Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, if I may, before statements I would like to draw to the attention of the House that today, Nov. 1, 1974, marks the beginning of the 21st year of service in the Legislature to the Province of Ontario by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld). I thought the Legislature would like to have that information.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

FOOD AID PROGRAMME

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I was almost so overwhelmed by the fact my colleague next to me has been here 21 years that I forgot to make the statement.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for

Resources Development): And he looks so young.

An Hon. member: He is so young.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce to the members a programme to provide through the offices of the Red Cross temporary aid to drought-stricken areas of the world where famine is a stark reality. Last August the Ontario Commissioner of the Canadian Red Cross requested consideration by the Province of Ontario in participating in aid to countries facing food shortages.

As many of the members are aware, Ontario produces a unique product known as the white bean. This crop is extremely high in protein and nutritional value. In 1973, the white bean growers of this province experienced certain weather conditions which caused the bean to split during and after harvest thereby making it unsuitable for canning. The food value of this product, however, is not affected by the splitting.

To avoid eventual spoilage and additional storage costs, the government of Ontario has decided to purchase approximately 65,000 bags of split white beans left over from the 1973 crop at a cost of approximately $800,000. This high protein food will be made available to the Red Cross which will assume responsibility for shipping it to the drought-stricken areas of the world.

I am confident that all members will agree unanimously with this food aid programme to help people faced with the ravages of starvation in those countries served by the Red Cross. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are happy to have in your gallery this morning Rev. Barry Brooks, the commissioner of the Red Cross and, I believe, the president of the Red Cross for Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

BEEF PRICES

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to pursue the matter the Minister of Agriculture and Food raised a week ago and which was also raised yesterday, having to do with a situation faced by the beef farmers in the province. Is the minister aware that in the Kitchener stockyards the kind of cattle that he is advising the beef farmers to sell for culls are going at 10 cents a pound, a price which was considerably lower than what we thought was a fire-sale price 15 years ago? Is he going to give more serious consideration to the recommendation from the Federation of Agriculture that specific subsidy payments should be paid from our Treasury, or in co-operation with this Treasury and the Treasury of Canada, for beef farmers so that they can feed their cattle over the winter and not have to simply give them away or, as in the almost obscene circumstances in Quebec, slaughter them and throw them into pits?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the situation referred to by my hon. friend is not quite as simple as one would be led to believe. I have no idea as to the price or the value or the quality of the cattle that he refers to.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Tanners and cutters at 10 cents a pound.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Tanners and cutters, all right. These are refuse cows from either the dairy herds or beef herds of the province and some may have been shipped in from western Canada.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They are the cows the minister was talking about last week.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: These are the cull cows that we recommend should be taken out of the herds. In my opinion, there is no place for a boarder or an old cow to be kept around here in our province with the high cost of feed that we find today. We believe that these animals should be disposed of, but in their place we are encouraging farmers to purchase high quality beef heifers, so that when they come back into the breeding herd as producers in a couple of years time they might very well contribute to a source of beef that, in my opinion, will be badly required at that time.

I can see little use in providing a subsidy to people to carry those cows through.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What about a subsidy to dispose of them?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Probably a subsidy to dispose of them would be more appropriate. In this connection we have had discussions with the federal Minister of Agriculture to determine whether or not the beef stabilization programme currently in effect might apply to such animals. If it does, then I think there is basis for stabilization or deficiency payments to be made to those producers as time goes on. That is still under consideration; it has not been decided.

We have also suggested that, among other programmes the federal government is considering on a national basis, consideration should be given to extending the current stabilization programme, which runs from Aug. 1, 1974, to Aug. 1, 1975, into a longer period, which would make it possible for some of those calves, that we would like to see carried over into next year, fed off to market and qualify for that stabilization programme. If, however, the programme is cut off, as it is now proposed, on Aug. 1, 1975, some of those cattle -- in fact, I would think, the vast majority of them -- would not qualify for the stabilization programme because they would not be ready to come back to the fat slaughter market by that time. Those are things under consideration.

Reference was made to the calves that were disposed of and that horror film, of which I think some of us at least happened to see parts depicted on television, of the slaughter of these calves in Quebec. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that as long as I can remember male calves from the dairy industry and certain of the cross-bred dairy beef calves have been disposed of at birth or within a few days of birth simply because there was no place for them to go, until the last few years when there developed a greater appreciation for veal in Canada and certainly, a market expanded or developed in Italy, Greece and, I believe, certain of the other Mediterranean countries. This generated the shipment by air of these calves from Ontario and Quebec to those countries at the age of from up to about 10 days to two weeks, some of them younger, where they would be fed to veal weights to meet the demand in those countries where veal is one of the chief sources of meat in the diet.

Due to economic circumstances which have developed in those countries over the last few months, I’m given to understand that there has been a vast drop-off in the demand for those calves. Farmers in eastern Ontario -- and reports I’ve had emanating from Quebec -- have told me that it was possible to sell those calves on a contract basis, picked up at the age of a few days old, at very substantial prices comparative to what they had been, and I’m talking now of from $30 to $60 apiece. Now, that market has dried up.

Many of these farmers simply have never been used to producing veal on their farms; they are milk producers. There is virtually no place to sell these calves, because when one considers the fact that we have in this province alone about 450,000 dairy cows and Quebec has a similar or even a greater number of dairy cows, one can readily understand that the surplus male calves don’t find a home very readily. So many farmers, just as they did in Wisconsin a while ago, simply decided to destroy those male calves at birth or very shortly thereafter. Certainly the calves that I saw in the brief snatch of film on tele- vision last night -- I didn’t see the show the night before but I did last night -- were calves that I would say were within a few days of birth.

Certainly it is a deplorable thing to see this happen, unfortunately. But what else can be done to persuade farmers to carry those calves through to maturity, with grain prices the highest they have ever been in recorded history in North America and with milk prices at the level where they can get more to sell the milk then they can to put it through the calf? This is plain economics. It is as simple as that, sir.

I have to say to you that through research programmes we have going on at the Kemptville agricultural college which I observed first hand last Saturday, research has proven that if they take the cholesteric milk from the cow which cannot be used for human consumption for at least five days and keep that cholesteric milk in a separate container, then all they have to do is add a little bit of buttermilk, which can be purchased in the stores for a few cents a package, dump it into that cholesteric milk and it will maintain the uniformity of the milk for up to 28 days. That cholesteric milk doesn’t have to be specifically refrigerated, and it can be used to feed that calf on the basis of five pounds per day, then gradually getting the calf on to prepared calf food. It does’ t have to be purchased. It can be made up by the farmer and we have the formula available for him. We have been able to reduce the cost of producing that calf up to 400 or 450 pounds weight by almost two-thirds of the normal cost that would be associated with producing.

We are encouraging our farmers in eastern Ontario to do just that and, in fact, many of them are doing it. Some of the farmers told me that they deplored the fact that veal wasn’t selling as high as it had been a while ago. Nevertheless, they were able to purchase these dairy calves that are surplus to the dairy farmers, the real milk producers, who don’t have the accommodations or the time or the labour to raise these calves, and they are putting them on this basis of cholesteric feeding of this milk, because it is really a waste product. To my mind, that is a much more constructive approach to providing animal protein food for our human population, whether it be here or in some other country, than to destroy calves. I would like to see that programme vastly expanded and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that our government, as usual, is doing everything it possibly can to alleviate the losses being sustained by some producers.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, will you extend the question period appropriately, in view of the ministerial statement?

Mr. Speaker: It was an unrehearsed statement.

Mr. Shulman: But it was still a 10-minute statement.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. In my opinion it was a very complete answer and it was quite lengthy --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: -- therefore, we will extend the question period by about three minutes.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They should give us a notice of motion, then it won’t take so long to answer a question.

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

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes. Under the circumstances, I hesitate to ask a supplementary, but I think it is important that we realize that the problem is not just the poor, innocent black and white calves thrown into the pits in that spectacular TV production, but the calves that are presently out in the fields and pastures right across this part of the province and will be brought in, in many cases, for winter feeding within the next few weeks. It is those cows that were worth $250 a year ago and are now worth $100 or less at the present time, and those calves which were worth as much as 60 cents a pound a year ago which producers now can’t sell at all, and if they can sell them they are probably worth something like 23 to 24 cents a pound. It is that particular part of the agriculture industry, not, let’s say, the surplus male calves from the dairy industry but the aspects of the beef industry that have been encouraged to expand by this minister and by the minister in Ottawa --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Ask the question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- and his predecessor. The farmers now find themselves hard pressed to even consider over-wintering them and they simply find the prices are so low that they --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. This is the question period, not a debate.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the minister going to do about that problem? What is he going to do about that problem?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is making a big issue of something that is a fact of life that we just simply are not able to cope with in its entirety. My hon, friend may refer to the times when he and some of his colleagues stood in the House and said, “What are you going to do about com at 75 to 85 cents a bushel?” Corn is now worth $4.50 and we don’t hear them yapping about that. But that is really the problem.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What does the minister mean, “yapping about that”? Is he against the right to disagree in this House?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend stands up here and makes a big issue about me advocating that farmers dispose of culled cows. Certainly they should dispose of them, and I make no apologies for that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What are you going to do about these farmers who have no income because of these policies?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I make no apologies, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this government for having encouraged farmers over the last few years --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He was certainly wrong when he did that.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why don’t you tell the minister to come to order?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- to make use of the vacant land that we have in this country, to produce calves, when we are bringing feeder cattle into Ontario to the extent of about 400,000 head annually from western Canada. The member is saying we shouldn’t have done those kinds of things. Of course, I suppose he wants to take the stand where he is standing squarely in mid-air with a foot on each side of the fence.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Very funny.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Right. Last year he was encouraging beef cattle production and this year my hon. friend is discouraging beef cattle production and saying it’s all our fault.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is the government’s fault.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It certainly is not our fault.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They encouraged it to expand.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member was encouraging it last year.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It is not our fault and nobody in his right mind would suggest that it is.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the minister can say categorically if he is turning down the reasonable approaches made by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and simply saying this, his so-called loan programme, is the only answer he is prepared to undertake?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I indicated that last week and I did it for a very specific reason. If we provide $100 per cow it will reduce the cow herd in this province to the place where I think, as I said last week, it would hurt the future sources of beef production and would drive beef prices to a level that would make 1973 beef prices, at around $60 per 100 lb live weight, look like a Sunday school picnic. I don’t think that is what we want to do as a responsible government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now the member is on both sides of the fence.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What are these farmers going to live on?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

LAND ASSEMBLY IN EDWARDSBURGH TOWNSHIP

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I want to ask the Minister of Housing if he is now prepared to say that he does know something about the use of the land that is being assembled in his own constituency, in Edwardsburgh township. Can he confirm or is he prepared to deny that it is in fact a part of an industrial park that is going to be assembled by A. E. LePage and no doubt will come under the jurisdiction of some emanation of his ministry, as has been announced in the newspaper today?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I don’t think we need go through the dialogue we had the other day --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I hope not, because the minister said he didn’t know anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- I haven’t got anything further to add, except to say that I would be delighted if something can be done to improve the economy of Grenville-Dundas in particular and of eastern Ontario. If there is a development that will do this, if it is an industrial park, I would be delighted if this comes about --

Mr. Shulman: Doesn’t the minister know?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- but I don’t know what’s going to happen in regard to the land. I don’t think anybody else knows. We have a story in the Globe and Mail -- and I know the member has read it -- which outlines someone’s reasoning as to what might happen to the land. If it does come about, fair enough.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Doesn’t the minister understand the concern of the people in his own area when their own member says he knows nothing about this but which may lead them to accept an industrial expansion over which they have not expressed an opinion to the officials of the government and to sell their property for $500 an acre in some kind of a collection of property that may go on to become a major new industrial centre? Surely the minister is not serving his own people adequately when he attempts to keep that under cover? Why doesn’t he serve his people adequately in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition has absolutely no knowledge of what he’s talking about in regard to the land in question.

An hon. member: As usual.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Why doesn’t he come down and take a look?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the minister tell us?

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Why doesn’t he tell us? That is his job. That is what he is paid for.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: If the hon. Leader of the Opposition had some knowledge of the land in question, he would realize that the people who signed the options received a very fair offer --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: For farm land, yes -- but for industrial development, no.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and if they didn’t think it was a fair offer, as I said before, there was no necessity for them to sign it. If it comes about that there is a government decision to acquire the land --

Mr. Shulman: But why doesn’t the minister know?

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Why doesn’t he know?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Why doesn’t the minister consult them?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- then we will certainly dialogue directly with them. But it is not a matter of a government decision right now; it involves options by A. E. LePage.

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

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of any plans in his ministry or elsewhere to have a satellite city in that part of eastern Ontario, quite apart from this particular piece of land?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the only satellite city that I know of is Carlsbad Springs, with which the hon. member may be acquainted, since he comes from Ottawa -- or used to, anyway. I would think that is a development that may come about in the next 10 years --

Mr. Cassidy: There will be three of us from eastern Ontario in another day or two.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It may be that the development will be somewhat accelerated but, as I said the other day, it won’t be accelerated ahead of its time because the federal government wants to proceed with it unilaterally. The province will say when it is going to go ahead. And it won’t go ahead just because the member for Ottawa Centre says it should go ahead.

Mr. Cassidy: No, the minister is going to stay in bed with the developers. That’s right.

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

MUNICIPAL VOTERS’ LISTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Revenue if he has any explanation for once again having inadequate municipal voters’ lists? We won’t talk about the provincial voters’ list. The indications once again are that the municipal voters’ lists in this town and in other places in the province have been poorly drawn, are misleading and open up the possibility of all sorts of electoral abuse.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, the only information I have at the moment probably is generated by the same source that has generated the question by the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): All over Ontario it’s the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I refer to an article appearing in this morning’s Globe and Mail in reference to the voters’ lists in ward six, and that concerns the university students who were registering during September.

I have asked my staff to look into this, but my preliminary information, subject to confirmation and perhaps subject to some elaboration later, is that we recognized that during the enumeration in September there would be students coming back and booking in at the various colleges around the University of Toronto. Our staff went to those various colleges and asked them to keep us posted on the students’ names as they came in so that they could be put on the list during that period. But the difficulty was that they were booking in during the same period as the enumeration was proceeding.

In the case of St. Michael’s College, I understand, we got excellent co-operation, and I understand that the voters’ list for that college is virtually perfect. The other colleges were less than co-operative in the full extent, and as a result there are a substantial number of names that are subject to some question.

I may have more information later but it would appear that this is a difficulty that arises because of a significant number of people moving in at the time of the enumeration being conducted.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Wouldn’t the minister agree with the fact that though that may be a significant difficulty, the real difficulty is poll by poll through the city, and that the article he reads and the information that has come to us from western Ontario are fairly uniform? Names will appear six and eight times on one list; you have probably heard of the case of somebody named John Tory being on the list six times for a poll in the Toronto-Do- minion Centre. That is not St. Michael’s College, that is not University College.

Hon, Mr. Meen: That’s the second point that is raised in the article to which the member did not refer, but the point is that in the computerized system the form asks, when you are a registered tenant or registered owner of the property: “Do you live in the premises, do you live in the municipality, or do you live in some other municipality?”

When people aren’t at the premises all the time, on every occasion, we have to rely on other information being provided. It would look as if John A. Tory may have perhaps not completed the form. We have to assume, therefore, in these cases, rather than disenfranchise someone from the right to vote, that he has the right to vote if it has not been corrected otherwise. If we see them on the list we can’t tell whether John A. Tory, J. A. Tory, John Tory are one and the same individual. That turns up later in instances such as this. It is therefore up to the individual, in some instances. We do our own editing on these to some extent, to pick up obvious duplications, but in instances that don’t come to our attention and aren’t immediately obvious we try to err on the side of leaving the person on the voters’ list rather than remove his name.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Ottawa Centre for the New Democratic Party.

DOCUMENTS JURIDIQUES BILINGUES BILINGUAL COURT DOCUMENTS

Mr. Cassidy: Monsieur l’orateur, je voudrais poser certaines questions au ministère concernant les Franco-Ontariens de cette province, en particulier ceux qui habitent dans l’est de l’Ontario et dans le comté de Carleton-Est. Ces questions sont particulièrement importantes du fait que le candidat des conservateurs veut, je crois, être le représentant des Franco-Ontariens au sein du cabinet, s’il est élu. And the possibility of his getting elected becomes less and less every day.

A question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. Can he explain why provincial court traffic summonses and other court documents are issued only in English, despite repeated efforts by city hall and Ottawa over the last three years to have them issued bilingually, including a letter from Mayor Pierre Benoit?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the hon, member has been kind enough to have written to me on this particular matter. We are in the process, in preparing our reply, of showing him over a period of time how we plan to, in fact, implement this particular procedure.

At the moment, as he knows, in the Ottawa-Carleton area we do, in fact, attach to all summonses a sticker explaining in French the procedures to be followed by those to whom these documents have been served. What the hon. member makes reference to now is some further steps with respect to the documentation. It certainly is the intention of this ministry to proceed in an orderly way to accommodate the matters to which he makes reference.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact that this has been done to Franco-Ontarians, I suppose for the last century, does the minister consider that the little ticket that says “Renseignement: telephoner” -- and a certain phone number is a sufficient equal treatment for Franco-Ontarians that may not understand the document?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The minister wasn’t suggesting that at all. He was certainly indicating by his answer that the importance of the matter to which the member makes reference has not been ignored. This was a first step; there are other steps obviously to be taken and they will be taken in an orderly way.

LANGUAGE RIGHTS IN COURTS

Mr. Cassidy: A new question, Mr. Speaker, of the same minister: Can the minister explain why civil cases in Ontario courts can only be heard in English even when all parties are French-speaking, some speak only French, and all wish to proceed in French? What plans are there for changes in order that the civil proceedings can be heard before a French-speaking judge when there are French-speaking people involved?

Hon. Mr. Welch: This particular matter is under consideration at the moment as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, there is no action on that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it is completely unfair for members to be allowed editorial comments after a minister makes his answer and I think that his interpretation of my answer is unfair. I indicated to him in a very frank way that these matters are under consideration as part of this government’s policy on bilingualism, and for him to indicate just offhand in this editorial way just does not seem to be reasonable to me.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He indicates in a frank way that nothing has been done.

BILINGUAL BIRTH, MARRIAGE, DEATH CERTIFICATES

Mr. Cassidy: A question, Mr. Speaker, of the same minister in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement). Is the policy minister aware that if you are born in Ontario, married in Ontario or if you die in Ontario, you do so in English? And what plans does the government have to issue bilingual birth, marriage, and death certificates?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that question should be directed to the appropriate minister.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to reply as it is a policy matter which affects all of the Justice ministry.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The minister has replied, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Nothing has happened.

BILINGUAL ELECTION DOCUMENTS

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, Mr. Speaker, my next question is of the Treasurer.

Can the Treasurer explain why the election documents for the forthcoming municipal elections, which are sent out to all municipalities and include notices to electors that are posted in each poll, are issued only in English? And why is no such documentation made available to be posted in French in areas where there are a substantial number of French-speaking electors?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economical and Intergovernmental Affairs): No, sir, I can’t. This may not be in my ministry, but I’ll check it.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of municipal affairs, I believe, which is under the control of the Treasurer in the absence of a minister without portfolio to fill that particular responsibility. Is this not the ministry responsible for municipal elections?

Hon. Mr. White: I’ll be glad to look into it.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

BILINGUAL ENUMERATION PERSONNEL

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Minister of Revenue: What plans does the Ministry of Revenue have to ensure that in the next municipal enumeration carried out by his ministry, bilingual personnel are provided in areas where there are a substantial number of francophones, in order that the francophones not be left off the list, as has happened in Ottawa in the current census?

Hon, Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know of any significant plans I have under way that are different from the current arrangements, in which we endeavour to have enumerators fluent, or at least conversant, in the languages most expected to be found when they’re conducting their enumeration in these various areas. In the Franco-Ontarian areas, I would expect that there would be a substantial number of French-speaking enumerators. However, if there are some problems of this sort which the hon. member for Ottawa Centre can bring to my attention, I’d be happy to look into them.

BILINGUAL SOCIAL WORKERS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. What plans does the ministry have to ensure that every person in eastern Ontario, or other parts of the province where there are a substantial number of francophones, who wishes to deal with his social worker or with the ministry in French, will have that right automatically and not be assigned unilingual English case workers?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, I think in our ministry, wherever a good percentage of the population is French-speaking -- in northern Ontario, eastern Ontario and other parts of Ontario -- we have bilingual social workers. Also, practically all of our literature is bilingual.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Répondez en français.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, that doesn’t quite gibe with what we find in our area.

BILINGUAL OPP CONSTABLES

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General, Mr. Speaker.

Is the minister responsible for the justice area aware that the majority of OPP constables in the united counties of Prescott and Russell, which are overwhelmingly francophone, are unilingually English? And, as a matter of policy, what plans does the ministry have to ensure that where there are a substantial number of francophones, most if not all of the constables will be bilingual?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the linguistic capacities of the members of the force in that part of the province, but I’d be glad to get that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a final question in this area --

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Seventh question!

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Excellent questions, too. They are embarrassing the government, of course, but they are excellent questions.

Mr. Cassidy: And very quick too, as a matter of fact. I’ve been on my feet for half the time of the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: As the House leader, I can decide who asks the questions.

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. member proceed with his question?

BILINGUAL PERMITS AND LICENCES

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, who is responsible for the area of transportation and communications.

Is the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development aware of the fact that Ontario drivers’ licences, motor vehicle permits and trailer permits are issued only in English? And, as a matter of policy, what plans does the government have for making those bilingual?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, ich denk ich vel entferen zein shaleh in mein lauschen. Er vet nisht fershtayn ober ich vel enterferen in mein lauschen. [Translation: I think I will answer his question in my language. He won’t understand, but I will answer in my language.]

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You see, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to let the hon. member, who was showing off the fact he was bilingual, that I am bilingual as well.

Mr. Deans: It is too bad the minister doesn’t have any answers in either language.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just gave him an answer. I can’t help it if he is not educated enough to understand another language.

Mr. Speaker, the Ottawa Centre member knows perfectly well that his question should be directed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes). As I told the hon. members during my estimates -- I don’t recall if he was there -- I don’t intend to usurp the responsibilities of the individual ministers in my policy field.

That is a question which he could have asked a long time ago. It is rather strange that he just became aware of it during a by-election in his neck of the woods. He should have asked the minister a long time ago to let him have an answer, and perhaps if something should be done which isn’t being done now, perhaps it would have been corrected, if in fact it needs correcting at this time.

I direct that question, Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have any further questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I do. It is rather strange, in fact, that the government wasn’t aware of these things a long time ago and didn’t do something about them.

EQUAL TREATMENT OF FRANCO-ONTARIANS

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that one can’t be born, married, die, drive, get arrested, or vote municipally in French in this province; that you may not be put on the census in French and you may not get social assistance in French -- and there are a number of other areas I didn’t bother to mention -- could the Premier say what, in fact, are this government’s intentions in terms of providing equal treatment to those citizens of Ontario who speak the other official language?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I recognize the political purpose of this total series of questions and I recognize the member for Ottawa Centre is particularly interested in playing politics at this precise moment.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is why we are here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only observe to the member for Ottawa Centre that this government and this province has, over the years, recognized the involvement of the Franco-Ontarian community. We have done it in terms of government administration, we have done it in the field of education, we have done it in a way that has caused very little friction or debate and in a way that has been, over the past number of years, reasonably acceptable to the Franco-Ontarian community.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, that while the member for Ottawa Centre is trying to provoke this into something of a partisan political situation, this government has done and will continue to do the things that are relevant for the Franco-Ontarians in a way that is acceptable to them and to the total population of this province, and we will not be provoked into the kind of debate or confrontation the member for Ottawa Centre is trying to provoke here.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary: In view of the Premier’s answer, and in view of the Gillin report and its indictment of the teaching of French in Ontario, what steps is the government willing to take to implement the recommendations of the Gillin report?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that question would be more properly directed to the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells).

Mr. Deans: If he were ever here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I could almost be prompted into answering the question but I think it would be more appropriate for the Minister of Education; except to make this rather general observation once again, that as far as this government is concerned we have made far greater progress in the teaching of French in the elementary and secondary school system than any other sister province. When it comes to the teaching of English in the bilingual elementary and secondary school system, we have once again made greater progress than our sister jurisdictions in a way that has been generally acceptable to the students and to the staff and to the public of this province and in a way that has not led to any degree of confrontation, and that is how the thing should be done, not the way you people want to do it, by provoking debate.

Mr. Deans: What in heaven’s name is wrong with debate?

Mr. Cassidy: I have one final question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with his final question.

HISTORIC FARMHOUSE

Mr. Cassidy: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development: Will the government intervene in order to preserve and move the farmhouse of Mr. Dugal Jamieson near Renfrew, in view of its error in undervaluing this historic stone farmhouse of over a century’s history, and in view of the fact that the farmhouse is now being expropriated by the ministry and this fellow is being pushed aside?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, obviously I can’t answer that because I don’t know where the farmhouse is or by whom it is owned. It’s the first time I’ve heard anything about it. If the hon. member will let me have the facts, I will direct them to the appropriate minister, and I’m sure what needs to be done will be done.

Mr. Cassidy: I thought I sent something to the minister on this. It concerns the Minister of Transportation and Communications. I would appreciate the minister looking into a very serious abuse of government power which once again affects eastern Ontario. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Natural Resources has an answer to a question.

STUDIES ON DEATHS IN URANIUM MINES

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I have the answer to a question directed to me by the leader of the New Democratic Party. I realize he’s not here today, but I will not be here on Monday myself. There was some concern about it, so I thought I would give the answer today. It’s an answer to his supplementary question, which was: “Since Dr. Muller himself calls it a previous report, dated 1973, could the minister find out and inform the House what happened to the document? It was obviously a document. Now what happened to it?” That was his question.

Mr. Speaker, the document to which the member referred was a preliminary document, presented in 1973 to the Committee on Occupational Health, consisting of doctors from the Ministry of Health, representatives from the Workmen’s Compensation Board and industry. The four-page report was studied by the committee who agreed that further investigation and information was needed. Dr. Muller undertook to prepare the final report for further public consumption, which was completed and published in September, 1974.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question, if I may: Is the minister telling us that he didn’t have knowledge of that report prior to the time that his estimates were being debated in the committee?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, Mr. Speaker, or I should say yes, we were aware that this report existed. It was an incomplete report, as Dr. Muller himself points out, and we were waiting for the final draft which followed shortly after the presentation of the estimates.

Mr. Deans: One final supplementary question, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary.

Mr. Deans: Did that preliminary report not contain an analysis of the rate of death attributable to cancer in the Elliot Lake area in the mines, in particular, over and against the normal rate of death in the remainder of the province? Wasn’t that sufficient to justify in the minister some kind of action related directly to the miners in that area rather than waiting for a final report, a delay which may well have contributed to additional deaths?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this whole question of radon and cancer was not just begun in 1973. It dates back much further than that. It was an ongoing thing. The information -- it’s a very technical report -- was not conclusive and it was not updated. The professional --

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): It was just not very clear.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- people felt that further information and updating with the relative information that was available at that time were needed before some solid conclusions could be arrived at.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I will yield to my leader.

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

ENFORCEMENT OF MORAL STANDARDS BY LIQUOR LICENCE BOARD

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, since the Premier has come into the House, I would like to ask him if he agrees with the understanding by the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board that the statute of Ontario gives him the power to act as, let’s say, the judge, the censor on the custodian of the morality --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The coverup.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- of the entertainment that is presented in the facilities that come under his licensing jurisdiction? Would the Premier not agree that these matters are the responsibility of the local law enforcement officers and they do not repose in the mind or in the authoritative hand of the chairman of the liquor board and his inspectors?

If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not also feel that some direction from his office or from the minister concerned to the Liquor Licence Board is necessary, if the inspectors are going to go around threatening to remove the licences of those particular establishments which offer entertainment that does not come up to the standards that are in the minds of the inspectors and the chairman himself?

Mr. Reid: Blackmail, what!

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check the provisions of the Act. I’m not sure just what the provisions call for with respect to the responsibility of the chairman. I will discuss this with the minister responsible who will be here on Monday. I’m sure he will be delighted to answer it for the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Shulman: It is not there.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the matter should be discussed here, would not the Premier indicate that, in his view, the chairman does not have that power and should not have it, and that he is about to set him straight when he’s had these discussions?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing to determine is whether by statute or by policy, he, in fact, does have some degree of power, and this is what I will discuss with the minister.

Mr. Deans: If he has, he shouldn’t. It is not his jurisdiction.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not commenting on that, I’m just --

Mr. Reid: That’s why we asked the question.

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

TOPLESS DANCING IN DINING LOUNGE

Mr. Shulman: In view of the absence of the Minister for Consumer and Commercial Relations, a question of the Provincial Secretary for Justice, or the Premier. The night raiders, the Liquor Licence Board, struck again last night, giving orders that all topless dancing in dining lounges be stopped. Will the minister intervene to put some common sense back down on Harbour St.? And, as a second part of the question: Is the minister aware that the excuse given to the ministry was that the topless dancing was to be taken out of the dining lounges and put in the lounges of these establishments, but that none of these establishments have lounges, and they won’t give them lounge licences?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the member for High Park has great interest in this cultural activity as part of the entertainment life of the Province of Ontario. I’ll certainly bring this to the attention of the minister at the beginning of the week.

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Energy. Can the minister indicate to the Legislature when we can anticipate some direction from his ministry relating to the equalization of hydro rate structures in Ontario as they apply to industrial corporations and municipal utility corporations?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m not altogether clear what the member is driving at. Is he referring to, for example, in the Niagara region, the rationalization of rates rising out of the restructuring of government?

Mr. Haggerty: Is there a special rate for industry?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The rates for the large industries in the Niagara Peninsula are largely set because they are direct customers of Ontario Hydro. But the whole question of the rationalization of rates within municipalities, be they industrial, commercial, residential, or whatever, is presently part of the Hogg committee studies.

Mr. Haggerty: Is not the utility corporation itself the same as the industrial corporation, and they distribute to the local users? They buy power in bulk from Hydro.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, but I think the problem is at the retail end within the peninsula, as it is within several other areas. The boundaries of the various utilities commissions don’t necessarily correspond with the boundaries of the new municipalities. Therefore, you have a variety of rates -- Ontario Hydro direct rates and, perhaps, commission rates -- within a municipality.

This is a subject which is not a new one. It has given more than some concern to successive ministers responsible for municipal affairs and ministers responsible for Ontario Hydro. It culminated in a report known as the Hogg committee report, which was made available and was tabled last February. I would expect the government, within a reasonable period of time, will be announcing steps which should be taken flowing from the Hogg committee report.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

APPRAISAL OF HOMES AT BURWASH

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question -- I’m not absolutely clear whether it might be answered by the Minister of Government Services or the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter), so if both would listen, I’d appreciate it.

My colleague from Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is eager to know whether it is true that the assistance being offered to Burwash residents to sell their homes and to relocate requires that:

No. 1, an appraisal will be taken on behalf of the government in addition to the appraisal that they might be able to arrange themselves.

No. 2, that the short list of approved appraisers is prepared by the government, and they are not prepared to accept appraisals from other than those on that short list.

No. 3, that many of the appraisal firms on the short list refuse to tell the individual employees, or those who are trying to sell their properties, what the appraised value is.

And would the minister -- whichever minister it is -- in particular inquire into the case of Charles Moore, who was offered $12,000 by a Mr. Bruce Martin on behalf of the government; and who, upon getting a truly independent appraisal, had his home valued at $16,900? He was refused the opportunity to sec the appraisal done -- supposedly on his behalf -- by the firm which is conducting appraisals from the short list the government provided.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I don’t know the de tails on this particular case; I’ll take the question as notice.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A lot of detail in that question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

BROILER PRICES

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is he aware that the Quebec chicken producers’ marketing board in all probability will be announcing a two cent decrease in the price paid to broiler producers in Quebec next week and that if the Ontario chicken producers’ marketing board is compelled to lower its price to correspond to the Quebec level, then the industry could quite conceivably be entering the threshold of a price war in chickens? How many of these food production industries can we allow to go bankrupt before we step in and take some action?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is as usual trying his best to incite a problem between Ontario and Quebec.

Mr. Deans: The minister is paranoid!

Mr. Reid: He has to be kidding!

Mr. Deans: Everybody is inciting problems.

Mr. Reid: He is getting paranoid.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ruston: It’s losing these by-elections in the province.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I can tell you quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have reports of all the phone calls he is making to everybody in the province trying to stir up problems.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Stir up? Oh, boy.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister saying the government wiretaps our phones?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What kind of an allegation is that? You should concern yourself with that allegation, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, everybody should.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’ll say. It is rotten.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: It isn’t really. All I know Mr. Speaker, is I’m getting reports from the people who are receiving these calls and they are quite distressed.

I may say, Mr. Speaker, there is no compulsion in any respect on the Ontario Broiler Chicken Marketing Board to set their price. Whatever they decide to set it at yesterday or today, or in conjunction with the Quebec price, is entirely up to them. It’s their job to do that, and it is in their hands to do so. What they will do I don’t know.

I do know that they are having meetings with the Quebec chicken marketing board and I can assure you that there are conversations going on between the officials of my ministry and the officials of the Quebec ministry in the hope that we can do something to resolve the great difficulties that do from time to time occur between the Province of Quebec’s and the Province of Ontario’s chicken marketers. To me, the problems are simply magnified by giving the type of public exposure which unfortunately seems to be the wont of our friend from Huron.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Treasurer, if I might --

Mr. Speaker: One final question by the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Riddell: Supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There is a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: No supplementary questions.

Mr. Riddell: It is pretty serious, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food indicated in your presence that in his opinion the hon. member was making phone calls around the province inciting discontent. Surely you are going to give him an opportunity to ask a supplementary question, even if it isn’t to deal with that scurrilous allegation.

Mr. Speaker: Well, the time has just about expired.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I shouldn’t use such big words in the Premier’s presence, but scurrilous is exactly the right one.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I will consider the allegation from the source from which it came but my supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question.

Mr. Riddell: -- my supplementary question is: How can the minister say that the Ontario chicken producers’ marketing board is free to establish prices when the Farm Products Marketing Board last week rescinded that regulation and told them that they had to reduce their price to meet the Quebec level?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We hear it was on the instructions of the minister -- how about that for an allegation?

Mr. Deans: And when I asked the minister that a few days ago, what did he say?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I have no comment about what happened last week. I simply say they are free as of yesterday. Thursday is the normal day for them to set their price -- at whatever level they believe is appropriate. That is their responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister hasn’t gotten over losing the by-election in Huron. It still smarts. Toughest Tory of them all.

VOTING PROCEDURES FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS

Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask the Treasurer, in his capacity as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if he is aware of the resolution of the Toronto city council with regard to voting procedures for handicapped people for the forthcoming municipal elections, and is his ministry able to take action to increase accessibility of voting polls for handicapped people in the forthcoming municipal elections?

Hon. Mr. White: I am aware of that and I have responded to it and I will send the member a copy of my letter. Basically there are two existing solutions. One is that handicapped persons in an instition have a polling box taken to them. The other is that handicapped persons who are not institutionalized have the opportunity of authorizing somebody to vote for them by proxy.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question period has gone beyond its extended time. I will recognize the member for York North.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the House, a group of guests we have here this morning. We have 50 grade 9 students in the east gallery and 50 in the west gallery from Huron Heights Secondary School in Newmarket under the leadership of Dave Kerwin.

Mr. Speaker: Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. McNeil from the standing resources development committee reported the following resolution:

RESOLVED: That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Labour be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975:

Ministry of Labour

Ministry administration programme $3,659,000

Occupational safety programme 4,425,000

Industrial relations programme 2,413,000

Human Rights Commission programme 880,000

Employment services programme 2,307,000

Women’s programme 365,000

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves, seconded by Mr. Gaunt, that Mr. G. E. Smith, the member for Simcoe East, be deputy chairman for committees of the whole House for the present session.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ELECTION ACT

Mr. Reid moves first reading of bill intituled. An Act to amend the Election Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this is the same bill that I introduced in 1972, dealing with disclosures and the amounts of money that might be made available to candidates and parties during elections. It requires disclosure in any amounts donated over $500 either in money or in kind. I haven’t changed the provisions of the bill, sir, because I thought I would save the taxpayers some money by presenting the bill in the same form as I did in 1972. I hope the government will act on it before the next election.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Monsieur l’Orateur, chers collègues de l’Assemblée, il me fait grand honneur d’être ici aujourd’hui, député pour le comté de Stormont à l’Assemblée législative.

Vous savez sans doute que c’est la première fois depuis la confédération que les électeurs de Stormont ont élu un membre d’un autre parti politique que le parti conservateur et le parti libéral.

Vous savez sans doute, M. l’Orateur, que j’ai l’honneur de représenter un comté dans lequel les deux races principales du Canada demeurent ensemble et en harmonie. Naturellement nous avons nos problèmes, comme une famille, mais les gens de Stormont sont fiers d’être Canadiens et citoyens de la province d’Ontario.

Comme citoyens d’Ontario, ils ont leurs droits et c’est à cause de cela que j’ai décidé de commencer mon discours dans la langue française. Comme leur député et leur porte-parole à l’Assemblée, je serai prêt pour défendre les droits des francophones de Stormont. Je sais que la grande majorité des députés ici aujourd’hui parlent la langue de Shakespeare, pas le français et à cause de cela je ferai la majorité de mon discours en anglais.

Mais avant cela, j’aimerais dire que pour mon élection j’ai été appuyé par les anglophones et les francophones ensemble; je ne suis pas un député d’un groupe ou un autre groupe, mais pour toute la population de Stormont.

Tout ce que nous voulons, M. l’Orateur, c’est la justice sociale et économique pour l’est de l’Ontario. Nous voulons les mêmes droits, les mêmes opportunités, la même sécurité et simplement le même traitement que les gens de Toronto -- pas plus, pas moins, la même chose.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great honour for me to be here today and to be able to address the members of the House. As you know, the county of Stormont is one of the oldest counties in the Province of Ontario. The city of Cornwall was founded in 1783 by the United Empire Loyalists. So even though we may be a bit out of the mainstream of life, in terms of Toronto and the Niagara region, our origins go right back to the founding of Upper Canada, and the people of Stormont feel proud of their origins and are proud to be a part of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, it is also an historic occasion because I have the unique honour of being the first member or deputy from a party, other than the Liberal or the Conservative Party, representing the county of Stormont.

I think it is important that the members of the House ask themselves: Why did the people of Stormont decide to try a third party for the first time in 107 years? Why did the people of Stormont turn their backs on the Davis candidate? Why did the Progressive Conservative vote diminish by 6,000? Why did the anti-government vote in Stormont outnumber the government vote by 16,000 to 7,000 votes?

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the government of Ontario know the reasons why the people of Stormont are not happy and not satisfied. It’s obvious that the electors of Stormont are not satisfied with the record of the Davis government in general, and in eastern Ontario in particular.

The people in our county and our region feel that we are being neglected and ignored by a government that has grown too powerful, too distant, too complacent and too unwilling to listen to people, especially average people. The people of Stormont felt that a check was needed on this government, because it has such an overwhelming majority in the Legislature.

The people of Stormont were not intimidated, not blackmailed, by the veiled threat that if they didn’t vote for the Davis candidate they would be cut off from government grants and programmes. The people of Stormont were not swayed by an expensive, slick, Toronto-centred saturation advertising campaign that tried to gloss over the issues and pretend that there were no serious provincial issues and no serious problems in Stormont.

I think one of the best expressions of the people of Stormont, Mr. Speaker, was this card I received in the mail from a gentleman who is now living in Ottawa, who voted Conservative in 1971. He sent me a card of congratulations. I would like to read this into the record, because I think he speaks for many people in the county of Stormont. He said very simply: “I am glad somebody showed the ‘big blue machine’ that governing Ontario is not their exclusive, God-given right.”

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Well said.

Mr. Samis: I think there are many people in our riding who feel exactly the same way.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Right across the province.

Mr. Samis: And across the province, probably.

The people of Stormont, in this election, have some very deep-rooted feelings about how this province is being administered, and no amount of advertising, and no amount of “big blue machine” politics from Toronto, could dissuade them from making their views public. There is a basic, deep-rooted, wide-spread feeling in Stormont, as well as in other parts of eastern Ontario, that we are continually getting the short end of the stick when it comes to economic development, prosperity and government programmes. As my colleague from Ottawa Centre has pointed out repeatedly to the members of this House, the average income in eastern Ontario is $946 below the provincial average of $7,226. Our economic growth rate is behind the rest of the province. Our rate of welfare assistance is higher than the provincial average. Our farmers earn less than farmers in the rest of Ontario.

How many communities the size of Cornwall would have endured an unemployment figure of 20 per cent? In 1970, the city of Cornwall had an unemployment figure of 20 per cent. When people in the Niagara and Toronto region get uptight about six or seven per cent unemployment, the people in our region are accustomed to figures of 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 per cent unemployment. When you have unemployment to that extent, Mr. Speaker, you are having real suffering and real deprivation in your community. Some people may say we’ve grown accustomed to being a depressed area and have grown accustomed to having high unemployment. But there’s a legacy and a long memory that the provincial government did virtually nothing to help us, while the Toronto-based region basked in an unending cycle of prosperity, expansion and good times.

Fortunately, there is a change due to the recent acquisition of infra-structure grants, the addition of two major industries, the proposed federal transport school, and the excellent job being done by our outgoing mayor in revitalizing the civic administration and converting the somewhat traditional semi-defeatist psyche into a positive, dynamic, forceful approach. Despite all these changes, Mr. Speaker, the people of Stormont have a long memory of the economic injustices perpetrated upon them and of how little the provincial government did to alleviate those injustices and the human suffering that accompanies unemployment, stagnation and misery. The people of Stormont want, and they deserve their fair share of the good life. They fully expect that the provincial government will do everything in its power to see that no region of Ontario has to suffer from the boom-or-bust economic cycle and lengthy periods of stagnation and slow growth, if not outright, decay.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Stormont have not forgotten that in the matter of highways eastern Ontario was the last portion of 401 to be completed. The people of Stormont have waited patiently for years for a decent road to connect Cornwall with Ottawa and they have waited for a long time for improvements on Highway 138 and Highway 34. They wonder why the government has been so slow in establishing decent road and transport facilities between Ottawa and Morrisburg and Cornwall. The construction of Highway 417 is a project that has passed even the almost unflappable patience of Eastern Ontario residents. Why is it that such a vital transport link in eastern Ontario is taking so long to construct as the entire St. Lawrence Seaway? It is incredible.

Why does eastern Ontario get the bread crumbs and the Toronto region the caviar? The people of Stormont wonder why every new major government showcase has to be located in the Toronto-Niagara region. The new steel complexes, new development cities, Ontario Place, science museums, levitation train experiments, always have to go to Toronto in every single case. Doesn’t Ontario extend east of Scarborough as well as west? Does it necessarily defy some law of gravity to locate a government showcase project somewhere east of the Toronto city limits?

Mr. Speaker, the people of Stormont wonder why their post-secondary educational facilities have to be physically inferior to those of other communities in the province. Let me explain. We have an excellent and growing campus in St. Lawrence College, but we are not getting our fair share and our fair shake from the provincial government in comparison with other cities. St. Lawrence College in Cornwall is serving the united counties of Stormont, Glengarry, and Dundas, which have a combined population of approximately 100,000 people. The enrolment at the college has risen to 1,500 students, if one includes all the various programmes and divisions. There is a strong and growing need for a college of this type. But look at what the people of Cornwall and St. Lawrence College are strapped with. They are short at least 140,000 sq ft of space in order to serve the community. Why is it that Cornwall has 96 sq. ft? Kingston has 151, Belleville has 177; Lambton has 164; Canadore has 164; Durham has 216 and Cornwall has 96 sq ft. Why does Cornwall always get the rotten end of the stick?

An hon. member: Shameful.

Mr. Samis: The imposition of the spending freeze has put Cornwall in an inferior educational position, as you can readily see. As a result, we have suffered more than other communities in terms of the freeze. We realize that the freeze was universally applied, but we feel that its application was especially unfair to Cornwall. We fully expect rectification of that situation in the very near future and, as the member for Stormont, I intend to see that the Premier of Ontario (Mr. Davis) fulfils his promise made one week before the election.

Mr. Speaker, there are a whole series of other groups in Stormont, who feel alienated from the Davis government, and’ I’ll briefly outline their respective feelings of alienation. Naturally, the CSAO people in Stormont are bitter about the intransigent policies of the government in respect to giving them their full collective bargaining rights. Their case is obviously a good one. Like civil servants all across Ontario, they want their legitimate grievances redressed. The teachers in Stormont have not forgotten it was the Davis government that introduced the infamous Bills 274 and 275. They feel that the Davis government has betrayed them and, consequently, they feel totally alienated from their government.

The farmers of Stormont feel alienated because they know agriculture in Stormont is in deep trouble. A few statistics will illustrate this clearly. The number of farms in my riding from 1966 to 1974 was decreased by 34.6 per cent. The farm population has decreased by 45.8 per cent. The number of acres being used for farm land has decreased by 20.6 per cent. The land under crops has decreased by 25.8 per cent. The improved pasture has decreased by 19.5 per cent.

The family farm is in deep trouble in Stormont, and many of our beef and dairy farmers are on the verge of financial disaster. Our entire way of life is at stake. Full-time farming in Stormont has become the exception and not the rule. Most of our farmers now work in Cornwall and farm on the side. Full-time farmers are becoming fewer and fewer.

The beef farm loan programme announced by the minister last week in Ingleside, which is in Stormont, has been rejected by both the OFA and the NFU branches in the riding. I merely point to the headline in the Standard-Freeholder of Monday saying, “Federation Says Farm Loan Plan Not Acceptable.” Both farm organizations in my riding have rejected the plan as inadequate.

The farmers of Stormont are tired of Band-Aid, half-hearted measures and empty pious pronouncements about the merits of the family farm. We have a way of life in eastern Ontario that we feel is worth preserving, and our farmers want real action to save them from bankruptcy and ruin before it is too late.

Mr. Speaker, the working people of Cornwall -- and let me emphasize they are the backbone of our community -- feel alienated because of the apparent total lack of concern by the government in helping the working man cope with inflation. Oil companies can rack up all-time record profits while the government stands idly by, turning the other way.

The people of Cornwall want prompter action by the Ontario housing authority in building senior citizens’ homes. A recent headline in the Standard-Freeholder said, “Cornwall Housing Shortage Worst Since Seaway Days.” Again, Mr. Speaker, why does Cornwall, why does eastern Ontario, always seem to get the short end of the stick?

The people of Cornwall wonder why they had to wait so long to get a second senior citizens’ home. Everything necessary had been done by the municipal authorities, yet because of the bureaucrats and the red tape it took us an extra two years before we got it. It was amazing to the people of Cornwall that when the by-election was called, all of a sudden the stakes went into the ground, the steam shovels appeared and the construction crews appeared. It was amazing what the by-election did. With no by-election we would have had no action.

Why are the bureaucrats so insensitive, slow and negligent about the needs of the people of eastern Ontario?

The workers of Cornwall are unhappy with the way their counterparts in the building trades are being discriminated against. Quebec building workers can come into the riding without any real effective work permits and work on construction sites, undercutting local tradesmen and putting them out of work, while some of our people are physically escorted out of the Province of Quebec by police because they sought the same treatment in Quebec as Quebec workers have been getting in Ontario. This has been a long-festering problem in the Cornwall area, but again the same pattern recurs: government neglect, government inaction, with the result that earlier this year the Cornwall Labour Council, a group not known for being outspoken or aggressive, demanded in total exasperation that the Minister of Labour, Mr. Guindon, resign for his failure to take strong and effective action.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): And he did.

Mr. Samis: He did -- and the people of Stormont put him out of politics for life.

Mr. Cassidy: It was a wise move.

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to go on ad infinitum expressing the grievances of the people of eastern Ontario and Stormont in particular, but I want to give the Legislature an idea of why so many people in Stormont feel alienated and short-changed by their provincial government. These people expressed their feelings loud and clear on Oct. 17 by voting 16,000 out of 23,000 against the government. Obviously, it’s time for the government of Ontario to start listening to eastern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I was elected to voice the deep dissatisfaction of the electors of Stormont, but I was also elected to press for certain positive changes. I intend to balance off our criticism with some constructive proposals, so the people can feel more a part of Ontario.

First of all, we want to see far greater attention paid to the needs of eastern Ontario in terms of industrial and economic development, tourism, highway facilities and government planning especially, with Eastern Ontario Development Corp. We want a far more detailed, more coherent, more far-reaching development programme for eastern Ontario and a firm commitment from the government that it will work to decentralize -- not centralize, but decentralize -- its development plans and break out of the Toronto region cocoon that it has boxed itself into.

We want to see the government stop putting all the goodies in Toronto and Hamilton and its regions and start spreading them around the province more equitably to guarantee more opportunity for the people of eastern Ontario.

We want to play our full role and we’ll contribute our fair share to the Province of Ontario. All we want is a chance, Mr. Speaker, to give our fair share.

Secondly, we want to see the government of Ontario get cracking on the St. Lawrence College. To us this is a vital matter, because the Premier made a promise during the campaign that he would lift the freeze, subject to certain conditions. This is not just an idle matter for the people of Cornwall; this is essential -- because our city will be the home for a new industry called Combustion Engineering, which will employ almost 1,000 people within five years. The new Transport Training School will further add to the increased stabilization of the economy.

However, to accommodate these two new industries we must improve the academic and technical education of our work force. The addition of 140,000 sq ft will bring St. Lawrence College up to the minimum standards -- nothing beyond. As I said: no special privileges; we just want our fair share to bring us up to the minimum standards of community colleges in Ontario and permit the housing of university students.

A special citizens’ committee report on post-secondary education has recommended the establishment of an autonomous bilingual college education centre based on St. Lawrence campus, which would house the community college as well as a permanent liberal arts university college. This scheme would provide multi-education facilities for the counties and fill a major gap in the educational facilities for our young people. It would serve to help young people in Cornwall and prepare our young people for the changing needs of industry.

What I want to stress here, is that the expansion is crucial and immediate. It’s not a luxury. It’s not a political ploy or a gimmick. The city council of Cornwall has endorsed the revised plans, and we need a minimum of red tape and buckpassing and a maximum of action. This is not a luxury or a goodie. It’s a necessity for the people of Stormont.

We also want to see our workers better served by the establishment of a Workmen’s Compensation Board office right in Cornwall, in order to further reduce frequent delays and journeys to Toronto and Ottawa. An important branch of the government like this should be decentralized so that it can operate closer to the people.

I might also add that greater OHIP services for settling claims would certainly serve to bring the government closer to the people of Cornwall.

We also want to see greater and stricter supervision over the issuing of work permits to Quebec tradesmen working in Ontario, and far more forceful action in making sure that Ontario and Quebec tradesmen are treated alike instead of a double standard applying.

We want to see the government take far greater interest in the problems of the dairy farmers and the beef farmers of eastern Ontario and stop the stupid, inane policy of assisting multi-national corporations like Kraft, at the expense of our local producers and cheese factories.

Mr. Speaker, in 1970 a $500,000 forgivable loan was granted to Kraft. What was the result of that loan? Two major cheese factories in Stormont had to close down, and a third is on the verge of bankruptcy. We want the government of Ontario to help Canadians and help the people of Stormont, not the Americans.

Instead of knocking the small cheese factories out of business, the government should do everything in its power to preserve what’s left of independent cheese factories. These factories, Mr. Speaker, support small communities like Newington and Bonville. Without these factories, they become virtual ghost towns.

Outright grants to our beef farmers, instead of a loan programme for farmers who want to sell their beef now, should be adopted immediately. The government should seriously consider the recommendations of the NFU and implement them as soon as possible. Something has to be done beyond mere pious words.

Since this is Friday, Mr. Speaker, and I imagine some of the members here may be drifting in their attention a bit to other matters of the weekend, during the campaign we advocated openly, publicly and seriously that the government of Ontario change the system whereby beer is sold through Brewers’ Retail stores. We say this in all seriousness, firstly, because it is designed to help small independent grocers. The city of Cornwall has an above-average number of independent retail outlets.

The people of Stormont, especially Cornwall, are accustomed to travelling into New York State and the Province of Quebec, and we have many tourists coming in from New York State and the Province of Quebec. They ask why, in a riding of approximately 35,000 people, there are only three Brewers’ Retail stores. Obviously, it doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t satisfy the customer, it’s not convenient and it’s a relic from the antiquated, 18th or 19th century, Victorian, moralistic, puritanical hangups that still fester in our community.

What we advocate, Mr. Speaker, is that we have the exact same system as the Province of Quebec, whereby small independent outlets would be given the right to sell beer and cider and to offer delivery service to customers in the same way as other products are treated. I defy anyone to prove that there are any more alcoholics in the Province of Quebec, because of their system of retailing beer, than there are in the Province of Ontario. It’s time to end the hypocrisy about liquor, to bring things out in the open and regulate them on a modern, intelligent basis.

The people of Stormont also want to have more action in the field of housing, Mr. Speaker. The government has announced that it will be getting into land banking on a greater scale. What we want to know is, how much of that will be done in eastern Ontario? How much of that will be done in the Toronto-centred region and the Niagara region? What is being done east of Kingston in terms of land banking?

The city of Cornwall probably has a higher proportion of tenants than other cities. These people want some form of protection. When tenants are faced with an increase of $30 or $40 a month, they’re virtually helpless and at the mercy of landlords. What we want, Mr. Speaker, is some form of rent control to protect the tenants of Ontario.

The particular system that I advocated in the recent campaign was modelled on the Quebec Rental Board Commission because it offers justice to both sides. It gives the landlord the opportunity to increase his rent in line with inflation, but it guarantees protection for the tenant because those increases can be rolled back or controlled by the commission. The tenant has the right to appeal any increase, and the landlord must justify the increase before the commission. We feel this is a fair system. It takes into consideration inflation, yet at the same time it protects the rights of the tenants.

Then there are our senior citizens. We don’t want another two years of red tape, stalling and bureaucracy before we get another senior citizens’ home in Cornwall. We want our needs to be met, not in the future, but now.

All we’re asking, Mr. Speaker, is a fair deal. We’re not asking for special privileges or special treatment. The dissatisfaction that I spoke about in the riding of Stormont is not confined to Stormont. Having spent three days in the constituency of Carleton East, I have noticed that those people have the same basic grievance.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Samis: They’re not satisfied that the government is taking proper care of eastern Ontario. They’re being taken for granted. They now have a candidate who virtually assumes that the election is not an election, but more a coronation.

Mr. Cassidy: And Pierre Benoit is in deep trouble.

Mr. Samis: Deep trouble indeed. Mr. Speaker, I think the results next Thursday will show that the same discontent that was evident in Stormont is equally evident in the riding of Carleton East.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

An hon. member: Who are you betting on?

Mr. Samis: I’ll bet on the NDP candidate, any time.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, all we’re saying in eastern Ontario is, give us a fair share -- no special privileges, no special deals, just give us a fair deal. We want to be a part of Ontario. We want to have the same opportunities as the rest of Ontario. If this is truly to be the province of opportunity, let’s see that those opportunities apply to eastern Ontario in exactly the same way as they apply to the people of Toronto. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I felt that the time had come when I should enter the debate in regard to the budget that was presented last April and make a few points as I see the situation at the present time.

I believe the budget, as it was presented by my colleague, has since that time found widespread favour across the province. The people of Ontario know that it is the right sort of budget for today. Even my friends opposite concede, however grudgingly, that it advances the policies needed for today. And the measure of their support is shown in the carping and nitpicking of the criticism that they have presented since that time.

I would like to review with you, sir, a few of the reasons why this budget is the correct sort of budget and is progressive in today’s climate. First and most important -- and it bears repeating -- the central and guiding objective of the 1974 Ontario budget is to combat inflation. This budget strives to this objective with a set of integrated and co-ordinated policies which are now working advantageously. This budget is no exercise in shadow boxing. This budget will be judged correct by the toughest standards, by performance and by the support of the people of this great province. This budget is now well in place and is being deported very effectively.

The 1974 budget attacks inflation with measures which strike directly at the roots of the current inflationary condition that is indeed world-wide and we all know that. These measures acknowledge that no single tool is adequate. Every means within the constitutional jurisdiction of Ontario has been considered, weighed and applied as seen fit.

The anti-inflationary measures of this budget are operating to offset the effects of inflation, to restrain inflation, to stimulate supply, to share with the public the profits from inflation and to share with local governments the resources of the province so that they, too, will be able to face this inflationary onslaught.

These measures are developed within the framework of responsible fiscal policy. While budgetary spending will increase by 19.8 per cent in Ontario this year, this increase includes large new transfers to local governments and those sectors of our province.

At the same time, the cash outflows of the province are now estimated at some $847 million for 1974 and 1975. Yet Ontario’s debt reduction programme is also continuing. In this fiscal year $449 million of the public debt will be retired, and this is in accordance with the Treasurer’s statement, and is an actual fact.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): The other part of the statement is that we are borrowing $900 million extra.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We are applying a broad range of appropriate anti-inflation measures and have adopted a fiscal policy which restrains the inflationary potential of the public sector. By this budgetary policy, the government of Ontario is doing everything in its power to combat inflation, but for fiscal policy to work in the context of Canadian confederation, all levels of government must co-operate to achieve our common goals.

For the last several years Ontario has done its share -- more than its share -- to shift the economy toward desirable fiscal goals, but the current imbalance is vividly illustrated by the federal government’s recently reported surplus of $598 million for the first six months of this fiscal year. Because of the imbalance in revenue buoyancy among the three levels of government, Ontario and the other provinces are being asked to bear a disproportionate burden of the impact of inflation, while the federal government continues to expand the public service and increase its expenditures.

Let me direct your attention once again to the measures in the 1974 Ontario budget which take up this challenge.

Offsetting inflation: This budget offsets inflation’s eroding force on the spending power of those Ontario families and individuals who are most hurt by inflation. These are the people who need help because their incomes are fixed; they are the people who need help because they are disadvantaged in their participation in ordinary life; they need help because they are elderly, handicapped or disabled; they need held because the work they perform is rewarded by little more than the minimum wage.

The budget helps these groups through GAINS for the elderly, blind and disabled, and this budget helps all low-income groups through the revised Ontario tax credit system, which is enriched by $70 million for 1974. This year the tax credit system will direct $180 million to those whose incomes are under $5,000 of which two-thirds is received by Ontario’s pensioners.

Under the GAINS programme, a single person is now ensured an annual minimum income of $2,700 and a married couple of an annual minimum income of $5,400. Under this programme, no fewer than 120,000 pensioners are receiving the maximum GAINS entitlement.

The annual value of all forms of support to Ontario pensioners, including the Ontario tax credits, free health premiums and free prescription drugs, is now about $3,120 annually for a single person and $6,107 for a married couple.

The new exemptions from retail sales taxes for a broad range of personal items and household products, as well as the new exemption on shoes of up to $30 in cost, are helping to rebuild the spending power of Ontario residents. These new measures make the exemptions from the retail sales tax more extensive than those granted by any other Canadian province employing sales taxes or by neighbouring states in the US jurisdiction.

As for restraining inflation, Mr. Speaker, the measures that have been introduced in the budget to restrain inflation, the land speculation tax and the land transfer tax, have had their desired impact. These taxes, along with higher mortgage rates, are moderating prices in the market for standing houses. Of course, there will be changes in both of these areas probably in the course of the next few months.

Mr. Cassidy: The government has paralyzed the housing market.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: House prices to September this year in Ontario have dropped substantially from the previous year. We are monitoring the situation carefully. Furthermore, as the amendments introduced to this House indicate, we are more than prepared to modify the legislation more precisely to focus its effect.

The transit fare freeze is both a measure to restrain inflation and a further indication of the government’s intention to develop a variety of transportation facilities which will place priority on service to the people of the whole province.

I want to stress the direction of this province’s transportation policy, now and for the future. I’m sure the members opposite will also join with me in presenting this view. We are committed to approaching the transportation problems of the province within a multi-modal framework. It is the total transportation system for which we are planning. Not only does this mean planning for the best mix of road, rail and air services along any corridor, it also means anticipating the pattern of development and of transportation grids.

I foresee the day when this province will provide improved recreation transportation to all areas of the province. Bus and rail service to the northern ski areas and the cottage country will ease the tiresome burden of long trips and reduce the peak periods of congestion on the highways.

We must develop a total transportation planning perspective to meet the widest possible needs for transportation and communications services.

Mr. Cassidy: But the government has had 31 years to do that.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I haven’t been here that long, unfortunately.

Mr. Cassidy: The government has had 31 years.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Given the geography of this province, the potential of its now remote areas, and the rapid growth of our urban centres, it is the duty of a responsible government to fulfil these needs for developing the services of the future within the budgetary constraints of the province.

Mr. Cassidy: The government has sat idly by while the train service went to pot up in the minister’s riding.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’m very well aware of that. I did a very comprehensive survey, not only of my own area, because I’m not that parochial, but of the whole of southwestern Ontario. We have presented this in all fairness to the federal government and to the transportation companies involved. We’ve endeavoured to seek their support. We did a couple of runs ourselves to prove that it could be done.

Now I see that the members of the House of Commons are also giving consideration to such a programme. I am well aware they are considering the points that we’ve brought forward. I’ve very hopeful that in the course of the next year we will see some development in that area.

When I was a federal member myself, I did everything in my power at that time to persuade. If you’ll remember, steps were taken directly -- and I won’t become political about the thing -- taken directly to eliminate rail service, not only in Ontario but in all the other provinces as well.

I believe, as a result of the present discussions, we may see develop a programme and a pattern again, because of the congestion that is taking place on our highways and because of the service that we grant to the resort areas that will become much more important, I suppose, in the very near future. As a matter of fact, they are now.

Mr. Speaker, I would mention the stimulation of supply. In the present inflationary situation it is important to ensure that new and talented entrepreneurs receive a fair opportunity to make their contribution to the efficiency of the market and the expansion of supply. It is equally important that small businesses which are Canadian-controlled grow and establish themselves as substantial, creative enterprises.

This is the purpose of the Ontario small business tax credit. This incentive is related to increased capitalization to ensure that the tax savings are used to finance growth. The purpose of the new venture investment corporations, which we have invited the federal government to support, is to move private sources of venture capital into small enterprises.

Without greater assistance from the Ontario government, the supply of housing in Ontario would increasingly lag behind the growing demand of our young people, who were the baby boom of the immediate post-war years, to establish families and seek satisfactory accommodation. The sizable provincial contribution in water and sewage grants to restructured municipalities is doing much to increase the supply of serviced lots. These capital grants are being reinforced by the new and expanded programmes of the Ministry of Housing, particularly the Ontario housing action programme. Indeed, the multi-phased housing programme will increasingly ensure that the housing supplies exist when and where they are needed. At the same time, the funds are now available to assist an increasing number of low and moderate-income families with house financing.

The Ontario Land Corp., which has been elaborated on from time to time by the Treasurer (Mr. White), will bring about improvements in the co-ordination of government land planning activities, and facilitate the availability, development and resale or lease of land for industrial farming or residential purposes. I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that in the course of the next few weeks you will hear co-ordinating statements from the Treasurer and from the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) as well that, will be very productive in the next fiscal year.

The world-wide shortage of raw materials has contributed to the profits boom in our resources industries. The new mining tax and the increase in the timber dues are ensuring that the people of Ontario secure a fairer return from our natural resources, while at the same time there are incentives for further processing and new mining activities.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are aware since the Edmonton conference of this government’s pledge to the municipalities of Ontario of a greater share of the financial revenues of the province. I would elaborate on that point for a moment. The programme to share Ontario’s revenues equitably with the local governments, launched in last year’s budget, is enriched and extended. The commitment made in Edmonton last November at the second national tri-level conference was that the province will increase its transfers to local governments and agencies at the rate of growth of provincial revenue. Furthermore, the province will pass on to local governments any new gains in unconditional tax sharing with the federal government, now a greatly increased possibility in the months ahead. Finally, the province will give municipalities access to funds generated by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System to permit better use of credit capacity.

This programme of revenue-sharing with local governments means that total direct transfers to local governments will be $2.4 billion, of which $124 million is in new grants and $115 million in increases to existing programmes. These transfers go far toward ensuring that our local governments will continue to provide the high level of services that our people in Ontario expect. This has been possible this year without the major increases in property taxes which would otherwise seem to be inevitable in these inflationary days. For the future, my colleague, the Treasurer, has told the municipalities they should talk to Mr. Turner (Peterborough), if in fact these are to be substantially increased.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, in this particular regard, this budget combats inflation with measures which have impact where inflationary pressures are most acute. It contains measures developed within a responsible fiscal framework. But we are not a government in isolation. If our programmes are to work to the level which you all reasonably expect, they demand the support of the federal government and the co-operation of our local governments.

Mr. Speaker, I therefore have no hesitation at all in the conclusion of this portion of my remarks in saying to the House that it is my profound duty to ask the members to give us their unqualified endorsation of the budget of last April.

Mr. Cassidy: The Treasurer will be relieved.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I wish further, Mr. Speaker, to make some comment about our recent negotiations -- not directly, because that would be unfair -- but I should say about the period of time leading up to negotiations with the CSAO. I would think I should comment too about some of the misconceptions that have been floated about.

First of all, I am aware that there was some criticism of the government making its position clear in the statement that I released to the members of the CSAO. I am also aware of the criticism that took place in regard to the costs involved in distributing that document.

The difficult thing for me to rationalize is the fact that prior to that time the leaders of the CSAO, and their use of an advertising agency out of Montreal, saw fit to take $600,000 from their war chest, which is a considerable one of $2 million, and spend it for the type of advertising we saw in the newspapers, on the air and on billboards.

I must say that I have had also quite a number of communications from responsible members of the CSAO, saying that if they could, they would cancel their membership because they considered that to be a very improper method of attacking the government, any government, and attacking the leader of the government as well. But that has become popular in recent months, Mr. Speaker. The open attacks have taken place in the press by the same leaders of the CSAO and in other quarters as well. It has become a popular thing in our society today to tear apart, if that is possible, to every possible degree, government and its leadership --

Mr. Cassidy: Say they deserve it. If the government dealt with them fairly --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Now, look, I’ve listened to the member many times; let him listen to me for a change.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is wrong again.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I want to say this to the people in the chamber today, Mr. Speaker: The government of Ontario is probably the most forward government that the country has ever seen.

Mr. Cassidy: Not in the field of labour relations. Not when it freezes the number of provincial civil servants.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The government of the Province of Ontario, under the leadership of the member for Peel North, does not deserve that kind of attack. I stand here to criticize that particular group and any group or individual --

Mr. Cassidy: The government’s collective bargaining Act is mediaeval and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- who will make a personal attack on a leader or a government whose people, I believe, enjoy a position of esteem in North America that no other jurisdiction enjoys today.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: In the universe!

Mr. Cassidy: Oh come on. Why doesn’t the minister get away from the rhetoric and tell us what he is going to do with the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well, if the member will sit patiently in his seat -- I have listened to him and many of his extraneous speeches until I sometimes wonder what we are doing here.

Mr. Cassidy: I was pretty relevant this morning.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He might better leave them outside some place on the lawn. Mr. Speaker, I’ll get to that in a moment or two.

Mr. Cassidy: I decided to wait and listen.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre should keep a little order and give the minister a chance to make his speech.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is being very provocative, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some reference to the material that was distributed and signed, I think, by a Mr. Norman -- I believe that is the case; I have it here somewhere, but it doesn’t really matter, because it was certainly distributed publicly. A reference was made to my citing $181.95 as weekly earnings for all Ontario. I acquired that information and those statistics from the employment earnings and hours report published by Statistics Canada.

While it would be true that approximately 65 per cent of the 18,000 firms in the survey had fewer than 50 employees, it is also true that these small companies had very little effect on the survey results. Statistics Canada confirms that approximately 90 per cent of the input to that survey is received from large unionized employers of this province. It is, therefore, a very valid index against which public service salaries can and should be measured.

The CSAO has attempted to discredit the $204-per-week average salary for public servants by indicating that the figure includes salaries of people in management positions. Of course, the fact is ignored -- or perhaps they are not aware -- that the Statistics Canada figure also includes the salaries of senior executives of private corporations, which means that the comparison is a very valid one. In other words, in those companies that are used in the preparation of the statistics -- shall we say a company such as General Motors -- the management classes are included in that average as well.

It has also been said in criticism of my statement that the average salary of employees in the bargaining unit is $156 per week -- but, in fact, the average is $186.40 per week. Then we have to compare this inaccurate approach -- because, for the bargaining units, salaries to the industrial composite for Ontario includes salaries for senior corporation executives. The claim is that government employees are $26 a week below the Ontario average -- and the fallacy of this particular claim is quite obvious.

By introducing a red herring -- the salary progressions in average contract settlement -- the leaders of the CSAO attempted to discredit my statement that average earnings in the public service increased 97.6 per cent in the period from 1966 to June, 1974. The 97.6 per cent cited by myself is based on actual audited payroll data, and is quite properly compared to the 84.1 per cent increase in average earnings for all wage and salary earners in the province -- and is cited by Statistics Canada, as well. I think that is a very significant statistic to present to you today. Both figures are based on actual data and therefore reflect the total increases in salaries, regardless of how those increases came about.

In regard to the effect of inflation on salaries, I was criticized for not granting a cost of living allowance, presumably, on an ongoing escalator clause. What they refuse to acknowledge is that there is more than one way to recognize unusual changes in the cost of living -- and they refuse to acknowledge that we have done something about it. The government agreed to open contracts and adjust second-year increases, in the same way as many other major employers did. It is acknowledged that the method adopted was not the one suggested by the CSAO, but the fact remains that the government did recognize the effect of inflation on purchasing power of its employees and took very positive steps to alleviate their problems.

It has been claimed that salary increases have not kept pace with the rise in the cost of living in the period of 1973-1975. That is the narrower view, the narrower corridor in this particular case, as opposed to the earlier statistics I quoted. They claim, of course, that we have not kept pace with the consumer price index of this year.

The only comparison in my statement of salaries to the consumer price index covered the period beginning from 1967 to mid-1974. That I admit. In that period, average public service salaries did increase, as I said, 97.6 per cent; while the consumer price index -- and this is significant, Mr. Speaker -- rose by only 47.7 per cent; and maybe I shouldn’t say it that way. I should just quote the statistics and let them stand. These are accurate and they are based on all of the data available for consumer price indexing.

If we look at the narrower period, however -- and this is what I made a reference to -- in the 1973-1975 period, salary increases will average in excess of 20 per cent -- I use 20 per cent, because it’s a rounded figure -- while the CPI rises slightly in excess -- but again I’ve used a rounded figure -- at 21 per cent. It must also be borne in mind, however, that salary increases are granted at the beginning of a contract year and the employee has the benefit of the full increase each month of the year, whereas the CPI usually rises something like one per cent per month or something less than that -- and only in the last few months of the year does the cumulative change approach the level of the salary increase.

Now, I want to say a word about boards.

Mr. Cassidy: That is not the way it feels for the people involved.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member is not prepared to accept the facts; that’s exactly what’s wrong with the whole situation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about the composition of boards, because it was stated in that statement that the union -- no, the CSAO in this case -- has only two members out of 29 members on various boards and tribunals, which are appointed by themselves. The fact is, of course, that all 29 are appointed by order in council and, therefore, must have government approval across the board. But that is not the point.

The government’s objective is to appoint people to these boards who are neither pro-labour nor pro-management. The track record of these boards and tribunals, when compared to similar boards in other jurisdictions, proved to us that objective had been and is being accomplished.

Mr. Cassidy: That is not the way it has been in private industry and private labour relations. They don’t have a stacked board.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well there we go. Again the member is saying it is stacked and I don’t agree with him. I don’t share that view.

Mr. Cassidy: Almost all of those people are government appointees.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I don’t share that view. The government is still of the opinion that non-partisan boards are more appropriate than partisan boards in public sector collective bargaining.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister might ask his employees whether they agree or not.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The CSAO is pressing extremely hard for partisan boards, and the government, as a matter of fact -- and this will be shocking to you -- is considering the request that is before it.

Mr. Cassidy: Well that is good.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will now come to the point my hon. friend is interested in, what the status quo is, as far as the government is concerned, in regard to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act. The Management Board met with the officials of the CSAO for the purpose of hearing their arguments in support of their brief.

Later, senior officials from the minister’s staff, my staff, met with officials of the CSAO and reviewed their brief and their supporting argument in detail. From these meetings the government has obtained a very clear understanding of the changes the CSAO is seeking.

Mr. Cassidy: Good.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The proposals of the CSAO have been given top priority during the summer months and have been of concern to me in bringing about results which I trust will strengthen and shore up or whatever has to be done in this particular field. We looked at it, as I said, through the summer recess. But because the changes may be of such a substantial nature I don’t believe that we will act very quickly in regard to what we present to the House.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s regrettable.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The president has been advised to this effect and has also been advised that another meeting with Management Board and officials will be arranged as soon possible.

I want to say this -- and I think the member will agree -- that before we move in regard to any amendments that take place we will bring those proposals to the attention of the CSAO for discussion, so that we are both acquainted with how we feel in regard to what position the government might take or what changes might be made.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s fine, but if the minister delays some more he will provoke confrontation.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am not delaying, have no fear. I am doing it exactly as I see it is necessary to be done.

Mr. Cassidy: It is not being treated with the urgency that is required of the government.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Maybe the member misunderstands. I don’t think he has had the same experience in life as I have. I have gone through the union movement, I have been part of it, I have been part of negotiations on both sides of the fence; and if he thinks I don’t know what I am talking about then he had better have a look at my background a little more closely than he has. I don’t think he has been involved not in the same sense.

Mr. Cassidy: The government is not negotiating with the kind of faith it should.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the government’s relations with its employees, I might tell you, are of concern to us. When the CSAO claims that the government refuses to conduct meaningful dialogue, I don’t accept that statement. Anyone who has access to the facts is aware that the new leaders of the CSAO have decided on a course of confrontation regardless of what we do; and they did so long before they ever presented their brief to the government. This is exactly why I made the comments I did initially about the establishment of their war chest. It was done specifically for a purpose. We have to bear in mind that the civil servants of this province -- and I say it once again, as I have many other times -- are very, very high class people. We depend upon them. They are the people who in concert with any government, make the machinery work for the people of any province or any jurisdiction.

Mr. Cassidy: We agree. They are fine people and should be treated fairly.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am not going to stand idly by, if I have my way, and let anyone say that they are hard done by in the procedures that are currently before us.

Mr. Cassidy: The government brought in the Crown Employees Act two years ago.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: When the provocation started prior to the presentation of their brief, the members must remember how I felt at that particular time.

Mr. Cassidy: But the provocation started with that Act.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I was very, very reluctant to send out the statement I did, but I knew the media wasn’t going to do it for us. It had to be answered and the government’s position had to be put forward, and I think I did it very realistically. I can say this, that the greatest response I got was from people in the service themselves.

There was, I must say, an organized campaign afterwards to discredit it, and a stereotyped letter signed by quite a number of different people. I am not too sure the same person didn’t sign quite a bunch of them, but that doesn’t really matter. I don’t intend to continue any confrontation; I intend to try and ameliorate the situation; I intend to satisfy the people who carry out the administration of this province.

Interjection by an hon. member,

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

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I am coming quickly to the conclusion of my remarks, but I want to say that if meaningful dialogue with the people who are in the civil service of this province is going to be carried out, you want to believe that myself and my colleagues -- the Davis government -- are going to be a very, very important part of that dialogue and we will play our role responsibly.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, first, of all, I want to thank the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Spence) for relinquishing his time at this moment because of the fact that I will be absent from the House next Friday. I want to express my gratitude to him.

There is no question that, in spite of all that has been said as far as the budget is concerned, there are great gaps in that budget. This morning I want to deal with one of those gaps in some detail, the failure of this government to face up to one of the major escalating problems in our province.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the sixth International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety met in Toronto last month. It brought together representatives from 30 nations, people from government, universities, research groups, police departments and organizations dealing in a variety of ways in this vital field. Those of us who attended got new insights into the magnitude and terrible urgency of the problem we are all facing in a world of dramatic change. Several things came clear through the maze of papers, speeches, charts, discussions and questions. Canadians, along with many people in the world, are drinking more, they are starting younger, they are driving more with high blood alcohol content and they are killing themselves off faster while in this condition.

The results are obvious. Alcoholism and alcohol-related diseases are sky-rocketing and appearing in progressively younger groups. Escalating social costs in death, medical and hospital bills, social services, family destruction and sheer heartbreak are incalculable. So far, remedies for the situation seem to be few and far between, at least those governments and society generally have so far been willing to try. During the conference, the Ontario interministerial committee on drinking and driving headed by Howard F. Morton released its report, the one I have here in my hand. The Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Welch) highlighted its findings in his banquet speech.

Since then, various speakers and writers have been stressing the magnitude of the problem we face as well as the need for practical and speedy solutions to it. The fact is that in 1972, the latest year for which figures are now available, Canadians consumed an average of 9.91 litres of absolute alcohol per adult, but in Ontario we consumed 10.55 litres. That’s 2.3 gallons per adult of absolute alcohol. It may be comforting to know that France consumes 16.7 litres, Mr. Speaker, and Italy 13.4 per adult. For years we have been told that socialist Sweden is soaked in alcohol, one of the sad results of their system of government we are told. But Sweden drinks 5.7 litres per adult while Ontario downs 10.5, nearly twice as much. Sweden has 1,515 alcoholics per 100,000 while Canada has 2,272. Perhaps the propaganda line will have to be reversed.

A couple of trends need to be noted here. One, the total amount of alcoholic beverages sold is increasing dramatically. In 1967, Ontario consumed 125 million gallons. By 1973, this had risen to 167 million gallons. Second, the relative amount of hard liquor and wine is rising faster than beer. Beer consumption rose from 112 million gallons in 1967 to 146 million in 1973, an increase of about 30 per cent. During the same period, consumption of spirits rose from 8.5 million gallons to 12.5 up almost 50 per cent, and wine rose from four million gallons to 8.6 million, an increase of over 100 per cent. Beer retains its place as the most popular alcoholic beverage in Ontario, but what we tend to forget is that a bottle or can of beer has exactly the same alcoholic content as a shot of hard liquor and that about half of the alcoholics in the province are beer drinkers. The Addiction Research Foundation says that 50 per cent of alcoholics in treatment used beer as their beverage preference and were beer alcoholics.

But, more than this, 80 per cent of our adults now drink compared with 70 per cent 20 years ago. The average amount each one drinks has gone up by 30 per cent during that period. More people are drinking and they are drinking more. One obvious result is that we have about 400,000 alcoholics in Canada, about 150,000 of these in Ontario. Another half million Canadians are severely handicapped from alcohol-related problems.

One of the most serious factors in this whole trend followed the lowering of the age of majority to 18. Since mid-1971 the amount of alcohol consumed by this younger group has markedly increased and the results are showing up dramatically in the accident and fatality statistics on our streets and highways.

During the new raw industrial age in England a century and a half ago, many saloons posted signs which read “Drunk for a penny, dead drunk for tuppence, clean straw provided.” That’s a far cry from today’s prices and today’s lifestyle.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Out in the barn with the livestock.

Mr. Young: Then the unsteady customer might weave his way to his home nearby or be taken there in a hackney with little harm done, except perhaps to himself or his family. But today a citizen who has built his blood alcohol level above the danger point may well slide behind the wheel of a car and head for home carrying with him extreme danger to himself and to others on the road.

In our society, the drinking of alcohol is both legal and acceptable, and I don’t think any of us here this morning would advocate that it be prohibited. There is, of course, also the fact that driving a car is perfectly legal. Both these have minimum ages at which they can be indulged in. Trouble starts when these two perfectly legal activities are combined. Ontario has 3.5 million motor vehicles and almost four million licensed drivers. A car depends absolutely on the driver’s brain and hand for its orderly movements. If that brain is muddled by any drug, then it is reflected in where the car goes and by what it does. How many people in Ontario drink and then drive? We have no way of knowing with any degree of accuracy.

During the spring of 1974, Canada did take part in an international roadside breathalyser survey. There were 244 sites in this province surveyed from 10 p.m. to 3 a.m., Wednesday to Sunday from April 17 to June 8. It was found then that 20.9 per cent of the drivers had up to 0.08 blood alcohol concentration and that 6.4 per cent had over 0.08. This was a voluntary survey and seven per cent refused to take the test It’s likely that most of these who refused had a high blood alcohol content. If so, then over 30 per cent of the drivers tested had been drinking.

It is in the accident statistics that warning bells ring loud and clear. In 1973, police reports state that 27.5 per cent of all fatal accidents on our streets and highways were alcohol-related and that 51 per cent of all drivers killed had been drinking. Alcohol also played a part in 19 per cent of all the non-fatal injury collisions and in 12 per cent of all property damage collisions. Studies also indicate that 35 to 40 per cent of the drivers convicted of impaired driving may have a drinking problem. Authorities admit that these figures may be low, because police are inclined to give the driver the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, alcohol, plus the steering wheel, is a deadly combination. We all know that and realize it. The number of drinking drivers involved in collisions has increased steadily since 1970, with the greatest gain showing in the younger age group. As a matter of fact, it is in the 16 to 19 age bracket that the sharpest increase has occurred. This is tied right in with the lowering of the drinking age in 1971.

During the year after the change, total collisions among 18-year olds increased 42 per cent. But alcohol-related collisions for this age group -- that’s 18 -- increased 339 per cent. The number killed more than doubled. This is for Ontario. For the 19-year-olds, total collisions went up by 37 per cent. But alcohol-related collisions for this group increased by 346 per cent; and the rate has climbed steadily ever since.

Among the central group surveyed -- 24-year-olds -- total collision rates rose by 10 per cent, while alcohol-related collisions went up by 20 per cent. It wasn’t such a new experience for them, and they were able, evidently, to handle it better. It was a far lower figure than for the younger group, but still far too high. It’s interesting to note that while normal human damage collisions occur fairly regularly throughout the week, with a sharp drop over the week end, alcohol-related accidents occur largely in late evening and early morning on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, with the peak reached late on Saturday night.

The second half of the year is more lethal than the first half, both in general accidents and in alcohol-related ones -- that’s warm weather and holiday time. The sad part of all this is that the trends are steadily upward. More drinking, more alcohol-related accidents, more tragedy, particularly among young people -- more alcoholism among young people, too, more family and social problems, more medical and hospital bills, higher insurance rates, and more profit for the LCBO.

A total of 5.4 per cent of our provincial revenues last year came from the sale of alcohol. This amounted to $327.6 million. Over against this, of course, must be placed the dollar cost -- not only of the highway accidents, but of alcohol-related sickness and higher social costs.

David Archibald, executive director of the Addiction Research Foundation, says this:

Our research has found that in terms of health and social costs, alcohol-related problems are responsible for more than 10 per cent of expenditures in general public hospitals; more than 15 per cent in mental hospitals, approximately 20 per cent of the expenditures under the Family Benefit Act; and 30 per cent of the expenditures for Children’s Aid Societies.

In terms of absolute costs based on 1971 figures, the Ontario taxpayer paid $89 million through the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan for illness related to alcoholism; he paid almost $17 million through the mental hospital system; almost $9 million through the Family Benefits Act; and over $11 million through Children’s Aid Societies for activities attributable to alcoholism.

Of the more than $1 billion spent by the province in these various agencies, plus the Addiction Research Foundation, the taxpayer paid $134 million in one year for illness and disruption attributed directly to alcoholism. And I must emphasize that this figure does not include physician fees, municipal welfare payments, the cost to business and industry, the loss of productivity and manpower, and we know from our research in industry that these costs are enormous. Moreover, the $134 million does not reflect the fact that alcohol is involved in over 50 per cent of deaths due to traffic accidents in Canada.

So said David Archibald. Now, the Ontario report on drinking and driving highlights the time spent on this problem by police, judges, Crown attorneys, court-support staff and jail staff, and the cost of maintenance for those imprisoned.

“The dollar costs in 1974 of alcohol-involved collisions to the people of Ontario can be estimated at about $130 million.”

Add this to the cost David Archibald talks about, and we can well wonder if the LCBO income matches the cost to the people of the province. It’s bound to worsen as time goes on.

The sixth International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety defined the problem. The Ontario report dramatically presented the dangerous situation we’re in, but cures are difficult to find. Or, if they can be found, they may be too drastic for the majority of our people to accept.

We live in a society where alcohol is not only accepted, but is extolled as the sure route to good fellowship, joyous living, real happiness and outstanding success Marc Lalonde recently called our attention to the of brainwashing our people are getting here, and suggested changes. Our own Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) got into the act and expressed his concern without giving very many answers.

Perhaps it’s time we banned advertising of alcoholic beverages from all Canadian publications, as well as from radio and TV. This is being talked about a great deal today. I know this would present many difficulties. It could raise all sorts of vested interests’ cries about freedom, jobs and profits. But perhaps we had better begin asking ourselves if the jobs and the profits are worth the death and mayhem, especially among our young people, brought into the hard-drinking group by these colourful and persuasive ads.

And while we’re at it, we should be asking about the impact on our children of the more subtle forms of advertising, such as the brewery-sponsored sports events, movies of games and other topics carrying the company message and available free to community groups, vans to assist neighbourhood projects and other such friendly overtures.

All these have one ultimate purpose: to build up sales. And increasing sales bring increasing problems and more highway deaths. If the liquor interests were shut out from these forms of advertising, and if such services are necessary, then other companies might fill the gap or government itself might provide those same services.

But whether we’re ready to ban such advertising or not, government should begin running professional, hard-hitting campaigns designed to discourage drinking and driving and to change public attitudes in this field.

Half measures will be useless, Mr. Speaker. All means of communication must be brought into play to drive home to the population the danger and the irresponsibility of the gasoline-alcohol mixture, to persuade the problem drinker to seek help and to impress on the social drinker that he should know his limits, and if he exceeds them then he should not drive under any circumstances.

It’s interesting that when the British law was introduced, they had a rather extensive campaign stressing that motorists shouldn’t drive after three drinks. It seemed to work for a time at least, and I’ll have something more to say about that later on.

Above all, the schools should carry attractive, consistent and hard-hitting programmes about the dangers involved in the abuse of alcohol. The Saskatchewan committee set up some time ago to review this whole matter of liquor regulations says this:

Such an educational programme should deal with the myths and mystique which have grown up around alcohol in our society. It would give the facts about the physical, medical and social benefits and costs of the use of alcohol in our society. The information given would be factual and be presented in such a way as to leave the decision in regard to the use of alcohol up to the individual. This is not to say that such education would be permissive. Drunkenness should be stigmatized as an inappropriate form of behaviour. Rather than being considered manly to consume large amounts, it would be shown as exhibiting a lack of control. Rather than considering drunken behaviour as humorous, it would be shown to be a questionably degrading and potentially dangerous condition.

Both abstinence and moderate consumption should be shown as viable alternatives. As early as elementary school, the chemical effects of alcohol should be explained to them. It should be made clear that the abuse of alcohol will result in harm or death.

This was in the Saskatchewan report.

The Addiction Research Foundation is working with Ontario boards of education in developing such material for schools and in training teachers to deliver the material. It is also co-operating with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in designing, developing and evaluating their public education programme in drinking and driving. The Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) assured us the other day that he hopes that far more attention will be given on the industrial side of this whole problem.

But far stronger provincial leadership is needed, and much more public funding is essential if real results are to accrue. I know that the cost of such an undertaking will be high. But the stakes are high. It’s an investment in the future and, like any good investment, it will ultimately pay high social dividends and will also result in cutting the tax burden in welfare, social services and health care. Along with such an educational programme should go a stepped-up treatment plan for problem drinkers. Drinking too much is often a symptom of other deep-seated problems needing analysis and cure. Their drinking is very often just a symptom of something deeper.

Our Addiction Research Foundation is also working in this field and is now expanding its operation to other centres outside Toronto. But more resources must be allocated here and more people must be trained, not only to spot the problem drinker, but to give the necessary therapy. Legislation in some parts of the world provides that a judge sentences the offender to take a course of treatment rather than to jail, but unless we have the treatment facilities this course of action is futile.

The Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario has a responsibility to take a long hard look at the number and kind of outlets being provided as well as the responsibility of the licence-holders for their patrons. Since the greatest casualty list from drinking and driving takes place in the early mornings late in the week, perhaps the hours of sale should also be scrutinized with a view to saving life and limb.

Then, too, many licensed premises are located where patrons must drive some distances to reach them and drive again to get home after the evening’s festivities are over. Perhaps prominent notices should be posted in all licensed premises warning of the dangers -- and the penalties -- of high blood alcohol content and setting out where the limit of 0.08 might lie.

It may be that all licensed premises should have a breathalyser -- and we hope that cheaper and more accurate breathalysers can be developed soon -- so that customers could assess carefully whether they are in violation of the law if they do drive. I know all these things present difficulty but it’s a problem that is difficult to solve and it’s growing all the time.

Then there is price, and here we get into a rather touchy situation. The Saskatchewan report says, and I quote:

World-wide studies indicate that there is a direct relationship between the relative price of a unit of absolute alcohol and overall per capita consumption. Despite a widely-held impression that liquor prices have risen drastically, the truth is that over the past 50 years the price of a unit of absolute alcohol has decreased steadily in relationship to disposable personal income. [Evidently inflation hasn’t hit this phase of our society as much as others.] In other words, the relative price has dropped steadily, thereby steadily increasing alcohol’s economic availability. The evidence clearly indicates that by controlling the relative price of a unit of absolute alcohol, the government has a powerful means of influencing general consumption and thereby the rate of alcoholism.

If the prices were increased the outcry, I know, would raise pretty serious political problems. However, all the evidence points to this as one method of control available to governments.

Just in this morning’s paper the brewers announced; that they are increasing the price of beer, and perhaps that is the beginning of this trend. Certainly our legislation in relation to drinking and driving needs careful study. Ontario law is fairly tough in this field, I know, but it may be that our standard of 0.08 blood alcohol content is just too high, particularly where conviction seldom comes at lower than 0.1. Impairment of ability to drive starts at about 0.04 and gets pretty bad at 0.08. Recent studies have been dramatically showing this fact. By 0.1, where conviction generally takes place, it’s downright dangerous.

Some countries like Norway, Sweden, the State of Victoria and others have a 0.05 level, and in most eastern European countries it’s an offence to drive after drinking any alcohol whatsoever -- but they still drive, of course.

In West Germany, Sweden and Denmark, the police are empowered upon reasonable suspicion to obtain blood samples. In the United Kingdom, a driver who refuses to provide such a sample is automatically found guilty of having more than the legal blood alcohol content.

Some countries, too, have legislation enabling the police to set up roadblocks and give every driver a breathalyser test. In England, every hospitalized road accident victim must be blood tested. Small hand gadgets called “sniffers” are now available which police can use to see if a driver has been drinking. If positive results are shown, more accurate tests can then be made on a breathalyser. These and other similar ideas should be explored and our legislation tightened up to meet the needs while, at the same time, protecting vital human rights.

One of the great problems in the drinking-driving situation lies in the field of enforcement; here, everybody seems to be a bit baffled. Even if permitted by legislation, it would be a sheer impossibility to stop every car on the road at any given time for testing. The manpower problem would just be too great. On the other hand, most drinking drivers have little fear of being caught. Researchers say that there are about 2,000 violations in this field for every driver arrested and the average policeman makes only two arrests per year for this offence.

While surveys have shown that up to 30 per cent of drivers at certain times of the week have been drinking and that six per cent have more than 0.08 blood alcohol content, in 1973 only 1.19 per cent of the licensed drivers in Ontario were stopped and interviewed, and only 1.08 per cent were charged. Most impaired drivers are apprehended only after they’ve had an accident, but no impaired driver ever thinks he’ll have an accident, right up to the time he kills himself or someone else. The sheer statistical weight of the evidence that he won’t be caught, short of collision, makes him keep right on driving.

The greatest deterrent for any antisocial activity is, of course, a sense of moral responsibility. I need not stress that fact. In this field, it’s a deep-seated realization on the part of a citizen that excessive drinking, plus driving, carries just too much danger to himself, his family and his neighbours, and that he simply must not indulge in such an activity. It would be the function of a comprehensive educational campaign to foster that sense of responsibility in all members of society.

Of course, there are those who have not yet and, perhaps, never will reach this stage of responsibility. For them, the fear of detection and quick punishment seems to be the answer, but present rates of arrest, as well as long waits for court appearances, make this deterrent all but inoperative. New techniques must be worked out to increase the certainty of detection for these people and to bring the offender to court with some degree of speed and dispatch.

The Ontario report throws out a good many suggestions as to how this might be accomplished. More manpower is certainly needed for this particular phase of law enforcement. That manpower should be deployed in such a way that the offender is persuaded that it’s dangerous for him to take a chance. Let me quote from the report:

An increase in the perceived risk of being caught can be brought about by establishing a highly visible police presence at times and places where drinking-driving offences occur.

One example of this type of activity would be the presence of police officers in marked cruisers in the vicinity of parking lots of drinking establishments between the hours of 8 p.m. and 2 a.m. Another example would be the presence of sustained police spot-checks at times and places of high occurrences of drinking-driving offences. Some of these periods of intensive checking could be highly publicized.

A constant level of enforcement of this kind, particularly in a large city would, of course, be impossible; but it could be carried on at specific locations for a time and then later reinforced by other visits at irregular intervals.

The British Road Safety Act of 1967 was followed by a sharp drop in offences. This was in large part due to the massive propaganda campaign which introduced it, as well as the stepped-up driver examinations carried on. As the publicity tapered off and as the fear of apprehension dropped, then the legislation became less effective and the offences curve started up again, but at a lower level than it would have been without the Act. Both the educational programme and the enforcement need constant reinforcement and repetition to be effective, and the British are now planning that.

Our courts must be somewhat reorganized and free of present logjams so that the offenders can be brought to speedy justice. It’s no good to have three or four months between the offence and the court hearing. Moreover, the type of sentences handed out should be carefully studied to see if more effective deterrents might be designed, particularly if those deterrents could be thoroughly publicized so that people might know what to expect if they were caught in a drinking-driving situation.

It is interesting to note that punishment after the fact doesn’t seem to act as much of a deterrent to a second offence. All research seems to indicate that removing a licence or imposing a jail term doesn’t seem to have the deterrent effect that perhaps a course under Alcoholics Anonymous or a regular designed course of this kind might have.

G. S. J. Wilde of Queen’s University points out: It has been calculated that more than 95 per cent of all accidents in a two-year period would still happen if all the individuals who had three or more violations in the preceding two years were all removed from the road

This means that nearly all the offenders in any year are new ones. The big job is to prevent them from getting into trouble. That’s the kind of preventive action that’s needed.

The emphasis must be on prevention rather than punishment, on deterring new people from becoming offenders. That means a programme to build up more responsibility, coupled with a many pronged campaign to make them realize their offences do bring prompt retribution and that the results of such offences will be extremely unpleasant. This programme must be pushed.

One fact we have to face is that whatever action is taken in this field must include the total population. We needn’t zero in on what we consider to be the alcoholics and hope that that’s going to be enough. The problem is so deep-seated in our civilization that change can only come as people understand the problem and are willing to accept the social and legal changes necessary to reverse present trends. No government could possibly institute the kind of social policies needed to reduce consumption, unless it had widespread public backing, and that means the educational programme. More than this, we know that the incidence of alcoholism and alcohol-related diseases as well as alcohol-related traffic problems bears a direct relationship to the total amount of alcohol consumed across the country.

Experts in the field point out that this means that there is no hope of reducing these problems without rolling back the overall consumption of alcohol through our total society. It’s a mammoth job and it will demand greatly increased resources and manpower. But let’s realize that we are going to pay the price anyway if we refuse to allocate the resources and don’t plan to meet the challenge in a systematic and rational way. Then we’ll see present expenditures increase steadily and dramatically in social services, insurance, welfare, health and related fields. We’ll see the death rate in alcohol-related accidents continually increasing.

We ignore the present trend at our peril, Mr. Speaker. I urge this House to take a long look at the problem and to begin the long, tough road back to sanity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure for me to take part in this budget debate. I first wish to say that since the session was adjourned in June, a number of changes have taken place in this Legislature.

The hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Renter), who was Speaker of this Legislature, resigned on account of ill health. I must say, Mr. Speaker, it was a shock to us to learn that he resigned on account of his health, but our hopes go out to him that he soon will be restored to good health and he will be back in this Legislature carrying out his duties, as other members are, in an able way.

Mr. Speaker, since the session adjourned, you have been appointed Speaker of this honourable assembly. I have known you for quite a number of years in this Legislature. You have proved to me that you are fair, you are reasonable. I know that you will make a great effort to carry out your duties as Speaker in a fair and impartial way. I know your duty is not an easy one, and I wish you well in your honourable position.

Mr. Speaker, since the session adjourned in June, we have had a by-election in the riding of Stormont. I must say that this party did everything we could to prevent the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Samis), being elected as their member, but we failed in our duties in this party.

I wish to extend my congratulations to him as being the choice for the electors in the riding of Stormont as their representative in this Legislature.

Today, he presented his maiden speech. I also wish to congratulate him on it -- it was a very good speech in outlining his views and his thoughts. I must say that as time goes by, he will look back on this maiden speech in this Legislature as an important moment, and no doubt he will re-read it. I feel that it won’t be too long before he will feel at home in this Legislature, so my best wishes to him.

Now we have another by-election about to take place in the riding of Carleton East. We were somewhat disappointed to learn of the resignation of the hon. member for Carleton East, a man who held a number of important portfolios, among them Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Minister of Health. I must say we regret to hear that he had made the decision to retire, because he contributed well to this Legislature.

Mr. Deans: He was actually forced out. The decision was made for him.

Mr. Spence: We hear those things, but we just can’t definitely prove them. However, I must say that on next Thursday the by- election takes place and all three parties of this Legislature will be greatly interested in the results.

So. Mr. Speaker, today I want to say a few words in regard to inflation. It’s quite obvious from this session’s Throne Speech and the budget that this government is simply not prepared to make a real effort to deal with our greatest problem, that of inflation. Of course, we are always relieved to hear that the government intends to employ all practical means at its disposal to alleviate the causes and effects of inflation. But we would find it much more reassuring if the government could be more specific as to what measures it plans to take, and more dynamic about putting their promises into action.

I could just as easily say that I would personally employ all practical means to alleviate the causes and effects of inflation, but I don’t honestly think that this would be much comfort to the taxpayers of this province in their struggle to provide a good living for themselves and their families. To say that the problem of inflation can only be dealt with at the national level with all governments co-operating is, of course, still another attempt on the part of this provincial government to place the blame for every ill on the shoulders of the federal government.

Ontario is the richest province in this country, yet this government has shown itself to be increasingly incapable of coping with inflationary expenditures. Since Mr. Davis became Premier, Ontario’s spending has increased 18 per cent faster than revenues. The government has shown itself to be completely irresponsible in many areas, not the least in its attitude in spending the taxpayers’ money.

Even with colossal loans from the German banks, the government has been unable to finance adequately the huge debt incurred to a large extent by the government’s inefficiencies and, it would seem, a never-ending series of new government departments, sections, committees and boards of review, not to mention even the enormous staff in the Premier’s office.

It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the government has so quickly forgotten the words of the former Treasurer, Charles MacNaughton, in his budget address of 1969, when he said that the low growth capacity of our revenues obliges us to finance essential increases in expenditures with successive increases in the tax rates and to continue widening of the tax base.

He warned that in the long run these measures, if taken without reference to a co-ordinated fiscal framework, risked overloading the tax system and making it economically and socially burdensome.

The present government has chosen to disregard his warnings. Tax levels are higher than ever before in the province’s history, and the government continues to handle the taxpayers’ money as irresponsibly as ever.

Another former Treasurer of Ontario, the hon. member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough), brought down a budget and told this House:

Large-scale expenditure increases may appear to be appropriate in recessionary periods, but they can only work to impede economic revival. The expansion of the government sector can be distortionary if the economy moves back to full employment insofar as it pre-empts the economic resources that can be used more productively in the private sector and ultimately may result in tax increases. Each of these factors can generate inflationary pressures and precipitate a second wave of restrictive fiscal monetary pressures.

This government has grown faster than any other jurisdiction in the nation, led by a man who apparently chooses to disregard the advice and the warnings of his own provincial treasurers. It is perhaps possible to understand how the warnings of the former member for Huron could be forgotten because he has retired now from political life. But it is something of an insult to the hon. member for Chatham-Kent that so few of his colleagues have remembered his words of warning when he was Treasurer. Perhaps he should ask himself why his advice has been disregarded Perhaps he should ask himself if his advice given in his present portfolio is likely to be disregarded also.

Perhaps all cabinet ministers who have held other portfolios in the past should spare a moment of two from their present important endeavours to consider how much of their advice has been followed and how many of their warnings have been heeded.

Mr. Speaker, frequently members of this House are accused of being too partisan in their politics. If that were the case, I would be content to be silent and allow this government to go on its merry irresponsible financial way to political defeat in the next provincial election. But this I cannot do. I must add my voice to those crying out for some semblance of financial responsibility in government policies.

The Treasurer announced this year that the public debt was reduced last year by $225 million and that he is planning to reduce it by a further $499 million this year, although he anticipates a deficit of $625 million and a total shortfall of cash of $708 million. This kind of financial double-talk is a brazen attempt to confuse us, Mr. Speaker. The government has, in fact, been borrowing money to pay off the public debt and also borrowing money to cover over some of the deficits borrowing from the Ottawa Canada Pension Plan fund, the Ontario municipal employees’ retirement fund, the teachers’ superannuation fund. It is borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. In fact, they are mortgaging the future of this province because they are completely incapable of handling these financial problems today.

The time will eventually come when the province will have to pay back more than they can take out of the various funds, and there may very well be a financial crisis. This situation is serious and potentially dangerous. It is not acceptable to some members of this House or the people of the Province of Ontario. The Provincial Auditor’s report provided some further evidence of irresponsible spending. We would expect the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs at least to have efficient bookkeepers on the staff. Yet we hear that one $70,079 advertising bill is actually paid twice over. A similar double payment was made by the Ministry of Health on a bill for $24,165. The recovery of both of these overpayments was only made when errors were picked up by our Provincial Auditor. Even the most conservative of governments has come a long way in recent years in the area of social and community services, but surely even the most dedicated of welfare state advocates would draw the line at overpaying benefit recipients to the tune of $81,400, as happened last year because of a mix-up in the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

It is true that the function of the Ministry of Government Services is to provide services to government ministries, but to provide a building at a price of $223,920, which is never fully occupied, does seem a little over- enthusiastic on their part. I think, Mr. Speaker, we are all aware that Ontario has one of the most expensive Medicare systems in the whole of Canada. This is certainly not surprising when we learn that some $20.9 million was paid to some two million OHIP claimants without checking whether they were insured under the plan.

Many times we in the opposition have tried to persuade the government to award contracts only after open and public tender. Last year the Ministry of Natural Resources paid $59,578 to a consultant firm for public relations without such tenders having been sought and, in fact, without a formal agreement being entered into, with the arrangements being made for a further $24,000 to be paid without first obtaining cabinet approval. Then, again, there is the matter of the $10-million project for a fort in Thunder Bay being awarded without tender.

Then there is regional government, Mr. Speaker. A recent London Free Press headline said “Regional Rule Reported to Cost Extra $25 million.” This is based on the government’s own estimates of additional costs, excluding normal grants. This money is to overcome sharply rising costs and hopefully it will hold down property taxes. The Treasury officials are quoted as estimating that the provincial grants to large established regions -- such as Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton, Niagara, York, Sudbury, Waterloo -- last year amounted to $46.9 million, of which $13.6 million was extra money granted to support the regions.

It has also been estimated that Durham, Halton and Hamilton-Wentworth regions will receive some $10 million in extra financing. This government has had great difficulty in selling regional government to many people of Ontario. Many taxpayers in the areas in which regional government is in operation say they just cannot afford regional government. No wonder this government has changed the name from regional governments to restructured governments.

The London Free Press article also points out that if the 27 counties concerned took up the offer of the provincial Treasurer to form new structures, making them eligible for grants up to $50,000 each to pay for studies, this would cost the taxpayers of this province another $1.35 million. If this should happen, I would say to the Treasurer that he would have by the tail the most vicious tiger in the history of this Legislature.

According to a recent Toronto Globe and Mail article, “A quiet panic, a feeling that things may be getting out of control,” has hit the Ontario cabinet. We are caught in a crisis of skyrocketing education and health costs, the increasing range of services demanded by modem urbanization, and then there is the 61 per cent wage increase demanded by our civil service. The Treasurer says there are only two alternatives: huge mill rate increases or a virtual collapse of local government, and there will be a large mill rate increase next year anyway, the Treasurer predicts.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a gloomy picture for the people of Ontario to face. There is no question that part of the explanation for the tremendous increases is inflation, but the provincial government must accept a good proportion of the blame. For example, they set the lead when they appointed the chairman of county school boards and chairmen of regional governments at $30,000 a year salary, away above the average for people in similar categories in the private sector.

Most people in Ontario do not wish their hard-earned tax money to be spent on great and glorious plans for regional government, Mr. Speaker, with modernistic and expensive buildings to house government agencies such as Hydro, with science-fiction advanced technology transit systems, with or without magnets. They are interested in the oldfashioned bread-and-butter issues, with providing the best possible lifestyle for their families today and in the future.

In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express personally my wholehearted support for the proposal of my leader that a prices review committee of the Legislature be established which, together with a reduction in provincial deficit spending, would exert some control on inflation.

I understand the latest figures released by Statistics Canada indicate that the cities are suffering the highest rate of inflation, but higher food prices -- a major factor in the rise in the cost of living -- are being experienced throughout the province to approximately the same extent.

Surely this government must accept the necessity for a close and immediate investigation into the food prices, which rose by about 70 per cent in 1973 and are expected to rise even more this year.

Feed grain prices in Canada, Mr. Speaker, are at an all-time high level. A survey by the Pork Producers Marketing Board indicates that on June 15, 1974, a farmer was receiving $2.82 per bushel for his com. On July 15, the figure was $3.02; on Aug. 15 it was $3.45; on Sept. 15 the price was $3.85. Last year on Sept. 15, 1973, the price per bushel of com was $2.29.

Other feed costs have also been increased. Soya beans have gone from $6.14 per bushel on Sept. 15, 1973, to $7.12 in. September, 1974; barley from $1.76 per bushel on Sept. 15, 1973, to $2.60 on Sept. 15, 1974.

I must say the farmers in Ontario are not responsible for the tremendous increases in the cost of living. It is true they are now receiving better prices for some of their products, but the cost of input for the farmers is increasing at alarming rates. Fertilizers and machinery have tripled in price, and the increase in the prices of gasoline, fuels and hydro will affect the farmers a great deal. Dairy farmers are going out of business because of more expensive labour and supplies.

I might say a few weeks ago we had hired a man with an excellent combine. He was talking to us, and he said he had bought it about two or three years ago and that he had paid $32,000. He said that the price for the same combine has risen to $44,000, so that when this one is worn out he just cannot afford to buy another one. So that is one illustration of the increased costs of machinery to those in the agricultural industry.

Mr. Speaker, many cow-calf operators are facing approaching financial disaster because of the low prices paid by feedlot operators. Very strong pressures are being felt because of soaring feed grain prices. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association expect increases in the cow kill this year and a cutback in the cow-calf operation because of the current grain situation. Holstein steers a few weeks ago were selling at 37 cents to the feedlot operators; heifers were bringing 30 and 35 cents. But over the last three or four weeks, the price has dropped considerably, Mr. Speaker, which is a real blow to those in the beet industry.

Our population is increasing, but our dairy cattle are decreasing in number, with an inevitable effect on the price of milk. We have even been warned of a possibility of milk rationing.

Hog farmers also are being forced out of business because of the increased’ feed costs. This will lead to a shortage of pork in the future, and therefore increased prices of pork to the consumers. The pork board has indicated that producers are weighing alternatives between feeding the grain or selling it and abandoning the hog business entirely.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I might say that in the pork business many producers are shipping their breeding livestock. The Ontario Pork Producers Marketing Board reports that for two months now the number of sows marketed have accounted for over four per cent of the total marketing. Normal sow slaughter this year has been 2.8 per cent and for the last year it was three per cent. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, Ontario farmers are not making a profit at the expense of the consumer. On the other hand, I understand the profits of food processing companies increased by more than 80 per cent in the last quarter of 1973, and by 59.6 per cent over the whole year.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about problems being experienced in the urban areas. Obviously, something must be done about this situation. Time and again, I have asked that consideration be given to encouraging the relocation of small industries in the villages and towns of our rural areas. This would not only be of assistance to the villages and the towns in question but would help to relieve the enormous pressures on the city in connection with housing and transportation facilities. Many people living in the smaller communities have to travel in some cases 85 to 100 miles for employment, and the difficulty of trying to obtain suitable employment has led many people to move to the urban areas. This trend can to some extent be reversed by establishing small industries in locations which are easily accessible to people living in our towns and villages and by this means alleviating some of the degree of pressures on our city, while at the same time preserving the smaller rural municipalities, enabling them to continue to be, or again become, thriving communities.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that a new community is planned at Cedar Springs in Kent county, which will use about 200 acres of surplus ground at the southwestern region, formerly known as Cedar Springs Hospital School. The hon. member for Chatham-Kent stated that the development would mean about 800 homes and that the hospital school has sewage and water services beyond its capacity, which would cost an estimated $1 million to provide to a new community in a different location.

This is, Mr. Speaker, good news for the area. I have never been against any development in that county or in the rural areas. But I was greatly disappointed that the minister did not include in this new site announcement that he would make available more funds to supply water and sewage systems for those villages, hamlets and rural areas which have no sewerage and insufficient water supply. Many of these municipalities are certainly in need of new water systems. Sewage and water services are needed by these municipalities which feel that they cannot afford the two services at a price they can afford to pay. If the minister would make such an announcement, I would say it would not only make the people around the new site happy but it would make the other villages and hamlets and the rural areas also happy too.

Mr. Speaker: Would this be a convenient place for the member to conclude his remarks for the present?

Mr. Spence: Yes, I have about 10 or 15 minutes left.

Mr. Speaker: Would you move the adjournment of the debate?

Mr. Spence moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, today before I move the adjournment of the House, I will reiterate what we have placed on the business of the House for Monday and Tuesday: on Monday, Consumer and Commercial Relations; Tuesday, Health. Wednesday I have discussed with the other House leaders, and we have agreed that there will be no sitting on Wednesday. On Thursday we will move to Education and so on. We haven’t yet determined what will occur one week from today, but we’ll announce that well in advance.

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

Motion agreed to.

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