Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, before the commencement of the afternoon session, I would like to point out to you that in your gallery today is Mr. Paul Taylor, the newly elected member for Carleton East.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, could I introduce, in the gallery opposite us, students from William Lyon Mackenzie Collegiate Institute in the sovereign riding of Downsview -- some 80 grade 10 students, accompanied by Mr. Young, the teacher in charge.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

CSAO NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to this House on a number of occasions, I am always reluctant to release information which would prejudice the course of negotiations. For this reason, I have not commented to this point, other than in a very general way and in very general terms, on the negotiations which are currently under way for the employees in the operational services category.

While I would still prefer to save the bargaining for the bargaining table, Mr. Speaker, an article in the early edition of today’s Toronto Star persuades me to make the following comments.

The first meeting of the parties was held on Oct. 10, 1974, to review the CSAO’s formal proposals. These proposals had been delivered to the government on Sept. 27, but had been headlined in the press several days earlier. As the members will recall, the position of the CSAO was that there must be a wage increase of 61.5 per cent in a one-year agreement, plus a cost-of-living clause, or there would be a work stoppage on Jan. 1, illegal though it might be. In addition, the CSAO asked for major changes in the classification structure.

The parties met again on Oct. 23, and at this first meeting, following the review of the association’s demands, the government tabled an initial wage offer. I will not divulge the details of the offer but I can assure the House that it was a very substantial offer indeed. While it was made very clear to the association that it was an opening offer, it was designed to assure the association and the employees that the government recognizes the effect on earnings of the recent unusual rise in the cost of living, and that the government is prepared to do everything within reason to bring about a satisfactory resolution of these negotiations.

The next meetings of the parties were held on Nov. 7 and 8, at which time a response to the government’s starting offer was expected. The CSAO’s committee did not modify its 61.5 per cent demand, however, but advised the government negotiators that they would have to go back to the membership to review their mandate.

It was our understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the reason for reviewing the mandate was that the original mandate allowed the association’s committee to bargain only on the basis of a standard increase for all classes, whereas our initial offer would provide varying increases to different groups to more properly reflect the changing wage patterns of other employers in the province.

Now we learn from the story in today’s Star that employees will be asked on Sunday to accept or reject this wage offer from the government.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, there is no need whatsoever to take a membership vote on what the CSAO clearly recognizes as the government’s initial offer. The government negotiators will continue to press for an early resumption of the negotiations, and will be prepared to meet as often, and for as long as the circumstances will allow, to bring about a settlement.

CREDIT CARDS IN SUPERMARKETS

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I announced my ministry’s position on the use of credit cards by retail grocery supermarkets. The press the following day carried an article saying I had subsequently announced an alternative method of purchasing food which would be acceptable. Mr. Speaker, that article is completely incorrect. I have made no such statement, and the ministry’s position is exactly the same as I advised the members of this House on Friday last.

In my mind, a cash discount is not sufficient justification for the introduction of credit cards in supermarkets, and does not offset many other negative aspects of such practice.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): It was not right in the first place to talk about it.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): The minister is certainly tough in the absence of an enemy.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions. The member for Kitchener.

BEEF PRICES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Was the minister able to meet with representatives of the Farmers Union this morning concerning the urgent situation in the beef industry? If so, can he report to the House on what the results of those discussions were?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. I met with the entire delegation, listened to their proposal, and agreed to give it further consideration.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask a supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker? I was pleased by the minister’s support of the food bank idea. Is it possible for Ontario to make, as it were, a public demand of the federal government that the food bank --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That doesn’t seem to be supplementary to the original question.

Mr. Lewis: I understood that was a part of the minister’s response to the NFU this morning, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t hear anything of that in the answer --

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry.

SHORTAGE OF DENTAL HYGIENISTS

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent disciplinary action against four dentists that was widely reported in the press, is it correct that there is a shortage of dental hygienists who would otherwise be doing some of the routine work which apparently nurses and other aides have been doing in dentists’ offices? If so, what plans does the minister have to relieve that apparent shortage?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the shortage doesn’t exist in the classification called hygienists as much as it does in the category called dental assistants, who have been acting as hygienists. I think that is where the cases took place.

We have been working with both the college and the association of dentistry of Ontario to try to find out what steps could be taken on a short-term basis to upgrade the estimated 1,000 dental assistants in the province who are working without qualifications to work in your mouth, and to qualify as many as we can to do intra-oral procedures. There are some problems because they will require the use of teaching facilities that are traditionally in use during the university year. We are attempting to find some way of carrying out this upgrading course on a one- or two-week basis to qualify these dental assistants to do certain things that they were not by law permitted to do.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question on the response by the minister? Does the minister agree with the college as to the potential danger of anaesthetic in the dentist’s chair? And if he does, does he have any ideas -- as a short-term measure for instance -- about encouraging dentists who want to proceed with this procedure to use hospital facilities?

Hon. Mr. Miller: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I don’t see that as a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I was trying to place it too and I really had difficulty.

Mr. Roy: I thought we were talking about dentists.

Mr. Speaker: It seems like a new question to me. I think we had better wait for your turn.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I will answer it later.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. Roy: The minister is hiding behind procedures.

USE OF INFORMATION BY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker: Following the Attorney General’s comments last week concerning the matter of conflict of interest in questions which I had raised and which had been brought before the House, particularly dealing with a matter in the region of Waterloo, is he able to report to the House on expected legislation or regulations with respect to conflict of interest among those who are in public positions?

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): Not this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, but I would hope before the end of the week to have that review completed.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

PROVINCIAL DEFICIT

Mr. Breithaupt: Just one question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker -- other than is he packing his shovel and little pail? Was the Treasurer correctly quoted when he said, as reported in the Globe and Mail yesterday, that the province is deliberately taxing to the hilt in the inflationary phase of the cycle and will reverse itself when the economy enters the recessionary phase? And if the minister was correctly quoted, how can he explain our present situation where we have a record cash deficit expected of some $1.25 billion?

Hon. J. White (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Well sir, I don’t know that I used the words “taxing to the hilt”; I rather think I didn’t. But the fact of the matter is, we have had high taxes --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: It is on the record.

Mr. Lewis: He is certainly taxing families to the hilt, what about the corporations?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order please.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): The Treasurer considers any tax a tax to the hilt.

Hon. Mr. White: This answer may take a long time. Please don’t interrupt me.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I am sure it will.

Hon. Mr. White: We have been contra-cyclical budgeting --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: -- by which I mean we have been taking in more money than we have been putting out, and in the process, unlike the federal government, we have been putting a dampening effect on the economy of Ontario, which I suspect is one of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that a most senior minister in Ottawa said to me a couple of weeks ago --

Mr. Renwick: He has been reading Keynes over the weekend.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order please, you can’t hear the minister.

Hon. Mr. White: -- that Ontario has the strongest economy in the world today.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He is the biggest cause of the layoffs.

Mr. Lewis: That brings him up to Adam Smith.

Hon. Mr. White: Now then, our unemployment rate, as reflected by Statistics Canada’s report a week ago, shows that we have 3.6 per cent unemployment, and this includes some number of people between jobs and people who are unwilling or unable to move where the jobs are. So fundamentally, there is no meaningful unemployment in this province at the present time.

Our present predictions are that next year will be not quite as prosperous as this year. And so, instead of having something like four per cent real growth, we are anticipating something like three per cent real growth. Instead of having unemployment of some- thing like 3.6 per cent, we are anticipating something like four or 4.5 per cent. I didn’t use the figure five, although I see that is in the same news article. That came from some other source, I dare say.

If it should happen that unemployment does increase in the next four or five months to something like four per cent, one would expect a balance between cash in and cash out. That’s a balanced budget by my terms.

If it should happen that unemployment is more than four per cent, I think it would be wise for us to incur a modest cash deficit. I will be glad to elaborate if members so desire.

Mr. Lewis: It is $848 million so far and will reach $1 billion within months.

Hon. Mr. White: I would like, Mr. Speaker, having been given this opportunity, to read a letter which I felt compelled to write to the Globe and Mail, feeling as I do that --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. How long is that letter?

Hon. Mr. White: It is short and to the point.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps the minister could summarize it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Perhaps the cartoons could be brought into the record as well.

Mr. Singer: Read the editorial in the Sun.

Hon. Mr. White: Well then, sir, let me just say that the headline in yesterday’s paper “Deficit Budget Forecast After Ontario Misread Inflation’s Impact” was, in my view, grossly misleading. I say that for these reasons and I will summarize them.

Mr. Roy: Let the Treasurer give us his view of the cartoon there.

Hon. Mr. White: The last budget forecast total income --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. White: -- from all sources to be $9,251 million and total outgo for all purposes to be $8,915 million. The difference between cash in and cash out was calculated to be a surplus of $336 million. The April budget also --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. White: Listen, members will miss me for two weeks. Come on and give me a break now.

Mr. Singer: No, we won’t miss the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. White: They will be sorry I am not here. The April budget also described my intention to aim for a total target for debt reduction of $449 million.

Mr. Lewis: If they think they have a crisis in the Middle East now, wait until the Treasurer arrives.

Hon. Mr. White: To summarize, sir, we have in fact reduced our outstanding public debt this year, in the last seven or eight months, by $369 million. We decreased our outstanding public debt last year by $225 million; so in the last 17 or 18 months -- 19 months perhaps -- we have decreased our outstanding public debt by $594 million.

Mr. Singer: Wacky Bennett used to talk like that, does the Treasurer remember?

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): He makes Real Caouette sound like John Stuart Mill.

Hon. Mr. White: We are recognized, sir, around the world by our own people and others as being the best financially managed province in Canada, as evidenced once again, I have to say it, by being the only province in this country with a triple-A rating.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce has a supplementary?

Mr. Sargent: It is supplementary to this statement.

Mr. Lewis: Wait till they get the Treasurer in the tent.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): With the camels.

Mr. Sargent: It has been projected that the Treasurer’s deficit --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question must be based on the minister’s answer.

Mr. Sargent: In view of the statement, I asked the Treasurer last week if his deficit would not be $2 billion this year, if it weren’t for inflation. Will he say now that the deficit, with inflation in mind, will be only $1 billion this year? Will he say that now?

Hon. Mr. White: Sir, the most recent predictions for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, are for a cash surplus of $231 million.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for High Park have a supplementary?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Will the minister admit that this province is deficit financing or does he not recognize that we are deficit financing?

Hon. Mr. White: No, I am not going to take a sub-total halfway down the line and call that the bottom line. If the member wants me to regurgitate all the information I gave in my estimates, I am quite prepared to do so.

Mr. Lewis: Bennett used to speak of contingency financing.

Hon. Mr. White: I would no more look to me for advice on an inflamed appendicitis -- is that how one says it? -- or appendix, than rely on this bird opposite for economic advice.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Is this bird over here right when he says that the Treasurer is personally charming, lusty, humorous and full of life? And what does he mean by lusty?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t really think that’s of urgent public importance.

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that as notice.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West with his questions.

Interjections by hon. members.

MERCURY POLLUTION

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, since he seems ably to co-ordinate the many ministries under his purview --

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): I am glad the member is finally recognizing that.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I want to be kind in advance.

An hon. member: I’m going to wait until we get the answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now drop the other shoe.

Mr. Lewis: Right. What is he going to do now that the figures have finally been released showing the levels of mercury in the Winnipeg River, English River and Wabigoon systems for 1974 and indicating that the levels are almost uniformly hazardous, very much higher than the permissible level, and what then will be done about the Indian populations of the area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I’m rather surprised that the hon. member doesn’t know that the Ministry of Health is not in my policy field.

Mr. Lewis: The figures were released by the division of fish and wildlife, Ministry of Natural Resources, in the minister’s policy field, and referred to by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), also in his policy field; so I assumed that he was doing as good a job co-ordinating them as I gave him credit for. Clearly, I was premature. I shall therefore drop the other shoe.

Now that he has the levels in front of him showing that the CBC was entirely right in its documentary -- the levels have not been reduced but are at very serious levels to human health -- what is being done by way of an alternative food supply for the Indian reserves in the area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I don’t think it has been proved, by any stretch of the imagination, that the CBC was entirely right as the hon. member puts it and, of course, it suits his political purposes to say it was entirely right.

Mr. Lewis: I believe in public corporations.

Mr. Roy: Does the minister mean they’re wrong?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the second place, the specific question the hon. member has asked was answered by my colleague, the Minister of Health, I think it was Thursday or Friday.

Mr. Singer: It wasn’t answered.

Mr. Lewis: No, it wasn’t.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It may not have been answered to the hon. member’s satisfaction, but it was an intelligent and honest answer.

Mr. Singer: It wasn’t answered at all.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, since the answers preceded the tabling of the 1974 figures showing that the new level of mercury for the Winnipeg River, English River and Wabigoon in every case is above the permissible level -- and sometimes startlingly and dramatically above -- what can the government do by way of a crisis intervention to protect the communities dependent on these systems for foodstuff?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I still maintain that the hon. Minister of Health answered that question the other day. If the hon. leader of the NDP doesn’t think that that was a satisfactory answer, or he would like an additional answer, I would suggest that he direct that question to the Minister of Health.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary.

Mr. Stokes: Since the responsibility for industry and tourism falls within the minister’s policy field, is he taking any steps to see that the company that is responsible for these high levels of mercury content in fish compensates tourist operations in the area that are going down the drain as a result of their inability to attract sportsmen and other tourists to the area?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, this government has already done that. It was, I think, a year or two ago when this question first arose, that they had a programme, which I believe is still in existence, but which at that time was of great assistance to many of those operators. Indeed, it was one of the operators who didn’t think he was getting sufficient compensation who started the story all over again with the CBC. There is a programme and we have done a great deal to help some of the operators relocate in other areas.

The hon. member knows perfectly well one of the difficulties this government has in respect of the mercury problem is to deal with it in an intelligent fashion without at the same time destroying the ability of many people in the north to make a decent living, having regard for many wild statements which are made outside the context of fact in respect of the mercury problem, which, indeed, is serious enough.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary?

Mr. Singer: Yes. Since the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is within the policy minister’s ambit, could he tell us what steps have been taken to plan alternative sources of food for the people who are affected by excess mercury in the fish, or does the government have any plans at all?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well the Minister of Agriculture and Food is sitting beside me. He would be glad to answer that.

Mr. Singer: But the provincial secretary is the policy minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I made this point the other day and I don’t intend to back down from it: I don’t intend to usurp the responsibilities of my colleagues.

Mr. Singer: What are the minister’s responsibilities?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member knows perfectly well what my responsibilities are.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member had taken the time to be here during the debate on my estimates, when I thought he might be here, to ask those so-called pertinent questions --

Mr. Singer: I can’t even stand to be here when the minister answers questions. Why should I be here for his estimates?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- he might have got an answer for himself. If he’s seriously concerned about this problem I wish he would stop smiling so smugly about the serious problem, because it is a serious problem, as the hon. member knows perfectly well.

Mr. Singer: Oh, come on. When in doubt be insulting.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we are not unaware of the fact that because there are certain constitutional responsibilities lying with the federal government and which they insist very strongly no one encroach upon --

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on. To provide food for the people?

Mr. Breithaupt: Are they going to turn down food?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: These are serious questions --

Mr. Singer: How about a serious answer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wish the hon. members would give me serious attention and make sure they hear the answer before they interrupt.

We are not unaware of the fact, because in certain areas we cannot move because the federal government --

Mr. Stokes: Whose responsibility was it to monitor the offending company?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s your question period. I’m prepared to wait.

The hon. members know perfectly well --

Mr. Singer: Great performance. Why doesn’t the minister answer the question?

Mr. Roy: Tell them to eat pamphlets.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We are wasting time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We didn’t think it was that funny. We thought it was very serious.

Mr. Roy: What the hell is the minister doing about it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why doesn’t the member shut up and listen?

An hon. member: It’s about time somebody said that.

Mr. Sargent: That’s not very parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker: Is there more to the answer?

Mr. Lewis: At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome Paul Taylor in the gallery.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For a very serious problem there is a lot of laughter opposite.

Mr. Roy: Why doesn’t the minister sit down?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because I was asked a question!

Mr. Singer: Now for the answer!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member or any of his colleagues doesn’t think I’m capable of answering a question, he shouldn’t ask me if he wants an answer.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the minister resign? Answer that one.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Why doesn’t the member for Grey-Bruce resign?

Mr. Speaker: That’s not a supplementary question. Is there a further answer?

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Self-righteousness will get him nowhere.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if I may, we are not unmindful of the fact, because the federal government makes it difficult for us to do some of the things we would like to do in this particular field --

Mr. Lewis: Like feeding people.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- that the opposition is making a political issue out of the fact that two governments are fighting with each other, and there are people suffering in the meantime.

Mr. Lewis: This government won’t give food to people; it’s there and it won’t give it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are doing everything we possibly can within the confines of our particular --

Mr. Lewis: No, they are not. Calves are being slaughtered and they won’t provide food.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, having regard for the fact that the opposition obviously doesn’t want to deal with this seriously, and one of the members opposite is even taking the trouble of whistling, I will let them perhaps simmer in their own juice and try as much as they possibly can to satisfy their own conscience that they are really serious about this very serious problem.

An hon. member: They haven’t got a conscience.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, cut it out!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: That was just dreadful.

Mr. Speaker: There have been too many interruptions -- and the wrong kind of interruption, I must say.

Mr. Sargent: Want to borrow my whistle?

Mr. Speaker: Please do not use it again if you are the offending member.

I think we should go on with another question from the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Roy: Stay away from that provocative minister.

FOOD COMPANY PROFITABILITY

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister recall indicating in his food study that several of the companies were receiving high rates of return, and that further profit increases on the scale of 1973 didn’t appear to be necessary for these companies? Does he therefore intend to intervene in the case of Maple Leaf Mills, whose profit level for the first nine months of 1974 is running at 57.7 per cent -- significantly ahead of 1973?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I recall very clearly the statement contained in the food study survey, Mr. Speaker. I have not yet met with the people from Maple Leaf Mills. It is a possibility that I’m prepared to explore, just in terms of educating myself as to why this has happened. As to what the outcome of such discussions might be, I could only speculate at this time.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, since the minister is on record as indicating that the additional profits need not be necessary, and since they are occurring, could he undertake to meet with Maple Leaf Mills -- we’ll mention other offending companies to the minister as they emerge -- and report back to the House as to whether or not his statement can be sustained?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’m prepared to consider it.

MUNICIPAL VOTERS’ LISTS

Mr. Lewis: Thank you. One last question, if I may, of the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Speaker: Can the Minister of Revenue provide a very speedy amendment to the Municipal Elections Act which would allow for specific challenges to be made in the city of Toronto during the municipal election campaign -- challenges of voters whose principal residence is outside the poll in which they vote, since 140 of the 746 names, which were thought to be illegitimate and were taken up with the Clerk, were sustained; 740 out of 746 sustained, indicating widespread errors in the lists. Can the minister introduce an early amendment allowing for challenges?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, although I had responsibility for that bill when it was introduced and carried through the House two years ago, it happens that that Act is the responsibility of the Treasurer and Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. I would suggest that the hon. member redirect the question.

Mr. Breithaupt: Ask him before his carpet leaves.

Mr. Lewis: How lustful does the Treasurer feel about municipal elections and will he amend the Act to allow for challengers on the day of election, given the extraordinary discrepancies that have occurred and have now been legitimized on the municipal lists?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that.

Mr. Speaker: I recognize the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I missed the appropriate time, but I hope the House will join me at this time in welcoming a group of 35 students from the Martin St. Senior Public School at Milton who are with us in the west gallery today.

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

ALBERTA INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr. Roy: A question of the Treasurer, on the eve of his trip to the Arab countries: Would he advise if he has taken any steps to meet with his friend, the blue-eyed sheik from Alberta, to get some money from him and thereby give Canadians in that province an opportunity to invest in this province?

Hon. Mr. White: I certainly have discussed the matter at some length with the Minister of Finance, whose name is Gordon Miniely, not expecting him to invest money in Ontario so much as expecting that these very large and to some extent unexpected increases in income would not be used to dislocate the fiscal structure of Canada from coast to coast, but rather invested in long-life capital goods. This indeed is the policy determination of that government, as I understand it.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the answer: Does the Treasurer not feel that these discussions should continue and result at least in some decision? Would he not agree that if at all possible the people, at least in that province, considering their large surpluses, should have the first opportunity to make the type of investment that he will be asking the Arab countries to make?

And by the way, would the Treasurer answer this: Is it rumour or fact --

Mr. Speaker: Is that the same supplementary question?

Mr. Roy: Yes, just a second part of the supplementary: Is the Treasurer in fact being banished down there for his bad advice to the Premier (Mr. Davis) in relation to Carleton East?

An hon. member: Grow up.

Hon. Mr. White: I don’t think I have been banished from anywhere in all my life, unless it’s the Liberal caucus.

Now sir, the money markets in Canada are excellent. There are none better anywhere. We can raise $175 million in this Toronto market, which embraces all of Canada; whereas in Germany, which is a very large industrial state, the most that one can raise is $35 million. The most one can raise in Switzerland is $25 million or $35 million. So when corporations or governments go to market here in Toronto --

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): The Treasurer has used up his credit out there.

Hon. Mr. White: -- they offer those securities from coast to coast, and Albertans wishing to invest in this province have ample opportunity to do so.

Insofar as the Alberta provincial funds are concerned, this is their responsibility. If they want to invest money in certain projects here I would be delighted to speak to them, but I don’t propose to persuade them to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the last supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: In regard to Alberta revenues from oilfields, this year they are going to reap $1 billion more than they had last year.

Mr. Speaker: Your supplementary question?

Mr. Sargent: And in view of the fact that today’s Wall St. Journal says that the bickering between the provinces and Ottawa --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Your question!

Mr. Sargent: -- resulting in seventy-five per cent of the --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. May I point out that supplementary questions are supposed to --

Mr. Sargent: Why can’t the Treasurer borrow money from Alberta?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: A bunch of dough-heads! This is a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I would like to explain a point. Will the member take his seat?

I should point out, and really it shouldn’t be necessary to remind the hon. member, that a supplementary question is supposed to --

Mr. Sargent: The Treasurer spoke for 10 minutes. There is nothing more important --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. A supplementary question should arise out of the question -- at least the answer to the question, not a new question. A new question should not be devised.

Mr. Sargent: You are all mixed up, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not mixed up.

The member for High Park.

“THE POWER AND THE TORIES”

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Government Services in reference to the book published on Saturday by Jonathan Manthorpe called “The Power and the Tories”: My question relates to a statement made on page 135, which is that the Tories financed their last election campaign by assessing each company that did business with the government a proportion of the amount of business which it had done with the government. Can the minister inform me who in the minister’s department supplied to Mr. William Kelly the list from which he was able to work?

Mr. Roy: We all knew that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I haven’t had the opportunity to read that document --

Mr. Lewis: It’s not a document; it is a book. There is a distinction.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): It is fiction.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would assure the hon. member that to my knowledge no one in my department, and certainly not myself, gave any such information out.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister inform me who did supply the information to Mr. Kelly?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All the member needs to do is look in the public accounts book; that is all he has to do to get the list.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot inform the hon. member, and I don’t accept the fact that any such information was given to anyone.

Mr. Shulman: As a final supplementary, if I may, did the minister’s department to his knowledge prepare a list in 1970 or 1971 of every company that had done business with the government? If so, to whom did he give it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just look in the public accounts book.

Mr. Bullbrook: Oh, that’s how they do it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, certainly I have not, to my knowledge, any such information relating to any such list. First of all I would draw to the hon. member’s attention that I was not the minister at that particular time.

Mr. Shulman: That’s why he doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Secondly, as has already, I believe, been brought forward by certain interjections, Mr. Speaker, this information is all public. It is published in the public accounts every year.

Mr. Shulman: Not in usable form.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The amount of money that the government pays to any contractor or any supplier is also available if one watches, for instance, Daily Commercial News. The name of every contractor that wins any construction job for the ministry is public information.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the last supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Given the information contained in Jonathan Manthorpe’s book, and the fact that the Liberal Party is now wearing pin-striped suits and getting money from Montreal bankers, when is the Camp commission report on controlling election expenses coming into the Legislature? Is it this month?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That doesn’t seem to be supplementary. Is there a question from the Liberal Party? The member for Grey-Bruce.

SALTFLEET DEVELOPMENTS

Mr. Sargent: A question of the Minister of Housing: Would the minister investigate the payment of $6 million to a Jon-Enco for land in the Saltfleet development at the rate of $4,000 per acre, when they were told at the directors’ meeting by the assessors that it could be bought of $2,000 an acre, or a saving of $3 million? Would the minister investigate that and produce the file to the House, please?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I’d be delighted to investigate and report to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sandwich-Riverdale.

EFFECTS OF MBK

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health regarding MBK -- methyl N-butyl-ketone -- of which I gave the minister a few minutes’ notice: In view of the alarming effects of MBK on American workers exposed for only two years to this dye solvent and cleaning agent, what step is the minister taking to find out whether any Ontario workers are in similar jeopardy, and if so, what action will be taken to protect them?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I’ll take the question as notice.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Attorney General has an answer to a question.

Mr. Roy: He is not here.

Mr. R. S. Smith: He is not there.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Attorney General have an answer to a question?

Mr. Lewis: Does he have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Oh! Not knowing anything about MBK, I didn’t quite see the relationship, Mr. Speaker. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: Stop fumbling.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON ALLEGATIONS OF POLICE BRUTALITY

Hon. Mr. Welch: On Nov. 4 last, the hon. member for Lakeshore directed a question to me relating to the provision of legal counsel for private citizens required to appear before the public inquiry into alleged police brutality. At that time I undertook to give his question consideration.

May I just briefly report to the House at this time that under the Legal Aid Plan, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that a person may obtain a certificate for legal assistance in any proceeding before the commission, subject to the discretion of the area director. This is authorized by section 13 of the Legal Aid Act, and it means that a citizen subpoenaed before the commission may apply to the area director for legal assistance -- subject, of course, to the usual conditions.

The question of providing legal assistance to persons appearing before this inquiry has been fully reviewed by the commission, I am informed. Indeed, I have reviewed it myself and I am of the opinion -- which I understand is also shared by the commissioner -- that the use of the existing Legal Aid Plan will answer the hon. member’s concern.

I propose to write to the area director of the Legal Aid Plan, suggesting to him that in order to assist the commission in the discharge of its responsibilities, I would appreciate it if he expedited the applications for any certificate which arises out of the fact that an individual is required to appear before this public inquiry. Of course, this would in no way interfere with the legal aid director’s discretion, but would indicate the government’s concern for the early resolution of the matter referred to the commission for its study.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes. Does the minister not realize that that isn’t enough; that that is not fair within the terms of reference; that the police and all their representatives are completely covered through governmental metropolitan funds; and that other people are going to have to dig deep into their pockets in order to give the testimony which is a requisite to bringing that inquiry to pass?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I feel this puts any citizen in the same position as any matter that’s brought before any court or commission. They are subject to the Legal Aid Plan and the conditions of the plan.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health informs me he has an answer to the member for Sandwich-Riverside’s question, which was asked a moment ago. He may give it now.

EFFECTS OF MBK

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the question was whether we were aware of the effects of methyl N-butyl-ketone; and we are only aware of questions raised in the United States. We are trying to obtain the data from the US. We should have the data within two to three days to assess it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Essex-Kent.

DIESEL FUEL TAX

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Is it the policy of the minister to collect diesel fuel tax by having the trucking companies use it, and then, as they give in their reports as to how much they use in Ontario, they then pay the tax on it?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if the truckers are registered with us, that is the practice that’s followed.

Mr. Ruston: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Ruston: Does the minister at this time have any outstanding accounts as high as $200,000 that he is aware of?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there are a number.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

WYETH PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question of the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Will he investigate obtaining alternate sources of equivalent-quality pharmaceutical drugs normally supplied in Canada by the strike-bound Wyeth Ltd. plant in Windsor, other than importing them from the Wyeth company in the United States?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to look into the ramifications of that to see whether these other drugs are made only by Wyeth before I make any comment upon that.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: There’s one in particular made by Wyeth in Canada, called Bicillin. In that regard would he investigate the possibility of other drug plants situated in Canada being able to manufacture and supply that particular drug for the Canadian market?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would be pleased any time to find we can get Canadian sources of manufacture for anything we import, let alone those products that for one reason or another are temporarily restricted. I think the hon. member is well aware, though, that when you get into the drug business, very many of the companies have exclusive rights on a given drug for one of two reasons: either a very low volume of sales, which does not justify anyone else being in the business; or more likely, an exclusive patent on that particular drug at that particular time. With those two things applying, it is very often difficult to either arrange licensing or induce somebody to make the drugs.

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

FUTURE OF BLIND RIVER

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP asked a question of the Minister of Revenue recently and the answer is as follows, it being in my ministry:

On Nov. 4, the member for Scarborough West asked the Minister of Revenue about levels of grants being paid to Blind River under our property tax stabilization programme. This programme is administered by my ministry and we will pay $114,937 in grants to Blind River this year. This is made up of a resource equalization grant of $67,306, a general support grant of $20,413 and a northern Ontario general support grant of $27,218.

Taken together, these grants amount to 50.7 per cent of the net general tax levy, which is basically its municipal property taxes. This rate exceeds the 46 per cent ceiling on property tax stabilization grants for non-mining municipalities because of the special conditions in Blind River, which has been a mining municipality. While the rate is high, the amount of money received by Blind River is lower than usual, because the tax rate in that town is lower than many other northern communities and our grants are directly related to the local tax levy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing.

APPRAISAL OF HOMES AT BURWASH

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Government Services in regard to the home owner assistance plan for employees of the government, which we discussed last week.

In light of his answers last week, and the information that’s been provided, will the minister now indicate that at the end of the present one-year agreement between his ministry and H. Keith Ltd. all the realtors in the province will be given the same opportunity to deal on the same basis with individuals, and that an agreement will be reached with the realtors’ association so that the programme will be universal across the province and the employees of the government who wish to sell their houses under that programme will have their own choice of realtor, as well as their own choice of legal advice?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am reviewing this procedure that we’re following at the present time. I explained to the hon. members the other day how this new method of assisting public servants who are transferred was developed. It is something new. It has not been in operation before. We’ve only been dealing with it a few months, and I am certainly reviewing it. I can’t say at this moment just what changes I’ll be implementing, but probably some.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Supplementary.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Nipissing with his supplementary first.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is the minister indicating that the changes in the programme would provide an equal opportunity for all the realtors across the province and the opportunity for the employee to make his own choice? These are the two basic rights that he has taken away in his present agreement.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I believe at the present time every employee has the right to use the realtor of his choice if he wishes to sell his home privately. I agree that he does not have the total right under our plan and this is one of the matters that I am reviewing. The matter that the hon. member has brought up regarding the solicitors is also being looked into and I expect to have some proposal to bring forward in the relatively near future.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary by the hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why did the minister make no public announcement of the plan when the tenders were called while the House was sitting, and the plan was in place for July 1? And why does he feel it’s necessary to go into a monopoly situation in this case?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked whether I made a public announcement. We certainly publicly advertised the tenders and it is not my policy, nor I believe, is it the policy of any of my colleagues, that each time a tender is advertised to make a statement in the House relating to this.

Mr. Foulds: When the contract was awarded?

Hon. Mr. Snow: When we call tenders they are publicly advertised, and when the award is made normally a public press release is issued. I don’t recall, in this particular case, whether it was or not. But certainly we did advertise publicly --

Mr. Foulds: No, it was not.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- in several publications, I can’t recite them all at this moment, but we did publicly advertise for this procedure. My advisers advised this procedure. As I told the hon. member, I am not particularly happy with the way it is working and I intend to make changes, which, as I told him, we haven’t decided on at this time.

Mr. Foulds: Would the minister make those changes public?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

CONSUMERS’ GAS RENTAL CHARGES

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: In view of the fact that Consumers’ Gas has recently raised the rental price of hot water heaters by 28 per cent, and also increased the sale price of such heaters after 10 years’ use from $1.09, which was agreed upon years past, to $50 at the present time, will the minister indicate to Consumers’ Gas that such increases should be held in abeyance until such time as he or his department can appear before the Ontario Energy Board later this month with a view to quashing such unjustifiable increases?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I recall a question some days ago of a similar vein being directed to my colleague, the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough). As I recollect his answer at that time, they merely file these with the Energy Board. They don’t make application with the Energy Board for approval.

After that question was tendered to the Minister of Energy, I had a subsequent brief conversation with him. My recollection is that counsel appearing for him before the board will be raising this issue with the Energy Board. I am just going on my own recollection and I would like to clarify that my recollection is correct and get back to the hon. member and verify or qualify it, whichever the case may be, but that is my recollection. Perhaps the member asked the question some days ago.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Young: Supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: The time has just about expired. Is it a short supplementary?

Mr. Young: Would the minister then check on the validity of raising this price from $1.09 to $50 on the people who already have used these devices for perhaps 10 years?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I will check into it and get back to the member.

Mr. Speaker: Now the member for Sarnia.

APPRAISAL OF HOMES AT BURWASH

Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General, in connection with the homeowner assistance plan that my colleague from Nipissing was questioning the Minister of Government Services with respect to. Has the Attorney General been asked for any advice as to whether the programme restricting the free entitlement of the employee under the programme to a solicitor of his own choice was a proper decision? Is he prepared to give any advice as to the ethics of such a scheme?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question quite directly, I have not personally been asked. It is obvious that the solicitors, both for the Ministry of Government Services and our own, being part of the common legal services, may well have been involved. I will make it my business to look into the matter now that the member has raised the question.

Mr. Bullbrook: Would the minister take it up with the discipline committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

CONDITIONS IN NURSING HOMES

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health, who is now speaking to someone over there. Will the Minister of Health require someone in his ministry to meet with the social services committee of the city of Hamilton to check into allegations with regard to the condition of certain nursing homes, the food that is served to those nursing homes, and a more serious allegation by one of the aldermen, that the nursing homes are advised in advance of any inspection that the inspection is about to take place?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the quality of care in the nursing homes in the province has been my prime concern. I have been willing to forgo certain physical plant deficiencies, provided that quality care and quality food were given. I would be pleased to look into these matters and have my parliamentary assistant who, in fact, looks after the nursing homes for me, meet with this group if necessary.

Mr. Deans: Just one supplementary question: Would the minister make sure that whatever nursing homes were named this morning before the social services committee are investigated by his ministry to ensure that the other nursing homes that may well be doing a good job are not slandered by the accusation?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would quite agree with the member. I don’t want the good nursing homes slandered and, if some are managing to evade our inspections, I would be pleased to co-operate with any group that can help us. Incidentally, we have made it a policy that any time we get a complaint about a nursing home we have inspected that nursing home to see if the complaint was valid.

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

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Potter presented a report on the construction, repair, renovation and expenditure of Burwash Correctional Centre from April 1, 1972, to Sept. 30, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that tomorrow this House will sit at the usual hour of 2 o’clock, p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, you may recall, sir, that on Friday we adjourned a debate on a government motion with respect to matters under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act. It was adjourned on the basis that an opportunity would be given to members to have an explanation, or display, of the matters in detail. They were going to be arranged for by the Treasurer who, I believe, has now left the chamber.

Could the House leader advise us as to the time and location of that display and explanation so that we could proceed to clear up that motion with the questions which members have being attended to at that time?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will certainly do that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 32nd order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (CONCLUDED)

On vote 2702:

Mr. Chairman: On vote 2702, item 4. The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if I could beg the committee’s indulgence. I have matters that really range over items 4, 5 and 6. I would like to deal with them as a whole because they are effective in all those areas, and they have to do with the teachers’ institutions.

Mr. Chairman: I didn’t get that. Do you want to deal with items 4, 5 and 6 all at once?

Mr. Foulds: So that I don’t repeat myself, I have basically the same matters to present on items 4, 5 and 6 and I wonder if I might do them at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Is that agreeable with the minister?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Yes, it is agreeable to me. I think it might be a good idea to consider all the items together.

Mr. Foulds: Just those three items together. I think that that would be agreeable to us.

Mr. Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the members of the House. I want to throw a few questions to the minister and, perhaps, he can get some answers for me before the estimates end at suppertime tonight.

I want some statistical information that might be useful later on. I had hoped to be able to get these questions in last Friday so that the ministerial officials could have gotten them over the weekend, but that wasn’t possible.

The last book that I was able to get hold of quickly was the one for 1973-1974 -- am I correct in assuming that the enrolment in the provincially-operated schools is roughly 6,550 and that the total number of teachers is roughly 660? You can have someone make notes of these and perhaps get us the information later on.

I would also like to know how many teachers in the provincial schools are on letters of permission.

Mr. Chairman: Just a minute. Before the minister answers, there is quite a bit of talking going on within the Legislature and it is very difficult to hear the member’s questions to the minister. Could we just tone down a little bit, please?

Hon. Mr. Wells: So that we know that we’re talking about the same thing, are you talking about the number of teachers in the three different categories of schools, the development schools, health facilities, hospital schools?

Mr. Foulds: Right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Our own schools for the deaf and blind, and those of Correctional Services?

Mr. Foulds: Right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Do you want to know the number of teachers by category or all lumped together?

Mr. Foulds: What I want to know first of all is your total involvement, the total number of teachers, the number of teachers on letters of permission, the number with “normal” qualifications.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have none on letters of permission.

Mr. Foulds: Fine. The number with normal qualifications -- that is equivalent elementary or secondary qualifications, if they are in the elementary system or secondary system -- and how many you have with the special education certificate.

I would also like to know what your staff turnover was last year. In other words, how many people left the service? And, if you could pull out two specific figures for me, the ones for Thistletown and for the Thunder Bay school, the one associated with Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital.

I would also like to know the meaning of a phrase on page 3 of the 1973-1974 booklet, where it talks about the qualifications of teachers. It says:

“The school management committee salary levels are established in accordance with category requirements generally accepted in Ontario and the Ontario Trustees Council, with modifications to suit the special needs of the provincially operated schools.”

I would like to get an elaboration of the phrase relating to provincially operated schools, if I might.

I raise these questions with some seriousness -- and I’ll give you time to gather that information -- because I believe that you have a very serious morale problem within this branch of education in the province.

Just before I came into the House today, I learned that 31 teachers from the Robarts School for the Deaf in London, including the principal, have submitted their resignations. Thirty-one out of 51 teachers.

I think it is an important matter, in view of the articles that have appeared recently in the papers, one as recently as last Friday, in which there is every indication that at least 500 of these special teachers plan some kind of action to protest against the way that they have been treated in the past in their negotiations. I imagine that it arises out of not only the frustration they have to deal with in the special circumstances in which they are teaching, but the special circumstances they seem to encounter with the school management committee.

I believe 1970 was the first time that a request went to the school management committee and to the ministry that these teachers be given some recognized and legitimate bargaining procedure. That request was renewed in 1973 and again this year, and has been totally ignored by the school management committee. One can only call the school management committee’s attitude arbitrary and paternalistic.

When I raised the matter during the question period -- I believe it is about a week and a half ago now -- I must say I found the minister’s answer encouraging until I read it closely. As you read the minister’s answer closely, it becomes clear that the school management committee will be the body that is asked to define the negotiation procedure for this group of teachers. If I may borrow a phrase from my friend from Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), that’s like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank, because the school management committee has for the last three years refused to bargain in any meaningful way with these teachers. They simply don’t understand what negotiation procedure is about, nor does your answer to them, because in fact --

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, that is not right.

Mr. Foulds: Just a minute -- if you assign to the school management committee the responsibility to devise the negotiation procedures, don’t you understand that that is part of the frustration that these teachers are dealing with?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, and that’s not --

Mr. Foulds: I beg your pardon?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my hon. friend misunderstands. The letter that I sent said “ask the school management committee, as someone who is closely associated with the present situation, to come up with some suggestions.”

I can tell you one of the first suggestions they’ve already made to me verbally is that they not be the ones to negotiate with the teachers. So you see they are not going to set the ground rules for them negotiating; they are probably going to opt out of the complete process.

I think that in fairness we also have to say that the school management committee had only not negotiated because they were acting under the guidelines that were given to them by the government. They were never told that they were a negotiating group. They were a body that was set up because at some time in the past the teachers did not want to be part of the civil service.

The first question I asked when I got into this whole situation was, “Why were these people not members of the civil service, with all the right or the procedures the civil service has?” They didn’t want to be in that particular area because they wanted to be treated as teachers. They have all the time off, the regular summer holidays, etc., that teachers in the school boards have. They are quite different from regular civil servants.

So that’s why the school management procedure was devised and at that time the idea of negotiations was not thought about. But I just want to make it very clear that we have indicated in principle that we are in favour of a procedure for negotiating with them and that was what I was indicating the other day.

Mr. Foulds: I don’t want to be unduly unkind to the school management committee; I suspect that they were in fact simply carrying out the mandate or the orders from the government. But that attitude has in fact made them suspect in the eyes of the teachers concerned because they haven’t been involved in negotiations. The government has been acting simply like a rather paternalistic management.

Surely it would make better sense to have an independent committee made up of the teachers, perhaps one or two people of the school management committee who have had the experience in the area, and a couple of other representatives, either from the Ontario Labour Relations Board or from the teachers’ federations or something like that to devise a procedure. Surely you would have a better chance of agreement and success from the employees that you -- I take your intentions honourably -- wish to give these bargaining rights to.

I would put it to you that even so, it should be an independent committee and that that is not asking too much. I think you must try to give every appearance -- as well as doing it in fact -- of avoiding setting up a company union in effect.

For example, the whole question of compulsory membership must be examined fairly. As I understand it the school management committee has indicated it had in fact no authority to bargain with the representatives because a unit wasn’t set up; there wasn’t compulsory membership. But as far as I’m able to tell nobody within your ministry suggested to anybody at the policy making level that a change in legislation be enacted so that compulsory membership was possible, or so that any kind of bargaining unit could be set up.

Now I raise all those questions and this thrust of the argument with this in mind: Surely, whatever the rights and wrongs of the present situation, retraining or rehabilitation is one area that is enormously demanding and enormously emotionally draining on all of the people involved. And surely in this area we must lead the way. We mustn’t get tied into the argument that the salary grid which is being imposed, in the teachers’ view, is on the average equal to comparable boards. Surely they do have a legitimate viewpoint when they say they want to be related to the five or six top boards, because surely this area is one in which we have to give our very best. It’s not enough to be satisfied with the average.

Just one very interesting statistic: It is my information that a quarter of the staff -- that is, 12 of the teachers on staff -- at the Robarts School for the Deaf in London is receiving between $5,600 and $6,100. Maybe they are all new teachers and maybe they are inexperienced, but it seems to me that that level is hardly acceptable for the kind of job that we should be expecting to be done in those situations. It seems to me to be indefensible that a quarter of your staff teaching full-time with deaf kids is earning less than $6,100. Surely one of the ways that you can encourage and attract qualified and good teachers to this area is by granting them decent salary levels and by granting them bargaining rights. In this way you can be sure of attracting people of the very highest calibre.

I have a couple of other examples. Perhaps the ministry officials can check it out, but it is also my information that the basic wage at the Thistletown Regional Centre, for example, is approximately $10,300 for a teacher with a three-year BA and six years of experience.

In that category, a Metro high school teacher would be earning something like $11,400. Now, there’s a $1,000 differential.

Money isn’t the be-all and the end-all, and nobody pretends that it is, but simply because these people are interested in the special branch of education and are dedicated to these kids, doesn’t mean that we should be ripping them off or that we should be taking advantage of them.

I don’t know what attitude of mind there is that when two of the associations -- of special contract teachers and of Ontario hospital school teachers -- rejected the proposal of the school management committee, the school management committee then felt it necessary to engage in one of the oldest union-busting tactics imaginable: They sent a personal letter to each of the 650 teachers involved, outlined the proposed contract, and somehow just failed to mention that the negotiators had rejected it. That seems to me to be bad-faith bargaining, if you like, or bad-faith tactics.

A number of the teachers in the school for the deaf, for example, have an additional special year of training. All of the teachers in all of these schools work with students that the regular schools just can’t handle. Many of the Thistletown students, for example, are referred to and labelled as “un- controllable” by the normal school authorities, local school boards.

It is also shameful, if I may say -- if the figures are correct -- that the hospital schools underspent their budget by $100,000 last year. Now, I’m not one of these free-spenders -- I like economy -- but this is one area, surely to goodness, where we could be wisely spending a few dollars.

I just want, therefore to, get into the attitude as it has been expressed through -- and I say expressed through -- the school management committee and Mr. Kinlin, not by him. He is quoted in the Globe of Sept. 19 -- and we all know that the Globe is an honourable paper even though it has a regular column called Our Mistake -- as saying that the government pays “highly competitive salaries but does not intend to lead the way in setting teachers’ salaries.”

In this special area I think it should lead the way. I think that the spokesman for the groups involved have a very real basis for justification when they say that the government should be paying on a par with the best-paying school boards in order to attract the best available talent for the special education schools. It’s ironic that while you as a minister have been making some attempts to work out the teacher-negotiation procedure between local teachers and local boards, there has been a notable lack of that until very recently between the government and the teachers that it employs.

Again and again in the Oct. 3 meeting of the school management committee -- meeting No. 55 I believe it is -- it comes across in four different places that the school management committee was satisfied that their proposals were “competitive and equitable” and that the committee was prepared to approach the ministries concerned in order to obtain approval from the Management Board. But whenever the teacher representatives asked for consideration, the attitude was simply an arbitrary one.

I am reading from the minutes: “Mr. Kinlin noted that the government is attempting to be competitive with school boards as it relates to personnel in comparable positions.” How you define that in the circumstance, I am not quite sure. Therefore, the committee “proposes to put this proposal” -- that was the grid and so on -- “into effect, unless it can be shown that the proposal is not competitive.” Then they say: “OHSTA and SECTA may submit additional suggestions and/or proposals for improvement, if it can be shown that the current proposal is neither equitable nor competitive.” Surely, as I have said before, they should lead, otherwise the rehabilitation or the training of these students is not going to take place.

As I have said, whether this attitude is Mr. Kinlin’s or the school management committee’s or whether he is just carrying out orders of the government, I think it is basically irrelevant. By its function, the school management committee has caused itself to be suspect amongst some 600 teachers concerned. The important thing is that the education of these children, whether they are retarded, emotionally disturbed, deaf, blind or whatever handicap they suffer, is going to be an essential part of their functioning in our society. It is going to be an essential part of their rehabilitation if they are in correctional services. Unless we can get to them the very best possible education, we are failing. The measure of a government is not how it treats those who have, but how it treats those who have not.

I have visited three or four of these schools, and the conditions, for example, in the Thunder Bay situation in which a number of teachers are working very hard and very sincerely and working their guts out are just deplorable. Classrooms with steampipes running through -- the worst possible conditions that you can imagine, conditions that we wouldn’t tolerate for a moment in a nice middle-class-suburbia public school.

Now, not everything is dependent on the building, God knows that. We have built enough educational palaces and found them to be failures, but the conditions and the climate must be conducive to learning and there are ways that you can improve those conditions and that climate.

The first step is to recruit and keep in that special service dynamic, dedicated and qualified teachers, and you should do whatever you can do to improve their morale, whether that’s improved salaries that lead the province, whether it’s improved working conditions -- because all of those things will lead to improved learning conditions for the children -- whether it’s genuine consultation with the leaders of these people, whether it’s granting them full and free collective bargaining rights, including the ones that we have talked about in relation to other teachers and including the right to bargain their working conditions, or whether it’s associating them as a special unit, because they do not want to belong to the CSAO but want to be associated with one of the federations. I don’t see these problems as being insurmountable.

I know there are difficulties, but in some sense your ministry, and in some sense your government, can and will be judged on how you respond to this particular situation. If you fail, then we as a people in this province will have failed, and the rot will set in and the damage that will be done to the kids in these schools will be irreversible. What I am saying to you, Mr. Minister, is there really isn’t time to wait to next year. You have to sit down and begin devising that process now.

You have to encourage these people to stay in and, surely to goodness, you can’t continue with the attitudes that your ministry has displayed with the special education contract teachers, for example. In September, 1971, the cost of living increased 3.8 per cent; their salary increase was 2.47 per cent. In September, 1972, the cost of living increased 5.27 per cent; salary increase, 0.8 per cent. Wasn’t that a magnificent offer that year? September, 1973: cost of living increased 8.58 per cent; salary increased 3.9 per cent. Now the offer, or imposed rate, or whatever you want to call it, in September, 1974: cost of living increased 10.84 per cent; salary increased 10 per cent.

You say, “Look, we are doing things this year,” but over the last four years they have lagged behind by 11.33 per cent, when they were already at the lower end of the scale. You surely cannot continue the attitude where those teachers who are new in the school but who have not yet signed their contract at the school for the deaf in London have had their merit increment and their $600 allowance as special education teachers withheld since the beginning of September, in the subtle bit of blackmail that takes place. Whereas the teachers in Milton and Belleville have received it, the teachers in London have not, and they have been told that they won’t get it until their contracts are signed.

You simply can’t continue with that kind of semi-blackmail, carrot-and-stick attitude, the paternalistic attitude toward this very important area of education. I would very much appreciate it if the minister and his ministry could get into this situation and get it solved before Christmas, and come up with some very real reorganization and some very real commitment to this area of special education in our province.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, let me first say, of course, that we have the highest regard for the teachers in all these schools. They do a magnificent job. They work under trying conditions in some places, such as Thunder Bay, and in places such as Cedar Springs, Palmerston and other schools they work under excellent conditions. We don’t provide the facilities; the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services now provide the physical layout, and we carry on the schools there. Now, there are good facilities, there are bad facilities. They work under excellent facilities in our own schools -- in the Robarts school, the Sir James Whitney school, the Ernest Drury school, and so forth.

I think that, historically, as I indicated, when these people ceased to be part of the civil service arrangement of this province, this new kind of structure for handling their employment came about: a school management committee, with each one of them really being in the unclassified staff signing a contract.

I’m not going to stand here and say that that’s satisfactory, because obviously it isn’t. And, obviously, I wouldn’t have suggested already to them that in the next year we’re going to set up some procedure to have negotiations where there haven’t been any.

We have that in mind and that’s why I wrote them, and that’s what I’ve indicated we’re going to do. We will work these out in a way that I’m sure will be acceptable to all. At least, I certainly hope that it will be.

Now, I don’t know what the outcome of the present situation will be. I’ve heard some of the kind of rumours that my friend has indicated. I understand that some people at the Robarts school have handed in resignations; not to us I might point out, but to their own group.

Mr. Foulds: I think they’re just submitting resignations.

Hon. Mr. Wells: And when you mention the principal, that’s not the superintendent of the school; there is a superintendent, and an assistant superintendent, and then there are principals. The principal isn’t the head of the operation in London.

Mr. Foulds: It is the supervising teacher.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Supervising teachers; yes. The superintendent, Dr. Boyd, of course, hasn’t handed in his resignation.

The procedure, insofar as increments and the $600 allowance go, was strictly a communication mixup. I think that’s proved by the fact that this was implemented in the two other schools, but somehow our payroll department got the thing mixed up as far as the Robarts school is concerned. It was not done intentionally, and was not intended to be done. I think if we had had the sinister motives that you’ve indicated, we would have done it at all the schools -- which we didn’t do. I’m told it was strictly an administrative mixup in our payroll for these departments.

Mr. Foulds: Can I just interrupt you for a moment?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: What assurance have they of getting that in the very near future?

Hon. Mr. Wells: They have 100 per cent assurance. In fact, I was having some discussions just at noon today about this. We all agree that under existing arrangements -- and these, incidentally, apply to school boards across the province. There are a lot of school boards that are still negotiating new contracts after the old contract ended. I think that there’s no right for anyone to be paid on any new offer or anything; but teachers are entitled to be paid the increment as of the beginning of September. Now, some boards decided even to pay on the offer they have on the table. Now, that’s up to them to do that, but I don’t think you can expect that. But you can expect to get the automatic increment paid, and I suppose in this case --

Mr. Foulds: Fair enough.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- they can expect to get our $600 allowance; and that will be taken care of.

In this case the rest of the salary schedule, of course, depends upon the signing of another contract, which is now what is out in the schools. We’ve got the grid that’s been offered this year -- which has been arrived at, apart from negotiations -- and it is out there now. It’s being suggested to people that by signing the contract they can have this new grid.

The question now is whether we can go back and start negotiating for this year. I’ve got a letter from the president of one of these groups -- and I’m going to meet with him shortly. The letter just arrived on Thursday or Friday, and I’m going to meet with him. But the real question now is whether we can go back and negotiate this year. We’ve already got a suggested grid out on the table for this year, which is comparable to the grids in all the boards across this province. It may not be the leader, but it’s certainly among the leaders in the province.

Now, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t negotiate it in the future, but the question is whether we can start negotiating now, or whether we’ve passed the point of no return as far as negotiating for this year is concerned. It’s not fair to give any definite answer on that point at this point until I meet with these people. But I point out to you that it is very difficult.

Mr. Foulds: I am telling you, you could just make such an enormous showing of good faith by saying to these people: “Here is the grid that we have established, but in view of the cost of living, and in view of the last four years, we are willing to reopen the contract, so to speak.” You would just create such an atmosphere of goodwill, I think, among these teachers that it would be enormously useful and it would be enormously useful for helping to devise the process in tile coming year. I know that is difficult and I know the problems that we would face, but it really would be worth it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know whether my friend realizes, for instance, that in the grid -- that’s the minima and maxima that are now out -- these figures include the $600 allowance. The beginning in category one, for instance, is $6,700, and in Metro Toronto it’s $6,300. The minimum in category seven is $10,400, and in Metro Toronto it’s $9,900. The maximum in category one is $9,500, and in the Metro Toronto scale it’s $9,100. In other words, this grid that is out is at least equal to or above -- with the $600 -- the grids in most of the province.

I am just going to state this though; there is a difference in the length of the grid. If, as you go through it, you take a person at a particular point in time, you may find a difference -- and you likely will because our grid may be a little wider or spread out more than the grid in some of these other boards. If you take a specific time -- and we were doing this just the other day -- you can put your finger on one particular point where, as the member stated, there may be $1,000 difference; you can put your finger on another point where the people in our schools will be $800 above somebody in one of the other school boards.

The only thing I am saying is that having put this kind of an offer -- and obviously having suggested it, we can’t go back on this offer -- it becomes very difficult to start meaningful negotiations.

Mr. Foulds: Just let me point out to you that your grid includes the $600 for the special-education certificate, while the grids that you are comparing to do not. That is, because your grid is based on that factor, you are artificially inflating it at both ends by $600. A starting teacher in Metro, with a special-education certificate, would be getting the $6,300 plus $600, which would be $6,900. So by including that $600 factor in there, you make the grid look better than it in fact is. That is why you can’t really do a straight comparison to another “comparable board.”

Hon. Mr. Wells: I understand that Metro is doing some phasing out of their special-education allowance. I don’t have the details on it so I don’t know. As for some of the other boards in this province in areas where our schools may be located, or some of the boards that are leaders, I don’t have the information as to whether they have a special-education allowance, whether they pay above their grids.

Mr. Foulds: Those boards hiring special- education teachers do give them that $600, to the best of my knowledge, in addition to the basic salary. That is counted, in most school-board agreements, as an extra certificate. In almost every case it is at least $600 and sometimes as much as $1,000, depending on the local agreement.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not sure that that’s an absolute rule of thumb across every board in this province.

Mr. Foulds: I would suspect that you could find one or two instances where that doesn’t apply. But what I’m saying basically is that the special-education certificate should be treated as an extra certificate above the normal qualifications for a teacher, because it should be a requirement in this situation. You should start your grid at that $600 figure above a comparable figure with an ordinary school board.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): There are two items I wanted to raise with the minister in this vote. Surely, Mr. Minister, you are not suggesting that the ministry is going to develop a greatly expanded grid, one that might include requiring an individual to work 14 years to obtain the maximum, when boards of education now are negotiating with teachers for the condensation of that grid? In fact, one of the boards I know is interested in eventually condensing it to five years.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t recall ever saying that. I didn’t say that we were going to develop an expanded grid.

Mr. B. Newman: I thought I understood you to make mention of that when you were talking about the grid in relation to the special education teachers in the instances involved.

The next item that I want to mention, Mr. Minister, is, are you prepared to completely fund the special education programmes for the blind and the deaf and the hard-of-hearing that are conducted in the Toronto schools?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is part of the submission of the Metropolitan Toronto school board to us, insofar as working out this year’s weighting factors and grants and so forth goes, and it is being considered in that light.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further comment on items 4, 5 and 6? Shall they carry? Carried. Item 7? Carried. Item 8?

Mr. B. Newman: On item 8.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister why the ministry didn’t follow the recommendations of the interim report concerning the cost of education, referring to establishing teacher education as part of the educational system in the universities, rather than making the exception in the case of Hamilton and Toronto? One would have thought that in the case of Hamilton that could have been put very easily into McMaster, and in the case of Toronto it could have been put into the University of Toronto or some other university in the community. To keep the responsibility for teacher education separate only in the two instances seems to be contrary to the recommendations of the original report.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is quite right, Mr. Chairman. The original report was not the interim report of the committee on the costs of education, of course. The original report was the McLeod report, which indicated, after much study, the future direction of teacher education in this province, and it set out what it thought should be some of the guidelines. A couple of the recommendations of that report -- which was, as my friend knows, headed by the gentleman who later became director of education in the city of Windsor -- were that all teachers should have BA degrees; that that should be a requirement for admission to teacher-training facilities; and that teacher training should be carried on in the university setting, rather than as we had been doing it. There were a lot of other recommendations, but those were a couple of the basic ones.

The government embarked on a programme to implement that report and various teachers’ colleges were integrated with university facilities. This went on, then it paused for a while as we took a look -- in the years 1971-1972 -- at what was happening, we reviewed it again, because there were changes in directions and there were changes in thinking by some people. We then proceeded to continue the implementation of that report by phasing out some of our colleges and by integrating the others with other university facilities, to basically implement the McLeod report.

However, in considering the final phase, which had to do with the four remaining teachers’ colleges that we had -- Sudbury, Ottawa, Hamilton and Toronto -- this last year, and after much study it became obvious that perhaps we shouldn’t, to put it colloquially, put all our eggs in one basket, and we shouldn’t completely have one model for teacher education, and that is the university model, but having established and developed over the years our own teachers’ colleges, maybe we should upgrade them, we should keep a couple of them as a different model in order to have a competing system for teacher education, one which was under the ministry, a completely different model from the university model, and one to which we could attach an advisory committee. We could move in an innovative way, perhaps, and in different ways than the university model would be able to move.

I think, personally, there is great merit in this. I was one of the supporters of this move, because I felt that we have the university faculties and schools of education across this province; we have good ones. We now have the Ontario teacher education college, with campuses in Hamilton and Toronto; and they are also competing institutions.

I think our thoughts and our feelings and our hopes for these institutions have been justified. They have, in fact, shown increased enrolment in Toronto and in Hamilton since we announced the programme last spring, whereas they had been showing declining enrolments for quite a number of years. Now, in spite of the fact that you pay the same fees and you are required to have the same academic qualifications for admittance, we have increased enrolment in these two institutions this year in competition with the university teacher-training facilities.

We are going to, of course, monitor the whole thing very carefully in the next few years, but it certainly was very popular with the staff in these institutions. In the case of Hamilton, they had done quite a survey and had conducted a lot of research to develop innovative programmes that they could offer in teacher training. They are now in the process of implementing the new directions that they wanted to put in. So, I really think that we have done the right thing in this particular area.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith (Nipissing): I have just one question. It appears, then, from what you said, Mr. Minister, that the provision of teacher training to the French language sector will remain directly under your ministry and will not move to the universities. Did you not mention that Sudbury and Ottawa would both remain under the ministry? Is that not what you said?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I am sorry; I got off on the other direction in talking about Toronto and Hamilton.

With the remaining two, Sudbury was transferred to Laurentian University and is now part of the faculty of education in Laurentian, and that is a French language teacher training institution. Ottawa was an English language teacher training institution, and it has now gone to the University of Ottawa. There are two separate divisions in the faculty of education, one training English language teachers and one training French language teachers. So, actually, the French language programme is all in universities.

Mr. R. S. Smith: All in universities? But from what you said, though, prior to that you indicated that those four had been left --

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I am sorry -- at the beginning of last year the four had still not been integrated. When I announced the next to the final phase of integration a year ago, we had still left those four. As a matter of fact, I had announced a year ago that Sudbury was to go with Laurentian, but the details took a long time to work out -- so they, in fact, really didn’t go there until just this year.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, just one question of the minister. The report that the minister mentioned in reply to my colleague from Windsor, was that the McLeod committee report you are talking about -- the minister’s committee on the training of elementary school teachers in 1966?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. And it was that committee, if I recall correctly, that recommended that elementary school teachers eventually have a university degree. Thank you.

Just some very brief thoughts -- and I don’t pretend to have them in as coherent an order as I would like to have them, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that teacher training is one of the fundamental areas at which we need to take a very serious look, because it seems to me that that is the key to our educational system in the province. And, in my brief history of the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that have been visited upon the school system and teachers and administrators since the 1950s, I did fail to comment to any great degree in my opening remarks on the teacher-training programmes.

You will recall that back in the 1950s Ontario hadn’t been preoccupied with education -- contrary to the title of Gerry Fleming’s book -- and it really hadn’t planned for the explosion. Two new routes to teaching were opened up and both of them could be entered by grade 12 students. In many cases, unfortunately, some of those students couldn’t have obtained grade 13 at the time. One of those involved the direct route to the normal schools or teachers’ colleges, and the other involved the route to summer courses and practice teaching. The major objective was to recruit people, because of the acute shortage of teachers, and I would say the major result was that it recruited a number of people with lower achievement and ability.

Fortunately, in 1961 and later, in 1966, both of those two programmes were abolished and you came up with the report you mentioned earlier. Now you’re moving in the direction of requiring elementary teachers to have university degrees, and that is possible because by 1973-1974 the shortage had turned into a surplus.

I suppose what I want to say, though, is that among those who experienced those programmes and are still in teaching, or who experienced the crash programmes that I myself was subjected to -- although my experience in the summer school programme was a much happier one, I must say -- a number of the teachers, the principals, the schools that received those teachers and the people teaching in the special summer courses, feel that the courses left a great deal to be desired if they weren’t a farce.

I think it is important that we really examine what we are doing in our teacher-training institutions today, because the whole growth and knowledge in the post-war period has meant that no longer could we devise curricula that would last a generation. As a matter of fact, one of the reasons for the change to the guidelines and the cyclical review was that there is a necessity for changing content and curricula. But to do that we must have better trained teachers who have the time and the background to adapt those programmes and adopt new ones, and we have to do a lot more in terms of examining the psychological findings with regard to the learning process. Teachers have to be trained in recognizing that kind of fallout.

They have to be trained in the simple mechanics of using teaching aids much more than they ever did before. You don’t know what a breakthrough it was for me to learn how to run a projector. Every teacher now has to know how to run a slide projector, a record player and all those things. It only takes about three hours of actual learning and practice, but those kind of things are very real and they have to be considered.

I think it’s fair to say that in the immediate post-war years, and even into the 1950s, most teachers simply copied uncritically the patterns of teaching of their own school-days. I think that some of that is valuable, but a lot of it was inadequate. The ministry has made efforts in this regard, as have some school boards and the federations, but one of the problems we face is that the least qualified teachers are sometimes also those least interested in upgrading their qualifications.

I suppose it’s hindsight but one of the criticisms that can be laid against education of the Fifties is that the response was a genuine response but it wasn’t in the right direction. It may be that some of the ills we are now suffering could have been avoided if, during the Fifties, salaries, working conditions and so on could have been improved to lure people into the teaching profession.

It is not that long ago -- in 1958, for example -- that a fully qualified high school teacher with eight to 10 years’ experience would be earning the magnificent salary of $4,000 to $4,200. As I say, that is hindsight. I mention that because I think we are in a similar kind of crisis period with regard to teacher training today. We are facing a surplus. What can we best do to use those people to upgrade themselves and to upgrade our educational system?

I was very pleased that some initiative was taken on teacher training for native peoples, but what bothered me about the initiative that you took was that it was an exact replica of the initiatives taken in the 1950s. If we are going to do something with teaching training for our native peoples, we have got to do something more than crash emergency programmes.

As I said one time before, we seem to be responding because we are speeding into the future with our eyes firmly fixed on the rear-view mirror. You saw this nice pattern of summer schools for an emergency situation in the 1950s and you adopt it in the 1970s. Please, please, please, that cannot and must not be your only response to the training of native peoples for teaching of native peoples in our province. Somehow you have to work in those special programmes in the permanent courses or get some kind of imaginative new proposals that would be ongoing and more fruitful.

I don’t pretend to have any magic answers in this area. I do think that we cannot afford to assume the old adage that a good teacher is born and not made. That is absolute poppycock. It is just like saying a good surgeon is born and not made. Maybe the inherent understanding, sympathy and skill have to be there but, boy, can that be exploited and developed by proper training. We would no more send a heart surgeon or a neurosurgeon into practice after a year or two or even four years of training without some very special skill. The skill in teaching, whether it is with emotionally disturbed kids or regular kids or advanced kids or blind kids, is a very delicate process we are taking part in. Somehow that competency in a teacher doesn’t descend upon them as an inspiration from out of the skies.

I have just one suggestion that has often been one of my favourites. I don’t know how it could work or whether it would be effective but I throw it out for some consideration. Perhaps at a time when we are not facing a teacher shortage we should seriously consider that people who graduate from teaching training institutions be not rushed into a full timetable of teaching in that very first important year of teaching. Maybe that year should be considered much more as a kind of internship where you have them teaching independently only half of the time while the rest of the time could be supplemented by working with other teachers, with a master teacher, if you like, or working somewhere else perhaps in their own field of specialization, perhaps doing some educational research at the same time associated with a university or school. Perhaps if they did it within the school itself it would serve the purpose of removing some of the educational research from the rarified air of most of the projects originating from OISE.

Perhaps some of their experience could be under supervision, such as the teaching of community classes of adults in their own particular subject.

Somehow I think that in the whole teacher-training process and the whole teaching experience we have to avoid the cradle-to-the-grave syndrome. I’m not one of those who believe the real world is out there on Bay St. or in the mines; I think that every world is a real world, and that the school is just as real a world as the business world. But no area needs a perspective more than the school world.

The experience that a teacher can bring from outside of his profession can sometimes be the most valuable experience in the classroom. I think that we should avoid tying a person in to the business of going through a school system -- starting off at age four or five nowadays -- through to finishing university and teacher training and then going right back into the school and staying there for the rest of his life. We must adopt plans where he can have other kinds of experience outside of the teaching profession, or experiences to supplement it.

Perhaps there should be an alternative-work sabbatical where the board and the ministry could work together on a plan to pay the salary shortfall for a teacher who took leave for an alternate job for a year, as well as the regular kind of sabbaticals.

Perhaps we should look at the possibility of having teachers have some experience, either immediately before graduation or immediately after graduation, outside of the school systems before they go into teaching.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a few questions first on the matter of the statement of the minister with reference to the early-learning programme of children, and secondly as to just what the ministry is doing in teacher education as it relates to that programme.

There is a great deal of concern, as the minister I’m sure knows, among those who have been involved in this kind of a programme that we may not be getting the same sort of qualified education for teachers in this field as has been undertaken in the past. Certainly there is concern as to what the role of the community college graduate is going to be in this area, if any, in view of the regulations as they apply to day care, if, as and when those regulations should be brought into being.

Could the minister answer that? If you recognize the importance of the early years of a child’s education it seems strange that one does it in this ministry and not in the rest of the government ministries. If it is recognized here I should like to know to what extent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, the answer is, of course, that we do have a primary-specialist certificate programme at both our Ontario College of Education campuses at Toronto and Hamilton. There is also one in Ottawa, and there is one this year at Lakeshore for the primary specialist’s certificate.

The whole question of community college graduates in early childhood education has been the subject of a research programme that’s been going on. On letters of permission we’ve allowed about a dozen of them to be employed by various boards and they are working along with regular teachers in the area of junior kindergartens. Up to this date we have not made any change in our regulations that would make way for early-childhood education people to be taken on the school system as certified teachers.

Mrs. Campbell: Excuse me, I think there is a confusion in terms. Mr. Chairman, there are the early learning teachers who are teachers and qualified for that purpose. My concern is what is this ministry doing to ensure ongoing education for those teachers for their role in the educational process?

Hon. Mr. Wells: You’re talking about the teachers who are out in the schools right now?

Mrs. Campbell: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are continuing summer courses and winter courses operated by the ministry and by the school boards themselves in these particular areas. The universities, I imagine, offer courses. There are various ways that these people can keep themselves abreast of the developments and keep ahead. Their own associations offer these courses.

Specifically from our point of view, we will be bringing out the whole primary junior package of curriculum material, the new package, which will contain a whole group of things that will be of assistance to these people. There will be the curriculum P1J1 which will explain in very easily understood terms just exactly in general terms what the schools should be developing in teaching for each class in a general way in the primary and junior area.

There will be a book called “Education in the Primary and Junior Division,” which is quite an extensive book developed on teaching methods and philosophy of teaching in this particular area. Then there will be some how to do it books that will supplement these in the primary and junior division. These will all be out in the new year.

Coupled with this will be an implementation programme to help develop in-service workshops and programmes in the various school areas so that the teachers can get this material, learn about it, learn how to use it, find out how it can be adapted to them and so forth. Our regional office people will be working with them to do this. There will be a whole implementation programme when this new primary junior programme is all ready and distributed to the teachers.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, could I know to what extent those who have, for instance, their degrees not only in Ontario but who have gone to say, Columbia, and are now regarded as among the top-flight people on this continent in the early learning programme, have been consulted about this material that is being developed by your ministry? Or is it someone who has no knowledge of the field who is developing the material to teach them what to do?

I still don’t see that what you are saying is giving me any comfort or relief from my concern about the fact that you don’t seem to be bringing forward a programme for teaching just such teachers.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m not just sure exactly what the hon. member means. Groups like the Institute of Child Study and all kinds of people who are acknowledged experts in the area of early childhood education, the primary education people, here in this province, and other jurisdictions and in the United Kingdom, have all been involved in the whole process of developing these new booklets and information that we are putting out. They will be involved in the implementation of the programmes.

We have some very excellent people in this very province in this particular area and they have all been involved in them. It will be their task then to take the materials and implement them. Don’t forget that we as a ministry bring out broad guidelines and statements of general policy, the details of which have to be implemented by the local teachers working in the local school boards. That’s the whole essence of our system of local autonomy for boards today. We don’t tell everybody exactly what to do. We give them the broad guidelines. We give them the support service. Then they get together and develop the programmes. The people at the Toronto board I know are competent to do this and are indeed doing it. I don’t have any hesitation or any doubt that they will be able to. In fact, I’m sure they are doing these things now. They are developing some of the best programmes they can for early childhood education for the people in the junior kindergarten and kindergarten programmes.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman, in some of the material that came to my desk recently, there was this sentence:

“The Addiction Research Foundation is working with the Ontario boards of education in developing such material for schools and in training teachers to deliver the material.”

This was referring, of course, to the problem which we face in connection with the misuse of alcohol in our society. Here this afternoon I don’t want to repeat some of the figures that I have placed on record recently in connection with this. I simply want to underline the problem and to ask the minister what progress is being made in the training of teachers to handle this problem in the schoolroom.

There is no question that in recent years, particularly since the lowering of the voting age and the drinking age, the age of majority, that this problem has skyrocketed in importance in our society. We have figures showing how teenagers, particularly, have been killing themselves off at an accelerating rate on the highway; how they are drinking much much more than they were before; and how this whole problem has become one of very great concern, I think, to everyone of us in this House and across the province.

Just today in the Addiction Research Foundation report, “The Journal,” I read a statement by Dr. J. Robertson Unwin, who is the director of the Memorial Institute of Psychiatry in Montreal. He says:

“Most alarming is the steep increase in the use of alcohol by high school students. At present more than one per cent of 16-year-old Toronto high school students are chronic alcoholics.”

Well, if this is the case, then we are facing some real trouble. And if we are to meet this problem head on, then there are several things that must be done. Again, I am not going to outline them here; I made some suggestions in the budget speech a week ago.

But one of the things that I think research has shown is, that if we are going to reduce the number of alcoholics, with all the attendant problems, and if we are going to reduce the number of tragic occurrences on the highways that are alcohol-related, then the total volume of consumption of alcohol must go down. In other words, we must find some way by which we reduce the consumption of alcohol in our society.

Now, I don’t think anybody has the final answers on how that can be done. But I think people agree on this: that if it is to be done, then there is a major place for education in this field in our school system. Not only a place, but the whole process of education in this field must be stepped up dramatically from the very early grades up until high school. And not only in persuading the young people about the misuse of alcohol and what it will do in a health fashion, and all the rest of it, but also instilling in them some sense of social responsibility that they cannot possibly slide behind the wheel of a car and drive after they have been imbibing a little bit too freely.

I think that the thing that has to be done is to change the attitude of our young people in schools, and that is a major problem in view of the advertising that is going on right across the board in all the media. And I am not going to speak about that today; perhaps we can have a debate about that at another place. But this is the job.

But before this process can adequately take place, Mr. Chairman, the teachers concerned must understand the problem thoroughly and must be committed to the process of conveying to the young people in the school system the dangers involved. They must also be committed to the problem of changing their sense of responsibility and their whole attitude to this whole thing, which has become so respectable in our society.

There is no question that when we take the two things, driving and the drinking -- both of which are legal -- and put them together, then we are in trouble. We are in trouble not only there, but in so many other fields where disease increases as the result of this kind of abuse of a perfectly legal function in our society builds up.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could spend a little while in telling us exactly what the plans are in his department for meeting head on this particular problem which we face today and which is threatening the very fabric of our society? Certainly the teachers need the training, fundamentally -- I think this is a thing that researchers agree upon -- so that they know when they go to the schoolroom what needs to be done and what should be done. Of course, in addition to that there must be the curriculum which they will teach and the kind of attitude outlined which they are to instill in the young people that they serve. I wonder if the minister could comment on this.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to comment on it, because I think this is a very important problem and I suppose many of my views coincide with those of the hon. member. I would just like to tell him that we have a person in our supervisory services branch who is working constantly and regularly with the addiction research people in order to make sure that our school programmes and the information that is used in them -- and this subject is taught throughout the various health programmes -- is up to date and it’s factual and it’s helpful. Backing this up, there is a programme in the teacher educational institutions to help teachers give leadership in teaching this particular subject.

But I must point out to you, of course, that what we can do in the schools is that we can teach the facts, the true facts, about alcoholism, and the harm that can come from abusive use of alcohol, of drugs, of smoking and so forth. But in order to be credible, and I think my friend knows this, the schools can’t resort to the old scare tactics that we used 20 or 30 years ago. It just doesn’t wash with the kids and you do more harm than you do good. So you have to be able to present the information in a factual way.

How they use that information, of course, is really the concern that you and I have, and I am not so sure that the schools can answer that particular question. This is what worries me. The schools can present that information and they leave it to that person to make the choice. Part of that choice has got to be tied up in the value judgements that that young person has.

Therefore, as an extension of this, I see as an important part of the school curriculum the teaching of values. This is something which some people disagree with. They say, “Oh, yes, the schools should teach about alcohol and drugs and smoking and about VD and everything else, but we don’t want the school interfering in the area of teaching about values.” Yet it’s the way that you develop your attitude and your values that sometimes decides what you do about these problem areas, once you have all the information about them.

It still, of course, rests very greatly with the home and the kind of direction and influence that a child gets from the home and his church and other areas as to how he handles these problems. We just can’t slough the whole problem off on the school and let the school be the one that can provide the complete answer to all these problems, because it just isn’t possible.

The other thing is that in this particular area a lot of the attitudes our young people develop also come about because of the general mores of society. I realize the hon. member didn’t want to talk about some of the other areas, so I am just going to touch on some of them. I don’t think we should have any liquor or beer advertising appearing on television. The school can do all kinds of good things, and that is all wiped out by the kind of beer advertising that we see on television, because that’s what sticks in a person’s mind. They see that --

Mr. R. S. Smith: It’s liberal laws.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- happy-go-lucky attitude. If my recollection is right, we don’t have smoking advertising on television any more, do we?

Mr. Young: The newspapers make up for it.

An hon. member: They allow it in schools.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They allow it in schools. Well I certainly am not one who would suggest that there should be smoking rooms in the schools. I think that that’s one particular little place where trustees and teachers and principals have to take a stand. No one is saying that one has to stop smoking by a government decree, but having outlined the real dangers that smoking can cause, I don’t think we should make it easier for people to smoke in that particular situation.

But I suppose it becomes difficult -- the same as parents trying to tell their child not to smoke as they light up another cigarette in the living room. That’s the really difficult part. But I think we should also attack this problem in areas where general acceptance is built up, such as in television advertising, and in areas where it looks like the thing to do to be friendly, to be popular, to be part of the gang that you’ve got to get in with these various things. That’s what a lot of the television advertising does, either directly or indirectly, and that’s the kind of impression I’m sure it has on the minds of young people. That kind of thing can nullify a whole school programme where a teacher, in a very conscientious way, is trying to very factually outline the problems.

In the area of smoking there’s just no question -- and I said this when I was Minister of Health -- that we should get rid of all cigarette advertising. I’m not saying we should ban cigarettes, but we should get rid of all cigarette advertising, because there’s just no question that cigarette smoking can have a serious health effect, be it cancer or some other kind of disease of the lungs. Everyone talks about putting the emphasis on preventive medicine, and here’s one of the easiest places you can start -- and nobody wants to do it.

That’s one of the areas in which I think we can do more. And while the school can do a certain part of the job, it can only do a part of the job; and that part is to impart the information in a true and factual way and try to give young persons that information so that they have it. But they need a lot of other things to help them make up their minds not to use these various things which can bring them harm in the rest of their lives.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased the minister expanded on what I started to say. I was a little afraid that you might cut me off if I started talking about advertising, but since the minister has, I can only say that I thoroughly agree with him and advocated a week ago Friday in this place that this should be done in terms of all advertising of this nature. Before that, of course, I have advocated that all cigarette advertising of any kind should be banned.

More than that, I think we should move forward from that and do a positive job in advertising in the media, particularly on television, to show exactly the results of this kind of abuse. I would hope that’s the kind of thing which governments across the country are thinking about. Marc Lalonde started the thing a while ago and indicated that he was looking at this advertising with a jaundiced eye; then, of course, he took a trip to Europe with his friend, the brewer. I’m not sure that those two things entirely coincide. However, progress may be being made.

The thing that strikes me, though, is that we have been talking about this for a great many years in the schools -- certainly when I went to school we had a bit of information given us about these things -- but not in as positive a way as I think should have happened. There’s no question that even though the presentation may be factual and fairly strong, as the minister said, it can be partly nullified by the kind of propaganda that comes from the tube and other sources.

It looks as if we have a long tough struggle here, but it’s one we’ve got to embark upon and for which we have to allocate far more resources than we have been willing to do up to this particular point in time. I would hope that the minister, in his discussions with his cabinet colleagues, is pushing this total idea that we ought to be at least setting some example.

Perhaps the first example that ought to be set, since we are approaching Christmas is that non-alcoholic punch should be served at functions of government to show people that we mean business about this whole matter of pushing back the tide a bit. It might not be conducive to the same good times we have seen in some of our government functions, but it might have some merit.

No less than a judge in this province -- we were discussing this on an aircraft a few days ago -- felt that one of the things that governments could do would be to set that kind of example. He is up against this problem daily in his court, and he thinks that governments sought to start to do the kind of things which would be dramatic and which would set forth to the people of the province that they are really serious about turning back this whole trend we are seeing toward much much greater consumption of alcohol and the misuse of alcohol in our society. Maybe that’s an idea that the minister could take to his cabinet colleagues.

I am delighted that some progress is being made, but I would hope that more could be done through the educational system. Then perhaps these other things can come along at the same time to do the total job that must be done.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: My question is on the next vote, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was very pleased to hear the minister’s comments concerning smoking in the schools and smoking generally. The public expect the teacher to take care of their child and correct all of the faults that the child may have, plus overcome a lot of the bad habits the child may have, in the 5½ hours in which the child is exposed to the educational system, whereas the child is at home for possibly 12 hours a day.

In the school system you can teach the child the evils, the faults, and the disadvantages of smoking. Yet that same child, being brainwashed in school, comes home and sees dad and mom light up a cigarette in spite of all of that. It makes it extremely difficult for the school system to overcome the bad habits that the child does have at home. However, I think that the minister could possibly recommend to the schools that there be no smoking in any of the schools as far as the students are concerned. Even if you do that, then the students walk down the corridor, open the teachers’ room door and see the smoke just pouring out of there. You practically have to cut your way down the corridor with a knife because the smoke is so dense.

I don’t think the solution to the problem is very, very simple. In fact, I would think it would be extremely complicated. If we legislated and said that one shouldn’t smoke, then there are always those who would like to come along and take advantage of the system and smoke. You come into a school where they make mention that there is no smoking and you have got the washrooms into which the students will go and hide and smoke in spite of any type of regulation in the school system.

Rather than talk on that, since smoking is only one of the minor evils, if you want to call it an evil, that the student is exposed to, I think a lot of the hard drugs that are readily available in certain communities makes it extremely difficult for a teacher to attempt to point out the dangers that one is exposed to when he becomes involved with the use of any of the hard drugs. Health education does attempt in most schools to advise the student of some of the dangers be can be confronted with if he gets involved with the use of some of the various types of narcotics, including alcohol and smoking.

I can’t foresee the problem being overcome in the school system. I can simply see the schools adding to the general information and hoping that an informed parent, as well as an informed citizenry, will see the hazards and the difficulties that one will eventually be confronted with if he becomes too interested in the consumption of alcohol -- I shouldn’t say the consumption -- the abuse of alcohol and likewise the abuse of tobacco and other types of drugs on the open market.

I wanted to ask the minister if he is considering the use of an apprenticeship programme for teachers on an experimental basis. Rather than actually put the teacher into a college of education, put him right in a school for a full year or so as an apprentice in teacher education.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am told it is one of the things that is being looked at over the long haul. It was done a few years ago in one of the school jurisdictions, but it didn’t take hold and it vanished after a few years. It apparently didn’t work out.

I think that a mixture of that programme is coming in. The innovative thing that the Hamilton campus of the Ontario College of Education is doing is not quite that, but it is very close to that. In other words, the old idea of the teacher just being out in the schools for a week here and a week there is going, and they are going in either two days a week all the time, or for every other week. All these kinds of innovative programmes are taking place now. There are a lot of these kinds of arrangements being done, but they are not just completely neglecting being part of some teacher education college.

Can I revert to your other comments? I just thought that you would like to know this, as I know my friend from Windsor-Walkerville is very interested in this because his daughter has played a big part in the programme at the Ontario Athletic Leadership Camp: I am told that we don’t allow smoking up there and it has presented no problems over the summer that nobody can smoke at the course or on the staff, and nobody has complained about it.

Mr. B. Newman: May I suggest to the minister that he talk to his cabinet colleague and ban the sale of cigarettes in hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is not in our jurisdiction.

Mr. B. Newman: Well, suggest it to your colleague.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): It is done in some hospitals.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the minister could tell me how many of the 85 Indians attending the special native-teacher training got jobs? I certainly would appreciate the minister indicating to the House any future plans that the ministry has in this area and whether or not it intends to make this a regular feature of teacher training or courses in the province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not at the present time. This was done as a special programme. The first part took place this last summer, the next part will take place next summer, and in the interval they are now out teaching and they are being very carefully monitored.

I understand what we are trying to do now is to make arrangements for the person who acted as principal of the course to get leave of absence from his present job. He was on our staff at the Ottawa Teachers’ College; he is now at the University of Ottawa. We are trying to get him freed up so that he can go around and visit all these people and be of assistance to them during their year out now. But they are being assisted, of course, in the various areas where they are working.

From the 96 people who completed the course, I am told that 48 had positions as teachers when this report was done, 16 were being interviewed for teaching positions -- I would assume we should know by now whether they got those positions or not; we haven’t got that information, however 12 had positions as social counsellors, 11 had positions as teacher assistants, and nine were returning to university.

Mr. Foulds: Could we just follow this a little further? Do you have any long-range plans, because surely this meets only part of the immediate need? Have you any long-range plans? Surely your ministry should be working on long-range plans to encourage native people to take up teacher training to meet the continuing growth, hopefully, of the education of native people, in northern Ontario in particular? What are you doing to encourage them to come in?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The long-range plan, of course, is that these people will be able to come into the regular programme. They haven’t been able to come into the regular programme because there haven’t been enough of them with BA degrees. As my friend knows, the Ontario Teachers’ Federation and my ministry and myself had a difference of opinion over this particular programme.

Mr. Foulds: And good for you for winning out.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They felt we shouldn’t do it and I felt we should. I think we were justified in doing this, still emphasizing our basic policy of asking for a BA, but in this particular area it was obvious we were not going to get native people in. So we are getting them in through this programme.

We haven’t a plan to duplicate this programme. We are just running this one now, and then we are looking at other ways that we can encourage native peoples to come into the regular programme. As this one is ongoing we will have to be very carefully monitoring it to find out. I quite agree with you that we must have a number of these people coming in, both to teach the native peoples in various areas, and also to help bridge that gap, particularly in a lot of parts of Ontario where there is a mix, so that the others will have a better understanding of the native peoples, their cultures and so forth. Of course, there are other parts of that programme, including the new curriculum guideline and other details in the area of teaching about the native peoples, and these things are being developed.

Mr. Foulds: It is, Mr. Chairman, an area of particular interest to me. I would gather then that you are monitoring not only those who have full teaching jobs and those who are teaching assistants but those who went into the social counselling. It might be particularly interesting to keep in touch with those who return to university, because that seems to me to be the most fruitful route.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have to keep in touch with them all. For instance, as I understood it, part of the programme was that you would take your summer course and then you would in fact be an apprentice, out there teaching, but you would be learning as you taught in the year in between. Now, those who are acting as social counsellors obviously are not fulfilling that part of the programme, so I don’t know what is going to happen. They will be getting some limited teaching experience but they will be monitored. Hopefully they will come back and take the course next summer; then they will have to be assessed to see where they stand in relation to being certified with those who were teaching full-time.

Some of the criticism of this programme has been that you are asking these people to go a special route which doesn’t require a BA; you are putting them into a school system and they therefore become second-class citizens. That, of course, is not so because that school system you’re putting them into, although we are now asking for a BA for admission to teaching training, has about 70 per cent of teachers who do not have BAs now. They are going in with a lot of other people who are working towards their BA, and these people of course have the same opportunities open to them to take any degree extramurally through universities and so forth as they teach. That’s really the avenue we have opened up for them.

So they do not become second-class citizens, insofar as they fit into the school system. They come in with all their fellow elementary teachers who do not have a BA at the present time.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 8 carry? Item 8 agreed to. On item 9, the hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few comments and questions in regard to the Gillin report. I understand it was commented on under curriculum development, so my comments will be rather short, but it could come under curriculum services as well.

I would just like to say to the minister that when that commission was appointed I felt, as many others did in the Legislature, that there could have been five or six people from the Legislature go over and sit in the comer and write the report that he got after this high-powered commission sat for some length of time and brought in its recommendations, because the recommendations that he brought in are particularly obvious to any person who has been involved in that part of the province where French-language instruction has been given, particularly to the English-speaking children and to those of French language solely in the French milieu. The recommendations of the report certainly were not startling; they just reaffirmed what most people believed to be the case and what had to be done in the province if, in fact, we were to give an opportunity for the English-speaking young people of our province to become bilingual.

The fact that immersion at a young age is the only way to instruct English-speaking children in French has been obvious for some years. Any of us who come from an area where that type of instruction is available, and who have taken advantage of it for their children, certainly realize that that is the way. So the committee report itself was really nothing that needed to be done at all. The people within the ministry I’m sure, could have figured that out themselves if they had any input or any idea of what is going on in French-language instruction across the province.

The sorry part of it though, the facts, are that in this province, outside of a certain few areas, French-language instruction has been decreasing rather than increasing and it’s considered almost a thrill for those boards which have it, whether they be in the separate or the public system. It was one of the first things to go when the crunch came a couple of years ago. In the city of Toronto, for example, we had a cut-back in French-language instruction rather than a continual increase toward a programme that would be useful.

There are some specific questions I would like to ask the minister in regard to the report. One of the recommendations is that a centre be established in a French milieu within the province for an immersion course. I presume that it’s for instructors who then go into the English-language system and provide the French-language instruction on a very wide or broad scale. I would like to ask the minister what consideration has been given to that recommendation; and if in fact the areas of the province where such a school or institution could be established have been looked at.

Obviously there are very few areas where French language is used to the extent that it is the language of common usage and where people would be able to live in a French milieu within this province. I certainly would hope that it’s not being considered to develop such a centre outside the province. So that leaves as possibilities part of the area that I live in, where it could be established, which would be the most central part of the province; and then perhaps some areas in the eastern section of the province, which would not be quite so central for use by most people of the province.

I know representations have been made to the ministry by a group of people from the west part of my area, which is 90 per cent French-speaking and where a French milieu is the way of life. It is perhaps the only area in northeastern Ontario where that is, in fact, the case. The only other area may well be the far eastern part of the province.

I would like the minister’s comments on that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, that’s being studied along with the other recommendations. I can’t really comment any further than that.

The only thing I can say, as I said the other day, is that I suppose it’s very easy to say we shouldn’t even consider anything outside of this province. I can think of a few good reasons and I can think of a few negative reasons. I can think of a few good reasons why you could make a case for something outside of this province, actually, for that kind of a situation.

I just didn’t want to leave you with the impression that we perhaps should only consider places within this province. I think, as I indicated Friday to my friend, we have a very successful immersion course for those teaching French to anglophone students that is conducted every summer in Compton, Que.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Okay. Perhaps you could provide me with those good reasons for places outside the province which should be considered, rather than a place that is of equal --

Hon. Mr. Wells: The good reasons are for that very reason, that part of the whole emphasis, part of the emphasis of teaching French in our schools, is because it’s beneficial to learn a second language yes, but also because in some unique way, and really not in some unique way but in a unique way, we’re talking about French to English people in this province because this is part of the fact of Canada. It’s going to help to unify Canada to have these two languages taught.

The Province of Quebec can provide a very unique opportunity to have that kind of a situation, and indeed we’re putting emphasis on exchange programmes for students, exchange programmes for teachers and all kinds of other programmes. Our people have found that conducting an immersion course for teachers in Compton, Que., has been a very beneficial thing.

That’s one of the positive sides. You can take issue with that if you wish, but I think there are some very good reasons why that can be very beneficial.

Now, on the negative side, of course, is the fact that if we were to set up an immersion centre such as this, I expect that the people of this province might expect that we should establish it within the province -- and that also would be a real possibility. It could be done, and there are reasons why it could be done in that way. It could be done and still done within the French milieu.

Mr. R. S. Smith: The fact of the matter is that your instruction within Quebec has been successful, because it has been within the French milieu. Now, that is the whole point and that is why it has been successful. Certainly, your immersion course up on Bloor St. has not been so successful, because you are not in a French milieu -- whereas the one in Quebec has been successful because of that.

I am suggesting to you that there are areas in this province that are just as much a French milieu as you will find in the Province of Quebec. Although the franco-Ontarian might have a different attitude on some matters, he is still of French extraction and is much different, in many ways, from the English-speaking Ontarian. Of course, if you don’t recognize those differences, then there is really not much point in carrying on with our dialogue.

The fact is there is a difference, and that is what makes a course in those areas successful. And that is what makes the course that has been provided in Quebec as successful -- the fact that it is in the milieu of the French language.

You are going to have to have it in a municipality where they speak French in the bars and where they speak French in the stores and on the street; and you are not going to find too many of those. But there are some, and I would suggest that those should be looked at first when you establish such a programme. I realize the minister may, after our last conversation, look down on the fact that some of the students who attend may go into the bars, but obviously they do, and that is perhaps part of the way of life in those areas; whether they be French or English.

Mr. Chairman: Item 9 carried?

Carried.

Item 10?

Carried.

Item 11?

The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Item 11 is school business and finances -- is it Mr. Chairman?

The other day, Mr. Minister, during the question period we discussed the financial arrangements between the province and the government of Canada in relation to students in grade 13. Now, there is the concern of the private schools that in the compilation of statistics and financial reports, statistics are turned over to the government of Canada and, in turn, they transfer funds to the Province of Ontario for post-secondary education, which includes grade 13. I have been asked by a group in my own community as to whether funds are transferred, or have been transferred in the past from Ottawa to Ontario for students in private grade 13 classes in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is no.

Mr. B. Newman: Prior to 1971 there were no transfers?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There have been no transfers.

Mr. B. Newman: So, I can assume that at no time were any financial figures provided to the government of Canada on which they could base transfer payments to the Province of Ontario -- from the private school sector?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That’s right. There has been no transfer of post-secondary money based on any figures that included private school enrolment.

Mr. B. Newman: I would like to ask another question on that, Mr. Minister.

Were figures turned over from other jurisdictions in Canada to the government of Canada, and were funds transferred to those jurisdictions? I know it probably isn’t anything that is of concern to you, but are you aware of anything in that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m afraid I wouldn’t have any knowledge of that. I just don’t know.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Under this vote, Mr. Chairman, I presume that the grants to the separate and the public school boards are included in that $1,330 million. I’d like to ask the minister what consideration has been given to an equalization of the grants at the grades 9 and 10 levels in the two systems?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, this is considered each year as we devise the weighting factors -- which is the place where this would come in; because these are elementary pupils and the request that the separate school trustees put in is that there be some kind of a weighting factor for these people that would differentiate them from regular elementary pupils.

We are in the process of considering this and we will be issuing the 1975 weighting factors sometime at the end of November or early December, and the answer will be in at that time.

Mr. R. S. Smith: You are not saying to me that students in one system are considered elementary and those in the other system are considered secondary? That’s what you are saying to me in effect.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying to you. That’s exactly how they are classified. The students in the separate schools who are in grades 9 and 10 are still classified as elementary students. That’s the way they are classified in the regulations. That’s the way they’ve always been classified.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is there any consideration being given to reclassification, so that all people would be treated on the same basis in the province, regardless of what system they chose to attend, rather than talk about weighting factors and gimmicks and little games we can play and what not?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, we haven’t really thought of reclassifying them in any different manner.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In other words, you are satisfied that to class people differently even though they are on the same basis, is satisfactory to you and your government?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The history of the whole arrangement grew out of the Continuation Schools Acts of many years ago, and the right for both public and separate school boards in certain areas to educate grades 9 and 10, the old grades 9 and 10. Public school boards do not avail themselves of that arrangement any more because geographically they don’t bother with it --

Mr. R. S. Smith: They don’t have to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- but the separate school boards still have that arrangement. The arrangement was that these people were elementary pupils and that’s the way they are classified still.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Would it not be too difficult to reclassify them, other than the fact that you might have to make a slight change in the Act or in the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Wells: You are saying then, in fact, they should be classified as secondary school students. We have never made that policy change. We have continued to carry on with the policy as it was, classifying them as elementary students and allowing them the elementary grant and ceiling.

Mr. R. S. Smith: In other words, to put it another way, it is the policy of this government to differentiate between people insofar as your school system is concerned, based on which of the two systems they attend and not based on what educational values they are being given or at what level of educational values they are being given instruction?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is the policy of this government to respect and support and equally uphold the separate public system and the public system and the public secondary system. The public secondary school system extends from grades 9 to 12, this is fully supported, and all pupils are free to attend it. The separate school representatives in a community play a part in the policy-making decisions that go on in that particular system, and that’s the system that this government supports fully and completely; a single public secondary school system.

Under the existing historic arrangements, the right for the separate school boards to carry on to grade 9 and 10 -- and this has been done basically in the academic areas -- is respected, and they are supported at the level of an elementary grant. But it’s the policy of this government to support, and uphold -- and we haven’t changed that policy -- a public secondary school system.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Just so everybody understands where we are at, you are saying that those people who attend one system receive a grant of $515 more than those people who attend another system, both of which you recognize have the right to teach in grades 9 and 10.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, to some degree that’s right.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well, not to some degree; it’s a factual statement. You may say “to some degree” to try to weasel out of it, but that is the way it is, whether you like it or not. Obviously you are going to maintain that system and fool around with the weighting factors this year when you have refused to do it for a few years, because this is the year to, you know, make the purchase.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We are not --

Mr. R. S. Smith: When I talk about making the purchase, I’m talking about buildings.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I said I had been asked to consider that particular point of view, that perhaps we should change the weighting factors to allow a special weighting for the grade 9 and 10 elementary school pupils in the separate school system. That is what will be considered. But this government’s policy insofar as the public secondary schools are concerned, has not changed.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I am not asking you to change it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, I just want you to know that.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I am just telling you that you are getting prepared to make a purchase with our money.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member from Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the topic I had discussed earlier with the minister, and that is the provision of funds to private grade 13 classes. I’ve got specific questions that were given to me by the party concerned, and I would like answers to them.

Did you, Mr. Minister, use head counts when you decided to ask for post-secondary grants from the federal government during the years 1967 to 1971?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know what your information is leading up to or what it indicates, but we take head counts of students in both the public and private systems. We do not use the statistical information collected in our submissions to the federal government for the post-secondary grants.

Mr. B. Newman: So in your submission to the federal government you do not say that in the post-secondary education, referring to grade 13, there are X students, including the number who are in the private schools?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. As a matter of fact, I have before me the 1972 submission, and it says grade 13 enrolment as of Sept. 13, 1972, was 50,712; and I’m told that figure refers to students in the public secondary schools.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I simply wanted to ask all of the questions so that the people can have it on the record and it will satisfy them.

If not, why don’t you use a head count in your approach for funds from the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Before I answer unequivocally for the year 1967, I think that my officials had better check, because they can’t assure me that the head counts are right.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I think you made a blunder.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They are not being claimed now, but none of the people sitting here were making the claims in 1967, so I think that in order that no one is led astray, they had better check that out themselves.

Mr. B. Newman: Well, will you provide me with that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I’ll provide you with that answer and, if not here, I’ll get it for you in the question period. I just want to assure you that in the ones that have been put in recently since 1971, they certainly have not been included. But no one here is absolutely sure. In order that we don’t have a misunderstanding, let’s get that information dug up so that we are correct.

Mr. B. Newman: This is my purpose in asking the question, so that we can clarify the problem once and for all.

The last question that I have is this. The information provided me is that all post-secondary students are eligible for financial assistance from the federal government and there is nothing to stop the federal government from channelling these funds directly to you and then indirectly to the private school boards. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Wells: We could claim the numbers in the private schools. The money would be transferred under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to the consolidated revenue fund of this province and then this province would have to pay grants to those private schools. Up until this time the policy decision of this government has not been to pay grants to private schools. We felt that would be violating that policy decision because we would, in fact, be paying grants from this government to private schools, even though the money was being returned into the consolidated revenue fund. But it has to go into the consolidated revenue fund from Ottawa.

Mr. B. Newman: But Ottawa would pay you the moneys were you to ask for the funds.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am led to believe that they would, yes. I haven’t had any talks with them directly on this matter. I understand that they probably would if we claimed those people.

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

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 11 carry?

Mr. Foulds: No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to know how many school boards in the province are spending up to the ceilings or exceeding them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We haven’t got the exact figure here. It’s about 50 per cent. If you like, I can get the exact figure for you.

Mr. Foulds: That is very interesting, as a matter of fact. While you are getting that is there any way that you have a statistical breakdown in terms of percentage of the ceilings that they are spending? In other words, can it be more detailed than the straight figure that I have asked for? Could you find out how many are within 10 per cent, say, of the ceilings?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, it can be more detailed. I don’t know if I can give you that right now, but it can because I had it about eight months ago. I had a figure showing the percentage they were spending up to the ceilings. It is available. I don’t know if I can get it within the next 15 or 20 minutes but I can get that for you.

Mr. Foulds: I would appreciate that very much. That’s all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 11 carry?

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister, have there been requests from various boards throughout the province to set up schools that sometimes could be referred to as no-nonsense schools, schools in which discipline is extremely -- I shouldn’t say extremely strict, but quite strict -- as it was back in the days gone by where there was no choice of subjects? Students had to conform in the school rather than the present system in the school where there is the complete freedom of choice on the part of the individual.

I have noticed in reading various American publications that there seems to be a new approach, or a greater desire on the part of parents and on the part of students to take their education extremely seriously and be interested in returning to schools that were almost disciplined on a military approach. Have there been any requests at all from boards to go back into the sort of a no-nonsense school where everything is strictly hard work and teaching and where a student must attempt to achieve?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think that statement leads you to believe that the contrary is so, that we have a lot of schools where perhaps there is a lot of nonsense going on and so forth, and that is not so. There are varying degrees of structure in the various schools. They vary according to the kind of philosophies of the principal and the teachers and the parents in that community and so forth.

Parents today are asking for assurance that the basics are being taught in the schools. I think the basics are being taught. Part of the problem is the communications problem between the teachers and the parents. I made a speech about this on Saturday. I said that we have what we might call a curriculum credibility gap because we have all these people crying for a return to the teaching of the basics; yet a lot of it is going on in the schools and a lot more which is very basic to the whole learning process, if that child is to develop a life-long learning process. The trouble is that parents get into the school and they don’t get it explained to them and they become frustrated and confused.

I think that that’s what parents are asking for. They are asking that they be sure that these things are happening in their schools. We don’t get requests to return to any particular kind of schools. School boards develop these things within their own jurisdiction. The York county board drew a lot of publicity over this before they got all their other publicity about their negotiation matters. There was a lot of publicity about the director up there and his very perceptive knowledge about education and how he had developed these alternatives in schools like Thornlea and George Williams Secondary School.

There were differences in approaches; I think that that was so. Certainly in school jurisdictions this is a good thing, we don’t get into that. We get into the area of laying down broad guidelines and directions to the boards and they adapt to these. I think that most of them are doing it in an excellent way.

Mr. B. Newman: I can recall attending one of the seminars conducted by the OSSTF in an attempt to communicate with the public to get a reaction as to what the public saw as the role of the secondary school. In the little panel that I happened to be with, the concern of the parent was for that other type of education, the type that I had made mention of earlier. That wasn’t necessarily stating that it wasn’t taking place in the community, but the parent, as you made mention, didn’t really understand what was going on in the school system. That parent was very much concerned that the student should be coming to the school to learn only and not to be fooling around in any fashion. I think you are right in the comments you made mention of earlier, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I could tell you a very interesting experience we had in the summer. There’s one place in the United States where they are experimenting with what we call the voucher system. It isn’t a pure voucher system.

This is at Allan Rock, Calif. We went down there, visited Allan Rock and talked to the people. The voucher system doesn’t apply to any private schools. Therefore, it doesn’t really become a true voucher system in our terms of a voucher system. It worked this way.

The parents were given a voucher for the amount of money. They could spend it either at their local school or any other school and those schools that were in the scheme competed for programmes. You might think that under that system all kinds of alternative freer schools would be springing up. In reality, the alternatives that were springing up were basic education schools and programmes in this school that emphasized reading as the major requirement or as a major subject area and all these kinds of things. This was the general tenor that all these alternatives took and the parents could choose which they wanted.

Certainly it’s an experiment and whether it’s working well or not down there is still too early to say. It was interesting that these were the kinds of alternatives the teachers and the parents had developed.

Mr. B. Newman: The only other topic I wanted to discuss with the minister was --

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Chairman, I have a comment on this subject.

Mr. Chairman: I wonder if the member for Windsor-Walkerville would allow the member for Durham to comment on the same subject?

Mr. Carruthers: I note, Mr. Chairman, that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce recommended in its annual report to the ministry that external examinations be re-established in the secondary field, perhaps not as a --

Mr. Foulds: Wrong item, Mr. Chairman. That’s curriculum development.

Mr. Carruthers: -- final form of advancement but as a partial gauge of a pupil’s achievement. Could the minister give me an idea as to their position in this respect?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, I can’t recall the complete wording of the resolution from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, but if they meant external examinations run by the Ministry of Education, we have no intention of reinstituting them.

That isn’t meant to mean that we are opposed to examinations. I think that all kinds of evaluation processes, properly used, are a very important tool. The feeling is abroad in some areas that the ministry is opposed to examinations, period. That is not the case. We think that there’s a place for examinations in the secondary school, for instance, and that they, properly used, are part of the total evaluation procedures and that they should be worked out by the local schools. We do not practise a policy of anti-examinations, if you wish. But we are not going to reinstitute departmental examinations or province-wide, universal examinations.

Mr. Carruthers: I appreciate that. I certainly am in agreement.

School boards do have the right to set up examinations on the school-board level, do they? There is quite a demand for this from one segment of our public, whether it’s right or whether it’s wrong. But do school boards have that privilege, in order to establish a standard of education in a certain area?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes. Actually, Mr. Chairman, they would have the right as an autonomous body, for instance, to conduct a school-board-wide examination if they wished. Now, I don’t think anybody does this, but they could if they wished conduct a school-board-wide examination, but it is more the case that they conduct examinations in the schools.

I got an interim report card for my son at home the other day, and the computer had printed out on the bottom, just as it prints out on the bottom of your credit card, “Examinations Nov. 22 to Nov. 28,” along with a couple of other little homilies or phrases such as --

Mr. Foulds: “Tax assessment too high.”

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- “Continued absence can lead to failure,” which I thought was quite amusing.

Mr. Foulds: You know what that means? It means he’s playing hookey. Watch it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, no. He hadn’t missed any days, but you see the point was that it’s just like they put that little “Smoking is dangerous” on all the various cards from time to time, and this one had; “Continued absence is harmful.” I am not a great supporter of some of these computerized report cards because they have, to the other extent, got an awfully impersonal feeling to this whole business of pupil evaluation.

I notice after each subject there’s a little computer printout, and about five of the subjects had the same one -- “Keep up the good work.” It looks as if the teacher has five choices to mark on the punch card: -- “Satisfactory work;” “Keep up the good work;” “Excellent;” and a couple of others. You push them and then the computer prints out the comment, which to me seems a rather impersonal method for the evaluation of pupils in a system which we are saying puts great emphasis on the individual and his own abilities. However, it may be that with the time at our disposal we just don’t have any other better way of evaluating all these pupils in secondary school than through this type of method.

Mr. Foulds: They should at least have a handwriting output.

Mr. Carruthers: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly not in favour of examinations as a measure of pupils’ ability or achievement, necessarily, but I’m wondering if it does not provide an opportunity for the student to demonstrate his ability in a competitive field. After all, when a student leaves school he is in a very competitive world. I use the criticism from time to time that the challenge is gone out of the school curriculum and that a good student doesn’t have the same opportunity as he had in the past to show his ability. Perhaps it discourages his incentive to achieve up to his maximum.

Mr. Young: Perhaps a poor student has a better chance of learning, though.

Mr. Carruthers: I’m wondering if you could advise me, as well as this Legislature, as to what policy is followed in setting examinations within the school itself.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I really can’t tell you that in any definitive way because the policies are set by the local schools and by the boards. Some of them have them at Christmas, Easter, and then a final exam for those who have not been successful. Some of them have a series of exams going on all the time. Others have tests that are conducted on a regular basis. There is a different pattern in every school, again devised by the professional educators in that area who feel this is the best way to evaluate a pupil’s progress.

I can tell the hon. member, and I will apologize for giving this personal reference, that I hear quite often the comment that our young people perhaps are not challenged in their school programme and things are very easy today. I have just been following with a sort of detached point of view a couple of projects that my son, who is now taking grade 9 history and grade 9 consumer education, has got. The grade 9 history assignment is something which I suggest most of the members of this Legislature would have a very difficult time doing because it deals with the leadership qualities of one leader at the provincial, federal and municipal level.

Through newspaper articles and through personal research, the student has to write and develop and support with reference material what are the leadership qualities of these people, why they have these leadership qualities, and how they develop them. He has chosen, I think, Prime Minister Trudeau, Premier Davis and Mayor David Crombie. I’ll be very interested in seeing what he finally arrives at. According to the information sheet he had, he is supposed to develop this, based on their background, their upbringing, their parental background and everything, and show why they became leaders in their respective areas.

Mr. Foulds: He’d better not pry too closely into Davis.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Actually, we will probably be able to use the material for campaign literature the next time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I just give that as an illustration. Then the other project he is concurrently working on is an analysis of the benefits that a senior citizen gets in this province, how much money they get from various sources, federal, provincial and municipal, and whether or not they can live on this amount of money. They are supposed to do this, all detailed and backed up with reference material, and then presented as a project. I suggest to you that a lot of us would have difficulty preparing some of those kind of projects. Even if you can get 50 people to help you, you have still got to get it all down on paper and someone has to mark it.

There again is one of the problems that our secondary school teachers face today, and I fully recognize this. They have got to evaluate and mark that kind of a project. Believe me, that is a lot tougher to mark and evaluate than an exam where you ask people to put down “yes,” “no” or ask, “Do you know something?” such as “What’s the answer?” or, “What colour is a poppy?” or something like that.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask of the minister, when he does provide me with the information that I asked previously, to provide this additional information, if he would be so kind, that is, the total amount of federal grants that are given to the Province of Ontario for any one given year. I would ask him to follow up in these answers for the same year throughout by giving him the per student grant for grade 13; how many grade 13 students are involved; and how many of those grade 13 students are attending private schools. From that, we could conceivably find out how much could be provided --

Hon. Mr. Wells: They are not provided in any private schools.

Mr. B. Newman: It would be grade 13 in not tax-supported public grade 13 programmes. Take any one of the Catholic grade 13s. From that, we would really know what funds are not being provided to the grade 13 student in the Catholic system simply because you are not asking for the funds from Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can tell you that for 1972 the post-secondary grants from the federal government for those in the public schools of the province were $34,968,789, which is about $689.56 per student.

Mr. B. Newman: How many students were in there?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That was based on 50,712 students. There is also a certain return for the grade 13 correspondence courses.

Mr. B. Newman: Did the 50,712 students include the Catholic high-school students?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As I indicated, there is no quarrel with the private high schools not being included since 1971. But none of my officials who are here today were here back in 1967 working on these things, so they can’t absolutely vouch for the fact that in 1967 the figures sent in were exactly the same. We don’t believe that they included any private schools, but we are going to get the information for you so we will be absolutely sure and no one will mislead anybody.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 11 carry? Carried.

Item 12? Carried.

Item 13? The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Chairman, in connection with these regional services, is this work that is supporting the county school boards? What sort of work does this regional services encompass?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The regional services are our regional offices which operate around the province. There are nine of them. They are made up of a regional director; under him, a person in charge of business and finance, of field services, of curriculum services, and of supervisory services; and under them, are staffs of people to assist the county school boards in those four areas that I mentioned -- in other words, under curriculum services there are people there, there is someone in the special education area, there are people in the community schools area, and so forth.

When we reorganized last year our policy was to give these regional directors a high degree of autonomy to handle a lot of the things that used to be handled here in the central office. School building proposals and all the other various things go in and can get approval at the regional level. They are sort of the managers of the programme in the various regions.

Mr. Deacon: This would include, then, curriculum if they wanted to get approvals for special courses or things like that? Does this include, for example, the Moosonee Education Centre? Would it report through to that when it comes up with special projects?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, the Moosonee Education Centre is not a school board. It works directly with us as a ministry. We give it a grant; the grant was in here, if you will notice.

Mr. Deacon: Yes, I noticed that. I want to know how you would deal with them in supporting them in the areas of their programmes and their curricula and any other special situations of that sort, where you have perhaps a different need than you would in the normal schools around.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, that would be handled directly with our people; that wouldn’t come under the regional office. That would be handled directly with us. I meet with the chairman up there from time to time and we talk about various things. This is concerning the educational centre as opposed to the school programmes. The school programmes would come under the normal channels of communication from the regional office up there.

Mr. Deacon: I met somebody in my community who used to be in charge of contact in Moosonee, and I thought perhaps that was sort of a regional office or something of that sort.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We have two people on the board of governors and one of our appointees -- it could be anybody whom we wish to appoint -- is Frank Lawless, who is the regional director up there, so this could give the impression that the regional offices are involved. We decided to appoint him as one of the members of the board of governors. The other member who is appointed by the ministry is Mr. Jim Martin, who works in the head office down here.

Mr. Deacon: When you have a problem, as you obviously have had in that one, where there has been very little participation and involvement by the community, is that something that the regional office can get into, or do you work directly through your representative on the board, or do you have direct involvement from Queen’s Park?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I guess all three. The regional office would be aware of problems there and would filter them down to us, but we become directly involved in that. We are in the process at the present time of conducting an evaluation of the programme up there. The board of governors has decided to hold public hearings; in fact I guess they held public hearings last week on what is going on up there, with input from all the community on what they think of the centre, what their opinions are.

We have decided to use as a model our co-operative evaluation method; so as well as having this evaluation of themselves, so to speak, after listening to the public, we have asked three other people to come in, listen to the briefs that have been presented, do their own evaluation and prepare a report in conjunction with the board. In about two months or so we will have a report, by the board of governors on what they have found out from listening to the public and what they see as their future role; and by our three independent people who will also have listened to the same kind of input, but will also have done their own searching around and looking.

So these people are now also working. The people up there now are Mr. Don Felker, Mr. Gilbert Ferries, and Ms. Verna Kirkness, of the National Indian Brotherhood, the latter appointed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Mr. Deacon: This, then, is a special situation you are dealing with. I have often wondered why it wasn’t under Colleges and Universities, since it is sort of post secondary; or under a local school board operation where they elect their own people. I presume they elect their own school board representatives in the two schools there, the primary and secondary school, do they not? Why would they not have the whole thing under the regional office and run by elected boards?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Moosonee Education Centre is set up under a charter like that of a university; and then the separate school board, the elementary and the secondary school boards, are set up under our legislation. So you have a whole mixed bag.

Now the things that you have suggested could come out of this evaluation; that is precisely why we are having the evaluation, because things are rather clouded up there as to what should be the role, what are the future roles and so forth. Out of this, perhaps, will come some clarification of these points.

Mr. Deacon: I am glad to hear you are undertaking this study. That has been sort of a special situation where we seem to be imposing, from here, a programme or direction through the appointment of people, whether they act on our behalf or not. I don’t think it is getting the response we would like to see with the money we have invested in a project like that. Have we any other situation in the province similar to Moosonee, where we have set up a special centre apart from the colleges and universities structure or apart from the normal school board administration?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I suppose the only thing that might come close would be Elliot Lake, but that is not my responsibility, that is Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Chairman: Item 13 agreed to?

Carried.

Vote 2702 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This concludes the estimates of the Ministry of Education.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING

Mr. Chairman: Estimates of the Ministry of Housing; the hon. minister.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with the debate on the estimates, I would like to make a few comments in regard to the Ministry of Housing, which has been established for approximately one year only -- as of Nov. 30 as a matter of fact. It does give men considerable pleasure to review the very substantial accomplishments of this ministry in its first year and to indicate to the members of the House our main directions in the months ahead.

I’m sure all the members are aware that housing is a matter of vital concern to all of us. It is also a very complexe matter. To understand the rationale for and the impact of this ministry’s programmes, one must be aware of all of the factors that affect the provision of housing in Ontario. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I believe the hon. members will find it helpful in considering our estimates today, if I examine those various factors and their interrelationships in some detail.

One year ago this ministry was faced with four main challenges. They were, first of all, rising land costs brought on by a shortage of serviced land, rapid urban growth and pure speculation; secondly, an imbalance in the mix of housing types available; thirdly, a heavy overburden of regulatory obstacles; and, lastly, international pressures that were forcing up the costs of money, labour and supplies. Our responses to these challenges have been explained to the hon. members of this House before, most recently I would say, Mr. Chairman, in my statement to the House on Oct. 18, and I will not go into detail at this time. I would like, however, to demonstrate that our responses are in the right direction and that they are already producing very beneficial results.

Those four challenges are still with us today, but their relative weight or impact has changed. Most of the change has been for the better. For example, the actions of this ministry and of this government have, firstly, halted the speculative surge in land and housing markets of the past spring. Secondly, already begun to change the mix of housing coming on to the market to match more closely the purchasing power of the average family; and, thirdly, removed many of the regulatory obstacles that impeded housing production a few months ago. In other areas, the changes have not been so beneficial. Mortgage interest rates have risen three full percentage points in less than a year. Construction costs have climbed 25 per cent in little more than a year. Inflationary pressures continue to push up accommodation costs in virtually every country in the world.

The activities of this ministry can have little direct effect on factors such as these, Mr. Chairman. The best we can do, though, is to ease the impact of those pressures wherever possible. This we are doing and in very substantial ways, through such programmes as sharply increased mortgage lending at below-market rates to stimulate production of the types of housing most badly needed today, particularly for those in the low- and moderate-income groups. I would like to describe these and other activities in detail in a few moments but, before I do, I would like to recall to the hon. members the events that led to the creation of my ministry.

The decision was announced in this House on Sept. 13, 1973, when the Premier (Mr. Davis) released the report of the Comay task force on housing and announced that this government would move quickly to implement one of its central recommendations -- that a Ministry of Housing be created. On Oct. 2, enabling legislation was introduced. Attaching a high and very immediate priority to housing, the Premier charged the Minister of Housing with the responsibility of ensuring an adequate housing supply at reasonable cost within a sound planning framework. On Nov. 30, the Ministry of Housing commenced operations. Its main component parts were the Ontario Housing Corp., OHAP, the plans administration branch and other components from TEIGA, and the North Pickering project.

In addition to those formative components, my ministry in the past 11 months has initiated the following programmes and activities:

In December, 1973, we formally agreed to participate in the federal-provincial Neighbourhood Improvement Programme and allocated $8.5 million in provincial grants to support the programme in this financial year.

In January, 1974, we established criteria to allow regional and municipal governments to assemble land for housing purposes.

In February, my ministry created the $10 million Ontario Home Renewal Programme, designed to conserve and improve Ontario’s existing housing stock.

In March, we created a new $4 million fund and a new branch of the ministry to encourage development of community-sponsored and non-profit housing.

In April, the plans administration branch was reorganized and elevated to division status, a major move that sharply accelerated draft approvals to the point where we now have 100,000 or more units approved and awaiting agreements between municipalities and developers. Later in April, we developed more flexible building price limitations on OHC-owned lots to stimulate builder interest in the HOME programme.

In May, amendments were introduced to the Housing Development Act, giving force to the Ontario Home Renewal Programme and enabling municipalities to establish non-profit housing corporations. That same month, this ministry tabled “Housing Ontario/1974,” a very comprehensive statement of policies, programmes and partnerships, and committed itself to facilitating 31,100 housing starts in the province in this fiscal year.

In June, Mr. Chairman, we provided an additional $58 million for this year for below-market-rate first mortgages to families with incomes under $20,000 to accelerate production of lower-priced accommodation in housing action areas. At the same time, we included in OHAP an infill policy for serviced and planned sites with potential for 250 or more units, and we adopted further initiatives that gave even more force to the Ontario Housing Action Programme.

Early in July, we created a $1.5 million grant fund to help municipalities design housing policies, develop housing action plans, and launch planning studies. At the end of July, we completed acquisition of 4,700 acres of land in Whitby North and Oakville North for landbanking purposes. This brought to some 20,000 the total acreage in the ministry’s land inventory, excluding North Pickering.

In August, the Ontario Mortgage Corp. was formed to administer Housing Corp. Ltd.’s existing $265 million portfolio plus the $75 million in new mortgage funds for the HOME programme this year and the additional $58 million for OHAP announced in June.

I would say, Mr. Chairman, that October was an especially productive month. On Oct. 18, I revealed to the hon. members and to all of Ontario a major new programme to stimulate construction of family rental accommodation and low-cost home ownership in low-vacancy areas of the province. Of the $100 million committed to this programme, more than $50 million will be directed to low-interest-rate mortgages for integrated limited-dividend family housing.

Three days later, on Oct. 21, I announced that this ministry had made available $31.5 million through OHAP to speed completion of the central York servicing scheme. This will contribute in a very major way to housing supply, accelerating 20,000 housing units in South York by 1976 and an additional 17,000 units in the short term through interim expansion of sewage treatment plants in communities in the Ajax, Aurora, Unionville area. It will also open up land for as many as 170,000 units in York and Durham over the next 20 years.

On Oct. 31, I confirmed the signing of agreements between seven developers and this ministry that will provide 3,033 housing starts under OHAP by Dec. 31 of this year, with a possible 7,000 additional units to start in 1975.

Mr. Chairman and hon. members, these are only some of the major initiatives and developments that have been launched by this ministry over the past 10 months. They do not include so many of the other activities and developments that occur daily in the various areas of my ministry. All of these contribute directly to our objective of providing adequate housing at reasonable prices within a sound planning framework.

Mr. Chairman, I record these major initiatives for two reasons: First, I want to indicate the large number of fronts on which we are moving; secondly, I want to demonstrate to all how we are responding to the four major challenges that I identified a few moments ago.

I would like now, Mr. Chairman, to relate these activities to the structure and the organization of my ministry so that all of the hon. members can more readily interpret the estimates we are considering today. As you will note on page G57 of the general government expenditure estimates, the Ministry of Housing has four main components:

First is administration, which includes my office, that of the deputy minister, and the newly created policy and programme development secretariat. This provides a research and policy analysis capability that we did not have before, and in my opinion it is most important for our future development

Second is our community planning. This includes plans administration, the various programmes under community renewal, and the North Pickering project. The function of this wing of the ministry is to encourage effective community planning and renewal, and to develop the North Pickering project

The Housing Action Programme, which is concerned mainly with accelerating housing supply in the immediate and short term, in co-operation with municipalities and the private sector, is the third component which we have to debate today.

Fourth and lastly is housing development, which includes the Ontario Housing Corp., the Ontario Mortgage Corp., the Ontario Student Housing Corp., municipal land assembly, and our community-sponsored housing programmes. This, in effect, Mr. Chairman, is the “bricks and mortar” side of our ministry. It is here that we exercise our role as a direct developer of housing for people. It is therefore understandable and appropriate that by far the largest part of my ministry’s expenditures -- some $180 million of the $226 million total, or nearly 80 per cent -- is devoted to direct provision of housing.

More importantly, that expenditure is devoted to providing housing for people who need it most -- the low-and moderate-income earners. In broad terms, Mr. Chairman, over half of our budget and about one-third of the housing units that we will directly influence this year will provide housing for people earning less than $8,000 annually. The other two-thirds of the units will go to people earning between $8,000 and $20,000 annually. In brief then, while we are actively involved in all facets of the housing field, our biggest dollar output is directed to providing people with adequate accommodation at prices they can afford.

The balance of our expenditure is designed to facilitate the planning for, and provision of, housing by all other partners in the housing process -- the municipalities, the private sector, the federal government, and the public at large. From the outset, this ministry has perceived itself primarily as the initiator, as the co-ordinator, and as a developer in the housing field.

The estimates before you today reflect those roles. Before reporting on performance to date in each of our programme areas, I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to two important financial points. First, you will note that our 1974-1975 request for $226 million is some $94 million less than the $320 million shown under the 1973-1974 estimates. Hon. members may well ask why there is an apparent reduction in the estimates when this government attaches, as it has, such high priority to housing. I want all members to understand this very clearly -- the decrease is due to non-recurring expenditures for the North Pickering project. Excluding capital disbursements for North Pickering, the 1974-1975 estimates are actually $43 million above 1973-1974.

Secondly, since the estimates book was printed --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Glad you told us.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- my ministry has provided an additional $58 million for mortgages under OHAP, to which I referred a few moments ago. To enable all the members to make a realistic comparison between this year’s estimates and those for last year, remove the non-recurring North Pickering item of $144 million from the 1973-1974 total. Then add to the 1974-1975 total $58 million in the new OHAP mortgages this year. That produces a 1974-1975 budget of $284 million, which is in fact $101 million higher than the 1973-1974 estimates.

Therefore, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these additional allocations demonstrate once again the depth of the commitment of this government and of this ministry --

Mr. Sargent: But you are not building any houses though.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to meet the needs and to meet the developments that we need throughout the province in order to provide the houses for people.

Mr. Sargent: You are another John White.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would allow me to continue, I’ll have lots of time to listen to him.

Mr. Sargent: Okay, go ahead.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): You are being provocative.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I wish now to report on the progress made so far in each of our programme areas.

Mr. Roy: You are insulting our intelligence.

Mr. Chairman: Will the hon. minister continue, please?

Mr. Roy: Oh, I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As I detail that record, I will relate the activities under each of our programmes to the four main challenges I identified in my opening remarks. I will also demonstrate how each programme has contributed to easing the impact of each of those problem areas.

On page 40 of the document, “Housing Ontario/ 1974,” which this ministry published in May, we listed targets and levels of funding for each of our programme areas. In reporting programme progress to date, Mr. Chairman, I will follow the same format used in that table. The top line of that table showed OHAP funding of $19.9 million for this fiscal year, resulting in the acceleration of 12,000 housing starts and serviced lots.

Mr. Sargent: I wouldn’t count on it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As of today, Mr. Chairman and hon. members, OHAP has signed seven agreements with developers that will provide 3,033 housing units, either under construction or to be started by the end of the year 1974. These units would not have been started until May of 1975 or possibly 1976 if OHAP had not been in effect. As a further part of these agreements, which I explained in some detail to the House on Oct. 31, Mr. Chairman, we expect an additional 6,933 units to be started during 1975. Scheduling agreements have yet to be finalized with developers and with my ministry.

I expect to announce, though, more signed agreements. I am hopeful that it will be later this week, but in any event I would expect it to be next week at the latest. I am very confident that our main target of 12,000 accelerated units and serviced lots will be met in this fiscal year.

Mr. Sargent: It’s a long way from 90,000.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The second category in the table to which I referred earlier was labelled “housing development.” This embodies all of the programmes through which my ministry functions as a direct developer. Let me report on each of those programmes as they stood as of Oct. 31, 1974:

Family housing -- 416 starts recorded, 1,716 projected by the end of this fiscal year. The target set in May was 2,000.

Senior citizen units -- 2,756 started to date, 6,015 projected for the full fiscal year, which is 15 more than our May target of 6,000.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): How can you determine what was projected?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Integrated community housing -- 428 starts to date, 2,520 projected for the full fiscal year against a May target of 2,000.

Mr. Deans: Can you explain how you arrived at the projected figure?

Mr. Sargent: He didn’t write the speech; he doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. members would allow me, I would be happy to explain all the projections which I am laying forth.

Mr. Deans: I just want to know how you arrived at the projected figure, and what it means.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I would be quite happy to bring that forward during our debate on the estimates. I think that’s the time to do it.

Mr. Deans: Why don’t you do it now, lest someone be misled?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that 25 per cent of those units in the integrated community housing are rent-supplement units.

On our HOME programme we had 1,815 starts to date, 4,669 projected for fiscal 1974, against a target of 6,000 set last May.

Community-sponsored -- 1,103 starts to date, 2,300 projected for fiscal 1974, or 300 more than the target last May of 2,000.

In the rent-supplement -- 607 starts to date, 1,300 projected for the full fiscal year, which, Mr. Chairman, is 200 above the May target of 1,100.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, these numbers, totalled, show that my ministry has directly influenced 10,125 housing starts so far this year.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): You mean you beat yourself in the race. Who are you running against?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In our role as a direct developer, we set last May a target of 19,100 starts this fiscal year.

Mr. Lawlor: You set such low targets.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we will come very close to achieving that target, except for a possible shortfall in assisted family housing. That should be more than made up in 1975.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, always made up another time. That’s what you have been saying for 20 years.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The third category is mortgage programmes. Our May statement showed a total provincial commitment to Ontario Mortgage Corp. and assisted home ownership of $75 million. We have, of course, as the hon. members know, increased this to $133 million, with the additional $58 million committed to mortgages to accelerate purchases in our housing action areas.

Mr. Sargent: How much money? What is the percentage?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Our fourth category is community planning, which includes our Ontario Home Renewal Programme and contributions to NIP and RRAP. In committing a total of $17.7 million to those programmes -- $10 million for OHRP alone -- we expected to help finance repairs and improvements to 3,750 units in this fiscal year. We have now approved applications for OHRP funds from nine municipalities involving, Mr. Chairman -- and I think the hon. members should note it -- some $2 million.

In the plans administration division, 101,755 lots had been draft approved at Sept. 30 of this year. By the end of this fiscal year, I expect this number to be increased to approximately 120,000 lots, which is 40,000 lots above the target set last May. In North Pickering, we have acquired 16,813 acres, plus 2,750 acres for the open-space part of the plan. Our target set in May was 17,000 acres.

Mr. Chairman, relating these programmes to the four main challenges which I mentioned earlier, all of our programmes help to retard the rate of price increases by increasing the supply of serviced land and by increasing the supply of housing units above what would have been provided by the private sector alone. Further, our programmes contribute to a better balance in the types of housing coming on to the market by providing mortgage and other incentives for production of accommodation for low- and moderate-income earners.

In eliminating and streamlining the regulatory process at the provincial level, I say, Mr. Chairman, our record in plans administration division speaks for itself. It’s excellent.

Mr. Deans: It speaks volumes for itself.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- I say also without hesitation that the record of performance that I have described is a very positive one.

Mr. Sargent: It is the biggest pork barrel in the world.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I am very proud to be associated with it as we move, in my opinion, toward the goals and targets that my ministry set some months ago. But, Mr. Chairman and hon. members, I want to say this also with equal frankness, there are some areas --

Mr. Lawlor: Miserable, yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- where our performance to date has not matched our expectations of a few months ago. I make no apologies to anyone for that.

Mr. Deans: You should apologize if you are being frank.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Even though the progress in some areas has been slower than hoped, we have had progress. More important, Mr. Chairman, there is no evidence --

Mr. Lawlor: I suppose if you built one house you would think it was progress.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to suggest that even in those areas our basic approach is not correct. In my opinion, it is correct. Where we have erred, Mr. Chairman, we have erred on the side of optimism.

Mr. Lawlor: On the side of execution.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We did, for example, overestimate the degree of co-operation expected from some local communities.

Mr. Lawlor: Keep your optimism to yourself.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We expected them to see and to accept more readily than some of them have the very pressing need for adequate housing for people of low and moderate incomes. Assuming, Mr. Chairman, and in some cases wrongly, that they would perceive that need, we also overestimated their willingness to accept the responsibilities that go with the provision of such housing.

In some cases we estimated the strength of the unstated but very real social and economic bias of middle and upper range income earners to those at the lower and middle income levels.

I want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all the members of this House that when I talk of biases like this, it’s not good, it’s not pleasant to contemplate. Generally, biases are based on a lack of understanding. I think this prejudice or bias is hidden under many guises. We have, in some cases people, saying they don’t want any growth. They want to have neighbourhood preservation; they have concern for the level of social services; they have concern for the quality of life and so on.

I think, Mr. Chairman, when you probe beneath the guises, you see raw prejudice, of the kind that says: “Of course the poor have to be housed, but keep them out of my neighbourhood”; or: “The senior citizen housing programme is fine, it’s excellent; but don’t try to foist off on us a family, rent-geared-to-income programme with its social implications.”

Mr. Sargent: Who has done that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I want to urge all hon. members to bear such things in mind when they consider their response, not only to the estimates today but when they go back to their municipalities and talk about housing. I want you to consider very carefully all of those points I have brought out.

You know, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the people of Ontario are today among the best-housed people in the world.

Mr. Sargent: That’s a lot of nonsense!

Mr. Deans: For those that are housed it is at a cost they can’t afford.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Compared with other populous areas, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Sargent: You should be ashamed of yourselves!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- Ontario is remarkably free of deteriorated slum neighbourhoods. This is not an accident. It’s because we’ve had good government; it’s because we’ve had enlightened policies; it’s because the programmes of this government have been right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: Distasteful conditions right across the board.

Mr. Sargent: How do you know?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Because, Mr. Chairman, the Ontario Housing Corp., over the past 10 years or more, has done a great job for the people of this province.

Mr. Lawlor: You have got a darn nerve pluming yourself on the conditions. They are just dreadful right across the province. Wherever you travel you see people living in hovels.

Mr. Sargent: Why don’t you write your own speeches? Who wrote that nonsense?

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I fully recognize the feelings of the hon. members opposite. I understand they do not wish to respond to a positive programme. But in any event, let me say this --

Mr. Deans: We would like to respond to a positive programme.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The record is not perfect.

Mr. Deans: It certainly isn’t.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Why? Because housing standards that were acceptable, say 10 years ago --

Mr. Deans: I read that part of the speech already. I thought it was funny when I read it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- no longer meet the more extensive needs and the criteria set by today’s society. We recognize that, Mr. Chairman, and in doing so we are keeping pace with those changing standards.

The operations of my ministry are based on three basic precepts. First, that adequate housing is a basic right of all residents of this province.

Mr. Lawlor: Hear, hear! When do we get started?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Second, Mr. Chairman, that the private sector can meet the housing needs --

Mr. Sargent: Even motherhood, too!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and desires of most residents more efficiently than can government --

Mr. Lawlor: That is somewhat questionable.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- given the right community and economic climate; and that’s most important. Third, that it is the responsibility of government, in concert with other segments of society, to meet the housing needs of those people who do not, for economic or other reasons, have ready access to adequate accommodation.

Mr. Lawlor: You’ve got a dreadful portfolio; that responsibility is very heavy.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that if the hon. member for Lakeshore and other members will examine objectively the activities of this ministry they will find them to be fully consistent with and supportive support of those precepts.

Mr. Lawlor: Totally inadequate; you haven’t the forthrightness. You’re not prepared to move in any way.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I wish now, Mr. Chairman, to look beyond the period covered by the estimates before the hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: You spend more money on highways than you do on houses.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: In the calendar year 1974 housing starts in Ontario will total approximately 90,000, or 10,000 less than our May estimates of 100,000 units.

Mr. Lawlor: Seven thousand last year.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Without the Ministry of Housing activities which I have just described, I want the hon. members to be well aware that starts for this year could well have been down around 80,000, or possibly to the 85,000 mark.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes; it could be even worse than it is, that’s true.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: For the calendar year 1975, Mr. Chairman, the outlook is not buoyant. Such leading indicators as building permits and loan approvals portend a decline in all types of housing, in all types of housing starts in all areas in the province for 1975.

A flow of funds analysis indicates that funds available to major financial institutions for investment in mortgages during the first half of 1974 and the first half of 1975 will be about 60 per cent of the 1973 levels. In terms of housing starts, the Conference Board of Canada has predicted a decline to about 70,000 units for Ontario in the calendar year 1975.

Now Mr. Chairman, such a low level is clearly unacceptable to this government and to my ministry.

Mr. Sargent: Why sure it is!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Demand for housing in Ontario, based on projected household formations, is expected to continue to increase until at least 1980.

Mr. Chairman: I’m wondering if the hon. minister has a convenient point to interrupt?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Half an hour ago would have been good.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The demand next year alone will be in the order of 100,000 units.

Mr. Chairman, I’ll continue with my remarks after we come back at 8 o’clock.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Chairman, before the House takes recess, I would like to advise all of the members that the Treasurer has arranged to have a presentation made on the boundaries of the Niagara Escarpment Commission planning area tomorrow from 10 until noon, in committee room 185. The chairman and the staff of the commission and members of the ministry staff will be available to answer questions from members.

The presentation was suggested during the debate last Friday, and I hope that will suit the request.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.