The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): I am delighted to be able to bring to the attention of the House news of an event that took place last week in Fredericton, NB, when the Bill Tetley rink from Thunder Bay won the 1975 Canadian curling championship. This is the first time that the team from northwestern Ontario has won the Brier.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Northern Ontario, not northwestern.

Mr. Jessiman: Northwestern Ontario, sir. The team leaves this afternoon for Perth, Scotland, where it will be participating in the world’s championship. The players are Bill Tetley, Rick Lang, Bill Hodgson and Peter Hnatiw. I am sure that everyone here would wish me to wish them success in the Silver Broom.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ELECTRICAL POWER INQUIRY COMMISSION

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, on July 11, 1974, this government announced it would hold public hearings into the long-range planning of Ontario’s electrical power system. At that time, it was stated that these hearings would be held by the Ontario Energy Board or the proposed Environmental Review Board or an independent commission.

I am able to announce today, sir, the government’s decision to establish an independent commission of inquiry into the long-range planning of Ontario’s power needs. The commission will focus on the broad conceptual consequences of alternative ways of supplying sufficient electrical power during the period 1983 to 1993.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): The provincial secretary will be dead then.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It will consider a wide -- the member is dead now.

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the provincial secretary say something important and call the whole damn thing off?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Why doesn’t the member listen? He might learn something.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): He might learn something.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It will consider a wide range of social and economic factors, such as provincial planning policies; the impact of possible new generating stations and transmission corridors on the environment and farm lands; the economic base of, and social effects on, adjacent communities; commercial and residential energy requirements; industrial development; energy conservation and so on.

The commission will also examine more technical matters, including electrical load growth, system reliability, the management of heat discharge from generating stations, power pooling and linkages with neighbouring utilities, technology and the security of fuel supplies.

I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this special commission will be concerned more with broad planning principles and concepts than with narrow technical details. The public needs to know what demands for electricity will be placed upon Ontario Hydro in the long term, how these needs should be met and what impact this would have on Ontario’s way of life and its physical environment.

The consequences of these policy decisions are so far-reaching and so directly affect the lives of Ontario citizens that we cannot make them hastily or arbitrarily. Consequently, the main thrust of the commission’s activities will be the holding of public hearings throughout Ontario. It is possible these open discussions could take as long as two years to complete. We want to ensure that all relevant concerns and points of view are considered. These essential public hearings represent a significant step forward in the open planning process to which this government is committed.

The commission will hold preliminary public hearings to define the issues which will subsequently be discussed in greater depth at the main hearings. The preliminary hearings should provide an educational forum and catalyst for later public participation and will enable the commission to establish procedures to be followed during the main hearings.

The need for such extensive public hearings is self-evident. Ontario Hydro is one of the world’s largest electric power utilities. While it had assets in 1972 of about $5.5 billion, by 1983 -- just eight years from now -- these assets would exceed $30 billion if Ontario Hydro’s present plans are approved. A potential public investment of this magnitude and importance alone warrants widespread public involvement in directing its future growth.

While the commission’s focal point is long-range planning, there are certain electrical power generating and transmission projects that Ontario Hydro considers it must initiate during the tenure of the commission. These projects include a generating station on the North Channel of Georgian Bay; extra-high voltage supply lines to Kitchener, London and the Ottawa-Cornwall area, and a second extra-high voltage transmission line out of the Bruce generating station.

It was previously announced that the hearing body into long-range planning would also he asked to consider and report on these short-range projects on a priority basis from the standpoint of need as well as from an environmental and socio-economic basis. However, we do not wish to unduly burden or delay the commission by bogging it down from the start with these projects. Consequently, the commission will be requested to consider and report only on the need for these particular projects.

If, however, further public hearings should be necessary to deal with specific aspects of transmission line routing or generating station location insofar as these projects are concerned, they will be assigned to some other appropriate body. This will ensure proper public examination of these projects while freeing the commission to proceed with its broader responsibilities.

I wish to stress, Mr. Speaker, that individuals and organizations throughout Ontario will be assured of ample opportunities to make their views known to the commission at the public hearings. In fact, we are taking this government’s commitment to public participation in the planning process a major step forward by providing funding for potential participants at the hearings. This funding of public involvement in the planning process is purely experimental. It is the first time such a direct step has been tried by this government.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The first time in 32 years.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The commission will be allocated funds for distribution at its discretion to participants. Quite frankly, we do not know at this time how the commission will handle the delicate judgements as to which groups should receive financial assistance in preparing and making their presentations. This will be discussed in greater detail with the commission chairman.

The emphases on public hearings, open planning and the funding of participants all support the principles enunciated in Tuesday’s Throne Speech to safeguard citizens against the growing complexity of government and its relationship with the individual, and to ensure their protection against arbitrary judgements.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): It’s about time the government realized that.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): It’s too late.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): What about arbitrary policies?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): What about arbitrary ministers?

Mr. Lewis: It’s all over. In fact, the government caused the problem.

Mr. Cassidy: They are the problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister will continue.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Members opposite don’t like it, do they?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It must be all right; it’s making members over there unhappy.

Mr. Lewis: No, I am pleased the minister came in. I have some questions.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why doesn’t the member sound like he’s pleased?

Mr. Lawlor: It shows we listen to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The commission will report its findings and recommendations to the government through the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. The government will establish policy guidelines, based upon these recommendations, for planning Ontario Hydro’s growth and the power needs of Ontario for the remainder of this century.

I am also pleased to announce, sir, at this time that the government has been successful in attracting an eminent international engineer and scientific scholar to serve as chairman of the commission. He is Dr. Arthur Porter, professor of industrial engineering at the University of Toronto and current chairman of the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council.

Dr. Porter was educated at the University of Manchester and subsequently completed his post-doctorate work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not doing badly.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is perhaps the first scholar to inaugurate three new university chairs in three different subjects -- instrument technology at the Royal Military College of Science in England; light electrical engineering at Imperial College, University of London; and in 1961, industrial engineering at the University of Toronto.

Dr. Porter was co-builder of Europe’s first analogue computer. In fact, he is honoured in having his master and doctoral theses on this subject displayed in London’s celebrated Science Museum.

Dr. Porter came to Canada in 1949 as head of the research division of Ferranti Electric Ltd., Toronto. He was later dean of engineering at the University of Saskatchewan. He chaired Ontario’s Committee on Automation and Employment in the mid-1960s, was deeply involved with Expo ’67 as chairman of the Committee on Science and Medicine, and subsequently was appointed by the federal government as first chairman of the Canadian Environmental Advisory Council. His outstanding achievements as a scientist and scholar, including the authorship of three specialized books, earned him the distinction in 1970 of becoming one of the few engineers to be accepted as a Fellow in the Royal Society of Canada.

We are, Mr. Speaker, most pleased that Dr. Porter has accepted the challenge of devoting so much of his time and energies to the long hours of hearings, travel and deliberations this commission will require.

Mr. Lewis: That is a first-rate appointment, by the way.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will shortly announce the names of the other members of the commission who will be selected in consultation with Dr. Porter.

Mr. Speaker, these hearings may well be the most important in this decade. The sheer scope of factors and values embraced in a public debate on long-term planning should involve all aspects of Ontario’s future

-- economic, social, environmental, agricultural, urban planning, industrial growth and so on. The hearings should also bring into public focus basic philosophies about much of the kind of life we want for the next century and what price we are prepared to pay for its achievement.

MERCURY LEVELS IN ONTARIO WATER

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform this House that significant reduction has been achieved in the mercury levels in fish specimens sampled and analysed from 1970 to 1974. I am tabling for the hon. members the results of a sampling programme carried out in the English-Wabigoon and St. Clair river systems.

We have found improvements which show mercury levels 40 per cent below 1970 levels and, while those are still not acceptable for a general full restoration of commercial fishing, some specimens from the lakes sampled showed levels within the acceptable 0.5 parts per million level.

My colleague, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), advises me that his ministry will continue to monitor test results of mercury levels in fish during the next few months to determine which species and which lakes can be reopened for commercial fishing by the native people.

This weekend, a team of Japanese experts will begin a 10-day visit to Canada at the invitation of the National Indian Brotherhood. My ministry, as well as other provincial ministries and federal agencies, has been invited to exchange information and to discuss mercury contamination with the visitors from Japan. These scientists have worked on, and carried out research into the world’s worst contamination experience at Minimata. We welcome this opportunity to work with the National Indian Brotherhood, which has demonstrated its concern by conscientious work on the problem, and those medical scientists with first-hand experience in the health and engineering problems related to mercury. We will be pleased to advise the hon. members of the outcome of this exchange.

The government’s programme of abatement and monitoring mercury discharges in our waters has been successful. Let me briefly summarize our programme and activities to date.

Since we first became aware of the hazard and the extent of mercury contamination in the province in the late 1960s, this government initiated an all-out programme to determine the public health hazard and to provide effective control of mercury in our water. Our prime concern then, as now, was the well-being of every resident of this province whose health, comfort and livelihood may be affected.

Through the Ministry of the Environment control orders imposed since 1970, my ministry has effectively eliminated the flow of mercury in industrial effluents. By the end of this year not an ounce of mercury will be entering the St. Clair and English-Wabigoon river systems from any industrial source.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): What about compensation for the past?

Hon. W. Newman: In co-operation with the federal fisheries agency of Environment Canada, we have constantly monitored and analysed the mercury levels of fish in the affected waters. As I stated earlier, the data we are receiving indicates a notable reduction since 1970. The Ministry of Health has been monitoring the blood levels of the residents in the affected areas.

I am pleased to provide this new analytical data and I hope it will assist all those interested in seeking and finding a satisfactory ultimate solution to these conditions.

TRIBUTE TO REV. MARTIN W. PINKER

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an outstanding resident of Ontario, whose unfailing public service over two decades has been cut short by illness.

I regret to have to announce to the Legislature the resignation from the minister’s advisory council on the treatment of the offender of its first chairman, Rev. Martin W. Pinker, OBE, truly one of the most distinguished leaders of the movement for correctional reform in Canada.

I know that members on all sides of the House will join with me in wishing Mr. Pinker well as he recovers at his Willowdale home from the heart attack which he recently suffered.

Mr. Pinker joined the then Department of Reform Institutions in 1958, having already gained an international reputation in the field of correctional rehabilitation. The previous year his work had been recognized by the award of the Order of the British Empire by Her Majesty the Queen, who upon learning of his departure for Canada, sent him a personal message of good wishes for his success here.

Canada’s gain has been England’s loss. Mr. Pinker has been a director of the Central Aftercare Association and general secretary of the National Association of Discharged Prisoners Aid Societies for England and Wales, and from 1951 onward he has been a regular visitor to the USA and Canada.

In 1952 he went to Germany at the request of the United Nations high commissioner to investigate the problems of young displaced persons who were incarcerated in German prisons and to advise on aftercare procedures for them. As we prepare to receive the fifth United Nations Conference on Prevention of Crime and treatment of offenders in Toronto this September, we are losing the services of a man who attended the first such world meeting in Geneva in 1955, and had much to do with the preparations in Ontario for the second in 1960.

Mr. Pinker, as head of men’s aftercare for the British prison system for some 20 years, was actively associated with penal reform within the United Nations, the American Congress of Corrections, and the International Prisoners Aid Association of which he was president in 1954.

When the member for Ontario (Mr. Dymond) was Minister of Reform Institutions in 1957, he determined to set up an advisory council along the lines of that established by the British Home Secretary in 1944, and he wanted Mr. Pinker as its chairman. After a short period as chairman of the Training Schools Advisory Board, Mr. Pinker became the first chairman of MACTO in November, 1959, when the body was established by order-in-council.

The then Premier, Hon. Leslie M. Frost, called the first meeting of MACTO in the executive council room and told the members: “You are going to advise the minister. There will be no holds barred in looking at these things, to enable you to find solutions and ways.”

For 15 years, first as chairman and latterly as a most active member, Rev. Martin Pinker, OBE, has seen that MACTO’s tradition of fearless independent thought and advice has been upheld.

Mr. Speaker, let Hansard record the tribute of this government and this Legislature, as he now steps down with reluctance, but with a determination to continue to advise me by mail from the considerable depth of his wisdom and knowledge.

Mr. C. J. S. Apps (Kingston and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I hope I won’t be called out of order if I add a few personal comments to the statement which the Minister of Correctional Services has just made.

Mr. Speaker: All right. I think with respect I should point out that the substance is not really the material for a statement at this time. It should have been done before the orders of the day but, since it has been made, we’ll allow the hon. member to put his addendum on it.

Mr. Apps: What I wanted to do was to make a personal comment to the statement of the Minister of Correctional Services in that Rev. Martin Pinker was chairman of MACTO during my three years as Minister of Correctional Services.

I would like to say to the members of the Legislature that during that period of time he made a tremendous contribution to our ministry. He was a very kind, sympathetic, enthusiastic and competent chairman of MACTO. I would like to say thank you to him for the help that he was to me, and to wish him all the best and hope that his recovery is complete and comes along very soon. Thank you.

OTOPLASTY REINSTATED AS OHIP BENEFIT

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, recently an OHIP bulletin was released on a routine basis eliminating otoplasty, an operation to straighten a person’s ears, as an OHIP benefit because it was cosmetic surgery.

Our previous policy, which paid for this procedure for young children but not adults, had been appealed successfully by an adult who had been denied the benefit.

As a result of my review of the decision, I have requested that otoplasty be reinstated as an insured benefit. We will shortly be advising physicians and hospitals of this decision officially.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

ELECTRICAL POWER INQUIRY COMMISSION

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to have some clarification from the policy secretary for natural resources on his statement regarding the appointment of the royal commission on Hydro projects.

Since at least a major part of the proposals from Hydro were given approval in principle by the now Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), the former Minister of Energy, and since the vice-president of Hydro has indicated that he doesn’t believe there should be public participation in Hydro’s decision except a decade in advance, are we to presume from, let’s say the central part of the minister’s statement, where he said certain projects like the new atomic plant on the north shore of Lake Huron would not come under the ambit of this investigation, that in fact the next decade’s work in Hydro will not come under the thorough review of the royal commission that, let’s say, the total plan would have?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member will read the statement he will find I did state they would be studied by the commission, there would be hearings, that they would be given top priority. However, unless it was proven to be absolutely necessary the commission would only deal with the need for the project, rather than any other aspects. That’s merely from the standpoint of the priority of those particular projects referred to by my colleague in his statement, on July 11 I guess it was, and the statement which I made subsequent to that.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would this priority inquiry include looking into the matter of the Bradley Junction-Georgetown power line?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think, Mr. Speaker, the decision has already been made on that particular project. I am not too certain; with all of the different locations and transmission lines and so on, sometimes I’m apt to confuse one project with another. But if, in fact, the decision has not been made and hearings have not been held, it would be included. It seems to me on that particular project hearings have been held on that particular section, have they not?

Mr. Gaunt: Not as to the need.

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

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Since there have been no hearings as to the need for this particular line, wouldn’t the minister agree this is vital with respect to this particular line, in view of the great public outcry in respect of the use of good agricultural land and other factors?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to give an opinion on that particular area. I just want to make sure that when I give an answer we are talking about the same location. I’ll look into that and advise the member.

Mr. Roy: The minister’s only job is to read the statements he makes.

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

INVESTIGATIONS INTO DREDGING INDUSTRY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, I would like to put a question to the Premier in the absence of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and the Provincial Secretary of Justice (Mr. Clement). Has the government been involved in any of the investigations leading up to the charges on matters of collusion in the dredging industry in the province? And can the Premier straighten out what appears to be a difference of opinion as to the involvement of the OPP and possibly the municipal force in Hamilton?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General who is attending a meeting of Attorneys General at the moment, I have asked for this information and from the information I have received the OPP was not contacted by the RCMP with a request either to assist or to investigate the events that have been referred to.

Mr. Lewis: What?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Was it possible that there was a communication at a higher level, let us say either with the Attorney General’s office or the Solicitor General’s office, in this regard? Would the Premier be able to determine that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t determined that, Mr. Speaker; all things are possible. As I say, I haven’t discussed it with the Attorney General himself. This information came to me, I think, either Monday or Tuesday -- at least I noticed it in the press and I asked for this report because I knew the Attorney General was at this other meeting. While all things are possible I think it highly unlikely.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Supplementary question: It is obvious to everyone the OPP have been involved along the way. Would the Premier find out whether anyone approached the Ontario Provincial Police with regard to the necessity for an inquiry by them into the actions in the Hamilton harbour area in particular? If they did, would he then be prepared to make a statement as to how the OPP became involved and on the degree of involvement they’ve had during the course of the investigation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how it is so obvious that the OPP have been involved. As I say, my information, coming from the Deputy Solicitor General and coming from the OPP, is that they were not asked to be involved.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on the Premier’s answer: In view of the fact that the charges apparently are under the Criminal Code, which is clearly within the ambit of provincial jurisdiction, and the offences were committed in this province, did the Premier find out why the OPP or the local police in Hamilton were not in fact the ones carrying on this investigation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of all the members in this House, I think the hon. member should totally understand that there are a number of cases under the Criminal Code which are prosecuted here in this province where we have the responsibility for the administration of justice. I think the hon. member knows full well that there are drug cases --

Mr. Roy: That’s not under the code.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- there are other cases that are still part of the code and are investigated by the RCMP.

Mr. Roy: That’s not under the code.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, there are, there are. I am just saying to the hon. member that from my information -- and I emphasize that I have not discussed it with the Attorney General -- from the information I have, the OPP was not in fact requested.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have a supplementary?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a curious supplementary: Is the Premier not aware that the Solicitor General of Canada said quite explicitly that the Ontario Provincial Police had been contacted by the RCMP, had examined the material, had indicated they were incapable of handling it, and that was part of the reason for the delay in the RCMPs eventual investigation? Is the Premier saying that Warren Allmand is simply wrong on his facts?

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Yes.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said -- and I think that the Attorney General perhaps can enlighten the House to a greater extent because I am sure he has taken a look at it himself personally -- I think it is conceivable that the Solicitor General of Canada could be wrong.

Mr. Lewis: That’s very interesting on something like this.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m just saying it could be. I don’t know.

An hon. member: It won’t be the first time.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, perhaps with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will put a new question to the Premier on the same subject.

Mr. Yakabuski: The Leader of the Opposition is in trouble.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Since this involves a cabinet minister in Ottawa and the Provincial Police force, we should really have a full statement --

Mr. Yakabuski: The Grits are in trouble. They are backing off.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- in which the facts of the case, from our point of view, can be put forward. Would the Premier undertake to provide that?

He indicates yes.

I would also like to ask the Premier if he is not concerned that one of the people indicated under the actions taken in the last 48 hours, I believe, is the president of C. A. Pitts, a firm that does extensive business with this province in many of our undertakings, the Arnprior dam being one of the lesser ones, I suppose. Has there been any evaluation of the tendering procedures used involving these principal companies in Canada, by way of the business they do with this province, in light of the information that has been made public?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition would repeat his question and say exactly what it is he wants me to say.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier can decide what he wants to say.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What is it he is trying to do? Is he trying to convict somebody before he has even come to trial? Is that what he is attempting to do?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): That’s his attitude.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. B. F. Nixon: It’s a little early to push that panic button.

Mr. G. Nixon: The Liberal leader goofed again. He goofed again.

Mr. Yakabuski: He is desperate these days.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Is that the member for Fort William who is heckling?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Premier if he is not concerned that this government gave a major contract to C. A. Pitts without a tender when it now appears that the president of that company is being indicted under charges having to do with a tendering procedure that is illegal.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, surely the Leader of the Opposition knows this much -- and if he doesn’t he should talk to his friend from Downsview or to the legal expert in all criminal matters seated right behind him --

Mr. Roy: It’s obvious that the Premier is not an expert.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that for me to answer his question when this firm and this man, amongst others, have been charged, I say would be totally irresponsible and I don’t intend to answer it. I think it’s a horrible question.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, I’d like to put a question --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier has defended the indefensible many times. He is probably doing it again.

Mr. Roy: He is all for law and order for everybody else.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I think the hon. member for Renfrew South thinks it is a dastardly blow.

Mr. G. Nixon: Try again!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition will proceed with his questions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is he trying to take the heat off?

Mr. Lewis: Come on!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. B. F. Nixon: Where is the Solicitor General?

Hon. Mr. Davis: He is at a meeting.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier speaks of the heat, but he put the heat on him. He dismissed him from his cabinet.

Mr. Roy: That’s right. Talk about taking the heat off --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Education --

Hon. Mr. Davis: He resigned.

Mr. Roy: He resigned, yes; the Premier nudged him.

Mr. Lewis: This isn’t very nice.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is not nice at all.

SPENDING CEILINGS IN EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the Minister of Education prepared to tell the House if there will be penalties levied by way of grants or any other procedure against those school boards which have decided to break the ceilings imposed by this government, or if he is prepared to reconsider his statements along those lines?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education will be prepared to make a statement on these matters in a very few days, but I can tell my friend that the ceilings policies of this government will remain.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Can he then explain to the House why his colleague, the present Minister of Energy, said to a large public meeting of teachers and others that the ceiling policy was being phased out?

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): I did not say that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Well, he said it’s on its last legs or it’s in tatters or that it is no longer effective.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Leader of the Opposition doesn’t want me to start quoting back to him all the things that have been said by his friends about the Spadina Expressway, does he? My friend, the Minister of Energy, was merely talking about some time in the distant future when perhaps there would be a change in the way grants and financing of education are carried on in this province.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that I would be less than realistic if I didn’t say there will probably be changes sometime in the future, because we are always looking for better ways to finance education. But I will also say to him that the policies of this government of raising grants and of having realistic ceilings have done more for the improvement of educational opportunity across this province than anything.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): That was pretty anaemic applause. It was lousy.

ONTARIO HYDRO SPENDING

Mr. Lewis: I have one question I would very much like to ask. May I begin by asking the policy minister on resources development what is he going to do about Ontario Hydro’s assertion that it will cost them $23.8 billion for 1974 to 1982 -- never mind the commission that starts in 1983 -- a 45 per cent error in estimate in one year? Last year they had set $16.7 billion and this year $23.8 billion. How is the government going to bring Ontario Hydro’s extreme growth ethic under control in the next eight years before they bankrupt the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as far as the question of the so-called growth ethic of Ontario Hydro is concerned, that will be a proper matter for discussion before the hearings. As far as the control of other expenditures is concerned and matters relating to that, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is a proper question to be directed to the Minister of Energy.

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Energy: Just where is Hydro going to get $23.8 billion, on which international market is the borrowing to be made and to what extent is the Province of Ontario going to underwrite that borrowing?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be impossible to say now, in March, 1975, where the best markets will be in 1976 or, for that matter, looking further ahead to 1982. I would have to say to the member that he realizes Hydro will be going before the Energy Board this year, as they will every year, to review their rates and review their plans. The Energy Board has commented, and does and will comment on those plans to the government and to Hydro.

Mr. Lewis: Supplementary: Does the minister think there is any sanity at all in the policy which Hydro is putting forward for the next eight or 10 years, in the absence of any effort to conserve energy? Does he agree with Mr. Taylor’s speech on March 4 that part of the funding for this incredible capital expansion will have to come out of rate increases applied to individual consumers? How is the government going to control Ontario Hydro and maintain a stable economy in the next few years, if it doesn’t become government policy rather than the OEB’s?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have to take exception to the member’s suggestion that there is no effort to conserve energy. In point of fact, Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy are very actively pursuing conservation and pushing it with industry and with the general public. I will have something more to say in a few weeks time on the next phase of the government’s energy conservation programme.

Mr. Stokes: When did they disband their load building division?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: When the member for Thunder Bay is calmed down maybe I can finish.

The greatest control, Mr. Speaker, lies with the individual consumers in this province, be they residential or industrial, and we are actively pursuing this.

Mr. Martel: Put another sweater on. Ask the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White).

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

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources, if I may: Is the minister aware that the latest dust samples taken in the Rio Algom mine at Elliot Lake, and posted, I think at his direction, in January, 1975, show that 67 of the 77 samples and eight of the 10 working areas are significantly over the limits acceptable for the safety of human health; and that in fact the dust levels have risen beyond the second quarter of 1973 and the second quarter of 1974? How is it we continue to allow miners to work in such conditions of risk and hazard month after mouth without government intervention?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Well Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly aware of the specifics to which the hon. member refers, but I can assure him that the members of my staff are monitoring, as he points out, various areas of the Elliot Lake mines. We will be announcing some more stringent regulations as to the time limits the miners are allowed to work in these specific areas; I hope to be announcing something in the not too distant future in this regard.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary? The member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Could the minister not insist that the companies in fact purchase the type of equipment being used in Sweden, which are the self-contained packs, so that in fact the men aren’t exposed to these large volumes while the minister prepares this policy he is going to announce?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well Mr. Speaker, I think it’s fair to say we are looking at a number of different alternatives as to the ways and means by which we could correct this situation. We are working very closely with their union people and management too.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary. Is the minister saying in effect that the level of safety established by the mines association, and indeed the level of safety established by the Ministry of Health, simply cannot and will not be met in the Province of Ontario; that given our dependence on this $23 billion programme that Hydro is announcing, the workers in our uranium mines are forever obliged to work at levels of occupational hazard? Is that what is happening in fact?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that at all. These levels have been tested and they are above the acceptable standard. As I said earlier, it may well be we will have to close down certain areas where they can’t bring down the dust levels.

Mr. Lewis: The government will have to close down the whole mine in this instance.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It may well be we will have to do that.

Mr. Lewis: Well bring them down; don’t close the mine.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): That was two months ago. When is the government going to do it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We will move in this direction; we are moving.

OPERATIONS AT REEVES MINE

Mr. Lewis: I have a question on a related matter, if I could direct it to the Minister of Health; this is worrying some of my colleagues greatly. It relates to the closing down of the Johns-Manville mine in Reeves township near Timmins.

What were the asbestos fibre counts which were available to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Natural Resources which the company had maintained and said it could not reduce? Secondly, how is it that a company like Johns-Manville, which is able to bring its mines and milling operation in the United States below the acceptable level cannot seem to do it in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, to the first part of the question, I can’t give the member the actual figures but I will get them.

Mr. Lewis: Thanks.

Hon. Mr. Miller: To the second part of the question, I don’t know whether it was a question of not being able or not being willing to do so. I suspect there may be a good deal of the second part involved, because I am told this particular mine had a very short life expectancy and it may have been economically unfeasible to try to meet the requirements at this stage.

Mr. Ferrier: Seven or eight years.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Ferrier: In view of the fact they are talking about closing, has the minister given any further thought to my request that in consideration of the health of the miners, examinations should be given to them before they scatter, if this has to take place? Is the minister going to have them medically examined very carefully?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, you’re aware that we have assumed the responsibility of the chest x-rays for these miners, and they were being done on a six-month basis in that area. I assume that the records are still available on that basis. I’m told most of those miners will be finding work in the immediate area; I don’t know whether the member can confirm that or not.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): A supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary; the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary of the Minister of Health: Will the Minister of Health consider recommending to his cabinet colleagues, in view of the fact there are still nine years of asbestos ore left at the Reeves mine-site, that the government create a Crown corporation to operate that mine under model conditions of safety and health, so that it could set a benchmark for the rest of the industry?

Mr. Lewis: At zero emissions preferably. At zero emissions.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I find that difficult to take as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, but I don’t think, to this point in time, that our government has considered forming Crown corporations to take over private interests. I don’t think it is likely that we will.

Mr. Martel: The Minister of Health better look at the select committee report.

Mr. Lewis: It is time the minister did.

Mr. Laughren: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ferrier: How about the Minister of Natural Resources? Will he do that?

Mr. Laughren: I have a further supplementary, please.

Mr. Speaker: No, the last was the final. The question wasn’t really a supplementary to the original one. If you want to pose a new one, you’ll have your turn.

The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier, realizing he’s having difficult times; the show must go on, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Your question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Grey-Bruce is a great part of the show.

OIL PRICES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the oil companies’ experiencing the biggest profits in their history, and now talking about further increases in the cost of gasoline prices --

Mr. G. Nixon: What is the question?

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Question.

Mr. Sargent: -- has the government thought of giving some protection to the public in the basic commodity by warning companies that for every increase, unless they can show cause, they will be taxed accordingly? Has the Premier thought of giving some protection for the public that way?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that we are interested in protecting the rights of the consumer of this province in every field.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: This kind of nonsense doesn’t go. In view of the fact the government gave them a five-cent-per-gallon increase a year ago, will it rescind that five-cent tax then, as a weapon? Will it rescind that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants me to become somewhat controversial, I would say to him that it is his very close friends, allies --

Mr. Sargent: Come off that stuff.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and confrères of the federal government -- who are helping him develop his party’s own policies and priorities in election campaigns here -- who very directly determined the price of oil a year ago --

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the Premier run the show here?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and who have, by any comparison whatsoever, the major direction in oil prices in this country.

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

PAFCO INSURANCE CO.

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister do something about the Pafco Insurance Co. which has had some publicity recently in using technicalities to refuse to pay off legitimate claims?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is much too modest to say that he is the source of the publicity.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): What is the minister the source of?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes, I read the hon. member’s column with great interest, Mr. Speaker. He had told me about it a couple of weeks before, and I’ve been waiting ever since for the other shoe to drop. It finally did. I saw the column this week.

I’ve made arrangements to have the president of that company meet with me on Monday morning, and I hope at that time to be able to reconcile the problem which the hon. member raised in his column.

I do want to say that there is one indisputable fact, and that is that Mr. Bradette, who is mentioned in the column, is a completely innocent party, and it will be my function to do everything possible to see that his interests are protected.

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

Mr. Cassidy: What about beefing up the superintendent of insurance to make him effective?

Mr. Roy: I have a question of the Premier, and just to give him some free advice --

An hon. member: Question. Question.

Mr. Roy: Oh, don’t get excited.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Roy: Just to say to the Premier that the Narcotic Control Act is not under the Code. My question, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: They’re real tigers.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member will place his question.

Mr. Roy: They are being bothered by the polls.

Mr. Sargent: The nerves are very close to the surface over there.

OTTAWA TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, my question of the Premier deals with the strike of teachers in Ottawa. In view of the fact that the Premier said he would not intervene, why is he going around annoying the teachers by saying that their demands are excessive?

An hon. member: What does the member for Ottawa East want him to do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member perhaps was at the meeting; I don’t know. I was asked a question when I was attending a dinner meeting with a group of law students from the University of Ottawa, a very distinguished group. I was asked about certain things and I said the traditional approach had been for the boards and the teachers to endeavour to resolve their problems and I hoped this tradition would continue in spite of policies enunciated by the Liberal Party from time to time about taking over the boards and things of that kind. I recall these --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Oh, when did we say that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I recall them -- and I recall them very well. I didn’t say I wasn’t going to intervene; I don’t think I said that. As a matter of fact --

Mr. Roy: The Premier was quoted.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, I am just trying to recall -- just to be as helpful as I can to the hon. member --

Mr. Roy: Beyond reason.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- exactly what went on that evening. I also went one step further -- and before he asks me a supplementary, I will confess to it. I said I thought the request, if it was true -- and I did say if it was true, because I hadn’t talked to the profession in Ottawa -- if they were asking for 40 or 41 per cent, I said I thought that was unreasonable. And if the hon. member is at all doubtful about my having said it, I will say it here again this afternoon: I think it is unreasonable.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary to this: In view of the fact that the Premier said he would not intervene, does he not feel that type of statement is exactly the type of political statement which makes it more difficult for the school boards and the teachers to get together?

Mr. Stokes: Doesn’t he think it is unreasonable?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will match any statement I make on this side of the House related to teacher-school board negotiations as being less difficult, less conflicting, less causing of problems than almost anything that is said from the Liberal Party in this province at this particular time.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Would the Premier not agree that the 40 per cent statement is similar to any statements made about the 60 per cent associated with our own civil service, that they were obviously unreasonable?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: There is no contradiction there.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We are waiting for the question.

Mr. Lewis: As the member for Carleton East (Mr. P. Taylor) says: “Power is the name of the game.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Time is flitting very rapidly. Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary I would like to ask the Premier if he would explain to the House why he feels the 28 per cent settlement in Windsor is any more inflationary than the government’s settlement with its own civil servants, since the 28 per cent is over 16 months? Even with the kind of math the two of us understand, that is equivalent to a 21 per cent settlement. The one with the civil service was 21.5 per cent. All of it is inflationary; I wish we could have done better. But surely that sort of an intrusion does not settle the argument.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition says he wishes we could have done better. Why doesn’t he have the honesty and intestinal fortitude, rather than use this comparison -- which is totally unfair -- to get up and say that if he formed the government he would reduce the award from 21 per cent to something else, because, Mr. Speaker, it is not a justifiable comparison.

Would the Leader of the Opposition please do himself the service of tracing over even just the last three-year period of time the rate of increase for the operational categories, their average pay, what it means in terms of a 20 per cent increase --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is not fair; the Premier is acting unfairly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let’s face it. Now come on; listen for a change. When inflation is involved, the price of gasoline, the price of fuel oil, the price of many of the basic commodities are just the same in terms of increase for the people on lower incomes as people on higher incomes. If one is going to give a 30 per cent increase to people earning $16,000 or $18,000 or $20,000, that has far more inflationary impact than giving a 21 per cent increase to people on an average, say, of $8,000 or $9,000 per year. It is a totally different situation, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Will the Leader of the Opposition please do his homework?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Wentworth with a supplementary, I believe.

Mr. Lewis: The Premier is learning. He’s learning. It’s probably too late but he’s learning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is never too late.

Mr. Lewis: I hope not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The people under $10,000 are against him.

Mr. Deans: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: Given that the Premier now seems to care to pass judgement on the reasonableness, or otherwise, of requests, would he be prepared to make a judgement on the reasonableness of the request of the public health nurses in Parry Sound, given the range of settlement --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. That’s quite far removed from the teacher question. The member can ask it later.

The member for Cochrane South.

COCHRANE DISTRICT HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr. Ferrier: Yes, I have a question which I would like to ask the Premier. In view of the fact that the Cochrane District Home for the Aged board of management has been convicted in provincial court of violations whereby women who sought the provisions of the Employment Standards Act were discharged, and since there are to be two Lieutenant Governor in Council appointments to the new board of management to take effect April 1, will the Premier give a commitment that none of the present board of management will be among the Lieutenant Governor in Council appointments to the new board?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to look at any reasonable suggestion. Whether this falls into that category, I haven’t the foggiest idea -- because I must confess to the member that I don’t know anything about it. But I’ll certainly take a look at it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

NORTH PICKERING DEVELOPMENT

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I have a question of the Minister of Housing. In view of today’s statement indicating his government’s great concern for the rights of citizens affected by government projects, why is his ministry insisting that property owners, those in the greenbelt area of the North Pickering development, agree to forgo important rights that are given under the Expropriations Act before the government will negotiate with these owners? In effect, these owners have been expropriated without compensation.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t hear the question. Would the member repeat it?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Why doesn’t the minister listen?

Mr. Deacon: Yes. Why is his ministry insisting that property owners who are frozen in the greenbelt area of the North Pickering development agree to forgo important rights given under the Expropriations Act before the government will negotiate with these owners who had, in effect, already been expropriated without compensation?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, any property owner in the North Pickering area has been fully protected by the actions taken by this government to date, and will be protected in the future.

Mr. Roy: Who says so?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The only areas that are in contention are the areas related to the area under a ministerial order which is affected by the airport, not the areas that are related to the Ontario government.

Mr. Deacon: That is not what I’m talking about. No, not the airport.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Liberals’ airport.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The Ontario government has resolved the problems as far as the people in the new town area are concerned, but we cannot be responsible for the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is all Liberal.

Mr. Deacon: If the minister will listen this time --

An hon. member: That is what their caucus is about, federal plotting.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deacon: I am talking about the greenbelt area in the North Pickering development; the areas that Archie Little’s land is in and some of the others -- Sim Reesoc’s land. Why are those people not allowed to have the same protection as other owners in the North Pickering development in negotiating with the government with regard to the acquisition of their lands? The agreement the Ministry of Housing has given them deletes specifically all the rights between sections 19 and 25 in the Expropriations Act.

Mr. Roy: Does the minister understand now?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would listen again, I will try to repeat as carefully as possible in saying that the Ontario government has fully protected those people in the lands that are underneath our ministerial order. In the greenbelt or in the area for development we have dealt with the people as fairly as possible and will continue to do so in the future.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It makes sense this time.

Mr. Deacon: The ministry should see that it does.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government wouldn’t allow a hearing.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There isn’t any particular person that I know of who has not been treated fairly. If the member can prove it he should let me know.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

LANDFILL IN HAMILTON HARBOUR

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Premier. Since today is the day for talking about reasonableness, does it seem reasonable that the Hamilton conservation authority, exercising its jurisdiction on behalf of the government to ensure that no landfill would take place in the Hamilton harbour, should be forced into court to stop the CNR from dumping -- the CNR being another public body? Doesn’t it seem reasonable that the provincial government ought to be able to meet with the federal government and resolve the matter without the legal costs which will ultimately be borne by the taxpayers as a result of this legal action?

Mr. Roy: Give him a reasonable answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m all in favour of reasonableness. I don’t always see it demonstrated from the other side of the House, but I am in favour of reasonableness.

Mr. Deans: Well, I am trying.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just to show how reasonable I am, in that I am not going to venture a legal opinion without some legal guidance on certain matters related to this --

Mr. Deans: I’m not asking for a legal opinion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I will discuss this with the Attorney General and those who might have some advice to offer and in a reasonable way reply as soon as possible.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Reasonably.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: In order to maintain the reasonable atmosphere that we have, does the Premier think it might be possible for the province to assume the legal costs on behalf of the conservation authority, since they are in fact enforcing provincial regulations?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are regulations, and I would think perhaps in this instance the situation relates to those policies that have been initiated. I’m not that familiar with it. As I say, we will take a look at it and we will have a reasoned response for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce.

EGG PRODUCTION

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Education but I see he has slipped out, so I’ll direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

An hon. member: The same question?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: That’s what we think of the educational system.

Mr. Gaunt: Since Quebec is increasing its egg production substantially and Ontario is asked to cut back, what does the minister intend to do by way of action? Does he intend to meet with the Minister of Agriculture from Quebec to see if this problem can be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Minister of Education would have had a hell of a time with that question.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, as is quite common with the Liberal position over there, they get themselves a little confused. Where the relationship is between education and agriculture in that question I don’t know.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. MacDonald: They are both walking on eggs.

Mr. Foulds: Both of these guys can lay eggs, that’s the similarity.

Mr. Roy: Very flexible.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Educate the hens.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I’d have to say this, Mr. Speaker. I’m always willing to try to educate my hon. friends over there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I would simply say this. Meetings will take place within the next week to try to resolve those differences. But I don’t want to have my hon. friend mislead the House to say that the Province of Quebec is producing more than within its own quota. As I understand it they’ve come up to approximately their own quota. They have increased very, very rapidly and perhaps in the last six months there may have been overproduction just a bit.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have fulfilled the obligation which we gave in Winnipeg last summer that we would reduce the poultry flock in Ontario to come within production quotas in Ontario. That we have accomplished; I think we have a great deal to be proud of.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Gaunt: May I just say if there is any confusion it is in the mind of my friend, not in my mind.

An hon. member: Right, right.

Mr. Roy: Of course, that’s not unusual.

Mr. Gaunt: Does the minister have any plans to support or guarantee the payment of producers through the buy-back programme of the marketing board in this province?

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): The Easter bunny is going to do that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: No, we haven’t. If the member’s federal friends at Ottawa would collect the money that is owing to them by other provinces through the national marketing council, there would be no problem whatever --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: Blame Ottawa!

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): They can’t blame Ottawa for everything.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: -- but as long as our federal friends in Ottawa absolve themselves of any real obligations to enforce legislation they have in their own hands, we’ll have those kinds of problems. But I’m not going to put the Province of Ontario in the position of bailing out the federal government. Let the member go and do it himself.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): They’re laying enough eggs down there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, there seem to be high spirits here today, for some reason or other.

Mr. Lewis: High hopes, perhaps.

LAYOFFS AT DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT

Mr. Young: I would like to ask of the Minister of Labour, in view of the very serious layoffs in Douglas Aircraft recently, has the minister any statement to make to the House in connection with the situation there now, as to whether perhaps his department, in co-operation with Ottawa, has some positive answer to the situation?

Hon. J. F. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, some time ago our re-employment service branch offered to --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Just a second; who is that?

Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): The member knows who it is.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, it’s the member for St. Catharines.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The Minister of Labour has the floor.

Mr. Lewis: Is he on the chart?

Mr. Foulds: I thought he was part of the furniture.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, we occasionally get a guttural spasm from that area of the House.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the more time I have to try to formulate an answer, the more confused I’m getting.

Mr. Roy: That’s normal over there.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have an employment adjustment service in my ministry. Some time ago we offered to work with the UAW union at Douglas, to give them our services. They didn’t seem to wish to take advantage of it. I don’t know whether there is any change in that position at the present time or not, but we have such a service and will be glad to work with them in any way we can.

I realize that when you are in a skilled industry such as the aircraft industry, there are not too many other industries which can offer alternative employment. But as all members know, again the aircraft industry is a federal matter, so it’s a little difficult to come to the province and expect it to find employment along the same lines.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We have our adjustment service, sir, and we will be glad to make it available.

Mr. Young: Supplementary: Did I hear the minister aright when he said he is waiting for the UAW to request assistance before he is going to act? If so perhaps the UAW can be moved to do this?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Our employment adjustment service is a system that works in co-operative effort involving the federal government, our own ministry and the union and management. It takes all four parties; there are agreements to be made. We have offered to work with them. I was out talking to them myself and made that offer, but we haven’t had any response.

Now I’m not suggesting, sir, that there is a great deal we can do, but at least we do have this service and it is available to them.

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

LEAD POLLUTION HEARINGS

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Health. Is it a fact that having asked the city of Toronto to co-operate with the ministry on the lead hearings, the minister has refused to pay their expenses; if so why is that the case?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is not normal for us to pay the cost of any person’s legal fees before hearings. I think just as justifiable a case could be made by any person coming before those hearings for help from us.

They have made a request which they assume we have turned down. I say they assume, because they have never had an answer from us at this point in time since I am still studying it.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mrs. Campbell: Is it not a fact that as a government they really do need to know where they stand financially, having expended most of their funds in this area to date?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well Mr. Speaker, we have made offers to the city of Toronto over the years to increase their funding arrangements for health, which they have seen fit to turn down. There is a matter of some $6 million at stake, not the $30,000 we are talking about in this issue.

Mrs. Campbell: The minister wouldn’t listen to the city when they asked him before.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Miller: We listened to them both times, but unlike many people we didn’t coerce either the city or the boroughs into an amalgamation or marriage they didn’t want. We have respected their willingness to pay a 50 per cent differential out of their own tax dollars because they want to be individuals.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government didn’t hesitate to coerce the people of Muskoka into regional government.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is on that basis I say that if they are willing to raise $6 million for their own public health units in Toronto because they want autonomy, surely they are willing to raise $30,000 if they want autonomy.

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

SURVIVAL OF NURSERY STOCK

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources.

Is the minister concerned that after five years of planting of black and white spruce nursery stock, the average survival rate across the province is just over 60 per cent? Is he further concerned that the average survival rate of tubed seedlings, after five years of planting across the province, is about 33 per cent? Is the minister satisfied that this is the kind of survival rate that he should be getting after spending millions and millions of dollars on reseeding and replanting? If he is not satisfied, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, let me point out I am not totally familiar with the figures related by the member. I can assure him, and I am sure he is aware of it, that the Ministry of Natural Resources is one of the leaders in the regeneration field right across the North American continent. We have done a tremendous amount of regeneration and research in this particular field.

Mr. Sargent: Mumble a little louder.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We were the pioneers of the tubeling planting system; in fact, very recently we came up with a new planting machine that is being patented at the present time.

Mr. MacDonald: What is the answer to the question?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would point out that, no, we are not completely satisfied with the tubeling system we have been using for the last number of years. In fact, just very recently we embarked on a very ambitious research programme to see if we can improve and update the facilities and methods of regeneration and planting that will improve the life expectancy.

Mr. Stokes: But the minister is not satisfied?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I am not satisfied, no.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Sargent: There are no ministers to report, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Snow presented the annual report of the Provincial Auditor for the year ended March 31, 1974.

Hon. Mr. Auld presented the report of the governing council of the University of Toronto under the University of Toronto Act, 1971.

Mr. Laughren: Well, well. What do you know!

Mr. Lawlor: That report is kind of late. Isn’t it supposed to be in within six months, according to law?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I was trying to get it in before 3 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

COMMISSIONER OF THE LEGISLATURE ACT, 1975

Mr. Singer moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for the appointment of a Commissioner to investigate Administrative Decisions and Acts of Officials of the Government of Ontario and its Agencies and to define the Commissioner’s Powers and Duties.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. G. A. Kerr (Halton West): Is this a tender?

Mr. Sargent: It’s long overdue.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, in view of the particular paragraph that caught my ear in the Throne Speech, I thought it might be helpful to the Premier and to his colleagues to have before them a bill that I think would assist substantially in the pledge that they gave the people of Ontario to create this kind of official. Had they used the title “parliamentary commissioner,” they could have avoided the awkwardness of talking about an ombudsperson, whatever that might be.

The suggestions set out in the bill take in, I believe, the best features of many similar types of bills throughout the world, and I would commend to the government’s attention the contents of this bill and the practices embarked upon in Quebec and in the Province of Alberta, Let us hope that the government will either accept this bill as it is presented or bring in their own bill at the first possible opportunity.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM ACT

Hon. Mr. White moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to regulate Political Party Financing and Election Contributions and Expenses.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I suppose this bill is the reason the Liberal campaign manager, otherwise known as “get $5-million Blake,” has resigned his position, leaving the field to the Liberal poison pen artist, Mr. Gordon Floyd.

As recommended by the royal commission on the Legislature --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the minister mean that he has something serious to say?

Hon. Mr. White: -- I am pleased to announce that arrangements are being made, with the co-operation of the Minister of Finance for Canada and the Minister of National Revenue, to introduce into the personal income tax system an Ontario political party contribution credit. This credit will be a deduction from Ontario tax otherwise payable with respect to bona fide contributions to Ontario political parties.

Mr. Roy: Now the minister is talking.

Hon. Mr. White: In developing this legislation it will be necessary to conform to the federal formula as closely as possible. Arrangements for audit and assessment must still be worked out in detail, as must the method of including the Ontario calculation in the income tax return. To effect the political party contribution credit, amendments will be required to the Ontario personal Income Tax Act.

As recommended by the commission, corporations will be permitted to deduct contributions to political parties, constituency associations and candidates registered under the proposed Act to regulate Political Party Financing and Election Contributions and Expenses up to an aggregate of $4,000. This recommendation will require amendment to the Ontario Corporations Tax Act.

It should be noted that an individual may earn a maximum credit against personal income tax of $500 at a level of contributions of $1,150, and that a corporation taking full advantage of its allotment may earn a reduction of its Ontario corporation tax by a maximum of $480.

CHILD WELFARE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Child Welfare Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to enable the province to assume a larger share of the costs of services of Children’s Aid Societies, with a corresponding reduction in the financial burden on municipalities. This bill will also enable the province to revise and improve procedures for the submission of society budgets to municipalities in the province, and will also implement a number of other changes to improve child welfare services.

INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Interpretation Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this bill is to make election days in Ontario, whether they are municipal, provincial or federal, statutory holidays.

Mr. Deans: It might also be a good idea to make the municipal ones in October.

Mr. Singer: You can’t possibly accept that, Mr. Speaker.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading to the bill.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this bill is to allow the use of studded tires in northern Ontario; and this is the third time I have introduced it.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for St. George have a bill?

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mrs. Campbell moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Act is simply this, to permit the corporation or its designate to carry out repairs to premises after an inspection and where the owner has been recalcitrant. The intent is to try to tighten up the process, hopefully to preclude the fires that we have seen, particularly in the city of Toronto, which occur after an inspection following which there is no ability to implement any order.

Mr. Ferrier: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of personal privilege. During the budget debate of Thursday, Feb. 13, in the evening session, I made the statement that I had written a letter to the Minister of Community and Social Services and didn’t get a reply. Mr. Speaker, the minister sent me a letter shortly afterwards to state that he had sent a reply, and he sent a copy of it. In looking into my files I did in fact find that a copy had come from him; that he had answered but the letter had gone in the file without my knowledge and I had inadvertently misled the House.

I would like to apologize to the minister for saying something about him that wasn’t so, and in doing so to have the record of the House corrected.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The first order, consideration of the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor moves, seconded by Mr. Lane, that a humble address be presented to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows:

“To the Honourable Pauline M. McGibbon, OC, BA, LLD, DU. (Ottawa), BAA (Theatre), Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

“We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the legislative assembly of the Province of Ontario now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us.”

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Speaker, I would like, first to sincerely compliment the Lieutenant Governor on her appointment to Ontario as the representative of Her Majesty the Queen in this province. I think we are certainly privileged to have a lady as Lieutenant Governor, the first in Ontario.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): He is starting off non-controversially.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I think the warm and friendly personality that exudes from Mrs. McGibbon is an inspiration to all of us. She certainly has a very friendly demeanour. Although her term in office to date has been short, I am personally convinced, as I think all of us are, that she is discharging her duties exceedingly well. I was particularly impressed with the opening day ceremonies on Tuesday last. I commend her on the meaningful role she plays and the pleasing manner in which she discharges her official duties.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): She had a very difficult job preparing that speech.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, and she certainly commands the respect of all of us.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): It was wonderful material she had to work with.

Mr. Roy: Blame the feds for that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this is the first real opportunity I have had to congratulate you on your elevation to that throne. I am particularly impressed with the way you run the House.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes; the Speaker is friendly but he is firm, and in my opinion he adds dignity to the office. I do indeed hope, and I am convinced, that he will restore the respect of all of us for the Chair.

I have been particularly disturbed that there has been some deterioration in the tradition of this House in terms of the manner in which order is imposed. It concerns me that in some way our traditions and our procedures may have been weakened. At some times I think there are certain members of this House who do not hold the House and the Speaker in the respect in which they should be held.

I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will continue in the fine job you are doing to see that this House operates not only in an orderly fashion but with dignity.

I would also like to compliment the hon. members who have recently been appointed to various new portfolios. I am convinced they will discharge their new duties in a conscientious, skillful and meaningful way.

Mr. Roy: He had better hope the member for London South (Mr. White) does a good job, because that member won’t be back here.

Mr. Lawlor: What can anyone conceivably say in defence of that speech?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: While it is traditional for a government supporter to thank the Lieutenant Governor for the pronouncements in a Throne Speech, it seems equally traditional for leaders of the opposition parties to criticize and condemn these same pronouncements.

Mr. Roy: There were no pronouncements.

Mr. Lawlor: There wasn’t too much to get onto.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I was surprised, therefore, to hear the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. R. F. Nixon) declare that Her Honour’s speech was bankrupt of ideas --

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): It was the government’s speech. Don’t blame Her Honour for it.

An hon. member: Shame, shame.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Commenting on Her Honour’s speech.

Mr. Cassidy: The government is hiding behind Her Honour’s petticoats.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): We are not hiding behind anybody.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Can you imagine the leader of the New Democratic Party --

Mr. Turner: No, we can’t.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- stating that it was almost totally without substance?

Mr. Turner: Did the leader of the New Democratic Party say that?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I think his reference to the Lieutenant Governor’s speech in those terms is sheer impudence.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the attitude of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox in private.

Mr. Turner: No, sir.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It is for the government to use her or abuse her in that fashion.

Mr. Cassidy: She may resign after that speech.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: As a matter of fact I sincerely commend her for the brevity of her remarks.

Mr. MacDonald: Is it a fact he’s going to be able to commend the hon. member in the same way?

Mr. Turner: Yes sir.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It’s often the tradition to make a great deal of developing a programme which heralds the introduction of multitudinous pieces of legislation which is going to be dealt with over the current year.

Mr. Roy: They’re going to be surprised because it wasn’t in the speech.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, indeed, and those people in the opposition parties are continually concerned about the amount of legislation than can be introduced --

Mr. Roy: Especially on the last few days of the session.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and, of course, that all translates into further restrictions on the people of the province. We have a lot of good legislation that has gone forward and has to go forward --

Mr. Turner: All of it’s good.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- but at the same time I can see why people would gripe, as this government does, about developing a bureaucratic jungle that the people can hardly slash through to achieve freedom and justice in this province.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): The assistant to the Attorney General (Mr. Turner) has criticized his own government.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): It couldn’t be much worse than the one this government has developed.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The NDP -- and I think the hon. member for Lakeshore should consider this very seriously --

Mr. Roy: Was it a good speech?

Mr. Turner: Very good.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- have always been concerned about interfering and regulating ad nauseam the personal conduct and behaviour of the people of our province.

Mr. Roy: That is backtracking. The government is starting to backtrack. It is making a U-turn.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is their philosophy.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It’s no wonder society is growing complex.

Mr. Roy: I don’t think the government knows where it is going.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It’s getting complex and we have a great deal of legislation on the books.

Mr. Turner: We know.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: But I think the time has come to stop and think about just what we should be doing in terms of more legislation -- meaningful legislation, progressive legislation --

Mr. Turner: They should stop and think seriously.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- which is going to assist the people in this province to develop themselves --

Mr. Turner: To uphold those high ideals.

Mr. Roy: Right. Let’s talk law and order.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- to develop their own potentials; to realize themselves.

Mr. Lawlor: Down with legislation. That’s what I always say.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member for Lakeshore would have a homogenized society.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He would have the bland leading the bland.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): That’s it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: There’s no question about that.

Mr. Turner: No question at all.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The people of Ontario don’t want more government. In many cases they want to get government off their backs.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: They want a better government.

An hon. member: They can’t get a better one.

Mr. J. A Taylor: Ah, the hypocrisy of those socialists.

Mr. Ferrier: We’ll give it to them.

Mr. Lawlor: Members can see it everywhere.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They preach freedom and they preach self-determination and at the same time they want government take-over.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Did the member read the Minister of Energy’s (Mr. Timbrell) last speech?

An hon. member: What did the Minister of Energy say?

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Yes, that’s the Minister of Energy’s line.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They want more and more government. They want government to take over the complete means of production.

Mr. Young: Oh, no!

An hon. member: Oh, he’s nuts!

Mr. Lawlor: We think government has a responsibility, yes.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They certainly do. That’s part and parcel of their political philosophy; and the sooner the people of this province realize what they truly stand for the better it will be.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that once you have government control and direction of the means of production you have at the same time a lessening of the standard of living -- anything that government has taken over --

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: Like Hydro?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- in terms of the production of consumer products of this province, or in any other nation, has cost more and has lessened the standard of living.

An hon. member: Come on!

Mr. Young: Every minister of this government is running a socialist enterprise.

Mr. Turner: No way.

Mr. Ferrier: Like Ontario Northland. What about Ontario Northland?

An hon. member: It takes Prince Edward Island to bring it out.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They should be exposed for what they are.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

An hon. member: They should be exposed for that kind of socialism.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Our economic achievement in this province is due to our market economy and the strong private sector.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, he is not addressing the Chair. They are attacking the socialists. They cannot defend themselves.

An hon. member: Will these members also take responsibility for the unemployment?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Social and economic objectives can only be financed from successful business ventures.

Mr. Roy: Let’s talk law and order. That’s what I want to hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member will hear it, just be patient.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Right.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The Lieutenant Governor in the Speech from the Throne mentioned the matter of immigration. I would like to point out that Ontario’s population increased rapidly since the end of World War II, faster than any other industrialized country in the world --

Mr. Roy: That is emphasizing the obvious.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and of course faster than Canada’s population as a whole. Immigration accounted for almost one-third of that population increase. One result of this explosive population growth was expansion in employment, output and incomes. Over the past decade gross provincial product has grown by 82 per cent in real terms.

Mr. Roy: How much again?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Over the same period employment has grown by 41 per cent, while real per capita income has risen by almost 70 per cent. The people of Ontario now have one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Mr. Haggerty: Some have, some have.

Mr. Roy: Why is that?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Federal, not provincial --

Mr. Turner: Because of the Tory government.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In Ontario during the past year we have experienced a two per cent increase in real disposable income and have seen 151,000 new jobs created, with our labour force up 4.7 per cent --

Mr. Ferrier: How many jobs were lost?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and our gross provincial product at $56 billion, up four per cent in real terms.

Mr. Haggerty: For what?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Real income.

Mr. Roy: Who prepared that for the member?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Ontario is home to 36 per cent of Canada’s population.

Mr. Martel: There are 5.5 per cent unemployed.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It’s production of goods and services accounts for 40 per cent of the gross national product, 52 per cent of manufacturing shipments and 43 per cent of all capital spending; in addition 33 per cent of Canada’s agricultural production is derived from Ontario farms.

Ontario’s per capita income is the highest in Canada, 25 per cent higher than Quebec, 20 per cent higher than Manitoba, and 14 per cent above the Canadian average.

Mr. Martel: Below Alberta.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Increased population, and the shifting of population from the rural to the urban areas, has exerted tremendous pressure on our cities.

Mr. Roy: Was the Minister of Industry and Tourism in Hamilton yesterday? There was nobody there.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: They didn’t invite the Liberals.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Housing and road, sewer and waterworks systems bad to be constructed. Schools, hospitals and other public buildings had to be erected. The full range of public utilities was needed. Massive amounts of capital were required, more than could be raised at home.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me tell the member for Ottawa East, there are not that many problems in Ontario.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The government’s involvement in these things was in terms of providing --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

I’m wondering if the hon. members would be good enough to extend their courtesy to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox so that he may continue and complete his address.

Mr. Lawlor: He is doing all right.

Mr. Martel: Name the minister.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The young, the old, the sick, the disabled had to be cared for --

Mr. Martel: Oh good grief.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Education, health and welfare became very costly priorities --

Mr. Martel: This government should have followed BC’s example.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Just let’s take a look at some of the accomplishments of this government during the last session.

Mr. Roy: Indeed, let’s.

Mr. Martel: Let’s talk about this session.

Mr. Roy: That shouldn’t take long. I will be back in two seconds.

Mr. J. R. Smith: Tell us about Bill 21.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Since its implementation last July, the GAINS programme, for example --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Martel: That came out of BC in 1971. This government is a little late.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- has been increased twice, currently providing an income of $2,766 per person and $5,542 for a married couple.

Mr. Martel: The government took that from BC, they did it in 1971. This government was embarrassed into doing it.

Mr. Ferrier: BC always has to give the lead.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The total payment in this fiscal year by the Ontario government will amount to $84.5 million --

Mr. Martel: It is 60 years old in BC, not 65.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You socialists are very quick to take credit when you shouldn’t.

Mr. Martel: It’s 60 in BC.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Martel: Don’t give us that clap-trap.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member for Sudbury East is very embarrassed.

Mr. Martel: I am not embarrassed.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox will continue.

Mr. Martel: The government here is two years after BC; and it is 60 years of age out there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. members will direct their comments to the Chair and not exchange conversations with the hon. members adjacent. Will the hon. member continue?

An hon. member: Especially when they don’t have anything to exchange.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: A new drug programme was introduced on Sept. 1.

Mr. Martel: That’s also following in the footsteps of what BC did. This government is late there too.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It extended further the benefits of the province’s health system to allow over a half million residents to receive their supply of drugs without charge. Can members opposite imagine that?

An hon. member: No I can’t.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is just a tremendous programme that has been implemented by this province, and members opposite just hate to think of what we have done.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, it is two years after it was introduced in BC.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member will continue and direct his comments to the Chair.

Mr. Martel: It aggravates me.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): The truth always hurts.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, the sales tax cuts.

Mr. Martel: It’s painstaking to bring the government along.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The retail sales tax on a broad range of items was removed.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The first category was the exemption of personal hygiene products.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The second category covers household cleaning products.

Mr. Martel: We could use a little of that in here.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The third category included the lifting of the retail sales tax on footwear sold for $30 or less. Those are great accomplishments.

An hon. member: They sure are.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: These are steps forward.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Especially in the footwear field.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: There is no question about that. People in the opposition parties are just reluctant to admit that constructive and positive programmes have been implemented by this government for the people of Ontario.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Tell us about magnetic levitation.

An hon. member: Let the Leader of the Opposition give us his views.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): We would like that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the government going to build it or not?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member will continue.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, thank you Mr. Speaker: I compliment the Chair on its --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Fairness?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Ear for order I was going to say. Possibly the Speaker could ensure that the same respect is given to this speaker as members of the opposition parties expect when they stand to speak.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I’ll become indignantly righteous before long.

An hon. member: As long as he doesn’t become self-righteous.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a halo around his head.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Family-held mortgages and promissory notes were made eligible for forgiveness in relation to farm succession duties. This change was retroactive to April 12, 1973, when the concept of forgivable farm duty was introduced.

Changes were also made with respect to the once-in-a-life-time gift affecting farm families so that the gift tax may be paid in several annual instalments.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The member is supposed to be talking about this year’s speech. Can he find anything in this year’s speech?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Farming is a very important and basic industry of this province.

Mr. Young: Particularly in Toronto.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I don’t think there has been any other government that has been conscious of the role played by farmers.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: When you look at the representation in this House from the rural community, Mr. Speaker, you will under stand that the rural communities, that the farmers --

Mr. Ferrier: When is that new land drainage Act coming in?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government has only one farmer. If it had another it would have a new minister.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- have confidence in the Conservative government and know what is being done for them. Members opposite do not have a constructive comment to offer in terms of assisting the farmer. They can’t dream up a programme that would assist in any constructive and positive way, that is being adopted and presented by --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We have, in this province the finest Minister of Agriculture and Food that has been seen anywhere; no question about that.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There is a real tall statement. He is a good guy, but I don’t know if he is that good.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: A great speech!

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is important that we maintain our good farm land, no question about that.

Mr. Ferrier: The government is not doing anything about it.

Mr. Lawlor: There is no provincial plan.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is important that the farmer receive a fair return on his capital investment.

Mr. Lawlor: The government can always get by on a cliche.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We listen to the socialists; and we have to watch them, because they are an insidious force in this province.

Mr. Martel: Beautiful.

Mr. Lawlor: We are the people who keep the members opposite alive.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I suggest that if one could pierce that tissue and see what lies beneath, the whole populace would be frightened by the NDP’s policies and its philosophy.

An hon. member: We are all for turning everyone into a civil servant.

Mr. Lawlor: We will see what the budget brings.

Mr. Turner: We will indeed.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: And socialists are the first to cry when the farmer wants to get a fair return on his investment. They cry “consumer,” not knowing where the consumer --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: All they can dream about is what kind of --

Mr. Ferrier: The member for York South anticipates the needs of farmers by two to three weeks before the government does.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They don’t have a farmer among the whole bunch of them.

Interjection by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: In our hearts we are farmers.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In their stomachs, he means.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, I have seldom heard a more provocative reply to the Throne Speech.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We have a very impressive Minister of Agriculture and Food and there is no question that anything we can do in this government for the farmers of this province will be done. The members opposite haven’t taught us one idea, haven’t one programme or policy or a thing that can be done to better the lot of the farmers. If they have, I challenge them to bring it forward.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Their only policy is to hoodwink the public.

I have talked for a long time about the private sector and the importance of the small businessman. I think it is important that we look after the little businessman, that we create a strong economic climate so that he can survive. Let us not see him get lost in the tangle --

lnterjections by hon. members.

Mr. Young: But he is dying now under this government’s policies.

Mr. Turner: Nonsense.

Mr. Ferrier: This government won’t even pay him for collecting sales tax.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member needn’t worry about that.

Mr. Ferrier: They are worrying about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order please; the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox has the floor.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond, I am concerned as any of them about the small businessman. I am concerned about the little guy who has to do the book work for the bureaucrats, there is no question about that. I can understand the policy of the government in terms of helping those large corporations --

Mr. Lawlor: Who can’t help themselves.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- by paying them for the refunding of sales tax while they have the assistance of large staffs and electronic equipment. I can understand them saying: “Why should we pay them for this particular duty? I can understand that. But I think we must always be mindful of the little businessman who has to use part of his staff -- which he can ill afford to do -- for filling in government forms.

An hon. member: Right.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I think that he should be reimbursed for that chore.

Mr. Martel: Did the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) hear that?

Mr. Ferrier: Did the minister hear that?

Mr. Lawlor: That wasn’t in the Throne Speech, was it?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: There’s no reason why we could not put a ceiling on the amount that could be paid to him, which would assist the small businessman and at the same time give a fair return for the efforts and labours of the large corporation.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lawlor: The former Treasurer (Mr. White) said that last spring. I didn’t hear the member stand up and argue against it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member doesn’t hear everything. He just hears what he wants to hear. As a matter of fact, he probably had his hearing aid turned off at that time. If the member would turn the ear that it comes in toward me, instead of the ear it goes out, then maybe he would learn more.

Mr. Lawlor: The member just dreamed up this policy when he stood up, did he? Is it something brand new?

Mr. Yakabuski: The member for Lakeshore knows that British socialism has been a failure.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Two significant measures to the problem of availability of capital and its high cost to small businesses were implemented:

1. A new income tax credit equal to five per cent up to a maximum of $3,000; 2. A new incentive, venture investment corporations, is designed to motivate private sources of capital to provide funds for small businesses. Under this plan, corporations are allowed to deduct such funds from their taxable income. The members of the opposition never thought of that because they are not interested in it. They are not interested in the small businessmen.

Mr. Lawlor: Lord; it existed in Saskatchewan before the member was born.

Mr. Foulds: I’m not sure he was born.

Mr. Turner: Nonsense.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I wouldn’t brag about my old age and my senility if I were the member.

Mr. Martel: Is the member trying for a cabinet post in this defunct government?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I will remind members of the opposition of the workmen’s compensation benefits.

Mr. Martel: He will remind us of that, will he?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, I will remind them --

Mr. Martel: He’ll remind us?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- because if there was any improvement it was from this side of the House --

Mr. Martel: Take a look at the injured workmen who are downstairs every day.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and it was this House that implemented the plan and the programme.

Mr. Martel: Boy, what a lot of nonsense!

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Pensions were increased by as much as 60 per cent, based on a formula related to the year in which an individual’s pension commenced.

Mr. Lawlor: Listen, I’ll be back. I couldn’t stay away.

Mr. Turner: The member should make sure he does.

Mr. L. Maeck (Parry Sound): Does the member want us to adjourn until he gets back?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: There were also increased pension benefits to widows --

Mr. Ferrier: Ten dollars!

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- dependants of deceased injured workmen and full compensation for partially injured workmen who are unable to find suitable employment.

Mr. Martel: Sixty per cent for 24 years.

Mr. Turner: The member is distorting the facts.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Overall, the earnings ceiling for calculation of benefits was increased from $10,000 to $12,000, effective July 1, 1974.

Mr. Young: They are going to become part of the government’s programme.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We don’t hear the opposition talking about that.

Mr. Young: No, we don’t.

Mr. Foulds: It didn’t affect very many workers.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It affected a lot of workers.

Mr. Foulds: How many compensation cases are there?

Mr. Martel: The 60 per cent increase didn’t affect any of them, because the actual increase was 180 per cent.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The members opposite don’t understand. They don’t understand the whole history and purpose of this legislation when they talk like that.

Mr. Martel: Sure, nobody understands except the government.

Mr. Foulds: How many compensation cases are there?

Mr. Ferrier: The injured workmen certainly don’t understand.

Mr. Martel: They don’t understand either.

Mr. Havrot: Not one of them has ever met a payroll.

Mr. Yakabuski: No. they’ve all been --

Mr. Martel: No, we’ve been too busy running around --

Mr. Havrot: They’ve never met a payroll in their lives.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: The member’s problem is that his head has been too close to the boiler all these years.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would restore some order --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please; order please.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Please extend the courtesy to the hon. member that he may continue his speech.

Mr. Martel: There are a few hot rolls running around.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that an empty wagon makes a lot of noise.

Mr. Martel: Well, then I suggest the member fill himself up.

Mr. Ferrier: The member is really autobiographical today.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Yes, indeed. I will get to the member for Cochrane South a little later.

Mr. Martel: He wants a cabinet post, so be careful.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Plans have also 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 complete administrative and financial support grants of up to $10,000 for community school projects.

Mr. Foulds: That’s really complete.

J. A. Taylor: In addition, the Ontario government has endorsed full community use of school facilities after regular school hours by groups and agencies working in concert with their local boards of education.

The Speech from the Throne mentioned housing --

Mr. Foulds: That’s all it did -- it mentioned housing.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It mentioned it --

Mr. Haggerty: More paper work -- like housing --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: When I think of Liberals and their federal counterparts in Ottawa, I think of the federal programme in terms of housing, which has been nothing over the years.

Mr. Turner: Nothing.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The federal Liberals have used housing merely as an economic tap.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): They turn it on and off.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: When they wanted more activity in the construction industry, they would merely turn the tap on and float more dollars into the industry.

An hon. member: They didn’t produce any more energy.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They weren’t concerned about houses. Houses didn’t mean a thing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: When they wanted to tighten the money supply, what did they do? They cut off the funds to nothing.

Mr. Turner: They put the workers out of work.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s the federal Liberal programme.

Mr. Renwick: Good stuff.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Nobody respects them but the people.

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): Yea!

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s all they’ve ever done in Ottawa. Where else have the people got the same opportunity to own a home as they have here in this great Province of Ontario? And this government is making it easier.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Some even have two.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They are very difficult times indeed, but it’s doing everything possible to facilitate people to own their own homes.

Mr. Haggerty: One can’t buy a home.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Our philosophy is that it’s important that the people of the province have a vested interest in the province and that they own something, which is contrary to the socialist philosophy that the state should own everything.

Mr. Foulds: There is one thing we are glad we don’t own, and that’s the member.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, may I protest this colossal ignorance of socialist philosophy.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Foulds: We protest this colossal ignorance.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This province has given high priority to the funding of housing. There is no question about that. The budgetary allocation of 1974 was $284 million --

Mr. Martel: It costs $426 a month in carrying charges.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- compared with $195 million in 1973 and $164 million in 1972.

Mr. Maeck: That shows you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: And I dare say that the amount will be increased probably 50 per cent in 1975 --

Mr. Martel: If Ottawa give us money.

Mr. Foulds: Can the member dare say that?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- to the point where provincial funding for housing will exceed, probably for the first time in our history, moneys paid by Ottawa for housing.

Mr. Foulds: Oh, oh. For the first time, after 32 years of effort.

Mr. Morningstar: Right.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s something the people of this province should be proud of.

Mr. Turner: Yes, we indeed are.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is significant --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Right on.

Mr. Morningstar: Right on.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- that the people who immigrate to Canada come to this province.

Mr. Martel: It costs $426 a month in carrying charges.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The hon. member for Sudbury East can afford a $75,000 home on a $20,000 salary.

Mr. Martel: That just eats one’s heart out.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They don’t believe in work over there; so it doesn’t matter to them what effort one makes.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In connection with housing, the Ontario Building Code was developed and new legislation passed in the last session which should significantly benefit the citizens of Ontario by ensuring effective building safety standards and evaluating new business techniques and materials.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Don’t tell me the member wrote that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We have heard something today about energy. I think a forward step was the establishment of the Ontario Energy Corp. in order to ensure that Ontario has enough natural gas for its consumers and industries at the end of this decade. There is no question that this energy corporation will provide the initiative and support required to get large energy projects under way.

Mr. Sargent: How does the member know that?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Because I have confidence in this government and the people that run this government.

Mr. G. Nixon: He is right on there.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: When I look at the alternatives, I see nothing.

Mr. Turner: What alternatives indeed?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I am confident and convinced that the people of Ontario --

An hon. member: Members opposite shudder.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- will return this government in the next election to carry on with its constructive and forward programmes.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Don’t count on that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Ferrier: How can he see with his eyes closed?

Mr. Turner: The member for Cochrane South might better ask that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: What are some major priorities? Support for the polar gas project; support for the Mackenzie Valley pipeline planned by Canadian Arctic Gas Study Ltd.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Turner: Right on; right on.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The Ontario government has invested $100 million in Syncrude --

An hon. member: Gambled it away.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The project is to remove the oil from the Athabaska tar sands.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In connection with the Syncrude project and Ontario’s financial contribution, Ontario will receive many, many major benefits.

Mr. Martel: Right: Like world prices.

Mr. Haggerty: What happened to the pipeline that was supposed to come down from the Arctic with oil? What happened to that deal?

An hon. member: Name one benefit.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I, will name one; certainly I will name one. At the end of 1974, this past year, orders for the manufacture of major equipment by the factories of Ontario for the Syncrude project totalled $105 million.

Mr. Martel: The value of it is only a billion dollars.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: And Ontario’s share of the equipment purchases by the end of the project will total almost a quarter of a billion dollars. That’s a benefit, and we are getting that right here in Ontario.

Mr. G. Nixon: Work for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Martel: Can anyone imagine the Liberals opposing that when their government signed the deal?

Mr. Turner: They don’t know what they are talking about.

Mr. Martel: It’s an awful position to be in.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The Ontario government has given approval to several power development projects for Ontario Hydro between 1977 and 1982. They include construction of a new generating station at Wesleyville, expansion of the Pickering generating station, and construction of two additional heavy water plants in Bruce nuclear power project.

Mr. Sargent: That is the biggest pork barrel in the world and he knows it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The route of a 5,000-kw 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.

We have programmes to develop watts from waste, and we have heard the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) enlarge upon this. These are forward and progressive steps. The experiment is to be carried out at the Lakeview generating station.

Mr. Haggerty: Just turn some of the lights off in the government buildings and it would be quite a bit of saving.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Processed solid waste will be used as fuel in the production of electrical power.

Mr. Ferrier: He is talking about the past. The Throne Speech is supposed to be about the future.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Last fall the Ontario government also took the initiative in launching a comprehensive province-wide programme to reclaim and recycle useful resources from solid waste.

Mr. Sargent: Who wrote his speech?

Mr. G. Nixon: It wasn’t the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Initially six reclamation and recycling plants are to be built at a cost of $17 million for the Kingston, Sudbury, London, Metro Toronto and Halton-Peel areas. That indeed is great news and another forward advance.

Mr. G. Nixon: Great stuff.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): What is that; a stock market prediction?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: What does the member for Thunder Bay know about farming?

Mr. Martel: He is back on the farming kick. Is he trying to influence the Minister of Agriculture and Food or something today? Does the minister need another parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is the only stock market he alludes to.

Now let’s mention consumer protection and legislation that has been developed to assist the unwary, the consumer, the ordinary citizen who has to purchase products. The Business Practices Act is designed to remove deceptive and false business practices. And some of the unfair business practices which were considered.

Mr. Sargent: Like the Fidinam affair and the Moog and Davis hotel. They don’t count those things. How about the Bill Davis hotel?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They are now covered.

Mr. Turner: Just be careful; just be careful.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- on the selling of a consumer product and informing him that services and parts are available when they are not.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): Tell us about John Munro.

Mr. Turner: Tell us about Hamilton.

Mr. Sargent: I don’t know about that, but I do know about this thing.

Mr. Turner: No he doesn’t.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Selling goods or services under false circumstances, such as a warehouse clearance sale; a salesman using a devious technique to enter a home -- these are some of the matters that are covered by the Business Practices Act.

Mr. Speaker: I would ask you please to restore some semblance of order to this chamber.

Mr. Turner: Right, right.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Try to keep the member for Scarborough Centre quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: When you begin to point out the constructive, forward policies and legislation and accomplishments of this government just during the past session, they are so embarrassed they try to drown out the speaker so the public won’t know what s going on. There’s nothing that frightens them more than the truth.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Martel: What did they feed him today?

Mr. Sargent: Tell us about Hydrogate.

Mr. Young: Tell us about Hamilton.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The 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.

Aren’t the opposition members concerned about the legislation that we’ve developed?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, we’re concerned.

Mr. Martel: We’re vitally concerned, that is the reason.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The Travel Industry Act, then -- listen to this. The new Travel Industry Act was designed to curb irresponsible selling and administrative procedures used by some travel agents and travel wholesalers in the normal course of business.

An hon. member: We just put them in jail now.

An hon. member: All of them?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Under the Act all travel agents and their employees and travel wholesalers will have to be licensed. Each travel agent and travel wholesaler must post a $5,000 bond which will be forfeit if the Act is contravened.

Mr. Sargent: That was a real break, that one.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Regulations have been drafted in order to fully protect deposits made by customers and an industry financed compensation fund has been established to benefit customers whose travel funds have been abused.

Then, of course, the Motorized Snow Vehicles Act was passed and there are many changes in that legislation --

Mr. Ferrier: The member for Lambton wasn’t too happy about that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- to improve the safety of both the snowmobiler and the public alike.

Mr. Sargent: Tell us about Krauss-Maffei. Let’s hear about that one.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Snowmobilers will no longer be able to drive their machines on the travelled portion of any provincial highway or secondary road. Local municipalities will be able to pass bylaws regulating the operation of motorized snow vehicles within their jurisdiction. Under this legislation a property owner or occupier will not be liable for injuries sustained by a trespassing snowmobiler unless those injuries were caused maliciously or wilfully. Provisions regarding the age of snowmobile drivers have also been established under the bill. No one under the age of 12 will be permitted to drive a snow vehicle on a public trail.

Getting back to the matter of agriculture and agricultural societies. The Agricultural Societies Amendment Act provides a grant --

Mr. Stokes: Meanwhile, back at the farm.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- for one-third of the cost up to $500. The members of the NDP ridicule this because they don’t know what farming is, or what agricultural societies are --

Mr. Stokes: What is the member’s background?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- but these additional grants permit entertainment programmes to be developed based on local talent --

Mr. Stokes: How many cows did the member milk this morning?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- as opposed to imported performers.

Mr. Turner: Be careful, he’s got a farm.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The bill also provides grants for farm improvement competitions and special events with light horses.

The Act is intended to encourage greater community participation on the part of agricultural societies. I think that’s a wonderful thing and it helps our local talent. We have some great groups in Prince Edward county and Lennox --

Mr. Turner: Great riding.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- just wonderful local entertainers who are happy to perform and are very well received, such as the Good family and the Post family and so forth -- just some tremendous talent that is being encouraged to be used locally and inspired by additional grants for local entertainment through this government.

Mr. Young: We’re getting good entertainment this afternoon.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I think that’s a great thing, and I think it’s about time the opposition members acknowledged it.

Mr. Turner: It is a very good thing, indeed.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Sure it is.

Mr. Turner: It’s one the whole country shouldn’t be without.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: To get into the matter of public transit, for example. We’ve heard a lot of that lately.

Mr. Sargent: That’s a great one. Tell us how much went down the drain in that field.

Mr. Morningstar: That’s a federal matter -- Trudeau’s.

An hon. member: We have to pay them back, don’t we?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We don’t hear the opposition saying that the Province of Ontario --

Mr. Turner: We don’t hear them saying anything.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- is paying one-half of the operating losses of the municipalities in the public transportation field. We don’t hear the opposition parties telling the local municipalities and the leaders in the transportation areas that the province pays 75 per cent of the cost of all new subway cars, buses, streetcars and trains.

Mr. Sargent: We can’t get a subway in Owen Sound.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: This province recognizes the need for modern, up-to-date transportation to get people around. We realize that, so we’re doing something --

Mr. Turner: It is a very good thing.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and we’re making these financial payments to the municipalities.

Mr. Morningstar: Right on. Right on.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: And another $17 million in grants were made for rural roads.

Mr. Morningstar: That’s federal matter -- Trudeau’s.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In this current fiscal year the province will be spending $229 million in road building and maintenance grants --

Mr. Sargent: Where is that money coming from?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: As far as local government is concerned again, there is a provincial commitment to share with the local municipalities the increase in gross of the net provincial product, and this province is --

Mr. Sargent: Where else would it go?

Mr. Ferrier: Dragging its feet, is that what the member meant to say?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- it has made that commitment and it has lived up to that commitment. More and more money is being transferred from the provincial treasury to the municipalities every year. We don’t often get any credit for it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: No, there are others who brag about keeping the mill rate down and exercising economies, and we at the provincial level get criticized if there is any taxation. But it is through the actions --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- of this government and the responsibility it feels for the homeowners of this province that these transfer payments have been made from the provincial treasury to the municipalities to ensure that the mill rate is kept down.

Mr. Morningstar: Good stuff.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In 1974 we paid over $2.1 billion --

Mr. Sargent: And had a billion-dollar deficit.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- which was an increase of $277 million over 1973 to the municipalities. It is interesting that nearly 30 per cent of the provincial budget in the 1974-1975 fiscal year has been transferred to the municipalities and school boards to keep the real property tax at a reasonable level.

Mr. Haggerty: Why shouldn’t they get a share of that?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It’s too bad that the members --

Mr. Haggerty: They should get a share of the sales tax -- the municipalities.

Mr. Sargent: Let the member have the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. White) tell him what is going to happen in 1976.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It’s too bad the Liberals wouldn’t go to their Ottawa friends who seek so hard to control the provincial party, and talk a little bit of reason and common sense in sharing the wealth of this nation, because we’d get more money back from them. The Liberals don’t do that.

But it is just the one great big fill-the-bucket routine in Ottawa. We are squeezed more and more every year, and the wealth is generated in this province. It is time, when they are talking in terms of fairness and equity, that they sought out their so-called friends in that Liberal Party in Ottawa, and saw that some justice is done for the residents of Ontario.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I hear so often the cries of these members from northern Ontario in terms of provincial assistance, and in some cases neglect by the province of those northern areas.

Mr. Yakabuski: That’s the NDP.

Mr. Haggerty: They have a strong commitment there.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I have heard people from northern Ontario brag about the development that’s going on there, the level of prosperity that they are experiencing, the high wages that they are earning --

Mr. Stokes: And the lack of services.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I hear about that. When I listen to the New Democratic members in this House talk about northern Ontario, you’d think everyone had to wear a gas mask and was just choking for air, that it was a pocket of poverty in this great province, and that they were members of the weak and the oppressed.

I think it’s time the opposition members did service to their constituents and came down to Queen’s Park and started to brag about the north country, and what is being done in the north country.

Mr. Stokes: Why is this government closing mines in Timmins? The member doesn’t have to tell me what is good about the north. I have lived there.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They cry and they scream and they poor-mouth.

Mr. Yakabuski: The guy from Marathon knows that is good.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: And this province has been doing a great deal to open up development, to promote the northern regions.

Mr. Stokes: He doesn’t have to tell me anything about the north. I live there.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: There is no question about that.

Mr. Ferrier: What about eastern Ontario?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue):

We are not doing too badly there.

Mr. Sargent: He should be on the Johnny Carson show.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I think those northern members should go back home and tell the people like it is. Tell them the truth.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): That is the NDP members, he means.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Don’t keep them in the dark.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): They don’t have to tell them; they see it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I’ll tell you I know, Mr. Speaker, because I was raised and born in the north county --

Mr. Stokes: In what order?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and I came to Toronto. I’m not like members opposite; I wasn’t issued by the government. That’s what they would have -- everything from the government service.

The stereotype of the north that is projected here is completely false.

Mr. Sargent: Why hasn’t the government more members up there then?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I think the people of Ontario generally are proud of the north country and proud that it is a part of this great province. I think this government is doing everything to involve it in the development and growth of the province so that it experiences that increasing economic advantage enjoyed by the people in the urban areas.

Mr. Stokes: Why is that Tory up there trying to form a new province then?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Give the member the floor.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We have certain insidious forces at work trying to destroy Ontario just as some forces are trying to destroy --

Mr. Stokes: In the Tory party.

Mr. Ferrier: Like the government is doing at Queen’s Park.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling the House to order because I’ve had to bring this matter to the attention of the Chair before. I think the members should respect the Speaker surely until I finish my address.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I’m not trying to be deterred from my speech or distracted in any way. At the same time, I can’t fail but respond to the interjections that members are making which try to distort the picture.

Mr. Ferrier: Even the member for Wellington-Dufferin (Mr. Root) is paying attention.

An hon. member: All the time.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: There were special northern Ontario grants which were increased in 1974. In 1974 the special support grant was increased from 10 per cent to 12 per cent of the net general dollar levy, bringing the total of special assistance to northern communities to nearly $14 million.

The increased assistance for northwestern Ontario I think should be known to the members from that area. The province’s regional priority budget for northwestern Ontario should be familiar to all of them. Funds have been increased from $2.4 million in 1973-1974 to $9.3 million for 28 projects in the current fiscal year.

The 10-year general development agreement with the government of Canada was signed for northwestern Ontario. The northwestern Ontario agreement is for seven specific projects, including sewage, road construction and town site assistance at a cost of $42 million over a three-year period. Members have talked about servicing. There’s a forward step in terms of providing services for the northern communities.

Mr. Ferrier: What about the northeast though? They haven’t done anything.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member makes a lot of noise but he doesn’t know what is going on. That’s the trouble with the opposition.

Mr. Ferrier: The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has been telling us what is going to be done for the last 2½ years.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Plans to improve essential services for people in northwestern Ontario are progressing. An air communications network 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.

Mr. Gilbertson: We are going to have it into Wawa shortly.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s right. And where are all the opposition’s policies?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Stokes: The member might be interested to know that it was at my urging they got it done.

J. A. Taylor: All they’ve done is talk and complain.

An hon. member: That’s all they ever do.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They harp and complain and condemn. How they can condemn and take the credit at the same time is beyond me.

An hon. member: They do.

Mr. Stokes: I am not condemning.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The Liberal member for Carleton East (Mr. P. Taylor) was speaking recently in eastern Ontario and he stated that the Liberal Party does indeed have a policy; but he was not sure whether that policy was suitable for Ontario. I think it’s time that party consulted with the member for Carleton East and let him in on any policies that it might be thinking about. I know they have been a very closely kept secret to date, but if the party has any it better tip the member off because he is going to have to say something constructive and positive one day, and he hasn’t yet.

Mr. Gaunt: A gross misrepresentation, I say.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): What is the policy in the Throne Speech?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They haven’t had time to think about it.

Mr. Gaunt: There is a difference between a platform and a policy.

Mr. Stokes: How would the member for Huron-Bruce know; he hasn’t got a leader.

Mr. B. Newman: Tell us about the poll results.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The Liberal member for Ottawa East was interested in law and order --

Mr. Turner: Was he?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- but I see he has vacated his seat. I was going to speak about law and order for a few moments, because law and order has been a concern of this government and of course is indicated in the Speech from the Throne.

Mr. Haggerty: It was to Wintermeyer too, but they wouldn’t listen to him.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Don’t let’s get on to Wintermeyer. That was a catastrophic adventure and it sure signalled his demise in a hurry. I don’t want to get involved in personalities, either his or that of the member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Can we have a little order in the chamber for just a little while?

Mr. Gaunt: Those guys keep bugging me.

Mr. Sargent: What kind of a speech is that?

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for calling order. When one touches raw nerves, you get that kind of response.

Mr. Speaker: If the member for Prince Edward-Lennox would address the Speaker rather than address other members, I think we would get along better too.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I have been trying to do that in a vain effort to restore order to this forum so that I can be heard.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: They don’t have much in their heads anyway.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The breakdown in law and order today is something that I think concerns all of us. Regardless of the political party you might subscribe to or support, I think it is important that all of us assume responsibility in terms of public attitudes regarding law and order. I think it is time for all of us to take up a very responsible posture in that regard.

Mr. Ferrier: The same as Richard Nixon did?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: This truly concerns me, because we are in an era of confrontation. We are in an era of civil disobedience. We are in an era of changing attitudes where the law is supposed to apply to the individual but not to the crowd. It doesn’t matter if it is one person or a number of persons who break the law, it is still a breach of the law. It’s important that the law be respected, because when the rule of law breaks down we have chaos.

I think it is important that we become responsible in that regard. And please let’s not play politics with that, because it is too serious a matter for all of the people of Ontario.

We’ve heard a lot of criticism about our law enforcement agencies. We’ve heard cries for investigations. We’ve heard of so-called police brutality.

You know, we always look at the lawbreaker and we commiserate with him in terms of his conviction and his term of sentence, but it is seldom that we look at the victim of the crime. We don’t see these same things through the eyes of the families who are grieved, the next of kin and others, and I think we should.

We have just had today a stay of execution in connection with a conviction for the murder of a policeman. I think we are all familiar with the Rene Vaillancourt case. Now that sentence has been put off until May 15 so that it can be decided whether or not that convicted murderer should hang, or whether his sentence should be commuted to life in prison.

Mr. Stokes: What does the member think?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I am personally convinced that capital punishment should be restored in this nation. That’s a personal conviction I have. Those who think that we have reached such a degree of civilization that we can look so charitably upon those who kill others, that we can afford to keep them in comfort rather than to take their lives, I think are deluding themselves.

Mr. Ferrier: He is back in the Old Testament days.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We can talk about the Old Testament, if you will; I don’t personally believe in killing. I am just as compassionate and considerate of others as, I am sure, is every member of the House. But I think we have got to think about the people of society who are to be protected. Maybe we have to concentrate more on the community than on the criminal.

There has not been one execution in the past 12 years. It’s deceitful of the federal government to delude the people of this nation of ours that there is capital punishment in effect for the murder of a policeman or a prison guard, when in fact that has never been carried out in this last 12 years. That should be changed.

It is significant to me that just last Sunday, on March 9 in Belleville, the Royal Canadian Legion, District “F”, sponsored an action meeting. These meetings will be held right across Canada. The Legion is involving itself in the concern of many people right across this nation -- the breakdown of law and order. I heard it said there that members of the Legion went outside of this country to fight for law and order, for peace, and good government, and now they have to look within their own homes and say: “Maybe we had better concern ourselves with what’s happening in this province and in this country, right at home.”

Mr. Sargent: Right here in Queen’s Park is where the breakdown is.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: And I think it’s important and significant that the Royal Canadian Legion --

Mr. Sargent: Look who’s talking about law and order.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- has taken on this task. What better agency? What better agency --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Give the member the floor and let him proceed.

Mr. Sargent: I am interjecting very intelligently.

Mr. Speaker: I know you are.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- to analyse the role of the police, the role of the citizen, the lawmaker, the lawyers, the judges, the parole officers, the prisons, capital punishment, civil liberties, vandalism? These are all important matters that are being looked at very closely now.

All of the community leaders were involved and are being involved in this action programme -- so that their views can be voiced, so that their thoughts can be projected and carried to the various levels of government, expressing their concern and seeking action where necessary. This action includes -- and must include -- the better enforcement of the laws of this province, and of this nation, because that is important. I think we have good laws, generally speaking. Now it’s a matter of seeing that those laws are enforced openly and evenly, without fear nor favour.

Mr. Sargent: Tell us about all the charges in the Ontario Housing Corp., the people convicted there.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The Throne Speech mentioned the establishment of an ombudsman, and I know this has been a particular pet project of a member of this Legislature for many, many years.

I think it’s significant that the state of our laws and the bureaucracy and the matters handled by the administrative boards and commissions and tribunals have reached the stage where the ordinary citizen gets entangled in the red tape and trapped in those alleys of bureaucracy.

The need for an ombudsman also indicates a concern for what has developed in terms of the regulation of the lives of the people of the province. I don’t disagree with the fact that we should have some public protector to help people to find their way through an often bureaucratic nightmare to seek justice, to see that their grievance is heard and to see that something constructive be done.

I think maybe we’d better be looking as well at the large urban areas. At the provincial level we deal with a lot of bread and butter issues. A lot of bread and butter issues are also dealt with at the municipal level, and the larger the municipal government the less able is the citizen equipped to deal with those matters that affect his daily life. Now that we have reached this point, I believe that we had better take a good look at the entire area so that we can ensure that the citizens of this province are not voices in the wilderness crying out for help in trying to find a solution to a problem which is very close to them and which concerns and often upsets them very much.

Mr. Stokes: There is no problem in my riding.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I think this message that is in the Throne Speech is something that is meaningful indeed. I am convinced that there will be a great deal of discussion and debate when the legislation comes before this House. And, again, there is no question that it is a forward step.

The matter of immigration was mentioned in the Throne Speech as well. These are just words to so many people. I pointed out earlier that one-third of the increase in population in this province since the Second World War was through immigration. Don’t think that that doesn’t provide immense problems for any government, whether it’s municipal or provincial, to provide the housing and the services -- the soft services as well as the hard services -- for those people.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): The government doesn’t provide any housing.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It’s a difficult task, indeed, especially when we get the racial and cultural mix that has come to this great Province of Ontario. I think it’s significant that they’ve come to Ontario, but that doesn’t lessen our problem of having to cope with a very large influx of people, to cope with their hopes and aspirations and their needs. This has proved a tremendous burden on the municipal and provincial levels of government. The fact that this province has been able to develop and grow through the free enterprise system to the creation of a good atmosphere and environment for private development is significant, because otherwise we would not be able to reap the rewards of those profits and to purchase the soft services in terms of the welfare programmes that we’ve been able to do. I’ve tried this afternoon to outline what steps, what programmes, what policies and what legislation has been passed just during the past session by this government. I think the government is to be commended for those programmes and policies. Leaving political considerations and the political posturing that has gone on, I think the government of Ontario has been just a tremendous force, a very progressive and determined force, in the development of the economy and the social welfare of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Laughren: A spent force -- the Tories are a spent force.

Mr. Havrot: Wishful thinking!

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We must awaken to the realities of our responsibilities. The words of the late Leslie M. Frost, spoken more than 30 years ago in his 1944 budget address, still ring loud and clear in my mind:

“We are building not only for these times; we are planning for a greater population -- for industrial expansion, for prosperous farms and for a happy and healthy people. We are laying the sure foundation for a greater and stronger Ontario.”

We are indeed fortunate to have a Premier of this province who is both youthful and vigorous and determined, who has taken bold and progressive steps. Sometimes these steps have been not too popular, because it is often essential to lead, and not just to follow. But the Premier of this province is equipped and prepared to lead, and he has done that admirably.

Mr. Havrot: Yes sir.

Mr. Turner: Tremendous!

Mr. J. A. Taylor: When you have the pressures of development, pressures of growth, the social pressures on any area, the problems are horrendous.

Mr. Sargent: You’d better believe it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It takes a brave and courageous person to tackle those problems and to solve them, regardless of how popular the solution might be at any moment. The Premier of this province has done that; and not only has he done it, he has done it with dignity.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on!

Mr. Sargent: The Premier should quit before he messes up any more.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He is a gentleman, he is knowledgeable, he has honour and he has integrity --

An hon. member: Oh boy!

Mr. Sargent: I wouldn’t say that too much.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- and he has compassion and understanding. I am convinced that under his leadership, Ontario will march far down the road of prosperity. Thank you very much.

Mr. J. Lane (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to have this opportunity to second the motion of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox for adoption of the Speech from the Throne presented by the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

The Speech from the Throne indicates concern for the economy of the province and for the welfare of our people, coupled with a good common-sense approach.

Mr. Morningstar: Good.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I will not take the time of the House to make reference to the various programmes and policies indicated in the speech as the ministers responsible for these services will provide us with details of these in the weeks and months ahead. There are, however, a few items that I would like to make special reference to, and come first to the matter of extended benefits for our elderly people.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for our elderly. Without the sacrifices and contributions that they have made to the province, we all would not now enjoy the many good things in life that we do. It is now our turn to make some contribution to them. This we have continued to do over the years and, as the Throne Speech indicates, we will continue to do so.

Mr. Laughren: Is the member for Algoma listening to this?

Mr. Lane: I am very concerned that our senior citizens should have proper housing. I know that the hon. Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) has the same concerns. We all know the current difficulties being experienced in obtaining needed support from the federal government, which appears to have placed a lower priority on this matter than indicated earlier. I therefore urge the hon. minister to continue to press his federal counterpart for financial assistance so that we may provide more rent-geared-to-income housing for senior people.

Mr. Speaker, the other matter in the Throne Speech to which I would like to make direct reference is the assurance that assistance will be provided for our farmers.

Farmers, particularly beef farmers in my riding, as in other parts of the province, are experiencing a very difficult period. If further measures of assistance are not provided, some farmers may go bankrupt and many will be forced out of business. In fact, as we are all well aware, the question of adequate production and distribution of food is a matter of world-wide concern. Ontario has played a significant role in food production in the past, both on a national and international scale, and I for one regard it as a role that must be maintained. I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food shares this view most sincerely. I am very pleased to see that assistance to Ontario farmers will be provided and I am assured that this will be in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like now to discuss my riding, the great riding of Algoma-Manitoulin. I feel that I represent some of the best people in the province, and not least among them are our native Canadians living on the eight Indian reserves in the riding.

Mr. Gilbertson: It is second to Algoma.

Mr. Lane: I work very closely with the native people on self-help programmes and I am very, very proud of them. In the past 3½ years we have managed to improve greatly the quality of life and employment opportunities on the reserves in Algoma-Manitoulin. These people are very proud of their heritage and culture and are making great contributions in the field of culture and education.

Just two weeks ago, at the West Bay reserve on Manitoulin Island, Ministry of Education officials released a resource guide for the people of native ancestry. It was a great personal pleasure for me to have this guide released on Manitoulin Island. I assure the native people of Algoma-Manitoulin of the combined interest and support on my behalf as their elected representative and on behalf of this government.

Mr. Gilbertson: He is doing a good job. Keep it up.

Mr. G. Nixon: Full-time too.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the very serious silicosis problem affecting our miners in Elliot Lake and other areas of the province. A few months ago, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) appointed a royal commission to investigate all matters related to health and safety involved in the working conditions and working environment in the mines in Ontario.

Mr. Gilbertson: A concerned government.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I regard the appointment of the commission as a very positive step in the right direction. However, it seems to me that much could have been accomplished, and sooner, if all parties had worked together and laid aside --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lane: -- personal and political differences. Officials of the United Steelworkers of America in Elliot Lake chose to ignore me and direct all their requests through NDP members.

Mr. G. Nixon: Discrimination.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Because the Minister of Natural Resources doesn’t give a damn and the member knows it. He never has and he never will.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

An hon. member: Why are we in power and the people over there still yakking?

Mr. Lane: Until a few weeks ago, I had no communication from the union. I received not a visit, a phone call, a letter, a brief or any type of communication of any kind.

Mr. Laughren: Did the member call on them? Did he go to Elliot Lake? He didn’t even go into the community to meet with the people. That is why.

Mr. Lane: Approximately three weeks ago, I received a letter inviting me to attend a meeting on Sunday, March 16. This was the first such approach in the three years that I’ve been a member of this House.

Mr. Gilbertson: That’s on account of those NDP fellows sneaking in the back way.

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: The member is the one who went in the back way.

Mr. Lane: Yet during the last week in January, 1975, the Elliot Lake NDP Community Club took it upon themselves to distribute a letter to the good people of Elliot Lake. I have a copy of this letter here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Havrot: It is a good piece of garbage.

Mr. Lane: It was distributed to the householders in Elliot Lake --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, could I have some order, please?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gilbertson: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin has the floor. Keep quiet.

Mr. Lane: This letter was distributed to the householders in Elliot Lake a few days prior to my meeting with the ladies’ action group at Elliot Lake. I feel this was done to discredit me. Mr. Speaker, this is a full two-page letter and I would like to take the time of the House to read a few paragraphs from it.

“Until a suitable NDP replacement can be elected in the place of the present Conservative member of the Ontario Legislature, citizens of Elliot Lake may refer any problems requiring the attention of a real MPP to any member of the club executive. We, in turn, will forward requests for assistance to Elie Martel, Sudbury East, MPP, who will continue to work for the people of Elliot Lake as he has in the past.”

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, many years before I became the member for Algoma-Manitoulin the riding was well served by Mr. Stan Farquhar and although he and I were of different political persuasions, we worked very closely together during the years that I was the mayor of the town of Gore Bay, and we got the job done by working together.

Mr. Ferrier: That is how the silicosis developed.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Turner: A city of socialist forces.

Mr. Lane: He, in my mind, was a real MPP. Do you know sir, I too feel very real. I have flesh on my bones and blood in my veins. I’ll assure the NDP Community Club of Elliot Lake that the constituents of Algoma-Manitoulin will be shown just how real I am when we go out for the next provincial election.

Mr. Martel: That is really all the member cares about, isn’t it?

Mr. Lane: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I will not take advantage of the silicotic miner and his family by making political hay as the NDP are doing.

Mr. Laughren: He will ignore him.

Mr. Martel: Where was the member during the hassle in the House?

Mr. Lane: I am working and will continue to work for positive control of the situation. I say at this time --

Mr. Martel: From the member that would be impossible.

Mr. Lane: If the member listens the member might learn something.

I say at this time any miner showing any percentage of silicosis wishing to have a job that will not expose him further can and will be retrained and re-employed in the Elliot Lake area.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lane: I will also continue working toward a method to subsidize his earnings from the time he leaves the job underground until he is relocated with comparable earnings. There is no way the affected miner should feel obligated to work underground to provide a livelihood for his family even though his health, and perhaps his life, are at stake.

I have many other suggestions that could be improved. I have mentioned these on other occasions. Again I say we can accomplish more by working together, so why don’t we try that route, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Martel: Why didn’t the member come up just once?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Gilbertson: Members opposite don’t care about people.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to quote again from the letter I have referred to:

“Stephen Lewis was responsible for the inquiry into uranium mining at Elliot Lake. His three-hour speech in the Ontario Legislature directed at the minister of mines, the Hon. Leo Bernier, forced the formation of the royal commission.”

An hon. member: Wrong!

Mr. Ferrier: Right. Without the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Lewis) there would be no inquiry.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, this is of course an erroneous statement.

Mr. Martel: He sure was.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lane: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister of Natural Resources was not forced into forming the royal commission on mines. He --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lane: -- has been concerned as I and many others have been -- miners, management and the public alike.

Mr. Havrot: Grandstanding.

Mr. Martel: Management is really concerned; they are still working in there.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. G. Nixon: Stop their yakking.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: They are a disgrace because they weren’t in there.

Mr. Lane: Mr. Speaker, he has been concerned as have I and as many others -- miners, management and the public at large -- have been.

Mr. Martel: Management is really concerned. They are still working in the mines.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Lane: I am sure that these concerns, together with information provided by members of the staff and others is what prompted the royal commission and it is a very positive step.

Mr. Martel: The member is upset all right.

Mr. Lane: I have great respect for the speaking ability of the leader of the NDP. However, I do not have much respect for what he says.

Mrs. Campbell: That’s the truth.

Mr. Lane: Not any. In fact it could very well be that he speaks more and says less than anyone else in government today.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate you on the very fine job you have done --

Mr. Martel: Does he think that will recoup anything?

Mr. Lane: -- often under very trying circumstances. I’m quite sure you will continue to be wise and efficient in the months ahead.

I am looking forward to the business of this session with my colleagues, and to the programmes and legislation that will no doubt enhance further the quality of life and the prosperity of the people of Ontario.

Mr. G. Nixon: Great stuff.

Mrs. Campbell moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 4:50 o’clock p.m.