled to do so and so and they do their job. And every minister has to make sure when he comes forward here that everything he says, everything he writes, he does -- if he’s smart -- as if there’s an opposition member looking over his shoulder. The greatest thing --

Mr. Deans: What a nice opposition you have.

Mr. Reid: Oh, you’re not blaming us for that stuff you hand out to the press.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- for a democratic society is a good opposition. Now, I tell them we have a good opposition; and I also tell them we hope they keep staying over there, because they’re so good at it.

Mr. Deans: I gathered you might. Now would you tell us what you do?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member knows that perfectly well. I don’t intend to get into an argument about the debate here on the Algonquin forest policy. There were many errors of fact which the hon. member -- well, you can’t have an error of fact; it’s either a fact or it isn’t -- many errors he made in attempting to produce facts in respect of outcome.

Mr. Deans: All right. Tell me what they were.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources and he will deal with it.

Mr. Deans: Tell me what they were.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He will deal with them. The Minister of Natural Resources will deal with it.

Mr. Deans: Tell me what the errors were.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I’m not going to be sucked into that. I’ve been around too long. I’ve been around too long to get sucked into that --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and to have you create a cleavage between myself and my colleagues because we have a working relationship.

Mr. Deans: You don’t even know about the policy.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We have a good working relationship; and they do their job and I do mine -- and we do it well together.

Mr. Deans: Well, then, tell me about the errors.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, the hon. minister has the floor.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister still has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In that respect, I could suggest to the hon. member that if he is suggesting that we’re not really concerned with Algonquin Park --

Mr. Deans: I am in error?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course you are in error. I think it was the hon. member for York Centre who suggested, or at least very strongly implied, that we should have done something -- or was it the hon. member for Wentworth? -- about Lake Erie years ago, instead of allowing a little bit of pollution.

Mr. Deans: Oh yes, that is an example of what could be considered.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sure it’s an example. It’s an example of Monday morning quarterbacking. All of us in this House --

Mr. Deans: What are you talking about? Are you incapable of understanding anything?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just hold your horses.

Mr. Deans: I said that having recognized the errors that were made, don’t make similar errors in Algonquin Park.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’re not making similar errors.

Mr. Deans: You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And that’s one of the reasons it gives you an opportunity to complain about delay, because we want to make sure we make no more errors in those areas. And the hon. member should know -- and if he doesn’t, I’ll tell him, and if he doesn’t believe me, he can check it out -- that the conservation people, people who are concerned with pollution and that sort of thing, who make it their main thrust, will tell you that in this country, Ontario is in the forefront.

Mr. Deans: What has that got to do with anything we are talking about?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That has a hell of a lot to do with it, because --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- you are accusing this government of not being concerned about it, or doing anything about it -- about the environment and about pollution. We are in the forefront. As a matter of fact --

Mr. Renwick: That is the most irrelevant argument you have ever presented.

Mr. Deans: It is verbal gymnastics.

Mr. Chairman: Order please. Allow the minister to continue.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wonder if the hon. member realized how difficult it was for me, with my low boiling point, to listen to a lot of the junk that he was pouring out.

Mr. Deans: Then tell me what was junk.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why don’t you sit there and listen?

Mr. Deans: Tell me what was the junk.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Mr. Deans: It is all through your minister’s statement.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, one of the best known and largest environmental groups in this province -- they are in the forefront of prodding governments, including ours, from time to time -- said quite bluntly when I told them in one instance that I thought that perhaps it might be a good idea to go first to the federal government on a matter which, in my view, really should have concerned the federal government first. They said, “Well, we are coming” --

Mr. Renwick: That is your normal answer to everything.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- “to you because you are recognized as being the jurisdiction which listens and really is in the forefront. We expect you to give leadership, even to the federal government, because of your record in the field of conservation and your concern about pollution.”

Mr. Renwick: Oh, come on!

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s exactly what was said.

Mr. Reid: Tell us who that was, and we will get him.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can’t remember the name.

Mr. Renwick: That pseudo-rhetoric is not the answer for the policy deficiency of your party.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Who told you that?

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is called the National Survival Institute. I am just reminded of the name.

Mr. Renwick: It is very difficult to keep order when you have to listen to this.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. Reid: You mean you are connected with the survival institute?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am; and you know why, don’t you? Well, that must mean that you are either saying that the public doesn’t know what they are doing --

Mr. Reid: They are talking about it in cabinet.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I go back to the public every four years, you know. If I didn’t do a job right, they would have turfed me out.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister wasting his time or something? Didn’t you know --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I didn’t know that the hon. member was going to speak. I would have waited and replied to him. I am sorry.

Mr. Chairman: Order please, the hon. minister has the floor. The member for Rainy River has a question.

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the last speaker before the minister was a Liberal, the member for Kent.

Mr. Chairman: I think the minister will be replying later. The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, there are a few things I want to say concerning the administration of this secretariat. I am not going to be as critical of what the secretariat is attempting to do as the two former speakers. I happen to think that there is a very great opportunity for this secretariat to do the things that the COGP envisaged they might do. I don’t see too much evidence of success up to this point, but I still see some opportunity to come to grips with the very complex problems you referred to earlier.

In answering my colleague, the member for Wentworth, the minister said he wasn’t responsible for specific problems that relate directly to a particular ministry. But I think that I must caution the minister that there were many, many things that were going on and are still going on within the ministries in his policy field that were completely inadequate. I want to refer to three or four of them in a very brief and very concise way.

I am talking about the timber inventories that were supposed to be kept up to date. The timber industry is the underpinning of the economic life and survival of northern Ontario. Heretofore they have had a good margin of error and they were able to be a little bit negligent in inventories because they did have a good deal of elbow room. Such is not the case now. We are getting much closer to the allowable cut in certain species than we ever were before. We can’t sit by and say: “Well, we have a good margin of error, lots of room.” We haven’t got that room; Armstrong is an excellent example of it.

I think that this minister as the policy minister for resources development can call in his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, and ask him: “What is the allowable cut of a particular species in a given area?” If he has been truthful, he won’t be able to tell you, but I think these are the kinds of questions this minister has to be asking his colleague, because the survival of many of the communities in northern Ontario depends upon the ability of this government to know what is going on in the resources field. They haven’t had to know up to this point, but that is changing very rapidly.

I think it is incumbent upon this minister to say: “We can look after a lot of the social and economic problems in many areas of the province if you can provide me with that detailed information -- a realistic inventory of what our resources are and whether they are going wasted and the use to which they could be put to satisfy some of the social and the economic problems facing people in this province.” That is the kind of thing that I see this ministry doing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don’t disagree with that at all.

Mr. Stokes: I also want to say to the minister and his secretariat that another area that they should concern themselves with is in the field of mining. There has been a good deal said in this Legislature and in committee down the hall about the environmental and health problems facing many employees in many locations in the mining industry today. Because of a lack of coordination and a lack of co-operation between the former Department of Mines, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Environment, we have people who worked in the mining industry who are suffering untold harm to their health as a result -- the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.

In a recent interview with two former ministers of mines, they both admitted that in the past that ministry has been to too far great an extent management-oriented or company-oriented rather than employee-oriented. They made that clear admission. I think that this minister again can perform this function of co-ordinating what one ministry should be doing vis-à-vis another. It is clearly evident to me and I am sure it is clearly evident to the minister that that hasn’t gone on before.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It also might be possible it may have emanated from the policy field, you know.

Mr. Stokes: It just might have, but, as I say, I don’t see any evidence yet of any concrete action to come to grips with either of those problems and I am hoping that those are two of the areas that can be gone into.

In another area where I think you should concern yourself, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is going to have to play a very vital and important role in coming to grips with a lot of the problems, not only in northern Ontario, but almost anywhere you want to name throughout the province. If you don’t have adequate transportation and communications policies, a lot of the other things you are attempting to do are going to fall down, particularly in the resources field.

If we are talking about maximum utilization of our forestry resources, we are going to have to have an adequate transportation and communications network. The same thing holds true for making maximum use of our mineral potential, and for tourism in the Province of Ontario. If we don’t have access, we are not going to be in a position to capitalize on those and exploit them in a realistic way.

I would also like to ask the minister about one specific item that I raised with his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, and that is the rehabilitation of many areas that have been despoiled as a result of past activities with no regard for environmental, social and long-range economics consequences. I am thinking specifically of the rehabilitation of Lake Nipigon.

I don’t know how closely you sit in and monitor what is said in the estimates of the various ministries within your policy field, but there was a commitment made by your colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, to assist us and to assist a committee that has been formed specifically for the rehabilitation of Lake Nipigon. You have a copy of a letter on your desk that was directed to you within the past week. This is the kind of co-ordinating function in which you can become involved, where you are dealing with the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Energy, Ontario Hydro and agencies of several ministries that are going to have to co-ordinate their efforts in a very real and very sensible way if you are going to come to grips with this major problem.

Lake Nipigon is just one example, but it is an excellent example of the kind of co-ordinating function that you can perform in order to see that a very worthwhile undertaking like this does get on the drawing board and on the way.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Lake St. Joseph is another example.

Mr. Stokes: That’s right, although in that case we are not talking about the rehabilitation of Lake St. Joseph; we are talking about the establishment of a brand-new industry there. There again, it is well that you see what the consequences are in advance of any development being done and you are able to monitor it and make sure there are no detrimental changes in an environmental way.

The final thing that I want to mention is that there are many areas of the north where some of our industries are having extreme difficulty in recruiting the kind of people that are absolutely essential for their operations. I suppose you are going to have some difficulty with the social development policy field, as well as with the federal government if it means a change in immigration policies. But if we are going to aspire to the kind of development that we want in northern Ontario, you are going to have to impress upon your colleagues, not only within your own policy field but in other policy fields, to redirect their efforts towards retraining people in the kinds of skills that are going to be necessary in order to make sure that we have an adequate manpower supply for the mining and forestry industries and for many of the things that we are attempting to do.

It is not an easy matter. As I say, I suppose you are going to have some difficulty in view of the announcement made by the federal Minister of Manpower and Immigration; but it is a definite problem and I think it is one that you could busy yourself about to see if you couldn’t take on the co-ordinating role of assisting industry to get the kind of manpower they are going to need in order to keep things going and to expand to the extent that we would like in northern Ontario.

I don’t want to take up all of the time. I have taken up about six or seven minutes; I could say much more. I want to think in positive terms for this Resources Development secretariat. I see lots of work for you to do. I have just given you a few examples of the kinds of things, the kinds of initiatives I think should be taken. At a later date perhaps we will have an opportunity to discuss it in more detail.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will just take one second.

I started to write down those matters which the member enumerated. As he went along, it became apparent that these are matters which we are dealing with at the policy committee level. I said, I will wait until he makes some comment about something we haven’t touched on. Honestly, I can’t. I can assure the hon. member that all of those matters that he has raised are being dealt with.

Mr. Stokes: But it is not apparent to us over here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I know that, and at the outset I said that is the problem.

Mr. Stokes: We either have a right to assume that you are not doing it or that you are not being too successful.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member can resolve that problem for us, as a provincial secretary I’d give him the equivalent of the Canadian croix de guerre because I appreciate that.

It is not visible and you mentioned that at the outset. We are doing all this work. I’m not certain how we can at the same time let you know that we are doing it and what we are doing about it and still let you know what the government is considering and what government policy is going to be before the government makes its decision. I think this thing has to open up as we go along in some way. It is not as simple as that.

Mr. Stokes: We could help you, if you want to take us into your confidence.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How can I advise the member that I am taking something to cabinet next week, or that the recommendation is going to cabinet, if cabinet hasn’t considered it at that stage? It would be highly improper. Maybe cabinet will turn it down or amend it; I don’t know.

It is very difficult. I appreciate that. All I can say is that if the hon. member asks me a question and I give him the answer, he can rest assured that no ministers will give him an incorrect answer or an answer which isn’t truthful. I can tell him that the matters which he has raised specifically have all been under constant consideration and things are being done about them. The only way he can find out specifically is to ask the particular minister a particular question when he is in the House and he will tell you where that stands from his own ministry’s viewpoint. I wish I could do it another way. I can’t think of one.

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

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if I have time to cover the material I want to, but specifically what I want to speak to the minister about in this instance is Atikokan and the problems that are going to face that community. I was glad to hear the minister indicate that they had been working on the case of Armstrong and were concerned and felt that they had some kind of responsibility in cases such as this.

I corresponded with the minister in regard to Atikokan at some length. As a matter of fact, I just signed a letter to him today in regard to the proposed hydro-electric thermal plant that will be built somewhere in northwestern Ontario. I would bring to the minister’s attention that we had a meeting in Atikokan -- I believe it was on Oct. 10 -- which some Ontario Hydro officials attended to get the public reaction of the people of Atikokan to having that thermal plant in their environment.

I want to state publicly, and I have written a letter -- I don’t know if the minister got a copy, but the Minister of Energy did -- to say I was quite pleased with the performance that the Ontario Hydro officials put on. I have often been critical of Hydro, but in this case I thought they did a first-rate job. Specifically, what I want to say to the minister is this, that his policy group has an opportunity to show just what it can do and should be doing, in the case particularly of the thermal plants. As Atikokan stands in the next five to 10 years, there is a very good possibility that one of the mines will pull out of the community because of lack of easily accessible ore or high-grade ore.

This is a possibility for your ministry to set priorities, to say to Ontario Hydro, that as an economic device it is going to put this plant in Atikokan to stabilize the population, to provide employment opportunities for the people in that area, and to maintain the viability of this community. I think this would be a departure from the way Ontario Hydro has operated in the past and I would hope that the minister would give some consideration to this.

Are we intending, Mr. Chairman, to continue these estimates next week?

Mr. Chairman: I was going to ask if vote 1601 would carry.

Mr. Reid: When will we be continuing?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Chairman, I think the agreement that has been reached among the House leaders pretty well stands as far as I am concerned. The hon. member might discuss that with his House leader.

On Monday, as I announced last evening, we will be dealing with the no-confidence vote; in the evening we will be dealing with the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, if I may, my recollection was that we agreed to one sitting; it was spelled out in hours, but in fact we agreed to one sitting. I assumed this was the sitting and that it would end at 1. I have no objection to an extra half hour, but I certainly do agree with the House leader this time. We agreed to a sitting and I am quite prepared to have it passed.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You could discuss that in the estimates of the Ministry of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: In any event, I wish the member would discuss the matter with his House leader.

Mr. Reid: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will be doing the estimates of the Ministry of Labour next week. I think I have made my point. The minister has the letter. I am willing to let the vote carry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You made your point.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 1601 carry?

Vote 1601 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House, I think it’s quite clear that the business of the House at the beginning of the week is as I announced it last evening. I would simply like to say that we have reached agreement that on Monday during the debate we will limit ourselves to half an hour for the leaders or the major spokesmen for the parties and 10 minutes for any other member who wishes to participate.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1:05 o’clock, p.m.