Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

Mr. Speaker: When we rose at 6 o’clock we called the first order. I believe the member for Cochrane South had the floor.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to enter into this debate. These last three weeks have been rather unusual weeks in the life of the Legislature of this province. I am sure it has interfered with the southern holidays of some of the members, but it has been a southern experience for some of us in northern Ontario in that we have got down to the sunny weather of dear old Toronto and have had a chance to spend three weeks in this place.

I don’t want to take too long tonight because I know that we are beading toward prorogation later in the evening. But there are a few things that I wish to bring to the attention of the members in this House, Mr. Speaker. One has to do with the appointment of a health council for my district. I know that a good deal of work has been done by the health people up there and that names have been submitted to the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller). He assured me before Christmas that he had seen the nominations and that the appointment of this health council was imminent. Here we are into the middle of February and this council has not yet been appointed. The critical thing is, of course, that a number of major decisions are not being made.

There is a crisis, as far as I am concerned, in regard to chronic care in my area. A lot of people have to go to Sudbury, Cochrane, Kapuskasing or Hearst to get into a nursing home because the nursing home in Timmins is full. There are about 70 patients in the home for the aged in Timmins who in fact are chronic care persons. I believe it was the member for York North (Mr. W. Hodgson) who stated yesterday that he had to drive 40 miles from his home to visit his father and found that quite a hardship. If you are driving a couple of hundred miles or more it means that there are not too many who are able to see people.

The reason the chronic care situation is not decided is that the minister said to the hospital planning council for our district, “We are prepared to accept whatever recommendations you are prepared to bring forth, provided that they are reasonable.” This was a very good move, because the local people could then resolve the matter and come up with a reasonable course of action, and the minister was prepared to co-operate. I appreciated his concern and his efforts on our behalf.

But because there hasn’t been a health council appointed, these hospital bodies will not make a decision. They are waiting, putting it off and putting it off, and nothing is done to deal with this problem and other problems in the health care field. So if what I say tonight has any influence on the Minister of Health, I hope that he will make every effort possible to get that council functioning so that we can deal with our chronic care situation. I think it’s acute; it’s critical.

The member for London North (Mr. Walker), who is the parliamentary assistant, says that we are better off in the district of Cochrane than many because of, I think it is, four beds available per 1,000 population. Yet when we consider the distances I don’t think we are nearly as well off as we should be. Even in Iroquois Falls, the hospital council there is now wanting to get approval for a number of hospital beds.

I was going to say something tonight about the home for the aged situation in the district of Cochrane, but there is a little event taking place on Feb. 24 in the courts there, so I think I’ll wait till after that matter is resolved before I really deal with it in some depth. I have written a letter to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) and didn’t get a reply, and I did write a letter to the person running the home for the aged, Mr. Wiburn, in Timmins, about a complaint that was brought to my attention on Nov. 29. I didn’t get a reply from him. I now understand he is in another aspect of the work. But we’ll deal with that later on, after that hearing on the 24th. I am sure there will be some very interesting results come out of that court hearing, which will take about a week.

We are interested, in the district of Cochrane, in getting approval through grants, one three hours and right through to Hearst in way and another, for a number of swimming pools in the district. There is a committee being chaired by Michael J. J. Doodey, who is an alderman in Timmins on the Timmins swim pool committee. What they hope to do is to get a consensus in our area to establish an Olympic-size swimming pool in Timmins and to have a 25-metre swim pool with whirl-pool and sauna in areas like Moosonee, Hearst, Kapuskasing, Smooth Rock Falls, Cochrane, Iroquois Falls and Black River-Matheson.

Their brief says that these pools would serve as feeders to the large pool in Timmins where combined events can be accommodated, and there would be television coverage of the events and so on. But from the point of view of health and the teaching of young people to swim and develop, these kinds of pools are very much needed, because the average of swimming days in northern Ontario is 12.5 days, 54 per cent of our teenagers can’t swim and ¾ of them want to learn to swim.

Not one northeastern Ontario swimmer, diver or synchronized swimmer is on the Ontario or national team. I could go on and give some other facts, but they will be coming down for assistance through funds that I suppose will be raised from the federal Olympic lottery and, now that we have a provincial lottery, I suppose they will be coming down here. I hope, in conjunction with the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Brunelle), that we will be able to get a good deal of co-operation from this government when this project comes about.

Another thing that is very important to us in the northeast is the matter of transportation. I have asked the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Rhodes) about the possibility of operating a light-reliable-comfortable (LRC) train between Toronto and Hearst. This is a train that has been developed jointly by Montreal Locomotive Works, Dofasco and Alcan and it has been the subject of a good deal of study, including tests in Colorado, I believe. It will go at least 120 miles an hour, perhaps faster.

I believe the action group of northeastern Ontario has made representations about this train to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and perhaps to the Premier (Mr. Davis); I know they met with him in the last month or so. This train would have a great deal of benefit to us in the northeast because, with a little upgrading of the track, a train travelling at 120 miles an hour could get into our part of the province in about four or five hours. It is a very comfortable train and would provide an alternative to air travel because it is almost as fast in many instances, particularly for people along the line.

Now, an election is coming up, and I hope that this will be one of the announcements that the government will make between now and election day --

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): They will be making a lot of announcements.

Mr. Ferrier: -- because it will take two years after the decision is made to get that train in operation. I would earnestly request the Premier that he push his planners so that he is able to make that kind of a decision. It’s a good kind of transportation, it’s a well-proven new kind of train and it will be of immeasurable help to all of us, particularly those of us in the area from North Bay up to Hearst.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): And low ceilings don’t stop trains.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Right.

Mr. Ferrier: Another matter I think should have some consideration -- and I know it concerns the francophone community in my riding -- is bilingualism in the civil service. They are not altogether happy with the moves that this government has been making to provide service in their own language in the northeast of the province, particularly where the population is about 45 per cent to 50 per cent French-speaking and they should be able to expect service in a number of the ministries of this government in their own language.

I have been concerned about the community college at South Porcupine. I don’t think there has been much effort made to provide courses in French in that college, which is a big college with lots of room. The students from my area who want to take their courses in French at the community college must go down to Algonquin College in Ottawa. It seems a shame, when there is a college with facilities right at home, that they. have to go down to Ottawa. Great as the city is, not all the good thing come out of Ottawa; they’re not all there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can think of one or two in particular.

Mr. Ferrier: Yes, I could agree with the Premier. Well, not altogether.

Mr. Roy: I’ve heard the Premier isn’t so popular down there himself.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): And he doesn’t even live there.

Mr. Ferrier: I hope the government is looking at my area to see about using either the Porcupine campus or the Kirkland Lake campus, or both, to provide some courses in French. I think the people of those areas warrant that.

Another thing that concerns some of us in our area is that we’d like to see a judicial district set up around Timmins. We’re a large city -- the largest in that part of the province -- and the people who have to go on jury duty have to go up to Cochrane. They may have to drive up-and-back three, or four, or five days. The judge has his seat in Cochrane. He’s in Timmins perhaps one day, and then he’s over to Kapuskasing or Hearst doing the rounds.

Mr. Roy: And they pay him about, what, eight bucks?

Mr. Ferrier: I don’t know. Maybe they pay witnesses that.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): He’s not interested in money.

Mr. Ferrier: But the thing is that lawyers needing to get in touch with the judge sometimes have a good deal of difficulty doing so. Matters must always go up to Cochrane. It’s an inconvenience to the people; it’s an inconvenience to the legal profession; it’s an extra cost on the people; and I think it’s an extra cost on the government.

I don’t want to take anything away from Cochrane. All I want is to see that the people of Timmins get a more convenient service. It might be reversing what took place here a little while ago -- appointing a second judge for the district -- but I think this is a matter that warrants some further study and some real consideration. I know that in the land registry office the same situation prevails -- all the transfers of property must go through Cochrane or Haileybury.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I’m going to Timmins next week, and I’m not going to Cochrane. That evens it up.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): That’s not going to help the minister.

Mr. Ferrier: It doesn’t matter where he goes.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: But it evens it up.

Mr. Ferrier: All the people who pass through don’t always resolve the problem.

Mr. Roy: In fact he’d be better off not going.

Mr. Ferrier: I’d like to get a commitment from the minister then. When he goes up there, let him talk to some of his people and find out how they view the problem.

I think it would save money and it would be much more convenient to the people there if a judge, and even part of the registry office, could be located in Timmins. So, I hope the minister will take that under advisement and ask some questions. If the minister sees some of the real estate people, the legal people, the municipal people, I’m sure that they will have something to say to him about it.

The final thing that I want to say -- and then I think I’ve said enough, we’ll have chances later on in the new session -- I would like to see more attention paid by the Ministry of Natural Resources to the fish and wildlife section of the ministry. As things now stand it’s sort of the poor cousin. There’s less money designated to that aspect of the work than any other, and the people out in the field are very limited in their budget. The number of conservation officers is restricted and people doing fish and wildlife management are greatly hampered by a lack of budget.

If we’re going to manage our wildlife, which is very important from a tourist point of view and from our people’s recreational point of view, and see that some sound decisions are taken there, that the job is done properly, then I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has got to give a good deal more priority to that part of his ministry and to strengthen it in budget terms and in personnel terms. We will then have that resource of our province managed much more efficiently and in the way that it observes to be managed. Then the work that should be done, but which in a number of instances cannot be done because of lack of budget or lack of personnel, can be done in the future and enforcement can be carried out.

I hope the minister and his staff will heed these remarks and when they go to Management Board for a little loosening of the purse strings I hope they will give this a priority. I know those of us in the north, I know my friend from Thunder Bay, and even the minister himself recognize the need. I would like to see more attention paid to that and, when we are discussing the estimates, I hope we find that that section of the Ministry of Natural Resources has been strengthened and we can find a better job done.

With those few remarks I would like to end my presentation on the budget, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have the indulgence of the House to point out that the volunteer workers from York-Finch Hospital who have been testing for glaucoma all day here are closing off operations at 9 o’clock. If any of the members still wish they can have their eyes tested for glaucoma in the west lobby. I am sure that the House would like to say thank you to these very valuable ladies who have done the job here today.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. At the outset I would like to take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to you on your appointment and also wish well to the former Speaker, hoping that his health continues to improve, that he does enjoy the sunny south and that he comes back to the province full of vim, vigour and vitality.

I would be remiss if I didn’t congratulate the two newly elected members, the member for Stormont (Mr. Samis) and also the member for Carleton East (Mr. P. Taylor) on their recent elections.

Mr. C. E. McIlveen (Oshawa): Where are they?

Mr. B. Newman: Likewise I would like to congratulate those who are promoted to new positions in the ministry, either as ministers or as parliamentary assistants, and --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. B. Newman: -- so will include many of my good colleagues who were on the select committee on the use of schools.

Mr. Roy: Whether they deserve it or not.

Mr. B. Newman: Apparently any committee that I have been on seems to be the committee from which most of the promotions into the upper echelons take place --

Mr. Roy: The member for Windsor-Walkerville’s the boy!

Mr. B. Newman: And that goes back to the original committee, the select committee on youth, where you yourself -- were you on it, Mr. Speaker? Yes, you yourself were on it, so you can see that as long as I am on a committee, anyone who is in there has a very good chance of a substantial improvement.

Mr. Speaker, the budget speech gives one an opportunity to range over the whole field of finance, political endeavour and so forth. I would like at the outset to make certain recommendations concerning the operation of the House itself.

There seems always to be some criticism as to whether the 45 minutes allocated to the question period have been used up or not. I would strongly suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, to buy a clock, a sweep second clock, a substantial one, a good big one with four faces on it, so that the people in the gallery, the two sides of the House, and you yourself can see as that sweep second hand spins around ticking off the 45 minutes that are allocated to the question period. Then there will be no reason for any criticism as to whether you are short-changing us or we are taking advantage.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): And put the control over here. We should have a bell on each minister too; after three minutes it rings.

Mr. B. Newman: Another suggestion I would make, Mr. Speaker, is to take the Hansard operators and put them up in the gallery where they can have a better overview than from where they are located now, having to turn ’way around to see if interjections are coming from some of the members who happen to be sitting in the corners. I think it would be better if they were up in the gallery --

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): We want them close by.

Mr. B. Newman: -- and then any interjections made in this House can be picked up from the gallery position.

Mr. Ferrier: They might miss the member’s.

Mr. B. Newman: As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, the only interjections that should be accepted are those that are accepted by you. When one doesn’t have the floor, is not recognized by you, any remark made by him really should go into Hansard only as, “an interjection”; but the content of the interjection should not be in.

Mr. Ferrier: They might miss us.

Mr. B. Newman: When one reads the federal Hansard one notices the difference between the two.

Mr. Ferrier: Some members would never get in Hansard.

Mr. B. Newman: A lot of the remarks that are thrown across the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker, wouldn’t bother the young ladies there. They wouldn’t have to try to find out who made the comment. They would pay attention to what is actually being said and who the individual is who is making the contribution to the various pieces of legislation and/or debates that take place in the House.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The interjections are the best part.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I would likewise suggest to you that in the Speaker’s gallery only a certain number of tickets be set aside. That accommodation should be there for practically anyone who wishes to come. They should be able to go downstairs and pick up a ticket, and they shouldn’t have to be allocated a seat.

Mr. Laughren: Who said housing was an issue?

Mr. B. Newman: There is no reason someone should be sitting at the far end when the centre of the gallery is not used at all. It should be on a sort of first come, first served basis. They’re citizens of the province. They pay the taxes. They are entitled to sit in those seats just the same as anyone else. There shouldn’t be any selectivity except for special occasions.

Mr. Good: We’ll change that.

Mr. Roy: That should apply to the press gallery too. There’s nobody up there.

Mr. B. Newman: Another suggestion, Mr. Speaker: I think we should get into the 20th century here and have electronic voting. There’s no reason for us standing up and voting and bowing to you. Not that we don’t like to bow to you; we find it a real pleasure, Mr. Speaker, except that’s an archaic method of operating in the House. If one took into consideration the number of minutes that are wasted in the House through the voting procedures it would probably amount to maybe two or three weeks of a session.

I think, Mr. Speaker, if we had a button on the desk, with sort of a scoreboard up there with our seat numbers; to vote yes we would simply punch the button for the “yes” and it would be recorded; and that could be kept very easily on some type of tape. Other legislatures do this, so there is no reason we in Ontario couldn’t get into the 20th century.

Mr. Stokes: About the only exercise members get now, bobbing up and down.

Mr. B. Newman: I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to make another suggestion on the operation of the House. What happened today when the votes were stacked and the voting took place just before 6 o’clock is a nice way of operating. I think any time we are having any type of a division in the House -- I shouldn’t say any time but most times -- the voting on the division voting could take place at, say 5:45 or 10:15, and everyone would know, including members of the cabinet, that they are going to be required to be in the House at 5:45 or 10:15 and they could adjust their activities accordingly. There wouldn’t be that waste of time, with whips running around the building attempting to round up members just so the government can look a little more favourable in having won the vote by a substantial number.

Mr. Haggerty: Get the fellows in the back row.

Mr. B. Newman: We know we can’t beat the government because the bells are going to ring; and they’ll ring and they’ll ring up until the time the government has the majority to win the vote. So let’s save time by having the votes always take place about 15 minutes before closing time, on a morning session if we have them; on an afternoon session or an evening session; or if you wish any one of the three sessions during the course of the day in the interest of expediting things.

Mr. Speaker, the next comments I want to make are on the plight of municipalities. The municipalities in the Province of Ontario are extremely hard-pressed for the financial wherewithal to conduct their affairs. The Premier and his cabinet have travelled the length and breadth of the province listening to briefs from various municipalities, and I would assume that practically every one of the municipalities made essentially the same point; and that was the need for additional financial assistance so they can maintain a decent tax structure, a decent mill rate, and at the same time provide necessary services to the communities. Not all municipalities are extremely well off. Some are extremely hard-pressed financially and, as a result, need that additional assistance.

They do that, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to giving grants in the educational field. Certain areas of the province get a higher grant than do other municipalities in the province. The government has a differential there and I think it should probably likewise have that type of a differential for municipalities. But where municipalities are exactly the same, then the grant structure for both should be exactly the same.

We found that funds have always been provided for the development of regional municipalities and regional governments. The government is penalizing areas that do not have regional government. It is withholding funds or not providing them with funds on the same level and to the extent that it is providing them to the regional governments. It is trying to tell those municipalities either to regionalize or suffer.

That is a blackmail approach. That is not a correct approach. If the municipality wants regional government it can, through its elected representatives and the people, make that decision. The decision really should not be imposed here by this government and, at the same time, it shouldn’t try to force municipalities into regional government by giving to them additional financial inducements to form regional governments.

Needs in non-regionalized areas are probably just as great as they are in regionalized areas. Municipalities are strapped for funds. Inflation treats them very hard and very roughly. They find that not only supplies and services increase in cost, but there are other things that have a substantial effect on the budgets of the area municipalities. Once a municipality has difficulty in providing services to the area, then one finds that certain types of projects deteriorate to the point where, by the time the municipality can get down to taking care of the project -- for example, road construction rather than road repair -- it becomes a complete reconstruction of roads in some municipalities. That’s by far a more expensive process than simply repairing the road.

Mr. Speaker, in the travels of the cabinet throughout the Province of Ontario, the city of Windsor made a very substantial contribution, in my estimation, to the meetings that were held in London. I would like to put into the record some of the comments from the brief as they were presented to the cabinet.

Large municipalities such as the city of Windsor and the city of London have equal, if not more, responsibilities than some regional governments in the province. The taxpayers are faced with the same increasing costs and their requirements for services are similar to those governed by a two-tier government. The province has seen fit to give substantially more grants to the regional governments and, frankly, there is no justification for this.

The mayor of my community believes that cities such as Windsor with equal responsibilities should receive grants equal to those of regional governments. It appears the basis of the property tax stabilization programme requires changing. There are some obvious inequities that the city of Windsor is a victim of. According to information supplied by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White), where he outlined the review of the 1973 and 1974 tax stabilization programme, the city of London was entitled to $6,936,000 in 1973 and $9,476,000 in 1974, whereas the city of Windsor was entitled to only $4,985,000 in 1973 and $5,811,000 in 1974. These figures include the per capita grant, and since the city of London has approximately 32,000 people more than Windsor, it would be entitled to an additional $256,000 as a per capita grant, whereas the differential in the 1974 grants between the two communities is $3.5 million, not $256,000.

We in the city of Windsor don’t begrudge the city of London additional moneys, but we feel that Windsor should be receiving similar unconditional grants. There is something drastically wrong with a formula that would generate such discrepancies in grants to cities with similar size and similar municipal requirements.

The controls that are placed upon expenditures under the property tax stabilization programme do not take into account the unusual and non-recurring expenses that municipalities are faced with. For example, in 1974, Windsor was required to spend approximately $500,000 in nutrient removal costs, such as purchase of chemicals and so forth, and none of these costs is of a capital nature. This was an expenditure which was generated by the requirement of the Ministry of the Environment, and yet these costs are included in determining our expenditure increase of 1974 over 1973 and could result in our receiving a lower grant from the province.

It’s noted, Mr. Speaker, that despite the urging of the Ministry of the Environment to get on with many programmes, the city of Windsor may not be able to do so in 1975. Even if the city is served with an order to proceed with certain public works, compliance may simply not be possible. The thrust of the argument in this submission is one of finance. Municipalities are obliged to raise some of their funds from tax levies which are both regressive and sharply limited. Federal and provincial funds, on the other hand, are derived from a much wider range of sources far better suited to meet expanding costs.

For example, Ontario’s personal income tax revenues have increased at an average rate of 18 per cent over the last five years. In periods of inflation, which we are faced with, when prices and incomes are rising in leaps and bounds, provincial revenues do not increase accordingly without an increase in rates charged to the taxpayers. The municipalities, on the other hand, in order to cope with rising costs of operation must increase property taxes or eliminate essential services.

Mr. Speaker, the province simply must provide the municipalities with more unconditional grants, which will enable the municipalities to keep the tax rate increase to a reasonable level without arbitrarily cutting off basic essential services.

I can also refer to the serious unemployment situation that seems to be emerging in the city of Windsor and which will add to Windsor’s difficulties. Many people could be obliged to give up the struggle to meet home payments swollen by further tax increases. Just think of the plight of those living on fixed incomes, those who are retired, and continually finding that the tax rates keep increasing without any assistance to speak of from the senior governments. Many of these retired people would like to stay in their own homes but are so financially pinched that they have no other choice but to sell and go into the rental market.

Mr. Speaker, the second topic that I would like to bring to your attention is that of unemployment. Probably no area in the province is hit as hard as are the municipalities that are associated with the automobile industry -- the cities of Windsor, Oshawa and St. Catharines and parts of Toronto, in which substantial automotive development and manufacture takes place. These centres are adversely affected by the recent downturn in employment in the automotive field. I should include Kitchener as one of those cities that has a substantial amount of automobile or parts manufacturing, and it, likewise, tomorrow if not today, will be hard-pressed as a result of the drastic changes that are taking place in the automotive field.

Many of these unemployed persons are having difficult days and they will have more difficult days in the future. Some come along and say “Well, what has the auto worker to worry about? He’s on SUB and unemployment insurance and he is getting 95 per cent of his original pay.” That isn’t true, Mr. Speaker. Some are. Maybe even in some instances many are. But there are also many who don’t qualify for the supplementary unemployment benefits.

There are many who have not worked long enough in the plant, they are recent employees in the plant, and these people, in addition to those who may have been unemployed for quite some time and who have undertaken some substantial financial obligations by way of various types of major purchases, either in appliances or in automobiles or in homes, are extremely hard pressed today.

Those who are not on supplementary unemployment benefits, and also some of those who are collecting only unemployment insurance, are finding their financial plight extremely difficult. It was nice to see that the auto centres in the Province of Ontario -- at the encouragement of the mayor of Oshawa, I think it was, Mr. Potticary -- had banded together in an attempt to convince senior levels of government that they have got to turn their eyes toward the plight of the auto worker and do everything they possibly can to alleviate the position in which not only the worker finds himself but also the municipality finds itself.

The meetings that have taken place as a result of that have come down with some substantial recommendations to senior governments, and I certainly hope the government looks seriously at the plight of the centres I mentioned and attempts to implement some type of work programme. I would look at the vastly expanding housing industry. Practically all of these municipalities are short of housing facilities, and that is one field to which the governments could now turn their eyes. To build substantial amounts of housing in the areas would improve the employment picture in the various communities and the economy of the whole province.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you are aware that approximately one out of six or one out of seven jobs in the Province of Ontario is related, in one fashion or another, to the auto industry. When the auto industry has bad days, then we can rest assured there is a multiplier effect from that difficulty and it spreads throughout the whole economy. We can see what has happened in the United States. Living as I do across from the city of Detroit, we see that in some sections of the city itself the unemployment rate is as high as 25 per cent. Imagine, one out of four people unemployed. In the city of Detroit itself, I think averaging it out, it comes anywhere between 10 and 12 per cent. I don’t think it was much worse than that even in the days of the Depression.

This government can do something about that, and I, in one of the question periods, asked it to consider the elimination of the seven per cent sales tax. By eliminating this seven per cent sales tax we would sort of encourage our senior government to follow suit. Let Ontario be a leader and then let the federal government follow. The seven per cent tax could be eliminated from vehicles purchased during a given period of time.

I don’t say that we should eliminate for ever the seven per cent sales tax on automobiles. I think the government can set some period of time during which it will not collect the seven per cent sales tax. In this way the federal government, likewise could reduce its sales tax, the 12 per cent sales tax that it has, and between the two we would have roughly a 20 per cent sales tax reduction on automotive vehicles. In this way, Mr. Speaker, we would encourage the purchase of automobiles, and once automobiles sell we will find that the economy moves substantially. Many of us here would consider trading in our cars if the automotive vehicle were 20 per cent cheaper in price than it is today.

At the same time, I think governments can likewise ask industry, especially in the parts manufacturing area associated directly with the auto industry, to give employees substantial discounts if they purchase a vehicle.

This has been tried in the United States. It has worked very successfully in some areas. I would suggest that some of the auto industries or parts suppliers do exactly that same thing in the Province of Ontario.

Likewise, I think the banking industry should come along and, for this given period of time, reduce their lending rates for the purchase of automobiles. It is certainly better for them to be getting six per cent or seven per cent return, or some other per cent return on their money, than nothing whatsoever. If people aren’t going to purchase cars, then their money certainly is not going to be loaned out to those who would like to purchase various types of automobiles.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think the government can reduce or eliminate its sales tax for a given period of time. If they wished to put certain qualifications on it, I wouldn’t argue with that. Once we do it in Ontario, the federal government would have no other recourse but also to reduce or eliminate its sales tax.

If I am not mistaken, Australia reduced the sales tax on its automobiles by 12.5 per cent, just in the last week or so, in an attempt to encourage the sale of automotive vehicles in that great country on the other side of the world.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the elimination of the provincial seven per cent sales tax and the federal government’s 12 per cent sales tax, the province likewise maybe could contribute the licence plate to the vehicle. In other words, reduce the cost to the individual by $40, the purchase price of the licence plate.

All this would stimulate the purchase of automobiles. It would get our economy moving once again. And maybe the members opposite would be able to smile again, once the economy gets moving. Because, as it is now, there is no chance they are going to come back if they call an election.

I notice my good friend, the member for Oshawa, agreed with me.

Mr. McIlveen: I just think the member is a dreamer, but a very nice one.

Mr. B. Newman: So, Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to spur the economy, I have given a series of suggestions to the government that I hope they can follow and get our people in the automotive field back to work and the economy once more on its feet. And the banks could co-operate by the reduction of interest charges on loans made for the purchase of automobiles.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken for almost 20 minutes. I have in all 15 different topics I would like to bring up, but I know I may have an opportunity to bring them up in the Throne debate when we meet again, the good Lord willing. But I still would like to bring a few of the topics to your attention.

I was going to talk about the housing needs in the communities, referring specifically to mine. I am extremely concerned about the housing for senior citizens. We have two classes of senior citizens, and this government has created those two classes.

There is the class of senior citizen who has approximately a $75 a month advantage over the senior citizen who does not live in geared-to-income housing. The government subsidizes those who live in geared-to-income housing, and, God bless them, we are glad to provide this to them and we are glad that these senior citizens have at least a decent place to live. Those that live in geared-to-income housing have their rentals subsidized to the extent of approximately $75 a month.

But think of the other senior citizen who can’t get into geared-to-income housing because there isn’t sufficient geared-to-income housing in the community. An individual goes and lives in an attic, or he lives in a basement, or he lives in the back of a garage, or he lives in a one-room apartment, or he lives in good accommodations. He has to pay the full amount for housing and his housing charges may be anything np to $150 a month.

The individual in geared-to-income pays approximately $50; the one not living in geared-to-income may pay up to $125.

To me, all senior citizens are entitled to the same level of subsistence. We should be subsidizing the rental payments of those who are living in public market accommodation to the extent of approximating their costs and their subsidy to that of those who are living in geared-to-income housing -- and that is approximately $75 a month. The government should pick up $75 of that person’s rent, and the person pays the balance.

You can make that kind of an agreement with hundreds of landlords. You say, “Well, you can’t go to everyone.” What do you mean you can’t go? The government can have its housing authorities in the various municipalities throughout the province go into each of these landlords and make some type of an agreement on a lease basis or any basis it wishes to make, so that that person will pay to the housing authority the same amount of rental that is paid by the senior citizens living in geared-to-income housing, the province picking up the balance of it.

The government has to do that because it has created two classes of senior citizens, one that is lucky and one that is extremely unlucky. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, you have the same as I, I would say in the course of a week at least eight to 10 calls from senior citizens who are begging to get into some type of geared-to-income housing. They are in desperate straits. Inflation has affected them very very seriously.

You’ll come along and say, “Well, they’re now on a GAINS programme, and they’re receiving $230 a month.” That’s true, they may be on the GAINS programme; but not all of them are. You’ll say, “Well, everyone gets $230 a month some way or another.” That likewise may be true, but if one is paying $140 or $150 a month rental he certainly can’t have the same standard of living as the one who is only paying $50 a month rental.

The government has to look at these senior citizens who are not able to get geared-to-income housing and it has to accelerate a rent supplement programme for them.

Mr. Speaker, one topic that I really want to get onto is the concerns of the disabled. Some of the disabled make the following comments, and I’m glad to see the Minister of Community and Social Services is here, because the first comments actually relate to his ministry.

There are blatant discrepancies in provincial and federal legislation affecting our disabled population. Among the most unfair is the difference in provisions for those who are disabled by mental retardation and those who are physically disabled. For example, the parents of mentally retarded children are entitled to receive financial aid in the rearing of their child, but no parallel aid is available to the parents of a crippled child. And that’s not right. They’re both disabled. We should treat them both in the same fashion.

As far as education of the physically disabled goes, for the mentally retarded special provisions exist that allow for the payment of transportation to and from special schools or daycare centres. No such assistance is available to the physically disabled child; therefore the parents must pick up the costly burden of transportation bills in order to ensure their child receives an adequate education.

In certain circumstances, the vocational rehabilitation services sponsor educational upgrading or retraining and in these cases will also cover transportation costs. However, this is usually available only to the young adult or older physically handicapped person as part of the rehabilitation process, and not to the young.

Under housing there are a number of provincial Acts covering housing for the retarded. No similar legislation exists for the benefit of the physically disabled person, either adult or child.

Mr. Speaker, there are other comments that I could make on the physically disabled, but I will reserve them for the next session when I talk in the Throne debate.

As my last topic, I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the concerns of deserted mothers. With this being International Women’s Year, I think it would he fitting that government pay attention to this and do everything it possibly can to remedy the situation.

Living as I do in a border city, the city of Windsor, there are hundreds of women and children whose husbands and fathers have deserted them and fled across the border, making maintenance or alimony payments extremely difficult to collect. The reciprocal agreement, which is only with the states of Michigan and New York, is not strongly enforced. Most women are not in a position to afford the money to take further court action in these two states. Legal aid recipients are only covered for legal expenses incurred in Canada.

The courts on both sides of the border are slow to act, and very often their laxity allows many a spouse to disappear. Immigration laws permit a Canadian citizen to live in the United States on the basis of a temporary working visa, and they are not concerned with the marital status of that person. As a result, many families are forced to live on welfare, becoming a burden to the taxpayers, even though these men are financially able to support their families. I am sure that all border cities and towns have this same problem.

In view of this situation, the group prepared a petition bearing well over 500 names. Their petition has three resolutions for the attention of the various ministries involved. The first resolution deals with maintenance and support payments:

“Whereas the default of maintenance and support payments creates injustice and undue complications and hardship, be it resolved that in the event of default of maintenance and/or support payments, the onus be on the Minister of Community and Social Services for adequate maintenance and court action under section 6 of the Deserted Wives’ and Children’s Maintenance Act.”

Their second resolution deals with the tracing of delinquent ex-spouses.

“Whereas one of the major problems of enforcement of support legislation is the case of the obligated spouse leaving the jurisdiction, be it resolved that the province, in conjunction with the federal government, arrange access to the provincial and federal income tax returns in order to allow the tracing of the delinquent ex-spouse.”

This would be done upon a court order. All information, save the address and employment status, would remain in the confidentiality of the court, but at least the individual could be traced.

Their third resolution deals with reciprocal enforcements.

“Be it resolved that the Province of Ontario and the government of Canada make representation to other foreign states to expand the number of foreign jurisdictions willing to subscribe to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1970, chapter 403, or any other similar statutes or treaties; and these jurisdictions, as well as those already agreeing to the aforementioned Act, be encouraged to enforce these agreements; and that the Province of Ontario give serious consideration to the providing of whatever support necessary, be it financial or whatsoever toward this end.”

Those are the three resolutions passed by the group that is meeting this year in connection with International Women’s Year. They have asked that they be drawn to the attention of the government, and especially to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services. We hope that he reads this in Hansard and attempts to resolve the concern of the many people that are involved.

Mr. Speaker, I had originally intended to talk at length on the following two items, but I will keep my comments brief. In the city of Windsor there is a threat that the ambulance dispatch services will be moved from the present hospital and located in another area, a move that probably would involve an expenditure of several hundreds of thousands of dollars. Really, it would be a waste of funds when the services are satisfactory where they are.

Similarly, in connection with the plight of the gasoline station operators, we have spoken about that in the House for well over 10 years, and the problem still hasn’t been resolved simply because the government refuses to act.

I had intended to make extensive comments on hockey violence. The only comment I would like to make is that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations should use the same system of penalties as far as the playing of hockey is concerned, as is used in connection with automobile drivers. You accumulate points when you have certain misdemeanours in the driving of an automobile; when you reach a certain number of points, then your licence is cancelled and you have to go through a training procedure and so forth.

The same thing should apply to hockey. If a person accumulates a certain number of penalty points -- and the level would be decided by the hockey officials themselves -- then his licence to play hockey, so to speak, would be suspended until he pays the penalty for his rough or improper behaviour on the ice. In other words I’m asking the government to adopt in the playing of hockey the principle they have set up in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in the driving of a motor vehicle.

I was going to talk to the minister and have him make the wearing of headgear in boxing for amateur boxers compulsory. I’ve been after this minister now for six or seven years, if not longer than that. I have an article showing the brain damage that is caused by the non-use of the protective headgear for amateurs and I think it’s time this minister banned any type of boxing in the Province of Ontario by amateurs if protective headgear is not being used.

I also recommend that the government not allow commercial fishing in Lake St. Clair, leave that lake devoted solely to sports fishermen and purchase the licences from the commercial fishermen so that they don’t have a total loss in the moneys that they may have invested in fishing gear.

I also have bad numerous complaints concerning the price increases of domestic gas purchased from Union Gas in the Windsor and Essex county area. I think, Mr. Speaker, a minimum bill of $2 whether the person uses gas or not is completely wrong and is discriminatory against the person who uses very little gas. It is especially discriminatory against the senior citizen, because he tries to conserve money all the time and he is being billed for $2 whether be uses gas or not.

In fact, a fellow in my riding by the name of Herbert Gladden sent me a bill and said: “I didn’t use any gas at all. I’ve got to pay a minimum bill of $2. In addition to that, they’re charging me a penalty of five per cent on something I didn’t burn, simply because I’m not going to pay the bill on time.” He didn’t burn any gas and they’re giving him a penalty of five per cent for the non-burning of gas. So what they’re telling him to do is waste energy. It’s cheaper to waste energy than to save energy.

Likewise, I was going to talk on the difficulty retired municipal employees are having because they have no negotiating power when it comes to improving their pension benefits with the municipality. Just as in the auto industry the union fights for financial benefits for their retirees, I think legislation has to be introduced so that the municipal employees -- firemen, policemen, public works employees and so forth -- are able to negotiate with their employers for substantial increases or for increases in pension benefits. If it’s good in the big three in the auto industry, it should likewise be good in the civil service, be it municipal or provincial.

The last comment that I was going to make, Mr. Speaker, was on the lack of proper legislation as far as the Municipal Elections Act is concerned where the election in the city of Windsor was held over two days as the result of a snowstorm, I had been in contact with the Minister of Treasury, Economies and Intergovernmental Affairs. The night before the election I had the city clerk talk to him and it was unfortunate that the election couldn’t be postponed. As a result, I am informed that more than likely the election will have to take place once again, probably in the month of April or May.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening to my comments. I hope the government of the day will pay attention to them because, if they don’t, this is their swan song. Thank you.

Mr. Roy: They won’t.

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

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to join with the other members of the Legislature in congratulating the Speaker on his ascension to the throne and to congratulate him, through you, for having done a job of keeping the proceedings of the House within manageable bounds and to congratulate you, the member for York North, for the way that you as Chairman handled the committee of the whole House and hope that you will continue with the fine work for whatever length of time those particular duties continue.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much and I will relate that message on to the Speaker.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you. I think we’re all too prone in this assembly to take on an air of confrontation rather than spending a few moments from time to time to say “thank you” when something worthwhile is done --

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): That’s true.

Mr. Stokes: -- and I think it would be appropriate for me, Mr. Speaker, to address a few brief comments to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) for having taken an active and I think a sincere concern in the plight of one particular community in my riding, namely Armstrong. I’m not going to go on at any great length to detail yet again the problems that they were faced with as a result of the closure of the radar base. But I think it was largely as a result of my representations to him and his resources policy field that he did undertake to co-ordinate provincial efforts -- that is, all of the ministries concerned with the problems in the Armstrong area -- with the federal government, to at least get things going and give those people a ray of hope for the future.

That has been done. We don’t think that the job is completed by any means, but I’m sure that the people of Armstrong appreciate what has been done thus far. As I say, they do have some hope for the future, and with the groundwork that has already been laid I think it is safe to say that they can look on a much brighter future. I would like to take the opportunity to thank the hon. Provincial Secretary for Resources Development for the part that he played in that.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Thanks very much.

Mr. Stokes: I would also like him to pass on thanks to one of the ministers in his field, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, for taking an active interest and concern in some of the issues that I’ve brought to his attention concerning the road conditions in my riding. He has responded in a very positive way to them, particularly on Highway 11 between Beardmore and Geraldton and the conditions on Highway 17 between Ouimet and Marathon, and some of those projects are already under way. On some of them, the bids have been gathered and work is about to proceed, Most of the other major concerns are already on the drawing board and there is a definite commitment to proceed with them as soon as funds are available. So I wish the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development would pass on my thanks, on behalf of my constituents, to the Minister of Transportation and Communications for his efforts on our behalf.

I have only one major topic, Mr. Speaker, that I want to engage in tonight and it is as a result of a seminar that was held recently in Quetico Centre, where the centre gathered representatives from the mining industry, the forest industry, the tourism industry, the service industries and all of the major communities in northwestern Ontario. They concerned themselves principally with the manpower requirements in northwestern Ontario between now and the year 1980 and how we were going to provide the necessary manpower to take care of the development in the resource sector that is on the drawing board and already under way.

It may not be common knowledge to people in this House, but we’ve got in excess of $2 million worth of development on the drawing board and some of it is in progress. Our primary concern at that seminar was to find out why we were unable to attract a sufficient number of people in order to fill those jobs and projected jobs over the next five years. We came up with some pretty startling facts, and I think for the benefit of those ministers who are going to be faced with the problem of assisting us in finding our place in the sun, the implementation of and indeed improvement on Design for Development and its implementation, I think that ministers of this government are going to have to be in a position to listen to the problems as we see them and join with us in planning to come to grips with those problems.

As we have known for years in northwestern Ontario and as was confirmed by the Quetico conference, northwestern Ontario continues to suffer from the absence of a manpower policy. All the Design for Development rhetoric is no substitute. Jobs exist and are being created, although probably not enough in the northwest. That isn’t the central problem. In fact, there are a lot of problems and they are fundamental and basic to the area. This is the way the people participating in that seminar saw it. Communities are unattractive and lacking in adequate housing, roads, shops, hospitals, recreation facilities, sewers and water, etc. So there is little that encourages even northern residents to come to these communities, much less to stay there.

There aren’t enough skilled people in the area nor are there adequate training facilities. It’s kind of ironic, Mr. Speaker, when we’ve got jobs going begging for somebody to fill them. Obviously, the answer is that you try to match up those who are unemployed with those jobs that are available. If you don’t have adequate retraining facilities in order to make it possible for those who are unemployed to fill the jobs, such as for heavy equipment operators, heavy equipment mechanics and people who have the skills in order to fill the job, obviously you are going to have, on one hand, a shortage of skilled people and, on the other hand, you are going to have people unproductive, drawing welfare assistance or some form of unemployment insurance assistance. We think this is counterproductive.

There are too many of these jobs that do not offer any kind of satisfaction, thus contributing to destabilizing and high turnover rates. We have some employers who tell us in northern Ontario that there are certain segments of their work force that turn over 300 per cent a year because of the unattractiveness of the jobs. The range of jobs is heavily loaded at the blue-collar end. This means that the young and the educated find that they must go elsewhere to find jobs that offer satisfaction and promotional opportunities. The lure of the southern cities is strong. Here can be found, for instance, all of the amenities so obviously absent in the north. Jobs here are varied and numerous and, because provincial policy is allowing and encouraging the continued expansion of this job market, northern aspirations will continue to be overshadowed.

In the absence of an overall industrial strategy, in the long run we are not going to find our place in the sun as long as we are going to have to compete with places like Haldimand-Norfolk and North Pickering. What you’ve got too much of down here we don’t seem to have enough of up there, Mr. Speaker. We say, what can be done about it?

It is clear that the problems of the north will not be solved without restraining growth in the south. The prospects of this government restraining that growth are bleak indeed in the absence of anything concrete to halt it or reverse it. In fact, the latest provincial planning document proposed to put eight million people in the Oshawa-Toronto-Hamilton megalopolis. That doesn’t bode well for the kind of even distribution of economic growth and wealth in the province. There are now roughly 3½ million people in this area. It doesn’t take a genius to understand what this means in terms of job creation in the south with this kind of massive employment, increase in roads, recreational facilities, cultural facilities, housing and, in short, all of the things that the north needs so badly.

What this province needs is a clearly defined industrial strategy which will restrain uncontrolled expansion in the south, as well as encourage growth in the north. It must be accompanied by a manpower retraining policy. For example, if we could prevent the development of things like Nanticoke in the south, then the north would have a better chance of attracting both the project itself and the people with skills that suit northern needs. This is the kind of thing that we on this side of the House, and our industrial strategy, would do. The Manpower policy, in the first instance, would deal with the employment problems of the people already in the north.

Participation rates among women and native people are low; that must change. Skill levels are either low or inappropriate; that must change too. Job satisfaction is often poor; working conditions are sometimes bad. Improvements are necessary and possible. Adequate training programmes and facilities must be increased and upgraded to meet the obvious need.

As we over here in this party have always argued, basic services and amenities are a right of residents in every community, regardless of where they may live in this province. By finally providing them to our northern communities, our Manpower policy will be strengthened; northerners would be more inclined to stay in the north; and northern communities would become more attractive to residents of other parts of the province.

Improved living conditions in the north would also help solve another of the north’s most pressing problems -- the lack of professionals -- by attracting doctors, dentists, the kind of skilled engineers, whether they be mechanical, electrical or chemical engineers, who are in short supply, particularly in the mining and in the forestry field at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to impress upon the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), it is absolutely essential that they, in co-operation with their colleagues, come up with an overall development strategy for the Province of Ontario, so that when we implement a revised version of Design for Development for northwestern Ontario we will be assured that the kinds of things that we are trying to do in northwestern Ontario aren’t hampered by the kinds of things that are going on in the province generally.

If the government doesn’t have an overall strategy that says it will try to put a halt to the kind of development that’s creating the problems in the south of high cost of land assembly, high cost of building utility corridors, high cost of moving people, the tremendous encroachment upon valuable farmland, all of this kind of development, if unchecked, will continue to escalate and it will continue to cause all of us problems. It’s entirely unnecessary if we had that kind of dispersion of the economic growth in areas of the province that are better suited for it, and need it so much more.

If we in northern Ontario are to find our place in the sun, it is going to be as the result of a disincentive to establish in the south. If the government were to provide the kind of incentives that are possible in the north, it would reverse the trend. It would lessen the problems of too much growth down here and would solve a lot of our problems in the north by providing us with the kind of growth that we are capable of achieving.

It all hinges, Mr. Speaker, on what we have come to call the quality of life. There are many things that we can’t aspire to in small remote northern communities because we can’t achieve economies of scale. We can’t aspire to a hospital in every town. We can’t aspire to a doctor and a dentist, for some medical clinic in every small town. We can’t aspire to an area for recreational purposes in every small town. We can’t aspire to a cultural facility in every small town. But we should undertake to provide the kind of development that would enable us to be more viable.

We should be building more growth centres in the north. We have one in Thunder Bay, which is the primary centre, but obviously it can’t serve the needs of all of northwestern Ontario because distances militate against it. But by providing economic opportunities in both the primary sector and the secondary manufacturing sector, we would be able to make more communities more viable. We should be providing the basic infrastructure; I am talking about water, sewers, good roads, good educational facilities, good medical and dental facilities, good recreational facilities, and so on. We should also be providing more centres; and I am not saying that we all aspire to have a Science Centre, a Royal Ontario Museum or an Ontario Place.

This government, by its policies, can provide greater viability to many areas in the north, whether they be in Kenora riding, Rainy River riding, my own riding of Thunder Bay, or the riding of Cochrane North, because we all face the same kinds of problems. We think this government should be developing an overall industrial strategy in order for us to implement Design for Development which incidentally is something that has to be looked at continually.

At the conference I was talking about, there was a good many people who traditionally are Conservative in their thinking who said: “Let’s destroy Design for Development.” I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I was standing up trying to defend Design for Development before these people who, as I say, in many instances are traditionalists.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is a Conservative.

Mr. Stokes: Well, maybe I am a conservative, but I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water. After me coming down here for seven years and arguing for Design for Development, I would be less than honest if I went up there and said, “Let’s scrap it.” It’s an imperfect document, it’s an imperfect vehicle, but it’s like democracy: you don’t throw it out until you have got something better to take its place.

What I tried to prevail upon them to accept was that we should keep it under continual review, because a good many of the things and conventional wisdom upon which Design for Development was based in 1970 have changed.

As I say, we have $2 billion worth of growth on the drawing board, but it’s like pulling hen’s teeth to get the kind of services we need to attract a sufficient number of people just to go forward with the kind of development that has already been announced and is on the drawing board. This government has to play a very active and significant role in providing us with the necessary services, first of all, to attract people into the north and, once we get them there, to make it attractive enough for them to stay.

Those are the kinds of things I think we have to do, and I don’t suggest we can do it all ourselves. We can prevail upon the federal government, through the DREE and Canada Development Corp. programmes, to provide sufficient capital for basic services in much the same way they have already done in Cornwall, and in the city of Thunder Bay to some extent. We think we need more of it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Like closing up the bases and everything?

Mr. Stokes: Sure, they have done the same thing at Moosonee. Maybe this government would not have acted any differently. They would probably have done the same thing, but I would hope they would have provided --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We would have made some arrangements away ahead of time.

Mr. Stokes: Right -- to cushion the blow and provide an alternative for them. That’s the kind of thing I would hope that any responsible government would do.

I don’t want to go on much longer, Mr. Speaker, because I have gone past the time I had hoped to take. I do want to impress upon this government that if they are going to serve the people of northern Ontario in the way that I think they should serve them, they must have an overall industrial strategy so that the kinds of things we are trying to do in the north are not being thwarted at every turn by the kinds of things that are happening in the south and really shouldn’t be happening.

The only other thing I want to say is that central to this whole problem is an overall land-use plan for the Province of Ontario. No activity takes place unless you are using some land in some fashion or other. And, of course, what I’m saying is that unless there is an overall land-use plan for the Province of Ontario, it really doesn’t make much difference what the government does in overall industrial strategy. They go hand in hand. I think that this government is just kidding itself by allowing this kind of uncontrolled, unplanned development to go forward without an overall land-use plan in the Province of Ontario, and an overall industrial strategy.

In the next two or three weeks they’ve got some time to sit down with their respective policy fields and think about it. Hopefully, before not too long, they will come to the kind of thinking that I’ve been trying to bring to this problem over the last several months. Hopefully, we’ll reach a consensus and go on to bigger and better things for all of northern Ontario. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to add my voice to those who’ve spoken in congratulating the Speaker, both for his appointment to his office and for the manner in which he has conducted himself in this House. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to please convey that to Mr. Speaker Rowe. I’m going to try and be as quick as I can.

Mr. Haggerty: There is all the time in the world; just keep plugging away.

Mrs. Campbell: I will first touch, of course, on the matter of housing, being my area of criticism and my deep concern. I have to point out what to me are abject failures on the part of this government in this field. If we looked at the matter of land banking alone, there is no doubt that this party has been very much in favour of land banking in the past. However, at this point in time we are beginning to ask ourselves the question whether or not it is already too late for land banking to be effective in the way in which we could have hoped it would be.

Certainly, the way in which this government is proceeding in the business is one which is not effective. It’s interesting that there are so many people in this province who become very psychic about where the government is going to start the land bank; and it really results in this government purchasing land, in effect, through a middleman. Because somebody gets in there and buys up the land in advance of the government’s purchase, we’re left to pay exorbitant prices for property. In fact, this government is the biggest land speculator in the business. It is for this reason, perhaps, that it was impossible for the government to define a speculator in its land speculation tax legislation.

It is interesting that in gathering up this land, the government felt it could not possibly trust the local elected members to know something of what it had in mind. It couldn’t possibly take them into its confidence, nor apparently is it going to service this land. Surely, even a child can understand that that land has to be serviced if we are going to provide for the housing needs of the people of this province.

To me it is contemptible for the minister to stand up and condemn the municipalities for their failures in this field, when even what he offers the municipality for servicing is not really a fixed price, but up to $600 for sewer connections for municipal purposes.

I am advised that in the Sudbury area, unbeknownst to that municipality, land was acquired by this government and this bank, unplanned, has led to the dragging of feet in approving subdivisions in that area. This brings us to the question of the planning process. Nothing has been done to try to streamline this costly anachronism, and one wonders whether the recent release of information that the member for Brantford (Mr. Beckett), being the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), is now being appointed to the Northumberland task force is an indication that once more planning is going to be gathered again into the fists of the Treasurer of this province.

I suppose the question for the opposition at this time really is: Will the real planning minister stand up? It is no wonder that our processes are costly when we run from ministry to ministry and no one really knows who is in charge. Surely it would be conceivable for this government to try other methods:

(a) To bring the people into the planning process at the very beginning of the process and not at the end of it, and

(b) To shorten planning approvals, having once consulted the people.

We are certainly prepared to bring forth alternatives in these areas. What this government has been doing has been to stumble along, with shifts from ministry to ministry, and with shabby, outworn tools, and these can no longer apply in this province. What we are really doing now is to move behind events which are taking place much too quickly for this government to handle.

While we believe alternatives should be available to the people of the province in the housing field, for obvious reasons at this point in time, many have to live in rental accommodation whether they want to or not. They have no security of tenure, certainly not in this metropolitan area. They are the victims of rental increases which may or may not be justified. Certainly the increases are coming at a time when maintenance is deteriorating. That deterioration is not entirely the fault of the landlord. Part of it is due to the doubling up which is occurring as people try to survive in the rental market.

Mr. Speaker, you know our answer to this problem. We have introduced a private member’s bill to deal with these aspects. We do not believe in controls, but we do believe there has to be machinery for review of this kind of situation in this crisis period.

What is the government’s policy? It is, “Do telephone us, if you can get through the lines. Do let us know if you have a problem, and we will try to intercede with your landlord.” That is probably a good back-bencher’s approach when he or she is trying to deal with the problems of a constituent, but it is no answer for a government in these times.

I would like to turn briefly to the matter of health and welfare. This government cannot understand that a human being should not be divided into three parts -- two ministries and a municipal department -- yet this is still the government’s thrust. It does what it can to save hospital costs and, believe me, we’re sympathetic to it on that point. Then it moves patients into their own homes, wipes its hands of them from a health point of view and places them on welfare, a part of which is administered through the Ministry of Community and Social Services. But really and honestly the government’s approach is still welfare. It’s like a rose by any other name but it’s still a skunk cabbage in the government’s eyes.

People are trying to sort out who is going to give them the assistance that they need, in some cases simply to stay alive. If a woman is married and disabled, she is really a nothing. She’s not even a cipher. She has no rights as a person. This is part of the government’s great programme for International Women’s Year.

The government has shown no concern for, nor understanding of, the part which nutrition plays in the whole field of poverty and the ability of children to achieve. We pointed out that a mother with one child has $1.86 a day each for food, clothing, transportation and entertainment, and the middle-class thinking of this ministry was that that was enough. I suggest that this ministry employ some of the members of the mother-led union to teach that ministry something of the economics of poverty. Then, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we might be able to effect change.

Again the government has raised the expectations of the parents of the retarded, and there are many needs and varying needs in a community such as Toronto. There are parents who can have their young people in the home with very limited support. There are others who need group homes where they can visit, because there are problems for them in coping with these who really have major difficulties. We need the daycare programmes. We need an expansion, but what have we actually done with this much-vaunted publicity in this field?

I would just like to touch again on the question of the problems of those persons in the community who are asked to receive patients from Ontario Hospitals. Certainly this party favours the de-institutionalizing of such patients. But there must be a programme of preparing a family for the acceptance of such patients and for support when they return to the home. There is no consideration being given to this aspect of the treatment of such patients.

Then we look at education, and I’m going to just touch on one small part of this. In Toronto the schools are basically flow becoming new Canadian schools. I’d like to give the House one example. Harbord Collegiate at one time used to be divided between what was classified as British and as Jewish students.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It wasn’t divided, it was almost all Jewish.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Almost 95 to 5.

Mrs. Campbell: All right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We were even allowed to be captain of the football team.

Mrs. Campbell: I’m glad I touched a nerve here, I thought I might. Now in that school we have three per cent British, four per cent Jewish and all of the rest are new Canadians. The Ministry of Education takes into consideration none of these problems. I’m advised that the Toronto board will be seeking the right to go to the Toronto taxpayers to obtain an approval of an additional $3 million for programmes to assist the families of those coming into the community. We have tried to ascertain what the advisory committee to the new Ministry of Culture and Recreation has to say in these matters.

Let me give you some of the horrendous things I’ve come across, Mr. Speaker. First of all, when there were negotiations ongoing with the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Filipino cultural unit in my riding had been promised $10,000 toward that unit. That cheque has never come. I have said, “What do you have to do? Go back and start another round of another year with another minister or where do we go from here?” Oddly enough, the ministry doesn’t know either.

When it comes to the matter of the Spanish-speaking people, What the board of education is trying to do and what some of the cultural community groups are trying to do is to prevent family breakdowns. They are approaching this matter on a team basis. But goodness knows where they go. Nobody seems to know and perhaps we have to wait for the lottery for the Spanish-speaking people.

Then there is the lovely, delightful example of the Agincourt community multi-cultural unit. It had been negotiating with the Minister of Community and Social Services and also with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, I’m led to believe, for about a year. They have said that they were amazed that the latter minister was embarrassed to find out that this too had been transferred to the new ministry and she had not been aware of it. And so it goes with our vaunted projects for assisting people.

I have one last matter that I must touch on. That is this government’s paltry commitment to International Women’s Year. If there were ever a slogan for it, I would say probably a little dab will do you comes closest to the thinking of this government.

Mr. B. Newman: That’s called the Brylcreem approach.

Mrs. Campbell: The government reposes so much confidence in women that it expects them to change the pattern -- or does it? -- by giving them $1,000 as against the hundreds of thousands of dollars which are given to promote other changes. I think perhaps that’s a little too much confidence to put even in women. They always find it so simple, when we deal with matters of equality, to trot out protection to women on the basis of, “Oh, we must be sure that they have equality,” but they don’t follow through with equality to them. They just use these games to try, I think, to get even with them because they want to be accepted as having a right to equal opportunities.

We have been through the rather miserable debates on the Employment Standards Act, and I am delighted to know that, possibly as a result of the criticism of the opposition, we are now going to find that maybe it’s possible that hairdressers and barbers are going to be classified as doing similar work. That’s maybe. And then tailors and seamstresses, maybe, are going to be doing similar work and therefore getting equal pay. It’s interesting that possibly the hairdresser has greater skills than the barber but that of course will never --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now, don’t get chauvinistic.

Mrs. Campbell: -- ever be considered.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Don’t get chauvinistic.

Mr. Roy: A bit of order there.

Mrs. Campbell: All right, I’ll say this: In the Ontario civil service this year we have 35,000 women employees, 75.7 per cent of whom earn less than $9,000, but we have only 28 per cent of men in the civil service earning less than $9,000. This is a proud record. Wouldn’t it be better -- and I appeal to the provincial secretary -- wouldn’t it be better to ensure a decent job evaluation in this International Women’s Year than making pretty speeches which really aren’t going to change anything.

Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry, I’ve gone longer than I should have. I had to take issue with some of these things. Thank you very much.

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

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Has the member still lost his voice?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): I hasten to inform the Minister of the Environment that my voice will last the course.

Mr. Ferrier: He may lose his head.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to depart from the normal budget windup of freewheeling political invective -- I think that is the way budget windups are normally characterized -- to deal with but one subject, since I fear I couldn’t deal with a great range of them, and to try to put in context, if I could, the asbestos controversy in Ontario, which has swirled about the Legislature and the riding of Scarborough East for the last two weeks. I don’t know why the Provincial Secretary for Social Development shakes her head. If she’d like to take the microphone and tell me, I’d be pleased to hear it.

Mr. Haggerty: An important topic.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I would. I am a little appalled; appalled by some of the tactics of the opposition in exploiting a situation that I think goes far beyond any partisan politics. I am interested in seeing that a conclusion is reached whereby the workers are assured of safe jobs and the community is assured of a safe environment. I am not interested in getting headlines. I am just interested in finding out what the problem is and attempting to do something about it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I endorse that. I too hope that at some point the workers will be safeguarded and the community will be safeguarded. The provincial secretary will forgive me, I hope, for saying to her that I am more than a trifle appalled at the indifference which the government has shown throughout this episode and at the fashion in which it has decided to downgrade and depreciate an issue which is of immense public importance and very great importance to the health and lives of the workers involved.

I am going to try to put it out for the provincial secretary as carefully and as thoughtfully as I can. I quite concede that I feel this issue pretty deeply. I really believe that throughout the piece, except for the occasional adversary exchanges in this House, my own role and that of the media and that of others who have been involved has been consistently responsible. And if it can be demonstrated otherwise then I invite the minister to do so again and she can interrupt me where she feels I am wrong.

Mr. Speaker, let me very briefly remind you of the chronology, one aspect of which won’t be familiar to the members of this House because most of them weren’t in the committee session.

I was prompted to raise the matter of Johns-Manville partly because of a letter I had received from the widow of one of the workers who died at Christmas-time in 1974, and partly because I had a visit from the president and safety committee of the union, at my constituency service centre, some two weeks ago. I didn’t take what they gave me at face value. I checked rather carefully the documentation which came to hand because, like the provincial secretary, I was anxious about putting on the record things which could be wrong, because it is a matter of some enormous anxiety. So I checked everything that I subsequently put on the record.

The sources, of course, were hardly sources that are debatable. One of the matters that has been dealt with publicly, the death of a number of workers was from Hansard in July, 1973, in a statement in answer to a question put forward by my colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr). The number of workers on compensation came, on Jan. 9, 1975, from the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. MacBeth) in answer to a question again placed by the member for Sandwich-Riverside. So the particular facts and figures which were used came from the government’s documents and the government’s reports. The question of the testing levels and the samples were taken directly from the occupational health branch reports, which had found their way to the hands of the workers.

Confident, therefore, that my material was based on valid and objective findings, I introduced it into the debate at the Workmen’s Compensation Board committee. The following night, Mr. Speaker, the radio programme “As It Happens” introduced evidence which I did not know of in advance -- I read it that night on the tape -- and which, in fact, went further than anything which had been introduced in the committee.

The “As It Happens” people had found the study from the Ontario Research Foundation in 1972, testing the asbestos fibres in the air in the school area across from the plant. They then got in touch with Dr. Carnow, a recognized epidemiologist dealing in asbestos in the United States, and asked him for his views on the levels of asbestos fibres. It was Dr. Carnow who said that he thought the levels in some cases ranged 57 times above what he would consider to be a safe level.

Hon. W. Newman: What does he consider a safe level, can the member tell me?

Mr. Lewis: He considers a safe level 1/100 fibre per cubic centimetre, Mr. Speaker; but I will come to that shortly.

I think I am going to be able to introduce evidence into the Legislature tonight which suggests that for asbestos the only safe level is zero.

Therefore, my feelings and those of a great many other people are obviously ones of pretty great concern. I would have thought that in political terms and legislative terms, it’s appropriate to raise those matters; that that’s the function both of an opposition and a government when there appears to be a matter of immense health hazard or potential health hazard, particularly for the workers in the plant.

An hon. member: There is no question about it.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t feel on as firm ground about matters outside the plant, because I don’t know enough about it and my reading has not persuaded me enough about matters outside the plant. But, believe me, I have no equivocation on matters within the plant. I know the Provincial Secretary for Social Development represents these workers and I am glad she has finally said something on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, after the “As It Happens” programme was played and there were questions raised in the Legislature, there was, you will recall, a guarded defence of the company by the Minister of Health.

There was also an assertion that everything was safe from someone in the respiratory and lung disease unit -- what was it? -- of York county or of East York. It was someone who had done samples. And there was the assistant medical officer of health of Scarborough who said he was satisfied with the findings.

Then there was the question raised of blue asbestos and its particularly aggravating impact. Then the press and the media dealt in some explicit way with a number of case histories of the widows and the workmen involved, seeming, Mr. Speaker, to put on the record pretty firmly that there was a serious problem here; that this wasn’t some fantasy we were dealing with; that this wasn’t some generalized area we were dealing with; and that it is a very real, human condition.

And then there was the charge of fearmongering. Then there was the evidence of the report linking cancer of the larynx to asbestos, done by Dr. Morgan at the University of Toronto.

Then there was the press conference held by Johns-Manville, who brought in their medical expert, Dr. Paul Kotin; a press conference which I attended although members of the Ministry of Health or the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development didn’t see the need to attend.

And then there was the visit this morning to the plant by the Minister of Health. I believe the provincial secretary was there as well, and the Minister of Labour as well; all of them who trooped through the plant.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having mentioned the chronology, I want to make some comments on the events and I hope to introduce some specific material.

First of all, I simply want to emphasize once again, in unmistakable terms, that every single specific piece of information which was put before this House is grounded on the evidence that comes from the ministries them selves.

One of the frustrating things about dealing with matters of occupational disease is that so much of the information is speculative. One of the problems that so many of us had when dealing with silicosis and radiation at Elliot Lake, or the consequences of vinyl chloride, or even of lead poisoning, was that we were always dealing in fragments of this or that.

One of the advantages in the instance, in the ironic sense, was that every piece of information which has been put to this Legislature is grounded on the facts which the ministries have available to them. There is no area for debate. There is no area for dispute. There is no area for argument. The deaths, the compensable victims and the testing reports are all there in writing; definable.

The question of whether or not a Minister of Health should find his first response to be that of a guarded defence of the company is obviously a different kind of decision. I’m going to talk about that in a different context in a moment.

The community responds in a funny way to these kinds of things, and I’ve never quite understood it. Maybe it’s a difference in visceral reaction. I would have thought that the response which should come to the evidence that mounts in an instance like this, is a response which says, “By God, if there is even one possible iota of truth in all of this, and clearly there is, then what we have to do as a government, and as a community, is to protect the workers and the citizens. And we’re going to range every conceivable safety tool we have at our control to do precisely that.”

A response which depreciates the problem, or pretends that it doesn’t exist, or creates the illusion that there isn’t a problem is a response that is so defensive, and in one way so self-destructive, that it’s hardly worth talking about. I couldn’t get over that assistant medical officer of health in Scarborough, and his mindless acceptance of the fibre counts and their significance, or lack of significance that came to him. Here is a man who admitted publicly that he knew nothing about the problem -- he said so, “I know nothing about it. I’m waiting for the information.” He pointed out, in a very sage way, that only 40 per cent of the people who were bitten by rabid animals get rabies -- a pretty profound observation in order to reassure the community that only a small percentage of those who were endangered would perhaps have their health impaired. I couldn’t believe the kinds of arguments that were brought to hand in order to pretend that there wasn’t a problem.

There was a very real problem. And it’s reprehensible, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, both on the part of the Minister of Health, and tonight on the part of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, and on the part of the assistant medical officer of health, to make statements which are utterly without foundation in the face of statements which are utterly with foundation. That’s what makes the government’s position so reprehensible. When it has the evidence arrayed in front of it, absolutely irrefutable, instead of responding by saying the health and safety of the workers are paramount it responds by some kind of senseless defensive mechanism, as though very little was at stake. I happen to agree with you.

The government could have cooled me out, and everybody else, within 24 hours by saying that it would do lung and sputum tests on every one of the workers, by giving the asbestos workers the right to appear before the Ham commission, by saying that the government would enforce its own regulatory standards, by saying that it would check the ambient air in the community and move on the plant if need be. It did none of those things. It vacillated, it equivocated, it played with it, and, finally, the government viewed it as one of those partisan considerations. I don’t regard that with respect -- don’t ask that of me -- not in an instance of this kind.

The blue asbestos debate which took place, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the members opposite, and particularly to the provincial secretary, is also a phoney debate. While I am speaking on this matter I might as well lay out some of the specifics. All of the work that has been done in asbestos about which one can read, about which we know, demonstrates forcefully that whether it’s blue asbestos fibres or white asbestos fibres, the effect on the worker is absolutely identical. It may happen more quickly with blue asbestos, but it is a charade to draw distinction, a distinction which the people in the occupational health branch were quick to give to the Minister of Health in the hope that something could be done, in the hope that the public feeling could be deflected by the sudden argument that it was only one facet of the asbestos which was used, and that it constituted only two to seven per cent of the materials in the Johns-Manville plant. Utter nonsense. It raises questions for me about those who work within the occupational health branch.

Mostly I want to say something about the response to the evidence, generally from the Ministry of Health, and from the other ministers and from the government. I want to put it to you as directly as I can, Mr. Speaker, that I was dismayed and saddened by the attitude of the Minister of Health. I do not understand it.

It is no great secret in this Legislature that I am one of those people who is very fond of the Minister of Health. I have had contact with him in the past in a number of ways and have found him immediately responsive to one health problem after another. I did not understand why it was necessary in this instance to take a head-in-the-sand attitude.

This is a subject in which I have personally interested myself, and I have talked to my colleague, the member for Sandwich-Riverside, who knows much about it, as well as to other members of the caucus. I have a very strong feeling that on the question of environmental and occupational disease in Ontario, this province somehow has not yet grasped the realities. This province has not yet recognized the evidence that has been accumulated over the last 20 years in the United Kingdom and in the United States. This province simply doesn’t understand the incredible information that is accumulating about the effect of these poisonous substances in the work place. We are approximately five to 10 years behind in our assessments, our evaluations and the implications which should be drawn from them.

Those gaps occur from time to time in the life of a government. Obviously they occurred at Elliot Lake. There is no one in this Legislature who can deny it. We wouldn’t have had the royal commission at Elliot Lake if the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Natural Resources had been reading the material on dust and radiation in the uranium industry. What has happened in the asbestos industry is exactly parallel to that.

I am dismayed by the myopia and the intransigence which is indicated by the Minister of Health. I don’t understand why adversary partisan considerations suddenly betrayed the public trust. The Minister of Health has an immense public trust, as everybody else does over on those benches. Scientists are relatively neutral; they chronicle what happens and make their assessment. But the social policy which follows is the policy of a government The government makes the policy on the basis of the scientific findings; and on the basis of those findings, it measures the costs and benefits in terms of what society will accept and what society won’t accept. But the government’s policy here is simply unacceptable. It has never recognized what is at stake.

My colleague, the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman), introduced Dr. Morgan’s survey on cancer of the larynx and its link to asbestos. I understand from members of the media that the Minister of Health was raising sceptical queries today about that particular study; that it wasn’t full enough, not sound enough, not impressive enough.

Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker: I spoke this afternoon at length to Dr. Irving Selikoff of New York, who is the acknowledged international authority on asbestos. Nobody comes close to Irving Selikoff. He has done every study, every paper; he has participated in every submission on standards.

Dr. Irving Selikoff told me -- I didn’t know this -- that he was the referee on the paper from the University of Toronto and Dr. Morgan, and he recommended its publication. Why did he recommend its publication? Because he found that not only was it statistically sound, not only was it impressive in the use of its scientific analysis, but it exactly corresponded in its findings to those of a group of physicians in Manchester, England, who had used the same methodology and determined the same outcome. He thought, on balance, as a man who is involved in this field, that that gave to the Morgan study immense authenticity.

I am tired, if you don’t mind my saying so, Mr. Speaker, of the kind of trivial, defensive response of those in the occupational health branch in the Ministry of Health as they try to give a rationale as a substitute for responding to something as important as these occupational disease matters. The Minister of Health’s role is to protect the health and life of the workers. We agree on that. Otherwise he joins the endless list of those who view the health and the life of the workers as expendable.

In all of this, through the whole last two weeks, not once from the Minister of Labour, or the Minister of Health, or the Minister of the Environment, has there come one iota of vigorous and urgent response. It is as though everything is under control. Well, it’s not under control. It’s not under control at Johns-Manville. I want to say that again tonight and I want to say it with absolute conviction and I’m going to continue to say it, because I think at some point a more legitimate response will be forthcoming from the government.

The Provincial Secretary for Social Development visited the plant this morning and the Minister of Health said it looked like not a bad place. Does she agree with that? Right. It didn’t seem to be very dusty or dirty. Does she agree with that? Yes, there may have been a few areas that were no hell but, on balance, it seemed okay. So she left the plant and announced to the world that the plant is not too bad. Because that’s what was done. That’s what was done. It was in the corridor outside the Legislature after question period. And I’m supposed to believe that that’s responsible political behaviour?

I mean, did the Provincial Secretary for Social Development count the asbestos fibres she inhaled as she walked through? Was she aware of the testing? Did she go in with a konimeter and test as she went along? Is she saying that ii she went down the Rio Algom mine in Elliot Lake that she would note the radiation in the air and come out and make a statement about a clean bill of health? That’s irresponsibility. She goes in without measurements; she goes in without equipment; she goes in without testing. They’ve got 550 workers who have been working in that plant for several years, some of them for up to 25 years; many of them who are ill; many of them who will become ill --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): It was just a social call.

Mr. Lewis: -- and on the basis of a sauntering call she placates everything that people are concerned about. That’s no answer. It reminds me of when her whole social development branch trooped off, like that little circus that she had -- where was it? -- up to northwestern Ontario, and she cluck-clucked and tut-tutted her way through the mercury pollution for the Indians in the northwest and she came down and she expressed concern.

Can she tell us what’s happened since? Can she give us one example of where government policy is changed? Is she in touch with the group that’s doing the testing of the Indians up there? Does she know what the results have been in the last couple of weeks? Of course not. Because, having made the ritual trip she then washes her hands of it. And having made the ritual trip through Johns-Manville this morning, she would like to wash her hands of it.

Well, it’s not going to be permitted. The minister doesn’t just troop her way through a plant and come out and give it a clean bill of health when she has all the evidence in the world in front of her that it’s a fairly serious matter. Why do I say that the minister has all the evidence in the world in front of her? Because she has, and I repeat it for the umpteenth time.

It’s not been put on the record of the House; it’s the first time that it happens here. She has in front of her the inspection of May, 1973, the testing of January, 1974, the inspection of June, 1974, the testing of December, 1974, and each and every one of those events demonstrated that the safeguards which had been established for the plant, the asbestos levels, were not being adhered to, and the directives which had been issued by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health to clean up were not being adhered to. Now they may think, collectively over there that that’s some kind of trifle, but our contention is that it’s a matter of the utmost seriousness, and that every day it is permitted that the levels in that plant exceed even this government’s unacceptable regulations, every day we are imperilling the lives and health of those workers. I consider that a statement of fact, of simple, explicit fact, and I don’t understand how all of them can sit over there so absolutely sanguine in the face of that fact.

When Dr. Paul Kotin, who is vice-president of health for Johns-Manville, came to the press conference at the Sheraton a few days ago and was asked about the levels in the plant at the various locations, he said in response that he was concerned about those levels. He was concerned about those levels, and he asked one of the other senior people in the plant to answer for them; because as the provincial secretary will recall, a great many of those levels were above the two fibres per cubic centimetre which are permitted. The person who is in charge of testing in the plant, the expert in charge, replied to the press conference by saying: “These tests were conducted over a 15 or 20 minute period. We think they should be conducted over a much longer period. Therefore, we find the tests taken by the occupational health branch as being suspect.”

One of the reporters asked him what period the company took its own tests over. The answer was 90 minutes. I asked him: How is it that you’ve never raised with the Ministry of Health your views of their inadequate testing, since you feel it to be inadequate and it shows you above the threshold limit values?” His response was: “There are no appreciable differences between our testing and that of the Ministry of Health and therefore we have never drawn it to their attention.”

In other words, everything that the ministry has found from within its own government testing apparatus is sustained by what the company has found. Now at the press conference, Dr. Paul Kotin, on the payroll of Johns-Manville, said: “Two fibres per cubic centimetre is a takeoff point and anything above it is dangerous, so that one must always move to be below it. But in up to 78 per cent of the locations tested we were above what is considered by the Ministry of Health to be a safe level.” Does that make sense to the ministry? I mean if someone who represents the people who work in that plant says that, does that make sense? That we have their director of health saying it is dangerous above two, and yet that’s what they find in 78 per cent of the locations -- or, to be more accurate, in 50 to 60 per cent of the locations; the rest being above one, which is above the recommended level set by the occupational health branch. Surely that can’t be acceptable to the ministry? Surely that should cause the minister some anxiety? Surely to draw attention to those facts publicly is precisely what this process is all about?

Let me take it a step further, to the occupational health people. I’m having very mixed feelings about this whole subject in the last few weeks. The occupational health people and the Workmen’s Compensation Board people are statisticians; they are essentially statisticians. They’re graph readers; they’re clinical testers; they deal in cases and they deal in numbers. There’s no feeling in the reports. There’s no sense of what is human in the reports. There’s no outrage in the reports. They just note what the situation is. They obviously feel no compulsion. They feel no concern at what they are finding and what their readings show. They just make note of them.

I want to tell you something, Mr. Speaker. I have in my possession now a document, a piece of correspondence between the Workmen’s Compensation Board and the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Health which I am going to -- what? -- reveal or use at the royal commission on mining, the Ham commission, next Tuesday afternoon. It’s a document, which I think every member of this House will find horrifying. It’s a document which demonstrates how much is known about the dangers to the lives of workers in Ontario and how little is revealed.

I don’t know what moral demands one has to make on civil servants, ministers or governments about this kind of information. I don’t know whether there is a moral imperative for the government to make it public. I don’t know whether civil servants feel they can behave like statisticians forever and repress the stuff forever. The occupational health branch people, I say with regret, simply note on ledger forms, they simply note on graph paper the information that comes to them and they never feel bound to reveal any of it.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, why I think it is necessary to reveal it and I’ll tell you what I have learned and then the Provincial Secretary for Social Development can make her own judgements and maybe they can be conveyed to the Ministry of Health.

We have a standard in Ontario of two fibres of asbestos per cubic centimetre. It might be of some interest to the House to know how that standard was arrived at. In 1968 something called the British Occupational Health Society published a study of the Turner Brothers Asbestos Co. in Rochdale, England. It was a study based on workers who had been there for a number of years -- at least over 10 years -- some 290 workers. It was the only plant that had been measuring fibres per cubic centimetre over a great many years. These workers had been working in a level of roughly four to five fibres per cubic centimetre for 10 years or more.

The 290 workers were chest x-rayed. The chest x-rays were looked at by one of the doctors, a Dr. Knox, who was the medical officer of health for the company, and the findings were corroborated by a Dr. Holmes who was the chief engineer of the company, and it was learned that eight of the workers had asbestosis. They felt in 1968, if such a small number of workers had asbestosis on the basis of these findings, that if they lowered their standard to two fibres per cubic centimetre, they could eliminate almost all asbestosis; and that, in 1968, was their recommended level, which the British promptly implemented.

In 1970, Dr. Knox, the doctor for the company, was replaced by a Dr. Lewinsohn who went back to the same 290 men and looked at the x-rays again and found to his astonishment that in the three-year interim, because the x-rays had been originally looked at in 1967, and the report written in 1968, 40 per cent of the x-rays now showed lung conditions, outright asbestosis or pre-asbestosis. Dr. Lewinsohn published a scientific paper indicating that the level of two fibres per cubic centimetre was, therefore, probably suspect. In any event -- and I want to emphasize this as strongly as I can -- what then emerged was that, even though two fibres per cubic centimetre might be safe, it was safe only for asbestosis; it was not safe for cancer. Now how did that appear?

In 1974 Granada Television in the United Kingdom looked for the 290 men who had been x-rayed in 1970. They found that 26 of the men had died. Many of them had died of lung cancers. Three of them, an almost supernatural percentage, all things considered, had died of mesothelioma, which we know is a cancer that can only come from exposure to asbestos fibres and is always fatal.

Therefore, the scientific community drew the conclusion that two fibres per cubic centimetre might have some application to asbestosis but had absolutely no application whatsoever to the prevention of cancer.

I asked Dr. Selikoff today, “What is a safe level?” He said, “I don’t know what is a safe level. I know that two is not a safe level. I suspect that zero may be a safe level.”

He said to me -- and here is another matter of interest -- that it was his impression, as the leading scientist in the field -- he wouldn’t acknowledge that; I am stating it -- that the plants in the United States were uniformly safer than the plants in Canada. In the United States most of the plants were below two asbestos fibres per cubic centimetre now. And it was known in the industry that even though our standards, or guidelines, were stricter, they were not enforced as vigorously at the moment as they are being enforced in the United States.

Why are the guidelines being enforced so vigorously in the United States? Because in 1971 and 1972 the Secretary of Labor’s department held hearings on asbestos, dealing with the Paterson tragedy and the Corning tragedy at Tyler, Texas, which elicited a great deal of testimony.

I want to read you something, if I may, Mr. Speaker, in order to put some things in context. This is from the book, “Expendable Americans,” by Paul Brodeur. I could have got the original testimony, but I don’t see why I shouldn’t crib it. I want to go to the first day of the testimony of the bearings in 1972 and read you just a small portion of the book.

“The hearings had begun by the time I had had some lunch and returned to the conference room. As I took a seat, I saw that Maciborski” a Johns-Manville worker who had mesothelioma “and Dr. Borow” the community doctor in Manville, where the cases of cancer were emerging at the time “had been giving testimony at a witness table at the front of the room -- to the right of Goldenberg,” the then Secretary of Labor “the hearing examiner, and directly opposite a cross-examination panel consisting of Nicholas DeGregario, an attorney with the Department of Labor’s office of the solicitor, and Gerald F. Scannell, acting director of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s office of standards. Toward the end of his remarks, Dr. Borow said that he had now encountered 52 cases of mesothelioma in the Manville area, and that all the victims of the disease had worked for Johns-Manville with the exception of two, who had simply lived in the community.”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I could interrupt the member for just one moment in order to see if it’s the wish of the House to extend this sitting. I’ll entertain a motion to that effect.

Hon. Mr. Grossman moves that the House sit beyond 10:30 o’clock, p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t have much more, Mr. Speaker.

“Dr. Borow and Maciborski were followed at the witness table by Dr. Nicholson, who began his testimony by stating that the health experience of the American asbestos workers could be described only as a national tragedy. Referring to the mortality study Dr. Selikoff and Dr. Hammond had made of insulation workers in the Newark-New York area, Dr. Nicholson reminded his listeners that two in 10 of those men had died of lung cancer, one in 10 of gastrointestinal cancer, nearly one in 10 of mesothelioma, one in 10 of other cancers, and almost one in 10 of asbestosis.

“‘Past standards are not an appropriate standard for occupational exposure to asbestos, simply because all past standards were conceived only for the purpose of preventing asbestosis,’ Dr. Nicholson continued. ‘But asbestosis is obviously not the major problem among asbestos workers. Cancer is the major problem. Cancer accounts for 75 per cent of the excess deaths among the asbestos-insulation workers studied by Dr. Selikoff and Dr. Hammond, and this asbestos cancer hazard is not appropriately covered by the proposed asbestos standard.’ Dr. Nicholson went on to say that no knowledge now existed of a safe working level of exposure to asbestos which would prevent the occurrence of cancer, and he urged that asbestos not be used in the work place except with approved techniques and methods designed to remove asbestos dust from the working environment. ‘There is evidence that a standard of two fibres per cubic centimetre of air will be inadequate for the prevention of asbestos disease,’ he said. ‘The recently measured long-term exposure of the asbestos-insulation workers, whose disastrous disease experience has been documented by Dr. Selikoff and Dr. Hammond, was approximately three fibres per cubic centimetre, even prior to the implementation of improved control measures.’”

Now, is it possible for anyone over there to understand what is being said? All of the information which we now have at hand has been based on exposure levels of three or four fibres per cubic centimetre, and what does it show, Mr. Speaker? It shows the following, that for every 100 workers exposed over a long period of time -- between 20 and 30 years -- to two, three, or four fibres per cubic centimetre, 55 will contract asbestosis, 12 will contract lung cancer and four will contract mesothelioma. What has been demonstrated about asbestos in the United States has application to this country. Our documentation is coming later, but the conditions under which people worked were the same, and if that is the consequence of working at levels between two and five fibres per cubic centimetre, then the level of two is simply unacceptable, and to allow even a fraction in excess of two is morally unacceptable.

The experts say 1/100th. Some say zero. I say to simply --

Hon. W. Newman: What size fibres is the member talking about?

Mr. Lewis: What size fibres? As a matter of fact --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Don’t do this.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, the minister raises something that is scientifically interesting. I don’t want to get into it in detail. All that they measure --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I will if he wants me to. All that is measured are those particles, those fibres that are in excess of five --

Hon. W. Newman: Microns.

Mr. Lewis: -- micrograms in length.

Hon. W. Newman: Five microns.

Mr. Lewis: Five microns in length.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Just a second. That’s how we establish our standards within the workplace -- the fibres that are measured are beyond five microns in length. They don’t even begin to account for the fibres that are even smaller. The fact of the matter is that they just don’t know how to measure the smaller fibres which are inhaled, so they only measure the fibres which are beyond five microns in length. And on that basis they have found, up until now, that of every 100 workers exposed from 20 to 30 years, Selikoff’s projections, based on his studies, are that 55 will get asbestosis, 12 will get lung cancer and four will get mesothelioma.

Suppose he is wrong? Suppose it is only half of that? Suppose it is only a quarter of that? What are we quibbling about? Is it worth the life of one worker? Obviously not. The question then is: Why the defence of measurements which are clearly above the permissible levels set by the ministries? Why is the minister prepared to give Johns-Manville one iota of the benefit of the doubt? Why is he prepared for a second to equivocate or qualify the government’s response? I don’t understand that. I just don’t understand it.

Hon. W. Newman: Well, the hon. member doesn’t understand the figures we are talking about.

Mr. Lewis: I think I understand them very well.

Hon. W. Newman: Would he like to hear them? Would he like to hear them?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: I think I understand them very well.

What the Minister of the Environment is trying to confuse, perhaps inadvertently, is the question of measurements within the plant and the question of measurements outside the plant, and I know there is a distinction. I beg him to understand I know there is a distinction.

I am dealing with the in-plant reality. The in-plant reality is one of a continuing serious health hazard. I’m not going to get into the philosophic questions with the provincial secretary about matters of value of life -- mind you I’d like to, believe me I’d like to -- but I’m just putting to the government that the measurements we have suggest that something has to be done by government, other than the kind of muted posturing which has come from a number of the ministers. And I hope that those changes will occur.

Mr. Speaker, I have to bring this to an end. I want to tell the provincial secretary and the Minister of Health that I haven’t the slightest, not the slightest, tinge of regret for having opened all of this up. There’s been more activity at cleaning up Johns-Manville in the last two weeks than there was in the previous two years. If it’s possible to get every one of those location readings down below two, and one day down to a standard of zero, then maybe a number of lives will be saved, and a number of health conditions will be averted 10 or 15 years from now. I do not believe for a moment that anyone should be sanguine about it. I think that all of the evidence that is available from international authorities shows that Ontario is on the wrong track.

There are two responses possible to an issue like this. One is defensive, and the other is vigilant. The government has chosen to be defensive. I’m asking them to throw that rubbish out and to respond in a manner which is positively ferocious when the life and health of the workers are involved. They don’t have to feel badly about it.

I concede what the Minister of Health said the other day; it’s only in the last few years that occupational health has come to the attention of everyone, and that everyone is beginning to understand its implications. But one doesn’t have to be a clairvoyant to know what the future will hold. It’s all documented now. It’s all laid out. All the statistics and studies are there. There’s no more question. The only question is how low do you go?

Mr. Haggerty: The hon. member for Scarborough West is 20 years behind his time.

Mr. Lewis: And when the minister gets some scientific difference, then he opts on the side of caution, opts on the side of caution. Let me tell the Minister of Health while he’s here that I put it to him that he should move into the asbestos industry and clean it up in Ontario, and make it a model on the North American continent.

If he wants me to plead with him, I’ll plead with him. If he wants me to beg him, I’ll beg him. I don’t care what it takes to prompt his response.

I know that the ministry can, happily, do health examinations on every one of those men. I had a call today from a doctor at the Sick Children’s Hospital who offered to do pulmonaries on every one of the men; because he has some sense, from what he has already seen, that the problem may be far more severe than it is. It is not a doctor I know, incidentally; it came out of the blue. If the minister has members of the medical fraternity offering to do that for him -- and he shakes his head as though he knows of him -- why not take them up on it? Why not, therefore, do health examinations on the men; reduce the levels in the plant; enforce the prosecutions where they’re merited; raise the standards by reducing the number of fibres per cubic centimetre; and end the issue? Make of occupational health something which is central to the life of Ontario, rather than something which is peripheral.

Mr. Deans: Let them prove that they care.

Mr. Lewis: Let them prove that they care, says my colleague from Wentworth. I believe they do.

Mr. Deans: I don’t believe they do.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t believe it of all the ministers. I want to believe it of the Minister of Health. He knows as he is sitting there jotting his notes that the pattern of disease at Johns-Manville is going to continue. Dr. Paul Kotin, their medical expert, when asked what does the future hold for the workers of Johns-Manville, said with that air of nonchalance that comes with exposure to the macabre, “Oh, more men will die, more men will get asbestosis. These things will go on at Johns-Manville.” And he is the medical doctor for the company.

Well, I just plead with the government to bring it to an end in the future, if it cannot be brought to an end now. It is all there for the government to do. Everything that has been put on the record has validity and substance and there is no reason to draw back.

Occupational health in Ontario is a disaster area, and it is time the government moved in and did something about it. I am not offering to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development a response because I really don’t want to engage in that. I am putting it to the government that it is really something where there is room to change and all the evidence is before it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am deeply honoured to be asked by my leader to respond and to close the debate on the motion presented back on April 16.

I do want to join, Mr. Speaker, in wishing you well, as my colleagues have, and saying to you publicly what I have said to you privately, that we do wish you well. We anticipate -- and I am sure you must -- that possibly if there is a next session that because of the closeness of events in the following year things will gat hot in this House. I must say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side have observed you and you have earned our respect and we wish you well.

We do want to say as well, Mr. Speaker, on this side, a few kind words about your predecessor. It is very easy to say kind words about him. He was a good and kind man and we wish him well on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, if I might in opening, I would say a very few and brief words about my riding. I think I should be entitled to say a few words about that riding, because as you know some time back there was some -- how should I say this and be kind? -- some possibly misguided approach to wiping that riding out. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that situation has been corrected.

I do want to put a few things on the record so that future commissions might not be tempted to do or to suggest what the last commission suggested. I am grateful to the commission. I have said this on the record that they were extremely sensitive, and they were extremely responsive after I got in touch with them.

I do want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that I represent a riding which has a whole gamut of individuals. I represent the Prime Minister of this country who resides in the riding. I suppose most of the justices of the Supreme Court of Canada live in that riding. At the same time most of the charladies who are cleaning up Parliament Hill and the messengers on Parliament Hill reside in the riding. And so, Mr. Speaker, I have the whole gamut of individuals in the riding.

I would think that that riding is possibly one of the most bilingual of the whole of the country. I would think that 70 per cent of the people living in that riding are in fact bilingual.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is kidding, I will give him a riding where they speak about 25 languages.

Mr. Roy: I am talking about bilingualism. The minister wouldn’t understand that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is only two languages.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Multiculturalism is his bag.

Mr. Roy: The point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the riding has existed for close to a century, traditionally as a community of French, English -- and I even have a Jewish community in my riding. I also have other minority groups, such as Italians and Portuguese. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I would think that most of these people are good Liberals as well.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is bilingual too.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): The member could be wrong.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): With a great member.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, order. Let the member for Ottawa East have the floor.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would point out as well the variety of institutions that are in my riding, including the University of Ottawa. The Prime Minister’s residence is there; the National Conference Centre is there. We have a variety of well-known historical buildings in my riding. You’ve seen many pictures of the Rideau Canal, Mr. Speaker, which also goes through the riding.

I do want to pay tribute to the residents of my riding, who for a number of years, Mr. Speaker, have existed in co-operation and harmony. I feel extremely grateful and I’m very proud to represent this group. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that there will never again be any suggestion that that community -- whether we’re talking about Lower Town, Sandy Hill, Vanier, or Overbrook -- but that community which has always existed together, that never again will there be a suggestion that community ever be broken up.

Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to deal with the question of unemployment in this province. I want to deal with it because it’s part of our motion. I don’t think I have to say too much in the sense that the latest figures clearly show that Ontario’s unemployment problem, or unemployment rate, is probably rising twice as fast as the national average; and that this government has rejected my leader’s call for measures to stimulate the economy and offset the unemployment this winter.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): How?

Mr. Roy: We wanted some action, Mr. Speaker, and all we got were promises. I recall the Premier’s comments in his New Year’s message that we may experience some slight increase in unemployment in 1975. I would think that today he might revise those particular comments.

I want to first talk about a group of people, Mr. Speaker, who are not unemployed; and probably have never been unemployed for the last 32 years. These people, Mr. Speaker, are called friends of the government. We call them Tories in this province. These people don’t have an unemployment problem, especially if they happen to be defeated candidates.

Now, I would think working hard for the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker, is better than investing in unemployment insurance, because with unemployment insurance you would have to continually report to Canada Manpower to prove that you are honestly looking for work. With the Conservatives, all you have to do is run for office or be part of the riding executive.

The favours you can receive, Mr. Speaker, are many and varied. I can mention jobs in liquor stores; contracts; appointments to boards and commissions, advisory committees councils -- just to name a few. I attempted to investigate the membership list of these boards and commissions appointed by the ministries. I thought it would make an interesting game. The research people and myself made it a new game and we called it “patronage.”

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Is that think maybe it’s time some of these be research?

Mr. Roy: In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was more fun than playing Monopoly. We would see how many Tories were on the lists and then we would place scores. For instance, we would put five points for a defeated candidate; four points for a former Conservative member; three points for a riding president; two points for a riding secretary; and one point for a well-known Tory. And any one who scored 100 or over got a free invitation, either to the Premier’s Christmas party or for a ride with Krauss-Maffei.

I was foiled in my attempts to get a complete list of the members of boards and commissions. I’m told this information must emanate from the Premier’s office. So, Mr. Speaker, I wrote a letter to all the ministers on Nov. 20, 1974. I thought it was straightforward. It stated:

“I’m trying to determine who the members are on special purpose bodies of the Ontario government. Could you please send me a list of all boards and commissions falling under your ministry and also the government-appointed members on them. If at all possible, I would appreciate having this information by Nov. 29, 1974.”

I expected to speak by then, but we’re a few months behind.

I even thanked them in advance for their co-operation, Mr. Speaker. Some ministers -- and I will cite which ministers -- replied and co-operated. I got answers from the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler) with his commissions; the Minister of Transportation and Communications sent me the commissions he had on that list; the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food responded. The other ministers -- including the Solicitor General (Mr. Kerr) and the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) -- all referred me to the Premier’s office and so I didn’t receive any reply from them.

Then I wrote to the Premier’s office on Dec. 12 and again I asked for this information -- it should be public information -- and I asked at that time:

“In response to my letter of Nov. 20 with regard to members on boards and commissions, the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations inform me that the information I seek would be handled through the Premier’s office. Would you kindly gather and send this information as soon as possible? With kind regards.”

I wrote this to Mr. Beeney.

On Dec. 23, I received a reply from James D. Fleck, secretary to the cabinet. I thought the request was quite straightforward and, of course, I was impressed; it’s not every day one receives a letter from Mr. Fleck, the highest-paid civil servant in the province. I thought, surely he’ll have this information compiled, but he said:

“I’ve been asked by a number of ministers to see if I would co-ordinate the inquiry which you have made of them for a list of boards and commissions which report to their ministries.

“Since there are over 300 agencies of one type or another, the majority of them being advisory bodies established or authorized by legislation, I wonder whether you would let me know in more detail the areas of particular interest.”

You can see he’s saying, “You are going to have to dig.”

“The reason I’m suggesting this is that there are literally hundreds of people involved -- ”

I knew, of course, if we’ve got 324 commissions in this province we are talking about a lot of people.

“ -- and the amount of work required to prepare the membership list is quite substantial. If you could let me know the particular areas of interest, I would be happy to obtain the information as quickly as possible.”

I’d written the same letter to all the ministers asking specifically for boards and commissions under their ministries. I thought it was quite clear. I wasn’t going to play the game; I thought, I can talk about certain boards and commissions. But I am still concerned that this can happen with letters as straightforward as this, especially when corresponding with a gentleman who is as well paid as Mr. Fleck and especially when I’m requesting information which is public information. I take it that some of these people on the commissions are paid at public expense, and I, as an elected member in this province, would think that this information would not be difficult to get. But I wasn’t going to play cat and mouse with Mr. Fleck, and so I thought I’d compile a few names, in any event.

I find it difficult to believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government has such great difficulty in providing me with these names and the appointees. Presumably if people had been appointed to serve on a government board, the government -- especially the Premier’s office -- should have a complete list of their names. These people are being paid with public money and I’m trying to elicit this information about them, and I found it a very difficult task. I think the time has come for the government to stop this cat-and-mouse game it’s playing with the opposition and provide us with some answers in a reasonable period of time.

I mention this as well, Mr. Speaker, because we’ve had questions on the order paper for quite some time -- very reasonable questions, I thought. My colleagues, the member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) and the member for Rainy River (Mr. Reid) have a couple on the order paper and I have some which are very simple questions.

For instance, I’ve got one here:

“Have any private members of the Progressive Conservative caucus been sent outside of Canada on behalf of a ministry or agency? If so, who are the members, what was the nature of their mission and what is the total cost of these projects?”

Mr. Bullbrook: Send the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) to the Vatican.

Mr. Roy: I thought that was simple enough. That question has been on the order paper for months and has not received an answer. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is going to be placed on the next order paper when we come back in a month or so from now.

But there is a number of other questions. For instance, I’ve asked the Ministry of Housing if it could provide me with a list of all land purchased by Ontario Housing Corp. since 1968; when was the land purchased; who was the vendor; and what was the purchase price paid? Again, relatively straightforward. One would think they had records of all these things, but we’ve yet to get the answers on this. I have continually asked the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) for answers and I’ve have not received them.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I was able to come by a list of these boards and commissions. I certainly don’t intend to go through all of them beyond stating there are 324 boards and commissions in this province to which people can be appointed. Assuming there are at least five appointed to each, that means there are something like 1,620 jobs open to political patronage. It seems that it’s fortunate that we do have unemployed conservatives in the province, because it would seem that the brains in this province are limited within that group, because they seem to find their way consistently and continually on these boards and commissions.

I went through the list and even found some of the boards and commissions to be questionable; for instance, the Hospital Appeal Board. I note that the Minister of Health is not here, but this board has been established now for some number of years end only four cases have been heard by the appeal board. And now the doctors are not even bothering, after the experience of Dr. Martin Schiller.

The reason is obvious and we’ve seen it. Appeals can be made from decisions of this board and hospital boards which have unlimited funds can swamp any individual, including an individual who is a doctor and making the money that doctors are in this province. We feel that this is one board where, if it is going to have any merit at all, the decision must be final and not subject to appeal.

I would like to question some of these commissions. I just want to mention some of the more interesting ones to you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) supplied a whole list of commissions and committees. I would like to know why we need, in this province, two of these committees -- one that is called the Artificial Insemination of Livestock Advisory Committee and the other one called the Artificial Insemination of Livestock Licence Review Board.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let him ask his leader.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That has pregnant possibilities.

Mr. Eaton: The member doesn’t know because he is not concerned with agriculture.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What’s that? What’s that matter? Speak up.

Mr. Roy: Maybe the parliamentary assistant can answer this. What does the Pregnant Mare Urine Licence Review Board do? Do they publish reports? I note there are other boards called the Soldiers’ Aid Committee, the Sulphur Dioxide Committee, the Inborn Errors of Metabolism in Children Advisory Committee, the Maternal Deaths Advisory Committee, the Geographic Names Board -- and I could go on.

I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, over a number of years there has been a fantastic accumulation of boards and committees. I think maybe it’s time some of these be reviewed.

I might state, Mr. Speaker, that when we are talking of members having jobs or of people on boards that I’ve looked at on a list here -- I certainly don’t intend to go through all of it -- I do want to mention some interesting people on these boards.

An hon. member: Shouldice?

Mr. Roy: The first one is one which is very close and which we’ve heard about quite recently in the by-election in Carleton East. Bert Lawrence is now chairman of Heritage Ontario. That was the legislation we passed here. His elevated status, his seniority and the money that goes with the job were clearly the sine qua non or whatever you might call it --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Quid pro quo.

Mr. Roy: Quid pro quo is the right term, my leader says.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What’s the sense of being a teacher if you can’t quote?

Mr. Roy: We talked about that during the by-election, about what Bert Lawrence had been given, or offered to resign, or how he’d been pushed out to make room for Pierre Benoit. Fortunately, the electors of Carleton East probably asked the same question and were not satisfied by the response received from the government.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They didn’t like what the Premier did to Bert.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Ottawa East doesn’t have to look up to the gallery that way. They are hanging on every word of this important budget address.

Mr. Roy: The Premier wishes they would do the same for him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am. I am hanging on every word.

Interjections by hon members.

Mr. Ferrier: The Premier’s told them, hasn’t he?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Good: The Premier doesn’t like this.

Mr. Roy: I can talk about other individuals on this list.

Mr. Good: It’s really getting to him, eh?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Regardless of what the leader of the New Democratic Party said tonight, I’ll tell the member this, that at least he was interested in something.

Mr. Good: The Premier doesn’t like this.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Is that the new fighting image? The fighting Premier?

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: A coming-out party.

Mr. G. Nixon: Go to Ottawa and dig up more names.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When did the member for Ottawa East do his last drug prosecution?

Mr. Roy: The last drug prosecution, I can put it clearly on the record, was prior to my election in 1971. And if the Premier wants to check that up and start throwing innuendo, he can just check it up himself.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are the last ones to talk about this, the last ones.

Mr. Roy: Let’s just talk about some of these lists. Let’s just talk, Mr. Speaker, about some of the people on these lists.

Mr. Good: People are wising up.

Mr. Roy: For instance, I noticed after Bill Neville was defeated in the federal election, right away he ended up on what was called the Ottawa-Carleton district health council and now he has a job with the national leader.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Murray McBride.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where do the defeated Liberals go?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: What happened to Murray McBride?

Mr. Roy: I notice here another fellow in the Ottawa area, a well-known Conservative, Aubrey Moodie, is on the Ontario Water Resources Commission.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We see Aubrey up here quite a bit. Great fellow.

Mr. Roy: I can go on. I thought that one of the fellows I --

Mr. Lewis: Most defeated NDP candidates are still looking for work.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on.

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: They are out in British Columbia.

Mr. Roy: You know, we can talk about Barry Lowes, William McMurtry, Michael Starr, George Gathercole, John Robarts.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I keep getting letters from Barry Lowes.

Mr. Roy: I could go on. I have lists; I have list after list, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. G. Nixon: Let’s go to Ottawa.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Could we come to order just for a few minutes to let the member for Ottawa East finish his address on the budget speech?

Mr. Parrott: It’s not worth it, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is one fellow I’d like to mention because the Premier will be interested in talking to him. He is going around Ottawa saying that he is going to be the fellow running against me in the next election, Des Bender.

Mr. G. Nixon: Good for him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who is it?

Mr. Roy: The Premier put him on the Family Benefits Review Board -- Des Bender. He is going around Ottawa saying he is going to be the next Conservative candidate running in Ottawa East.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier knows him.

Mr. Roy: I hope the Premier talks him into it, frankly. I hope he is the individual who is going to run.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I could go on. I have got a long list here.

Mr. McIlveen: Don’t bother.

Mr. Roy: I don’t like to antagonize the Premier of the province and embarrass people. But in any event, I have it here and it makes for very interesting reading.

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas of which we have been extremely critical is the failure of this government to curtail the escalating cost of health. Of course, as we see a succession of ministers we see rhetoric, we see threats, we see ministers making promises, and yet there are very few results.

This year again, with the new Minister of Health, we have seen him going around the province saying that he is concerned about the escalating health costs, and yet apart from the fact that there is some talk about limitations on foreign doctors, we have yet to see any acceptance of basic or major plans to curtail the cost of health in this province.

Of course, we are extremely concerned, Mr. Speaker, because if the government does not curtail health costs and keeps having the deficit in its budget that we have seen over the last three years, it is into a situation where it does not have money for an alternative programme, either in health or in other areas of the province.

Mr. Speaker, how many reports do we have? The latest is Mustard, and I could go on and on. We have seen the former minister (Mr. Potter) talking about a constraint package. We have never seen that yet. So we have made suggestions to the minister. I recall in the estimates over the last three years we have made submissions or suggestions to the Minister of Health as to how he can save in the area of health.

For instance, while looking at today’s Globe and Mail I see an ad placed here by the doctors. It states: “The doctor who looked after your child’s appendicitis, who delivered your wife’s baby last month, who is checking your heart tomorrow just got a four per cent raise.”

We agreed with the Minister of Health. In fact, we sent a letter to the doctors congratulating them for the responsible attitude and position they took in keeping within the guidelines that they had agreed to with the province and accepting the four per cent raise. But on the other hand, we are concerned, Mr. Speaker -- and I am addressing this to the Minister of Health -- that there is apparently some talk or some movement afoot by the doctors across the province regarding some kind of attempt or organized approach to opting out of OHIP and billing the patient directly. We are concerned about this, Mr. Speaker. When the doctors talk about a four per cent raise, we want to make it very clear that we feel most medical practitioners deserve every penny they get -- but there are some specialties within the medical profession that we are concerned about.

For instance, Mr. Speaker, looking at the latest statistics, published last week or so by the Ministry of Health, we see that 69 out of 6,255 doctors in general practice made $100,000 and over. That is a relatively low number, although I suppose one should be concerned about how it was possible for 69 general practitioners to see enough patients to make over $100,000 a year. Still Mr. Speaker, we feel that proposition is relatively modest when, for instance, we compare it with the number of doctors specializing in ear, nose and throat who made over $100,000 -- 35 out of 175. In diagnostic radiology, 159 out of 376 are listed in the category of $100,000 and over; in ophthalmology, there are 42 out of 291, and in pathology there are 56 out of 118.

We have suggested to the minister that many specialists should be on salary -- for instance, those working out of hospitals, especially in pathology and diagnostic radiology. In a way, the $100,000 they are making goes to pay medical technicians and support services, but the fact remains that there are certain specialists who earn incomes that are out of proportion to the incomes of some of the doctors giving basic medical services in this province. We are concerned about that fact.

Looking over this list, we find that there are even four chiropractors who make over $100,000 a year. They are only four out of 590, Mr. Speaker, but you can imagine the amount of money they are making because the $100,000 is not their total income, as you know, since most chiropractors charge over and above the basic $5 per visit that is granted by 01-lIP. For instance, there are 15 of them making between $70,000 and $80,000 per year; if you add 30, 40 or 50 per cent for the money they make in addition to the OHIP payments, then they have a pretty fair income.

I have raised in the House before my concern about the fact that doctors who have seven, eight or 10 years’ experience are making less per visit than the chiropractors.

If doctors or even chiropractors are making the sort of incomes I have described, Mr. Speaker, and when you consider the amount of money they are making per visit, can you imagine the fantastic amount of people they are seeing per day? If you work it out on the basis of a 200-day year and you consider the number of hours per day, some of these people probably are seeing 40 and 50 patients per day. One has to be concerned about that, Mr. Speaker, because if these medical people are seeing that many patients per day, cannot other specialties -- what we call nurse practitioners, for instance -- fulfill the same service as these individuals?

What we have suggested, and what has been suggested in the Mustard report, is that the collectivity of health professionals working together in health centres certainly is a solution. Mr. Speaker, do you recall reading a story in the Toronto Star on Jan. 25, 1975, headed, “Super Nurses Bring Care to Medically Deprived”? It talks about the Ste. Anne clinic in the riding of Ottawa East -- a clinic which in fact is operated at times in spite of the ministry because we know the attitude of the former Minister of Health to health clinics. As it points out:

“Four years ago, 10,000 residents of crumbling Lower Town in the northeast section of Ottawa were forgotten people in terms of medical care. There was no family doctor practising in the area. Many residents would ignore symptoms of sickness as long as possible, and only when their discomfort became more than they could bear would they seek the help of the emergency department at the nearest hospital.

“Today, however, medical care is more readily available in Lower Town than in many of the more affluent neighbourhoods.”

And the solution, Mr. Speaker, was to have two girls by the name of Faustina Fournier and Gail Pine, who are nurse practitioners and, in fact, do work which very much resembles a doctor’s. But, as is clearly stated in the article:

“These nurses are far more accessible. They have more flexibility than the doctors. They are able to set the whole thing up for the doctors who are working within the clinic.”

And so, Mr. Speaker, we are encouraging the Ministry of Health to look at this type of centre, and centres that exist in other ridings -- for instance, in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for St. George -- where you should have this type of approach -- which is suggested, after all, in Mustard. This is a way of saving money.

We’re being accused of being negative, but we’ve been talking about this for the last two years. Why should this approach not be accepted by the Ministry of Health?

What about in the area of preventive medicine? We talk about, for example, seat-belt legislation, or reducing the speed limit in this province, programmes to encourage people to keep fit. We have programmes about the use of alcohol, spending some of the income from the taxation of alcohol for positive programmes.

What makes us extremely concerned is to see articles like, for instance, that of Nov. 23, 1974, with a large picture of the Minister of Health buckling up in his motor vehicle, clearly giving the impression that --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Not that yellow symbol he drives?

Mr. Roy: Yes. But there he is buckling up, and it is clearly stated in this article:

“Frank Miller has already experienced his government’s susceptibility to the fear of losing votes.”

And, of course, that is obvious.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ah, Muskoka is slipping away.

Mr. Roy: It goes on to say:

“He estimates that it costs nearly $1 million in Ontario every day in hospital costs alone to care for the victims of automobile accidents.”

Did he really say $1 million?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): I said $1.280 million, to be exact.

Mr. Roy: Per day?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What is the significance of that last 0?

Hon. Mr. Miller: The minister is always exact.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No, it’s not a significant figure. Even an engineer knows that.

Mr. Roy: It goes on to say, Mr. Speaker:

“Like legislators in many other countries, he’s convinced by the overwhelming evidence that forcing people to wear seatbelts in their cars would dramatically reduce death and injuries on Ontario roads. Seatbelt legislation was promised by the governing Progressive Conservatives last spring, but the idea has been shelved.”

Mrs. Campbell: Did he say that?

Mr. Roy: No, he didn’t say that. I am just quoting:

“Despite public excuses about the difficulty of enforcing an unpopular law, it’s no secret around Queen’s Park that the government changed its mind about making motorists buckle up because they were afraid of losing their votes. Yet firm action by a determined government would, as Miller puts it, save more lives and dollars than almost any other sudden change in the medical field.”

Now, there is a telling indictment on this government --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member is now in favour of compulsory seatbelt legislation, is he?

Mr. Roy: -- that it has evidence and statistics --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is he now in favour of compulsory seatbelt legislation?

Mr. Roy: If we were in power, Mr. Speaker, we would not be looking at votes when we were passing this type of legislation.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): If, if, if.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where does the Premier stand on it? He said a year ago --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa East has the floor.

Mr. Roy: What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that it’s a telling indictment on this government --

Hon. Mr. Miller: But he’s not saying what he’s going to do.

Mr. Roy: -- when the Minister of Health in this province says we can save a million dollars a day; we can save lives; but we are not going to put this legislation because we are going to lose votes.

This is why, Mr. Speaker, this government has lost credibility. For political expediency it is prepared to waste money in the health field and it is prepared to jeopardize lives of individuals. This, in fact, is what they are saying here.

For instance, speed limits. What are they doing about speed limits? Again, we have evidence from the US --

Hon. Mr. Miller: But he is not saying what they are going to do.

Mr. Villeneuve: What is his problem?

Mr. Roy: We have evidence in the US which clearly indicates that reducing the speed limit from 70 to 55 miles per hour cuts down the rate of accidents something like 25 per cent. Again, if you reduce accidents you cut health costs at the other end.

What pressure is there on the Minister of Transportation and Communications to bring in this legislation? Not only would it save money in the health field, but it would help the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell). At least he would have an energy conservation programme. He could copy the federal government.

And so, Mr. Speaker, we are extremely concerned when we see that the government is not prepared to accept these options because there are votes that it might lose at the other end. They should be more aggressive and offer a positive approach; because I really don’t think there are many more votes that they can lose in this province. I don’t really see what their concern is about this.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: We are not worried about his, anyway.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Don’t be too sure.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, we had pious comments from the ministers of health at their last meeting where they stated clearly that they had agreed with the federal government that seatbelt legislation would be looked at and that this was an area where money could be saved in the health field. The only reason the legislation is not brought in is because the Minister of Health wants to save a few votes.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Does the member wear his?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Always.

Mr. Roy: Always.

Mr. Eaton: What is the member’s position on seatbelt legislation?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, in closing --

Mrs. Campbell: We need them in here.

Mr. Villeneuve: What is his position?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): What would the member for Ottawa East do?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Ottawa East has the floor.

Mr. Roy: In closing, we want to make a few comments, Mr. Speaker, about some of the matters mentioned in the motion presented on Tuesday, April 16, 1974. We want to look at some projections made for this province. According to the economists, they project that Ontario’s rate of economic growth will fall below the national average this year. It has gone from something like 7.2 in 1973, to about 3.8 in 1974, to a projected 2.5 in 1975. This projection, Mr. Speaker, is apparently by the president of Canadian Economic Services Ltd.

Government spending is an important source of momentum for 1975. But the former Treasurer said to the association of counties and regions on Oct. 21, 1974: “Ontario’s lavish spending in recent years means that we have borrowed to the limit of prudence.” In other words, now that government spending is needed to stimulate the economy, we must either jeopardize our credit position -- and that is going to be hard to take --

Mr. Eaton: Triple-A rating.

Mr. Roy: -- or provide less assistance than required. I would suspect that the deficit next year, Mr. Speaker, will be something to behold. Last year they were talking about a deficit in the area of $800 million, and they did not even consider it a deficit. We are anxious to see what they have in mind for the following budget year.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): What report is that from?

Mr. Roy: In the area of exports, Mr. Speaker, growth this year is expected to be something like three per cent for Ontario, well below the national average. In the first eight months of 1974, Ontario’s exports were up only eight per cent, compared to 26 per cent for all other Canadian exports. Ontario’s share of the Canadian export market dropped from 44 per cent in 1973 to 38 per cent in 1974.

Mr. Kennedy: What report is that from?

Mr. Roy: And if ever there was a telling indictment about a discrepancy between what is said is going to be done, and what in fact is going to be done, it is in the area of housing.

Mr. Kennedy: What report is that?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: How about the whole of Canada? Why don’t you quote the whole thing?

Mr. Kennedy: What report is the member reading from?

Mr. Roy: If ever there was an area, Mr. Speaker, where the government had a bagful of unkept promises, it’s in the area of housing.

Mr. J. R. Smith: He never answers a question.

Mr. Roy: It is in the area of housing that we’ve had a succession of ministers since 1973. We’ve had the member for Lincoln (Mr. Welch), we’ve had the member for Carleton (Mr. Handleman) and now we have the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine).

Mr. Eaton: Read the editorials.

Mr. Roy: And, Mr. Speaker, looking at all the projections -- 100,000 homes this year -- what have we got? Something around 85,000 -- about 15 per cent below the projection. And yet there were comments. There were headlines. You recall the headlines about all the new programmes -- NIP, RAP, HOME, OHAP.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): That’s not bad. That is a fair average.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Read tomorrow’s headlines. Danson is confident that the housing market is in an uptrend.

Mr. Roy: Can the minister blame them for saying his housing was nothing but headlines? How many unkept promises --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: CMHC reasserts a target of 210,000 new starts.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, I hear the comments of the present Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and I see where he’s quoted here saying, “Adequate housing at an affordable price is a basic right of all residents in Ontario.” What a laugh that is.

Mr. Maeck: Well spoken; that’s exactly right.

Mr. Roy: You should go out there and ask the people whether they can buy houses in this province.

Mr. Havrot: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Roy: And because they can’t buy houses in this province, look at their rents. What have you done about rents in this province?

Mr. Havrot: What are you going to do about it?

Mr. Roy: So, Mr. Speaker, on every count this government has failed.

Mr. Havrot: Tell us; give us an answer.

Mr. Roy: If I may say, Mr. Speaker, the motion that was presented by my colleagues on April 16 has more validity today than ever --

Mr. Eaton: You’re scared to say anything on your own.

Mr. Havrot: You do nothing but bellyache.

Mr. Roy: -- and if it’s not obvious to those people here in the House that they’ve lost the confidence of the people of Ontario, they should look outside the House --

Mr. Maeck: The member sounds like a record.

Mr. Roy: -- they should look at the by-elections and they should look at the polls, and go to the people and see if they still have their confidence.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, we will.

Mr. Breithaupt: The last hurrah.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Premier.

Mr. Maeck: Tell them the facts of life, Mr. Premier.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, after that very enthusiastic reception I think I should conclude my remarks because I know the members opposite, by the time I’m finished, will end up supporting the original motion.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It won’t get any better.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Although when I listened to the member for Ottawa East, I have to confess I was going to start my remarks by saying that I thought they would end up supporting the motion initially --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are not going to end up supporting the motion.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just going to end up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: After listening to the member for Ottawa East I decided that there would be something totally wrong if he did. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I listened with both amusement and sorrow to the contribution that he has just made, and I will amplify that very respectfully.

Mr. Roy: We’re anxious to hear the Premier’s.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back a little bit in history. This day, Feb. 13, is a very important day. We introduced a bill --

Mr. Roy: The Premier was forced to introduce the bill.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I think it is really a milestone in the political life in this province.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: No more Fidinams.

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, don’t be too sure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the member for St. George, as a member of the Liberal Party in this province and this country, it took this government and its determination to have disclosure; to have anything done by the members federal friends in Ottawa was futile and she knows it.

Mr. Roy: This government was forced into it.

Mrs. Campbell: It was embarrassed into it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m being just a bit nostalgic for a moment or two. It was about four years ago at 2:30 on Feb. 13, 1971, that I was given the very onerous task, but I think one of the very highlights, of my political life --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I remember the morning very well.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- when I was given the honour to lead the Conservative Party.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Good for the Premier, and it’s my birthday, too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And while we are talking about birthdays, Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend to the Chairman of the Management Board many happy returns of the day, because this is his birthday as well.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I’ve been here as a member of the House for a period of time. I have been in this House under the late Mr. Frost, my predecessor Mr. Robarts, and now it is my own responsibility. I have travelled rather extensively around the province, and I have seen a great deal happen in the past number of years, including the last 3½. Mr. Speaker, while I listen to the constructive advice coming from the benches opposite -- and I must confess that on occasion there is some constructive advice --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is getting mellow.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- when I read as I do some of the observations, when I look at those people who are given the responsibility they have in this House, the members of this government, the private members who support us in our activities, I have had no sense of diminution in the pride that I experienced four years ago. I would say, and I don’t know whether it will be reported other than in Hansard, that while one always experiences certain difficulties as a political leader, one thing that I shall state, and state publicly, is the support that I have had from my colleagues both in cabinet and caucus, as we endeavour to administer the rather complicated affairs of the Province of Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I hope so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I tell you something else, Mr. Speaker, we have some problems in an economic sense -- I know it and I’m going to refer to it; we have some. But I also tell you this, that I look at it relatively objectively.

Mr. Deans: Optimistically.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I see what we have achieved here in this province. I see what we have available to our young people in terms of the school system --

Mr. Lawlor: We’ve seen what they haven’t achieved.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and, heavens above, I will refer to their questionnaire. This is the new Liberal approach, policy by questionnaire. I’ll get around to that a little later.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We’re interested in his relative objectivity.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I see what is available; I see what we have achieved. I see what we have achieved in terms of medical service and I listen to the member for Ottawa East and his enlightened contribution on hospital or health costs, and they were tremendous. I look at what we have done and have available for the senior citizens of Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The job opportunities that have been created in the past year -- 152,000 new jobs created in this province in 1974.

I listen to the Leader of the Opposition talking about the Liberal Party being a party for the Seventies. I can only say this to you, Mr. Speaker; if the Liberal Party, with its present posture -- its lack of policy, its total contradiction -- is the party of the Seventies, then I say heaven help the people of the Province of Ontario if that were ever to take place.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. B. F. Nixon: Get ready for us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is whistling in the dark.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He is on his way out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the former Treasurer is not with us tonight, and I would like to pay tribute to him because he did a tremendous task in his period of responsibility in that very onerous portfolio.

I’m looking forward to the contributions to be made by the new Treasurer; and we are all looking forward to his budget whenever that day may come.

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the policies announced in the budget, policies that recognized with responsibility and with integrity -- and there are all kinds of integrity I would say to the member for Brant --

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Why does that bother the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: There are all kinds of integrity, and those across the way have no monopoly on it when it comes to matters of intellectual integrity. I say with respect they are sadly lacking, and they are.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): The member for Peel North looks a little upset.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We went through these programmes. We have introduced the GAINS programme for our senior citizens -- those people opposite don’t support it with enthusiasm.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mrs. Campbell: Because we started it.

Mr. Ruston: It is our programme, the government stole it, the Premier knows that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They have to be kidding.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Sure, let him tell us about energy tax.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Watch your blood pressure.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we moved through with free prescription drugs, tax credits, retail tax exemptions, but I want to talk about land speculation tax for a second.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, the member for Downsview in his profession, and the member for Sarnia in his -- and I’m not sure about the member for Ottawa East, because he used to do a lot of prosecuting; he tells me he doesn’t do any now -- tell me that wasn’t patronage. Who are they kidding?

Mr. Roy: That’s right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: On a point of privilege --

An hon. member: Sit down. The member made his speech.

Mr. Roy: It was not patronage. It was competence.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: I thought that was obvious.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa East has now added the ridiculous to the discussion here tonight.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker --

An hon. member: Why doesn’t he sit down?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: The member is a former assistant Crown attorney.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I worked for this government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the member for Downsview wants to get into a litany of what government appoints whom, I would only say to him and to the member for Ottawa East and the leader of the Liberal Party of the Province of Ontario, when it comes to patronage we are novices compared to the Liberal Party of Canada. We are absolute novices.

Mr. Roy: That’s not true.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We just don’t know what it’s all about compared to their federal friends, believe me. We just don’t know.

Mr. Singer: Name any.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We just don’t know.

Mr. Singer: Come on, name them. Name one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I don’t even have to go through a list of boards and commissions. Give me the list of solicitors for Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. How many token Tories are on it? How many token Tories are on it?

Hon. W. Newman: They can’t answer that one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would even guess --

Mr. Singer: Name one. Name one. The Premier is making accusations. Name one?

Mr. Lawlor: Who is he -- the pot or the kettle?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: Name one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not saying the member for Downsview is on the list for Central Mortgage and Housing at all.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Oh, that’s what the Premier is not saying?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would doubt --

Mr. Singer: Name one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that the member for Downsview is on that list. I would doubt that he is on the list.

Mr. Deans: He wouldn’t even make that one.

An hon. member: It’s okay, we’ll appoint him a judge.

Mr. Singer: Name one. The Premier is making accusations. Name one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh no, I didn’t say that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Name one of us who is on that list. Come on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member for Downsview that what I really wanted to know is how many token Tories were on the CMHC list. That’s really what I wanted to know.

Mr. Singer: Oh!

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s what I wanted to know.

Mr. Singer: Many more Tories than there are Liberals on any provincial government list.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I’m sure there are some.

Mr. Deans: If they are worse than you, does that make you right?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sure there are.

Mr. Singer: Name one of us who is on it. Is the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know I’m not.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hope the member for Downsview is listening carefully -- I am not sure that he was -- I didn’t say that the members opposite were on the list.

Mr. Singer: Oh!

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t say the members opposite were on the list. No, no.

Mr. Singer: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would never make that suggestion.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because they are not competent enough.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So, Mr. Speaker, we get back to the question of the economy. The part that was also contained in the budget statement, the one that has been difficult for this government -- and I acknowledge it -- is the recognition that we have some obligation to operate with constraint. It’s great to have people across the House say to us, as they do -- particularly in the Liberal opposition -- that we should cut expenditures at the same time as they promise to lift ceilings; to suggest to us that we should be spending less at the same time --

Mr. Roy: Cut waste.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- as we are to expand our programmes. They are not diametrically opposed; they are just totally irrelevant. It’s just plain stupidity --

Mr. Roy: We cut waste.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and that’s the only way that I can describe it.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about superministers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say that the budget presented by the Treasurer of this province was probably the most responsible budget presented in this country in the last fiscal year.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I listen to the present Minister of Finance -- and there is nothing personal in it; I think he is a man of ability -- and I hear him make speeches about restraint and constraints. I hear him warning the people of Canada about the economic situation we face. But I say to him -- I say it very frankly, and I say it to him through his close friends and colleagues here in the official opposition in Ontario -- for heaven’s sake stop talking about it and do something about it, because it is important for this country --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I heard the member for Ottawa East talking about the measures his leader was enunciating to solve the economic problems. I wish he would enumerate them for me. Maybe they are there somewhere in the Liberal questionnaire. Maybe out of the policy questionnaire we will get the Liberal Party’s economic position.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Doesn’t the Premier listen to my leader’s policy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say that it has got to be a lot more credible than what those people have been saying for the past six or seven months --

Mr. Breithaupt: We promise to do better.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: They promise? Why, for goodness’ sake!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition quoted as saying, “We have got to have more quality in education with less expenditure.” Reconcile that with what he has been saying to the Ontario Teachers’ Federation when he says to them that his party is going to lift ceilings if elected. Reconcile that with a decrease in expenditure. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I say it is totally impossible, and he knows it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It’s irresponsible.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He must think the public is stupid or something.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: What happened to the NDP?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, I’ll get around to them.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, my anniversary isn’t over for another 24 minutes. I have got 24 minutes yet -- no, we’ll be out of here --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I will say it is not the member for Downsview. I have never regarded him in that capacity.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get on with the debate.

Mr. Deans: This is like a family squabble between a couple of spoiled brats.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Oh, he must be kidding. His party voted with them all last night. Don’t give us that stuff.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, do you know who we miss here during these discussions? That’s the former member for Sudbury -- and I do miss him; I really do.

Mr. Singer: Oh, we’ll bring him back.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I miss him because with the exception of the member for Sarnia --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We are working on him too.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I don’t say it because he may not run again -- you know, there is really not the same enthusiasm, the same, shall we say, approach to some of the debates in this House. I can remember that the member for Sudbury would go right up and down these Treasury benches; heavens above, we were all ready to retire immediately after his speeches. We always felt sort of down-in-the-mouth; we knew that none of us could do the job. But, of course, we’d see him out in the hall and he would level with us and tell us what great people we were. We miss the member for Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: There used to be an honest man over there.

Mr. Singer: I had a letter from him. He is coming back.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was tempted tonight, because the member for York-Forest Hill, (Mr. Givens), who is a man of capacity -- he really is; I say that quite sincerely --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think he knows a darn thing about transportation, but he is a man of capacity.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You know, I think he was making a keynote address last weekend, or something of that nature --

Mr. Roy: No, it was just his budget contribution.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It was a speech.

Mr. Roy: It was a helluva good speech.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, whatever it was, he was making some references to a potential Liberal cabinet. You know, if I were unkind and if the hour weren’t late --

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and if I really thought that the members opposite would be patient --

Some hon. members: Go ahead! Say anything.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The temptation is great, Mr. Speaker, to go down the front row of the official opposition of this province, into the second row and the third row --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Come on, do it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but, you know, I have done it mentally and I haven’t found anything there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What can I say?

Mr. G. Nixon: They haven’t got it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What can I say?

Mr. Roy: Did the Premier get his eyes tested in the machine out there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker. With all my shortcomings, still I can see.

Mr. Roy: You’d never know it.

Mr. Bullbrook: But he can’t hear the people.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I have got some great quotes from the member for York Centre. I keep some of these materials --

Mr. P. G. Givens (York-Forest Hill): The Premier must have been at Windsor.

Mr. Breithaupt: Was he the lady in the fur wrap?

Hon. Ms. Winkler: The member got his today in the question period. Boy, he got it good.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I read what the Liberals say. I read what their president said. You know, Mr. Speaker, I want to keep it a little bit light here tonight, but I really wonder. I say this to the member for Brant: What sewer did the president of the Liberal Party of this province emerge from with some of the observations he made last week? They were totally uncalled for; totally uncalled for. Did the members hear them? Did they hear them? They were totally uncalled for. If that is the kind of politics those people want --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If that is the kind of politics they want, I am offended by it. I don’t like it.

Mr. Singer: That’s beneath the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t like it. I don’t like it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And what was said last weekend by people at the Liberal convention. Listen, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to battle in this House and in the province on the terms of policy incompetence. I have no quarrel with this. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that some of the observations being made and that have been made go far beyond that. Some of them have been made by the members in the opposition in this House, and I say that that is improper.

Mr. Singer: Remember Leslie Frost? He said he was wrong and he apologized.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I want to get around to the policy of the Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: Tell the Treasurer to be quiet.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. W. Newman: Who started it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Those people ought to stop that sort of stuff. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote Mr. Mosher from the Globe and Mail, which is one of my favourite morning newspapers. Is Peter still here?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Mosher writes: “The election platform will be decided at a policy convention in Windsor in February.” And then Mr. Blake is quoted as saying the following: “I am going to avoid the mistake of announcing too many policies for the Tories to shoot down and put costs on.”

That is the Liberal Party of Ontario’s campaign manager. And then, according to Mr. Mosher, and I hope I am quoting Mr. Mosher accurately, Mr. Blake is alleged to have said it “with a chuckle.” I think I can be excused, Mr. Speaker, if I repeat that with a chuckle. This is the same gentleman who has said in the Oakville paper and elsewhere, “No policy for the Liberal Party; no issues; the total campaign is devoted to destroying the member for Peel North” -- or words to that effect.

Mr. Eaton: What did they say about that in the London Free Press?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let them keep trying. They can’t make it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Those fellows have a death wish.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sarnia was talking about my education policy. I am delighted that he gives me such great credit for my education policy. I would only say this to him: I don’t purport to be an expert, and never have, in the field of education.

Mr. Bullbrook: And the people know that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right. That’s right and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the member for Sarnia should know it better than anyone else. He should know it better than anyone else, with all his expertise.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me say this, there are always problems in an educational system.

Mr. Bullbrook: You bet.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right. At this moment I would say one of the difficulties facing education is permissiveness, lack of self-discipline, and perhaps discipline. But I would say to the member for Sarnia: If that is true of the educational system, it is also true of the adult community. The school system gets its example from the adult society as much as anything else. And the member very well knows it.

Mr. Bullbrook: And the Premier led the system. He led it. He was the one responsible. He led it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sarnia is saying that I led the educational system. I must say that I am very flattered. I like to think I was very involved. I like to think I made a contribution. And I will say something else. I know the NDP will feel that I am waxing too eloquent, but with all the problems in the educational system of this province at this moment --

Mr. Deans: John Robarts wouldn’t have lowered himself to this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Wentworth that if Mr. Robarts were here he would probably be doing a better job of just what I am doing.

I would say to the member for Sarnia that with the difficulties as they exist in the educational system, and I acknowledge them, I would challenge him to find on any comparable basis of equal numbers a better system of public education available anywhere in this country. I don’t think he can do it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only say to the hon. member for Ottawa East not only were they tired of him at the end, but they were tired at the beginning. I’m going to tell him something else. We weren’t tired of him on this side of the House. We never tire.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk just very briefly about the one aspect of the economy that I haven’t even consulted the Treasurer about. I say this to him, knowing he can correct my observations anytime tomorrow, that while the main concern in the minds of many people that is emerging is the question of unemployment, and we recognize it, I think, Mr. Speaker, we would be in a very difficult position if we didn’t recognize at the same time, as governments at all levels will endeavour to come to grips with the question of unemployment, that inflation is not only still with us, but if there are not very real constraints both in terms of prices and wages over the next two years inflation in 1976 or 1977 could be far more significant than we’re experiencing at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, you can see the situations developing in the United Kingdom, in western Europe and to a certain extent in the United States. We happen in Canada to be still, in economic terms, one of the most fortunate jurisdictions in the western world. But if we do not as a society, and I’m not saying this in any partisan sense, exercise far greater restraint in terms of our own appetites in a material sense and in terms of our own costs and in terms of our own wages, all the efforts that are made to bring down unemployment could come back to haunt us two or three years down the road, if we’re not very careful in the process. I think it’s a responsibility of government, and it will be of this government as we approach the next budget, to recognize this very basic consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is true to state, as one traces the history of any jurisdiction, that the question of inflation has traditionally and historically been in the long run of greater economic significance and detriment than some of the other economic problems that these jurisdictions have experienced. If anyone thinks that inflation is still not the number one concern in a long-term and short-term sense, then I would say, Mr. Speaker, he is being very foolish indeed. While we will within the extent available to this province make every effort to relieve the unemployment situation as it exists, and as it may become worse because of the situation in the United States, we will not forget the other basic responsibility, that is, as it relates to inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say this, when I’m now moving away from the partisan side of these issues. One ingredient that I think is also very basic for all of us -- certainly as far as this House is concerned and certainly as far as I and my colleagues are concerned -- even with the difficulties, is that it is the responsibility of government to maintain the confidence of the people in their capacity to deal with the situations. There is a certain amount of fear, and there is a certain amount of concern that is evident, I think, in the consuming public and in the investing public today. As a government we have to give greater stability and greater confidence, because only in this way can we see the economy continue to move ahead.

I have encroached on what I know the Treasurer may be thinking and saying some few weeks down the road, but this is the basic issue. The basic problems facing this province and this country are the questions of unemployment, and the still-present problem of inflation both today and down the road. The budget that was presented by the former Treasurer took both of these matters into account. It was totally responsible, though not necessarily easy politically, but it is one of the things that I think is important to government at this time, and that is that we approach these problems with complete honesty, with complete integrity, in the sense that we have got to level with the people and tell them what the facts are.

And the facts are simply these: We have got problems in the economy; we have problems with unemployment; we have significant problems with inflation. They are not going to be cured by rhetoric; they are not going to be cured solely by government; there has to be a recognition by the people generally.

Mr. Lawlor: Nor by misrepresentation of the government’s debt position either.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member for Lakeshore --

An hon. member: Or by questionnaires.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): Or hot air.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Or by questionnaires. They have got to be realized and they have got to be effected by the people of this province, recognizing that we are --

Mr. Roy: He is just quoting Turner.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen -- that we are, Mr. Speaker, living beyond our means.

Mr. Bullbrook: This government’s drainage committee spent almost half a million dollars.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: The member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) himself spent in one year almost half a million dollars.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will defend the expenditures of this government without any question. But I say this to the member for Sarnia, if those people opposite don’t realize the seriousness and the significance of the situation, not looking for the next three months or six months --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: A half a million!

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- then I would say that this disturbs me, because I thought he had a little more to bring to bear than some of his colleagues.

Mr. Bullbrook: If the government had some integrity, half a million dollars wouldn’t have been spent.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bullbrook: Half a million dollars!

Hon. Mr. Davis: So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the members opposite I am not going to urge them to vote in support of the budget. It would be a waste of time; I know they are not going to do it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Oh, try!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Have a go!

Hon. Mr. Davis: But I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members opposite, the financial position of this province is of the highest; the budget was responsible. We recognize the need for constraint; and we don’t talk about it, we do something about it. And in terms of government programmes we believe we are serving the total interests of the public of this province.

So, Mr. Speaker -- yes, I will, I urge that they do reconsider and support the original motion.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The debate having been concluded, we will now place the various questions.

Hon. Mr. White moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Davis, that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Breithaupt moved, seconded by Mr. Deacon, that all of the words after “that” be struck out, and the following added thereto:

“This House regrets the lack of any government policy to effectively deal with the problems of inflation in areas of provincial concern;

“This House regrets the government’s failure to provide for an effective review of price increases by using a standing committee of the Legislature for such a purpose;

“This House regrets the government’s failure to have a satisfactory policy to reduce housing costs and review rents and to stimulate new housing construction through such measures as the removal of the provincial sales tax on residential building materials, and the servicing of lands in provincial land banks and other areas;

“This House regrets the government’s failure to control exorbitant increases in the costs of the regional governments implemented by this government; and

“This House regrets the government’s failure to have any effective programme to equalize the costs of living throughout the province or to plan for the balanced development of northern and eastern Ontario.”

Mr. MacDonald moved, seconded by Mr. Lewis, that the amendment be further amended by adding the following words:

“And this House further regrets:

“1. The government’s failure to pass back to consumers more than a tiny fraction of the huge revenue gains in sales tax and income tax, resulting from inflation;

“2. The government’s failure to protect Ontario families from the serious effects of inflation by increasing the supply of houses, cutting gasoline taxes, and establishing price and rent review boards with power to require rollbacks when justified;

“3. The government’s failure to recognize the plight of the 60 to 65 age group, many of whom are unable to find work and are forced to live on minimal fixed incomes, but are denied eligibility for GAINS and the McIlveen free prescription drug programme;

“4. The government’s failure to increase grants to northern municipalities by an amount which would adequately compensate them for the increased cost of services in northern areas and their lack of financial resources to meet these needs;

“5. The government’s failure to impose an excess profits tax on corporations which are obtaining windfall profits from world scarcities and the consequent enhanced value of their products;

“6. The government’s failure to obtain for the people of Ontario full ‘economic rent’ from the exploitation of their natural resources and its exhibition of naivety in assuming that a $125 million return from close to $2 billion production in the mining industry is a fair share for the owners of those resources; and

“7. The government’s substitution of largely ineffective land taxes for real action in acquiring and servicing development land and bringing down prices of lots.”

The House will vote first on Mr. MacDonald’s subamendment to the motion.

The House divided on the amendment to the amendment which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Nays

Bounsall Braithwaite Breithaupt Bullbrook Burr Campbell Davison Deacon Deans Edighoffer Ferrier Foulds Gaunt Givens Good Haggerty Laughren Lawlor MacDonald Newman (Windsor-Walkerville) Nixon (Brant) Renwick Roy Ruston Singer Stokes Worton Young -- 28.

Allan Auld Bales Beckett Birch Brunelle Davis Downer Eaton Evans Ewen Gilbertson Grossman Handleman Havrot Henderson Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton) Hodgson (York North) Irvine Johnston Kennedy Leluk MacBeth Maeck McIlveen McKeough Meen Miller Morningstar Newman (Ontario South) Nixon (Dovercourt) Nuttall Parrott Root Scrivener Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Villeneuve Walker Wardle Wells White Winkler Yaremko -- 45.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 28, the “nays” are 45.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I believe we are prepared to accept the same vote on the amendment to the motion.

The House divided on the amendment to the motion, which was negatived by the same vote.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

Mr. Breithaupt: We will accept a reverse vote on the motion.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. White’s motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, which was approved by the same vote reversed.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Let’s make it unanimous.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): The minister is a dreamer.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I believe we will revert to the opening procedure so that the Treasurer may introduce his supply bill.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

SUPPLY ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act for granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service for the Fiscal Year ending March 31, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: Just under the wire.

Hon. Mr. Davis: There is five per cent less in there for some of us.

SUPPLY ACT

Hon. Mr. McKeough moves second reading of Bill 203, An Act for granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service for the Fiscal Year ending March 31, 1975.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 203, An Act for granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service for the Fiscal Year ending March 31, 1975.

Bill 111, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, 1972.

Bill 118, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Clerk of the House: Order for third reading of Bill 179, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Before I move third reading of this bill I would like to say that I appreciate the co-operation of the people who sat with me on the committee and also their presentation in the House. I think it was a very serious matter, and I would like, if I might, to put on the record a word or two in regard to collective bargaining as was incorporated in a report prepared by the federal government, following a comprehensive review for the collective bargaining legislation in that jurisdiction by Mr. Jacob Finkleman, QC, and he had this to say --

Mr. Deans: On a point of order, sir, if I may. It is unusual and I think out of order for a statement to be made prior to the moving of the third reading. It may well be that the minister would like to debate the bill and add something by way of comment with regard to the content of the bill, but it certainly would be highly improper for him to make a public statement about collective bargaining since, in fact, the bill has already passed the stage of consideration of its principle.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s really not quite so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: It is, it is a ministerial statement.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It is not.

Mr. Deans: Yes, it is.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, it is not. It’s a comment. If the member will just wait and listen and let the Speaker make that ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It seemed to me it was more in the matter of an explanation -- and certainly we don’t want a debate -- but there is nothing wrong with the minister moving the third reading and adding any comments that he may wish to make. It would be more in order.

Mr. MacDonald: Move third reading and then he can comment.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, it is an unusual thing and I don’t want to be argumentive. We weren’t argumentive through all the considerations, and it’s unusual that the point is raised. Had you been in the House this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the Minister without Portfolio, the former Treasurer, was allowed to do this, and no one said a word -- not one soul, not a soul. If you listen, Mr. Speaker, I think I will be somewhat complimentary.

Mr. MacDonald: Move third reading and then speak to it.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Let him move third reading and then speak to it.

Mr. Deans: We are not objecting to him speaking.

Mr. Speaker: I think perhaps if the hon. minister would move third reading.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Okay. I thought --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. Order, please. I believe the hon. minister moves third reading.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves third reading of Bill 179, An Act to amend the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I thought that this was worthwhile putting on the record in regard --

Mr. Deans: Is it in regard to this bill?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, it has a very great application, it has a great application, that is correct.

Mr. Deans: Is it in regard to the contents of the bill? Is it specific?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, it has application, and to all parts of bargaining, that is right. It is not specific and I don’t have to be specific.

Now, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have called third reading of the bill.

Order, please. Thank you very much.

Time is getting late and we are wasting time. We don’t want to get into a debate on principles of the bill and that sort of business. Is it just an explanatory note in connection with the bill?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I have a quote to make which is completely relevant to the whole consideration of the bill.

Mr. Deans: He is in a debate.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am not in a debate. Okay, if they want a debate, go right ahead.

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. Order, please.

On third reading a person may make a statement in support of the bill or against it and sum it up, and that’s all.

Mr. Deans: But the minister has moved it --

Mr. Speaker: I understand he just wants to explain something to the House. Do we get permission for him to do that?

Mr. Singer: No, no.

Mr. Deans: Not at all.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I am afraid it is out of order, Mr. Minister. Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the member for Wentworth just came back from Cuba and he knows what democracy is -- and he is employing it.

Mr. MacDonald: The minister lived too long under John Diefenbaker.

Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber and took her seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Pauline M. McGibbon (Lieutenant Governor): Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the legislative assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said legislative assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

The Clerk Assistant: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed:

Bill 55, An Act to prohibit Unfair Practices in Sales to Consumers.

Bill 111, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, 1972.

Bill 118, An Act to amend the Condominium Act.

Bill 133, An Act to establish the Ontario Land Corporation.

Bill 179, An Act to amend The Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972.

Bill 182, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Bill Pr23, An Act respecting Dominion Cartage Limited and Downtown Storage Company Limited.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty’s name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour: We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and faithful subjects of the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario in session assembled, approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty’s person and government, and humbly beg to present for Your Honour’s acceptance, a bill intituled, An Act granting to Her Majesty Certain Sums of Money for the Public Service for the Fiscal Year ending March 31, 1975.

Clerk of the House: The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth thank Her Majesty’s dutiful and loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill in Her Majesty’s name.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the province was then pleased to deliver the following gracious speech.

Hon. Mrs. McGibbon: Mr. Speaker and members of the legislative assembly. Before bringing this fourth session of the 29th Parliament of Ontario to an end, it is my pleasure to present a review of some of the achievements of this assembly in the past year.

As hon. members are aware, the major problem in 1974 for Ontario as elsewhere was continuing inflation. Consumer prices last year rose by an average of 10.5 per cent, yet Canada and Ontario experienced lower inflation rates than those evidenced in other industrial countries.

Ontario’s unemployment rate averaged approximately 4.1 per cent, slightly above the 1973 level. However, favourable circumstances have prevailed, as a result of which the province was generally able to provide employment for persons entering the steadily increasing labour force, and about 152,000 new jobs were created during the year.

At the same time, to help control the growth rate of provincial expenditures, my government announced its intention of holding the number of positions in the Ontario civil service throughout 1975 to the April 1, 1974, level. This step was taken in the belief that the existing approved complement of 71,705 employees, excluding members of the Ontario Provincial Police, will allow sufficient flexibility within the operations of the government, while ensuring that the level of service to the people of Ontario will not be adversely affected.

Several initiatives announced in the budget last spring were directed towards offsetting the impact of rising costs on Ontario citizens, and especially so for persons on fixed incomes.

As initially announced on July 1, Ontario’s Guaranteed Annual Income System for the elderly, disabled and blind, known as GAINS, established a programme of monthly payments to eligible persons to ensure a minimum annual income of $2,600 for single people and $5,200 for couples. A subsequent increase in federal old age security and pension support, in response to higher living costs, was supplemented by the Ontario government, which raised the GAINS minimum income to $2,700 and $5,400, respectively, on Oct. 1.

In a further increase, effective Jan. 1, 1975, the GAINS guarantees moved to $2,766 for single people, and $5,532 per couple. This second increase brings an additional 2,000 people into the programme, and raises the total payments by the province to $84.5 million in the current fiscal year.

A new drug benefit plan was introduced on Sept. 1 extending further the benefits of the province’s health system to allow over half a million residents to receive prescribed drugs without charge. All persons who receive the federal guaranteed income supplement or Ontario GAINS or family benefits supports, are automatically eligible under the plan.

Universally applied benefits announced in the 1974 budget include retail sales tax exemption covering a wide range of consumer products, and amounting to an estimated reduction in potential revenues of $43 million.

Further, enriched Ontario tax credits, including the property tax credits, estimated to cost $70 million, were supplemented by an additional grant of $124 million to municipal governments to keep local property tax increases to a minimum.

Monthly workmen’s compensation payments were increased to $260 effective July 1. and earnings ceilings raised to $12,000 per year.

A higher general minimum wage rate of $2.25 an hour came into effect on Oct. 1, with a minimum for construction industry employees of $2.50 per hour. A further increase is scheduled for May 1, 1975.

As part of a resolve to meet the need for housing for the growing population in this province, my government has sought and encouraged greater involvement by the private sector in a broad range of programmes. Announcement last fall of the first agreements with 11 developers for a potential total of 12,400 housing units to 1976 under the Housing Action Programme, is one illustration of the progress being made. Some 30 additional developer agreements are being negotiated. One-third of the 3,000 units scheduled to start in several municipalities by the end of 1974 are within the income range of the provincial Home Ownership Made Easy programme, as are a further 636 units which will be started by the end of March.

By a provision of the budget last spring, the province will make unconditional grants to area municipalities to ensure that local taxes will not be increased to service new developments of this kind.

Further, my government has taken steps to help stem the rapid climb in prices on the housing market which has taken place alongside a somewhat slower rate of increase in the supply of land.

A new tax levied on land speculators has been aimed directly at discouraging speculation activities and a realization of windfall profits by anyone in Ontario while providing specified exemptions with respect to personal residences and recreational property and farm and Crown land.

At the same time, a land transfer tax has been introduced designed to discourage non-residents from purchasing and holding land, but allowing for exemptions in cases where the purchase is considered to be of significant economic benefit to Ontario.

Plans to improve essential services for people in remote areas of Ontario are progressing. An air communication network for northwestern Ontario is scheduled for full service in 1977 with norOntair links between 12 isolated communities and national and regional air services at Dryden, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie.

My government’s authorization to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission to implement norOntair Northwest follows the success of a comparable demonstration programme in northeastern Ontario over the past three years.

On May 31, 1974, a second subsidiary compact to the 10-year general development agreement with the government of Canada was signed for northwestern Ontario. Hon. members will recall that a first subsidiary agreement was reached in February for several development projects in the Cornwall area. The northwestern Ontario agreement is for seven specific projects, including sewage and road construction and townsite infrastructure assistance, at a cost of $42 million over a three-year period.

Subsequently, my government also announced plans to increase the province’s regional priority budget for northwestern Ontario to meet needs beyond those served by regular ministry programmes. Funds have been increased from $2.4 million in 1973-1974 to $9.3 million for 28 projects in the current fiscal year. This assistance, while continuing to place emphasis on building a sound, economic base in various parts of the region, has widened the scope of the programme to include social and cultural initiatives as well as a new project to train native people in policing and probationary services.

The special programme to obtain health practitioners for remote or underserviced areas of the province placed its 200th physician last summer, and 60 dentists have so far been recruited.

In December a new rotation scheme was launched under a one-year agreement with the Ontario College of Family Physicians to serve communities that are unable to attract permanent resident physicians. More than 80 doctors have indicated their willingness to take part in the programme in rotation periods of a minimum of two weeks each. The experience at Armstrong, the first locality to receive this novel service, will provide a base for evaluation and possible expansion of the programme to other remote, northern communities.

A unique new course was offered during the 1974 summer to train native Indian people as school teachers. Since then, most of the 96 successful candidates have been teaching or otherwise assisting in the education of native students. The project is a result of close co-operation between native peoples’ associations, the government of Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Education. The second phase of the training programme will be given next summer.

A plan has been developed to promote the use of Ontario’s 5,000 elementary and secondary schools as focal centres of the communities they serve. The province’s school boards are being offered administrative and financial support for community school projects. In addition, my government has strongly endorsed full community use of school facilities after regular school hours by groups and agencies working in concert with their local boards of education.

Education ceilings announced for 1975 will allow a 13 per cent increase in school board expenditures, amounting to an additional $350 million over the current year. An added new form of assistance provides a provincial allowance of $80 for an elementary pupil to enrich the programmes offered at this fundamental stage of educational experience. At the post-secondary level, provincial support to colleges and universities will be increased from $659 million in the current year to $768 million for the next academic year, an average increase of 16 per cent. A new advisory council on Franco-Ontario affairs has been established to assist the government in matters affecting French-speaking university and college students, including manpower training and cultural affairs.

Cultural and recreational activities play an important part in sustaining the well-being of all our citizens in the life of the community. In support of this belief, my government recently created a new Ministry of Culture and Recreation, which will give greater recognition to the multicultural nature of our society. It will be the task of the new ministry to ensure the preservation and enhancement of Ontario’s cultural heritage and to stimulate creative excellence on the part of the individual as well as for the benefit of the community as a whole.

A new Consumer Reporting Act proclaimed on July 2 protects consumers in credit and personal information reporting, granting them the right to know what is reported and to whom. The law also makes provision for correction of false information. Complementary legislation in the form of a Business Practices Act establishes sanctions against a range of undesirable practices that may occur in consumer sales.

Maintaining a secure and adequate supply of electrical power is of crucial importance to industrial as well as some consumers across Ontario. My government has given approval to several power development projects by Ontario Hydro for 1977 up to 1982. They include construction of a new generating station at Wesleyville, expansion of the Pickering generation station and construction of two additional heavy water plants in the Bruce nuclear power project. Following an extensive and successful public consultation process, the route of a 500-kilowatt transmission line from Nanticoke to Pickering has been determined and the government has given approval for its construction at an estimated cost of $360 million.

Significant advances have been made towards overcoming the problems posed by growing volumes of solid waste and for recovering useful materials presently lost in landfill operations. Last spring my government announced plans to proceed in a joint undertaking with the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in what is known as the Watts from Waste project. The goal of this experiment, to be carried out at the Lakeview generating station, is to use processed solid waste as a fuel in the production of electrical power.

In the fall my government took the initiative in launching a comprehensive province-wide programme to reclaim and recycle useful resources from solid waste, with the ultimate aim of replacing garbage disposal with a reclamation system serving 90 per cent of the population. Initially, six reclamation and recycling plants are to be built at a cost of $70 million for the Kingston, Sudbury, London, Metropolitan Toronto and Halton-Peel areas.

Growing world-wide concerns about ensuring adequate production and efficient distribution of food make it incumbent on the government to encourage the preservation and use of arable lands for agricultural production. To this end, a new food land development branch has been created in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Among its responsibilities, the branch will help develop programmes to maintain and encourage food production in the interim on government-owned lands which are suitable for the purpose, although intended for other uses in the future.

In the spring, extensive damage was caused in Kitchener, Cambridge, Brantford, Paris and neighbouring communities when the Grand River overflowed its banks. The work of the local disaster relief committee in the areas affected was carried out with tremendous will and spirit. Relief made available by the province offered up to $4 in financial assistance for every $1 in locally-raised funds -- a more generous measure than in similar previous disasters -- as serious losses were experienced by property owners unable to secure flood insurance.

Ontario was host to the 15th annual premiers’ conference in September, at which Canada’s provincial leaders reaffirmed a commitment to continue interprovincial co-operation in the development of economic policies. The emphasis is on the formulation of effective measures over the shortest term, while maintaining a broad perspective of sound long-term planning. Overall, Ontario’s economy experienced a real growth of almost four per cent in 1974. While lower than the near record rate of approximately seven per cent achieved in 1973, this means that the province was nevertheless able to maintain the momentum of economic growth at a very satisfactory level.

At the close of what has been, as evidenced in this review, an active and productive session of this assembly, may I on behalf of the people of Ontario, commend its members on their many accomplishments. And now I declare this session prorogued.

In our Sovereign’s name, I thank you.

God bless the Queen and Canada.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the legislative assembly, it is the will and pleasure of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor that this legislative assembly be prorogued, and this legislative assembly is accordingly prorogued.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House prorogued at 12:50 o’clock, a.m.